Take a moment and read the following article by Arundhati Roy, printed today in the British newspaper The Guardian (a mainstream newspaper with roughly one sixth of the market share):
As you can see, the author takes a dim view of the way the war has been fought so far.
I would like a reasoned rebuttal or endorsement of the points made. Personally, I haven’t made my mind up yet, but since I often hear people arguing along these lines here in Germany, it would be interesting to hear what the (mostly American) Dopers think.
To whet your appetite, I have included some quotes below. Please read the entire article though.
It’s too late (or too early) for me to take the time to give a “reasoned rebuttal” of the article. (Or to do more than skim it, to be honest.) That being said, I’ll like to say that I think Arundhati Roy is a great novelist. The qualities that make her such a great novelist make her a really bad editorialist. She seems to have a pretty skewed view of western culture. Maybe she can be forgiven for that, as well as her youthful sincerity. She has written something I thought was impossible: An anti-nuke essay that offends me. (In response to India’s nuclear testing.) She begins with some valid points, including, interestingly:
Five years after she wrote that, I’d have to say it’s not such an outlandish thought. And so… What about them?
Shortly afterwards, she switches modes:
Later:
Am I wrong in inferring that she belongs to camp that identifies the ‘enemy’ as mostly represented by light-skinned people tainted by the dreaded y-chromasome? It seems to me that this type of thinking has fueled the most regrettable wars we’ve known. It seems to me that Ms. Roy is sensitive, articulate, poetic, and boy, she really hates a largish percentage of the global population. Oh well.
I just thought I’d mention, for those not familiar with her, that Arundhati Roy is an Indian novellist who won the Booker prize in 1997 for her debut novel “The God of Small Things”.
The author is far more concerned with writing in eloquent phrases than in bothering with petty things like historical context, factual information, or the coldness of reality. She would lead us to believe that the only aid being delivered to Afghan refugees is by the air drops, when it is not, and that we drop food only as a tool of propaganda when, even before Sept 11th, the US has been the biggest supplier of aid to Afghanistan. Even if one wishes feverently to believe the worst of America, some food is better than no food.
Her hypothetical of the Taliban bombing New York is an obnoxious insult to the reality of the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center while the planners of its destruction hide under the protection of the Taliban. They have bombed New York, but they don’t even offer their own people food, instead they raid the supplies of aid workers. It is obvious that despite her anti-American streak that she holds us to a higher standard than that of the Taliban. And while her demands of us could be seen as having faith that we have a moral code, it seems to me she plans on raising that standard to a level that reality simply doesn’t permit us to pass.
She continues on to make conspiracy noises against the vast military and oil complex that frightens leftist like monsters under a child’s bed. She offers us no better course of action. No wonderous explanation for how one can fight a war without killing innocents can be found within her discourse. She tells us simply to stop. Not to even try. She offers no hope or concern for my future safety or the safety of our later generations.
She should stick to writing elogent phrases that do not pretend to interact with the real world.
I should mention that I’m unfamiliar with Ms. Roy’s previous work. Very stylishly written, although I don’t think there is anything I haven’t heard before. Well, no, the tangent about the effects on India was interesting.
Yep, the American campaign in Afghanistan is nothing more than a way to build equity for the Carlyle Group. Americans, because they are big, blundering idiots, brought the World Trade Center attacks on themselves. In fact, because we pissed some people off somewhere, we’ve put the whole world in danger. It’s all about the rich growing fat on the misery of the poor. The CIA created the terrorists who now attack the USA. The nations that have agreed to join the coalition condemning these attacks are only doing so because they fear US economic might. Retaliation for the WTC attacks is futile; not only that, but we really sort of deserved what we got, because we’re big, blundering idiots, in case that wasn’t clear the first time.
No particular agenda or bias on the part of the author :rolleyes:.
I feel terribly sorry for the poor Afghanis, caught between so-called leaders who manifestly couldn’t care less about them except as a resource for their never-ending battles over personal fiefdoms, and the American military, whose agenda only concerns the local’s well-being in the most abstract way, as a public relations impediment to the prosecution of their mission. But how might it be otherwise?
I don’t think many, even in the US, really believe that this conflict is about “freeing the Afghan people” or some such malarkey. If that were the case, we’d have been over there long ago, eh?
I think some of these critics should just come out and say what they really seem to believe: that it was right for those 5000 people to die in New York, as sacrifices for the sins of the country that they find so repugnant.
I’ll go back and read the full article later. From the quoted piece, I really have to wonder what Ms. Roy is getting at.
“An air-dropped airline meal in Jalalabad.” So? Perhaps not enough food has been dropped, but some food is better than no food. And to critique the quality of the food by some baseless comparison to airline food is ludicrous. Do the starving shun the food because it is not palatable? Has Ms. Roy been sampling the air-dropped offerings so that she might offer her culinary assessment?
”Reverse the scenario for a moment. Imagine if the Taliban government was to bomb New York City, saying all the while that its real target was the US government and its policies. And suppose, during breaks between the bombing, the Taliban dropped a few thousand packets containing nan and kebabs impaled on an Afghan flag” Unadulterated bullshit. The terrorist targets were, by definition, civilian in nature. Regrettably, I’m sure that the US has caused civilian casualties, but it is a fact that the intended targets have been strategic in nature and an effort has been made to protect civilians.
”At the end of the day, how many people can you spy on, how many bank accounts can you freeze, how many conversations can you eavesdrop on, how many emails can you intercept, how many letters can you open, how many phones can you tap?” Is this non-sequitur intending to suggest that we not pursue a criminal investigation and employ such common sense tactics such as tracking the movements of international criminals and freezing their funds? After condemning the military activity, now we have a condemnation the more peaceful avenues (all in accordance with US law) that are being concurrently pursued. I suppose the preferred policy is to do nothing at all to protect the safety of American citizens.
”In America, the arms industry, the oil industry, the major media networks, and, indeed, US foreign policy, are all controlled by the same business combines”Cite! This sounds like a one of those Bilderberg fantasies. What entity (specifically) is it that controls all these diverse functions?
”a curiously insular people, administered by a pathologically meddlesome, promiscuous government." Insults. No bearing on the argument, but certainly inflammatory.
” Arundhati Roy is an Indian novellist who won the Booker prize” Yes, she is gifted in crafting fiction from whole cloth.
I have to admit, from the moment I read Arundhati Roy’s book, I thought she was a pretentious poser. I don’t like her writing style either.
Before September 11th, there were people who criticised the U.S. for helping to bring the Taliban to power. These were the few people who knew of the Taliban’s existence and didn’t like it. Now, there are millions of people criticising the U.S. for helping to bring the Taliban to power. And this is the argument used to support their claim that the Taliban be allowed to remain in power. I just don’t get it.
But to give Arundhati Roy credit, she does criticise her own government as well. So I guess she’s just a peace freak…
Wow!! I have now read the entire article, and my hat’s off to Ms. Roy for one of the most superbly crafted pieces of propaganda writing I have ever read. Woof!
From the opening line,
to the closing paragraph,
I stand in awe. Truly.
And like all propaganda, it’s a splendid mix of facts, sort-of facts, and outright lies.
There are some actual facts.
–On Sunday October 7 2001, the US government launched air strikes against Afghanistan.
–The UN…wasn’t…asked to mandate the air strikes.
–What happened on September 11 changed the world forever.
–One and a half million Afghan people lost their lives in the 20 years of conflict that preceded this new war.
–Ahmed Shah Masud, was killed in a suicide-bomb attack early in September.
–Until the US air strikes, the Northern Alliance controlled about 5% of the geographical area of Afghanistan.
–Main arterial roads have been blown up or sealed off.
–One country’s terrorist is too often another¹s freedom fighter.
–In India, for instance, members of the All India People’s Resistance Forum, who were distributing anti-war and anti-US pamphlets in Delhi, have been jailed. Even the printer of the leaflets was arrested.
–The Taliban has always been deeply suspicious of the press.
–President George Bush recently [said], “When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2m missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It’s going to be decisive.”
–the Carlyle Group [is] described by the Industry Standard as “the world’s largest private equity firm”, with $13bn under management.
–Carlyle is run by men.
–Turkmenistan, which borders the north-west of Afghanistan, holds the world’s third largest gas reserves and an estimated six billion barrels of oil reserves.
There are some oversimplifications or exaggerations of facts.
–The “evidence” against the terrorists was shared amongst friends in the “coalition”…After conferring, they announced that it didn¹t matter whether or not the “evidence” would stand up in a court of law.
–People rarely win wars, governments rarely lose them.
–The International Coalition Against Terror is [a]… cabal of the richest countries in the world.
–Afghanistan was reduced to rubble, and now, the rubble is being pounded into finer dust. .
–Reports have begun to trickle in about civilian casualties, about cities emptying out as Afghan civilians flock to the borders which have been closed.
–The international press has little or no independent access to the war zone.
–America has always viewed oil as a security consideration, and protected it by any means it deems necessary.
–In America, the arms industry, the oil industry, the major media networks, and, indeed, US foreign policy, are all controlled by the same business combines.
There are facts that have been taken out of context and folded to fit the article’s premise.
–As Madeleine Albright once said, “We will behave multilaterally when we can, and unilaterally when we must.”)
–When he announced the air strikes, President George Bush said: “We’re a peaceful nation.”
–Here is a list of the countries that America has been at war with - and bombed - since the second world war: China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia (1958), Cuba (1959-60), the Belgian Congo (1964), Peru (1965), Laos (1964-73), Vietnam (1961-73), Cambodia (1969-70), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), El Salvador (1980s), Nicaragua (1980s), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-99), Bosnia (1995), Sudan (1998), Yugoslavia (1999). And now Afghanistan.
–By the second day of the air strikes, US pilots were returning to their bases without dropping their assigned payload of bombs.
–Aid workers have condemned [the dropping of food packets] as a cynical, dangerous, public-relations exercise.
–Rudi Guiliani, Mayor of New York City, returned a gift of $10m from a Saudi prince because it came with a few words of friendly advice about American policy in the Middle East.
–…US spy satellites completely missed the preparation that preceded India’s nuclear tests in 1998.)
– Afghan radio stations have been destroyed by the bombing.
–Meanwhile, Taliban soldiers, sensing imminent defeat, have begun to defect to the alliance
–Carlyle invests in the defence sector and makes its money from military conflicts and weapons spending.
– [George Bush, Sr.] is reportedly paid not inconsiderable sums of money to make “presentations” to potential government-clients.
And there are a few blatant lies..
–All over the world, little boys watched goggle-eyed and stopped clamouring for new video games.
–Thus, in an instant, were centuries of jurisprudence carelessly trashed.
–Each batch of bombs that is dropped on Afghanistan is matched by a corresponding escalation of mass hysteria in America about anthrax, more hijackings and other terrorist acts.
–Unfortunately, up to now, there has been no sign of any introspection from the leaders of the International Coalition.
–For every “terrorist” or his “supporter” that is killed, hundreds of innocent people are being killed too.
–…there is no accurate estimate of how many people have been killed, or how much destruction has taken place.
–Over the next six months, pressure from hundreds of outraged American feminist groups was brought to bear on the Clinton administration…[T]hey managed to scuttle the [Unocal] deal.
–[the bombing of Afghanistan] is yet another act of terror against the people of the world.
Ah, but these are all nitpicks! The rhetoric! The demagoguery! The sheer poetry of it!
Beautiful. [sigh]
And I thought The God of Small Things was a superb verbal wallow, too.
I am sorry that I don’t have the time for a complete response, but I would just like to say that:
sounds an awful lot like the beginning of an Agent Moulder monologue on how the “Military/Industrial Complex” is perpetuating some vast conspiracy known only to secret shadow organizations within the U.S. Government.
The title should read: ‘Propaganda Smeared with Hyperbole’ Why the Guardian should differentiate between news and opinion when publishing Arundhati Roy
I’m disappointed I wasted the time to read the entire ‘article’. It should be clear, no matter what your opinion of the US or the war, that Arundhati Roy is not a journalist nor is this an example of journalism. The Guardian should be embarrassed to place this piece of fiction in ‘Special Reports’. I don’t see that they have an Opinions Page, so perhaps it would have been best not to publish it at all.
Rather than devote a large block of time to refuting any more of the argument than the quoted piece I read through earlier, I will wait to see if anyone will step forward to defend the article and debate the points that they see as cognizant and well supported.
geckos typically are unable to blink…they have sealed eyelids, like a snake does…The are also generally nocturnal, and probably wouldn’t be in the open when the sun was up to be amazed with it…
And of course, geckos aren’t born, they hatch…
But, hey, why let reality get in the way of eloquence…
Why let reality get in the way, indeed? Upon rereading the article, I realized this, from the final splendid Taliban bit–
–is not correct. That is not what “inured” means.
One becomes “inured” to hardship, to privation, to bad things, not to kindness and compassion. “Inured” means “hardened” as in “grimly accustomed”, not as in “impervious”. If you were to become “inured to kindness”, you would have become grimly accustomed to kindness, which doesn’t make sense.
But hey, when the words are coming, who’s gonna stop to quibble over vocabulary choices?
And I wanna know what she thinks a marmot is. That’s one metaphor that kinda whooshed me.
