domingo, 29 de junio de 2008
domingo, 15 de junio de 2008
domingo, 8 de junio de 2008
El maestro ha vuelto
Aunque a los aficionados las estadísticas nos importan mucho, y porque las emociones hoy, esta tarde, se pusieron de acuerdo con las estadísticas, había unanimidad en el 7, en el 9, en el 10, en el 11, y en la madre que los parió. El toreo verdadero pone de acuerdo hasta a los disidentes. Desde el paseíllo de purísima y oro, como en las grandes tardes, se notó que José Tomás venía a decir algo alto y claro, a tapar bocas, que dicen los taurinos. Desde el primer quite, en un toro que no era el suyo, hasta la clamorosa salida a hombros por la Puerta de Madrid, la tarde fue más que perfecta, sublime. No lo digo yo, lo dicen las miles de personas de todas las clases sociales, con pañuelos y con claveles, que lo aclamaban sólo por donde se ponía a citar a cada toro, por donde los toros cogen el camino de la gloria. Hacía cuatro décadas que ningún torero cortaba cuatro orejas en Madrid, en la misma tarde. Fue José Tomás. Yo lo vi. Iba de purísima y oro. Fue una tarde perfecta, sublime. No lo digo yo, lo dice todo Dios.
JOAQUÍN SABINA EN EL PAÍS (5 JUNIO 2005 - TARDE HISTÓRICA)
JOAQUÍN SABINA EN EL PAÍS (5 JUNIO 2005 - TARDE HISTÓRICA)
Publicado por nafets giewz en 16:26 0 comentarios
Etiquetas: José Tomás, Toros
martes, 15 de abril de 2008
Romario cuelga las botas definitivamente
Malas noticias, el tiempo no perdona a nadie. El número uno del mundo, el brasileño Romario de Souza Faría, ha anunciado su retirada definitiva del fútbol, a los 42 años de edad, después de varios meses de especulaciones tras su polémica salida del Vasco de Gama. "Mi tiempo ha pasado. Oficialmente para mí ya fue suficiente", ha comentado el jugador durante la presentación de un dvd que recopila 900 de los 1000 goles marcados durante su carrera deportiva. "Aproveché hasta cuando pude, pero no puedo seguir más a los compañeros. Soy una persona que hizo todo lo que quería en el fútbol".
Cuando, siendo jugador del Valencia, una manada de periodistas deportivas le detectó entre copas en una discoteca al amancer y le requirieron que se preocupara por sus compañeros y se fuera a casa para poder rendir al día siguiente, el número uno contestó: "¿los compañeros?.... que se jodan los compañeros". Menos de 24 horas después metió tres goles.
Su osadía y su amor por el deporte le han llevado a ser uno de los más laureados de la historia del fútbol brasileño, especialmente por su brillante actuación en el ansiado tetra-campeonato mundial de Brasil, en EEUU 1994, el año más glorioso para el 'baixinho'.
Publicado por nafets giewz en 18:57 0 comentarios
lunes, 31 de marzo de 2008
Desternillante Eduardo Mendoza
Que los dioses te guarden, Fabio, de esta plaga, pues de todas las formas de purificar el cuerpo que el hado nos envía, la diarrea es la más pertinaz y diligente. A menudo he debido sufrirla, como ocurre a quien, como yo, se adentra en los más remotos rincones del Imperio e incluso allende sus fronteras en busca del saber y la certeza.
Así empeza la última novela de Eduardo Mendoza. Desternillante.
Publicado por nafets giewz en 22:48 0 comentarios
Etiquetas: Eduardo Mendoza
domingo, 23 de marzo de 2008
ESPEJOS - Una historia casi universal
La paradoja andante Cada día, leyendo los diarios, asisto a una clase de historia. Los diarios me enseñan por lo que dicen y por lo que callan. La historia es una paradoja andante. La contradicción le mueve las piernas. Quizá por eso sus silencios dicen más que sus palabras y con frecuencia sus palabras revelan, mintiendo, la verdad. De aquí a poco se publicará un libro mío que se llama “Espejos”. Es algo así como una historia universal, y perdón por el atrevimiento. “Yo puedo resistir todo, menos la tentación”, decía Oscar Wilde, y confieso que he sucumbido a la tentación de contar algunos episodios de la aventura humana en el mundo, desde el punto de vista de los que no han salido en la foto. Por decirlo de alguna manera, se trata de hechos no muy conocidos. Aquí resumo algunos, algunitos nomás.
Cuando fueron desalojados del Paraíso, Adán y Eva se mudaron al África, no a París. Algún tiempo después, cuando ya sus hijos se habían lanzado a los caminos del mundo, se inventó la escritura. En Irak, no en Texas. También el álgebra se inventó en Irak. La fundó Mohamed al-Jwarizmi, hace mil doscientos años, y las palabras algoritmo y guarismo derivan de su nombre. Los nombres suelen no coincidir con lo que nombran. En el British Museum, pongamos por caso, las esculturas del Partenón se llaman “mármoles de Elgin”, pero son mármoles de Fidias. Elgin se llamaba el inglés que las vendió al museo.
Las tres novedades que hicieron posible el Renacimiento europeo, la brújula, la pólvora y la imprenta, habían sido inventadas por los chinos, que también inventaron casi todo lo que Europa reinventó. Los hindúes habían sabido antes que nadie que la tierra era redonda y los mayas habían creado el calendario más exacto de todos los tiempos.
En 1493, el Vaticano regaló América a España y obsequió el África negra a Portugal, “para que las naciones bárbaras sean reducidas a la fe católica”. Por entonces, América tenía quince veces más habitantes que España y el África negra cien veces más que Portugal. Tal como había mandado el Papa, las naciones bárbaras fueron reducidas. Y muy.
Tenochtitlán, el centro del imperio azteca, era de agua. Hernán Cortés demolió la ciudad, piedra por piedra, y con los escombros tapó los canales por donde navegaban doscientas mil canoas. Ésta fue la primera guerra del agua en América. Ahora Tenochtitlán se llama México DF. Por donde corría el agua, corren los autos.
El monumento más alto de la Argentina se ha erigido en homenaje al general Roca, que en el siglo diecinueve exterminó a los indios de la Patagonia. La avenida más larga del Uruguay lleva el nombre del general Rivera, que en el siglo diecinueve exterminó a los últimos indios charrúas.
John Locke, el filósofo de la libertad, era accionista de la Royal Africa Company, que compraba y vendía esclavos. Mientras nacía el siglo dieciocho, el primero de los borbones, Felipe V, estrenó su trono firmando un contrato con su primo, el rey de Francia, para que la Compagnie de Guinée vendiera negros en América. Cada monarca llevaba un 25 por ciento de las ganancias. Nombres de algunos navíos negreros: Voltaire, Rousseau, Jesús, Esperanza, Igualdad, Amistad. Dos de los Padres Fundadores de los Estados Unidos se desvanecieron en la niebla de la historia oficial. Nadie recuerda a Robert Carter ni a Gouverner Morris. La amnesia recompensó sus actos. Carter fue el único prócer de la independencia que liberó a sus esclavos. Morris, redactor de la Constitución, se opuso a la cláusula que estableció que un esclavo equivalía a las tres quintas partes de una persona. “El nacimiento de una nación”, la primera superproducción de Hollywood, se estrenó en 1915, en la Casa Blanca. El presidente, Woodrow Wilson, la aplaudió de pie. Él era el autor de los textos de la película, un himno racista de alabanza al Ku Klux Klan.
Algunas fechas: Desde el año 1234, y durante los siete siglos siguientes, la Iglesia Católica prohibió que las mujeres cantaran en los templos. Eran impuras sus voces, por aquel asunto de Eva y el pecado original. En el año 1783, el rey de España decretó que no eran deshonrosos los trabajos manuales, los llamados “oficios viles”, que hasta entonces implicaban la pérdida de la hidalguía. Hasta el año 1986, fue legal el castigo de los niños en las escuelas de Inglaterra, con correas, varas y cachiporras.
En nombre de la libertad, la igualdad y la fraternidad, la Revolución Francesa proclamó en 1793 la Declaración de los Derechos del Hombre y del Ciudadano. Entonces, la militante revolucionaria Olympia de Gouges propuso la Declaración de los Derechos de la Mujer y de la Ciudadana. La guillotina le cortó la cabeza. Medio siglo después, otro gobierno revolucionario, durante la Primera Comuna de París, proclamó el sufragio universal. Al mismo tiempo, negó el derecho de voto a las mujeres, por unanimidad menos uno: 899 votos en contra, uno a favor.
La emperatriz cristiana Teodora nunca dijo ser revolucionaria, ni cosa por el estilo. Pero hace mil quinientos años el imperio bizantino fue, gracias a ella, el primer lugar del mundo donde el aborto y el divorcio fueron derechos de las mujeres.
El general Ulises Grant, vencedor en la guerra del norte industrial contra el sur esclavista, fue luego presidente de los Estados Unidos. En 1875, respondiendo a las presiones británicas, contestó: -Dentro de doscientos años, cuando hayamos obtenido del proteccionismo todo lo que nos puede ofrecer, también nosotros adoptaremos la libertad de comercio. Así pues, en el año 2075, la nación más proteccionista del mundo adoptará la libertad de comercio.
Lootie, “Botincito”, fue el primer perro pequinés que llegó a Europa. Viajó a Londres en 1860. Los ingleses lo bautizaron así, porque era parte del botín arrancado a China, al cabo de las dos largas guerras del opio. Victoria, la reina narcotraficante, había impuesto el opio a cañonazos. China fue convertida en una nación de drogadictos, en nombre de la libertad, la libertad de comercio. En nombre de la libertad, la libertad de comercio, Paraguay fue aniquilado en 1870. Al cabo de una guerra de cinco años, este país, el único país de las Américas que no debía un centavo a nadie, inauguró su deuda externa. A sus ruinas humeantes llegó, desde Londres, el primer préstamo. Fue destinado a pagar una enorme indemnización a Brasil, Argentina y Uruguay. El país asesinado pagó a los países asesinos, por el trabajo que se habían tomado asesinándolo.
Haití también pagó una enorme indemnización. Desde que en 1804 conquistó su independencia, la nueva nación arrasada tuvo que pagar a Francia una fortuna, durante un siglo y medio, para expiar el pecado de su libertad.
Las grandes empresas tienen derechos humanos en los Estados Unidos. En 1886, la Suprema Corte de Justicia extendió los derechos humanos a las corporaciones privadas, y así sigue siendo. Pocos años después, en defensa de los derechos humanos de sus empresas, los Estados Unidos invadieron diez países, en diversos mares del mundo. Entonces Mark Twain, dirigente de la Liga Antiimperialista, propuso una nueva bandera, con calaveritas en lugar de estrellas, y otro escritor, Ambrose Bierce, comprobó: -La guerra es el camino que Dios ha elegido para enseñarnos geografía.
Los campos de concentración nacieron en África. Los ingleses iniciaron el experimento, y los alemanes lo desarrollaron. Después Hermann Göring aplicó, en Alemania, el modelo que su papá había ensayado, en 1904, en Namibia. Los maestros de Joseph Mengele habían estudiado, en el campo de concentración de Namibia, la anatomía de las razas inferiores. Los cobayos eran todos negros.
En 1936, el Comité Olímpico Internacional no toleraba insolencias. En las Olimpíadas de 1936, organizadas por Hitler, la selección de fútbol de Perú derrotó 4 a 2 a la selección de Austria, el país natal del Führer. El Comité Olímpico anuló el partido.
A Hitler no le faltaron amigos. La Rockefeller Foundation financió investigaciones raciales y racistas de la medicina nazi. La Coca-Cola inventó la Fanta, en plena guerra, para el mercado alemán. La IBM hizo posible la identificación y clasificación de los judíos, y ésa fue la primera hazaña en gran escala del sistema de tarjetas perforadas.
En 1953, estalló la protesta obrera en la Alemania comunista. Los trabajadores se lanzaron a las calles y los tanques soviéticos se ocuparon de callarles la boca. Entonces Bertolt Brecht propuso: ¿No sería más fácil que el gobierno disuelva al pueblo y elija otro?
Operaciones de marketing. La opinión pública es el target. Las guerras se venden mintiendo, como se venden los autos. En 1964, los Estados Unidos invadieron Vietnam, porque Vietnam había atacado dos buques de los Estados Unidos en el golfo de Tonkin. Cuando ya la guerra había destripado a una multitud de vietnamitas, el ministro de Defensa, Robert McNamara, reconoció que el ataque de Tonkin no había existido. Cuarenta años después, la historia se repitió en Irak.
Miles de años antes de que la invasión norteamericana llevara la Civilización a Irak, en esa tierra bárbara había nacido el primer poema de amor de la historia universal. En lengua sumeria, escrito en el barro, el poema narró el encuentro de una diosa y un pastor. Inanna, la diosa, amó esa noche como si fuera mortal. Dumuzi, el pastor, fue inmortal mientras duró esa noche.
Paradojas andantes, paradojas estimulantes: El Aleijadinho, el hombre más feo del Brasil, creó las más hermosas esculturas de la era colonial americana. El libro de viajes de Marco Polo, aventura de la libertad, fue escrito en la cárcel de Génova. Don Quijote de La Mancha, otra aventura de la libertad, nació en la cárcel de Sevilla. Fueron nietos de esclavos los negros que generaron el jazz, la más libre de las músicas. Uno de los mejores guitarristas de jazz, el gitano Django Reinhardt, tenía no más que dos dedos en su mano izquierda. No tenía manos Grimod de la Reynière, el gran maestro de la cocina francesa. Con garfios escribía, cocinaba y comía.
Publicado por nafets giewz en 20:44 0 comentarios
Etiquetas: Eduardo Galeano, historia
jueves, 20 de marzo de 2008
The only lesson we ever learn is that we never learn
5 años desde la invasión de Iraq. 5 años!!! Intento imaginar la vida del iraquí medio, visualizar su lo que siente al despertar, un día más, en la jungla humana.
En otro momento hablaremos de vencedores y vencidos. De momento, baste con saber que siempre es sano leer a Robert Fisk. Columnista estrella por derecho del británico diario The Independent, suele plantear las preguntas adecuadas. Ahí va un ejemplo.
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
Five years on, and still we have not learnt. With each anniversary, the steps crumble beneath our feet, the stones ever more cracked, the sand ever finer. Five years of catastrophe in Iraq and I think of Churchill, who in the end called Palestine a "hell-disaster".
But we have used these parallels before and they have drifted away in the Tigris breeze. Iraq is swamped in blood. Yet what is the state of our remorse? Why, we will have a public inquiry – but not yet! If only inadequacy was our only sin.
Today, we are engaged in a fruitless debate. What went wrong? How did the people – the senatus populusque Romanus of our modern world – not rise up in rebellion when told the lies about weapons of mass destruction, about Saddam's links with Osama bin Laden and 11 September? How did we let it happen? And how come we didn't plan for the aftermath of war?
Oh, the British tried to get the Americans to listen, Downing Street now tells us. We really, honestly did try, before we absolutely and completely knew it was right to embark on this illegal war. There is now a vast literature on the Iraq debacle and there are precedents for post-war planning – of which more later – but this is not the point. Our predicament in Iraq is on an infinitely more terrible scale.
As the Americans came storming up Iraq in 2003, their cruise missiles hissing through the sandstorm towards a hundred Iraqi towns and cities, I would sit in my filthy room in the Baghdad Palestine Hotel, unable to sleep for the thunder of explosions, and root through the books I'd brought to fill the dark, dangerous hours. Tolstoy's War and Peace reminded me how conflict can be described with sensitivity and grace and horror – I recommend the Battle of Borodino – along with a file of newspaper clippings. In this little folder, there was a long rant by Pat Buchanan, written five months earlier; and still, today I feel its power and its prescience and its absolute historical honesty: "With our MacArthur Regency in Baghdad, Pax Americana will reach apogee. But then the tide recedes, for the one endeavour at which Islamic people excel is expelling imperial powers by terror or guerrilla war.
"They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon. We have started up the road to empire and over the next hill we will meet those who went before. The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history."
How easily the little men took us into the inferno, with no knowledge or, at least, interest in history. None of them read of the 1920 Iraqi insurgency against British occupation, nor of Churchill's brusque and brutal settlement of Iraq the following year.
On our historical radars, not even Crassus appeared, the wealthiest Roman general of all, who demanded an emperorship after conquering Macedonia – "Mission Accomplished" – and vengefully set forth to destroy Mesopotamia. At a spot in the desert near the Euphrates river, the Parthians – ancestors of present day Iraqi insurgents – annihilated the legions, chopped off Crassus's head and sent it back to Rome filled with gold. Today, they would have videotaped his beheading.
To their monumental hubris, these little men who took us to war five years ago now prove that they have learnt nothing. Anthony Blair – as we should always have called this small town lawyer – should be facing trial for his mendacity. Instead, he now presumes to bring peace to an Arab-Israeli conflict which he has done so much to exacerbate. And now we have the man who changed his mind on the legality of war – and did so on a single sheet of A4 paper – daring to suggest that we should test immigrants for British citizenship. Question 1, I contend, should be: Which blood-soaked British attorney general helped to send 176 British soldiers to their deaths for a lie? Question 2: How did he get away with it?
But in a sense, the facile, dumbo nature of Lord Goldsmith's proposal is a clue to the whole transitory, cardboard structure of our decision-making. The great issues that face us – be they Iraq or Afghanistan, the US economy or global warming, planned invasions or "terrorism" – are discussed not according to serious political timetables but around television schedules and press conferences.
Will the first air raids on Iraq hit prime-time television in the States? Mercifully, yes. Will the first US troops in Baghdad appear on the breakfast shows? Of course. Will Saddam's capture be announced by Bush and Blair simultaneously?.
But this is all part of the problem. True, Churchill and Roosevelt argued about the timing of the announcement that war in Europe had ended. And it was the Russians who pipped them to the post. But we told the truth. When the British were retreating to Dunkirk, Churchill announced that the Germans had "penetrated deeply and spread alarm and confusion in their tracks".
Why didn't Bush or Blair tell us this when the Iraqi insurgents began to assault the Western occupation forces? Well, they were too busy telling us that things were getting better, that the rebels were mere "dead-enders".
On 17 June 1940, Churchill told the people of Britain: "The news from France is very bad and I grieve for the gallant French people who have fallen into this terrible misfortune." Why didn't Blair or Bush tell us that the news from Iraq was very bad and that they grieved – even just a few tears for a minute or so – for the Iraqis?
For these were the men who had the temerity, the sheer, unadulterated gall, to dress themselves up as Churchill, heroes who would stage a rerun of the Second World War, the BBC dutifully calling the invaders "the Allies" – they did, by the way – and painting Saddam's regime as the Third Reich.
Of course, when I was at school, our leaders – Attlee, Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, or Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy in the United States – had real experience of real war. Not a single Western leader today has any first-hand experience of conflict. When the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq began, the most prominent European opponent of the war was Jacques Chirac, who fought in the Algerian conflict. But he has now gone. So has Colin Powell, a Vietnam veteran but himself duped by Rumsfeld and the CIA.
Yet one of the terrible ironies of our times is that the most bloodthirsty of American statesmen – Bush and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfovitz – have either never heard a shot fired in anger or have ensured they did not have to fight for their country when they had the chance to do so. No wonder Hollywood titles like "Shock and Awe" appeal to the White House. Movies are their only experience of human conflict; the same goes for Blair and Brown.
Churchill had to account for the loss of Singapore before a packed House. Brown won't even account for Iraq until the war is over.
It is a grotesque truism that today – after all the posturing of our political midgets five years ago – we might at last be permitted a valid seance with the ghosts of the Second World War. Statistics are the medium, and the room would have to be dark. But it is a fact that the total of US dead in Iraq (3,978) is well over the number of American casualties suffered in the initial D-Day landings at Normandy (3,384 killed and missing) on 6 June, 1944, or more than three times the total British casualties at Arnhem the same year (1,200).
They count for just over a third of the total fatalities (11,014) of the entire British Expeditionary Force from the German invasion of Belgium to the final evacuation at Dunkirk in June 1940. The number of British dead in Iraq – 176 – is almost equal to the total of UK forces lost at the Battle of the Bulge in 1944-45 (just over 200). The number of US wounded in Iraq – 29,395 – is more than nine times the number of Americans injured on 6 June (3,184) and more than a quarter of the tally for US wounded in the entire 1950-53 Korean war (103,284).
Iraqi casualties allow an even closer comparison to the Second World War. Even if we accept the lowest of fatality statistics for civilian dead – they range from 350,000 up to a million – these long ago dwarfed the number of British civilian dead in the flying-bomb blitz on London in 1944-45 (6,000) and now far outnumber the total figure for civilians killed in bombing raids across the United Kingdom – 60,595 dead, 86,182 seriously wounded – from 1940 to 1945.
Indeed, the Iraqi civilian death toll since our invasion is now greater than the total number of British military fatalities in the Second World War, which came to an astounding 265,000 dead (some histories give this figure as 300,000) and 277,000 wounded. Minimum estimates for Iraqi dead mean that the civilians of Mesopotamia have suffered six or seven Dresdens or – more terrible still – two Hiroshimas.
Yet in a sense, all this is a distraction from the awful truth in Buchanan's warning. We have dispatched our armies into the land of Islam. We have done so with the sole encouragement of Israel, whose own false intelligence over Iraq has been discreetly forgotten by our masters, while weeping crocodile tears for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died.
America's massive military prestige has been irreparably diminished. And if there are, as I now calculate, 22 times as many Western troops in the Muslim world as there were at the time of the 11th and 12th century Crusades, we must ask what we are doing. Are we there for oil? For democracy? For Israel? For fear of weapons of mass destruction? Or for fear of Islam?
We blithely connect Afghanistan to Iraq. If only Washington had not become distracted by Iraq, so the narrative now goes, the Taliban could not have re-established themselves. But al-Qa'ida and the nebulous Osama bin Laden were not distracted. Which is why they expanded their operations into Iraq and then used this experience to assault the West in Afghanistan with the hitherto – in Afghanistan – unheard of suicide bomber.
And I will hazard a terrible guess: that we have lost Afghanistan as surely as we have lost Iraq and as surely as we are going to "lose" Pakistan. It is our presence, our power, our arrogance, our refusal to learn from history and our terror – yes, our terror – of Islam that is leading us into the abyss. And until we learn to leave these Muslim peoples alone, our catastrophe in the Middle East will only become graver. There is no connection between Islam and "terror". But there is a connection between our occupation of Muslim lands and "terror". It's not too complicated an equation. And we don't need a public inquiry to get it right.
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
Five years on, and still we have not learnt. With each anniversary, the steps crumble beneath our feet, the stones ever more cracked, the sand ever finer. Five years of catastrophe in Iraq and I think of Churchill, who in the end called Palestine a "hell-disaster".
But we have used these parallels before and they have drifted away in the Tigris breeze. Iraq is swamped in blood. Yet what is the state of our remorse? Why, we will have a public inquiry – but not yet! If only inadequacy was our only sin.
Today, we are engaged in a fruitless debate. What went wrong? How did the people – the senatus populusque Romanus of our modern world – not rise up in rebellion when told the lies about weapons of mass destruction, about Saddam's links with Osama bin Laden and 11 September? How did we let it happen? And how come we didn't plan for the aftermath of war?
Oh, the British tried to get the Americans to listen, Downing Street now tells us. We really, honestly did try, before we absolutely and completely knew it was right to embark on this illegal war. There is now a vast literature on the Iraq debacle and there are precedents for post-war planning – of which more later – but this is not the point. Our predicament in Iraq is on an infinitely more terrible scale.
As the Americans came storming up Iraq in 2003, their cruise missiles hissing through the sandstorm towards a hundred Iraqi towns and cities, I would sit in my filthy room in the Baghdad Palestine Hotel, unable to sleep for the thunder of explosions, and root through the books I'd brought to fill the dark, dangerous hours. Tolstoy's War and Peace reminded me how conflict can be described with sensitivity and grace and horror – I recommend the Battle of Borodino – along with a file of newspaper clippings. In this little folder, there was a long rant by Pat Buchanan, written five months earlier; and still, today I feel its power and its prescience and its absolute historical honesty: "With our MacArthur Regency in Baghdad, Pax Americana will reach apogee. But then the tide recedes, for the one endeavour at which Islamic people excel is expelling imperial powers by terror or guerrilla war.
"They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon. We have started up the road to empire and over the next hill we will meet those who went before. The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history."
How easily the little men took us into the inferno, with no knowledge or, at least, interest in history. None of them read of the 1920 Iraqi insurgency against British occupation, nor of Churchill's brusque and brutal settlement of Iraq the following year.
On our historical radars, not even Crassus appeared, the wealthiest Roman general of all, who demanded an emperorship after conquering Macedonia – "Mission Accomplished" – and vengefully set forth to destroy Mesopotamia. At a spot in the desert near the Euphrates river, the Parthians – ancestors of present day Iraqi insurgents – annihilated the legions, chopped off Crassus's head and sent it back to Rome filled with gold. Today, they would have videotaped his beheading.
To their monumental hubris, these little men who took us to war five years ago now prove that they have learnt nothing. Anthony Blair – as we should always have called this small town lawyer – should be facing trial for his mendacity. Instead, he now presumes to bring peace to an Arab-Israeli conflict which he has done so much to exacerbate. And now we have the man who changed his mind on the legality of war – and did so on a single sheet of A4 paper – daring to suggest that we should test immigrants for British citizenship. Question 1, I contend, should be: Which blood-soaked British attorney general helped to send 176 British soldiers to their deaths for a lie? Question 2: How did he get away with it?
But in a sense, the facile, dumbo nature of Lord Goldsmith's proposal is a clue to the whole transitory, cardboard structure of our decision-making. The great issues that face us – be they Iraq or Afghanistan, the US economy or global warming, planned invasions or "terrorism" – are discussed not according to serious political timetables but around television schedules and press conferences.
Will the first air raids on Iraq hit prime-time television in the States? Mercifully, yes. Will the first US troops in Baghdad appear on the breakfast shows? Of course. Will Saddam's capture be announced by Bush and Blair simultaneously?.
But this is all part of the problem. True, Churchill and Roosevelt argued about the timing of the announcement that war in Europe had ended. And it was the Russians who pipped them to the post. But we told the truth. When the British were retreating to Dunkirk, Churchill announced that the Germans had "penetrated deeply and spread alarm and confusion in their tracks".
Why didn't Bush or Blair tell us this when the Iraqi insurgents began to assault the Western occupation forces? Well, they were too busy telling us that things were getting better, that the rebels were mere "dead-enders".
On 17 June 1940, Churchill told the people of Britain: "The news from France is very bad and I grieve for the gallant French people who have fallen into this terrible misfortune." Why didn't Blair or Bush tell us that the news from Iraq was very bad and that they grieved – even just a few tears for a minute or so – for the Iraqis?
For these were the men who had the temerity, the sheer, unadulterated gall, to dress themselves up as Churchill, heroes who would stage a rerun of the Second World War, the BBC dutifully calling the invaders "the Allies" – they did, by the way – and painting Saddam's regime as the Third Reich.
Of course, when I was at school, our leaders – Attlee, Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, or Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy in the United States – had real experience of real war. Not a single Western leader today has any first-hand experience of conflict. When the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq began, the most prominent European opponent of the war was Jacques Chirac, who fought in the Algerian conflict. But he has now gone. So has Colin Powell, a Vietnam veteran but himself duped by Rumsfeld and the CIA.
Yet one of the terrible ironies of our times is that the most bloodthirsty of American statesmen – Bush and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfovitz – have either never heard a shot fired in anger or have ensured they did not have to fight for their country when they had the chance to do so. No wonder Hollywood titles like "Shock and Awe" appeal to the White House. Movies are their only experience of human conflict; the same goes for Blair and Brown.
Churchill had to account for the loss of Singapore before a packed House. Brown won't even account for Iraq until the war is over.
It is a grotesque truism that today – after all the posturing of our political midgets five years ago – we might at last be permitted a valid seance with the ghosts of the Second World War. Statistics are the medium, and the room would have to be dark. But it is a fact that the total of US dead in Iraq (3,978) is well over the number of American casualties suffered in the initial D-Day landings at Normandy (3,384 killed and missing) on 6 June, 1944, or more than three times the total British casualties at Arnhem the same year (1,200).
They count for just over a third of the total fatalities (11,014) of the entire British Expeditionary Force from the German invasion of Belgium to the final evacuation at Dunkirk in June 1940. The number of British dead in Iraq – 176 – is almost equal to the total of UK forces lost at the Battle of the Bulge in 1944-45 (just over 200). The number of US wounded in Iraq – 29,395 – is more than nine times the number of Americans injured on 6 June (3,184) and more than a quarter of the tally for US wounded in the entire 1950-53 Korean war (103,284).
Iraqi casualties allow an even closer comparison to the Second World War. Even if we accept the lowest of fatality statistics for civilian dead – they range from 350,000 up to a million – these long ago dwarfed the number of British civilian dead in the flying-bomb blitz on London in 1944-45 (6,000) and now far outnumber the total figure for civilians killed in bombing raids across the United Kingdom – 60,595 dead, 86,182 seriously wounded – from 1940 to 1945.
Indeed, the Iraqi civilian death toll since our invasion is now greater than the total number of British military fatalities in the Second World War, which came to an astounding 265,000 dead (some histories give this figure as 300,000) and 277,000 wounded. Minimum estimates for Iraqi dead mean that the civilians of Mesopotamia have suffered six or seven Dresdens or – more terrible still – two Hiroshimas.
Yet in a sense, all this is a distraction from the awful truth in Buchanan's warning. We have dispatched our armies into the land of Islam. We have done so with the sole encouragement of Israel, whose own false intelligence over Iraq has been discreetly forgotten by our masters, while weeping crocodile tears for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died.
America's massive military prestige has been irreparably diminished. And if there are, as I now calculate, 22 times as many Western troops in the Muslim world as there were at the time of the 11th and 12th century Crusades, we must ask what we are doing. Are we there for oil? For democracy? For Israel? For fear of weapons of mass destruction? Or for fear of Islam?
We blithely connect Afghanistan to Iraq. If only Washington had not become distracted by Iraq, so the narrative now goes, the Taliban could not have re-established themselves. But al-Qa'ida and the nebulous Osama bin Laden were not distracted. Which is why they expanded their operations into Iraq and then used this experience to assault the West in Afghanistan with the hitherto – in Afghanistan – unheard of suicide bomber.
And I will hazard a terrible guess: that we have lost Afghanistan as surely as we have lost Iraq and as surely as we are going to "lose" Pakistan. It is our presence, our power, our arrogance, our refusal to learn from history and our terror – yes, our terror – of Islam that is leading us into the abyss. And until we learn to leave these Muslim peoples alone, our catastrophe in the Middle East will only become graver. There is no connection between Islam and "terror". But there is a connection between our occupation of Muslim lands and "terror". It's not too complicated an equation. And we don't need a public inquiry to get it right.
Publicado por nafets giewz en 8:46 1 comentarios
Etiquetas: Iraq, robert fisk
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)