- The song was meant to be ironic. It was meant to depict
an ignorant, frustrated, self-pitying, petulant bully, lashing out. It
was meant to be black humor.
-
- "No one likes us/ I don't know why/ We may not be
perfect/ But heaven knows, we try/ And all around, even our old friends
put us down/ Let's drop the Big One and see what happens. . ."
-
- It has now become foreign policy.
-
- When Randy Newman wrote "Drop the Big One"
in 1971, Vietnam was still "winding down," as the euphemism went,
in search of Nixon's dishonorable attempt at face-saving, "Peace,
with Honor." There was no talk of escalating war, let alone "dropping
the big one."
-
- Today, the United States of America is threatening to
use nuclear weapons "pre-emptively."
-
- It has effectively redefined the Big One, the doomsday
weapon of last resort, as conventional. As William Arkin's Jan. 26 report
in the L.A. Times explains, the administration has described two circumstances
in which nuclear weapons might be used:
-
- *If Iraq (or presumably any nation) retaliates with bio/chemical
warfare during a U.S. attack.
-
- *As part of a massive assault to terrify Iraq (or presumably
any nation) into surrender, known in chilling military parlance as "shock
and awe."
-
- Let's examine the two scenarios.
-
- If Saddam calculates that he cannot retire to a nice
palace in exile somewhere outside Iraq---something suggested by Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for the "evildoer," astoundingly enough---he
will likely use any bio/chemical weapons now being hidden from U.N. inspectors.
If he figures he's a goner, he'll go out with a bang. That will, President
Bush promises, prompt a U.S. nuclear bang.
-
- Result: Saddam provokes the U.S. into an act that will
forever earn the hatred of the Arab world, much of the non-Arab world,
and will recruit countless new Islamic extremist terrorists for decades
to come.
-
- Analysis: Saddam wins.
-
- As for the second scenario. . .if the U.S., as it has
threatened, resorts to "shock and awe" tactics involving nuclear
weapons---say, the "bunker busters" designed to destroy underground
facilities (that in fact penetrate no deeper than 20 feet, and scatter
radiation above ground almost as much as a surface blast)---this will mean
our government will have, incredibly, used nuclear weapons without provocation.
Simply as an intimidation device. This would galvanize much of the world---perhaps
the entire world---into sheer hatred of this country, and it would encourage
India, Pakistan, North Korea, and all nations with nuclear weapons to use
them. WWIII would loom in the near distance.
-
- Analysis: Saddam wins.
-
- How did it come to this? Myth-making, in part. The Bush
adminstration creates myths with the aplomb, if not the poetry, of Homer.
Here are the principal myths being used to cow the American public into
support:
-
- *The invasion of Iraq is a response to terrorism.
-
- *Oil, as Rumsfeld has said, has nothing to do with the
invasion.
-
- *Iraq is in cahoots with Osama bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda.
-
- *The U.S. wishes to "liberate the Iraqi people."
-
- *There is an ongoing "war" since 9/11.
-
- Look at the first two points. One need only consult the
Project for the New American Century proposal for "Global Pax Americana"
(www.newamericancentury.org), to glean the truth here. This report was
prepared before the administration took office---before 9/11---by Dick
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld deputy Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and Cheney's
chief of staff, Lewis Libby. In other words, the Bush team. It calls for,
among other things, permanently occupying the Middle East and controlling
its oil.
-
- The PNAC paper is a blueprint for current foreign policy.
The horror of 9/11 provided the administration with just the excuse---and
nationalistic fervor, and fear---to implement "Global Pax Americana,"
which begins with an invasion of the Middle East. In fact, there is a passage
in the PNAC report that spells out---almost wistfully---the need for a
massive terrorist strike to unite the American public. Here is the quote:
"The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent
some catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor." (No
wonder people make careers out of conspiracy theory.)
-
- As for point two, that the gold ring is security, not
oil, look at the situation in broad strokes. The administration's priorities
align with those of multi-national corporations (Bush, Cheney, and various
underlings were all energy company executives.) Multi-national corporations
are forever angling to exploit energy reserves of countries from Venezuela
to Indonesia. To even imagine that one-fifth of the worlds' oil reserves
is not a top priority is laughable.
-
- Saddam and Osama? In its hard-sell campaign, the administration
persists in making the case for a link---minus any evidence. Here are some
facts: Bin-laden and Al-Qaeda loathe Hussein because of his murder and
persecution of Islamic Kurds. Hussein is reported to be a Muslim only to
the extent that it serves his dictatorial purposes. The 9/11 terrorists
were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. There is evidence to suggest that they
were supported by Saudi money. Saudi Arabia is the principal breeding ground
of Wahabi extremists, the sect of Islam that calls for war against the
west, and that has been exporting its agenda of hatred to poverty stricken
countries in Africa and Asia for years.
-
- Conclusion: Saudi Arabia---our "ally," is the
principal terrorist breeding ground in the Middle East, not Iraq.
-
- "Liberating" the Iraqi people? It has as much
to do with administration goals as Michael Jackson has to do with Michael
Jordan. If the United States were really interested in "freeing"
the Iraqis from Saddam, why did Bush Sr. stop short? Why did Bush Jr. not
declare this as an objective immediately after taking office? Why has it
only recently been offered as a reason for war? Since when are U.S. citizens
preoccupied with the welfare of the Iraqi people?
-
- "Liberation" would prove a costly mess for
the U.S. and Middle East. Remember that Iraq contains three populations:
the Kurds in the north, who have strong allegiance to other Kurds in Iran,
Turkey, and Syria; the Sunnis, who control the army and government despite
comprising a mere 20 percent of the population; and the majority Shiite
Muslims. "Liberate" them, and you wind up not with a free country,
but with three countries. Three countries that do not like one another.
Either that, or one U.S.-propped "democratic" dictatorship.
-
- Finally, consider the administration's claim that the
United States is "at war," and will be for years to come.
-
- By all conventional and unconventional definitions of
"war," there is. . .no war. The U.S. was attacked by lunatics
with box cutters and high I.Q.'s. They had primary allegiance not to a
country, but to a warped version of a religion. There are many more such
murderers out there, but they are scattered throughout the world. There
is an imperative---a chief imperative---to increase security at home, and
to use all intelligence methods in cooperation with allies to find and
combat such terrorists, the world over. (This should have been a top international
priority since the 1972 Munich Olympics!) Except for inter-agency jealousy
and stifling bureacracy in U.S. intelligence, and poor prioritizing, 9/11
might never have happened..
-
- Calling the ongoing terrorism crisis a "war"
is effective public relations for the administration; cynical manipulation
of public opinion. It is using scare tactics to shill for "Global
Pax Americana." It also helps the 2004 re-election campaign, as countries
rarely change leaders in times of "war."
-
- But all these points sound flat and lifeless in the face
of the new U.S. nuclear saber-rattling.
-
- To even have to make logical arguments against the use
of nuclear weapons demonstrates the runaway madness of current foreign
policy. Can Pax Americana stop terrorism? Rhetorical answer: what happens
when you take a baseball bat to a hornet's nest? Pax Americana? What pax?
-
- Think of it:
-
- The U.S. government is threatening to use the most hideously
violent force yet invented, a force that puts all of humanity at risk,
simply as means of intimidation, as part of its "shock and awe"
military plan. Is this really the United States of America? Is this what
the U.S. citizenry wants? It sounds more like something the maniac in charge
of North Korea would do---or another maniac, long departed. That's right,
think "blitzkrieg." It's exactly the same thing as "shock
and awe." Nazi Minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels would admire
the American military's skill with euphemism.
-
- Even without nuclear "bunker-busters," however,
"shock and awe," promises a rain of 300-400 missiles per day
on a country that not only has not attacked us, but---get this---continues
to export huge amounts of oil to the U.S., even now! Yes, that's correct.
Weeks before a prospective invasion, Iraq has reportedly doubled its exports
of oil to America, bailing out U.S. refineries crippled by the strike in
Venezuela.
-
- (see http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,882512,00.html)
-
- Wait---isn't Iraq the 'enemy'?
-
- Let's hear it for insanity, greed, and death.
-
- "They all hate us, anyhow/ So let's drop the Big
One now/ Let's drop the Big One now. . ."
-
- www.riprense.com
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Tod Westlake
- 2-5-3
-
- The name of this wonderful Randy Newman song is actually
"Political Science." It is on the equally wonderful album entitled
"Sail Away."
-
- I thought your readers might be interested in knowing
this so they could obtain a copy. The sweet thing is that one can find
this album on vinyl for as little as a buck - and, a well spent one at
that. It's also available on CD for those who are unsure as to what a turntable
is.
-
- I find it disturbing -- to say the least -- that what
was once considered political satire suddenly reads like Charlotte Bronte.
The 1974 film "Network", for example, is no longer funny; it's
simply disturbing. In this film, a down-on-its-luck television network
essentially decides that they will do almost anything to obtain better
ratings. Sound familiar? I think Rupert Murdoch obtained tha NewsCorp business
model from this film. Think I'm kidding? Watch the film and see for yourself.
-
- Paddy Chayefsky really nailed the screenplay, and Peter
Finch won a posthumous Oscar for his portrayal of deranged anchorman, Howard
Beal. It's an excellent film that uncannily presages the avaricious editorial
policies of our modern "news media."
-
- As Howard Beal himself once stated so eloquently, "I'm
as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
-
- If only.......
-
- Keep the faith,
-
- Tod Westlake
- Iowa City, Iowa
-
-
- Dear Tom...
- Thanks for fixing the song title. I plead too much sugar
lousing up my memory. I sit corrected. - Rip
|
