Recently Left Hook co-editor caught up with Mickey Z., author of Saving Private Power and, more recently, Seven Deadly Spins. Below, he discusses some of his book as well as his thoughts on the American public, the left, and the elections.

 

MJA: Mickey, thank you for doing this interview.
MZ: I'm happy to have this chance to speak to your readers.

MJA: In your book you take apart seven major lies and rationalizations employed by the media and government to maintain support for the wars America wages. But before asking about some of those seven spins, I wanted to talk about a point in your Introduction, where you note that "we must not be lulled into believing that merely presenting the facts is enough to change both people's minds and U.S. policy," and that there is another important question we must confront: "does the public really want to know the truth behind the spins"? What's your own answer to that question for the present period? What do you think the anti-war movement can or must do to cultivate an atmosphere in which people will be more open to our criticisms, concepts, and ideas, apart from exposing pro-war spin?
MZ: The public, it seems, wants to write a check to some charity, buy a "Free Tibet" t-shirt, or run in a 5K race to raise money for some useless research...and feel really good about how much they care. It's no fun to discover what's really going on and I'd imagine most Americans will avoid it at any cost. However, I also believe that putting it in their face and making it difficult to avoid awareness of the death and destruction they are funding and supporting with their tax dollars and voting choices is something we all must do...because once the truth is known, I think the public will want to change things. They will do everything in their power to avoid the truth but, when confronted with reality, many of them will demand change. That's why my work is all about empowerment: putting knowledge into the hands of the restless many; seeing past the illusions by shattering myths and rocking foundations in the areas of politics, health, economics, culture, activism, and the media; looking for ways to cultivate solidarity beyond race and gender lines, across national borders, and through class barriers; and doing my part to encourage the subversive pleasure of thinking for yourself. As Proust said, "The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes." Like a modern-day Paul Revere, my aim is to provide others with the well-researched information they cannot expect to get from a corporate-owned media. As for the anti-war "movement," this year has clearly demonstrated that the old methods are not long applicable. Protests are so easily marginalized. The powers-that-be learned more from the 1960s than the dissidents did. Rebellion is just another commodity...co-opted, sanitized, and sold back to us as a trend. Where are the new ideas? We need to stop engaging in our business as usual...and put a stop to their business as usual.

MJA: The first spin you address is that of "the sleeping giant" - the notion that America merely goes about its business until and unless it's suddenly attacked out of nowhere. Explaining some of our various wars and interventions, including the Spanish American war of 1898, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, and Gulf War I, you chronicle and contrast history from hype and show how the government fabricated or exaggerated many claims to press its war agenda. But what specifically would you say to the kind of speechifying proffered by the Right vis-a-vis September 11th? They often intone "We were attacked..." - which is true enough - and then use this fact as a springboard for justifying all kinds of atrocities and assaults. How would you respond to that?
MZ: There's a second part to the equation that begins "We were attacked" and that's "why?" I live in New York City. I knew people who died in the Twin Towers. I smelled the burning for weeks as the F-16s circled overhead. I'm aware of how 9/11 impacted this country...but none of that justifies "atrocities and assaults." The U.S. plays the role of sleeping giant very well...and part of that role is ignoring context. The events of 9/11 are impossible to comprehend without global, historical context...and without that context, a heavily conditioned society like ours is even easier to manipulate by either party:

George W. Bush: "The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it."

John F. Kerry: "Am I prepared to go get them before they get us if we locate them and have sufficient intelligence? You bet I am. I will never allow any other country to veto what we need to do and I will never allow any other institution to veto what we need to do to protect our nation."

MJA: You describe the second spin - that of "Good Wars" - in the following terms "...when the United States is not forced into war by surprise attacks, it is often compelled to act in response to atrocities." This type of argument was a main pillar in justifying the Iraq war; that Saddam had to be removed because he was evil, unlike the other given reasons for war, is still peddled with some conviction by war supporters. What would you say to this frequently cited argument, which posits the Iraq war as a "good war" because, after all, Saddam was a "bad man"?
MZ: Like the first "Good War," the current war against evildoers conveniently ignores any role the U.S. and U.S.-based corporations played in supporting dictators like Hitler, Hussein, and others. It also ignores all the "bad men" (Pinochet, Suharto, etc.) that U.S. tax dollars have propped up. Spin #2 is designed to make us all feel better. Our history books tell tales of past glory...our televisions blare news of new humanitarian gestures. Inundated with hyperbole about U.S. selflessness, we are programmed to automatically assume the best when told "our" military is about to invade yet another small Third World nation. Based on America's alleged history, we feel such actions are justified. Justification is crucial for those in charge and our self-anointed humanitarians employ a powerful form of rationalization: We can't sit back and allow bad guys to thrive. Sometimes we must commit violent acts to stop other, more violent acts from taking place.

MJA: In regards to the second spin, you point out not only that the US invaded Somalia after the starvation crises subsided, and that the bombing of Yugoslavia accelerated civilian displacement and killed more civilians than all sides combined had prior to the NATO attacks, but also that in Rwanda the US actually worked to block the UN from halting the genocide, and in Iraq helped Saddam crush the Kurds. Why is it that despite this record of not acting against real atrocities and committing atrocities under the pretext of fighting fabricated or exaggerated ones, so many liberals - "Cruise missile leftists" - still cite good intentions and just war theory in defense of America's military interventions?
MZ: Reminds me of something Emma Goldman said at the beginning of the Spanish-American War...more than 100 years ago: "America had declared war with Spain. The news was not unexpected. For several months preceding, press and pulpit were filled with the call to arms in defense of the victims of Spanish atrocities in Cuba. It did not require much political wisdom to see that America's concern was a matter of sugar and had nothing to do with humanitarian feelings. Of course there were plenty of credulous people, not only in the country at large, but even in the liberal ranks, who believed in America's claim." Replace one word, and it sounds like this: "It did not require much political wisdom to see that America's concern was a matter of oil and had nothing to do with humanitarian feelings." The hypocrites on the cruise missile left aren't "leftists," they just play leftists on TV. I'm all for re-evaluating one's opinions and being open to new perspectives but bullshit radicals who speak of "good intentions" on the part of the U.S. military display values that are obviously at the mercy of every new emotional twist and turn (or money-making opportunity). That's why someone like Michael McMoore is part of the problem, not the solution.

MJA: Spin #4 - "Support the Troops" - is particularly relevant in the here and now. You label it "the guilt factor" - "No matter what we think or feel...all Americans must unite behind our troops to insure their safety through victory." There have been serious debates in the anti-war movement about questions relating to the issue of supporting the troops. What do you think is the best way to navigate the contradictions of opposing what our troops are doing in Iraq while highlighting the hardships they face while deployed?
MZ: The Fourth Deadly Spin exploits our guilt by equating blind faith with patriotism. Those who protest against war are betraying their friends, their neighbors, and their country. The phrase "support the troops" actually means "support the policies that put those troops in harm's way." It also means: "Support U.S. troops even if they engage in war crimes." Obviously, it's difficult for relatives to view their sons, daughters, fathers, etc. as villains but what about everyone else? How is it that someone dons a U.S. military uniform and becomes a saint? If anything, with the world's most powerful arsenal backing them up, perhaps it's more likely that U.S. soldiers will feel they can do anything and get away with anything.

MJA:Throughout your book you constantly attack the popular notion of World War II as a noble war. You point to the gasoline bombing of Dresden, the fire bombing of Tokyo, US recruitment of odious Nazi figures in the anti-Communist cause, among other things. Do you think that the image of World War II as a noble war has made it easier to justify more recent ones? Do you come up against more anger or resistance when talking about the misdeeds of World War II as opposed to other wars we've fought?
MZ: When my first book, "Saving Private Power: The Hidden History of The Good War," was released in 2000, I was astonished at the positive reaction. Sure, I encountered the inevitable attacks, but many readers displayed an open-mindedness that I did not expect. I took on the Good War myth for precisely the reason you mention: If a myth that powerful can be debunked, it's open season on all myths. (Sidenote: Saving Private Power will be released in paperback by Vox Pop as There is No Good War in Spring 2005.)

MJA: The last spin discussed in the book concerns war crimes. Citing the Nuremberg Tribunal and Geneva Conventions, you assert that under these definitions "the U.S. commits war crimes with alarming frequency", and that "it was clear to many at the time, including many participants, that their actions indeed constituted crimes against humanity." This runs against the standard apologia for civilians killed by U.S. forces, which posits victims as mere collateral damage and the result of mistakes. Can you explain why you think that this standard argument doesn't hold up?
MZ: War crime tribunals have replaced scalps and mounted animal heads as the post-battle trophy. By bringing the vanquished to trial, the victors stamp their actions into closure with a moral seal of approval. That fierce-looking creature staring at us from behind bars is proof that the actions taken were dangerous but honorable and the end justifies the means. The Seventh Deadly Spin teaches us: Defeated war criminals must and will be brought to justice in tribunals. The key word here is "defeated," because only losers face indictment. The highest-ranking Nazi defendant at Nuremberg, Hermann Goering, stated it plainly: "The victors will always be the judges, the accused the vanquished." Other accused Nazis wondered aloud: "What about Dresden? What about Hiroshima?" These crimes, of course, never came to any trial...but the U.S. knew exactly what they were doing. As U.S. General Curtis LeMay, commander of the 1945 fire bombings that killed 672,000 Japanese, admitted. "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal. Fortunately, we were on the winning side."

MJA: An obligatory election-related question for the final round: do you think the outcome of this election will have a significant impact on the way either the war in Iraq or the broader 'war on terror' will be conducted? Would a Kerry presidency lean more on certain kinds of spins than a Bush one?
MZ: Two rich, white, male, Yale-educated war criminals are competing for the right to manage the American Empire for four years. Foreign policy will demonstrate some rhetorical differences if Kerry wins but in practical terms, the U.S. war machine will march on as it has since WWII. What scares me is if Kerry wins, a big chunk of protestors will go home declaring a job well done. An even bigger chunk of Americans will buy into his liberal bullshit as they did with Clinton. Kerry will be able to bomb Iran, north Korea, or Colombia with the same impunity granted to Bypass Bill for his illegal war in Yugoslavia, etc. Bush or Kerry. We're fucked either way.

•  Seven Deadly Spins can be purchased from Common Courage Press.
•  Read Left Hook’s review of the book.
•  Read more about Mickey Z. on his website www.MickeyZ.net
________________________________________

M. Junaid Alam, 21, is co-editor and webmaster of Left Hook; he can be reached at .