THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY
If you can only listen to one media source, can I suggest that it be the BBC World Service (http://www.bbcworldservice.com).

In the few news briefings I've caught on the C-SPAN or the President's News Channel (FNC), the BBC reporters are the only ones asking real, probing questions. I was listening to the BBC last night and they were interviewing a spokesman from Centcom (US Central Command) about the looting in Baghdad. He gave the typical pat answers about how it's too bad about the looting but we're LIBERATING them and that it's too bad about the looting but we should remember that Saddam Hussein was evil. The BBC journalist did not let him get away with these pat answers; he really pressed the spokesman.The spokesman said that it was too bad about the looting but it was sort of inevitable when you consider that they were being LIBERATED from decades of oppression and they wanted to blow off a little steam. The journalist countered that if this was so foreseable, how come the US military didn't have a plan to deal with it? The spokesman replied by saying yea, there's shooting in Baghdad, but there's also shooting in London and you're not attacking the British police. The journalist, again, wouldn't let him get away with that canard, noting that there's far more shooting in Baghdad than in London. The spokesman said that this was understandable since it was just recently a war zone.

I happen to think that there is an element of inevitability in such looting. I also think the US military is in a difficult situation. If they aggressively crack down on looters, then the al-Jazeera and "drop Bush, not bombs" crowds freak out and scream about American oppression. If they don't crack down aggressively, then they're accused of allowing rampant criminality.

Nevertheless, it's important these questions be asked. If for no other reason than to pressure the occupying forces to restore law and order as quickly as possible. I felt that this exchange left me better informed than before. I don't get very often from the American media who's usually more interested in telling us what the government feeds them or shoving vapid, yapping heads screaming simplistic nonesense at the top of their lungs down our throats.

The difference is that you probably wouldn't hear such issues seriously and sanely discussed on American television. And if you did, no American reporter would dare ask questions as tough as the BBC journalist did for fear of being labelled an "America hater" or "unpatriotic" by the rabid crowd.

***

My dad was watching a news broadcast of Syrian state television on CSPAN. I asked him why he was watching this and he said "for a different perspective." He can do what he wants but his idea of being informed is switching from one propaganda machine (US cable news) to another. Anyways, the broadcast explained the Syrian government's desire for the American occupation to end as soon as possible and for Iraqi sovereignty to return to Iraqis. This is ironic coming from the country who's controlled a puppet government in Lebanon for a quarter century. Then again, Arab countries (like those repressive dictatorships are only concerned about human rights' abuses when it's against the Palestinians) are well-known for the sense of irony.

***

Tony Blair should beware.

In late 2001, we were thanking our European allies for their solidarity in the wake of 9/11. The French were saying "we are all Americans" and we were thanking them for standing on the side of civilization against evil. A few months later, the Europeans almost unanimously supported our invasion of Afghanistan against the Taliban-supported al-Qaeda. French and German troops fought alongside Americans and French and German troops REMAIN in Afghanistan making sure the enemies of America don't return there. They were alongside us fighting against those who had proven to be threats to America. We thanked them.

Then, Pres. Bush thought this wasn't enough. He decided to launch his crusade against a ruthless dictator, but one who was no threat to America. Even the president himself didn't say Iraq was an imminent threat to America. Only that it might conceivably possibly in some theoretical sense be a threat to us in 1 or 5 or 100 years. Countries like the French and Germans balked at this imperial adventure. They were with us when it was a question of security, but against us when it was not a question of an imminent threat. Those who had fought so valiantly against America's enemies in Afghanistan suddenly became the "axis of weasel" in the neo-conservative circles. I wonder how many French and German troops died in Afghanistan for this ingratitude.

Tony Blair stood alongside us because he somehow became convinced that it was the right thing to do. Neo-conservatives heaped praise on the British prime minister. He's a great man, a true statesman, they insist. They talk of him like he's the 21st century's Churchill.

But what happens if Blair opposes Bush's next imperial adventure? You can be sure that he will be put squarely in the "axis of weasel" alongside Chirac and de Villepin. He will go from being the 21st century's Churchill to its Chamberlain.

You're already seeing signs of strain with the internationalist Blair insisting on a central role for the United Nations in rebuilding Iraq. He realizes that this would give international legitimacy to the operation and counter charges made by those, including myself, that the invasion was an imperial adventure of economic conquest. It would counter the "to the conquerors go the spoils" mentality of neo-conservatives like Bill O'Reilly.

But Tony Blair should beware. He's the darling of the chest-beaters in Washington right now, but that could change in a heartbeat. And, at some point, almost certainly will.