Michael Massing Considers
(posted
to www.marxmail.org on
Although it is not on the Nation Magazine website, Michael Massing's "The Moral Quandary: Anti-Imperialism vs Humanitarianism" in the current issue is well worth
tracking down. It is a highly nuanced examination of the issues that have come
to a head in the emerging antiwar movement and anti-antiwar movements, the
latter including outspoken supporters of
I have a lot of respect for Massing. He was a fierce critic
of the kind of media bias in the 1980s that made Reagan's war against the
Central American revolution easier to carry out. Although the current line-up
is nothing like that of 15 years or so ago, the sort of obsessive demonization of Saddam Hussein was clearly foreshadowed by
the propaganda campaign against Daniel Ortega, whose every move was put under a
microscope. Just as Saddam Hussein is being forced to prove a negative--namely
that he has no weapons of mass destruction--Ortega was constantly being
pressured to prove that he was not a puppet of the
In a pip of an article that appeared in the
Massing was a skilled investigative journalist who had once been executive editor of the Columbia Journalism Review. His most recent beat on the "drug war" resulted in a book titled "The Fix" that has earned strong reviews.
The topic of Massing's article is a meeting at NYU sponsored by the journalism department that included 5 speakers: Frances Fitzgerald, a highly respected writer who was on the front lines opposing the war in Vietnam; Todd Gitlin, a flabby version of Christopher Hitchens; pro-war Dissent editor Michael Walzer; former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations Brian Urquhart; and Kanan Makiya, an ex-Trotskyist of Iraqi descent also with Dissent Magazine and beating the drum loudly for war against his former homeland.
Although Massing is obviously uncomfortable with Makiya's blood-curdling war whoops, he does give credibility to Kenneth Pollack's "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq". According to Pollack, Saddam Hussein is one of the most horrible tyrants since Attila the Hun, which should not come as a complete surprise given Pollack's past employment with the CIA--a fact missing from Massing.
All in all, Massing approaches the question with good
old-fashioned American pragmatism. In answering the question why Saddam Hussein
should be deposed as opposed to those who rule
Seemingly in a debate with himself, Massing then counters his own impulse to aggression with the need to "weigh the anticipated benefits against the expected costs." So, without skipping a beat, he shifts from pragmatism to a kind of bookkeeper utilitarianism. Mostly, the arguments against a "regime change" involve nasty side effects like distracting us from the war on terror or pissing off other Arabs. He quotes Douglas Hurd, the former British foreign secretary, who notes that a quick imperialist victory would result in "a sullen and humiliated Arab nation."
Unfortunately, missing from Massing's
calculations at this point is any consideration whether the
Massing's article ends on a strong
note. All of the 5 speakers at NYU accepted the need to go to war if
After articulating this option, Massing turns once again
Hamlet-like to consider the opposite possibility. He warns the
"left", presumably the rather staunch liberal base of the Nation
Magazine readership, that the UN "has become more and more subservient to
the
He urges another way. One alternative would be to bolster
the rather feckless Iraqi opposition by lifting most of the sanctions and by
opening up the country to foreign investment. This position strikes me as
utopian bordering on foolishness. The only foreign investment pending in the