Le Carre on "The War"

From the Politech mailing list:

Here are letters to the Times of London published in response to John le Carre. I do hope you will circulate them, unless you've decided to circulate just anti-American pieces now. Thank you,
Wendy Leibowitz

January 17, 2003

Le Carré's criticism of America's proposed action in Iraq
>From Mr David Fisher

Sir, While I agree with the sentiments expressed in John le Carré's column (Comment, "The United States of America has gone mad", January 15), I don't know where he learnt that 88 per cent of Americans support this war. In fact, most polls show that little more than one third of Americans support this madness without UN support, and even with the UN involved only slightly more than half agree with the President.
I also have not seen any poll that suggests half of all Americans
believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center, although with a cleverly worded question that result might be achieved. The Bush Administration has made many efforts to link Saddam with past terrorism and so far has failed, so it has concentrated its efforts on linking him to future terrorism. Unfortunately, in a fearful nation, that has resonated.

I do not, however, support Mr le Carré's statements concerning
Israel. Its use of overwhelming military force is a by-product of its
existence under siege for more than half a century. I continue to
believe that the day the Palestinians decide there will be peace,
there will be peace.

Sincerely,
DAVID FISHER,
357 West 19th Street, New York 10011.
January 15.

>From Mr Ed Feuer

Sir, John le Carré's criticisms of Israel in his rant against America are unjust.

Precisely which United Nations resolutions has Israel disregarded? The only ones that count are Security Council resolutions that are binding.

The core of the Arab-Israeli conflict remains the refusal by the Arab side to accept Israel's existence. And that, I believe, is because Arab political and religious leaders fear genuine peace with Israel.

A Jewish state in the area just isn't part of the Muslim
fundamentalists' triumphalist script. The Jews, who were treated as second or third-class citizens in the Arab world, can't now be
regarded as equals with a state of their own. Remember, too, that Israel is a Western society with much of the cultural decadence fundamentalists love to hate. And peace would remove the scapegoat. People would start thinking about the deficiencies and corruption of their regimes. Arab reformers might be encouraged to call for copying the Israeli example.

Yours faithfully,
ED FEUER,
30 Brooks Cove,
Winnipeg MB, Canada R2V 4M9.
January 15.

>From Mr Alexander C. Ives

Sir, I may admire John le Carré's passion and agree with the heart of his criticism, but his depiction of America is wrong.

" . . . as our Governments spin, lie and lose their credibility, the
electorate simply shrugs and looks the other way," he writes. The former may be quite true of the United States, but the latter I know to be false. Plenty of friends, colleagues and fellow Americans have expressed their aversion to the war. It was a constant topic of conversation over the recent holidays.

A January 3-5 Gallup poll showed 42 per cent of the American public felt Iraq was not worth going to war over, while a further 76 per cent of the American public were somewhat or very worried about the current situation. Those are tight, thin, divisive margins that show a questioning, skeptical public, not a strong, supportive majority, and they could change very quickly.

Do not assume because of our President's policies that the whole "United States of America has gone mad".

Yours faithfully,
ALEXANDER C. IVES,
237 Jamaica Lane,
Palm Beach, Florida 33480-3321.
January 15.

>From Mr Don Frost

Sir, Since John le Carré feels free to lash out at the nation that
has provided him a very good living for many years, do you think
he'll offer us Americans a refund?

I wouldn't want his conscience weighed down by blood money.

Yours faithfully,
DON FROST,
38158 Lincolndale,
Sterling Heights, Michigan 48310.
January 15.

>From Ms Carole Newton

Sir, Since when is John le Carré or any other celebrity an expert in the field of foreign policy? It is amazing to me that a newspaper such as yours should give any credence at all to these people. They are entertainers, for heaven's sakes, not statesmen or government officials.

Newspapers who allow these celebrity tirades on their pages lower their credibility.

Yours faithfully,
CAROLE NEWTON,
5310 Keller Springs, Dallas, Texas 75248.
January 16.

>From Mr Henry MacLean

Sir, If I wish to read an anti-capitalist, anti-American left-wing
polemic I will buy The Guardian.

If you wish to feature the work of Mr le Carré in future, then I
suggest that you restrict yourself to his fictional output.

Yours faithfully,
HENRY MacLEAN,
Dunglass View,
Strathblane, Stirlingshire G63 9BQ.
January 15.

>From Mr Mladen Andrijasevic

Sir, What utter nonsense coming from the best spy novelist of all
time.

George Smiley must be turning in his grave. So probably is Karla.

Sincerely,
MLADEN ANDRIJASEVIC,
Meir Grossman 19/10,
Be'er Sheva, Israel.
January 15.

Thanks for the letters - can you post or email me a link to the site so I can get the replies instead of trying to cut and paste from here? I will most definitely send copies of the letters to the person who sent the original text to me - good to invite a discussion.

On another note, I didn't take Le Carre's letter as being so much "Anti-American" as being Anti-Bush and Anti-War. And I do take issue with the title of the piece, as well. And, further, I must say that I question that "88%" support for the war against Iraq (I think that the only time I have seen legitimate poll numbers that high was in the days immediately following the attacks).

However, I do agree that Bush seems to be out of control at this point and I am dismayed that the U.K. is following his lead. I find that I am siding with the German and French stance on letting the inspectors finish their jobs before any decision is made. And further, I firmly believe that the only long-term possible solution is diplomatic, not military.

Finally, I must say that I do agree with Le Carre's assessment of Bush's Middle East Policy (which is refered to as being "America's Policy," unfortunately). I am horrified by Bush's statements that anyone who does not agree with him is anti-semitic, anti-american, and pro-terrorist. It seems to me that this stance is the antithesis of the rights granted to Americans through the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. The idea that we must all think alike and will be punished or discriminated against if we might think differently is repulsive and reprehensible, to say nothing of the fact that to even suggest taking such a stand is anti-the American ideals as represented in our Constitution. At this point I am ashamed that Bush is representing the U.S. to the world. I do not believe that he truly represents the general American populace and I do not believe that he has the best interests of the average American in mind as he makes these ludicrous proclamations.
But, thanks again for posting the response letters - it is refreshing to know that at least some people are making their beliefs known publically.

Le Carre is the pulp novelist who wanted to throw Rushdie to the wolves right?

Saw Le Carre at the NFT (ostensiably in a discussion about Alec Guinness) where he very briefly outlined bits and bobs of the above. After the release of The Constant Gardner (ex spy gets his own back at multinational drug companies) he has become somewhat of a darling of the anti-globalization groups. But his experiences both within the fields of espionage and his unsubtle cynicism about pretty much all government manouvering over the last fifty years is certainly nothing new.

Is there a reason the English take this guy seriously? I mean even Republicans don't take Tom Clancy seriously.

the girl shags someone other than the hero in le carré's books = he is a front-rank modern novelist of depth and insight

Also, is his last name really Le Carre? Cuz it seems like just the sort of name he'd make up (it's like a grocery store instant gourmet coffee).

Its a psuedonym. His real name is David John Moore Cornwell. He used to be a diplomat (but now he's down the laundromat - cheers Spandau Ballet) for which also read a spy too.

This is just one more sign that the Bush regime is finally experiencing 'the tipping point'.

''And I do take issue with the title of the piece, as well. And, further, I must say that I question that "88%" support for the war against Iraq (I think that the only time I have seen legitimate poll numbers that high was in the days immediately following the attacks).''

yes but also this: ''A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre.'' is this correct?

As in the following letter: a "cleverly-worded question" might get that result, one supposes, but I don't think it's an accurate reflection of sentiment in the least. (Cleverly-worded question might = "Do you believe there is any possibility that the Iraqi government was in any way supportive of or connected to etc etc.")

"Wouldn't you say it's not entirely impossible that Saddam may not have been unconnected to the September 11 attacks? Yes or No."

I've no idea about the polls these days. It all seems to be in the wording and the options given for possible answers. And the polls appear (at least on the TV) to have given-up on announcing the margin of error, too. And, of course, I almost recall reading a text called "How to Lie With Statistics," so maybe I'm just being cynical.

I do know that the current polls are not representative of my beliefs or those of my social circle. But maybe we're just a lost minority. Though, the latest polls do seem to be implying that more (though still not a majority of) Americans are finally shying away from the idea of a war with Iraq - or are shying away unless the attack is backed by the U.N. But then again, the stance being taken by Germany and France is actually pushing some people toward being in favor of the invasion regardless of the U.N. vote, 'cause they are reacting negatively to the idea that some other (meaning "lesser" in their minds) country is foolishly attempting to dictate the actions of "the greatest country in the world" (again, not my wording or beliefs).

Also, along the lines of polls - I saw a clip on CNN earlier about polls and if they will affect Bush's decision - the White House response was something to the effect of "Nope, no matter if the polls show that 80% of Americans are against going after Saddam and the President still believes it's the right decision, then he's going to go ahead and do what he thinks is best for the country." Refreshing to know that this elected official (well, guy who stole the vote, at least, but I'm not intending to dig that up again) pays attention to the voice of the American people and tailors his decisions based on the desires and beliefs of the majority of his populace.

Crap, now I've got myself all steamed-up again. Oh well.

i thought there was going to be something new in this post, there wasn't. funny how he fails to mention the french interests in keeping saddam in power for fear of losing the rights to develop the majnoon. why no grief about the french selling him a nuclear reactor? why no grief about the fact that it is the workers world party organizing all of the anti-war protests, most of the dolts int he crowd had no clue.
a president is supposed to do what he believes to be the right thing, it's a republic Clinton was so paralyzed by polls he never did a thing. i'd imagine he and his advisors are a bit more informed than you are or shoudl they have a town meeting to discuss military and diplomatic solutions?

but this picture
says it best.the motivation for the war may not be pure, hussein has been in violation of the terms of surrender for 11 years if he was removed it would lead to less suffering by iraqis and the support for war in iraq is probably much higher than it is here.

keith -- if a far-left party is organizing the protests behind the scenes but is SO DEEP UNDERCOVER that it takes journalists to point it out and nobody at the protests really knows or gives a damn, then does it really matter that it's a far-left party organizing them?

what's majnoon?

Michael Kelly's editorial, from 22 Jan:

The left in America has for a long time now resembled not so much a political movement as a contest to see how many schismatics could dance on the head of a pin, a conversation that has gone from being national to factional to simply eccentric. At some point, progressive politics reached a state where freeing Mumia was considered critical and electing a Democratic president was considered optional.
    Then came Sept. 11, and the left found itself plunged into a fundamental debate on a subject of fundamental importance. And this was a debate in which to be of the left was to be, by definition, involved: In al Qaeda and in the Taliban and in Saddam's Iraq, liberal civilization faced an enemy that represented nearly every evil that liberalism has ever stood against.
    What was the left going to do? A pretty straightforward call, you might say. America has its flaws. But war involves choosing sides, and the American side -- which was, after all, the side of liberalism, of progressivism, of democracy, of freedom, of not chucking gays off rooftops and not stoning adulterers and not whipping women in the town square, and not gassing minority populations and not torturing advocates of free speech -- was surely preferable to the side of the "Islamofascists," to borrow a word from the essayist and former man of the left, Christopher Hitchens.
    Which is the point: Hitchens is a former man of the left. In the left's debate, Hitchens insisted that progressives must not in their disdain for America allow themselves to effectively support the perpetuation of despotism, must not betray the left's own values. Others -- notably the political philosopher Michael Walzer, the independent essayist Andrew Sullivan, New Republic writer Jonathan Chait and New York Observer columnist Ron Rosenbaum -- also made this argument with great force and clarity.
    The debate is over. The left has hardened itself around the core value of a furious, permanent, reactionary opposition to the devil-state America, which stands as the paramount evil of the world and the paramount threat to the world, and whose aims must be thwarted even at the cost of supporting fascists and tyrants. Those who could not stomach this have left the left -- a few publicly, as did Hitchens and Rosenbaum, and many more, I am sure, in the privacy of their consciences.
    Last weekend, the left held large antiwar marches in Washington, San Francisco and elsewhere. Major media coverage of these marches was highly respectful. This was "A Stirring in the Nation," in the words of an approving New York Times editorial, "impressive for the obvious mainstream roots of the marchers."
    There is, increasingly, much that happens in the world that the Times feels its readers should be sheltered from knowing. The marches in Washington and San Francisco were chiefly sponsored, as was last October's antiwar march in Washington, by a group the Times chose to call in its only passing reference "the activist group International Answer."
    International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) is a front group for the communist Workers World Party. The Workers World Party is, literally, a Stalinist organization. It rose out of a split within the old Socialist Workers Party over the Soviet Union's 1956 invasion of Hungary -- the breakaway Workers World Party was all for the invasion. A.N.S.W.E.R. today unquestioningly supports any despotic regime that lays any claim to socialism, or simply to anti-Americanism. It supported the butchers of Beijing after the slaughter of Tiananmen Square. It supports Saddam and his Baathist torture-state. It supports the last official Stalinist state, North Korea, in the mass starvation of its citizens. It supported Slobodan Milosevic after the massacre at Srebrenica. It supports the mullahs of Iran, and the narco-gangsters of Colombia and the bus-bombers of Hamas.
    This is whom the left now marches with. The left marches with the Stalinists. The left marches with those who would maintain in power the leading oppressors of humanity in the world. It marches with, and stands with, and cheers on, people like the speaker at the Washington rally, Imam Musa of the mosque Masjid al-Islam, who declared "the real terrorists have always been the United Snakes of America," and then led the crowd in the Islamic bombers' chant "Allahu Akhbar!" It marches with people like the former Black Panther Charles Baron, who said in Washington, "if you're looking for the axis of evil, look inside the belly of this beast."
    The Times' "mainstream" Americans marched last weekend with people who held signs comparing the president and vice president of their country to Hitler, and declaring "The difference between Bush and Saddam is that Saddam was elected," and this one: "I want you to die for Israel. Israel sings Onward Christian Soldiers."
    March on.
    -----
    The Washington Post

the problem with a smear tactic like the post's, as a tactic, is actually that — precisely by insulting and demeaning everyone who's joined an anti-war march for a real reason (as opposed to a minute nutcase minority whose only lifeskills are printing off posters, who may have organised the march but have zero control over 99.% of the marchers) — this creates solidarity and cements dissent, as in "in for a penny in for a pound"

in other words everyone there who has actual issues with the war who NEVER took against america strongly before, who mainly like america, as well as a lot of people who didn't yet turn up but meant to, just got pushed into the anti camp by mike kelly's piece, and the wwp's stock probably just went up, for the first time in years

(on the other hand, i think the le carre piece probably drove a buncha ppl the other way)

So between the two pieces things have balanced out? The joys of the swinging pendulum. (Gotta love people who will swing back and forth based on the most recent article they've read - wasn't that Babbit's habit?)

i pretty much doubt it's the same ppl swinging back and forth — anyway all i mean is, both pieces suck as agitprop AND analysis

I think it is rather valid to point out that there have been no feasible solutions to the Iraq/NK problem proposed by the left beyond simple isolationism.

I think the thing is that much of the left would dearly love to intervene to overthrow tyrants but they're not thrilled by the way the government is applying its standards haphazardly to this approach. Certainly that's Chomsky's take, among others.

the left don't have bazillion-dollar funded think-tanks: their job isn't to propose solutions, it's to mess stuff up until the massed minds paid for by the powerful are forced to come up with new, more acceptable solutions

Really? I thought the left was supposed to form coalitions involving like-minded individuals and elect leaders who could then establish bazillion-dollar funded think-tanks with a liberal bent to come up with more acceptable solutions. Or does being in any position of power automatically remove your 'leftness'?

being in a position of power automatically removes your need to have recourse to voting, meetings, marches, strikes, whatever, to remind those in power that your intuitions and fears and worries and sensibilities are also part of the stuff that need to be taken into account in a democracy

the 18th century theorists of democracy were very hostile to parties, which they referred to in derogatory manner as "faction" bcz they felt it distorted the free play of politics

(kinda like how mega-corporations fuck with the concept of the "invisible hand of the market")

I don't quite grasp that what you've just said defines leftism, though

Leftism - liberalism - radicalism is and always has been to me the name ascribed to those who want to change the status quo in favor of greater social freedoms and economic regulations.

The 18th-century theorists of democracy also didn't have a great deal of practice

>I think it is rather valid to point out that there have been no
> feasible solutions to the Iraq/NK problem proposed by the left beyond
> simple isolationism.

First of all, there is no Iraq problem. Let's face it, no one would even be thinking about Iraq if Bush didn't have his odd obsession with it.

The North Korea problem is real and tricky. Bush's policy toward NK since he gained office have royally fucked up the situation, but its doubtful with a regime like NK's its possible even a master diplomat could find a happy solution. Military strikes are not an option, unless one is willing to accept hundreds of thousands of dead south korean/americans (and possibly millions of NK's). NK will use nukes as a bargaining chip, and the US has to give NK incentives to not develope them furthewr, without appearing like it will cave into anything.