Johan Galtung is "a rare plant in Norway's intellectual garden" (Thomas Hylland Eriksen), "our international peace researcher" (NRK), "controversial, loved and hated ... an honorary doctor of seven universities, and honorary professor of four" (NRK), "Earth's foremost researcher on peace .. honorary professor of about 30 universities" (spiritweb.dk), "not only our quickest but our best non-fiction writer" (Dagbladet), winner of the 2000 Brage Prize for best non-fiction book (Brageprisen), "beloved and debated" (Cappelen), "a consultant to several UN agencies" (Democracy Now), "regarded as the father of peace studies" (University of Melbourne), "a modern alchemist who transmutes old ideas into new ones" (Danish Association for International Co-operation).

He's also the person who feared that the US would nuke Afghanistan after 9/11, who believes that the Bali attack in 2002 which killed nearly 200 Australians should be seen in light of the number of Australian pedophiles who come there, - and he's the author of this crazy opinion piece in Dagbladet.

The formerly pro-American people of Norway, Galtung believes, are now undergoing the same mental transition he observed in his Communist friends in the years after World War 2. Phase 0: Blind faith in the Soviet Union and anger against anyone who questions it. Phase 1: Making excuses. “You have to consider what they've been through”. Phase 2: Soviet dissenters are probably traitors. Phase 3: One person alone, Stalin, was to blame. Nothing wrong with the system itself. Phase 4: There's something fundamentally wrong here. Phase 5: The whole structure of Soviet society and empire is rotten. Phase 6: The idea itself of a Russian empire and dictatorship of the proletariat is pathological. Phase 7/trap: Excessive, fanatical anti-communism.

Many Norwegians, Galtung claims, are still in phase 0 in their relationswhip with the United States:

The simplistic rejection of all doubt about the US is therefore strong. The current “Norwegian” Minister of Offense, head of a department which since 1999 has attacked three countries, one every other year, as part of the American struggle to strengthen and expand its empire, is one example.

Most Norwegians, however, sense that there's something wrong about America, and are in phase 3: Place all blame on one person, George W. Bush. But “the empire is not something Bush invented”. Galtung shrugs off “naive attempts” to see today's Bush criticism as a continuation of a century-long tradition, the theory of Stian Bromark and Dag Herbjørnsrud in Frykten for Amerika (The Fear of America, reviewed here), but his own fear of America spans the centuries as well:

Others, including American Democrats, have killed far more than the 11-13 000 (?) victims so far in Iraq, ever since the English landed there in 1607 and 1620.

To place such historic evil on the shoulders of one man is thus both unfair and counterproductive. Like Stalin, we must conclude, Bush represents the American empire at its worst, but an election victory for “Bush light, John Kerry” won't change anything. The fall of Stalin was followed by interventions in East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The “dreadful number of American interventions to protect their economic empire with any excuse, the deaths, the suffering, the dictatorships, and the trampling across foreign cultures” transcends political party lines. America's evil, like that of the Soviet Union, is the evil of an idea. Galtung never specifies which idea he's thinking of, and he insists that he's no more an anti-American than the powers that fought the Nazis were anti-German, but when you see the history of America since the 17th century as one long variation on the theme of American empire, what's left to admire?

In his only actual example of imperial thinking in the US, Galtung abuses the esteemed Ralph Peters:

A Pentagon planner a few years ago said it clearly: “The de facto role of the United States Armed Forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.”

Galtung doesn't say who this Pentagon planner is, or what context he said it in, leaving readers to think that Pentagon have made plans for an aggressive foreign policy intended to preserve America's economic and cultural interests. But if you read what Ralph Peters wrote in the US Army War College Quarterly in 1997, in the article Constant Conflict, you find not a Pentagon plan of aggression, but a pessimistic prediction of the likely role the US will play in the near future. By its economic success and cultural power, which other countries will find difficult to emulate quick enough to please citizens reared on Hollywood glamour, the US will cause disillusionment and anger to be directed at itself.

Noncompetitive cultures, such as that of Arabo-Persian Islam or the rejectionist segment of our own population, are enraged. Their cultures are under assault; their cherished values have proven dysfunctional, and the successful move on without them. The laid-off blue-collar worker in America and the Taliban militiaman in Afghanistan are brothers in suffering. ..

For many such Americans, the world has collapsed, even as the media tease them with images of an ever-richer, brighter, fun world from which they are excluded. These discarded citizens sense that their government is no longer about them, but only about the privileged. Some seek the solace of explicit religion. Most remain law-abiding, hard-working citizens. Some do not.

The foreign twin is the Islamic, or sub-Saharan African, or Mexican university graduate who faces a teetering government, joblessness, exclusion from the profits of the corruption distorting his society, marriage in poverty or the impossibility of marriage, and a deluge of information telling him (exaggeratedly and dishonestly) how well the West lives.

We're heading for a future of constant, low-level conflict:

The have-nots will hate and strive to attack the haves. And we in the United States will continue to be perceived as the ultimate haves. States will struggle for advantage or revenge as their societies boil. Beyond traditional crime, terrorism will be the most common form of violence, but transnational criminality, civil strife, secessions, border conflicts, and conventional wars will continue to plague the world, albeit with the "lesser" conflicts statistically dominant. In defense of its interests, its citizens, its allies, or its clients, the United States will be required to intervene in some of these contests. We will win militarily whenever we have the guts for it.

There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.

Galtung's quote placed in italics. Did he bother to check the context? The quote is floating around on left-wing/anti-war websites as an example of America's evil intentions. None of them, apparently, could be bothered to read the article they were referring to. Doing this becomes even harder, of course, when you don't quote Pentagon analyst Ralph Peters' article from 1997, but “a Pentagon planner”. Dishonest, sloppy or apathic, pick your choice. (Whichever it is, Galtung is a repeat offender - he's used it before. See also Professor Bunyip.)

Up until this point in the article, Galtung has presented no more than a respectable amount of paranoia, nothing that shocks Norwegian Dagbladet readers, who are used to moronic and ignorant claims about the evils of America. But then there's this, an almost Ann Coulter-like piece of hysteria:

Norwegian ministers of state, foreign policy and “defense”, who with good conscience have let themselves be led by the exploiters, murderers and torturists of America, ought to be put under surveillance as useful idiots of the American empire. Placing them on trial for “betraying the peoples of the world” ought to be in order. An apology would help, or at minimum some self criticism. How could I let myself be fooled by the US? What was my fault of intellect or conscience, when I could see the splinter in the eye of the Maoists, but not the wooden beam in my own eye? ..

This self criticism won't happen. But when the people of the world and the people of America, through violence, non-violence, economic boycott etc. finally breaks the back of American imperialism, I'm sure the Norwegian elites will feel relieved.

Here's a question for those of my readers who might have held some respect for Galtung's work as a “professor of peace”: Now that you've read his call to place Norway's pro-American politicians under surveillance and brought to trial, and his comparison of the Maoist “splinter” with the pro-American “wooden beam”, in which of Galtung's eight phases do you currently find yourself in relation to Galtung himself? Denial, apologism, concern, disillusionment? Just curious.

Eager to keep his distance from those crazy people who really, really hate America, Norway's Noam Chomsky ends by warning that “a late conversion from imperialism to concern for human rights must not take the form of blind anti-Americanism or antisemitism.” Right. We'll keep that in mind.

It is something I have noted from my own humanities and social "science" studies: what is the real standard for being an intellectual? How do you identify the difference between pseudo-intellectual nonsense and solid thought?

In the science and engineering departments it is so much easier (even as crackpots from new age and creationism have mounted some serious challenges also against traditional science). If your math do not successfully predict the trajectory of a celestial object, it is not sufficient to blame neo-colonialism or sexism. If your bridge collapses on itself, it hardly helps to blame the steel for being attached to the old paradigm.

I have encountered many highly intelligent people in the "softer" departments, too, but it surely has its number of flying moonbats like Galtung, and journalists and activists generally prefer the latter. There is no solid methodology for distinguishing between good and bad, and so these pseudo-intellectuals are spweing out total nonsense hidden behind the prestige of a professor chair.

Like those unschooled in science can be easy pickings for the nonsense that is creationism, those who are unschooled in critical thought easily falls for the pseudo-intellectual jargon of frauds like Galtung and Chomsky. But in science we can point to the real thing and present hard scientific evidence that any honest individual can evaluate for him or herself, if they are willing to do some reading. With prose like Galtung's insanity, the only comparable debunking we can do is, as Bjørn so eminently did, pointing to his errors of fact and his dishonest misquotation (quotemining is, incidentally, also a favourite with creationists). His text is high on rhetoric and tragically short on facts.

Jan: Or you can test their predictions, when they're brave enough to make them. Chomsky's belief that there was a silent genocide going on in Afghanistan in 2001, or Galtung's fear of a nuclear response after 9/11, should make people ask how well they actually know the issues they're talking about. But that doesn't seem to happen.

First he compares the US unfavourably to the Soviet Union. Then he advocates show trials for pro-American citizens, followed by self criticism. What, no Room 101?

Ralph Peters has a current article in FrontPage that is on point.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14321

-----
"The silence of the Left in the face of uncomfortable truths is a hallowed tradition, of course, dating back to the earliest crimes of the Soviet Union. When the reality confronting the Left contradicts the theory, the theory must be preserved at any cost.

"And there’s no sign of improvement, not a glimmer of the least scrap of conscience or integrity on the Left. It’s all about revenge against a democratic system that gives a blue-collar worker a vote equal to that of a university professor’s ballot, about hatred for the free market for providing better lives for the great majority while Marxism drowned in the bile of its victims. There’s no one the new American Left so despises as the working man or woman who continues to believe in the United States."

...

"The global Left never cared about the Iraqi people until they became American “victims.” As Saddam Hussein slaughtered more Muslims through campaigns of oppression and wars of aggression than any tyrant since Tamerlane, the Left remained silent. But now that Saddam himself might face the death penalty, Leftists everywhere are wringing their hands at the thought of such injustice."

...

"The truth is that our Left is so intellectually decrepit, so infected by dishonesty, so morally feeble that it has only breath enough to condemn American actions. No matter how many brown or black human beings suffer around the world—starved, ethnically cleansed, raped, tortured, murdered—it doesn’t count unless you can blame America."

...

"The domestic tragedy in all this hysterical propagandizing by the Left isn’t just the election-year divisiveness—it’s that our country needs a conscientious Left, with robust ideas to challenge those of the Right and the integrity to defend humankind, not just the rulings of an informal politburo.

"Competition is vital in a democracy. Conservatives should rue the moral and intellectual weakness of the contemporary Left. Without competition, every system atrophies. With honest competition, we all perform at a higher level. It’s a sad day for our country when the Left’s philosophy comes from Michael Moore."
-----

Hmm...an embryological Yankeephobe McCarthyism...
This has possibilities...

Years from now, think of what darling intellectual and cultural heroes these Pro-American types will be! There'll be movies, plays, and TV show episodes inspired by the victims of Galtungism and their examples! They'll be held up as heroes for schoolkids!

Hmm...an embryological Yankeephobe McCarthyism...
This has possibilities...

Years from now, think of what darling intellectual and cultural heroes these Pro-American types will be! There'll be movies, plays, and TV show episodes inspired by the victims of Galtungism and their examples! They'll be held up as heroes for schoolkids!

While I find no one but my own thoughts to be one hundred percent right I would say often this lunatic hits the mark square center after coming at things from the wrong angle.

Allowing every country with two shiny pennies to rub together has taken their greatest thinkers and given them as much knowledge as possible and asked "What next?". Can you expect for a minute that America has not had think tanks that predict future events and steer the course of the nation accourding to what scenario a days events have taken the country?

Would you for a minute believe Americas army do not protect Americas political interest. That it did from it's conception until present day? And that it will do so in the future to the tune of huge death counts if need be?

And moving along to the precipt of watching "Pro Americans". Watching is something every country does to other countries and it's citizens that enter into their country. Watching a group because of advertised Pro beliefs would only seem the sensable thing to do. If by chance something bad did happen would not the cry from the public be why weren't they watched?

He also portrays a basic fact of propaganda in that of course other countries not friendly with another, or even those they are allied with, will broadcast and portray the other as evil, decadent, fat, lazy, poor, prosperous, cannabalistic, pedophiles, slavers, killers, murderers, swine, dogs, rats, and a whole host of other names meant to deman and make deragatory.

His phases seem correct but the need for five through seven seems uneeded as all those phases would or could happen within seconds to a thinking person. By substituting any country in the field the same results would be yielded which leads to the basic conclusion that all governments are integrally flawed or bad. This being a fact would bear out the formula. All governments have flaws. All are bad. Arguing degrees ignores the formula which does work. Instead of American say Iraqi. French. Spanish. Saudi. Depending upon mindset and preformed conclusions the formula will work with any country the reader or listener disagrees with. Refusing to acknowledge those one likes doesn't make it untrue.

Sure the guys a lunatic. But aren't we all?

Lynxx Pherret: Ralph Peters writes "And there’s no sign of improvement, not a glimmer of the least scrap of conscience or integrity on the Left."

What, not even a _glimmer_ of the _least_ scrap of conscience? There's a lot of sense in that article, but this is just hyperbole: The other side isn't just often or mostly wrong, they're _totally without exception_ wrong, and wicked too.

I like Peters better when his pulse is lower.

Bjorn:

Please don't mistake this as an apology for Mr. Peter's tone, though I do understand his frustration.

His characterization of last summer's heat related fatalities in Europe seemed to me at first glance harsh.

After reading his entire piece, I see why he chose to open with a reference to this tragedy.

"The Left’s Crimes of Silence" attempts to shock the reader into an awareness of just how little relevance the concept of intellectual coherence holds for today's American Leftists.

The rant-like tone is an expression of a frustration that I share with Ralph Peters.

Several days after the tragedy of 9/11/01, I was told by an otherwise average person in my overwhelmingly liberal and eclectic downtown Minneapolis neighborhood that "afterall we had it coming".

I was shocked, if for no other reason than that most of the victims were civilians, who certainly did not "have it coming".

I should point out that I had voted for Al Gore in 2000, and although an independant, had never voted Republican and believed that I never would.

The shocking comment to which I refered and the events of 9/11 forced a complete reevaluation of my politics, as well as many other aspects of my existence.

At the most basic I discovered a lack of critical
thinking, and a blind willingness to operate upon false assumptions.

In the same way that loneliness can be exacerbated by the expectation of not being alone, Mr. Peter's frustration arises I believe, from an expectation of intellectual continuity and critical thinking on the part of the Left.

I believe he expects too much.

Zeyad, of "Healing Iraq" has this quote on the top of his blog page:

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into." Jonathan Swift

I believe this quote is relevant to this discussion.

I wholeheartedly agree with Ralph Peters when he says:

"The domestic tragedy in all this hysterical propagandizing by the Left isn’t just the election-year divisiveness—it’s that our country needs a conscientious Left, with robust ideas to challenge those of the Right and the integrity to defend humankind, not just the rulings of an informal politburo."

It is difficult to move a nation, or the world for that matter, forward, when a political party which purports to speak for 50% of the population has it's head buried in the past, and it's vision clouded by an obsolete and bankrupt ideology.

And we're "crushing dissent."

Just put them in the soccer field blindfolded and get on w/it.

Of course, what this guy _really_ has against Americans is that neither I nor any other American has heard of Norway's "best non-fiction writer".

That's not to brag -- there's an enormous amount that we miss out on (although there are good reasons why that's so) and no doubt it's a shame that the only Norwegians any of us know about are Ibsen and A-Ha. But let's at least be honest about what's really gotten Professor Galtung's goat.

Of course, what this guy _really_ has against Americans is that neither I nor any other American has heard of Norway's "best non-fiction writer".

That's not to brag -- there's an enormous amount that we miss out on (although there are good reasons why that's so) and no doubt it's a shame that the only Norwegians any of us know about are Ibsen and A-Ha. But let's at least be honest about what's really gotten Professor Galtung's goat.

I tend to agree with you about Peters, Bjorn. He's more heated and blunt in the New York Post and Frontpage than in Parameters.

"The de facto role of the United States Armed Forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy..."

When done right, American intervention *does* keep the world safe for our economy. We can't sell stuff unless somebody can afford our stuff. And the people most capable of doing so are those who have the most freedom to engage in commerce on their own terms without fiscally overbearing governments (Belarus), rampant private-sector crime (South Africa), or both (the semi-autonomous and out of control Palestinian Arabs).

The oft-heard cultural imperialism charge is laughable. Individuals in open societies borrow from foreign cultures of their own initiative all the time. My music collection has W. A. Mozart tapes recorded in England (Academy of St Martin-in-the-Field) and Ravi Shankar live at Moscow. Americans eat food from all over the world, and much of the world has American fast food chains. When the US occupied Japan, Germany, France, and elsewhere, the soldiers and the locals influenced each other; the cultural exchange wasn't just one-way.

The *real* cultural imperialists are that subset of the Left who regard public education systems as means to mold children in the politically correct image of the State, with little or no recognition of the authority of parents to decide how their children will be socialized.

It is good to see that Norweogans also have their share of nuts. After reading this blog for several months I had thought that only intelligent people inhabited Norway. What a relief!

It is good to see that Norwegians also have their share of nuts. After reading this blog for several months I had thought that only intelligent people inhabited Norway. What a relief!

And the one thing about our "cultural imperialism" is you don't have to partake in it. Don't drink Coke, drink Zam-Zam or whatever, buy Arafat chips.

No one forces anyone. We don't make money, we leave for more profitable shores.

As for cultural imperialism, in the US the press is not restricted or funded by the government which is not the case in Europe. InEurope of press recieves government subsidies

Galtung has always been a kook and a hypocrite. In his time he defended the cultural revolution in China, persecution of dissidents in the Soviet union and of course the "revolution" in Cambodia. He is worth listening to, though: he is always 180 degrees of course, making him a useful moral compass.

An American living in Norway writes about anti-Americanism. Very interesting.

http://www.hudsonreview.com/BawerSp04.html

This little quote seems like a concise summary of the "American dichotomy" in Europe:

"Willis’ anecdotes range from the funny (he tells us that young Norwegian lawbreakers, who thanks to American TV shows are more familiar with the U.S. justice system than their own, routinely ask their arresting officers: “Aren’t you going to read me my rights?”) to the disturbing (Willis informs us, and doesn’t seem to find it particularly worrisome, that his “Arab friends” in Oslo consider 9/11 a Jewish conspiracy). "

On a somewhat related note:

http://tinyurl.com/54eur

http://tinyurl.com/3mfeq

Would anyone care to opinionate on these?

The best response was Steve Emerson's testimony before the 9/11 Commission -- really awesome statement whihc is here:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_emerson.htm

Alan:

>"The de facto role of the United States Armed Forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy..."

Tain't no other economy in this world worth doing right by...

>When done right, American intervention *does* keep the world safe for our economy. We can't sell stuff unless somebody can afford our stuff. And the people most capable of doing so are those who have the most freedom to engage in commerce on their own terms without fiscally overbearing governments (Belarus), rampant private-sector crime (South Africa), or both (the semi-autonomous and out of control Palestinian Arabs).

Well, AIN'T THAT the "dirty little secret" of EEEEVIL "Globalization"?

It has to be of use to the recipient, before it can be profitable to the provider!

You can't sell sand to Arabs.

Matt "You can't sell sand to Arabs." That is not true; you can sell them anything and any idea as long as it relates to US hatred.

It’s easy to criticize Galtung's article as pure nonsense, but at least he got one point worth mentioning. It’s a fact that more Norwegians (and European in general) have started to question how helpful the US foreign policy is for us. Under the cold war historians have stated that Norway was “as pro-American as it dared, as pro-Soviet as it had to be, and as pro-UN as it possibly could be.”. After Soviets fall it looks like Norway is as pro-USA as it must be, as pro-EU as it dares to be, and as PRO-UN as it possible could be.

If the US keeps breaking international law and show anti UN behavior the distance between our foreign policy will grow further. Norway will then look to EU to protect our military interests.

Kato: "It’s easy to criticize Galtung's article as pure nonsense, but at least he got one point worth mentioning. It’s a fact that more Norwegians (and European in general) have started to question how helpful the US foreign policy is for us."

Galtung's article really is pure nonsense, but yeah we're questioning US foreign policy all right. The problem is that we're doing it not out of a real understanding of how the US works, nor the rest of the world. And our perspective is narrow and hypocritical.

"If the US keeps breaking international law and show anti UN behavior the distance between our foreign policy will grow further."

Which international laws do you believe the US have broken? And why is it wrong to go against the UN?

"Norway will then look to EU to protect our military interests."

Not today we can't - there's no such thing as EU foreign policy. And what are our military interests anyway? There's always a chance that Russia may try to revive its empire one day, (they're certainly headed in the wrong direction), but the threat we need to focus on today is Islamic terrorism. And on that front the US is a better partner than the EU. First, they're more aware of the problem. Second, they're willing to act to solve the problem. And third, they're able to. That's more than you can say for much of the EU.

Thanks for your response Bjørn. Btw. I'm a new reader of your interesting weblog.

It’s true that some Norwegians got little knowledge about how the political system works in the USA. Many Norwegians doesn’t event know how the political system works here in Norway  I can’t see the relevance in your argument though.

I think we are questioning US policy in a larger degree now because we see that their policy makes the world a more dangerous place to live in.

My personal view is that USA has broken the Geneva Convention on their treatment of prisoners and the UN charter, which didn’t authorize violence. Time will tell if their leaders have participated in war crimes. I know that your views might be different, but UN has stated that they have broken the charter.

Internationally we (Norway) got a very strong bond to UN. It’s not a perfect organization, but it’s the best we got. Historically it’s very un-American to go against UN – an organization that they have supported a long time; and therefore I mean it was stupid and wrong. Personally I think UN and international cooperation is the solution for Iraq.

Your statement that there is no foreign policy in EU is directly false. Our military interest should at least be not to create more terrorist in the world.

When it comes to Islam terrorism it’s a reason behind it. You will always have some crazy people that go blow a bomb because of religion, but mainly there is a political reason behind the terrorist actions and Islam is only something they hide behind. To fix this problem you must do something with the reasons and the criminals that are behind them.

I think you might have noticed that there is no security provided in most parts of Iraq today and yesterdays’ withdrawal of aid workers from Afghanistan show that the situation is not better there. Such scenario is the best scenarios terrorist can operate under and this might sadly help them continue with their crimes.

Kato - you really need to get out more and I'm glad you are. There are at least 15 Iraqi bloggers to get the good, the bad and the ugly.

As to the french drs leaving, well, the french surrender again. As usual, it's about them, not the Afghans.

The Afghans are hopeful.

http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/07/good-news-from-afghanistan-part-2.html

Bjorn has a poster, Ali Dashti, you should start listening to.

Maybe Ali will be kind enough again to post links that you should be reading.

We know what the reasons are behind it. You might not agree w/our way of fixing it, but I refuse to give up my inalienable and enumerated rights to get along. The swamp must be drained and we're doing the heavy lifting. This is the hard way out. Appeasement, money and nuking them are the easy way out.

And that goes for Europe also.

You, however, can accept them any time you please, as "the world" has had that opportunity for the past 200 years.

While the UN is the "best we've got" it can get better. It won't until you start demanding that it change. It's a 20th century construct which should be consigned to the 20th century.

It seems there might be something being created in its place:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/072904B.html

Kato: “I think we are questioning US policy in a larger degree now because we see that their policy makes the world a more dangerous place to live in.”

But this is not questioning in the literal sense. There's no curiosity about how Americans think about foreign policy, no interest in learning what American politicians and citizens believe in and why. As someone who shares some of these beliefs, trust me – they are almost never attempted explained in Norway, only condemned or caricatured. There's little real debate in Norway over the dilemmas America is facing. How can we make up a reasonable opinion about the choices they make when we don't know why they make them?

A lot of what is being said and written in Norway about foreign policy can be explained by a desire to look for faults with the US, and a desire to look away from them elsewhere. That is why none of Saddam's abuse against the Iraqi people received anywhere close to the coverage of the American abuse after the liberation. I'm not saying the American abuse wasn't important, that it shouldn't have been covered, but it is plain hypocrisy when people who ignored Iraq when its people were tortured to death by the hundreds of thousands suddenly start caring about them when it is the Americans who are in charge.

Or try a comparison with Putin's undemocratic government and its behavior in Chechnya: Now here's real authoritarianism, real oppression in the name of a war on terror. This is written about coolly and rarely, as it if happened far away, and not in a neighbouring European country.

So we know all about America's flaws, (some of them imaginary), but little about any dangerous or evil behavior by anyone else. We're just not very interested. The Americans don't have that luxury – they have to react to these dangers even if we pretend they don't exist. You can disagree with how they react, but you should first attempt to understand their position and how they think.

“My personal view is that USA has broken the Geneva Convention on their treatment of prisoners and the UN charter, which didn’t authorize violence.”

Which acts have violated which sections of the Geneva Convention? I don't mean to say it hasn't happened, but there's a lot of vague accusations going about, many of them based in misunderstandings of the convention. For instance, enemy combatants dressed as civilians are not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war. This includes most of prisoners at Guantanamo.

As for the UN charter, it does allow self defense, but not preemptive self defense, so yeah there's a good chance that the war on Iraq violated the charter.

But here's the thing: If it is legal according to the Geneva convention to intern hundreds of unlawful combatants for years without judicial rights, that does not make it moral. And if it is illegal according to the UN charter to attack a mad dictator suspected of building nuclear weapons, that does not make it immoral. The legal angle is important, but not all important, as we in Norway pretend it is. There is not yet a global rule of law, and until there is it will sometimes be right to violate international agreements.

“Internationally we (Norway) got a very strong bond to UN. It’s not a perfect organization, but it’s the best we got.”

Not perfect is an understatement. The UN is a club half for real and semi-democracies, half for dictators. It is a meeting place for world leaders, it has no inherent moral value. It does not speak for the world. (Do the rulers of China speak for the Chinese?) It does not speak for democracy. It does not speak for Norwegian values. It doesn't even reflect the real power structure of the world any more.

Explain to me: What moral value can a security council veto from countries like Russia or China have? A decision by a General Assembly full of dictators? A statement from a Human Rights Commission which has Syria in it?

Norway has a historically strong bond to the US as well. The US is not perfect, but it's a democracy and it's largely well-intentioned. Unlike many countries in the UN, it feels no need to oppress anyone or create an empire, it believes in a world where everyone is as free as its own people.

“Your statement that there is no foreign policy in EU is directly false.”

Not one foreign policy, but many, which equals none. What was the EU foreign policy on the war on Iraq?

“When it comes to Islam terrorism it’s a reason behind it. You will always have some crazy people that go blow a bomb because of religion, but mainly there is a political reason behind the terrorist actions and Islam is only something they hide behind.”

What is this political reason? If it is as you say, then we should be able to point to something all these terrorists have in common that isn't religion, and yet separates them from all the angry people in the world who aren't terrorists: Something that connects wealthy educated Saudis to poor Pakistanis and Afghans, immigrants in Europe, Palestinians .. They're not all oppressed – Muslims in the West are free, and bin Laden was the very top of his society. They're not all poor, and they're not all involved in violent conflicts.

What they have in common is a totalitarian form of Islam, one that combines Islam with the utopian visions and the hatred we know from European totalitarianism. One person who explains this legacy very well is Paul Berman in Terror and Liberalism (which has been translated to Norwegian). You can look for a purely non-religious explanation if you like, but nothing makes sense unless you add that factor. And it's a factor powerful enough to override any others. No country has done more to help Muslims over the last decade than the US. No country is more hated by Islamists.

I am unsure whatr UN law the US broke now or in the past. For example, as regards Kosovo, Russia and China -- members of the Security Counsel -- voted agianst any action. The US led such an action thereafter. The General Assembly was also against such action. As regards Iraq, the Security Counsel voted on something a number of times and appears not to have condoned the US actions in Iraq as did the General Assembly. Thereafter the US and a number of other countries proceeded. What laws have been broken exactly? The best that can be said is that a nimberof self-intersted parties dispute what the US did. So?

I am unsure whatr UN law the US broke now or in the past. For example, as regards Kosovo, Russia and China -- members of the Security Counsel -- voted agianst any action. The US led such an action thereafter. The General Assembly was also against such action. As regards Iraq, the Security Counsel voted on something a number of times and appears not to have condoned the US actions in Iraq as did the General Assembly. Thereafter the US and a number of other countries proceeded. What laws have been broken exactly? The best that can be said is that a nimber of self-interested parties dispute what the US did. So. What else is new?

A lefty begins to grow - and might make Kato go, "hmmmm....."

...We were attacked three years ago, without warning or predicate event [I strongly disagree with this-mrp]. The attack was not a gesture of heroic resistance nor the offshoot of some bright utopian resolve, but the very flower of a movement that delights in the potential for martyrdom expressed in the squalls of the newly born. It is a movement that is about death�that honors death, that loves death, that fetishizes death, that worships death, that seeks to accomplish death wherever it can, on a scale both intimate and global�and if it does not warrant the expenditure of what the self-important have taken to calling "blood and treasure," then what does? Slavery? Fascism? Genocide? Let's not flatter ourselves: If we do not find it within ourselves to identify the terrorism inspired by radical Islam as an unequivocal evil�and to pronounce ourselves morally superior to it�then we have lost the ability to identify any evil at all, and our democracy is not only diminished, it dissolves into the meaninglessness of privilege...

It's making the rounds of the American blogosphere - Esquire is a left-leaning 'zine. Lots of elitists and Liberals like it.

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?item_id=...

Bjørn,

Please let me know what you mean by “No country has done more to help Muslims over the last decade than the US”.

I will happily respond more later, but I find this statement very interesting.

Thanks.

Sandy P

” Kato - you really need to get out more and I'm glad you are. There are at least 15 Iraqi bloggers to get the good, the bad and the ugly.”

What do you mean by get out more often? Is it coming to this web site? If so I’m also glad.

I’m just as happy as you that there also is some good news coming from Afghanistan. I can see that a lot of people register for vote although they got other views on democracy than we do. Sadly it’s very easy to find faults but you need to look deeper to find good things.

I’m not happy with MSF leaving the country after 23 years of operation. I’m disturbed by their critics of the US army practice of distributing humanitarian aid in exchange for intelligence information. I hope you are too.

Here you can see news articles regarding the latest MP report from England that also looks on the worsening security situation in Afghanistan despite the US is doing what they can: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&ie=UTF-8&...

The report is available here: http://www.fco.gov.uk...

And Sandy P, I do not consider myself “left winger” and I do not think you should consider me that neither. That word doesn’t make much sense any longer. I guess some “right wingers” are very “left wingers” on some issues and visa versa. The world is not black and white, east or west, right or left any longer although some people still wants it to be.

Kato - define "left-winger."

Euro or American definition?

No, I meant surfing the world.

France and Europe have different views on democracy than Americans, so what's the big deal? (Showed the phrench the way 225 years ago and all they got was the Reign of Terror.)

Depends on what kind of intel - like people trying to kill them? Docs could have stayed.

Thanks for the links.

OT via the Blogfather:

Zeyad is back with more Iraqi blogs - links at Healing Iraq.

As to simplisme - black and white, you should review Bjorn's posting on this:

/warblog/000742.html

Sandy P,

The people of Europe don’t follow their tribes, like they will do in the next Afghan election. I both surf and read the world all the time and been doing it for many years

A “left winger” for me is someone who associates herself with communism, Marxism, anarchism or socialism. For an American it would also include social-democracy and liberalism, although not neo-liberalism. My point was that if you would like to put a label on me then please also stick that label to an issue and not in general.

I have read the hudsonreview article already. I share his views on Norwegian press although I’m not sure I share his views on social democracy. It was good reading!

Nice weekend to you all!

Sandy P,

And for the record: I do not hate America. I admire their cultural diversity, their ability to get thru rough times and much more.

--The people of Europe don’t follow their tribes,--

I guess that waits to be seen. Your tribes are your countries. Can't subsume(?) 1000 years of history w/legalities. It'll always bubble below the surface.

And thank your for your definition, it helps to start from the same base line. However, I do consider myself a "liberal" in the dictionary sense. I ID myself as a conservative, but on the libertarian test I scored in the anarcho-libertarian column.

Kato: "Please let me know what you mean by “No country has done more to help Muslims over the last decade than the US”."

I was thinking of the interventions in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo - as well as Afghanistan and Iraq. In the first three the primary objective was to save the life of Muslims, and in the last two, doing good for the Muslim populations of Afghanistan and Iraq has been one of the main objectives of the rebuilding.

Bush could easily have put loyal dictators in charge in Afghanistan and Iraq, while achieving most of the goals of the invasions. 20 or 30 years ago, he probably would have. But he took the chance on democracy. That shows a desire to help Muslims which combined with the ability to do so is unique. The Americans are far better friends of the world's Muslims than France, Germany or Russia.

Not to mention that the US took the Arab World's side during the Suez Crisis way back in the 50s (against our allies France and Britain) and is also the largest contributor of humanitarian aid to Muslims displaced by Sudanese ethnic cleansing in Darfur, and also contributed a whole team of doctors, humanistarian supplies and medical supplies during the Bam earthquake in Iran.

Certainly, the US has done more for Muslims than Muslims have ever done for us.

Just wanted to point out for those who believe the U.S. acted illegally by invading Iraq...

Iraq was in flagrant breach of the peace agreements that concluded the first Gulf War. Examples include continual non-compliance with weapons inspectors and engaging(every day, for 10 years!) U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zones.

"By its economic success and cultural power, which other countries will find difficult to emulate quick enough to please citizens reared on Hollywood glamour, the US will cause disillusionment and anger to be directed at itself."

Yup thats it. The whole arab world hates the US because of that pesky Brad Pitts preformance in "Troy" and that horrible "Jackass - the movie". As baby-Bush said it "they hate freedom". Not only oversimplyfing but also ignoring history.

From the R.Peters paper:
"We are building an information-based military to do that killing. There will still be plenty of muscle power required, but much of our military art will consist in knowing more about the enemy than he knows about himself, manipulating data for effectiveness and efficiency, and denying similar advantages to our opponents."

Yup, a nicely oiled machine it is too. It can make "enriched uranium" pop up out of nowhere in the african jungle as well. Mobile WMD-labs at a button-press. Does it matter that its all a lie - nah.

B. Stærk:
"Now that you've read his call to place Norway's pro-American politicians under surveillance and brought to trial, and his comparison of the Maoist “splinter” with the pro-American “wooden beam”, in which of Galtung's eight phases do you currently find yourself in relation to Galtung himself? Denial, apologism, concern, disillusionment?"

The problem is that there exists no written law for a foreign minister to support an unjustified war. The peoples opinion in Norway was clear on this matter. Still he went against it. He should not be arrested, but sent to the frontlines in Iraq, if he is so eager to shed blood.

Mat B:

Israel has been in breach of a UN resolution for quite a while now. Surly the US should uphold the same standard for any nation breaking a peace agreement ? Guess not.

B.Stærk:
"Bush could easily have put loyal dictators in charge in Afghanistan and Iraq, while achieving most of the goals of the invasions. 20 or 30 years ago, he probably would have. But he took the chance on democracy. That shows a desire to help Muslims which combined with the ability to do so is unique. The Americans are far better friends of the world's Muslims than France, Germany or Russia."

How have you measured that ? On the "muslim-friend-o-meter" ? Performed any opinion polls in any arab nation this summer ?

"Took a change on democracy". Its hardly a shot in the dark for peace. (no pun intended). Under the same disguise of democracy that brought him to the precidency, he invaded Iraq. He didnt have any choice. Without that banner, no soldier could ever killed innocent sivilians and gotten away with it. "They dont realize its for their own good". Who elected the prime minister in Afghanistan ? The people ?

Pål Kristiansen: "Yup thats it. The whole arab world hates the US because of that pesky Brad Pitts preformance in "Troy" and that horrible "Jackass - the movie". As baby-Bush said it "they hate freedom". Not only oversimplyfing but also ignoring history. "

First – I assume you're not arguing that Galtung quoted Peters correctly. That was my main point, not that Peters is necessarily correct, (though I believe that too). Second – You're the one who oversimplyfies here. You can't argue against that American culture is one of the most visible in the world, with a presence in just about every part of the world that is wealthy enough to own the technology to import it (radio, TV, cinema). And the image they're selling is of a successful, wealthy America far ahead of anything people in the third world can expect in the near future. American culture also implicitly champions values that are incompatible with the values of some non-Western ideologies. Are you saying that this does not cause resentment against the US?

"Yup, a nicely oiled machine it is too. It can make "enriched uranium" pop up out of nowhere in the african jungle as well. Mobile WMD-labs at a button-press. Does it matter that its all a lie - nah. "

Where does Peters advocate lying to the American public? What he's talking about here is use of information in the warfare itself.

"The problem is that there exists no written law for a foreign minister to support an unjustified war. The peoples opinion in Norway was clear on this matter. Still he went against it. He should not be arrested, but sent to the frontlines in Iraq, if he is so eager to shed blood. "

Huh? Again there's an implied "yes but" here that is disturbing, so let's get that out of the way first: You do agree that Galtung's statement about surveilling pro-Americans is moronic?

And don't forget what we're talking about here. Norway never supported the invasion of Iraq. We came in later, with UN approval. But that apart – are you saying that the Norwegian government should base its foreign policy on polls? And are you advocating that the military be removed from civilian control, so that only those who are sent to the frontlines get to make decisions about going to war?

"How have you measured that ? On the "muslim-friend-o-meter" ? Performed any opinion polls in any arab nation this summer ? "

That only measures gratitude, which isn't the same thing. Don't change the subject.

The next paragraph: What are you saying? I'm serious, I can't parse it. You're using a vague, non-committal style where insinuations and rhetorical questions replace clarity.

Let me clarify a few things:

Im saying that the culture imperialism is a very small part of the resentment against the US. Warcrimes and oppression will always affect people stronger than McDonalds and Brad Pitt. By stating that culture is the reason, you make their case weaker and the US' cause stronger. I thought it was unfair - thats all.

Peters is pretty clear on that the new conflicts will be won by superiority in information gathering and understanding. Isn't it a bit ironic then that the current big war is fought on grossly inacurate and faulty information. Peters was probably right on this issue but I only noted it interesting that is has been poorly implemented by the last two american presidencies.

Of course I dont agree with putting pro-americans in Norway under surveilance. I honestly don't think Galtung really means it either. Read between the lines. But I get his point though. Its really simple really. The majority of the people (a big part of that democracy thing, I've heard) was againt this war. The leaders of this country did less than little to prevent it. Actually we helped. When you kid doesnt do as its told, its grounded. How do we punish disobedient state leaders ? Galtung only provided an answer to show the frustration of the situation in my wiev.

"Do I feel that government should base its foreign policy on polls ?"

If we lived in a democracy that doesnt sound too bad. However "the pigs on the farm made decision for the other animals because their minds where inferior". Of course direct-democracy isnt practical, but this wasn't an everyday decision. It was about war. It was about peoples lives. It was about a country's future. It was about the region. Taking a small look at public opinion in such matters seems wise to me.

"And are you advocating that the military be removed from civilian control, so that only those who are sent to the frontlines get to make decisions about going to war?"

Of course that cannot be done. Im advocating that a choice to go to war or support such actions should be the hardest thing anyone could ever do.
M. Moore have a nice perspective on this trying to recruite the senators kids to the war in Iraq. If its "worth it, despite the risks" then the risk should be equally distributed, not only to the lower classes of the society.

"The Americans are far better friends of the world's Muslims than France, Germany or Russia"

My question (maybe well hidden :) ) is, how do you back up that statement ? How do you measure such a thing ?

The last part was about democracy. You stated that it was something that Bush "took a chance" on. In my opinion its failed miserably. (Thats because its was really never the intention anyway.)
I dont want to get into it more but can only point to the "democracy" in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Pål: "If we lived in a democracy that doesnt sound too bad. However "the pigs on the farm made decision for the other animals because their minds where inferior". Of course direct-democracy isnt practical, but this wasn't an everyday decision. It was about war. It was about peoples lives. It was about a country's future. It was about the region. Taking a small look at public opinion in such matters seems wise to me."

First of all, we didn't participate in the war. We have provided support to the immense task of rebuilding Iraq _after_ the war. (And, no, most of the rebuilding-tasks is not caused by the war itself.) In compliance with a UN resolution nonetheless.

Secondly, your Orwell-quote is decidedly non sequitor, as there is a fundamental difference between the workings of the animal farm, and how a representative democracy works. The other animals _had no choice_ to remove the head pigs when it became evident that not everything was kosher on the farm.

In a representative democracy it is a _good thing_ when politicians are not fickle puppets in the sway of whatever the "compact majority" might think of an issue at any given time. It is your prerogative to vote SV in the next election if the rather modest support Norway has given to USA in the aftermaths of the Iraq war is an imperative issue to you.

"Galtung only provided an answer to show the frustration of the situation in my wiev."

This is the kind of rationalizing of extreme viewpoints I see cropping up more and more lately. "Moore only seeks to balance the LIES of the republicans, so I don't mind that he's lying himself" etc. Why, if you so vehemently believe that your stance is the right one, can't you find rational arguments to back up your case, instead of making up excuses for the people that shouts the loudest and shrillest? Isn't it even likely that the efforts by the likes of Galtung _undercuts_ your case with the zeal they exercise in overstretching their arguments?

There seems to be this hunger for extremism in the general Norwegian populace when it comes to what they want to hear on foreign policy. I can just imagine how many people were reading Galtung's piece and silently thought "Yeah, that'll show 'em allright!". As if somebody was listening..

"We have provided support to the immense task of rebuilding Iraq _after_ the war.".

Define "after the war". When peace arrived ? When there was democracy ? When there was stability. The war is raging my friend. Norway is represented there. You know this "humanitarian force" debate. Its another issue. Im way off topic already (sorry). Dont get me started ;)

About the Animal farm analogy: (its written "non sequitur" btw ;) ). They had the possibility to remove the pigs early on, but the lack of realization of the situation at hand together with the pigs arguments kept them silent. Our "pigs" argumented but we did not keep quiet. 10 millions demonstrated in the streets. Still we were ignored. My point was: we live in, as you say, a representative democracy. What group of people should the government represent ?

"Why, if you so vehemently believe that your stance is the right one, can't you find rational arguments to back up your case, instead of making up excuses for the people that shouts the loudest and shrillest?".

I dont think Galtung literally meant to put surveillance on pro-Americans. I interpreted that to be a expression of the feeling of powerlessness towards the situation. I cannot back up Galtungs motivation for writing as he did but I can identify with his (as I interpret them) toughts. Instead of asking me to defend another mans writings, why dont you disproof them ?

"There seems to be this hunger for extremism in the general Norwegian populace when it comes to what they want to hear on foreign policy.".

When the demand for truth and real democratic principles is regarded extreme there is something wrong, indeed.

I just wrote a reply, but your server crashed again. Now its lost. Too bad. This seemed like an interesting blog. I cannot use this anymore.

Pål: "The war is raging my friend. Norway is represented there."

Nonsence. I'm obviously not going to say that Iraq is in a flowery, happy, peaceful state right now, but the war ended April 9, 2003. I'm curious to see how you define war if you still think it's going on. And do you think it is of no importance at all _how_ we are represented there?

"its written "non sequitur" btw ;)"

Why you snarky little.. :) I'll get you for that..

"They had the possibility to remove the pigs early on, but the lack of realization of the situation at hand together with the pigs arguments kept them silent."

Are you suggesting that we are heading toward a totalitarian state? If not, I don't see the relevance.

"10 millions demonstrated in the streets. Still we were ignored."

There's nothing that impresses me quite as little as demonstrations. To paraphrase Terry Pratchett: "The IQ of a mob is figured out by dividing the IQ of the least intelligent person in the mob by the number of people in the mob." The larger they get, the stupider the message. :) Seriously, though, the demonstrations still only made out a small portion of the populace of the countries involved, so I don't see why politicians should bend over for that reason. The media overreporting on the demonstrations doesn't help either.

"What group of people should the government represent ?"

They should try their best to govern in accordance with their party guidelines and the promises made before the election. If they don't make you happy, it is, as stated earlier, your prerogative to remove them. I can't see how this should be so very difficult. If you want direct democracy and pacifism, move to Switzerland

"Instead of asking me to defend another mans writings, why dont you disproof them ?"

Well, it certainly doesn't look like I have to ask you to defend Galtung's ramblings, as you manage that quite fine without any pushing from me. (That's _disprove_ btw.. Ha, I knew I'd get you!) As for disproving his writings, well, did you read Bjørn's entry? I think he did a fine job on the major issues.

If there's anything I'd like to pick on in addition, it might be this little line from his article:

"[Because of the Norwegian 'diaspora'] Singleminded rejection of all doubts about USA therefor stands strong."

This is an interesting little quote. It's obviously not true, since it's evident that popular Norwegian opinion is generally not sympathetic to USA at all. So why does he say it? He needs to create an illusion of the few against the many. The brave, openminded minority, against the blinded majority. It's all just dramatic posturing, and it goes to show, as does most of the rest of the article, the abysmal lack of intellectual integrity Galtung possesses.

"When the demand for truth and real democratic principles is regarded extreme there is something wrong, indeed."

Truth and "real democratic principles" are fine and dandy things, I just don't see what they've got to do with Galtung. His twisting, bending and outright inventing of facts, doesn't exactly make him a barometer for truth in my book. "Real democratic principles" don't seem to mix too well with surveilance of Pro-American inhabitants either. Literal or not.

"I just wrote a reply, but your server crashed again. Now its lost. Too bad. This seemed like an interesting blog. I cannot use this anymore."

Sometimes it takes an unholy amount of time for a reply to register with the server. :) Anyway, just copy your replies to the clipboard when you're finished, and retry later if it doesn't get through the first time.

Don't give up Pål! Help is on the way...
(Petter comes booming in riding a Tomahawk missile for Påls rescue. What? The missile isn’t really meant for saving people, you say? Oh, darn... but at least the blast would look cool on CNN)

Seriously though...

John Ø. Welle wrote:
“Nonsence. I'm obviously not going to say that Iraq is in a flowery, happy, peaceful state right now, but the war ended April 9, 2003. I'm curious to see how you define war if you still think it's going on“.

I'm curious to see how you define war if you think the war ended April 9, 2003. Had you at least said May 1st. where G.W Bush held his (in)famous speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. April 9, 2003 with the fall of Baghdad was just an important milestone in that respect. If you look up the word “War” and in this respect “State of War” in Webster Online
(http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=state+of+war) you will find that a state of war is defined by “a legal state created and ended by official declaration regardless of actual armed hostilities and usually characterized by operation of the rules of war”. The war on Iraq was never ended by official declaration neither by the US or the Iraqis.
In fact Bush deliberately didn’t do this on May 1st. He just declared that "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." The reason for this was simple. If the US declared the war against Iraq for ended they would have to release all their POW (Prisoners of War) and stop hunting down Saddam Hussein and his Baath party according to the Geneva Conventions.
(http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/sprj.irq.bush.speech/index.html Pay attention to the last paragraph concerning “Victory and Geneva Conventions”.)

As a parallel it would be interesting to hear about your definition concerning the occupied Norway in WW2. By your definition we weren’t at war after the king and government fled to Great Britain? And what would you call the brave young men and woman of the Norwegian resistance who fought tirelessly until liberation in ’45 if we weren’t at war? Terrorists? The fact is that Norway never officially capitulated to the Germans. The Iraqis never capitulated to the US and US never declared the war for ended.
(In Norwegian only, http://www.aftenposten.no/fakta/verdenskrig/article674910.ece Legg merke til mandatet som ble overlevert Falkenhorst: ”Skal meddele at Kongen og regjeringen samt marinen og flygevåpenet har forlatt landet og at Norge som stat er og fremdeles vil være i krig med Tyskland”.)

John Ø. Welle wrote:
“And do you think it is of no importance at all _how_ we are represented there?”

Actually Pål clearly states that the question of “how” are of great importance. He refers to the "humanitarian force" debate but says he wouldn’t go into that. And since I also is a tad off topic I’m not going into that either.

"Petter comes booming in riding a Tomahawk missile for Påls rescue."

A modern day shining white knight! (I've heard unmounting those Tomahawk's sometimes proves, eh.. problematic though.)

"I'm curious to see how you define war if you think the war ended April 9, 2003. Had you at least said May 1st. where G.W Bush held his (in)famous speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln."

Well, choosing the Fall of Baghdad as the end of the war was a little bombastic perhaps, since there still was organised fighting in places like Kirkuk, Tikrit and Nasiriyah. The Fall of Tikrit on April 14, the same day the Pentagon declared that major fighting was over, might have been more fitting.

War is obviously a difficult term to accurately define with all the strong feelings surrounding it, but most definitions seem to agree that it's at the very least a state of armed conflict over time between states, nations or parties. Ie. there has to be two organised combatants for it to qualify as a war. There is nothing that indicates that the resistance since Baghdad fell, sprung from any concerted action from the old Baath-apparatus that might qualify the insurgents to be considered a warring part.

Whether or not one of the parties involved doesn't declare an end to the war, doesn't implicitly mean that the war isn't de facto over. Your definition is the legal one, which doesn't have any relevance to whether there is an actual war _fought_, which I assume is what we're talking about. When Bush declared an end to major combat operations, I don't think it was out of any desire to cleverly disguise the fact that the US was still in war, or fear of having to let the POW's free, (The US don't recognize them as POW's anyway..) but simply as a way to preempt future allegations of heh.. "misunderestimating" the situation, should it turn out that there still was an organised Baathist resistance, or to avoid giving the impression that everything was going to be peaceful from then on, even if it might have been semantically correct to declare that the war was over.

"And what would you call the brave young men and woman of the Norwegian resistance who fought tirelessly until liberation in ’45 if we weren’t at war? Terrorists?"

Cute.

Oranges and Apples, and all of that. Our leaders abroad led a concerted effort to undermine the German occupiers, and lay the ground clear for the retaking of Norway. It's obviously a bit different than the random acts of violence we've seen out of Iraq.

"Actually Pål clearly states that the question of “how” are of great importance."

His actual quote:

"You know this "humanitarian force" debate. Its another issue. Im way off topic already (sorry). Dont get me started ;)"

The scare-quotes and the "don't get me started" comment indicated to me that he thinks the use of the term "humanitarian force" is a cover-up to mask the fact that we're participating actively in heavier operations. But I might be wrong.

Pal:"Israel has been in breach of a UN resolution for quite a while now. Surly the US should uphold the same standard for any nation breaking a peace agreement ? Guess not."

Who cares about U.N. resolutions? Iraq was in breach of peace agreements with the U.S. and their allies and for a decade fired on U.S. troops enforcing those same peace agreements.

I admit the U.S. was as naive as everyone else in allowing the peace agreements arising from Gulf War 1 to be wielded by Iraq as a diplomatic shield against any further overt attempts to moderate the Baathist regime, but America's naivete regarding unrepentant Islamo-fascists ended on Sept. 11th, 2001. What's your excuse?

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/756

Heretics' almanac: Johan Galtung is O'Brien (Nineteen Eighty-Four), July 26, 2004 12:24 AM

I want to talk about another device Galtung uses, namely that he judges the intent of an action by a selective set of its consequences, while ignoring the others.

Assume the Position: Leftism in the Land Where Mullah Krekar Roams Free, July 26, 2004 09:08 AM

Bjorn Staerk translates and provides a look at some of the latest rant from "Norway's Noam Chomsky," Johan Galtung, who is upset that Norwegian officials haven't completely swallowed the evil-Imperial-Amerikkka canard: