Silence kills and silence is complicity - email to Phyllis Bennis
Dear Phyllis Bennis,
I hope you are well.
I read with interest your article on ZNet “Thinking Strategically, Challenges Facing the Anti-War Movement“. You write:
As you know, on 29 October 2004, the British medical journal The Lancet published ‘Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey’:
I have received a reply from Mountain View Voices for Peace’s Lenny Siegel with whom I disagree deeply and a reply from my friend Danny Schechter of MediaChannel, who agreed with my concerns over the use of that poster and withdrew it from Media Channel’s website.
I have not received any reply from United for Peace and Justice, even though I have written to them repeatedly. And the poster with that “30,000 Iraqis” is still on the UFPJ’s website.
I read on the Institute for Policy Studies’ website that you work “closely with the United for Peace and Justice anti-war coalition”. Since I have great esteem and respect for you and your work, I would like to know what you think about this whole issue.
I leave you with Dr. Polya’s words: “Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity – it IS possible to get through the Wall of Silence.”
In solidarity,
Gabriele Zamparini
***
Phyllis Bennis' reply
thanks for your note. as you may have realized my article is a strategy piece examining ways of empowering the existing anti-war majority -- it was not designed to be an explanation of why we should oppose the war.
If you look at my writings on that issue (for example the Cost of War reports that are featured on the IPS website) you will see our consistent use of the lancet report and others as well.
My concern is that we figure out how to bring the war to an end, in a period in which we have overwhelmingly won the battle for public opinion. Since you're monitoring the U.S. press and anti-war movement so closely i assume you are familiar with the rising polls of anti-war sentiment and the near 2/3 of americans who say bring the troops home -- our challenge is how to empower that sentiment into political action at a moment when the supposed opposition party is frightened and supine, rendering congress largely unwilling to challenge the white house. I am less concerned with which figures get cited as the wars consequences than in finding a good strategy for ending it altogether.
many thanks for your ideas.
phyllis bennis
***
Dear Phillis,
Thanks for your reply.
You write: “I am less concerned with which figures get cited as the wars consequences than in finding a good strategy for ending it altogether.”
Please, could you explain? Don’t you agree with Dr. Polya when he writes, “Ignoring mass mortality simply ensures its continuance and denying past atrocities simply ensures their repetition – history ignored yields history repeated”?
Don’t you think that United for Peace and Justice’s website is misleading and it hides the truth when it writes: “over 33,000 Iraqi civilian lives (and some estimates are as high as 100,000 lives)” ?
Don’t you agree, again with Dr Polya’s words, “Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity – it IS possible to get through the Wall of Silence.” ?
I believe this is a most engaging and serious issue which I believe deserves the most careful attention by the antiwar movement and those who dedicate their time and energy to stop this human-made tragedy. Whatever strategy we may choose, we must not hide the scale of the horror inflicted by our governments, with our money and in our name.
Please, consider this email not as a critique but as an open dialogue between brothers and comrades.
In solidarity,
Gabriele Zamparini
***
Dear Phyllis,
I just would like to add a couple of things to my last e-mail.
You write: “I am less concerned with which figures get cited as the wars consequences than in finding a good strategy for ending it altogether.”
Does this mean that to follow this "strategy" one has to ignore and underestimate - to use Polya's words - "the horrendous magnitude of the avoidable post-invasion deaths in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan" ? Shouldn't that "strategy" include denouncing the horrendous magnitude of the horror? Shouldn't we be honest about who's been making most of the killings in Iraq?
"The researchers found that the majority of deaths were attributed to violence, which were primarily the result of military actions by Coalition forces. Most of those killed by Coalition forces were women and children... Eighty-four percent of the deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery." ('Iraqi Civilian Deaths Increase Dramatically After Invasion', October 28, 2004)
Does that "strategy" means that we have to be careful to speak out the truth because there is the risk to 'alienate' our (it depends on the case) audience, electorate, subscribers, members, or that power we think we should engage with?
When I wrote you I pointed out not only your strategy article but the numbers UFPJ uses in its website and a poster that reads “30,000 Iraqis”. Is this strategy too?
Of course even the life of one innocent person, of one woman, of one baby should be enough to make people take action. Unfortunately it’s not. And the scale of the horror is ignored by the mainstream media precisely for this goal: to keep the population ignorant on the real effects of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
And of course those responsible for inflicting the horror to innocent people do all they can to hide the truth.
Also, why do the lives of the US and UK military people are counted (rightly so!) and that number is very important (rightly so!) while the scale of the horror inflicted to the lives of the Iraqi victims, the civilians, the innocent people who have been slaughtered in their homes, in their own country, is not that important for us to know?
As Polya wrote, “TODAY Mainstream Media are comprehensively ignoring the horrendous magnitude of the avoidable post-invasion deaths in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan”. I believe that getting through the wall of silence is the most important aspect of any successful strategy in the antiwar front to build a stronger and more powerful movement.
Again, please consider this email not as a critique but as an open dialogue between brothers and comrades.
In solidarity,
Gabriele Zamparini
***
(PB) PHYLLIS BENNIS' REPLY
okay. point by point. and then we all have too much work to do.
(GZ) You write: “I am less concerned with which figures get cited as the wars consequences than in finding a good strategy for ending it altogether.”
Please, could you explain? Don’t you agree with Dr. Polya when he writes, “Ignoring mass mortality simply ensures its continuance and denying past atrocities simply ensures their repetition – history ignored yields history repeated”?
(PB) ** No one is ignoring mass mortality and past atrocities. For those of us who spent twelve years working against U.S. sanctions in iraq even before the newest war, the issue of civilian casualties has always been a central theme. I wrote you already, if you have not looked at how i describe civilian casualties please do so.
(GZ) Don’t you think that United for Peace and Justice’s website is misleading and it hides the truth when it writes: “over 33,000 Iraqi civilian lives (and some estimates are as high as 100,000 lives)” ?
(PB) ** No it's not. There are plenty of estimates out there. No one is hiding anything.
(GZ) Don’t you agree, again with Dr Polya’s words, “Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity – it IS possible to get through the Wall of Silence.” ?
(PB) ** I don't know who dr polya is but no one is being silent.
(GZ) I believe this is a most engaging and serious issue which I believe deserves the most careful attention by the antiwar movement and those who dedicate their time and energy to stop this human-made tragedy. Whatever strategy we may choose, we must not hide the scale of the horror inflicted by our governments, with our money and in our name.
(PB) ** No one is hiding anything.
(GZ) Does this mean that to follow this "strategy" one has to ignore and underestimate - to use Polya's words - "the horrendous magnitude of the avoidable post-invasion deaths in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan" ? Shouldn't that "strategy" include denouncing the horrendous magnitude of the horror? Shouldn't we be honest about who's been making most of the killings in Iraq?
(PB) ** Yes we should and we are.
(GZ) Does that "strategy" means that we have to be careful to speak out the truth because there is the risk to 'alienate' our (it depends on the case) audience, electorate, subscribers, members, or that power we think we should engage with?
(PB) ** No it does not and we are not.
(GZ) And of course those responsible for inflicting the horror to innocent people do all they can to hide the truth.
(PB) ** Yes they do. We don't.
(GZ) Also, why do the lives of the US and UK military people are counted (rightly so!) and that number is very important (rightly so!) while the scale of the horror inflicted to the lives of the Iraqi victims, the civilians, the innocent people who have been slaughtered in their homes, in their own country, is not that important for us to know?
(PB) ** They ARE that important. That's why we do things like making sure all references to U.S. military casualties are not complete without referencing Iraqi civilian casualties too.
I repeat: we have won the battle for popular opinion opposing the war. Our challenge is to find a way to turn that public sentiment into public power. I don't know the answer. That's what i'm working to try to figure out.
Phyllis Bennis
I hope you are well.
I read with interest your article on ZNet “Thinking Strategically, Challenges Facing the Anti-War Movement“. You write:
“Additionally, the U.S. air war has escalated dramatically, again raising the spectre of Viet Nam, especially at the moment the U.S. is attempting to reduce the level of U.S. troop casualties, and instead move to "change the color of the corpses," as it was described in Indochina.” (Thinking Strategically, Challenges Facing the Anti-War Movement, ZNet, April 06, 2006)I was surprised though that in your article there is no mention of the Iraqi civilians that have already been killed since the US-led invasion.
As you know, on 29 October 2004, the British medical journal The Lancet published ‘Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey’:
Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. (Interpretation)This study reads:
Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. (Findings)
Source: ‘Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey’, The Lancet, Published online October 29,2004
"The researchers found that the majority of deaths were attributed to violence, which were primarily the result of military actions by Coalition forces. Most of those killed by Coalition forces were women and children... Eighty-four percent of the deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery."The horror inflicted by our governments, with our money and in our name, might be way far more horrifying. Dr Gideon Polya recently wrote:
Source: 'Iraqi Civilian Deaths Increase Dramatically After Invasion', October 28, 2004
“AVOIDABLE MORTALITY (technically, excess mortality) is the difference between the actual mortality in a country and the mortality expected for a peaceful, decently-run country with the same demographics (i.e. with the same birth rate and the same population age profile). Avoidable mortality is a fundamental parameter to be considered in any sensible discussion of human affairs – it is the bottom-line issue when assessing the success or otherwise of societal, regional and global policies. (...)On March 14, 2006 Todd Chretien wrote on Counter Punch:
Ignoring mass mortality simply ensures its continuance and denying past atrocities simply ensures their repetition – history ignored yields history repeated. Thus the actuality of the Jewish Holocaust (6 million deaths) was not formally acknowledged by the Allies until 30 months before the end of World War 2 in Europe. This tardiness in reportage must surely have contributed significantly to this atrocity.
However, TODAY Mainstream Media are comprehensively ignoring the horrendous magnitude of the avoidable post-invasion deaths in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan (presently totaling 2.3 million deaths) and the avoidable deaths in the First World-dominated non-European World (presently 14.8 million deaths each year).” (Layperson’s guide to counting Iraq deaths, by Dr Gideon Polya, MWC News Magazine, 6 April 2006)
“However, there are some in the anti-war movement who seem reluctant to publicize all the dead in Iraq. This week, United for Peace and Justice put a "legislative alert" on their website's front page, written up by its legislative working group, which lists the following casualty figures in Iraq: over 28,000 Iraqi civilian lives (and some estimates are as high as 100,000 lives) (...) UFPJ's legislative working group's figures raise a couple of questions. First, the 28,000 total for Iraqi civilian casualties is a full 5,000 short of what www.Iraqbodycount.org lists as the absolute minimum number of deaths. So where does UFPJ get its 28,000 figure for civilian deaths and why is that figure prioritized over the Johns Hopkins study (which was conducted as a national survey, based on a scientific sampling of households all over Iraq), which is presented as only an "estimate? (...) Secondly (...) one group is suspiciously absent from the legislative working group's figures, namely, the number of Iraqi resistance fighters killed by the American military and the puppet Iraqi army. Certainly one does not have to agree with the military tactics pursued by every resistance group in Iraq in order to believe that their dead have as much right to be counted as those American soldiers who are used as cannon fodder for an illegal and unjust occupation.” (Counting the Dead in Iraq. Why is the Left Understating the Carnage?, Todd Chretien, Counter Punch, March 14, 2006)On March 15, 2006 I wrote to Mountain View Voices for Peace, to United for Peace and Justice and to Danny Schechter of MediaChannel about their use of the Mountain View Voices for Peace’s poster for the March 2006 third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq that states (about Iraqi civilian deaths) “30,000 Iraqis”
I have received a reply from Mountain View Voices for Peace’s Lenny Siegel with whom I disagree deeply and a reply from my friend Danny Schechter of MediaChannel, who agreed with my concerns over the use of that poster and withdrew it from Media Channel’s website.
I have not received any reply from United for Peace and Justice, even though I have written to them repeatedly. And the poster with that “30,000 Iraqis” is still on the UFPJ’s website.
I read on the Institute for Policy Studies’ website that you work “closely with the United for Peace and Justice anti-war coalition”. Since I have great esteem and respect for you and your work, I would like to know what you think about this whole issue.
I leave you with Dr. Polya’s words: “Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity – it IS possible to get through the Wall of Silence.”
In solidarity,
Gabriele Zamparini
***
Phyllis Bennis' reply
thanks for your note. as you may have realized my article is a strategy piece examining ways of empowering the existing anti-war majority -- it was not designed to be an explanation of why we should oppose the war.
If you look at my writings on that issue (for example the Cost of War reports that are featured on the IPS website) you will see our consistent use of the lancet report and others as well.
My concern is that we figure out how to bring the war to an end, in a period in which we have overwhelmingly won the battle for public opinion. Since you're monitoring the U.S. press and anti-war movement so closely i assume you are familiar with the rising polls of anti-war sentiment and the near 2/3 of americans who say bring the troops home -- our challenge is how to empower that sentiment into political action at a moment when the supposed opposition party is frightened and supine, rendering congress largely unwilling to challenge the white house. I am less concerned with which figures get cited as the wars consequences than in finding a good strategy for ending it altogether.
many thanks for your ideas.
phyllis bennis
***
Dear Phillis,
Thanks for your reply.
You write: “I am less concerned with which figures get cited as the wars consequences than in finding a good strategy for ending it altogether.”
Please, could you explain? Don’t you agree with Dr. Polya when he writes, “Ignoring mass mortality simply ensures its continuance and denying past atrocities simply ensures their repetition – history ignored yields history repeated”?
Don’t you think that United for Peace and Justice’s website is misleading and it hides the truth when it writes: “over 33,000 Iraqi civilian lives (and some estimates are as high as 100,000 lives)” ?
Don’t you agree, again with Dr Polya’s words, “Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity – it IS possible to get through the Wall of Silence.” ?
I believe this is a most engaging and serious issue which I believe deserves the most careful attention by the antiwar movement and those who dedicate their time and energy to stop this human-made tragedy. Whatever strategy we may choose, we must not hide the scale of the horror inflicted by our governments, with our money and in our name.
Please, consider this email not as a critique but as an open dialogue between brothers and comrades.
In solidarity,
Gabriele Zamparini
***
Dear Phyllis,
I just would like to add a couple of things to my last e-mail.
You write: “I am less concerned with which figures get cited as the wars consequences than in finding a good strategy for ending it altogether.”
Does this mean that to follow this "strategy" one has to ignore and underestimate - to use Polya's words - "the horrendous magnitude of the avoidable post-invasion deaths in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan" ? Shouldn't that "strategy" include denouncing the horrendous magnitude of the horror? Shouldn't we be honest about who's been making most of the killings in Iraq?
"The researchers found that the majority of deaths were attributed to violence, which were primarily the result of military actions by Coalition forces. Most of those killed by Coalition forces were women and children... Eighty-four percent of the deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery." ('Iraqi Civilian Deaths Increase Dramatically After Invasion', October 28, 2004)
Does that "strategy" means that we have to be careful to speak out the truth because there is the risk to 'alienate' our (it depends on the case) audience, electorate, subscribers, members, or that power we think we should engage with?
When I wrote you I pointed out not only your strategy article but the numbers UFPJ uses in its website and a poster that reads “30,000 Iraqis”. Is this strategy too?
Of course even the life of one innocent person, of one woman, of one baby should be enough to make people take action. Unfortunately it’s not. And the scale of the horror is ignored by the mainstream media precisely for this goal: to keep the population ignorant on the real effects of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
And of course those responsible for inflicting the horror to innocent people do all they can to hide the truth.
Also, why do the lives of the US and UK military people are counted (rightly so!) and that number is very important (rightly so!) while the scale of the horror inflicted to the lives of the Iraqi victims, the civilians, the innocent people who have been slaughtered in their homes, in their own country, is not that important for us to know?
As Polya wrote, “TODAY Mainstream Media are comprehensively ignoring the horrendous magnitude of the avoidable post-invasion deaths in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan”. I believe that getting through the wall of silence is the most important aspect of any successful strategy in the antiwar front to build a stronger and more powerful movement.
Again, please consider this email not as a critique but as an open dialogue between brothers and comrades.
In solidarity,
Gabriele Zamparini
***
(PB) PHYLLIS BENNIS' REPLY
okay. point by point. and then we all have too much work to do.
(GZ) You write: “I am less concerned with which figures get cited as the wars consequences than in finding a good strategy for ending it altogether.”
Please, could you explain? Don’t you agree with Dr. Polya when he writes, “Ignoring mass mortality simply ensures its continuance and denying past atrocities simply ensures their repetition – history ignored yields history repeated”?
(PB) ** No one is ignoring mass mortality and past atrocities. For those of us who spent twelve years working against U.S. sanctions in iraq even before the newest war, the issue of civilian casualties has always been a central theme. I wrote you already, if you have not looked at how i describe civilian casualties please do so.
(GZ) Don’t you think that United for Peace and Justice’s website is misleading and it hides the truth when it writes: “over 33,000 Iraqi civilian lives (and some estimates are as high as 100,000 lives)” ?
(PB) ** No it's not. There are plenty of estimates out there. No one is hiding anything.
(GZ) Don’t you agree, again with Dr Polya’s words, “Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity – it IS possible to get through the Wall of Silence.” ?
(PB) ** I don't know who dr polya is but no one is being silent.
(GZ) I believe this is a most engaging and serious issue which I believe deserves the most careful attention by the antiwar movement and those who dedicate their time and energy to stop this human-made tragedy. Whatever strategy we may choose, we must not hide the scale of the horror inflicted by our governments, with our money and in our name.
(PB) ** No one is hiding anything.
(GZ) Does this mean that to follow this "strategy" one has to ignore and underestimate - to use Polya's words - "the horrendous magnitude of the avoidable post-invasion deaths in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan" ? Shouldn't that "strategy" include denouncing the horrendous magnitude of the horror? Shouldn't we be honest about who's been making most of the killings in Iraq?
(PB) ** Yes we should and we are.
(GZ) Does that "strategy" means that we have to be careful to speak out the truth because there is the risk to 'alienate' our (it depends on the case) audience, electorate, subscribers, members, or that power we think we should engage with?
(PB) ** No it does not and we are not.
(GZ) And of course those responsible for inflicting the horror to innocent people do all they can to hide the truth.
(PB) ** Yes they do. We don't.
(GZ) Also, why do the lives of the US and UK military people are counted (rightly so!) and that number is very important (rightly so!) while the scale of the horror inflicted to the lives of the Iraqi victims, the civilians, the innocent people who have been slaughtered in their homes, in their own country, is not that important for us to know?
(PB) ** They ARE that important. That's why we do things like making sure all references to U.S. military casualties are not complete without referencing Iraqi civilian casualties too.
I repeat: we have won the battle for popular opinion opposing the war. Our challenge is to find a way to turn that public sentiment into public power. I don't know the answer. That's what i'm working to try to figure out.
Phyllis Bennis
posted by The Cat's Dream at 12:22 PM
![[ACLU Execution Watch Counter]](https://www.aclu.org/graphics/dpcounter.gif)
<< Home