There was an interesting debate on TV2's Holmgang yesterday, and it could be a part of a shift in public opinion on Iraq. To be against a potential war is not the same as being against an on-going war, and hoping that the US doesn't attack Iraq isn't the same as hoping that it will lose, once it does. War is uncertainty, and in the anti-war climate that existed here before March 20, it's really no wonder that many people would imagine an Iraq war straight out of the darkest pages of history - long, brutal, pointless. But once the shooting actually begins, the possible outcomes narrow down very quickly, except for people who live entirely in their own fantasy world.

From a humanitarian disaster that would send millions on the run as refugees, last well through the "brutal Iraqi summer", kill houndreds of thousands of civilians and lit the Middle Eastern powder keg, the Norwegian media image of the Iraq war has turned into something closer to a few months long semi-tough struggle with Saddam loyalists, with civilian casualties in the thousands, the reception cold and resentful, and American victory inevitable if they can stomach the casualties. That's not support, but it's important to realize the difference between these two wars: the potential one, an outrageous catastrophe, vs the real one, a war that's harder to win than "some people predicted", marred by occasional misbombings, but not dominated by them.

This has to have an effect on the peace movement and how it is perceived. For one thing, as their worst fears fails to manifest, I expect its sensible members to speak more softly, raise "concerns" instead of predicting disaster, though not change their minds - not just yet. That leaves behind the wackier members of the peace movement as its most visible elements, the ones that define the anti-war side of the public debate. Another effect of the potential war turning real is that it's no longer all that interesting whether you were for or against the war in the first place. Once it has begun, it's more interesting how you want it to end. And just as the position that appeared most prudent and moral in the media before the war began was to support peace, (because the alternative was war, which is evil), the position I expect to seem most sensible now that the war has started, is to hope for the Americans to win, despite their arrogance and stupidity, (because the alternative is for an evil dictator to beat a democratic ally, which is bad, and hey wouldn't it be nice to be rid of Saddam?)

That's what I expect anyway, that the peace movement, which in Norway was a popular movement with a lot of non-wacky and politically mainstream members, will gradually be left to its wacky members, and also be perceived publicly as wacky and extremist. It's not easy for me to be sure if or when this happens, that is, when the peace movement loses hold of the mainstream, because to me it has been totally wacky all the time. It's not easy to pick up nuances at a distance.

But it could be happening now, and that's where the TV debate I mentioned enters the picture. That American foreign policy is stupid and/or evil is practically beyond debate here, (and I don't think a successful war will change that), and that assumption leaves any intelligent debate on the war dead before it begins. But there is a wide open side entrance for pro-war opinion into Norway, and that's Eastern Europe. When I read an article by Polish-born Nina Witoszek in Aftenposten describing the odd dilemma that many Eastern European intellectuals (Vaclav Havel, Hans Magnus Enzensberger, Adam Michnik, Czeslaw Milosz, György Konrad, Wolf Biermann) actually support the war, I shrugged - well of course they do, I thought. I forgot that "Eastern European intellectual" is a term that has nothing but positive connotations, in Norway as in any Western country, so when one of them agree with the US, people actually sit up and listen.

Witoszek's article lead directly to that TV debate yesterday, which posed the question of whether members of the anti-war movement are ignorant of history. Invited were Erling Borgen, Per Egil Hegge, an editor of Klassekampen (Class Struggle), and a few others. Borgen is NRK's former foreign correspondent to South America, and has sailed up as a leading figure in the peace movement, (besides Petter Nome). His many years in South America have apparently left him extremely bitter towards the US. Klassekampen is a communist daily, not much read but fondly ridiculed, and taken somewhat seriously as one of the "opinion-carrying newspapers", as we call low-circulation ideological papers in Norway. Hegge is Aftenposten's former foreign correspondent to the US, skeptical towards Bush and the war, but perhaps the only significant pro-US presence in the Norwegian media.

What struck me watching this was how extremely repulsive Erling Borgen's anti-Americanism appeared. His every statement turning into long, breathless Chomskyish rants, empty of any nuance, qualification or doubt, every opportunity to paint Americans badly exploited to the extreme - all I could think was: Norwegians are smarter than this. Contrast him with Per Egil Hegge, a coldly analyzing debater rather than a rhetorician, who'll refuse to be budged from his more quiet, nuanced style, but will throw a well-placed insult when a good opportunity opens. The boor vs the sharp-shooter. Taking place in the real-war context I described above, where hyperbole must pass the test of reality, this is the first time I have gotten the clear impression that the Norwegian peace movement actually lost a TV debate.

I could be wrong, so let's call it a working theory. Certainly there's a significant number of Norwegian wacky leftists, and will always be. But I find it hard to believe that anyone who isn't a wacky leftist (and most aren't) could listen to Erling Borgens angry tirades, full of obvious logical shortcuts and populistic sensationalism, and identify with his position. They could when the issue was very vague, war or peace, but it's a bit harder when it's specifically the US or the Baath Party. If that is the case, the peace movement has begun to die as a popular movement, (but not as a movement), and will only revive if something unexpected happens, (Americans carpet bomb Baghdad, war drags on through the year, etc.)

The potential war was Vietnam. The real one isn't, and therefore can't maintain a full grown Vietnam movement of its own.

Viet Nam is not an appropriate example.

Who will supply the Iraqis? China & Russia like they did the VC?

We've already turned off Syria's oil, and does Iran really want to take us on at this time? If they do, what will their rebels do while Iran faces US?

I know that. Many don't.

Bjørn Stærk,

The Norwegians are possibly the most friendly (or easy to get along with) people I've met in Europe.

YOU, Bjørn, however, suggest that Norway is purely an economic zone. That is not a positive statement to the workers of Norge and is unfriendly to your Motherland.

Would any Norwegian English speakers care to comment on that?

I, as an american, love your country. Stærk however, suggests that you forget your history, Norwegians, better that you become an American groupie like Stærk is, he says. I suspect he has never been to the USA, although I do admit his american english is excellent.

Corporations are every bit as evil as are governments, Bjørn.

This silly libertarian/capitalist shit that Stærk is espousing is funny to most thinking americans, it has been proven that it doesn't work. But your image of america comes from television and comic books, so you don't really have any experience with making a living here. Maybe you oughtta try that sometime.

I spent six monts in Oslo with a friend, and perhaps I don't understand Norway, but I DID prefer the Norwegian way of doing things to the american way. The Norwegians don't construct their entire society atound making a profit, they seemed to actually care for their brothers and sisters who lived next door and in their country.
I will always love and cherish my time in Oslo for that, the people treated me wonderfully.

Norwegian venner I møttes var sant gode venner og hjulpet meg med alt.

Regards,

Mark
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/default.asp

Yes, I think I've noticed a slight lull in the onslaught on America that is usually a staple in Aftenposten and Dagbladet. I remember that various UN agencies, before the fighting began, predicted hundreds of thousands — even millions — of Iraqi casualties. Of course, if we don't get food and water to those folks soon, casualties due to disease and malnutrition might indeed be significant.

I received a letter the other day from an old relative in Norway (Hadeland). After lambasting Bush ("egenrådig", "høy på pæra"), he writes, "Dette ser ikke noe særlig oppløftende ut, selv om krigen må vinnes." He underlines "må vinnes". Translated: "This doesn't look especially uplifting, even though this war has got to be won." I wondered why he felt that the war had to be won. Given his opposition to the war, I mean.

The newspaper Aftenposten features "debate pages" — forums where readers can belittle each other's intelligence and deride each other's opinions. One of the folks there had this to say: "Jeg har i en annen tråd sagt at jeg gjerne ser at begge parter taper - og det gjør for så vidt alltid begge parter i en krig. Jeg vil gjerne bli kvitt Saddam Hussein, og jeg synes det ville være tragisk om han skulle komme gjennom dette som en muslimsk helt som fortsatt sitter med makten. På den annen side ønsker jeg ikke at USA skal kunne vise til verden at de hadde rett. (De har ikke blitt tatt i mot som frigjørere, så de har allerede vist verden at de tok feil, men de er nok ikke tilstrekkelig avkledt ennå.) Egentlig ønsker jeg vel at Saddam blir styrtet av sine egne etter at USA er ydmyket. Og at man deretter kan etablere et mer demokratisk regime i Irak med god støtte fra FN."

Translated: "I have elsewhere said that I would prefer to see both sides lose. I want to be rid of Saddam, and I think it would be tragic if he came through this as a Muslim hero who continued to hold power. On the other hand, I don't want the U.S. to be able to show the world that it was right. (They have not been welcomed as liberators, so they have already shown the world that they were wrong, but they have not yet been sufficiently exposed.) What I really wish is that Saddam could be overthrown by his own people after the U.S. is humbled. And that a more democratic regime is then installed in Iraq with strong support from the U.N."

I suspect that this fellow's opinion is probably representative. Many in Europe will welcome what the U.S. has done (provided all works out reasonably well), but will resent having to acknowledge that we might have been right after all.

Wow. Mark Konrad doesn't even try to hide where he's coming from. Seems like the theory of the far left and far right uniting is true.

Regarding Gill's quote of the forum writer: The U.S. hasn't been welcomed as liberators? Of course they have. They have in places where the populace no longer is in fear of Saddam's death squads. Of course there will be resentment as well. (This will grow as the Arab's in Iraq feel more and more safe and comfortable in their new circumstances. Arabs feel resentment like fish feel water.) Americans don't want to be loved, though, that is a 'liberal' pathology.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/153