Paul Berman offers a different view on Iraq and leftism

[Ramo]

lotm, it very easily could've turned out worse than under Saddam. For instance, if folks like Cheney had their way we would've installed in power a Ba'athist like Alawi and split. Then the regime would have international legitmization (as in the case of places like Pakistan, Libya, Uzbekistan, and now the Sudan) and the people would still be extremely oppressed, combined with increasing the ranks of the Islamist movement further. And it still might be worse than that if the administration continues to butcher the occupation and sets off a civil war and/or foreign intervention (by, say, rejecting Sistani's demands over elections or continuing to isolate the Sunnis or giving too much or too little autonomy to the Kurds).

[Ned]

Originally posted by Theben
I agree that a lot of leftists tend to dismiss things b/c Bush did it/supports it. But that's true on both sides of the line. Leftists also tend to be against current U.S. foreign policy because the history of said policy tends towards self-serving w/o regard to the other nations involved.

The nature of the Baathist party is what caused me to eventually support the war. Unfortunately, as Gepap mentions, it's the haphazard methods used in Iraq that I do NOT support.

It goes both way, unfortunately. Kosovo was entirely justified and yet was opposed by many Republicans for political reasons.

I would hope that the left remain fundamentally anti-fascist. I think the article is right in that much of the left's current attitude about Iraq and Israel find its origin in the current leadership of the US and Israel.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
lotm, it very easily could've turned out worse than under Saddam. For instance, if folks like Cheney had their way we would've installed in power a Ba'athist like Alawi and split. Then the regime would have international legitmization (as in the case of places like Pakistan, Libya, Uzbekistan, and now the Sudan) and the people would still be extremely oppressed, combined with increasing the ranks of the Islamist movement further. And it still might be worse than that if the administration continues to butcher the occupation and sets off a civil war and/or foreign intervention (by, say, rejecting Sistani's demands over elections or continuing to isolate the Sunnis or giving too much or too little autonomy to the Kurds).

Why Cheney? This is what Kucinich advocates even tody.

[Ned]

BTW, why doesn't the HRW cite the annual 300,000 deaths due to the sanctions?

What? Was this a lie?

[Ramo]

No it isn't... Kucinich wants to split, but he's no friend of Alawi. Cheney is.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
BTW, why doesn't the HRW cite the annual 300,000 deaths due to the sanctions?

What? Was this a lie?

It might very well be: it could also be because the sanctions were not imposed by Saddam on his people, but by the international community, which was the ones who had the power to remove them or change them.

And before anyone here says "well, it was Saddam...", it was the internaitonal community that chose the punishment, so in the end, THEY are responsible for what the punishment accomplishes.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
BTW, why doesn't the HRW cite the annual 300,000 deaths due to the sanctions?

What? Was this a lie?

I wouldn't presume to put words in their mouth. My response would be that those deaths are on the heads of those who imposed the sanctions.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


Are these critiques new? no.

Are they valid? Partly.

The problem with the war in Iraq is not that it happened, but HOW it happened, when it happened.

Today we have an occupation regime in Iraq itching to get out, unsure how to go about, now at this point, about 8 months late calling for UN help, and a situation in the ground which has a good chance of devolving into civil war due to the rush job of this war.

That has always and shall always be MY critique of this war..sadly, no one here has ever engaged that specific critique.

GePap,

Is your health insurance paid. I agree.

Point being now that we are there we need to do it right and sadly appears not to be so.

I would welcome a debate from both parties as the best means to accomplish these tasks without it devolving into a finger pointing session. Sadly that also appears to not be thecase.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


GePap,

Is your health insurance paid. I agree.

Point being now that we are there we need to do it right and sadly appears not to be so.

I would welcome a debate from both parties as the best means to accomplish these tasks without it devolving into a finger pointing session. Sadly that also appears to not be thecase.

There are people who are culpable, fingers need to be pointed, people loose their jobs, pay the consequences of their actions. All that while we improve the job being done.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Both fascism and clerical feudalism are responses to the failure of capitalism to produce an acceptable standard of living. They are both symptoms of capitalism. The answer is not to attack the symptoms, but attack the problem.

This war just isn't about fighting for justice and democracy. The problems in Iraq are due to capitalism. The proponents of the war claim that it will fix those problems. It won't. Why would we support this war? For freedom? That's got to be a joke.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious




This war just isn't about fighting for justice and democracy. The problems in Iraq are due to capitalism. The proponents of the war claim that it will fix those problems. It won't. Why would we support this war? For freedom? That's got to be a joke.

No, to end the sanctions.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


PARSE!!!!!

The argument HRW is raising here is not one based on international law, but whether the invasion of Iraq can be justified on humanitarian grounds, which is what Berman is trying to do. HRW says that the invasion of Iraq fails to meet the test of a humanitarian intervention, irregardless of international law. If it was not a humanitarian intervention, does Berman then have a valid point? At least as regard Iraq, I would argue no.

Further, I disagree with Berman's characterization of the reactionary political movements in Islam as fascism. It shares certain characteristics of fascism, but its class nature is different and its goals are different. Facism is both a forward and backward looking philosophy. It seeks to justify itself in past glory, but it seeks to create a new type of society. It is based largely on declassé workers and ruined middle class types. It is a fundimetnally capitalist movement.

So-called Islamofascism rejects modernity and seeks to return society to a previous (but non-existent) society. It is based largely on the remains of feudal and tribal classes: preists, sheiks, peasants. Unlike fascism, it is neither nationalist nor racial. Finally, it rejects completely capitalism, seeking to restore pre-capitalist relations.

This means that these movements need to be confronted differently. Reactionary clerico-feudalism (my wordy term) needs to be confronted by the left, but that doesn't mean we need t do it by embracing our class enemies in the US government nor allying with the repressive Israeli government.

Both fascism and clerical feudalism are responses to the failure of capitalism to produce an acceptable standard of living. They are both symptoms of capitalism. The answer is not to attack the symptoms, but attack the problem. This means expanding democracy and rasing standards of living. The left is waging this fight. The misnamed anti-globalization movement is this fight. We show solidarity with the people of the Third World not by dropping bombs on them, but by standing with them against our own government's military and economic attempts to dominate them.

the problem is not the US government, by and large

instead it is the multinationals, which we have allowed to grow and flourish

these parasites do most of the damage, and the only thing strong enough to take them on now is goverments like the US

Jon Miller

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
No it isn't... Kucinich wants to split, but he's no friend of Alawi. Cheney is.

My understanding is that Cheney likes Chalabi, and that Alawi has been supported mainly by the CIA.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious




This war just isn't about fighting for justice and democracy. The problems in Iraq are due to capitalism. The proponents of the war claim that it will fix those problems. It won't. Why would we support this war? For freedom? That's got to be a joke.

Kid, why am I not surprised that you see things in this very perverted way.

[MrFun]

yadda, yadda, yadda





Maybe it's just that most people today, find the old "white man's burden" foreign policy repugnant??

Just because we no longer believe that Western countries should play nanny to every other country in the world, does not mean we tolerate gross, human rights abuses -- which should be the real reason for legitimate intervention -- not to establish puppet governments.