Paul Berman offers a different view on Iraq and leftism

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


If the Islamist want to reofrm those lands that are islamic, that is not the same as bringing new lands into thier fold, which is what I see as expansionistic.

Im quite sure you understand the difference between Islamic and Islamist. Islamists are a body of people who want to establish Islamic govt, with Sharia at the root the political system. A very large number of muslims oppose this. Within the Islamist community (some of whom may be moderates) a significant minority, who I refer to as Salafi/Jihadis (there is some question as to whether all Salafi muslims really fall into this category) want to establish a pan-Islamic state, with a particularly strict version of Islamic law, which would ban alternative forms of Islam (shia, Sufi, etc) and which would reduce christians and jews to the status of tolerated minorities IE Dhimmis) These folks controlled Afganistan from 1996 or so to 2001. They had substantial influence over the govt of the Sudan prior to 1999. The degree of their past influence over the govt of Pakistan and their current influence in Saudi is a matter of dispute.

When Germany invaded Denmark, was that not expansionism, becuase the Germans saw the Danes as Aryans??? When Italy intervened in Spain, was that not expansionism because Spain was Catholic and Romance speaking, and had a native fascist rebellion going on??

your charecterization of the jihadi movement as "reform" is just silly. (unless you are referring to those islamist who purport to oppose the jihadists, to who I was not referring - their relationship to the jihadist is much like that of some right wing catholic "democrats" to fascists in the 1930s - and just as in the 1930's situation, reasonable people may disagree about them)

[Ben Kenobi]

But no intergovernmental body has put forth criteria for humanitarian intervention.

This is what I love about these critiques. If you are going to say that Bush's intervention does not meet the standards for humanitarian intervention, then what should these criteria be?

I think this would be a cool topic to discuss.

I would argue, as a lefty, left of Kucinich that we should not have a interventionist policy on humanitarian grounds. Why should we meddle in the affairs of these countries? There are better ways to help these countries than to go to war with them.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Well the job HAS been done badly, and yet an arguement can be made ( i hope i dont have to make it in this thread) that the results of the policy will still on balance be positive, though at a greater cost than had the job been done well. And that should we now elect a Democrat who was supportive of the policy (Edwards or Kerry) BUT who will do the REST of the job right, then the odds of a postive outcome increase dramatically.

democrats have not the stomach for these things.

[Ned]

Btw, does anyone have a link to the stories that Saddam is claiming to have bribed Chirac?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


When Germany invaded Denmark, was that not expansionism, becuase the Germans saw the Danes as Aryans??? When Italy intervened in Spain, was that not expansionism because Spain was Catholic and Romance speaking, and had a native fascist rebellion going on??

The danes did not self-define as germans, the facist Spaniards welcomes Italian Intervention, so both your counter-examples don't work. Moderate Muslims still define themselves as Muslims, thus this is a battle within the community of Islam as to which modern interpretations of Islamshould islam follow.

your charecterization of the jihadi movement as "reform" is just silly. (unless you are referring to those islamist who purport to oppose the jihadists, to who I was not referring - their relationship to the jihadist is much like that of some right wing catholic "democrats" to fascists in the 1930s - and just as in the 1930's situation, reasonable people may disagree about them)

To "re"form means to change: fine, maybe I should have used a word more commonly associated with violent and dramatic change, but the point is that they seek to change what they condier to be 'THEIR' societies, not to expand their societies-which would be expansion.

[GePap]

Originally posted by yavoon


democrats have not the stomach for these things.

Neither do republicans, which is why none of them question the Bsuh policy.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by MrFun


yadda, yadda, yadda

Oh balls. As Poly political discussions go, this was quite a good one. You're letting the side down.

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.

To flipside that argument- why should we assume non-whites prefer oppressive and genocidal dictatorships?

Why, in avoiding a "nanny" stance, should we become Pontius Pilate?

[lord of the mark]

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.

LOTM - i think its more complex than that on both the hrw SIDE, and on Bermans, but i'll let it be as i dont really want to argue the nuances of HRW's position



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.

LOTM - Do you consider Francoism a form of fascism??? That was anti-modernist in a way Italian and German fascism were not. Berman takes the Fascist identiy of Francoism for granted and argues from there. I admit there is some weakness in his argument. I would also suggest that there were some atavistic-mythical elements in German and Italian fascism as well, and of course Islamism has no problem with modern technology - and as you said, the past they seek is mythical (IE its not based on any actual historical muslim society) the difference between islamisms mythical past with technology added, and say Nazism appeal to paganism laced with pseudo-science seems to me a distinction without a difference.


It is based largely on the remains of feudal and tribal classes: preists, sheiks, peasants.

LOTM - there are no priest in islam, and the appeal of the jihadist is largely NOT to tribal sheiks and peasants (outside of the rather bizarre case of the Pashtuns) It is largely to the traditional urban merchant class, which in muslim societies strongly overlaps with the clergy (or ulema - there are parallel social structures in traditional judaism, BTW) and to alienated, underemployed students, and also to under and unemployed urban youths. The differences between the youths and the more conservative ulema have shaped the evolution of the movement and conflicts within it . It is largely an urban phenomemon, esp in Egypt, Algeria, Turkey, etc.

Unlike fascism, it is neither nationalist nor racial.
LOTM - Berman addresses this explicitly, explaining (again using the analogy of Spain) why in some societies fascism would take a relgion based form, rather than a national or racial form)


Finally, it rejects completely capitalism, seeking to restore pre-capitalist relations.

LOTM - it seeks to restore early Islamic relations, which are hardly feudal in the western sense of the term, since trade never died out in the islamic world as it did in the west in the dark ages. It seeks "capitalism with justice" which is not all that different from the purported aims of European fascists. If they have not betrayed the petit bourgeoise to large industrialists as did the Nazis, thats largely because they live in state where the latter are either absent, due to poverty or socialism or both, or where the latter are firmly allied with pro-Western regimes.

The answer is not to attack the symptoms, but attack the problem. This means expanding democracy and rasing standards of living.

LOTM - worthy goals, but in the meantime the islamist are attacking economic infrastructure - in Egypt they fought a war against the tourist industry, in algeria their success has held back development, etc. encouraging economic developement and democracy cannot be seperated from using force in select instances.



Guevara, you really ought to read Bermans book itself.

[GePap]

I will be honest and say I have NO interest of reading Berman.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Oh balls. As Poly political discussions go, this was quite a good one. You're letting the side down.




To flipside that argument- why should we assume non-whites prefer oppressive and genocidal dictatorships?

Why, in avoiding a "nanny" stance, should we become Pontius Pilate?

Reread my post -- human rights violations are not to be tolerated.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
I will be honest and say I have NO interest of reading Berman.

its not a terribly long book, and its available at public libraries (at least where i live) and based on your comments re islam vs islamism you very much need to become more informed on the issues he raises.


I'll be honest - if you dont read him, i'll have difficulty taking you seriously on the WOT.


Of course that $1.50 will get you on the subway, so i wont be surprised if you dont read it for my sake

[Theben]

Originally posted by GePap
To "re"form means to change: fine, maybe I should have used a word more commonly associated with violent and dramatic change, but the point is that they seek to change what they condier to be 'THEIR' societies, not to expand their societies-which would be expansion.

The more extreme forms of islamiscism(sp?) call for 1st winning the cultural war in their 'own lands', which is defined as any nation with a sizable population professing Islam. Victory is measured by returning to the pure state of Islam. After this point all other lands are to be converted. They truly are 'expansionist'.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
its not a terribly long book, and its available at public libraries (at least where i live) and based on your comments re islam vs islamism you very much need to become more informed on the issues he raises.

And of course Berman is the ONLY man writing on this..why yes, of course he is....

I'll be honest - if you dont read him, i'll have difficulty taking you seriously on the WOT.

Fine, go ahead.

Of course that $1.50 will get you on the subway, so i wont be surprised if you dont read it for my sake

Now, how am I supposed to take you seriously when you seem to have forgotten that $1.50 does NOT get you in the subway anymore?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by MrFun



Reread my post -- human rights violations are not to be tolerated.

I read it the first time. How many more hundreds of thousands dead would you need in the case of Iraq, Mr Pilate?

[MrFun]

The invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do for the wrong reason.

We know that President Bush did not have the best interests of the common Iraqi at heart, and we know that he had to lie about WMDs being present in Iraq.

He should have just been upfront and justified the invasion for the real, economic reasons.