Paul Berman offers a different view on Iraq and leftism

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


and a situation in the ground which has a good chance of devolving into civil war due to the rush job of this war.

.

Its not at all clear that the occupation problems are due to so much to a rush, as to a deliberate policy choice on the part of Donald Rumsfeld to go in relatively light, related to his long term goals of military transformation.

If youre referring to the choice to start that week, rather than wait a month for the 4th ID to get into position, that was clearly due to the gamble of getting Saddam from the air with a chop off the head strike. Had it worked, it would have increased the chance of getting regime change while keeping the Iraqi army intact. From a Berman/Hitchens left hawk POV, that wasnt worth a helluva lot, since the Iraqi army leadership was dominated by Baathist fascists or their collaborators - even had it worked it would have been the equvalent of putting in place the German General Staff in 1944. given that, and given that it failed, clearly the biggest US mistake of the war.

[Lord Merciless]

The ones in Gaza and West Bank are nuts. Their presence essentially encourages other nutcases to blow themselves up in restaurants and kindergartens, thus drawing more Israeli retributions.

As long as Palestinians enjoy suicide bombings, there is absolutely nothing that should justify their cause.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Next topic.

When exactly was it that the left became emasculated?

The 1980s. The rise of political correctness and post-modernism has largely destroyed what the fall of the USSR didn't demoralize.

i dont think the left that Berman looks back to fondly was demoralized by the fall of the USSR. I mean hes writing in Dissent magazine, for crying out loud.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


There was a great deal of debate during the run up about "why now" which ran the gamut of timing issues, from "imminent nukes" to "is containment sustainable" to "we need to drain the swamp now" to "we need to show how tough we are now" to " Jerusalem via Baghdad" to "will the French change their minds if we wait 2 years?" Its hard to do a retrospective cost benefit for several reasons 1. As a John Kerry would say, " I didnt now how theyd play it" - some of the cost and benefits of going, including going WHEN and HOW we did are impacted by policy choices of the Bush admin and of others - eg - IF we had gone with more US troops, and planned better for the occupation, THEN going without UN sanction would have been far less costly. 2. The games not up yet - we still dont know how things will play out in Iraq, militarily and politically, how things will play out in the "dominoes", or even what the long term implications for international relations and international law - can the US NOW reconcile with the UN, et al, and at what cost, if any, to the drain the swamp goals.

Before you can have a "why now?" debate you need a "WHY?" debate. This ia why the admins. misinformation to the public about Iraq's danger to the US is so galling..as much as some high-minded people like perhaps you , and someone like Friedman in the NYT might totally agree with the war, we live in a democracy, and the public, the congress (that body which is supposed to decide on war and peace) went to war NOT to back a long-term experiment, but to get rid of what they were told was a direct threat. The US should not be getting out of adminestering Iraq in a few months-the occupation authorities should, to do the job right, be there for years-then hand back power: but becuase the admin. ent to war on false pretenses now we are rushing.

You speak about the French: what was the French position? That Iraq was not a threat and that inspectors were enough to contain the threat form Iraq: THEY WERE 100% CORRECT!!!. The US never sought to engage the French and the Germans instead on this war as a way of remaking the MIddle East, which is what it was. If you go and tell me "buy this, its blue!", and I say "no, I don't like blue", how can you then say "idiot, you should have gone along cause its heavy!", if that was never part of the sales pitch!?

All the way back in Jan 2002 this admin. should have started going around the world and more importantly, the US, and made it clear this war was about remaking the middle east-that it would take years, hundreads of billions of dollars, and would need a grand international coolition to work- that it was part of the war on terror only in that, if successful, it would help "dry up the swamp". Instead, in august, this admin. starts hyperventilaitng about the grave Iraqi threat! (no such thing) demanding people be with us or against us! and while it makes a brilliant war plan, it seems to have no real clue about what would happen the day after.

Can it still go well? Yes, but after this messy start, we have more to loose than to win, and that is 100% the fault of this admin. If this fails, not only will the uS be in a worse position, even Iraqis themselves will be in a worse position- this one bit of truth was one the admin. NEVER states- and for that, they are weak, vasilating worms,a nd deserve no support.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


What Berman asks about that period, is how and why did the French Socialists split into two factions with completly different positions regarding the resistance to fascism.

Wow, what an utterly imcomplete answer Mr. berman provides.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'm not a big supporter of Berman's position. I thinhk wishy-washy lefties like Berman are too easily swayed by emotions and not by facts.

From the conclusion of an essay at Human Rights Watch:

http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm#_Toc58744952

the invasion of Iraq failed to meet the test for a humanitarian intervention. Most important, the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention. In addition, intervention was not the last reasonable option to stop Iraqi atrocities. Intervention was not motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns. It was not conducted in a way that maximized compliance with international humanitarian law. It was not approved by the Security Council. And while at the time it was launched it was reasonable to believe that the Iraqi people would be better off, it was not designed or carried out with the needs of Iraqis foremost in mind.

In opening this essay, we noted that the controversial invasion of Iraq stood in contrast to the three African interventions. In making that point, we do not suggest that the African interventions were without problems. All suffered to one degree or another from a mixture of motives, inadequate staffing, insufficient efforts to disarm and demobilize abusive forces, and little attention to securing justice and the rule of law. All of the African interventions, however, ultimately confronted ongoing slaughter, were motivated in significant part by humanitarian concerns, were conducted with apparent respect for international humanitarian law, arguably left the country somewhat better off, and received the approval of the U.N. Security Council. Significantly, all were welcomed by the relevant government, meaning that the standards for assessing them are more permissive than for a nonconsensual intervention.

However, even in light of the problems of the African interventions, the extraordinarily high profile of the Iraq war gives it far more potential to affect the public view of future interventions. If its defenders continue to try to justify it as humanitarian when it was not, they risk undermining an institution that, despite all odds, has managed to maintain its viability in this new century as a tool for rescuing people from slaughter.

The Iraq war highlights the need for a better understanding of when military intervention can be justified in humanitarian terms. The above-noted International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty was one important effort to define these parameters. Human Rights Watch has periodically contributed to this debate as well, including with this essay, and various academic writers have offered their own views. But no intergovernmental body has put forth criteria for humanitarian intervention.

This official reticence is not surprising, since governments do not like to contemplate uninvited intrusions in their country. But humanitarian intervention appears to be here to stay—an important and appropriate response to people facing mass slaughter. In the absence of international consensus on the conditions for such intervention, governments inevitably are going to abuse the concept, as the United States has done in its after-the-fact efforts to justify the Iraq war. Human Rights Watch calls on intergovernmental organizations, particularly the political bodies of the United Nations, to end the taboo on discussing the conditions for humanitarian intervention. Some consensus on these conditions, in addition to promoting appropriate use of humanitarian intervention, would help deter abuse of the concept and thus assist in preserving a tool that some of the world’s most vulnerable victims need.

HRW's principle concern is the evolving standard of international law on human rights intervention. Berman addresses grand strategic issues in the struggle with the fascisms now present in the Islamic world. See again Bermans point on international law, and the question Gepap raised on timing.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
The ones in Gaza and West Bank are nuts. Their presence essentially encourages other nutcases to blow themselves up in restaurants and kindergartens, thus drawing more Israeli retributions.

I'd like to see you make this case. In actuality, the Hamas types don't like the Westerns being there, as they help prevent the violence that allows Hamas to fester. Every home that isn't illegally demolished is one less family wanting revenge. Every less school shild with an Israeli bullet in his head is one less reason for someone to blow themselves up in an Israeli cafe. Hamas knows this. Islamic Jihad knows this.

As long as Palestinians enjoy suicide bombings, there is absolutely nothing that should justify their cause.

As long as the Israelis are willing to drop bombs on apartment buildings and crowded streets, "there is absolutely nothing that should justify their cause." There are no good guys in that war, only to bad sides and a lot of innocents caught in the middle.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap



Before you can have a "why now?" debate you need a "WHY?" debate.

That the admin sold a liberal war on conservative grounds was indeed a key problem. The admin is not filled with liberal hawks, unfortunately. The closest theyve got is neo cons like Wolfowitz, who are outnumbered by moderate realists like Powell, and national interest uber hawks like Cheney and Rumsfeld. But as Berman says, that was the reality. And within that reality a choice needed to be made. (BTW, I dont think an honest presentation of the liberal case for war would have swayed Jacques Chirac, but we will never know)

And more importantly choices STILL need to be made.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


HRW's principle concern is the evolving standard of international law on human rights intervention. Berman addresses grand strategic issues in the struggle with the fascisms now present in the Islamic world.

As much as it is in fashion to call the Islamist movement facist, it is not an epxansionistic fascism ala the German, Italian, or Japanese style. Was the left advocating in 1936 invading Italy and overthrowing Mussolini, or instead stopping Mussolini, or Hitler, from gaining power elsewhere?

There are crucial differences, and comparisons to "mr. hitler" aren't enough opf a valid arguement.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
And within that reality a choice needed to be made. (BTW, I dont think an honest presentation of the liberal case for war would have swayed Jacques Chirac, but we will never know)

And more importantly choices STILL need to be made.

And the correct choice would have been to say that as long as the admin. was selling the war on false pretenses, NO, becuase it is questionable that they could do the job as it needed to be done, and this job, done badly, is a greater danger than it not done at all.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap
[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark


HRW's principle concern is the evolving standard of international law on human rights intervention. Berman addresses grand strategic issues in the struggle with the fascisms now present in the Islamic world.

As much as it is in fashion to call the Islamist movement facist, it is not an epxansionistic fascism ala the German, Italian, or Japanese style. Was the left advocating in 1936 invading Italy and overthrowing Mussolini, or instead stopping Mussolini, or Hitler, from gaining power elsewhere?

There are crucial differences, and comparisons to "mr. hitler" aren't enough opf a valid arguement.

The islamist movement IS expansionist, at least within the islamic world, and on disputed borderlands, from south Sudan to Israel to India to Bali - what their ultimate stopping point would be should they acheive their intermediate goal of a pan-islamic state is a matter of dispute - at least in statements from Osama and his associates he seems to beleive that further jihad would be unnecessary, as the glorius achievements of the caliphate would lead to mass conversions to Islam in the non-Islamic world. Surely the intermediate steps are disastrous enough to warrant fighting back??? Just as it would have been worth it stand up for Ethiopians and Spaniards, even if fascism hadnt threatened world conquest.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Wow, what an utterly imcomplete answer Mr. berman provides.

Have you read "Liberalism and Terror"?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap



And the correct choice would have been to say that as long as the admin. was selling the war on false pretenses, NO, becuase it is questionable that they could do the job as it needed to be done, and this job, done badly, is a greater danger than it not done at all.

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.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
HRW's principle concern is the evolving standard of international law on human rights intervention. Berman addresses grand strategic issues in the struggle with the fascisms now present in the Islamic world. See again Bermans point on international law, and the question Gepap raised on timing.

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.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The islamist movement IS expansionist, at least within the islamic world, and on disputed borderlands, from south Sudan to Israel to India to Bali - what their ultimate stopping point would be should they acheive their intermediate goal of a pan-islamic state is a matter of dispute - at least in statements from Osama and his associates he seems to beleive that further jihad would be unnecessary, as the glorius achievements of the caliphate would lead to mass conversions to Islam in the non-Islamic world. Surely the intermediate steps are disastrous enough to warrant fighting back??? Just as it would have been worth it stand up for Ethiopians and Spaniards, even if fascism hadnt threatened world conquest.

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.

How does attacking a secular baathist dictatorship undermine the Islamists? Yes, I know the arguments how, but the fact is, due to how this war begun, was sold, and is being carried out, the Islamists have been big winners. In a way, attacking Iraq is like saying in 1938: lets get rid of the USSR becuase the threat of Bolshevism is one of Hitler's biggests draws, so if we remove that, we weaken hitler and win the war of ideas!

Becuase in essence, that is what this is, a war of ideas in the Islamic world, now undergoing radical changes due to population growth, economic pressures, so forth. A mishandled and failed war in Iraq utterly discredits outside intervention in the name of trying to make dmeocracy, thus providing the Islamist a huge win, at no costs since the guys who got hit are also their enemies (the baathists, the regimes of Egypt and SA) in the ME.

To put it most simply: the war in Iraq is burdened by an immense original sin, a sin that rots away at the whole enterprise. It will be hard overcoming this sin, and we will need to acknowledge it before we can. The sin is the fault of this admin., and it is incapable of undoing it.