Paul Berman offers a different view on Iraq and leftism

[GePap]

As HR rightly points out, the high points of Saddam's murderousness happened in the closing years of the Cold War, not in the last 12 years. The vast majority of his victims happened pre-1992.

[Theben]

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

And how well would that have sold with the American public?

[MrFun]

We're all dependent on oil aren't we?? So why don't we stop bullsh*tting ourselves by believing Bush's lies?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


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.



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?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


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.

Im not clear are you claiming that what the italians did in Spain was NOT expansionism, that was opposed by many leftists of the time??? Some spaniards welcomed it - some opposed it - you could say the same about any muslim society of today wrt to the jihadis.

Yes, muslims define themselves as muslims, but not all define themselves as part of a muslim religious community that transcends national boundaries.


Lets take this analogy out - Danes in 1940 self defined racially as white nordics, and nationally as Danes. However to them their national identiy was their political identity NOT their racial identity , and so when intervention by white nordic Germans took place, the overwhelming majority of them opposed it and saw it as foreign expansionism.

Now in say Indonesia the majority of the population is religiously muslim, and identify nationally as Indonesians, citizens of a secular state that also has hindu and christian citizens. If there is an attempt, orchestrated by Bin Laden (a saudi) and Al zawahiri (an egyptian) to establish an islamic state, by internationally organized violence in Indonesia thats aggression. That it has the support of some Indonesians is of no more importance definitionally than the presence of Danish or Norwegian Nazis.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


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

I would think youd find him more interesting and illuminating than a pro-Bush hawk.

And hes a lot more calmer and more balanced than Hitchens.


So i take it the only book you would read on the WOT would be one that shared your views?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
So i take it the only book you would read on the WOT would be one that shared your views?

I don;t read books on the war on terror: too recent for books.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I don;t read books on the war on terror: too recent for books.

Berman has lots of stuff on late 19th century french poetry, Camus, 1930's French socialism, the history of russian anarchism, the history of the muslim brotherhood in 1920's Egypt, and the life and thought of Sayed Qutb, who died in a Cairo jail in 1965. Its hardly just a book of current events.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Im not clear are you claiming that what the italians did in Spain was NOT expansionism, that was opposed by many leftists of the time??? Some spaniards welcomed it - some opposed it - you could say the same about any muslim society of today wrt to the jihadis.

Italian intervention on the side of thier ideological allies was no more expansionism than the US intervening on the side of its ideological allies in Asia and latin America

Yes, muslims define themselves as muslims, but not all define themselves as part of a muslim religious community that transcends national boundaries.

And that is one of the points of conflict.

Lets take this analogy out - Danes in 1940 self defined racially as white nordics, and nationally as Danes. However to them their national identiy was their political identity NOT their racial identity , and so when intervention by white nordic Germans took place, the overwhelming majority of them opposed it and saw it as foreign expansionism.

Nazi ideology did NOT call for all nordic races to be united as one: the invasion of Denmark (well, the one days stroll though Denmark) occured simply due to the vagaries of the war- had Norway not been a target, I doubt the Germans would have wasted the resources. So the annalogy is still false.

Now in say Indonesia the majority of the population is religiously muslim, and identify nationally as Indonesians, citizens of a secular state that also has hindu and christian citizens. If there is an attempt, orchestrated by Bin Laden (a saudi) and Al zawahiri (an egyptian) to establish an islamic state, by internationally organized violence in Indonesia thats aggression. That it has the support of some Indonesians is of no more importance definitionally than the presence of Danish or Norwegian Nazis.

Aren't the two biggest political parties in indonesia leaning towards islamicism?

The most powerful islamist groups (ie, those with actual power somewhere) are the nationalist ones, like hizbullah, or the Taliban, groups that are not particularly interested in grand crusades of Islamic unity.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Berman has lots of stuff on late 19th century french poetry, Camus, 1930's French socialism, the history of russian anarchism, the history of the muslim brotherhood in 1920's Egypt, and the life and thought of Sayed Qutb, who died in a Cairo jail in 1965. Its hardly just a book of current events.

These aren't book on the WOT then, are they?

Rgith now, I am not in a mood of reading histories or political tracts of any type. I guess the current climate has soured my mood.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


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.

To the extent that it improves the situation yes. To the extent that it is merely a distraction for political gain no.

Ohhh for the days of Bipartisanship.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Italian intervention on the side of thier ideological allies was no more expansionism than the US intervening on the side of its ideological allies in Asia and latin America



LOTM - Yet it was opposed by leftists at the time, and rightly so to Berman. Hes saying we should look at the current WOT the same way.

Yes, muslims define themselves as muslims, but not all define themselves as part of a muslim religious community that transcends national boundaries.

And that is one of the points of conflict.

Lets take this analogy out - Danes in 1940 self defined racially as white nordics, and nationally as Danes. However to them their national identiy was their political identity NOT their racial identity , and so when intervention by white nordic Germans took place, the overwhelming majority of them opposed it and saw it as foreign expansionism.

Nazi ideology did NOT call for all nordic races to be united as one:

LOTM - IIUC they called for German domination of the world and for the assimilation of other nordics to Germany as far as possible. they were "pragmatic" however, and werent about to invade sweden or Switzaerland in the short run.

the invasion of Denmark (well, the one days stroll though Denmark) occured simply due to the vagaries of the war- had Norway not been a target, I doubt the Germans would have wasted the resources. So the annalogy is still false.



Aren't the two biggest political parties in indonesia leaning towards islamicism?

LOTM - granted this is more complex than simply Secularists and jihadis - the islamist parties in Indonesia, IIUC, want sharia IN indonesia. they do NOT want Indonesia to be replaced by a pan-Islamic state. As i said (and i think Berman acknowledges) not all islamists are jihadists. And i would add, not all islamists are islamofascists, just as not all muslims are islamists.


The most powerful islamist groups (ie, those with actual power somewhere) are the nationalist ones, like hizbullah, or the Taliban, groups that are not particularly interested in grand crusades of Islamic unity.

LOTM - Lebanese Hizbullah is a shiite group, and is ideologically distinct from the Salafi-jihadi pan-islamists. (They have of course used terror, and berman has an interesting discussion of the relationship between fascism and terror in general, but thats rather different from the identification of Qutbist pan-Islamist jihadis with fascism)


As for the Taliban, while they may have been principally concerned with their domestic agenda, they worked hand in glove with al - qaeeda, who largely financed and to some extent ran their regime. A good analogy would be the relationship of the Hungarian arrow cross to the German Nazis.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


These aren't book on the WOT then, are they?

Thats ALL in "Liberalism and Terror" Gepap. And yes, it does all fit together nicely. Something of an intellectual tour de force. Why i keep recommending it. Not the kind of book id expect Dubya to read, though he should.

[chequita guevara]

I haven't liked many of Berman's articles in the last year, but I'll check out the book.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I haven't liked many of Berman's articles in the last year, but I'll check out the book.

i think youll enjoy it - be forewarned, his socialism is more of the revisionist school - democratic socialist - anti communist school - think Michael Walzer (though MW was a dove on Iraq, IIRC)