Before - and After - Iraq

[Michael Tee]

Back to the Victor Davis Hanson article - -

<<George W. Bush resolved to democratize Iraq also as a way to confront three grim facts of our recent past.>>

Let's be clear about this from the outset:  it is extremely unlikely that Bush EVER resolved to "democratize" Iraq prior to his invasion of it.  He gave no indication to the American people that this was his main reason for the invasion, which was sold to the whole world as a NECESSITY forced upon the American people by the "deadly threat" of Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction."  Democratization, when mentioned at all, was presented as an incidental benefit that would flow from the invasion, a special treat for the Iraqis which would neutralize any hostility towards the invaders.  The REAL reasons for the invasion are what they obviously appear to be: control of an important resource in the face of growing international competition for energy and service to the interests of the State of Israel.  The publicly stated reason - - weapons of mass destruction - - was obviously a lie from the beginning and fooled virtually none of the major European powers or Canada.  Did not even fool half of the American public themselves.

<<First, the United States had been far too friendly with atrocious regimes in the Middle East.>>

Well, that's true enough.  But there is not a single instance in all of American history when America invaded a country and replaced its leadership because its regime was "atrocious."  It's a helluva stretch to ask anyone to believe that this is why the U.S. invaded.  Besides, many regimes (Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan) are equally or almost equally "atrocious."  Not only does the U.S. not invade them, it does not even call for sanctions against them.  It does not refuse all of them foreign aid.  It does not refuse to sell all of them weapons.  It is clear that although the U.S. may claim to have been upset enough to invade Iraq because of Iraq's "atrocious" governments, this is impossible to reconcile with America's failure to take ANY steps against other regimes which are equally atrocious, even steps which fall far short of invasion.

<<And when bloodletting inevitably broke out, either internally or between aggressive regimes, too often we cynically played one side off the other. Or we backed repugnant insurgents, with little thought of the "blowback" that would result. We outsourced sophisticated arms and training to radical Islamists fighting against the Soviet-backed Afghan government. We hoped the murderous Saddam might check the murderous Iranian theocracy - and then again sold arms to the mullahs during the Iran-Contra affair.

We breezily called for an uprising of Shiites and Kurds only to abandon them to be slaughtered by Saddam after the first Gulf War. We cynically gave the Mubarak dynasty of Egypt billions in protection money to behave. While we thought we were achieving short-term expediency, American policy only increased long-term instability by not pressuring these tyrants to reform failed governments.>>

It's kind of interesting that in this entire litany of American foreign-policy "errors" - - moral failures actually - - none of them even mention U.S. support for Israel, which has to be a major factor in inflaming Muslim and Middle Eastern opinion against America - - and none of them can in even the remotest way justify the invasion of Iraq, which Hanson doesn't even try.

What was the point of even mentioning all these "errors" of past judgment?  Hanson's piece isn't aimed at the true believers, the already-committed; he's aiming at the liberals, the uncommitted.  Conceding failures of past U.S. policies in matters that don't directly relate to the invasion and its possible reasons, Hanson is trying to get his targets onboard by saying things he knows they will agree with.  At the same time, ANY mention of Israel at this point, particuarly in the context of failed or "erroneous" past American policies would run directly counter to the interests of the patron which Hanson is being paid to protect at all costs.  No way can America's problems in the Middle East be related back to Israel - - those problems are and have to remain tied solely to the "Clash of Civilizations" "Islamofascist" nonsense popularized by Bernard Lewis and other Zionist propagandists.

[Michael Tee]

<<Sorry , don't see how a congressional resolutional before the PNAC letters is an attempt by the jew bastard neo-cons to obscure the issue. Firstly because the PNAC signers were not all jew bastards . . .  >>

Most of the PNAC founding members were in fact Jewish and Zionist and all of them were Zionists.  That fact remained constant from the founding of PNAC until now.  It was certainly the case when the letter was signed, and at that time I believe that Cheney was the only prominent non-Jewish member of PNAC.

<<and secondly because the PNAC letters were basically a me too statement. It's that pesky timeline thing again. >>

I'm afraid that unless you can produce a date and a text for this alleged resolution, nobody is going to be able to comment meaningfully on any timeline, yourself included.

[domer]

I ask this in all sincerity, Michael: How does Israel inflame the whole Muslim world? And what do you suggest be done about it now?

[Michael Tee]

<<I ask this in all sincerity, Michael: How does Israel inflame the whole Muslim world? And what do you suggest be done about it now?>>

domer, you just don't grasp the enormity of what's going on in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank or how long it's been going on.  If I said "Nazi occupation," it'd be an exaggeration, but not by all that much.  But what's hidden from your eyes - - or shown in tiny snippets maybe once or twice a week on your MSM - - is front-page news all day every day all over the Arab world.  This, incidentally, is why it's an outrage that the Arabs have no voice here, that al-Jazeera can't show its news alongside Fox and CNN.  America has no idea, America has no clue.  Murders, assassinations, bulldozings, women giving birth waiting in line at checkpoints, ambulances turned back, crops destroyed, fruit trees cut down, beatings . . . once in awhile a shell hits a home and 19 family members die, but the killings go on day after day in smaller numbers - - killings, maimings, cripplings.  The Gaza Strip and the West Bank are living hells - - intentionally so, because the Israelis want them, want the Palestinians out, one at a time if necessary. 

You don't get the same news the Arabs get, domer - - you get a very sanitized version.  They see this shit day in, day out and they can't do a God-damned fucking thing about it.  THAT'S what enrages them - - not just the atrocities but their own powerlessness in the face of them.  That no Arab government will step forward and take up the cause.  That the one who came closest - - Saddam - - was destroyed for it.  Sure, Saddam was a thug and a torturer - - who isn't?  Their own governments are as bad or worse, but you don't see America "regime-changing" them.  The Israeli government's almost as bad - - you don't see the U.S. government regime-changing it.

In one word, domer, INJUSTICE.  Injustice is inflaming them.  It's driving them crazy.  I'm just a dumb fucking Jew living in Canada and it's driving ME nuts, what do you think it is doing to people who are the same flesh and blood and race and religion and speak the same language and come from the same culture?  Living under some fucking U.S.-backed dictatorship that's been bought and sold and won't lift a finger to stop the Israeli slaughter of Muslims?  This is a back-story in America, domer, but it's front-page news all day every day in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

I think it could have gotten to the point where it can't be turned back.  Too much hatred built up.  But that shouldn't matter.  The Jews have got to stop oppressing the Arabs and the Americans have got to stop supporting the Jews.  Or the Israelis, technically.  They need a new broom in Jerusalem.  Somebody who comes in brand new and says Holy Shit!  We have been fucking up and doing wrong and it's stopping here and now.  We are deadly sorry for what we have done and we are going to offer massive reparations to the extent of our ability to repay but for right now this is going to happen:  All Jewish forces out of Gaza and West Bank over the next thirty days.  Period.  We are not going to evacuate any settlements.  All settlers who wish to stay will have to accept that they will  live under Palestinian law.  We will not protect them.  Stay or leave, that is YOUR problem, settlers, it is not our problem any more.  Your property will become subject to Palestinian law.  If they seize it, the seizure will be accounted for as down payment on the reparations we owe to the Palestinians but in any event we are levying a tax of $1,000 U.S. on every living Israeli, to be paid as a FIRST INSTALMENT ONLY on a reparations fund.  Our army will defend ourselves against any and all attacks.  We have apologized and we will make reparations regardless of whether you attack us within our new borders or not, but we will defend ourselves against all attacks regardless of our guilt for past atrocities.

As I see it, that's what they have to do.  The present course will just build ever-escalating hatred.  Sooner or later the U.S. will abandon them and by that time they will be truly fucked.  This way is the only way - - stop doing the shit that feeds the hatred, try to the outer limits of what you can to make amends, defend yourself vigilantly in the interim and hope that gradually with the passage of time the hatred will slowly ebb.  And hold on to those nuclear weapons just in case.

[Amianthus]

I'm afraid that unless you can produce a date and a text for this alleged resolution

It's been posted before, several times. Must be that pesky memory thing again.

HR 4655, submitted January 27th, 1998. Became Public Law No: 105-338 when Clinton signed it on August 14th, 1998.

IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998

[domer]

Thank you, Michael. Further questions: Why does the larger Arab-Muslim world, served by al-Jazeera et al., identify so strongly with the Palestinians? Why is harm to a Palestinian harm to oneself? This seems like primitive thinking, that is, thinking without normal psychological boundaries. And, in truth, despite what the Arab-Muslim world is fed, is not the situation more tragic than barbaric, as you characterize it? As far as the steps you think need to be taken posthaste, is Israel's continued existence as a nation (which I will separate from the safety of its people, which I would suggest the US has a role in protecting) a primary feature of this tableau, or is it expendable?

[Plane]

Thank you, Michael. Further questions: Why does the larger Arab-Muslim world, served by al-Jazeera et al., identify so strongly with the Palestinians? Why is harm to a Palestinian harm to oneself? This seems like primitive thinking, that is, thinking without normal psychological boundaries. And, in truth, despite what the Arab-Muslim world is fed, is not the situation more tragic than barbaric, as you characterize it? As far as the steps you think need to be taken posthaste, is Israel's continued existence as a nation (which I will separate from the safety of its people, which I would suggest the US has a role in protecting) a primary feature of this tableau, or is it expendable?

It is not hard to understand in the light of our own behavior.

Consider the news coverage of the Indian Ocean Tsunami , the casualtys included many thousand Asains but we were interviewing the few hundred European and American survivors much more than the local survivors.

[sirs]

<<This coming from the fella that believes Bush would have sat on 911 if he knew . . . >>

Yes, particularly since the PNAC lay out the need to invade a major Middle Eastern nation, and speculated that "only a new Pearl Harbor" could provide the justification, it's not unthinkable that Bush would have let the WTC attacks proceed had he been given advance knowledge.  You have produced no evidence at all to the contrary and since we're both speculating on a hypothetical, but I with the advantage that Bush's past actions, mainly lying whenever it suits him, prove that he is unscrupulous, amoral and unethical, I would say that my speculation is just as valid as yours. 

Where as I see the absolute opposite as my advantage, in that to embrace the mindset you're requiring would mandate a madman, an evil, egregiously hateful person.  And from nearly EVERY PUBLIC EXAMPLE, we see just the opposite.  The WORST thing you could apply to Bush is a potentially fatal naivity, of the world, and towards those that will do absolutely anything in bringing both him and this country down. 

 

rape, torture, murder, cover-up . . . what are they, the acts of a small band of Christian saints?  Oh no!  I forgot!  They're the acts of "a few bad apples"

Who are both condemned by the vast majority of those who support the war, and Prosecuted by those very same Government & military folk

"widespread" in this context means that they aren't an army of thugs unless every soldier in every unit in every theatre of operations has personally committed at least one act of torture, murder or rape

No, that it's common place, public, and condoned by folks like myself and by the military

who by some sheer coincidence having nothing at all to do with the American invasion somehow mysteriously appeared in its wake

Better there than on these shores

<< and that polling of Iraqis demonstrated how taking out Saddam was crucial, regardless the cost.  >>

The fact that you can't point to one such poll is of course immaterial.  It's sufficient that you can imagine such a poll, and (in conservative minds at least) your point is irrefutably proven.

61% currently    http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf   At one time it was 77%

[Michael Tee]

<<Where as I see the absolute opposite as my advantage, in that to embrace the mindset you're requiring would mandate a madman, an evil, egregiously hateful person.  And from nearly EVERY PUBLIC EXAMPLE, we see just the opposite. >>

sirs, I'm sorry I don't have the time right now to deal with all of your post, but the above words just kind of leapt off the screen for me and demanded a response.  I really think you ought to read Hannah Arendt's book, "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil."  I'm sure you'd find it very interesting.

[Michael Tee]

Thank you, Ami.

BT, your timeline argument is totally bogus.  Not only did the PNAC letter precede the Congressional Resolution you refer to, the same people who produced the PNAC letter  were, as I suspected, the very people who promoted the resolution.  Read this, my friend:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701610462/U_S_-Iraq_War.html
U.S.-Iraq War

<<Long before President George W. Bush took office in 2001, elements in or close to the Republican Party had called repeatedly for firmer U.S. steps against Iraq, including a war if necessary to force a regime change. One such group authored a white paper in 1996 called A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, which was later sent to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of Israel’s Likud Party. It advocated a war against Iraq as a way of undermining Syria and of moderating the Shia Hezbollah of southern Lebanon, arguing that these actions would pave the way for peace and stability in a notoriously unstable part of the world. The paper came out of discussions among foreign policy experts, including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser, many of whom later occupied important positions in the Bush administration.  [every single one of them Jewish and every single one of them a supporter of the State of Israel - MT]

<<The PNAC wrote a letter to President Clinton in January 1998 calling for “the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime” from power and urging Clinton to use “a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts” to accomplish this.

<<A month later the same signatories joined a broader group of foreign policy and defense experts known as the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf in another open letter to President Clinton. This letter was more explicit in calling for the use of military force, including a “systematic air campaign” to destroy Iraq’s Republican Guard divisions. Their efforts helped lead to the Iraq Liberation Act, passed by Congress and signed by Clinton in 1998, which made regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy.>>

The website for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm -
indicates that this legislation was introduced well after the PNAC letter, sent in January of that same year.

[Michael Tee]

Thank you, Michael. Further questions: Why does the larger Arab-Muslim world, served by al-Jazeera et al., identify so strongly with the Palestinians? >>

That's a good question.  I'd say it's kinship of various kinds, multi-level mutually reinforcing kinships - - first just human-to-human.  The same reason why I, or Rachael Corrie or virtually any thinking, feeling human being is going to be shocked by what happens to a Palestinian or a Rwandan or a Vietnamese or a Jew:  we're all humans, and who wants to see that kind of suffering endured by another human being who could be one's mother or sister or uncle.  The identification is sharpened by a higher levels of kinship - - these aren't just randomized human beings picked off anywhere on the face of the earth - - they're Muslims, Arabs, Arabic speakers - - there's a kinship factor there which makes it even more personal.

<<Why is harm to a Palestinian harm to oneself? This seems like primitive thinking, that is, thinking without normal psychological boundaries.>>

I think, domer, you are opening up a huge can of worms when you talk about normal psychological boundaries.  "Normal psychological boundaries," as you call them, are what let the U.S.A. and Canada slam the door in the face of Jewish refugees seeking asylum from Hitler in the last years leading up to WWII.  I choose to call it what it is - - a stunning and callous indifference to the fate of others.  How "normal" those "psychological boundaries" are can be seen from the fact that Great Britain, with a tiny fraction of the land mass and natural resources of either Canada or the U.S.A. and facing an imminent life-and-death struggle with Nazi Germany, was able to open its doors to approximately 100,000 of the same refugees during the same time period, and France and the Netherlands were capable of more or less the same acts of generosity and compassion.

[BT]

BT, your timeline argument is totally bogus

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june98/iraq_1-30.html

The move to oust Saddam was going on well before the PNAC letter.

[Michael Tee]

<<And, in truth, despite what the Arab-Muslim world is fed, is not the situation more tragic than barbaric, as you characterize it? >>

Aww, domer, come on.  The situation is what it is.  When you watch a video of a 12-year-old being shot to death as he cowers in terror against a wall with his father, or Rachael Corrie being crushed by a bulldozer, you don't analyze this thing like a Richard Ouzounian movie review in the Toronto Star as to whether we're seeing pathos or tragedy or hubris or black comedy.  These people are experiencing a powerful sense of outrage.  You're missing completely the visceral level at which this conflict is being perceived.  As far as I'm concerned, at which this conflict should be perceived.

Sure, in the wider historical context, you are 100% right.  It IS tragic.  I am positive that the more enlightened Arab observers (like the late Edward Said, for example, or even Marwan Barghouti) would see it as tragic.  But you asked about hatred.  The hatred comes from the masses of people who lack the perspective to see it as tragic.

<<As far as the steps you think need to be taken posthaste, is Israel's continued existence as a nation (which I will separate from the safety of its people, which I would suggest the US has a role in protecting) a primary feature of this tableau, or is it expendable?>>

Well, that's probably the most challenging idea that's been opened up in this whole debate.  Usually the safety of the Jewish people in Israel has been tied to the survival of the nation.  I never considered that the two issues could be separated.  Sloppy thinking, I guess, but it just never seemed realistic or practical to consider the two issues as separate.  But I suppose now with the "one-state" solution emerging on the Arab side of the debate, it's probably something that would bear some thought.

I just don't know - - this is all off-the-cuff for me.  I'm ambivalent about nationalism.   I always mistrusted it, because I felt it played a big role in the Holocaust.  At the same time, I was always an enthusiastic supporter of the various national liberation movements - - Algeria, Viet Nam, Cuba, even to the point where I began to appreciate the latter two more as triumphs of national liberation than of my "first love," revolutionary communism.  I always related to Zionism (positively) as a kind of Jewish national liberation movement, never as the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy.  I guess I could say that a single state with equal rights for all might one day be theoretically acceptable to me personally but with huge reservations.  My gut instinct is to stick with a Jewish national state for now - - when the other nations abandon their national identities, then maybe the Jews can abandon theirs.  Excellent question, though, domer.  Sorry I can't answer it any better.

[Michael Tee]

<<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june98/iraq_1-30.html

<<The move to oust Saddam was going on well before the PNAC letter. >>

You should pay closer attention to your own time-lines.  The panel discussion you referred to occurred on the second-last day of January, 1998.  Assuming the most favourable position possible for your point, the first PNAC letter (the one with an ALL-Jewish signing cast) was delivered in "January, 1998," which means that if in fact it was delivered after your panel discussion, could only have been delivered late in the day of January 30 or else delivered on January 31st, 1998.  In neither case would that constitute a panel discussion "well before" the PNAC letter and in fact the odds of the panel discussion  having been held any time before the PNAC letter are actually something less than two in 31.

[sirs]

<<Where as I see the absolute opposite as my advantage, in that to embrace the mindset you're requiring would mandate a madman, an evil, egregiously hateful person.  And from nearly EVERY PUBLIC EXAMPLE, we see just the opposite. >>

sirs, I'm sorry I don't have the time right now to deal with all of your post, but the above words just kind of leapt off the screen for me and demanded a response.  I really think you ought to read Hannah Arendt's book, "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil."  I'm sure you'd find it very interesting.

Thanks for the Christmas suggestion, Tee.  I'll keep it under advisement.  Would I be guessing correctly that it references how what we see is supposed to prove the oppoisite of what is?  More of that lack of proof is proof tactic, being employed yet again, perhaps?