During the early phase of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, I came across a scathing critique of the war in a suprising locale, written by the unlikeliest (or so I thought) accuser of the Bush-Blair axis of imperialism. The publication was Conrad Black’s militantly right-wing, pro-war British weekly, The Spectator, and the author was named Hitchens—not the putatively “leftist” one named… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (56)Page 1 of 1 pagesDear Mr. MacArthur, Sorry that this comment on your article doesn’t come from an expertise. I practically know nothing about who is who in that complex world of interventionism as my interests have been quite others, though less harmful to all, I hope. So I generally let myself be guided by a mixture of intuition and a very simple question “How will this affect innocent children who can’t be blamed for the games of horror exercised by men in power?” The conclusions I usually get to are too obvious. I don’t believe in the good of attacks (pre-emptive or not), I don’t believe in the benefits of rapacity or accumulation which I think are intrinsecally painful to others. Anyway, as the world is approaching a very dangerous zone for which I see no point of return, I am as of late trying to get informed. Your article put me on the track of names I ignored and gave me enough thinking material for which I am extremely thankful. Best wishes.
Posted by Maria L. Etchart on Jul 28, 2003 at 9:32 PM Bush’s global agression is indeed very “liberal” in the same sense that Hitler’s was in europe in the 1930’s I believe that old fashioned nationalism can be a positive force in a community of nations when it is subordinate to international law based on the spiritual principle of the essential unity of all mankind.
Posted by A. J. Travland on Jul 28, 2003 at 9:37 PM Both your commentaries pro and con for US military directed ‘humanitarian interventionism miss the boat. There is such a thing as humanitarian interventionism, but it never should have anything to with calling on one’s corporate government in the US to invade and take-out an ‘enemy’ by using economic boycotts, or miltary strikes.
It is a failure of our imagination to allow the business press and Right Wing to limit our choices to an invade, or not-to-invade, scenario. It is a type of hucksterism typical of a used car salesman that makes demands that you either take the ‘special’ now, or it’s to be gone 2 minutes later. We just got to drop ordinace now, or a catastrophe will occur!
Have our dumbed down souls lost track of nicer ways to intervene? We can demand US government interventions with ‘carrots’, rather than clubs to beat others down with.
Strikingly, liberals seem to be no different than conservatives in currently not advocating this.
It strikes fear into the hearts of even Green Party types, to imagine advocating doing something good outside our borders with US tax-payer money money! Why? Because it should be part of how real ‘national secuirity’s addressed. Money spent on stopping the worldwide spread of AIDS, or in ensuring that the children of the world have sanitation does more than our trillions of dollars of bombs and missiles do. We should talk about that humanitarian interventionism, instead of debating case by case whether a Milosevic or some other demonized leader needs to be forced out of power.
Posted by Tony Abdo on Jul 28, 2003 at 9:48 PM Ultimately, the US’s interventions are unilateral in the sense that they dominate any alliance or coalition put together. Because the US is such a dominant country globally, there is little that other countries can do to oppose the US. The problem is the US’s own politics. It is a dysfunctional political system that can not address American social needs but a political system with foreign policy elephantitis.
Posted by Charles Jannuzi on Jul 29, 2003 at 1:00 AM An objective look at “good” U.S. interventions abroad gone bad.
Posted by Tye De Grange on Jul 29, 2003 at 3:35 AM Left, Right, Middle have become meaningless terms since the death of the Kennedys. Our Corporate Imperial Masters have set this whole scenario up so beautifully, that even the Hitchen’s brothers “switching camp” seem like something important, when its just another distraction to keep us hooked on the microcosm, while in the macrocosm, unbelievable manipulations are taking place that we know nothing about; nor could we do anything about them if we did, except get hyped by some tidbit of gossip. We’ve got much to learn in a much wider perspective than this one.
Posted by Ryokan on Jul 29, 2003 at 6:21 AM Readers might like to look at the British writer David Chandler’s critique of the new doctrine of human-rights-based interventionism, for example at http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006D88A.htm
Posted by Andrew Chitty on Jul 29, 2003 at 8:20 AM Old wars with new weapons. I read in the Encyclopedia of WW2 that toward the end of WW2 Germany actually had formed a Moslem SS to kill the Slavic Serbs. I think the Serbs remember this as well as the Turkish invasions earlier. Why doesn’t anyone mention this when talking about Serbian cruelty?
Posted by Jesse on Jul 29, 2003 at 11:15 PM Remember, too, that one type of intervention is just interference. Take for example the chain of events that set off the Yugoslav civil war. Who interfered in Slovenia to train them and help them plan a rebellion in the first place? I suspect the US was behind it through surrogates like Austria and Germany?
Posted by Charles Jannuzi on Jul 30, 2003 at 12:24 AM Further reading, more specifically on NATO’s
humanitarian interventionism in Yugoslavia:
http://swans.com/library/art9/dianaj01.htmlThe link includes the full introduction to Diana
Johnstone’s Fools’ Crusade, along with 3 great reviews of the book.
Posted by e.b. on Jul 30, 2003 at 2:45 AM Art: Liberals pushed humanitarian interventions. Now Bush is using it too for aggressions. Jim
Posted by Jim Kawakami on Jul 30, 2003 at 5:40 PM Dear Mr. MacArthur,
You did not claim, as far as I can tell, that leftists started “liberal intervention” in Bosnia. I am glad you did not, because it would have been false. Nobody intervened in Bosnia, not militarily anyway. Further, it might be an exaggeration to say that the blue helmets were ìcapos in a concentration camp,î but they certainly did not help anybody, lest of all “noble Bosnians.” Certainly not the dead “noble Bosnians.” Also, you say that the Kosovo intervention was uncalled for, especially since Milosevic agreed to allow UN monitors in Kosovo. Milosevic agreed to a lot of things, and barely ever came through, and it makes me really sad to say this, but I doubt the UN monitors would have been helpful. They may monitor all they want if what they monitoring is killing of innocent people.
I, too, am against military intervention, but I felt these things needed to be said.And to Jesse from Louisville: If Jews were to take arms and start killing Germans all over Germany and putting them into the concentration camps today, would you justify that by saying that that’s exactly what happened to Jews 50 years ago? You can not justify one atrocity by another.
Posted by Emina Alibegovic on Jul 30, 2003 at 10:29 PM The real problem with “humanitarian,” military intervention is that the aggressors rarely attempt peaceful means of intervention. I opposed the bombing of Kosovo primarily because Clinton barely tried to exert diplomatic pressure on Milosevic before resorting to military intervention. When he did decide to intervene, he refused to take the logical course of action, to send in ground troops. It’s lucky that Serbians decided to take care of Milosevic themselves, because at no other time in history has bombing resolved a humanitarian crisis. However, I do take exception to the statement that the bombing resulted in the ethnic cleansing of Serbians on behalf of the KLA. The bombing was pathetic and cowardly, but there was a humanitarian crisis in Kosovo, and not just for KLA members.
I also take exception to another statement that the US intervened on behalf of a “repressive” Bertrand Aristide. Aristide was ousted in a violent coup after serving only several months of his term. The US put Haiti’s democratically-elected government back into power only after Aristide agreed to structural adjustment programs and to give amnesty to all leaders of the coup. Since then, some members of Aristide’s party have perpetrated individual attacks against the opposition, and the opposition has done the same. I have yet to see evidence that Aristide is responsible. In any event, all of this violence combined cannot equal a tiny fraction of human rights abuses committed by the military and paramilitaries before Aristide’s return to power.
Posted by Erika Skornia-Olsen on Jul 31, 2003 at 4:38 AM Perhaps Bertrand Aristide was “sometimes opressive” but wasn’t the tyrant he repalced, Raoul Cedras, always opressive? Sure American intervention has always been motivated by self-interest, but on rare occasions (Nazism, the Taliban) the enemies of American corporate capitalism are so heinous that intervention is, on balance, a good idea—even if unilateralism and shredding the consititution are not.
Posted by Alvin Orloff on Aug 1, 2003 at 7:04 AM Alvin, good you mention the two heinous enemies that the First Family have had close links with:
1. May 2001, Bush admin gives Taliban $43 million.
2. On 20/10/1942, the federal government seized the Union Banking Corporation in New York City as a front operation for the Nazis. Prescott Bush was a director, and Bush, E. R. Harriman, two Bush associates, and three Nazi executives owned the bankís shares. Enemies of American corporate capitalism you say?
Posted by jan on Aug 1, 2003 at 12:44 PM Jan, are you seriously implying that the Bush family’s support of Nazism means that we shouldn’t have stopped Germany from taking over the world? That is not just deplorable but despicable.
Posted by Alvin Orloff on Aug 1, 2003 at 5:45 PM P.S. Arisitide was, for better or worse, the democratically elected president of Haiti. To imply that restoring him to power after the despicable Raoul Cedras overthrew him in a coup is imperialism is quite simply bizarre.
Posted by Alvin Orloff on Aug 1, 2003 at 5:50 PM P.P.S. And if the Nazis weren’t enemies of American corporate capitalism, then why, pray tell, did the United States go to war with them? Are you suggesting that American government is not beholden to our economic elties, a plaything in the hands of the rich and powerful?
Posted by Alvin Orloff on Aug 1, 2003 at 6:03 PM P.P.S. Jan is also making a sly ad hominem attack—trying to imply that I and the proponents of liberal interventionism are pro-Bush. I assure you I’m a dedicated Leftist, despise Bush and oppose the vast majority of American overseas interventions.
Posted by Alvin Orloff on Aug 1, 2003 at 6:15 PM Mr MacArthur,
With respect to your statement:
“But I understand that the Enlightenment ideals codified by the United Nations stem from the (thus far) historically unique Nazi terror.”
Your statement is a very Western- centric view. Consider the Japanese terror in Nanjing and elsewhere in the 1930s and 1940s. The Nazi’s were hardly “unique”. And it is dissapointing to think that the United Nations ignored the experiences of one-fifth of the world’s population in formulating its “Enlightenment ideals”.
My point certainly does not change the fundamental thesis you are making. Nevertheless, the use of such terms as “unique” glosses over and in a backhanded way dismisses as unimportant equally heinous actions by other nations .
Posted by John Pobre on Aug 1, 2003 at 11:55 PM Terrible freaky incest cases; “System’s illness that
affects children”...Talmudian financial lobby dominated Swedish system patronizes fake immigrated incest criminals; “System’s illness that affects children”...**
- Did you know the zionized masters forcing the guiness records about
the
slÂr rekord about their “Incest cases”?.. - That’s right!.
It’s
the hottest programme of this week.. A special debate goes on tv…I
recorded a clip too… FM Channel Radio Independent Laponia comments
the
truth around such themes like “is free incest case a Swedsih Jewish
Evangelian tradition”? It’s a official propostion of any politicains
who
labels themselves as “liberal”...
- Let’s watch it!..
**
http://www.kurdcity.com/english/skrikDetail.asp?Id=169
Posted by Henning Nilsson on Aug 2, 2003 at 1:49 PM Alvin, I meant it was decent of the federal gov to put a stop to Bush family dealing with Nazis when they did. Sly implications are not my intention, I don¥t give a rats¥ ass whether or not you are proBush (personally, I wouldn¥t lose any sleep if the whole inbred family were shot into space).
“And if the Nazis weren’t enemies of American corporate capitalism, then why, pray tell, did the United States go to war with them?”
Sorry to answer a question with a question, but if the United States was at war with the Nazis, then why did American corporate capitalists do business with them?
Posted by jan on Aug 3, 2003 at 3:35 PM I’m surprised your grasp on civilian casualities doesn’t extend past American involment. Surely you must be aware of how short Bush Sr. fell with his baby killing story in Kuwait when the Americans found much worse. I need not go back to Hilter much, but saving Jews (among others) from Hitlers Europe was only comprehensive via an invasion, not sure why you don’t understand that. Much of what your on about is nothing more that planting your flag on the high moral ground (a sound liberal cruch for inaction). I think reality has a long haul up that hill to join you.
Posted by pete maguire on Aug 4, 2003 at 6:34 AM boy this nazi link to the Bush’s is getting silly. Many companies, banks and such in the states and Europe were doing business with Germany, with or without Hitler. For heavens sake, Joe Kennedy was no more enlightened on Hitler either, but who would doubt the actual actions of the Kennedy’s when Hitlers ‘aggression’ needed to be stopped. Bush family the same.
Posted by pete maguire on Aug 4, 2003 at 6:46 AM New World Order’s Jew World Ordered University system including many shameful targets, manipulation and kinky profits by the recruited fake professors, a kind of liberalized educational whore market…
**
- I wonder why there is no true university in Scandinavia!...
- If you should analyse the Scandinavian Leftist so you can find the right
answer!...**
- Have you ever heard about the “professorial chairs” as corruption? - No!
What does it mean? - I began to analyse the Swedish university
system…
?!
**- Sir, where is the Swedish official Leftist league which should struggle
against all the privatizations and unfairness?
- My Laponian wise grandfather had a joke as answer; Gudrun Skyrman Sveksion,
leader of the Swedish Model Left Wingy party and deputy prime minister was late
for a meeting the other day. - Drank so much? - Other
reason… Apparently she was delayed by a full length mirror in the hall.**
- What are you thinking on the privatisation of liberal authorities?
- Fuck them in fact!....All these liberal shurks promise a generous society,
just like the prostitute promises love. We practice gestures of generosity, but
not generosity itself!.
- ?!**
- E.U. under Zionist conspiracy… Many chosen Democratical E.U. Institutions
have been targeted… Anti-Imperialist movements reported the Crisis; EU&Zionist;
Occupational Gang confrontation / Provocations /corruption issues /updated pages
by he coverage of the financial criminal lobbies…
- What is up now? E.U. in Crisis?!
- Unfortunately; yes; that is right!.. E.U. confrontation The Zionist
Occupational Gang and nowadays that is a hot-matter in Bruxelles… Solidarity
volunteers of UNITY comment: Crisis; EU confrontation The Zionist Mafia /
Provocation/ corruption coverage/ updated pages… Financial Criminal Lobbies &
Posted by Maria Richardsson on Aug 4, 2003 at 12:07 PM Left, right, or middle, interventions are mostly done with good intentions and mixed results. Of course some people get killed. The human race is involved in a massive effort to reproduce and crowd each other off the planet. Our compassion and humanism are admirable traits, but they often contribute to our overpopulated planet that is in constant turmoil as resources are taken and consumed by the rich to the detriment of the poor. We controlled the death rate by years of public health measures while conservative religious organizations like the Catholic church and many others have blocked efforts to control population. The death rate will have its turn.
Mr. MacArthur’s prescription to take in the oppressed of the world will only serve to shorten the life expectancy of civilization by making the losers and dispossesed into U.S. consumers and energy wasters on a finite planet.
With religion, politics and resources to fight over, humans will act like…well…humans. It is too bad but it isn’t going to change anytime soon and will likely get worse as overpopulation increases and energy and other resources are diminished. There will be lots of potential interventions in our future. The best one would be a massive global program to control population growth, but it would not make defense contractors wealthy.
Posted by Lee Miller on Aug 4, 2003 at 5:49 PM “boy this nazi link to the Bush’s is getting silly. Many companies, banks and such in the states and Europe were doing business with Germany, with or without Hitler.”
The logic there being that since everyone was doing it, it was okay?
Perhaps you had better walk me through that one.
Posted by Frank on Aug 4, 2003 at 8:36 PM Frank, Alvin,
No, I don’t think anyone is saying we shouldn’t have stopped the Nazis. I think the point I would try to make in taking up this stance is the Bush family has a history of selling out their own country for financial gain and it carries on today.
For money, oh and power, the Bush family has been involved with terrorist organizations, conducted the overthrow of democratically elected governments and fixed elections. Now they’ve sent troops off to a war that the rest of the world said wasn’t necessary when other actions would work. So, more American casualties to help bail out the corporate buddies of the Bush family and to get dubya re-elected.
It didn’t work with the old man and I hope it doesn’t work next election either.
Posted by neil on Aug 5, 2003 at 1:26 PM It wouldn’t matter that George Bush said there were human-rights issues that should be dealt with in Iraq….there either are or aren’t regardless of who says it. Objecting to the idea that this is a situation that we, as the big kid on the block, should deal with would require a bit more refutation than your aversion to the White House’s “altruistic prattle”. You seem to be allowing George Bush to set your agenda by your own predictable objection to whatever he says…..a common failing of the hyper-dogmatic Left, I think.
As for military intervention in general, I wonder how one could repeat the ‘civilian casualties’ argument with a straight face. No serious person would say that civilian casualties are anything less than a tragedy, but and individual one at that. Civilians die everyday in routine enforcement of the law and in automobile accidents, but no one would say that we shouldn’t enforce the law or that cars have to go. It’s a sad trade-off ot be sure, but if the majority stand to benefit from it, it should hardly stand the test as an anti-war argument.
Lastly, we should take in any group of refugees as a solution to dictator/fascist slaughters and genocide? Please. This is not a serious proposal.
I’ve been truly amazed that the Left stands in the comfort zone of Western societies with their hands in their pockets while others suffer needlessly and could stand to benefit from our affluence in the form of military might. It seems logical to me that the Left would be overwhelmingly in favor of these interventions and the Right categorically against them.
Posted by Hunter on Aug 5, 2003 at 4:15 PM Hunter, you can take these same words to apply to your life.
So then we should say nothing? Do nothing? No—this is about as close as we can get to doing anything anymore without getting the shit beat out of us at an anti-war protest. Or losing our jobs for speaking out against it at work. And will the corporate-run media listen to us? No.
In short, it sounds like you’ve taken a colorful approach to saying,
“If you don’t like this country, go move to Iraq!”
Posted by neil on Aug 6, 2003 at 12:19 AM Neil,
No, I didn’t say or insinuate that anyone should say or do nothing. What I would recommend is presenting a consistent argument. For instance, it seems a badge of the Left that it is on the side of the opressed. Great…the opressed surely need it. How does this reconcile with basically saying “Sorry, but I don’t think it is our place to save you”. How did George Bush place himself in the position of freeing those people while the left stood on the sidelines and screamed “Stop!”? Did you not see the reception in Baghdad? (Yes, I know our soldiers are routinely dying in Iraq as soldiers do in conflict, but relatively few considering….probably a historically unprecedented small loss of life). Did Bush have other motivations besides “freeing people”? Of course. I don’t think the hackneyed “it’s for oil” bears much weight but he certainly had the intention of a sound show of force for all of the Arab world to see. The point is that more than one reason can be correct.
If you are committed seeing people free from fascists and dictators, as I am, there you had a perfect opportunity to make a huge difference in the lives of a long opressed people. The evidence has born this out, if you needed any more than was already available. I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000 and I have little in common with the Republican party but I can’t see me voting Democrat because they are all so vague and weak on this very subject.
One last thing. I’ve seen protests and I have failed to see anyone be unjustly roughed-up…..sorry. I also work in corporate America and have had debates with people about this subject and no one came remotely close to losing their job. Protest just ain’t what it used to be. Personally, “protest” to me should mean quite a bit more than standing slack-jawed and waving a placard that has a two or three word slogan on it. The concept of “protest” is far to important and central a right to be hijacked by a gang of bad performance artists…but thats another argument all together.
Posted by Hunter on Aug 6, 2003 at 1:16 AM Hunter,
I didn’t vote for Bush either and I won’t vote Democratic anymore. I have had quite the eye-opening since 9/11 and it’s torn me away from mostly thinking along party lines.
But, I think most people are upset, as I am, that Bush used so many excuses, shit on the UN, lied to his own party and the American people, and DID NOT get bin Laden, which was promised. It goes on and on and it’s compounded even further today.
I know what you’re trying to say. This isn’t a case where it was needed, not just now anyway. If the Bush administration was so worried about national security, which was the main reason they invaded Iraq, then why wasn’t every effort given to finding bin Laden? Now Saddam is on the loose and he’s probably more dangerous than ever.
Another point is there are so many more countries in need of freedom of oppression than this one—like Cuba.
This just fits the needs of a failing president and it’s so obvious. And the people over there aren’t benefitting from it. 100,000 ex-military people are out of work. That’s a huge shock to their already screwed up economy. Fundamentalist Islamic law is ruling in most places where troops aren’t. It’s sloppy, dangerous and will cost more lives and trouble in the long run, plus giving middle easterners another reason to hate and fear America.I have a link for you—don’t know if you’ll check it out. You seem pretty open-minded.
http://www.humanshields.org/images.htm
I also recommend you read Noam Chomsky, professor at MIT. He’s neither Republican nor Democratic and his knowledge of foreign affairs is outstanding. I’m so disappointed in our past presidents and yes, even Jimmy Carter, who I thought was better than that.
Look, if I could go over there and make a difference, I would. I’m a single guy with nothing to lose but I have epilepsy and I couldn’t get my medicine and all sorts of other things that sound like excuses, blah, blah, blah. I’d rather stay here and help the people in this nation who are treated like crap because of the color of their skin or their background.
cheers,
Neil
Posted by neil on Aug 6, 2003 at 2:54 AM Neil,
I could think of a number of things to lecture George Bush on, just none of the one’s you mentioned. Getting Bin Laden sure would be nice(I think he’s dust, personally), but that seems a odd thing to demand happen. It’s not as if they know where he’s at and are just letting him roam. An individual person could hide for a long, long time without being found…it’s just the way it is. Again, I don’t think there’s anything to find, but he may still be out there. In any case, he’s far less effective than before: no sponsor state, his network is getting hammered daily, assets being closed in on, not to mention the fact that he’d better not show his face which is a definite hinderance.
I agree Cuba could use help, that’s for sure. Too bad that a procession of Hollywood “liberals” have been kissing his tyrannical ass for decades and generally giving the Left a bad name. Would you be for action to remove him? Obviously, ‘sanctions’ aren’t going to do it.
Lastly, I looked at the website. I think it is important that people see, up-close, what war can do and then balance that with the total good acheived by the objective of the war itself. This will leave open a hundred doors for responses, but I would say this again: civilians are lost everyday in activities that we take for granted like law enforcement. Who would say ‘stop enforcing laws’ as a solution? It’s a tragedy, but an individual tragedy regardless of it being an American soldier or a Iraqi civilian. I can appreciate all sides being presented, as they always need to be to avoid us becoming like the very countries I speak of, but try to keep in mind that that website is ideologically loaded to the extreme. You surely don’t think that most Iraqi’s loathe us do you? If so, why would they have greeted us just several months ago? They surely aren’t that moody. They’ll want us out in time, for sure, and I think that would be understandable and wise of us to do so in the near future.
I’ve read some Noam Chomsky and being a person who likes to read, I’ll give him another shot and see what I think….thanks for the recommendation. If I may return a recommendation, try “The Long Short War” by Christopher Hitchens.
Posted by Hunter on Aug 6, 2003 at 11:54 AM I’ve pretty much given up on the idea that foreign interventions can be stopped by the people. Until America’s creditors call our loans, our gov’t will continue to use fear and sentimentality to whip the people into line and bankrupt the country.
4 of our last 5 wars have been fought against former allies—Hussein (twice), Bin Laden, and Noriega. At what point will it occur to people that we’re not doing anyone any favors here—least of all ourselves?
BTW, Christopher Hitchens has no credibility. Anyone who still thinks Lenin was a great man has no right to humanitarian pretensions.
Posted by Brad on Aug 7, 2003 at 6:38 AM Hunter,
Nice chatting with you. This kind of communication is what is so nice about this site.Cuba I can see being a state one day when Castro dies because I don’t think anything will ever be done and I don’t know why. Maybe it’s because there’s nothing at stake there but more immigrants. Make them a state and they could benefit like Hawaii did? Maybe that’s too simplistic. When it comes to Cuba and North Korea, my conservative side comes through.
Andu have got me thinking about the “take the poor Krogering” idea. So I guess what all of this boils down to is does a nation want our help, will they benefit and become self-sufficient from it and most importantly, will we leave them alone after that?
Posted by neil on Aug 7, 2003 at 8:00 AM Brad,
The ‘Allies’ argument is wrong on so many levels that I don’t care to even start.
As to Christopher Hitchens, he’s written so many words that I’m sure you could find something to despise him for. However, I suspect that if he were still writing for The Nation and attending anti-war rallies, you would still be singing his praises as most from the Left did prior to the Iraq conflict.
Again, I think the impression is given that you are arguing with a rabid Republican here, which just shows how far past the point of reasonable some people have gone.(Neil….good talking to you, too. Thanks for the points you’ve made.)
Posted by Hunter on Aug 7, 2003 at 12:25 PM JOBCENTER in the Ghetto like VAARBERG’nbelsen-SAETRA stable of SKAERHOLMEN, copied models ROSENGAARD BERGSJ÷N-RINKEBY and such well-masked eliminations centers, driven by the evangelian-zionist dominated democratical fascist system of SvekJa Kingdom Premier Lapdog Fatty Imbecill G.rÂn Petsion still lies on the JobZentrum falsery
like his true Big Bulldog Godfather Ariel Sharon…http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Concentration_Camps
Posted by Jenny Ostersund on Aug 7, 2003 at 12:53 PM “I think, for example, that the NATO bombing led to the death of more Albanians than would have died from non-intervention”
Oh really? Ill-educated, pure guesswork. But why stop there? While MacArthur is ascribing blame for the accelerated ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians to the allied intervention, he may as well ask the free world to take responsibility for Hitlerís Final Solution. If only weíd let him keep Poland. I mean, we could always have sent monitorsÖ
Of course, if we had afforded Milosevic just one more chance to flout yet another brokered peace deal, non-interventionist Liberals like MacArthur would have been quick to contrast western tolerance of a European despot with the collective response to an Iraqi-annexed Kuwait: ìSo Moslems in a non-oil producing Balkan region donít count, eh?î I can see/read it now.
The same people who for decades beseeched our western liberal democracies to do something about East Timor, who berated us for standing by while a million people were butchered in Rwanda; condemn as imperialist the removal of the fascistic Taliban or the overthrow of the despicable Saddam.
For the record, Iím a democratic socialist, not a placard-waving, self-flagellating liberal whose ideology is moulded to the antithesis of whatever Bush happens to believe on any given day. To paraphrase Orwell: ìIntervention in Iraq was right, even though Bush said it was.î I believe this in the finest tradition of internationalist socialism, a tradition which, less than 70 years ago, witnessed thousands of socialists from all over the globe descend on Spain to fight the growing fascist menace. The sort of people whom Chomsky, Pilger and now MacArthur would no doubt regard as ìneo-consî.
Neither I, my pro-interventionist friends, nor, I suspect, Hitchens, have ìleft the leftî. We simply refused to be bowed by the hysterical ranting of a rag-tag collection of Trotskyites, pacifists and Liberals who can muster for an anti-war protest in Washington and London, but were rather thin on the ground while Kurds were gassed, Kosovars were cleansed and Afghans were oppressed. All of which makes the moral grandstanding and rectitude of my erstwhile allies just that little bit more nauseating.
Posted by Brownie on Aug 8, 2003 at 1:02 PM In my opinion, the main problem with humanitarian intervention lies in the aftermath; there seems to be precious little planning (and far less financial backing) for the inevitable realities of rebuilding a post-conflict society. Afghanistan is a perfect example of this. The Taliban, like Saddam Hussein, were brutal, repressive, and irrational, and in theory the world is well rid of them. Unfortunately, the lack of needed post-conflict support has allowed Afghan society to degenerate into a sort of tribal anarchy. According to RAWA, the oppressed minorities in Afghanistan (especially the women) are no better off since their ëliberation,í and in many areas, their lives are much worse than they were under Taliban rule. So what benefits did this liberation bring? Without the long-term support required to rebuild, one can only can only answer ìprecious little.î (cont.)
Posted by Aaron on Aug 8, 2003 at 6:58 PM Hunter posed the following questions (an observation): ìYou surely donít think that most Iraqiís [sic] loathe us do you? If so, why would they have greeted us just several months ago? They surely arenít that moody.î Neither one of us have sufficient data to postulate the percentage of Iraqis that ìloatheî us, but Iím fairly certain that more of them dislike us now than they did ìjust several months ago,î and it has nothing to do with moodiness. Our president promised the Iraqi people a better quality of life after we liberated them from Hussein, and so far their day-to-day quality of life is worse. Under Hussein, power outages were scheduled according to a ërotating blackoutí plan. Sure, Saddam and his buddies never ran out of ice cubes for their whiskey, but at least Ali Average knew when and for how long his air conditioning was going to be out (barring malfunctions, of course…). Our handling of Iraqís infrastructure is far, far worse, and while Iíll be the first to admit that weíre facing much larger problems in this area than Saddam did, I donít see why an adequate supply of resources couldnít fix this problem in short order. (cont.)
Posted by Aaron on Aug 8, 2003 at 6:59 PM But an adequate supply of resources is not exactly forthcoming, which brings me back to my original point about the main problem with humanitarian intervention. If the Allies had left Germany and Japan to fend for themselves after World War II, rather than pouring troops, capital, and expertise into them for years afterwards, I doubt they would be as stable as they are today, and I strongly doubt they would be as friendly. (On a side note, I know absolutely nothing about what post-war support Italy received from the Allies, or if they received any whatsoever.) Indeed, it was such a lack of support after World War I (coupled with a brutal weight of recompensation debt) that made Germany such fertile ground for Hitlerís brand of nationalism. It is also interesting to note that some of the first government-sponsored social programs were enacted by Otto von Bismark, not because he was a humanitarian, but because he realized that people who are healthy, well-fed, and gainfully employed have very little motivation to cause unrest. Otto may have been a fairly nasty piece of work, but he was smart enough to figure out what modern governments appear to have forgotten. (fins)
Posted by Aaron on Aug 8, 2003 at 6:59 PM Aaron,
I would agree that we could be doing a better job of handling the electrical situation in Iraq. However, it is still a bit early to speak of how much better Sadaam handled problems like this. There are indeed problems with humaitarian intervention, but I also said that there were other reasons for removing Hussein. Mission accomplished on most all of those other points…..I hope we accomplish the ones remaining.
Posted by Hunter on Aug 9, 2003 at 1:35 PM Well, Brownie, I for one am not so much to the left, but my eyes are open now thanks to the horrible job the pResident is doing.
It’s my hope to see injustices and try to do something about them in the future. Even if it’s contacting my senator, who has fooled all of us in Idaho and fought against the fucked up Patriot Act. He’s proving to be the most level-headed one of the bunch here and I’m happy he’s responded to our e-mails, phone calls and faxes.
Posted by neil on Aug 10, 2003 at 2:02 AM Brownie,
While I understand your position, I¥ll tell you I protested this year not because I wanted the genocidal maniac in Iraq to stay but because I felt strongly about the larger context at work: namely a small group of world leaders who tolerated, trained and funded the despicable Saddam for decades, armed both sides of a war he was involved in, fought a war to remove him when he misinterpreted the US¥s permission granted him to “modify” the Kuwaiti border, then left him in power, urged the Kurds to “rise up” and promptly allowed Saddam to use his gunships to slaughter them. Second verse, same as the first.
As far as the “coalition of the willing” are concerned, Saddam¥s only crime is disobedience. The mass graves you see Rumsfeld wringing his hands about now certainly didn¥t bother him in 1983. The CIA have proved to be a dab hand at organising coups (Chile, for example), and they couldn¥t have removed him years ago? Oh I forgot, they trained him.They say the Iraq war is about deposing a repressive regime, but the US and UK support repressive regimes all over the world. Take Pakistan, and its¥ people being oppressed for the last 50 years. Musharraf may be a murderous tyrant, but he¥s a well-behaved (sotospeak) murderous tyrant, i.e. it is not politically expedient right now to remove him and relieve Pakistani civilians of their suffering.
But you know as soon as it is, he will be.
I am in agreement with you about all these repressive regimes, I¥m just saying we¥ve got bigger fish to fry.
Posted by Frank on Aug 10, 2003 at 5:39 PM Aaron,
I don’t know who or what RAWA is, but I have yet to hear even the most vociferous opponents of Afghan intervention try to claim, with a straight face, that: “oppressed minorities in Afghanistan (especially the women) are no better off since their ëliberation,í and in many areas, their lives are much worse than they were under Taliban rule.” True, things are far from perfect in both Afghanistan and Iraq - in Afghanistan specifically, the post-conflict commitment from the allies has not been what it should.
Many right-wing former hawks shied away from Iraqi intervention precisely because they recognised that any measure of success demanded not just victory on the battlefield, but a mid-term commitment to helping Iraqis rebuild their country. People like Kissenger didn’t suddenly develop an aversion to the horrors of war….it was a reluctance to see hard-earned American dollars spent winning the peace which turned them off. Paradoxically, all of this creates a problem for the liberal non-interventionists as they struggle with simultaneous demands that we hand Iraq back to the Iraqis but do not abdicate our post-war responsibility them.
Personally, I think the allies are striking a commendable balance between divestment of responsibility for Iraqi affairs to Iraqis where possible, while sticking around until the security situation can be brought under control. To take your Ali Average, he no longer dreads the knock on the door that heralds a bout of “re-education”, but is more concerned about power shortages and the local infrastructure. I’d say that’s progress.
Itís easy to forget how far this country has come in a matter of months, especially when faced with a media that devotes more column inches to the theft of hundreds of museum pieces than they do the discovery of thousands in mass graves. I wait with baited breath for the first report that at least Saddam got the trains to run on time.
Cheers,
Brownie.
Posted by Brownie on Aug 11, 2003 at 1:03 PM Frank,
So what are you saying? Because 20 years ago, in a world dominated by fears of nuclear winters and within the context of a cold war, we aided and abetted Saddam, so we are bound by some kind of moral paralysis when faced with his growing menace? (Hitchens correctly states that in so far as we have previously assisted Saddam when it suited us, this only doubles or triples our responsibility to see him removed.)
This is the same tune played against the backdrop of our intervention in Afghanistan. Werenít these religious fighters the same people we trained and armed in the decade-long battle with USSR? Ignoring the fact that the Mujahideen and Taliban arenít interchangeable, yeah, they were, but whatís the non-interventionist point? Are they suggesting we should have left Afghan peasants at the mercy of the Red Army and choked off all that covert intelligence, training, arms and logistics support which, together with expert guerrilla war tactics, eventually forced a Soviet retreat? If ever there was a case for humanitarian intervention, Afghanistan in the 80s was it. And if weíd just sat on the sidelines and the Soviets had eventually prevailed, the dissolution of the USSR might now sound like a sick joke and you could even have a lovely wall dividing Berlin. Just a thought for all those who gleefully point to historical, western ìduplicityî as if the alternatives were devoid of all consequences.You are right that the west has been, to an extent, the author of its own misfortune. A reliance on corrupt, brutal client states to ensure our geopolitical writ runs throughout a given region has all too often been the order of the day. We have reaped a bitter harvest, but that, too, may be changing. Saudi Arabia springs immediately to mind. The removal of US forces and the focus that kingdom is now receiving is testament to that. Nothing threatens the undeserved, preferred status Saudi has previously enjoyed quite like a stable, democratic Iraq selling its huge oil reserves on the world market. Similarly, the removal of their most-feared enemy just across the border strengthens the hand of Iranís reforming influences. The idea that Iran would have suspended its nuclear research program and would be contemplating allowing access to UN inspectors if Saddam was still cock of the walk in Baghdad, is preposterous.
contd.
Posted by Brownie on Aug 11, 2003 at 2:52 PM It may not have formed part of the pre-war analysis of many in Washington, but prospects for a resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict certainly look brighter. Sure, thereís plenty of work to be done before that baby is put to bed, but no Iraq war, no Roadmap to Peace. Further, if Iraq becomes a catalyst for the democratization of the Gulf, the bulk of Israeli reasons/excuses for blocking a viable Palestinian state disappear. All of which goes a long way to explain why Sharon was opposed to intervention in Iraq.
This is a brave new world we face where the greatest threat to loss of life comes not from a hostile state whose anger can be appeased and whose leader can be talked to on the phone, but from those whose sole motivation is hate and who seek the ultimate capability to inflict apocalyptic woe. It is perfectly to true that you fight such a menace with genuine free trade, the cancellation of world debt and the provision of basic human needs and rights outside your own borders, as well as using soldiers and tanks. (In so far as we agree about that, we are ALL interventionists.) I cannot speak for Bush, but in Blair, we have a leader who does more to promote the cause of Costa Rican coffee pickers and the starving of Africa than Herr Schroeder or Monsieur Chirac, leaders who to this very day are fighting to retain the more criminal elements of the Common Agricultural Policy which discriminate against non-EU producers.
If people want to vent their spleen, they should do so about that, not the postponed liberation of an ancient civilization and the removal of one of the worldís greatest tyrants.
Cheers,
Brownie.
Posted by Brownie on Aug 11, 2003 at 2:53 PM Brownie,
RAWA is an acronym for the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, a human rights organization that was founded in and has operated from Afghanistan since 1979. Most of their members are women, and many of their leaders (including their founder) were executed by the Taliban, so they have absolutely no love for those psychotic bastards. When the U.S. first began the process of going to war with Afghanistan, RAWA was cautiously supportive of American intervention (cautiously because they had seen first-hand how well the U.S. (through the CIA) had ëhelpedí the Afghani people by sponsoring various warlords after the Russian invasion ended) and hopeful that their situation (and that of all Afghani women) would improve. Their current assessment of their country is that Kabul and its immediate environs have improved somewhat, but the rest of the country is screwed. A Human Rights Watch report states ìmany Afghan women are still subject to the same abuse as under the ousted Taliban and in some regions, such as the west of the country, face increasing harassment.î (
http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/hrw-women2.htm) . . . personally, I trust reports from HRW and RAWA far, far more than I trust the ìliberalî American media. If you wish to check my sources or you want to find out more about RAWA, go to http://rawa.org
(cont.)
Posted by Aaron on Aug 11, 2003 at 2:57 PM As for Ali Average, I suspect he is more concerned about getting shot, since the murder rate has gone up more than 300%, but I understand your point. My point, however, is not that Saddam was a great leader, but that day-to-day life for most Iraqis has degenerated since he was removed from power and if we are truly concerned with welfare of the people of Iraq, we need to do a hell of a lot more than simply depose the local despot. (Please note that your ìknock on the doorî was not a daily occurrence for individual Iraqi families like the power outages were/are, and that the fear of said knock has been replaced by other, equally valid fears, as they always are . . . .) More people are unemployed, more people are getting killed, more people are without power and water than they were before our invasion, and until these things change, the good that weíve done for the Iraqi people as a whole is largely academic. Yes, Saddam gassed thousands of Kurd twenty years ago with chemical weapons the U.S. gave him to use on Iran, but social stability is as much a function of perception as it is a function of basic math, and until/unless the Iraqi people perceive an improvement in their daily lives, stability in Iraq will be tenuous at best. Is Iraq better off without Saddam? Only in the long term . . . and based on the fabulous job weíve done on all those other long-term rebuilding projects weíve undertaken, I hope youíll forgive a bit of skepticism.
(fins)
Posted by Aaron on Aug 11, 2003 at 2:58 PM Bernie:
Thought provoking article. I know alot of your critics, regarding the Iraqi War, try to pin hypocracy on you for your support of Clinton’s intervention in Bosnia.
This liberal foreign policy paradox has already divided liberal candidates like Kerry and Gephart from Dean and Kucinich.
It’s time for liberals and progressives to address this fundamental issue. Failure to form an enlightened policy will allow the radical right to co-op this issue and condemn the left as being weak on defense and national security. We need a humanitarian foreign policy based on reason, diplomacy, and nonviolence that is every bit as “strong” as the neocons “Project for a New American Century”.
Love your show. Keep up the good work!!
Regards,
Dr. Ed Campbell
Posted by dr. edward campbell on Aug 12, 2003 at 2:39 AM Aaron,
Thanks for the heads up on RAWA. I am vaguely aware of some of their output, but didnít recognise them from the acronym. I know that Cherie Blair, for one, has spearheaded a campaign to forge links between UK and Afghan womenís groups to fight for a full restoration of womenís rights post-Taliban.
As I said in my previous contribution, the combined effort of the international community has fallen short of what is required in Afghanistan and I would readily accept that progress outside Kabul is limited. Nevertheless, evidence for the continuing emancipation of Afghan women can be found in the thousands who have returned to the workplace and full-time education. I appreciate that more needs to be done, and wherever and whenever this is the case, you will find NGOs/pressure groups/charities who, in their struggle to ensure focus and momentum are not lost, play down the advances made and talk up the issues they still face. Itís the nature of the beast and I recognise this in the RAWA output, however, even they acknowledge an improvement in fortunes for the women of Kabul. In those areas were women are still oppressed, this is no longer happening by government decree. This hardly helps to ease the suffering of said women, but it was always going to take longer to alter prejudices than it was the administration that fostered them. My issue is with inaccurate, glib pronouncements that things are just as bad as they ever were. Itís simply not true.
contd.
Posted by Brownie on Aug 12, 2003 at 12:17 PM Back to our friend Ali Average, Iíd be somewhat sceptical about the murder rate in Iraq that forms the baseline for the claimed 300% rise. Iím not entirely sure the government figures (or anybodyís figures for that matter) ever took account of the thousands of murdered Iraqis turning up in the mass graves weíre uncovering on a daily basis. Having said that, the security situation in some areas remains precarious and there is bound to be frustration at continued power shortages and the like. Again, though, the idea that things are generically ìworseî is one I reject. Assuming he wasnít a Jew, life for your average Frenchman in Nazi-occupied France was relatively quite compared to what followed the D-Day landings. It was only at this point that his backyard became a battlefield, that a retreating German army scorched the earth and bombs exploded all around him. The battle to liberate France precipitated the destruction of large chunks of French infrastructure which, in turn, helped to blight the life of Michel Moyen. What this singularly failed to produce were mass demonstrations by frustrated and resentful French pining for the halcyon days of Nazi occupation. So while we have groups of desperate Iraqis throwing stones at petrol stations trying to sell their supplies at black market prices, you donít see any pro-Saddam marches on the streets of Baghdad, or even Tikrit for that matter. What Iím trying to say is that things are entirely as you expect in a post-conflict situation.
At this stage in the rebuilding process, a dose of scepticism may be justified, but I think judgement should be set-aside for now. What we shouldnít allow is for the anticipated teething problems to overshadow what was achieved in ridding Iraqis of their despotic leader. Moreover, and this is not directed at you, Aaron, Iíd prefer it if those with whom I share the ìleftî were not at once accusing the coalition of ìempire-buildingî for not having departed Iraq yesterday, while standing ready to levy accusations of ìbetrayalî were we to leave tomorrow.
Cheers,
Brownie.
Posted by Brownie on Aug 12, 2003 at 12:18 PM Brownie,
Iím in full agreement regarding the hypocrisy of our fellows on the left; my father always said that stupidity transcends race, creed, and politics. As far as your analogy between Saddamís Iraq and German-occupied France goes, I feel compelled to point out that the occupation of France didnít last long enough for a generation of French citizens to grow up under German rule, whereas there are large numbers of Iraqis who have never known any type of government but Saddamís (based on the figures Iíve read that the majority of the population is under 25). One could reasonably expect post-occupation France to know how to begin rebuilding itself; sure, theyíd need some help, but at least theyíd know what ënormalí is. ëNormalí for most Iraqis is not what anyone who wants a more peaceful world should be willing to accept, therefore we should have had a comprehensive rebuilding plan on paper (preferably with a worst-case-scenario back-up) and sufficient guarantees of assistance (financial, technological, and military) to enact said plan(s) before we sent any troops in at all. Hell, even letting the U.N. take over the reconstruction phase would have been better than this. And while Iím not trying to downplay the horrors that Saddam committed, the death toll of his regime (in the form of the mass graves) must be amortized across the entirety of his 20+ year rule if we are to have an accurate view of the level of his atrocities. The comparisons between Saddam and Hitler have always struck me as ludicrous; sure, they were both mass-murderers, but Saddamís body count is nowhere near Hitlerís or Stalinís or Pol Potís, and since his nation was never a first-world industrial powerhouse, his ability to export his nastiness was always fairly limited. Regardless, itís been a pleasure corresponding with someone both stable and intelligent for a change; thank you for that.
Aaron
P.S. I got the figure of a 300% increase in the murder rate from an ìon the groundî piece about the Baghdad morgue on the BBC website; I went back to try and find the story so I could provide a link, but alas, itís gone. Perhaps this is a sign to take that figure with a grain of salt. Possibly even two.
Posted by Aaron on Aug 12, 2003 at 3:14 PM Aaron,
I, too, tend to stay clear of glib analogies with Hitler/WWII. I was simply trying to make the point that in the initial aftermath of conflict, day-to-day living for your average Iraqi was likely to get worse before it got better. It’s the nature of war and I don’t believe I’m seeing anything that I didn’t expect. I’ve no doubt the allies could have prepared better and I’m guessing they were caught on the hop by the speed of victory. (Whatever happened to the impending “Stalingrad” predicted by so many experts?) Things at least seem to be moving in the right direction.
As I say, I’ll reserve judgment for now. If the US/UK leave the Iraqis high-and-dry, I’ll be at the head of the queue criticising our leaders. But what we have now is a lobby that was always steadfastly against the war, trying to paint the blackest of pictures as some sort of retrospective vindication for their pre-war position. While all loss of life is regrettable, we never had the predicted scores of thousands of deaths, it didn’t turn into another Vietnam and the Iraqis most certainly did welcome us. The last card for this group is to denigrate the post-conflict effort. They were wrong about everything else, and I’m confident they’ll be proven wrong about this, too.
Anyhow, itís been a pleasure corresponding with you, Aaron. Iím grateful for both your opinion and civility.
Best,
Brownie.
Posted by Brownie on Aug 13, 2003 at 1:54 PM Brownie,
my point was that if we¥ve learned anything over the past few decades it is that the CIA have become more than adept at dismantling a regime through covert means - Chile, say, or more recently, an entirely bloodless one in Peru - and who is to say it could never have been considered a serious alternative to a fullscale invasion in Iraq?
Thanks for your correspondence, I found it interesting.
Posted by Frank on Aug 14, 2003 at 3:29 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by John R. MacArthur
- Americans Unwilling to Face Reality
- You Can’t Be President
The decrepit state of American democracy - End of the Barrel
- Of Senators and Framers
- Against Liberal Intervention
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
