|
|||||||||
Posted September 3, 2003
I have to say I disagree with Mr. Raimondo's view that the US should leave Iraq immediately and I'll explain my reasoning in libertarian terms. It's basically this: whatever happened to taking responsibility for your actions? The American people overwhelmingly supported the invasion and they are clearly implicated in what has happened there.
What Mr. Raimondo is suggesting is that the US should say "Oh, well sorry we destabilized your society, destroyed a lot of infrastructure and killed tens of thousands of your people. We got a bit carried away but we've come to our senses now and realized it's in our best interests to leave. See ya!"
I don't think so. I think the US owes the Iraqi people war reparations, say $1,000,000 for each Iraqi killed, civilian or military, and they should completely rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure. That's libertarian justice is it not? You break you buy it. Bush signed the blank cheque but the American people are on the hook for it. If they didn't want to be they should have made it clear before the disaster happened.
Justin Raimondo replies:
Your idea of reparations is completely absurd. Why should American taxpayers who opposed the war be extorted in this manner? You're talking in "libertarian terms"? I don't think so, bud! Libertarianism is about INDIVIDUAL responsibility, not collective guilt.
Okay, about what someone said concerning the "hypocrisy" of opposing the war but not wanting to immediately withdraw from Iraq altogether: you guys yourselves talked about how immoral it would be to kill many Iraqis for no reason. After having destroyed the country and deprived many people of water and electricity – the exact same acts you thought were immoral before – could there be a moral obligation to at least repair that damage which we ourselves caused?
Justin Raimondo replies:
Denise Lee: Ignorant article by Justin Raimondo. First of all, I was not 'deceived' as Justin claims he was.
However, I wanted to respond the few portions of the story that were 'somewhat coherent.'
Mr Raimondo said:
"Now that we've made the biggest mistake in our history, we have to pursue the same course until we've dragged ourselves, and everyone around us, down into perdition. Iraq was a 'small danger' a few months ago, but now, magically, it is transformed – after Saddam's defeat – into 'a very significant danger to the United States.' And he can always lay the blame at Bush's doorstep. President Dean can always claim to have inherited the guerrilla war in Iraq, yet claim that now 'we have no choice.' It's the perfect alibi."
Part of the reason many did not want to pursue a war with Iraq is because it would destabilize the region. Has Justin forgotten that? Also, has Justin ever 'heard' of "The Geneva Convention?" It is one of the reasons the a 'unilateral' approach was so grave an issue. According to international law, we are now obligated to Iraq, whether we like it or not. Another bit of info, that may be helpful to Justin in the future is this: the UN has recently said they did NOT AUTHORIZE the war on Iraq, thus they are not interested in committing troops/money to taking over. Lastly, Justin should take time to read Howard Dean's position on rebuilding Iraq.
"Dean Presents 7-Point Plan for 'Multilateral' Reconstruction in Iraq, Wednesday April 9, 2003
"Washington, D.C. (April 9, 2003)
"WASHINGTON, DC– Governor Howard Dean, M.D. called for United Nations cooperation in helping rebuild Iraq.
"Howard Dean said:
"'We knew from the outset we could win this war without much help from others. But we cannot win the peace by continuing to go it alone,' Governor Dean said. 'Our goal should be what the Administration has promised – an Iraq that is stable, self-sufficient, whole and free. Our strategy to achieve that goal should be based on a partnership with three sides – U.S., international and Iraqi-and a program that begins with seven basic points.'"
I've highlighted a couple points below:
A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.
Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.
More here.
Justin went on to say: "...what's up with Dean saying we should go into Liberia, but not Iraq? Isn't that a bit of an inconsistency?"
Ah, NO Justin it's not. Allow me to frame a couple of key points Justin overlooked 'again':
1. Liberia 'asked' us to come.
2. The US is not overthrowing the Liberian government to "install" another.
3 The US did not go against the UN in order to send troops to Liberia.
4. The US does not bear a fraction of the financial burden that will be required in Iraq.
5. And as Howard Dean pointed out: "African governments have sent peacekeepers into Burundi, and West African leaders have pledged to again send thousands of peacekeepers to Liberia. Now, the British, French, UN Secretary General and our West African partners are all calling on the US to assist Liberia. I believe that the US must do its share."
Please ask Justin to educate himself on Howard Dean's position on Liberia, he might just learn something.
Also, anyone who says this really should be writing for Fox news, not Antiwar.com: "There is a case to be made that a Dean victory would be worse than four more years of Team Bush."
I think Justin is in need of some serious meds, look into that wont you?
Managing Editor Eric Garris: I am sending this on to Justin, in spite of the fact that your retarded communication skills lead you to believe that the best way to make your point is to call it "ignorant" just because you disagree with it. It hardly brings the reader to want to give you any respect since you offer none.
It is amazing to me that so-called antiwar activists believe that a gang-bang pile-on of Iraq is more moral than a simple rape by the US.
Denise Lee: My comments were not kind. My apologies. However, did you find the piece by Justin Raimondo 'respectful?'
Read his characterization of an interlude with a Dean supporter. Another example of that mutual 'respect' thing you mentioned? Sorry, I don't see it. This was a venomous piece. And, as they say, you reap what you sew.
I really would have been interested in an alternative solution for Iraq in Justin's story. What is your answer to the situation in Iraq? Leave? Your on your own people, sorry? Again, leaving now is against the laws of war. Sad as that sounds.
You can also pass on to Justin, that I've greatly enjoyed his work in the past. As well as the work by Antiwar.com.
Eric Garris: He is furious with Dean, and I don't blame him. He has clearly made a decision to broaden his appeal by moving to a more "acceptable" foreign policy. But Justin was being naive, he should have realized that Dean had supported every previous war by the US in the past 20 years.
Your argument reminds me of a police officer telling an abusive husband that he needs to make it up to his wife (victim) by staying with her. The only thing the US owes to the Iraqi people is a swift exit and, possibly, a large cash payment. The presence of foreign troops is only to continue the beatings. Our continued presence has caused a situation where most international aid workers are leaving, for the first time in decades. "Laws of war"? The "laws" were written by politicians and bureaucrats to continue their control after "victory" is declared.
Don't be naive. Where has the presence of US troops ever helped the indigenous people in the long run?
DL: Look at Afghanistan? Did we 'help' them or us by leaving? No. I'm no fan of WAR, I don't think most people consider themselves as such, however, we went to Iraq under the pretense of 'liberating someone' and that we should attempt to do. I do think the US needs to give up control, but I don't think it's realistic or helpful to suggest we abandon ship.
What is your vision for Iraq when we 'leave' as you wish? What are your solutions? I'm really interested in hearing them, and I know Howard Dean is open to solutions as well. It's over simplified to simply say 'we should leave'.
EG: The typical bureaucratic appeal is "Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it."
The
long-term solution is for the US to stay away. The US has no (and should
have no) solution for Afghanistan. And if you think we have left, you
are ignoring the situation. Just yesterday, a top Afghani general blamed
the presence of 10,000 US troops as the reason behind the escalating attacks
by the Taliban.
http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=36589
Antiwar.com has run about ten articles in the last month about how the US presence is causing a resurgence of the Taliban.
Here's the solution: pay the Afghanis for the people and property we destroyed and promise never to do it again. Stop killing more of them, like we are doing daily. Howard Dean's solution is the imperial solution – that only the great America can rebuild what we destroy. It has never happened.
With yesterday's Washington Post story announcing Howard Dean's support for a continued US military presence in Iraq, and, remarkably, four times as many additional troops as those already stationed in Afghanistan, someone needs to jump into the ring to stop the Raimondo/ Gancarski middleweight fight about Dean before Gancarski's relentless right hand draws more blood.
Dean, in his own words, "is no dove." But the focus upon Dean individually obscures what has really happened in the last month or so. The Democratic Leadership Council recently had a convention, replete with the usual corporate donors and delegates, and announced very loudly that any candidate who opposed the war on Iraq and Bush's tax cuts was unelectable.
Now, all the candidates know that the DLC ultimately decides the Democratic nominee, as it has done since 1988, and if you consider this too strong a statement, then the DLC at minimum retains the power to destroy any nominee through a behind the scenes, 2004 version of "Democrats for Nixon".
Joseph Lieberman repeated the DLC theme several days later, when he declared that most of the candidates in the field, other than himself, of course, were political extremists, and it didn't take long for John Kerry to show that he got the message: move towards the right or die. Within less than week after Lieberman's veiled threat, Kerry, in a prominently featured New York Times article, began to firmly repeat his support for the war on Iraq, and acknowledged that the repeal of all the tax cuts approved by Bush wasn't a good thing, as some of them had been implemented for the benefit of "middle class Americans." No doubt Lieberman has some good friends that he will suggest as candidates for Secretary of State in the unlikely event that Kerry becomes President.
Now, Dean, after letting enough time to pass to avoid appearing as if he is responding to the DLC, revealed that, while he can't abandon his stance against the war, he certainly supports the occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and through his advocacy of more troops for Afghanistan, telegraphs his willingness, if necessary, to send more troops to Iraq down the road as well. Combined with his admitted pro-AIPAC view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this will certainly be enough to mollify most critics within the DLC. As for the tax cuts, this was just leverage for the DLC to accomplish what it really wanted, bringing all the major Democratic candidates into line on foreign policy.
Hence, the 2004 campaign will be centered around two equally absurd, implausible policies toward the Middle East: support Israel unconditionally, while allowing the US to unilaterally impose its political and economic beliefs on the rest of region (Bush), or, alternatively, support Israel unconditionally, while the US, through the UN, imposes its political and economic beliefs upon the rest of the region (Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Dean). I guess I could live with it if so many people weren't being killed out in the real world as a result.
~ Richard Estes, Davis, California
Injured and Dead
I have yet to see a single article in any newspaper (within my radius of the Bay Area, including the New York Times) that gives the names and hometowns of those injured and killed in Iraq as they happen. My impression that there is a blackout on this information. Or do you have any way to access such a list? I would be very interested. (The one item on your chat list did give a place in Illinois, a first.)
Associate Editor Mike Ewens replies:
We have a site set up documenting the dead and wounded:
https://antiwar.com/ewens/casualties.html
specifically see:
https://antiwar.com/ewens/list.html
Also see:
http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Details.aspx
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/iraq/casualties/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82432,00.html
Newsweek Poll
Forgive me for being such a pest. I can't get an answer from anyone else about this ongoing Newsweek Bush /Iraq poll.
From what I am understanding about this particular poll, the figures in blue are the result of a telephone poll of 1000 people. The figures in black are a result of a website poll of approximately 17,000 people so far. The discrepancy between the two figures is mind-boggling, as well as giving a totally contradictory message. Is it because of the type of people who tend to be willing to speak to anyone and everyone who calls them on the phone instead than hanging up, as opposed to those making the effort to go to a website to vote?
If you haven't
voted, you need to so before viewing the results. Well worth it to see
how distorted telephone polls can be, or is it the website poll which
is distorted? Allowing for bias both ways, even taking the middle road
is damning to the Administration.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/956235.asp
Thanks so much for being there at Antiwar.com.
Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:
They shouldn't even mention the website poll in the article. Such polls are not at all representative of anything. I have seen website polls where 90% of the answers are driven by a single interest group. All that it reflects is which side is able to blitz the website quickest. On the other hand, the telephone poll uses sampling techniques that give a cross-section of the country. I used to run political polls for Gallup and others, and most of the time their sampling techniques are very sound.
Michael Ledeen is quoted as saying:
"I don't know of a case in history where peace has been accomplished in any way other than one side winning a war [and] imposing terms on the other side."
Yet a moment's thought and three examples come to mind that should be familiar for most Americans.
In 1812 the US and Britain were at war and fought for control over the Canadian colonies. No victor imposed terms on the other at the end of that conflict and the Canadian /American border was praised by later generations of Americans and Canadians as the longest undefended border in the world.
The Americans and the Soviets waged the cold war for some fifty years. After Gorbachev there was peace between Russia and America. Again, neither side defeated the other and imposed peace.
Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt in 1979. Since then there has been peace between Egypt and Israel.
I agree with the author; Michael Ledeen is a warmonger.
~ Doug Barrett, Edmonton, Canada
Far be it from me to defend Michael Ledeen, but I think I see where the confusion between him and Anthony Gancarski arose.
Mr. Ledeen does not advocate military action against Iran, i.e. invasion. Rather he advocates the idea of the US supporting the revolutionaries in Iran.
From what I gather, he thinks that moral support and informational support (e.g. broadcasting pro-revolutionary reports "radio-free Europe-style," informing people of protests in cities other than their own, promising that America wants them to win, etc.) is enough, although I think (I could be wrong) he would also be okay with financial support and perhaps covert espionage-style support.
On the other hand, Ledeen also makes an error: "Nor is it 'conspiracy theory' to say that it is foolish to expect Iran to hand over top terrorist leaders when they are manifestly supporting terrorism (according to the State Department itself). It's just common sense."
Gancarski was referring specifically to Iran's relationship to Al Qaeda (i.e. Wahhabi terrorism), not to terrorism in general: " Intimating that State's desire for Iran to turn over 'captured Al Qaeda terrorists' is prima facie absurd; after all, those terrorists were operating out of Iran, which to Ledeen is proof that Tehran sanctioned their actions."
The best argument against offering US support for the revolutionaries, in my opinion, is that it could become a repeat of the Iraqi Shiite rebellion of 1991; if the Iranian demonstrators attempt a coup on our urging and then get crushed, we will be forced to take military action against Iran or else be partly responsible for whatever retaliation occurs against the demonstrators.
~ Michael J. "The Glaivester" Jose
"America in Iraq: A Glutton for Punishment"
In Justin Raimondo's August 22 column, during a rebuttal meant for Ilana Mercer, the question is asked:
"How else do we explain her enthusiasm for the politicization of Judaism, the most profound and ancient of the world's three great religions, into a fanatical political cult known as 'Zionism,' which was rightly disdained as a freakazoid fringe movement in the first decades of its existence?"
First of all, it is true that of the three religions I assume Mr. Raimondo is referring to, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Judaism is the oldest; at least if one discounts significant parts of Rabbinic Judaism.
I wouldn't have suspected that Mr. Raimondo was an expert on religion, or even cared much about it either way. I'm wondering: On what foundation does he base his belief that Judaism is the most "profound" of the three he chooses to ascribe the adjective "great" to?
Further, I must point out that professional religious scholars, at least those aspiring to a modicum of objectivity, normally list FIVE great living religions. (Even this excludes at least three significant minor faiths.) The other two religions commonly included would be Hinduism and Buddhism.
Having made a deep personal study of these two traditions, and derived great benefit from them, I must admit to being slightly offended by Mr. Raimondo's exclusion of them from his list.
Most scholars would agree that the roots of Hinduism, and its sacred scriptures the Vedas, stretch back much further than the religion of Abraham.
Given his recent comments on the American Indians, one of the few other times I have been offended by what he has written, I'm starting to wonder if he entertains a kind of cultural chauvinism, similar to that which is expressed in arguments bandied about by the followers of Ayn Rand.
I hope these thoughts are taken in the same positive spirit with which they were offered. I continue to value Mr. Raimondo's contributions to the political discourse very highly.
~Jeff A. Smith, Indiana Libertarian
Mentioning the coalition of the willing, it can be even more surreal than having Honduras included.
The Solomon Islands were mentioned by the Bush administration, to the astonishment of the government of this Melanesian archipelago-made-state. (See "Solomon Islands dragooned into the 'coalition of the willing.'")
A few months later the Civilised World decided this member of the Coalition was a Failed State itself and under the leadership of the third leg of the Anglo-American Empire invaded the islands. From Willing to Failure into less than six months. Sounds familiar.
"The Spaniards, too, who made such a big show of their support, now seem to be going wobbly, after suffering exactly one casualty."
But as it is written in the column linked:
"Spanish popular opinion was strongly opposed to the Iraq conflict in the first place and Aznar's government faced huge antiwar street demonstrations."
In fact, Spaniards have been against this war on an average of 80%. Only prime minister AZNAR wanted to joint the so called "coalition". If you go in Barcelona or Madrid, don't tell people they have been "proud of their support." They may kill you! BUSH is not the USA and AZNAR is not SPAIN.
"...no French or German soldier wants to be commanded by the Americans..."
It's not true – in Bosnia the boss of SFOR is American and he reports directly to a NATO commander who is also an American. And as I spent 1 year here I can't [sic] tell you that it is not a problem. But it is in Iraq because we just don't want to go in this mess as you noticed. And being under US command would convert us to a "sitting duck". ...
After a lot of hard work and cooperation, I'm pleased to announce that my website – www.balkanalysis.com – is open and ready for business.
This website contains the best of my archived articles, as well as new reports on current events in the Balkans and beyond, and travel and culture articles.
Balkanalysis.com also creates made-to-order analyses of political and economic developments in the Balkans, of interest to potential investors and political observers.
Finally, let me stress two things: one, the excellent work of master programmer Savo Efremovski, who offers web hosting and design solutions at competitive rates through his company, www.makserver.com. The site couldn't have been done without him.
Besides reading Balkanalysis.com, you can also help by purchasing those Christmas present books through the link to Amazon.com on my site. I am part of the affiliate program, whereby I receive a small amount of cash each time someone buys a book when clicking DIRECTLY from my site. Keep it in mind when you plan to buy books, DVD's or videos for loved ones.
Class-Action Lawsuit
Imagine you nervously see your only son off to fight in Iraq, proud of him for helping defend the security of the U.S.A. from the "serious and imminent threat and weapons of mass destruction of Iraq," only to find out none of this existed and, in fact, it may have been a lie.
Suppose, under those circumstances, your son is injured or worse. Would you have interest in the following?:
PROPOSITION:
Whereas the bush administration asked for U.N. weapons inspections of Iraq, and whereas the Bush administration was granted that request, but did not allow the UN weapons inspection team to conclude their inspections, and whereas no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and whereas there is not compelling evidence that Iraq (a sovereign nation) had official ties to al Qaeda, and whereas U.S. forces were met with mostly token resistance in Iraq, and whereas no biological or chemical or mass destruction weapons were used by Iraq against US forces, and whereas it cannot be shown that Iraq posed a serious and imminent threat to the USA, and whereas the president made a very serious claim regarding Iraq in his state-of-the-union address which he knew to be incorrect, it is proposed:
that the Bush administration is guilty of fraud and /or ineptness and incompetence and political and /or diplomatic and /or military malpractice, and that, therefore, a class-action lawsuit be directed at the personal assets of key figures in the Bush administration on behalf of all the soldiers (and their relatives) killed or maimed as a result of the premature, "preemptive," unnecessary strike on Iraq and for the fraudulent use and /or misuse of US military forces, AND, as well, for compensation to the American taxpayer for taxes used fraudulently /unnecessarily /recklessly.
(I should point out that I voted for G.W. Bush in 2000.)
~ Tom Brooks (US taxpayer), Spokane, Washington
Why Rebuilding Iraq is So Expensive
... Listen to this little anecdote. One of my cousins works in a prominent engineering company in Baghdad – we'll call the company H. This company is well-known for designing and building bridges all over Iraq. My cousin, a structural engineer, is a bridge freak. He spends hours talking about pillars and trusses and steel structures to anyone who'll listen.
As May was drawing to a close, his manager told him that someone from the CPA wanted the company to estimate the building costs of replacing the New Diyala Bridge on the South East end of Baghdad. He got his team together, they went out and assessed the damage, decided it wasn't too extensive, but it would be costly. They did the necessary tests and analyses (mumblings about soil composition and water depth, expansion joints and girders) and came up with a number they tentatively put forward – $300,000. This included new plans and designs, raw materials (quite cheap in Iraq), labor, contractors, travel expenses, etc.
Let's pretend my cousin is a dolt. Let's pretend he hasn't been working with bridges for over 17 years. Let's pretend he didn't work on replacing at least 20 of the 133 bridges damaged during the first Gulf War. Let's pretend he's wrong and the cost of rebuilding this bridge is four times the number they estimated – let's pretend it will actually cost $1,200,000. Let's just use our imagination.
A week later, the New Diyala Bridge contract was given to an American company. This particular company estimated the cost of rebuilding the bridge would be around – brace yourselves – $50,000,000! ...
"In Search of a Peace Culture"
Absolutely brilliant writing which I have just discovered by putting "Culture of peace and culture of hate" into Google search. I am looking forward to exploring Alan Bock's writing and Antiwar.com in the near future, as our whole family are about to move back from our 5 year exile in Australia to the beloved home country in New Zealand, where we have arranged to join Riverside Community, founded by Christian pacifists during World War II.
I was searching for stuff to help my 15-year-old son do a high school assignment on The Holocaust. His task was to develop a hypothesis for the Nazi Holocaust. I intuitively proposed that the ideology of fascism and hate was enough to explain aspects of the rise of Nazism, but that it took the ideology and, more crucially, the circumstances of "total war" to collapse any effective restraints on the Nazi "high priesthood". That is, on the S.A. and the S.S. "enforcers" of the patently Wagnerian operatic, dramaturgical genocide of the "polluting" presences in the mystical German "Volk" (see Peter Vierek, The Roots of the Nazi Mind, c.1967).
We know "the times" and of the structural basis of the thriving arms industry and war fever from Washington to West Africa, from Israel to Indonesia, in particular:
The great inevitable"oil roll over" (see http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of00-320/) underlying the coming decades, combined with a failure to develop the culture and institutions of global peace to correspond to the globalisation institutions of corporate and sovereign state resource management.
The technical possibility of converting gas-to-liquid hydrocarbon would delay but not avert the inevitable crunch of structural conflict arising from the gap between depleting stocks of convenience (i.e. liquid hydrocarbon) fuels and inequity of uneven development and global demand . The necessity of environmental and other constraints on the rate of burning of fossil fuels is another externality to the future scenarios of the techno-economic optimists.
I want to commend Alan Bock on the direction of his analysis, namely that the narrative of conflict seems to be more easily propagandised (by agents of personal and collective status, wealth and power) and grasped (by immature or "dumbed-down" demographics) than the narrative of peace.
There are two links I would like to respond to Alan in support of his approach, which I think is likely to be very productive as a research or investigative journalist paradigm:
Anthropology
When the great American anthropologist Clifford Geertz got dumfounded by the complexity of grasping Javanese culture, he posited a "dramaturgical" function of some cultural phenomena, I think he called it "Deep Play". (My recollection is from reading his Religion in Java in 1972.) And we all know about the enormous spasms of collective political violence (CPV e.g., see Tilley and Tilley on CPV) that have erupted in Indonesia, under the pressures and "narrative confusion" of "modernisation" (S. Takdir Alishkabana? Indonesia: Social and Cultural Revolution).
Psychotherapy and Counseling Methodology
"Narrative Therapy" is an important practical tool in the "toolkit" of counselors in Australia, since it was first developed not so long ago in South Australia (by a man named White?). The average human mind grasps complexity better through story, narrative and drama, and Alan has brilliantly suggested that this is inherent to conflict and violence in ways that are not so evident in peace building.
So further research into linguistics and cultural anthropology to develop Alan's approach may reveal why we are so vulnerable to short-circuiting the hard, less certain journey to peaceful and mature, responsible, "eyes wide open" communitarianism. Instead, Zap! Short-circuit! We leap into a drama of conflict and atavistic collectivism, even if we worship at the altar of individualism and "free enterprise" as a state ideology.
How delighted I am to have discovered today Antiwar.com and your correspondent Alan Bock! ...
It gives this aging baby-boomer /antiwar activist some hope. I hope that the cultures and structures of hate and war may be intelligently challenged by a robust "new improved" intergenerational antiwar movement. Yes, let us make peace culture exciting for young boys instead of: internet-game addiction, social and academic failure, and gangsta-rap modes of hip-hop culture, invading the South Pacific from the American music industry dominance of local culture.
~ Alistair McKee, Ipswich, Queensland, Australia