Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 15, 2005
Black Is White

James Bennet has written an excellent column in the NYT’s ‘Week in Review’. Here is a RBN decoded excerpt:

The Mystery of the Occupation

Resistance forces in Iraq have often been accused of being slow to apply hard lessons from Vietnam and elsewhere about how to fight an occupation. Yet, it seems from the outside, no one has shrugged off the lessons of history more decisively than the occupation forces themselves.

The occupation forces in Iraq are showing little interest in winning hearts and minds among the majority of Iraqis, in building international legitimacy, or in articulating a governing program or even a unified ideology or cause beyond suppressing the resistance. They have put forward no single charismatic leader, developed no alternative government or political wing, displayed no intention of amassing territory to govern now.

Rather than employing the classic tactic of provoking the resistance to use clumsy and excessive force and kill civilians, they are cutting out the middleman and killing civilians indiscriminately themselves.

This surge in the killing of civilians reflects how mysterious the long-term strategy remains – and how the occupation forces’ seeming indifference to the past patterns of occupation is not necessarily good news for anyone.

"Instead of saying, ‘What’s the logic here, we don’t see it,’ you could speculate, there is no logic here," said Anthony James Joes, a professor of political science at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia and the author of several books on the history of imperial occupation. The occupations actions now look like "wanton violence," he continued. "And there’s a name for these guys: Losers."

What you have read above, is consistent with historic facts and reports. It makes a lot of sense. Even the cited expert is right.

But the piece is discussed and criticized as ‘naive’ elsewhere. I do not believe this critic is justified.

Bennet’s piece is excellent. Yes, he had to code the original a bit to keep his pay check, but then, what do you expect from a mainstream journalists.

Just replace ‘black’ with ‘white’, ‘insurgency’ with ‘occupation force’ and the ‘new caliphate’ with the ‘promised land’ and you will see the real meaning. Apply this to your daily dose of newspaper reading, and you may even start to feel informed.

Sigh.

Comments

Quote:
In Iraq, insurgent groups appear to share a common immediate goal of ridding Iraq of an American presence, a goal that may find sympathy among Iraqis angry about poor electricity and water service and high unemployment.
***
Is that ever occurred to an American that Iraqis may not be unhappy just because of “poor electricity and water service and high unemployment” but because of not wanting to see their country and their oil occupied by American corporations and their bloody Army? I mean really it’s so bloody stupid to mention electricity and water as a cause of anger after you killed 2X 100000 Iraqis (who have relatives you know) in GW I and Bushco oil war. Ridiculous! And they keep repeating this as we are all imbeciles…

Posted by: vbo | May 15 2005 15:04 utc | 1

From a reporter who seems to actually travel around Iraq:
http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick05132005.html

Posted by: Buster | May 15 2005 15:17 utc | 2

Just remember: Black IS White
Rice makes surprise visit to Iraq

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made an unannounced trip to Iraq on Sunday, urging patience for the country’s fragile new government and offering encouragement to American troops.
Rice, making her first visit to Iraq as secretary of state, spoke to hundreds of U.S. troops and diplomats in Baghdad.
“I want you to keep focused on what you are doing here,” Rice told the diplomats and troops who gathered in one of Saddam Hussein’s former palaces. “This war came to us, not the other way around.”

Posted by: b | May 15 2005 15:34 utc | 3

Yap…black IS white in their cards for sure…
“This war came to us, not the other way around.”
It just hurts…

Posted by: vbo | May 15 2005 15:38 utc | 4

You have the subjects confused. The NYT article says that the insurgents do not have a coherent strategy etc.. and the professor says that the insurgents are commiting wantom violence and that they are the losers. I do not know the truth but textual accuracy is important.

Posted by: jlcg | May 15 2005 15:38 utc | 5

Just shaking my head! (about Rice)

Posted by: Fran | May 15 2005 15:38 utc | 6

Simply not true:

If the insurgency is trying to overthrow this regime, it is contending with a formidable obstacle that successful rebels of the 20th century generally did not face: A democratically elected government.

NYT is nearly unreadable as it moves to generally deny American bad faith in the region.
NYT will pimp the charming enthymeme: They are arabs, they are irrational. Over and over. Or, even more truncated: They will kill themselves anyway, we may as well do it for them.
It’s this sort of writing which can be found in any fascist organ, right?

Posted by: slothrop | May 15 2005 16:00 utc | 7

I don’t get this trip at all. I can only take it as the impulsive act of a baffled, distracted, hysteric.

Posted by: alabama | May 15 2005 17:06 utc | 8

b
saw that
wanted to post
but then thought every day they are turning things inside out & the worst of it – is that they are believed
& slothrop is correct to draw the conclusion that an article like that precedes the slaughter of innocents
& i remember vietnam – so called learned gentelmen – speaking of asian inscrutablity – of an ability to take losses & even before the russian armies were not described as soldiers but as fanatics
& the learned gentlemen find little bits of nonevidence to ‘prove’ their claims. they are worse than assassin because they legitimise the process of massace as military strategy
man is man
alabama, this whole administration is baffled, distracted, hysteric
then tears will not come to their eyes when finally the war comes to them

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 15 2005 17:22 utc | 9

The Americans (USUK) have nothing to propose and care nothing about stabilising, organising, ‘freeing’, Iraq. Or even making decent money by organising the oil industry.
To them Iraq is wasteland, inhabited by kooks and non-people, and the terrain itself is beyond primitve and strange. The moon! Bechtel and Halliburton (etc.) understood this and normalised the territory in their bids and made a lot of money, shunted to them by the US Gvmt. What else is there to be done?
All the US forces can do is go out from time to time on ‘raids’ arresting bystanders and playing macho. And then retreating to the few safe bases. Prop. ops. for the US press. Various organisational matters defeat them entirely and they don’t even know where to begin. Not their job, after all.
They cannot protect the oil fields and pipelines – impossible. They cannot organise the industry.
When they flattened Fallooja – splendid firewoks with crisped bodies – they were busy – distracted; Mosul was taken over by ‘insurgents’.
Afghanistan is in the hands of war-lords. The US does not care.
Why should the US be fighting insurgents except out of macho pride and to use military matériel?
No one knows. The soldiers on the gound sure don’t. It is just the enemy. Kooks. Towel heads. More prisons are needed. A firmer hand! Kill!
There is no mystery here. Iraqis will either work for low pay for the Americans (the puppet Gvmt., American companies, sub contractors..) or they will not live. They will not be allowed to produce their own food, but will have to import, particularly, grain from Australia. They will not be permitted health care or clean water – that is wasteful expense. (Echoes of the US today…)
It is an experiment. Slow but steady. if it does not work out, well, too bad. There are other places, other times.
Meanwhile, Americans sit on the oil and won’t or can’t pump it. Iraqis queue for 10 liters of petrol. No one else can have it. That is all. Certainly not the Chinese.
‘Insurgents’ perceive the desperation but have fallen into the trap of ethnic strife, or rather the oppo’ between different groups who all stupidly hope to gather power and dollars either by bowing down to the occupier or throwing him out.

Posted by: Blackie | May 15 2005 17:38 utc | 10

I tend to overreact, but everytime I hear “we cannot understand these Iraqis…” I hear another vindication of torture. Evil made banal.
But, as for the “insurgency”–the attacks on shia are obscene and stupid. The only “reason” seems to be a riff on “violence is a cleansing force.” My hunch is the whacked islamist orientation of “insurgency” will expire by its own futily exclusionary habits, as happened in Algeria.
I wish there was some reference point besides the Koran for the cultural transmission of armed struggle. Don’t the “insurgents” have songs? Smyrna refugees had their Rembitiko. What’s the sunni equivalent?

Posted by: slothrop | May 15 2005 18:10 utc | 11

In all good humor, b, you’re “reading between the lines” in the best possible way–exactly as recommended by the late Leo Strauss, the wisdom of whose work is occasionally contested hereabouts (as well it ought to be, on various and sundry points). This isn’t to say that he invented the practice, which is as old as reading itself–just that he describes it in fruitful and discerning ways.

Posted by: alabama | May 15 2005 18:13 utc | 12

alabama
Read Brooks’ NYT thing today “between the lines.” Really, I suspect he knows about Strauss. But am not sure. I certainly don’t think Brooks believes in the American Dream. But, maybe I give him too much credit.

Posted by: slothrop | May 15 2005 18:18 utc | 13

Though I always dread the reading of the dreadful Brooks, slothrop–and almost never read him–I’ll take a shot at that “thing today,” as you urge me to do.

Posted by: alabama | May 15 2005 18:30 utc | 14

I mean, it would be interesting to know how much of brooks’ writings are strategic horseshit, not pure horseshit, but cynically manipulative horseshit.

Posted by: slothrop | May 15 2005 18:34 utc | 15

@alabama – In all good humor, b, you’re “reading between the lines” in the best possible way–exactly as recommended by the late Leo Strauss
Yep – I thought about Strauss and how the Bennet piece could be a message for the people who do read between the lines.
The Bennet piece is so over the top and away from reality that it seems obvious that it is coded.
Bennet, having been NYT correspondend in Jerusalem, certainly knows a bit about Strauss. His political position is not neocon (my impression having read some of this stuff). It is hard to believe that the NYT piece is his honest opinion about the situation.

Posted by: b | May 15 2005 18:58 utc | 16

“This war came to us, not the other way around.” ~Condoleeza Rice, speaking to US troops and diplomats in Baghdad, May 2005.
I was apparently out of the empi– er, country when that “No President has done more for human rights than I have” comment was made by G.W. to Ken Auletta of the New Yorker… so you’ll have to forgive me for my having been so thunderstruck by it at this late date. I was still reeling from that one when I ran across the Rice’s quote (above).
Now I recall very clearly the neocons in the administration lambasting as “revisionists” anyone who called into question the post-justifications of any action they performed as it is related by the mouthpieces of the Pentagon/Oval office crowd… but how much objective reality must be suspended in order for this statement to work? Without invoking the oft-debunked notion that Iraq had amassed great stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction, had intimate ties with Al Qaeda (who are also beginning to look like a darned convenient construct), planned and perpetrated the 2001 attacks against New York and Washington, D.C., kidnapped American schoolchildren and ate puppies… how did this war “come to us”…? (Hopefully, we are not talking about a simple semantic misunderstanding here like: “It just came to us as we sat around the table brainstorming that what we really wanted was the Iraqi’s oil.”)
It took me awhile to get there (you could say it just came to me, not the other way around), but I think that the approach being used here is the same subtle method of debate employed by T. Raimey McManus. For those of you who aren’t familiar with his work, T. Raimey McManus was a kid who sat in front of me in the third grade and ate paste. Whenever confronted by a logically sound argument or proposition in odds with his own established position, this brilliant rhetorician quickly declared it to be “Opposite Day” (the day when up is down, black is white, Fox News is fair and balanced, et cetera …), and that by losing the argument, he had actually won it. The brilliance of extending “Opposite Day” to cover the entirety of two full American Presidential terms is a novel approach, and one that deserves more exploration than it has received. In the spirit of Opposite Eight Years, I can announce proudly that I love every decision made by the Bush administration and the mockery it has made of the land of my birth!

Posted by: Monolycus | May 15 2005 19:15 utc | 17

slothrop
we can not demand resistances of our choice, nor the nature of insurrections nor the nature of a war against an occupier who for all intents & purposes, we ourselves constitute by our being beneficiaries in one way or another of the empire doing the occupying
it is clear that the resistance is being fougght at a number of levels – from infiltration in the puppet regime itself, to local organisations – running through – any configuration of five people to five hundred
what has not been clear but what is becoming clearer – that the iraquis knowing this war was coming – prepared for it. they ‘gave’ away the cities so that they could become flexible & flexible is what they really are
& who are you & i to choose the terms of their war – it will be fought as their history & their humanity demand
what is most clear is the empire is losing on every terrain the resistance chooses & the myths created by the american administration are having the habit of also serving the resistance
& i think we are just seeing the beginning of the beginning – that what we have witnessed is not what the pentagon would like us to believe – that is that the situation for the resistance is deteriorating – all the facts on the ground & even historical imperatives tell us the opposite
the very fact that the pentagon etc insist on the power is inj fact a revelation on the impuissance of that same power
& yes it will get very bloody indeed but how could it have ever been otherwise & i am a bit frightened of your implied distinction between the violence of the occupier & the violence of the occupied
we have the moral duty – as anna missed has made clear in his art to see through the phantom logic of this terrorist force – the us armed forces & witness & speak of the massacres they are repeating day after day, bombardement after bombardement, village & housetaking after housetaking, checkpoint after checkpoint
there can be little doubt that what the americans are doing constitute war crimes of horrifying proportions – to underline the violence of the resistance & the resistance only – seems to be a kind of blindness – moral & otherwise

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 15 2005 21:04 utc | 18

Blackie is exactly right.
Iraq is a social experiment.
Welcome to the Dominion.

Posted by: kelley b. | May 15 2005 21:51 utc | 19

How about this? Just as Marxism which was targeted at post industrial revolution societies eg Germany; but was first implemented in a pre-industrial society Russia,the Iraq revolution is a new type of insurrection by people who are distrustful of politicians and technocrats. There is no political arm to this insurrection because a political arm would inevitably result in a new boss just the same as the old boss. Instead any boss, representative of the power structure or architect of the oppressive system is a target. The insurrection will only end when Iraqui functionaries cease prostituting themselves to the occupation.
The trouble is of course who decides that? People of violence have their own ‘comfort zone’, a discomfort zone for most of us, and they become unable to stop their violence. Secondly although a nihilist agenda is more difficult to corrupt it is not impossible eg the ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia became a vehicle for seizing someone’s assets for oneself.
However the truth is much more mundane I remember a conversation I had with a senior Iraqi military man in late 2000 where he predicted exactly this scenario. “they will take our country but they will never be able to govern it.”
The truth is more likely that the resistence’s leadership is more sophisticated than has ever been acknowledged. Just as in a democracy politicians do not articulate a position that will cost them votes but gain them none, the resistance does not articulate any goals because it does not need to. The enemy is plain to see everytime a local is humiliated at a roadblock or in a house to house search. It is a mistake to believe that the resistance is totally Sunni. Therefore to articulate a Sunni position would alienate the Shites and Kurds that support them, similarly any sort of fundie Islamist ideals would alienate the secular Baathists. So why say anything if you plainly don’t need to?

Posted by: Debs is dead | May 15 2005 22:03 utc | 20

Though I’m not a big reader of Strauss, slothrop (@ 2:18 PM, and @2:34 PM)., I’ve read enough to believe that he never, ever writes about political economy, or indeed about economics of any kind. This is perhaps one of his strengths (it enables him to limit the sphere of the discussion), and of course it’s also a great weakness (for that very reason). None of this, in any case, seems to pertain to Brooks’s screed. Brooks himself omits two considerations in his discussion of the “Republican poor”: he doesn’t discuss the level of their education–which has to count for something where political thoughts are concerned–and he doesn’t discuss the principle poltical institution in their lives, which is the parish of their church.

Posted by: alabama | May 15 2005 23:34 utc | 21

Most of the Republican poor, certainly in the South, let their ministers do their thinking for them on the litmus-test issues of the day. (The “thinking” of the ministers, of course, is closely controlled by their vestrymen–but this is matter for another post. ) Omission of these fundamental things is vintage Brooks–the hallmark, if not the very signature–of his enterprise, which is dedicated to the propagating of mindless falsehoods every step of the way. Since it’s the only thing he knows how to do, it really can’t count as the basis for strategic, or manipulative, decisions

Posted by: alabama | May 15 2005 23:35 utc | 22

IHT
Here’s an article explaining Rice’s visit to Iraq. It was indeed the impulsive act of a baffled, distracted hysteric–who has good reason to feel and react as she does.

Posted by: alabama | May 16 2005 0:46 utc | 23

kelley b. (or anyone else who might know):
Are the Dominionists and the Rapturians the same group, oppositional groups or over-lapping groups?
The religio-political groups of the american far right are somewhat a puzzle to me, but all the same a puzzle where the pieces are becoming clearer.
Debs,
I agree that in all likelyhood there are leaders, and no they have no reason to state their ultimate goal as long as the occupiers keep making perfect propaganda for their short-term goal: getting rid of the occupiers. However I think there is probably more than one command-structure within the insurgency. There might be groups that have opposing ultimate goals, none of them having a need to draw special attention to them.
And Slothrop,
we do not really know that the attacs agiainst shia mosques and so on are perpretated because of the victims being shia. In a media which has been claiming that iraqi civil war is just around the corner this is the obviuos analysis, however people kill each other for a lot of reasons. Can this not for example be one clan killing another, or a group of gangsters striking at another ganster group or a too popular local politician and his supporters (prohibition has been reported in many iraqi towns) in a vulnerable moment?
Personally, my lack of any direct information makes me unable to answer this question.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | May 16 2005 0:57 utc | 24

skd,
try this article by katherine yurica, in any case overlapping would be the answer — more off her homepage.

Posted by: anna missed | May 16 2005 2:12 utc | 25

more here, theocracy watch

Posted by: anna missed | May 16 2005 2:17 utc | 26

interesting conversation going on over here: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php?topic=55773&forum=7
Apparently The Weekly Standard’s review of the newest Star Wars movie has endorsed the Empire and dissed the Jedi rebels. While excusing Pinochet.
“The deep lesson of Star Wars is that the Empire is good.”

Posted by: gylangirl | May 16 2005 3:31 utc | 27

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp?pg=1
Here’s the direct article link. Talk about black is white.

Posted by: gylangirl | May 16 2005 3:44 utc | 28

WaPo
Another remarkable, prizeworthy, file by Ellen Knickmeyer. She clearly knows whereof she speaks.

Posted by: alabama | May 16 2005 4:34 utc | 29

Great Krugman today: Staying What Course?
It’s difficult to decide which paragraphs to post, the whole article is good.

Why did the administration want to invade Iraq, when, as the memo noted, “the case was thin” and Saddam’s “W.M.D. capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran”? Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there, its domestic political advantages aside, could serve as a demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and awe the world.
But the Iraq war has, instead, demonstrated the limits of American power, and emboldened our potential enemies. Why should Kim Jong Il fear us, when we can’t even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport?

Next year, reports Jane’s Defense Industry, the United States will spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Yet the Pentagon now admits that our military is having severe trouble attracting recruits, and would have difficulty dealing with potential foes – those that, unlike Saddam’s Iraq, might pose a real threat.
In other words, the people who got us into Iraq have done exactly what they falsely accused Bill Clinton of doing: they have stripped America of its capacity to respond to real threats.

that will surely unfold if we leave (even though terrible scenes are unfolding while we’re there). Nobody wants to tell the grieving parents of American soldiers that their children died in vain. And nobody wants to be accused, by an administration always ready to impugn other people’s patriotism, of stabbing the troops in the back.
But the American military isn’t just bogged down in Iraq; it’s deteriorating under the strain. We may already be in real danger: what threats, exactly, can we make against the North Koreans? That John Bolton will yell at them? And every year that the war goes on, our military gets weaker.

Posted by: Fran | May 16 2005 5:13 utc | 30

anna missed,
thanks those were interesting articles about the dominionists and their grip over the republican party. However they did not mention the Rapture at all. So I repeat my question, how are the Dominionists related to those beliving in the Rapture?

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | May 16 2005 7:21 utc | 31

skd,
The dominonists are interested in preparing the earth for the second coming, through establishing political control — throughout the world, beginning in the US — for the return of Christ as detailed in Revelations. This group will contain people from many different denominations with the Southern Baptist Convention leading the charge. Because Revelations is fairly arcane, different intrepretations are to be expected and those calling themselves “rapturists” have adopted a more radical viewpoint of the “endtimes” in which there is a” pre-rapture or a secret rapture” that comes (especially for them) before Armageddon. Dominionists are not necessarily rapturists, nor vice versa, but they certainly could be both. An interesting thing is that the label “dominionist” and to a certain extent “rapturist” are ones few if any would openly use for themselves — especially in the MSM where I have only heard the word “dominionism” used only 1 time, and that was by a critic. Never have I seen an advocate proclaiming him(her)self a “dominionist”. Individuals interviewd (usually those x-tans moving to Israel) have claimed to be a “rapturist”, but never by a public official in the MSM. For obvious reasons these labels scare people, so they are taboo in the public domain, but quietly accepted amongst themselves I would imagine.

Posted by: anna missed | May 16 2005 8:41 utc | 32

The only weak phrase in Krugman’s article was
“I’m not advocating an immediate pullout”. I would
like to see him discuss the economics of reparations payments
to Iraq as well. Meanwhile, one of the courageous few trying
to move us along the road to Nuremburg II, Sibel Edmonds, has a
new essay
expounding her case, and, I believe for the first time, stating that it involves contrabanding of nuclear weapons.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | May 16 2005 9:31 utc | 33

Let’s think ahead a bit.
The only reason to follow what’s happening today is not to cry over the spilled milk of America, or fantasize about Bush belonging in front of a firing squad (as I’m prone to do).
The water cooler stuff only goes so far.
If this blogs serve any useful purpose it’s to help us, personally, to plan for our future and that of our loved ones.
Myself, I believe that the war against American Imperialism is likely going to spread, at least in the Middle East and Asia. Iraq is only the beginning. I wouldn’t be surprised to see new attacks against American interests happen in other parts of the globe.
Further, I have to ask: how long until some kind of attacks à la IRA in London / GIA in France start taking place in the US? What will the consequences be?
IMHO, the US unlike England and France is psychologically woefully unprepared to cope with such attacks. At best we’re dealing ith a 19th century mindset here.
As I mentioned before, I thus postulate the US sliding into a Russia-type state: neo-fascist security PLUS great civil unrest. (Microsociety-wise: based on the Vietnam precedent, I foresee a cascade of problems with the reintegration of Irak War vets in US society.)
I do not rule out a limited (ie: “bunker-busting”) American nuclear strike abroad.
At this point, it no longer matters who wins in 2006 and 2008, though my money is still on the fascists until at last 2012.
I think certain irreversible forces have been put in motion. We had a Louis XV chance to stop the seeds of the French Revolution and we missed it; we’re now in full Louis XVI mode.
Add to this an overlay of whatever economic theories you subscribe to.
If 5 years ago, I had described the US situation as it is today, I’d have been dismissed as a complete crank. I think in 5 years, the US will be a radically different country. For example: will the US (unlike the USSR) keep its territorial integrity or will it split?
I remain an optimist for the long-term (anything beyond 10 years) but forecast a very painful transition period.
It behooves us to seek ways to adapt and plan for that future.

Posted by: Lupin | May 16 2005 9:46 utc | 34

Wow, hope this is not true! Found this on Free Iraq
“Combat terrorism” by causing it
a translation from arabic texts.

“A few days ago, an American manned check point confiscated the driver license of a driver and told him to report to an American military camp near Baghdad airport for interrogation and in order to retrieve his license. The next day, the driver did visit the camp and he was allowed in the camp with his car. He was admitted to a room for an interrogation that lasted half an hour. At the end of the session, the American interrogator told him: ‘OK, there is nothing against you, but you do know that Iraq is now sovereign and is in charge of its own affairs. Hence, we have forwarded your papers and license to al-Kadhimia police station for processing. Therefore, go there with this clearance to reclaim your license. At the police station, ask for Lt. Hussain Mohammed who is waiting for you now. Go there now quickly, before he leaves his shift work”.
The driver did leave in a hurry, but was soon alarmed with a feeling that his car was driving as if carrying a heavy load, and he also became suspicious of a low flying helicopter that kept hovering overhead, as if trailing him. He stopped the car and inspected it carefully. He found nearly 100 kilograms of explosives hidden in the back seat and along the two back doors.
The only feasible explanation for this incidence is that the car was indeed booby trapped by the Americans and intended for the al-Khadimiya Shiite district of Baghdad. The helicopter was monitoring his movement and witnessing the anticipated “hideous attack by foreign elements”.
The same scenario was repeated in Mosul, in the north of Iraq. A car was confiscated along with the driver’s license. He did follow up on the matter and finally reclaimed his car but was told to go to a police station to reclaim his license. Fortunately for him, the car broke down on the way to the police station. The inspecting car mechanic discovered that the spare tire was fully laden with explosives.”

Posted by: Fran | May 16 2005 10:10 utc | 35

@Fran – The Salvador Option
quite possible – I find it very suspicious that there are so many sectarian bombings – qui bono?

Posted by: b | May 16 2005 10:36 utc | 36

@b, thanks for the link – amazing how fast these stories slip the mind.

Posted by: Fran | May 16 2005 11:08 utc | 37

Thanks Fran, for confirming one of my strongest suspicions. War is waged for its own sake; no justification needed.

Posted by: rapt | May 16 2005 13:23 utc | 38

vbo wrote (first post here, responding late)
Is that ever occurred to an American that Iraqis may not be unhappy just because of “poor electricity and water service and high unemployment” but because of not wanting to see their country and their oil occupied by American corporations and their bloody Army? I mean really it’s so bloody stupid to mention electricity and water as a cause of anger after you killed 2X 100000 Iraqis (who have relatives you know) in GW I and Bushco oil war. Ridiculous! And they keep repeating this as we are all imbeciles…
– Yes and no. In part, I think the reading applies. My intuition is that many Iraqis (similar to many in ex USSR countries, Ukraine a recent example…) really did believe or trust that life ‘under / after the Americans’ or ‘in a democracy’ would be a life better – materially and socially – than what they had. They would be freed of fear of Saddam, women and children would be better off, and they would join the ‘west’ in consumption, more goods would be available, internet and better tv and such would get going, those entrepreneurially inclined would be able to branch out, etc. Certainly many young people were very keen.
–The mirror image of the ‘hearts and flowers’ scenario…
Many would not have been interested at all in politics or social organisation generally, having been used to not being able to participate, seeing the world as organised by masters, not understanding the underpinnings at all. Not even where their food came from, or how the oil was sold. A stable world.
They simply could not imagine that the basics of life – a decent food package, electricity, clean(ish) streets, easy to buy gas, free health clinics in the morning and functioning schools, not to mention an acceptable or usual monthly income for most, could vanish! Who could imagine that?
In a way the ultimate insult is being fooled. Sacrifice (invasion, some bombing, deaths…) deserves a reward. War is atrocious, but it is a time, a special state that passes, that has an end. Living in a state of fear and siege is horrendous – but living in a ‘normal’ enduring situation where you cannot do laundry or sleep or care for a sick child – that is unbearable..
Naturally you are right that lack of electricity pales in comparison to atrocities. Nevertheless, the outcry of complaint goes to the heart of the matter.

Posted by: Blackie | May 16 2005 18:40 utc | 39

from the lead article:
The occupation forces in Iraq are showing little interest in winning hearts and minds among the majority of Iraqis, in building international legitimacy, or in articulating a governing program….
Krugman: Why did the administration want to invade Iraq, when, as the memo noted, “the case was thin” and Saddam’s “W.M.D. capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran”? Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there, its domestic political advantages aside, could serve as a demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and awe the world.
What were the real goals of the US ?
-to control natural resources, at the very least stop others from exploiting them
-to destroy an enemy of Israel as Israel is a useful, if cumbersome and expensive, colony (interests converge in part, that is have been made to converge)
-to have a secure foothold in the center of ME
-to demonstrate military US power and the possibility of pre-emption, cow the region, the Arab world, and others
-to boost the military-industrial complex, ensuring re-election, amongst other things
-to be proactive, act rather than be passive, try something new
-to avenge Daddy Bush and/or correct his mistakes
-to turn Bush into a war president
-to convince Americans they cannot survive without endless war, make them work, pay, submit
-to earn a LOT of money, be safe, be top dog
-to maintain a dominant position vis à vis EU, China, Russia, S America
-to maintain the status quo in the US and refuse to examine the future
Additionally:
-to act out sadistic fantasies, thus purifying the group, and by extension, the nation (sadism, racism, projection, the malignant other, a new national order)
-to act out glorifying myths, take on a Messiah role.
nuff said. Chaos begets chaos.

Posted by: Blackie | May 16 2005 20:25 utc | 40

& i remember vietnam – so called learned gentelmen – speaking of asian inscrutablity – of an ability to take losse
In The Fog of War General Westmoreland says direct to camera that Asians do not react to death in the same way as westerners.

Posted by: Dismal Science | May 17 2005 10:49 utc | 41

haven’t seen fog, but westmoreland’s racist stmt was answered quite effectively in peter davis’ hearts and minds

Posted by: b real | May 17 2005 14:44 utc | 42

The most evil age is the one in which the carpet of striving has been rolled up, in which the movement of thought is interrupted, the door of revelations bolted, the path of visions blocked.”-Shihab al-Din al-Suhrawardi
Illuminist Teacher, Executed
c. 1154-1191

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 17 2005 16:34 utc | 43

Blackie I’ve seen your answer a little bit late. You are right that people are not generally very smart ( informed) and that most of them are not in to the politic and mostly care about their daily life .But only to some extend. Occupation is never sweet and is ALWAYS for the benefit of occupier. We never know and can’t say that it was for the better for those occupied (no matter how advance occupier is, cause he’s intentions are NEVER GOOD). It takes some time for people to realize this. If (like that was a case very often in history) it is the ONLY choice for people in some country to decide who they prefer to be their occupier they may have gladly choose USA to be the one (at least what they know USA to be before 9/11). But generally people (no matter how corrupt they basically are) do not want to be occupied. Few days ago we’ve seen on TV Japanese people protesting “OCUPATION” (as they name it) of some Japanese island where USA military base is sitting from WWII TILL THIS DAY. People HATE it! And American solders do not kill Japanese there (at least not in masses, ha-ha).
You say:
My intuition is that many Iraqis (similar to many in ex USSR countries, Ukraine a recent example…) really did believe or trust that life ‘under / after the Americans’ or ‘in a democracy’ would be a life better – materially and socially – than what they had. They would be freed of fear of Saddam, women and children would be better off, and they would join the ‘west’ in consumption, more goods would be available, internet and better TV and such would get going, those entrepreneurially inclined would be able to branch out, etc. Certainly many young people were very keen.
***
Yap. That’s right “many young people were very keen”…They mostly were keen because they were ill informed and shortsighted as youth is. It really is a poor choice when one have to choose between dictatorship and occupation but I can assure you that even in my middle age as I fought Milosevic I never – ever would agree with any kind of occupation of my country and would fight it with all my guts. What I (they-people in above mentioned countries) naively wanted was democracy. Most of them in East Europe and EX-USSR do not bother to even vote today… having experienced this illusion…Practically all of them voted (now differently named) communists again …
It’s a long story…Maybe I am not informed very well but just remind me where on Earth American solders brought “a life better – materially and socially – than what they had”????? What they brought we all know…

Posted by: vbo | May 19 2005 3:15 utc | 44