Conspiracy And Orientalism

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 27 2005 4:00 utc | 101

razor

perhaps you are correct & i am a little too sensitive on certain questions but i can assure you that sensitivity is mediated by a day to day practice that seems to enforce it

you know as well as i do that each imperiaist venitre has a specific character & that is all i am suggesting in relation to u s imperialism - it has a very specific character. & i would argue that in real terms we do not have the historical means at this moment to fully comprehend the disaster of the decline of u s imperialism

even between the imperialism of the french & belgium - there were enormous differences. the enterprise of mad king leopold tho do have a certain resonance with rumsfield & cheney. the imperialism of the dutch, of the portugese & the utter decadance of vritish imperialism have also their own special character - & their very specific forms of brutality

i do not idealise the country i live in but it would seem to me that a part of its very real character is its sense of shame that exists in just one glance on a metro. the melancholy here did not fall from the heavens - it has a historically determined character

perhaps u demonise u s imperialism but i think not - i am often superceded by the information that passes before our eyes minds & hearts. sometimes i feel i am not hard enough. & perhaps too i have the fear that annie possesses - because i remember as a young boxer being told by a very experienced trainer that the real & permanant damage almost came exclusively from accidents

& while the current state of us imperialism has both a historical & logical continuum - the madness, the absolute madness within it does not

what i far is i imagine annie's fear - that the dark heart of this imperialism is going to get a great deal darker - that too i feel - that in some senses - we are both the winesses & participants to the beginning of the decline of an empire that will go down swinging with the recklessness that has been so characteristic of its history

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 27 2005 17:53 utc | 102

i'm starting to think going down swinging w/recklessness may be an improvement over an escalation of what we've been seeing of late

Posted by: annie | Sep 27 2005 18:06 utc | 103

I am a long-time fan of this blog so it was, therefore, with great disappointment that I read this post. The ever-analytical mind of the author appears to have taken a vicodin vacation...

To suggest that we can't pull out of Iraq now because of the consequences that MIGHT occur is akin to a rapist saying he can't quit raping a woman now because, well you know, her husband might come back and beat her up for sleeping with someone else.

Yes, Iraq could fall into civil war. Most likely it would fall into civil war. Do you know why it would fall into civil war? Because the people of Iraq CHOSE civil war. They have that right. Just as our country to had its civil war, Iraq has the right to choose that action for themselves.

Our crime is invasion and occupation. We cannot absolve ourselves of this by meddling in the political landscape of the ravaged country we have created.

We removed a brutal dictator (who we installed for the sole purpose of beating down those factions that would fight for their rights). Why did we remove him? To free those whom he had oppressed from his oppression--or so we say. Now, when they begin to act on that freedom, you would suggest we prevent it.

Your opinion of war is no justification for denying a country its right to decide what it will be. If that country decides it must settle its differences violently, that is their perrogative.

Our obligation to Iraq (as consequences to our crimes committed) is not to pick up Saddam's staff and beat down those who now see their first opportunity for freedom and independence in decades. Our obligation is to apologize profusely for our error, step quietly aside and offer assistance to any who may wish to leave the hellhole that we left in place of Iraq.

Don't you dare try to confuse occupation with humanitarian concern. That simply will not fly. Those people have the right to determine their own path without our interference. Our continued presence in this country is a crime a thousand times more abhorrant than any atrocity any country could inflict upon itself.

Shame, Bill. Shame on you. You provide sustenance to decades of covert and overt military intervention which has ruined countries and descimated hundreds of thousands of lives. Our military should NOT be in Iraq. America must learn that military use must be restricted to the defense of our own country and any other country from invading forces. Bush Senior was justified in repelling Iraq from Kuwait. Dubya has no such justification. Using the mess our original crime created as justification for continuing in that crime is thoughtless, heartless and ignorant.

Posted by: Patrick McGonegal | Sep 27 2005 18:23 utc | 104

@Patrick McGonegal:

You’ve got a good point, and in fact I agree with you in current practice, but you’re overlooking something, too. You are assuming that a continued occupation will necessarily have the same character as the existing one. This is not an absolute truth. It could be possible to have a relatively benign occupation—you could start by getting rid of everyone who has so much as looked in the direction of Abu Ghraib and all the higher-ups. (Although I suspect in this case you wouldn’t be able to find enough innocents in the army to replace them.) The current occupation has no real benefit over civil war—the troops are making no effort to distinguish between enemies and innocents, probably because most of them consider everyone in Iraq to be enemies. People who don’t want to be involved in war, or who can’t defend themselves, are being tortured or killed or both. This would also presumably be the situation in civil war, given the makeup of the country. If, however, and I grant that this is an if so big as to dwarf all others which have come before it, and impossible as long as the current crowds run the governments of the occupying countries, if you could stop all that, and actually do the things that Bush and his cronies claim to want to do (i.e. reconstruct the country, give the people a chance to construct a new representative government, prevent people from killing each other, etc.) then an occupation would be preferable to a civil war. Liberty is a high ideal, but given the choice most people would prefer to prevent genocide than give the victims a temporary liberty. The problem, as I see it, is that at the moment not only are we choosing genocide without liberty over genocide with liberty, the worse of two evils, but in doing so, we are the ones carrying out the killing. We should pull out right at this instant, since we are incapable of providing an alternative that is better in any way than civil war.

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Sep 27 2005 20:05 utc | 105

patrick, billmon said he had a strong suspicion a complete withdrawl could lead to a civil war. he didn't suggest we couldn't pull out because of it. at least that's not what i heard. given the suffering and torture we have inflicted on iraq i think it's natural one can consider the future hell that could be in store for the peoples of iraq because of the war we initiated. considering the morality of just leaving them to their own devices is normal. it's hell for the iraqi's, it's going to be hell whether we go or stay. i am not certain what constitutes a civil war. i think they are on the brink? is there a possibity it won't turn into a full scale genocidal situation, i hope so. i firmly believe at this point whatever happens will be better if we leave. i think it is appropriate to point out , as you did,inevitably, with sadam gone, conflicts/scores settles/ civil war/resolutions , or some balancing of the scales will occur, and this would occur w/out his presence whether we invaded or not.
but i didn't hear anyone justify 'denying a country its right to decide what it will be'. its just a hard pill to swallow and not all of us can see the situation so cut and dry , and make the choices without guilt, questions of morality and doubts.

Posted by: annie | Sep 27 2005 23:09 utc | 106

what seems to not be understood - is that the people of iraq are not inanimate figure - or dolls - they are a culture so rich in whatver it takes to make a humanity - they gave it to us.

the americans will lose this war & the people of iraq will win it. the americans will only leave when they have been dealt a hammer blow - which they have experienced elsewhere.

i do not think this will happen tommorrow but it most certainly will happen even if as i think - they will generalise this war elsewhere in the middle east.

they are in fact condemned to lose this war

but before this happens the cheny criminal junta & its slew of profiteers will have eaten their fill - they will have raped the people of iraq, its culture - its very physical being - much as they did in vietnam laos & cambodia

the american people slaves of their own hunger & prisoners of their own fear will also be left desolate - that too is becoming abundantly clear - even their topgun prettyboy economists cannot put a pretty face on the picture - except for a select - who will no doubt live in the many 'green zones' that will be established in the mothercountry

what isbecoming very clear in these last years that a certain type of western culture & type of living are over. that they are finished. that they cannot be propped up with the false words- freedom, democracy & liberty because the world has seen that they have no meaning - no meaning at all

as someone noted it was not iraqui's that left black american families dying in their houses in new orleans. it wasn't the ragheads who left them for days without even the most basic services. it wasn't the sandniggers who held them captive in conditions that were murderous, scandalous & barbaric - in the plain heart of the mother country

succesive american administrations have made a complete mockery of whatever ideas or notions that existed in the 'governing documents' of their country

their legislative & judicial appareil just a scaled down version of the jerry springer show

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 27 2005 23:20 utc | 107

rememberinggiap reminded me of the body count from the Vietnam/Laos/Cambodian wars - 7+ million dead. There are Americans out there that feel, in effect, if only we could have killed more of them...

How many Iraqis would die in a civil war? 1 Million? 2 Million? How many Iraqis are going to die so that the US can install its puppet government? The US government does not care, and has shown that millions of dead means nothing to them. Bush and his advisors seem even less caring.

I would think that if our goal is to prevent loss of life, then going with the civil war is a better bet. Perhaps the best bet would be to hope that Iran manages to make Iraq into a puppet state.

(So much for the rights of women, but then again I don't think that Bush cares much about that either.)

Posted by: edwin | Sep 27 2005 23:49 utc | 108