|
The Violent U.S. Character
It’s quite short of historic perspective as it keeps up a tale of "good Americans" before GWB, but the piece hits a nail which, to my utter shame, even I usually avoid to hit directly:
[T]here’s a deeper reason why the popular impeachment movement has never taken off — and it has to do not with Bush but with the American people. Bush’s warmongering spoke to something deep in our national psyche. The emotional force behind America’s support for the Iraq war, the molten core of an angry, resentful patriotism, is still too hot for Congress, the media and even many Americans who oppose the war, to confront directly. It’s a national myth. It’s John Wayne. To impeach Bush would force us to directly confront our national core of violent self-righteousness — come to terms with it, understand it and reject it. And we’re not ready to do that.
[…]
Bush tapped into a deep American strain of fearful, reflexive bellicosity, which Congress and the media went along with for a long time and which has remained largely unexamined to this day. Congress, the media and most of the American people have yet to turn decisively against Bush because to do so would be to turn against some part of themselves.
Why Bush hasn’t been impeached
late in the day..
About divide and rule and some of the disc above, slothrop’s opinion amongst others; I too saw partition as a likely aim even before the invasion, everyone was talking about it. When the looting was going on I thought, so that is that.
Looking up, as I promised, Iraqi agriculture (previous disc., working on it)..
I learnt that the Ministry of Agri. was thrashed, totally wrecked, -there are some pix, plenty of the rebuilding- as were all seed banks (!) as well as many other agricultural facilities – vets, research stations, etc.
Today, there is no minister of Agriculture listed in the official USGV website in this week’s round up. They don’t have a web site, there is no one to contact (I was going to e mail them if poss.)
Basically, that ministry has not been functioning at all. FAO stats, for ex. in the main stop in 2002-3, they have no one to talk to and can’t use USDA or USAID bulletins or round ups. In effect, the central aspects of agri. were destroyed, farmers were left on their own, and as far as I can see (despite the recent hand over – the Ministry is since a few days back under Iraqi control, whatever that means) has done nothing since 2003.
The destruction was obviously intended (allowed if one prefers), as shown by subsequent actions which all went the way of the ‘clean sweep.’ The US refurbished the offices, helped to burn the trash – the remaining files-, and installed new furniture – the office in a box program or some such.
There were, overall, two forces at work: the one for a smooth takeover, a united country (it IS easier to control in many ways), the hearts and flowers were not just cosmetic frills for the US public, they did correspond to the intent of many – and the Iraqis believed as well, they imagined their lives as becoming their present lives with the strictures of Saddam removed and some ‘freedoms’, such as free press/tv, the right to assembly and political parties, call it ‘modernity’, added on.
They would keep their jobs, the food basket, their homes, all would stay the same but they would be cooler, happier, unafraid, and might have more oppos, more rights, more scope, etc. (In fact, Saddam was not cruel to individual entrepreneurs, his economic policies were simply pragmatic, egalitarian in a large part, within his absolute personal control framework.)
The second force was, is, completely destructive, set on, lets say, a kind of genocide, or more mildly, razing for renewal. The two intertwine, become confused.
In unstable, chaotic situations, the destructive forces tend to prevail. They are often simply stronger, as disruption and mayhem are easy to create, and control is much tougher to implement.
The fractioning of Iraq was created by Bremer, by the new illegal constitution, by the gutting of the previous system to replace it with jockeying between ethnic-religious groups, regions (territories defined according to the characteristic of ppl who live there coupled with some territorial matters, oil) in Iraq, lobbies, interest groups, mafiosis who slavered at the destruction, dreaming of something similar to the USSR, and from the US, milking the US tax payer (Halliburton etc.) to use the US soldiers as agents of control and repression.
Bremer summarily closed about 200 functioning enterprises – simply because they sold to the State! So no more buses were constructed. (Say.)
Cultural artifacts are worth money. They were destroyed in the mad scramble, and cannily stolen for sale. But the US did not care about this aspect, contrary to the Germans, say (ww2), who attributed sentimental and monetary value to artifacts, precious stuff, art. The US wanted Mc Donalds on every corner and any thrashing was good.
(i only skimmed parts of the posts above)
Posted by: Noirette | May 28 2007 16:57 utc | 217
tho I know I risk the fate of not passing the MoA loyalty test, or may be deemed to have an “agenda” other than noting out some observations here (that also apply to me) but that may add something, or maybe not… here goes anyway.
from uncle- A deeper understanding of the way things never were, w/apologies to Stephanie Coontz. Last thing, because I’m freaking my own self out now…lol I simply can’t understand why people like slothop and others can still say with a straight face that all these events are happenstance or sheer incompetence…
Coontz’ book as an example would point to a non-all encompassing idea- her book disputes the idea that all Americans were formerly consistent and of one mind, that Americans had a past that was somehow a result of great planning or societal constraints. That’s the myth. The reality is much more chaotic and given to happenstance. Reality is much more of a reaction, even too often among those who think they are acting rather than reacting.
to assume there is some grand unified theory of power, Emmanuel Todd noted, is to give too much power to forces that don’t deserve this claim. I don’t know about the totality of the Iraq invasion but it seems there were multiple reasons the neocons could find to justify their act. At the same time, the only advice Bush gave to the Iraqis upon invasion was to leave the oilfields alone.
Yes, destroying and looting serves a purpose of deciminating a national psyche. Spoils of war go far, far back in human history — and females were an early part of that rape of a culture. nothing new there, and the purposes were domination tactics.
while there is much to believe in the claim that the Bush junta is insane and this is the source of what we often perceive as “incompetence,” — including a recent history demonstrating their delusional beliefs — they are also cunning, as their intellect is based upon creating and accumulating power and destroying enemies, starting with political opponents at home, however they can.
but they are also true believers in free markets… as long as those markets are free to their plutocratic pals and no one else. again, established precedent via previous actions for both of these claims.
bob m has a point, if you look at the art market, that some collectors were surely (as b’s link noted as well) salivating at the prospect of getting their hands on museum pieces in the chaos. I could easily believe they paid Iraqis to loot, and specified particular items, even. Only last year a very prominent museum here had to return items acquired illegally through an unscrupulous dealer.
don’t ask don’t tell is the way such biz is done. art thefts don’t generally occur as a lark. there are targeted works. don’t believe me, tho. check it out. artworks are rarely held for ransom.
again, I don’t have proof, I can only look at established precedent, as in the precedent of BushCo’s nasty cronyism at the expense of everyone, combined with a pathological paranoia.. maybe that they will be held to account? I doubt they have that much conscience, however.
r’giap’s looting post- In 1991, at the close of the first Gulf War, nine of Iraq’s regional museums were looted by rampaging mobs opposed to Saddam Hussein’s government. While the national museum did not come under attack at that time, because the government retained firm control over Baghdad, it lost a number of artifacts that had been transferred to the regional museums for safekeeping.
In all, about 4,000 items were stolen or destroyed during the 1991 looting spree, including some that were thousands of years old. Some of the pieces were later smuggled out of Iraq, and were, by the following year, turning up at art auctions and in the hands of dealers in London and New York.
and, fwiw, the article slothrop quotes in #115 is among those r’giap lists in #111 and and the link at #120 and beyond. so they’re arguing from at least one of the same articles to undergird their positions.
anna missed provides the most definitive response to “notheydinnit” with a link to the article at the WSW, but even then, if you parse what the eyewitness said, they are making assumptions based upon one understanding…not to say it’s the wrong one, but the soldiers may have mistaken the guards for baathists… not to say this is correct, either. And again, for those who do not think the WSW operates without an agenda, it is possible to question that source as much as someone would question any other.
just to say that no one has or can provide definitive proof and thus interpretation is led by ideology. of course, none of us sees our own beliefs as an ideological stance most of the time. sometimes we’re wrong and sometimes we’re right but the times we are right tend to stick in our minds because they reinforce our previously held belief.
the link to the counterpunch grad student article is interesting because the items they discuss are the issues that those who look to the war and occupation as a failure that will not and cannot be righted also note those same failures, based upon previous occupations, not upon a belief that it was a good thing to do. however, to simply note this — does that put someone at risk of being labeled a “collaborator” with empire? I don’t think so.
As far as Iraq’s civil war…again, this was presented to the U.S. govt before the war as the most likely consequence of an invasion. This belief was not simply an american one, however.
maybe the same hubris that gets Americans labeled “a violent people” is the same hubris that ignores probable outcomes except for the one you/he/she want to believe will occur. however, labeling the U.S. as a violent society seems to me to be another trait of empire…and whoever is *the* empire of the moment will display violence toward others as it may in order to rule and gets its way by intimidation…simply because it can…because that is the exericise of empire.
look at Napoleon or the Brits or the Ottoman Empire, and on… when has any of them been any different?
Posted by: fauxreal | May 28 2007 20:09 utc | 237
|
