Myths of Iraq

Slightly different perspective from someone with first-hand experience on the ground there.


Paul Hue said...

Six: Whereas you and I accept most negative claims about what's going on, we see that Nadir and Tom only accept those negative claims. Nadir seems to have stopped claimaing that the high voter turn-out resulted from fear of GIs (whom Tom calls "dog soldiers") retailiating violently against civilians. (So, what are they, Tom, sympathetic dog soldiers, or dangerous, indescriminate brutes little different than the SS or Alabama Night Riders?).

Another pair of conflicting points Tom and Nadir use is charactorizating of Iraq's govt as a US puppet while simultaneously faulting the elections there for elevating charactors opposed to Bush's policies at the expense of Bush supporters like Chalabi. So which is it? Is it a puppet govt? If so, why didn't the elections promote Chalabi?

You can bet, Six, that had the elections left Chalabi as the PM, that would be evidence to Tom and Nadir that they were rigged. Instead the elections produced a PM surely displeasing to Bush. Yet that result (to them) constitutes a flaw to Bush's efforts, though without even slightly altering their charactorization of the govt as a Bush/Chevron puppet.

And when gangsters, enslavers, and violent religious bigots sabatoge the oil infrastructure, they blame Bush while simultaneously faulting him for making a top priority of securing those resources. This isn't a case of up is down, but rather up and down are both down; Bush bad, no matter what.

Tom Philpott said...

I respect this guy for one thing: his book is called "New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy"--not, say, "Expanding Democracy Worldwide." At least he's intellectually honest.

Paul Hue said...

Tom: And you of course interpret America's "supremacy" as meaning sinister domination and absolute control of other nations, as opposed to simply having the mightiest military and strongest economy.