2007-01-13
Zogby: A Dangerous Speech that Ignores Reality
"The lesson of Vietnam is clear: A U.S.-led war cannot be won or sustained without the support of the American people. By failing to learn that lesson, the president has not only put Iraq at risk, but American leadership in the world and the stability of the entire Middle East."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I agree that the US military can only win wars supported by the American people. However, when people like Nadir make this claim, it reminds me that they have endeavered to fulfill their own prophesy: from even before the war began, they opposed it. The peaceniks opposed the war even when they believed that Hussein possessed WMDs (let the UN continue its 10-year attempt complete checking!; Hussein will use his WMD on invading troops and kill tens of thousands!), and even opposed the invasion of Afgahnistan (until the Iraq invasion began).
But more than faulting the peaceniks, I fault Bush II for not accounting for them. Any US war will include a devoted fragment of the population who opposes it and attributes it to a colonial resource-grab. Bush II could have done a much better job accounting for these people, and their appeal to the general public once things go poorly. I voted both times for Bush II and supported his war. But his handling of the war has disappointed me and causes me to wonder if -- aside from his tax cut -- the world would be better off with a mealy-mouthed liberal/leftist reaction to 911.
I'm not sure either way, but I'm certainly not sure that Bush II has done a good enough job trying to bring civilization to the Arabian 2/3rds of Iraq. As with South Korea and Tiwan, if Bush II's effort was ultimately good enough, we won't know for 30 or so years.
"...from even before the war began, they opposed it."
And the results prove we were correct. There was never a chance that this war could succeed. George H.W. Bush even told you what would happen...
You're not convinced the war was a bad idea because you believe in the white man's burden, but it was never a politically or militarily practical solution to the problem of Saddam Hussein. Now Saddam is a martyr who will be remembered in a more favorable light than Bush.
I reject the "white man's burden" because I reject colonialism.
Since you agree that previous US administrations help buildup Hussein's dictatorship, I wonder why you reject the concept that the US govt might take some responsibility for dismantling it, and erecting in its stead what critics like you criticized the US for not erecting in Afgahnistan after the Soviets left. Or, what is it that you guys mean by chiding the US for "abandoning Afgahnistan" at that time?
What is it that you wanted the US to do in Rhowanda during the Tsusti-Huto genocide of the 90s? What is it that you propose the US do today with regard to Darfar?
"I reject the "white man's burden" because I reject colonialism."
You also reject the fact that there is such a thing as "economic colonialsm" actually known as "neo-colonialism" which has existed since the 50's.
Perhaps your belief that Islamic countries aren't "civilized" because they practice what you call a primitive religion isn't racism, per se, but it is certainly a supremacy complex.
The "white man's burden" as framed by Kipling is only racial because it says "white man" instead of "democratic man" or "civilized man".
Check it out:
Take up the White Man’s burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go send your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child
Take up the White Man’s burden
In patience to abide
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple
An hundred times made plain
To seek another’s profit
And work another’s gain
Take up the White Man’s burden—
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard—
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah slowly) to the light:
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
“Our loved Egyptian night?”
Take up the White Man’s burden-
Have done with childish days-
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
Sounds like an army recruiting poster for the War in Iraq. The only thing is you can't say it's "the white man's burden" and get poor Blacks and Latinos to fight your war for you.
What about that "To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride" line? Straight George Bush.
The only difference between Kipling's "White man's burden" and George Bush's "exporting democracy" is race.
Nadir writes: ==================
Perhaps your belief that Islamic countries aren't "civilized" because they practice what you call a primitive religion isn't racism, per se, but it is certainly a supremacy complex.
==================================
I consider them uncivilized because their governments do not manifest "of the people and by the people", neither do their laws, freedom of thought and expression do not exist, and the governments themselves implement primitive religious superstitions and fairytales. To the extent that any of this applies to the US, I call such instances uncivilized as well, though the US leads the way in most areas of what I consider to be civilization.
I do consider freedom and democracy to constitute supreme mechanisms for human conduct; I also consider them to absolute and universal, in that any humans can independently deduce them without influence from others who have already imagined them. Any human or group of humans who work without racial or religious prejudice to imagine a mechanism for human conduct would arrive at these concepts independently.
Race and religion, meanwhile, are subjective and relative, the purviews of what I consider to be lesser minds.
Nadir writes: ============================
it's "the white man's burden" and get poor Blacks and Latinos to fight your war for you.
===========================================
Do you still subscribe to the long-disproved myth that the fighting troops disproportionately comprise blacks and mestizos, or even poor people? To the contrary, the combat troops do not exceed the black and "latino" (whatever that means) compositions of the general US population of 12% and 13%, respectively. The economic and education distribution also closely matches that of the US population.
"Since you agree that previous US administrations help buildup Hussein's dictatorship, I wonder why you reject the concept that the US govt might take some responsibility for dismantling it, and erecting in its stead what critics like you criticized the US for not erecting in Afgahnistan after the Soviets left. Or, what is it that you guys mean by chiding the US for "abandoning Afgahnistan" at that time?"
The US left Afghanistan without any economic aid or support. They could have eased the nation's poverty and helped promote a more tolerant Taleban by offering a little help. The US goal in Afghanistan was to defeat the Soviets, not to help the Afghans. Then you want to come back and run a gas pipeline through our country? The Taleban said, "Fuck you."
The Iraq War was only about Hussein in so much as there was a desire for a pro-American regime in Iraq. It had nothing to do with eliminating a despot. This is proven by US support of Saddam when he was a despot and US support of despots around the world throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Exporting democracy to Iraq is a sales pitch that is actually false advertising. If you believe it, that just means you're a patsy.
Why hasn't the US invaded Pakistan? Or Egypt? Or Saudi Arabia? Why did it remove a democratically elected government in Haiti and replace it with a totalitarian one? Why would it try to depose a democratically elected Hugo Chavez if the US is promoting democracy?
The US promotes US interests. It doesn't matter what kind of government you have as long as we can do business. In Cuba, the Castros said, "You will have to do business on our terms." They told the US companies that we will do business in a different way. So the US has been trying to get them out for almost 50 years. Invasions, assassination attempts, embargoes, terrorism... all in the name of business.
In China, the government says, "you have to do business on our terms," but there is so much money to be made there, and the Chinese are too powerful an enemy for the US to be antagonistic. So we do business their way, on their terms.
Stop bullshitting, Paul. You really don't believe the Iraq war is about planting the seed of democracy in the Middle East, do you? You're just spouting those neocon talking points.
You know that it's about creating a free market nation in which American companies have free access to Iraqi markets (namely oil reserves). That's what it's all about.
The US had no problems with Saddam Hussein as long as he did the US's bidding. When he stepped out of line, that's when he became a threat.
In reality, I think George Bush I double-crossed Saddam. I think they gave him the go ahead to invade Kuwait and then attacked his army when he was trying to retreat. They punked Saddam out.
The US had no problems with Iran as long as the totalitarian Shah was in power. The US helped remove a democratically elected government there to put the Shah back in power. That's why some in Iran hate us.
Others in Iran are fiercely pro-American, but Bush will bomb them just like he is bombing the pro-American Iraqis and the pro-American Haitians and the pro-American Lebanese.
It isn't about democracy or doing the right thing. It's about money and power. Period.
"I do consider freedom and democracy to constitute supreme mechanisms for human conduct; I also consider them to absolute and universal, in that any humans can independently deduce them without influence from others who have already imagined them. Any human or group of humans who work without racial or religious prejudice to imagine a mechanism for human conduct would arrive at these concepts independently."
If this is the case, then how can you advocate the use of violence to impose these mechanisms on others?
And don't use WWII or the Civil War as examples. The allies went after Hitler because he was invading his neighbors. It had nothing to do with freeing the German people. This was hypocritical in itself because Britain and France were doing the same things in Africa and Asia to non-whites. Germany's empire in other nations wasn't as large and Hitler's crime was that he wanted to build it in Europe. There was nothing about bringing freedom or democracy or even religious tolerance because Germany was democratic and Christian.
Lincoln invaded the South because they were breaking away from the Union. He would have preserved the union and kept slavery if he could have found a way to do it, or at least that's what he said. His goal was not to bring freedom, democracy or religious freedom.
So if any group of humans can arrive at these places if left to their own devices, what right does another group have to use violence to impose those mechanisms on them? Isn't that in itself anti-democratic?
Bush and the other neocons advocate free, independent, prosperous, democratic, free market states as the best providers of security and wealth for the US... and vice versa. I do not believe that they invented this dogma as a veil for "economic imperialism". My support for Bush's invasion of Iraq is only as good as my belief that it will lead to a free and prosperous and independent nation like Taiwan, South Korea, or even Iraq's own Kurdistan. I believe that Bush undertook this because of the neocon belief that actions like 911 derive from a lack of such a nation in Arabia, and that the existence of such a nation in Arabia would provide an effective counter to such impulses.
"Do you still subscribe to the long-disproved myth that the fighting troops disproportionately comprise blacks and mestizos, or even poor people? To the contrary, the combat troops do not exceed the black and "latino" (whatever that means) compositions of the general US population of 12% and 13%, respectively. The economic and education distribution also closely matches that of the US population."
This is irrelevant and not what I am saying at all. America's volunteer army is already undermanned. Without Blacks and Latinos there wouldn't be enough to fight at all. My point is that it is politically incorrect to frame the argument as racial.
You successfully changed the subject. Now get back to the topic. Concede that Kipling's "White Man's Burden" differs from Bush's "Exporting Democracy" only because race is less of a factor for Bush.
You want to bring civilization to Iraq just like Kipling wanted to civilize Kenya and Ghana. My argument is that you and Kipling are talking the same shit, and that both of you are trying to sell the American people false goods. Britain's imperial wars and America's imperial wars are all about natural resources and the wealth that can be derived from them.
You're jacking folks for their stuff and calling it liberation. That's like the crackheads who robbed Lee saying they stole his video games because they wanted to liberate him from the huge waste of time it was to play Playstation all day.
It just ain't true.
"Bush and the other neocons advocate free, independent, prosperous, democratic, free market states as the best providers of security and wealth for the US... and vice versa. I do not believe that they invented this dogma as a veil for "economic imperialism"."
Then you are far more naive than I would ever have suspected.
Post a Comment