I thought I'd start a separate thread to reply to these posts by Travis  and Uh which originally appeared in Iraqi Voting disrupts news reports of bombings   (but note that Bill  has aready written a response to Travis in that thread)

Uh wrote:

I was strongly against the US going into Iraq but things have gone a bit differently than I thought they would.   I think most Iraqis want the occupation to end but they don't support the resistance.  The occupation hasn't produced a people's liberation movement.  The elections didn't look rigged to me.  There were so many parties running candidates from all walks of life, even the Iraqi communist party was taking part.  It's difficult to make sense of  this and to me it doesn't seem so similar to Vietnam.

 

I don't think anyone can be sure of what US intentions are right now - but  still I don't trust them.  I just don't think you can be leftwing and support an imperialist power invading another country,  it was up to the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam, its just too suspicious to think that the US would come and liberate them.  I know I sound confused but I think its better to be confused than to just start supporting the war because it looks like Iraq might get some form of democracy as a byproduct of the US having more influence there.  The left should always oppose imperialist wars and support self-determination.

 

Travis  wrote:

maybe things are turning out alright in iraq.  It's hard to know because even though there are signs that they might really get some form of democracy the whole place seems to be a big mess, there's no security and people are dying all the time.  the idea that the US would  try to spearhead a 'democratic revolution'  to 'drain the swamps' and crush terrorism just seems farfetched. they are the strongest superpower ever and they are the only one, so they can do anything they like ; so why would they have to go round the world giving out democracy?? It's a nice idea but i can't get my head around it.

 

 

what if they end up with a clerical regime that makes things even worse than before? it's all so unstable.  I can't bring myself to believe that the US had good intentions when it started this war. They told so many lies - why did they say it was about wmd if it was really about democracy? 

 

I can't support the resistance because of their tactics, they are definitely evil imo. What worries me is that there isn't  any proper resistance (or perhaps we don't hear about it?). So i suppose I would say I'm confused .  To me the lack of proper resistance is the biggest sign that something good might be happening and why it doesn't seem like Vietnam.

 

 i do have some hope that they will end up with something a lot better than before but at what price? 

 

These messages  raise the sort of issues that prompted us to establish  Last Superpower in the first place.  Our introductory blurb on the first LastSuperpower website (established just before the war) read as follows:

Introductory Blurb

The current anti-war movement developed in the absence of serious discussion and analysis. Opposition to a US initiated war in Iraq was more of an intuitive reaction than a thought-out response.

 

If the US is doing it, then it's bad

 

This has been the basic rule-of-thumb for as long as most left-wingers can remember - and it has generally worked quite well. But does it point us in the right direction with regard to US policy in Iraq and the Middle East?

 

That's what this web-site is about. Our aim in setting it up is to initiate a serious debate about whether it is really left-wing and progressive to oppose the US initiated war against the Ba'th regime in Iraq.

Since that time we've broadened out considerably and our description of what we're about is a more general one 

"......we're interested in discussing  what it means to be progressive and left-wing in the 21st century. "    

 

But  the current forum  debate shows that the issue of "what it means to be left wing and progressive in the 21st century" is still being fought out around the specific issue of the war in Iraq.  

Sure, the anti-war movement has all but died away,  but  people have been left feeling confused - not knowing what to make of it. 

I was intending to write a direct response to Travis and Uh  but putting together this  little intro  to the new thread has taken longer than I expected.   I'll get back to it tomorrow. 

(note: bpors  has said we can call him Brian...)

Brian's  comment about Christopher Hitchens no longer  being a left winger (in the Iraqi voting disrupts news of bombings thread)  is an example of  the deeply rooted idea that "being left-wing =  being opposed to US imperialism" ( or in extreme cases "opposed to America" ).

Anyway, this seems to be the sticking point for people who are confused by what's going on in Iraq at the moment.  Brian came right out and said it - Christoher Hitchens is now a right winger because he supported neo-con policy with regard to the Middle East.  It is apparently irrelevant that Hitchens' support arose out of his hatred for fascism and tyranny and was based on a coherent argument about why he believed that neocon policy was genuinely pro- democratic.  All that mattered was that Hitchens had committed the ultimate sin of  supporting US imperialism.

But being left wing  is a world outlook that is based  on  struggles against oppression and exploitation and support for  human progress  - for freedom, development, the  ever fuller realisation of human potential  - and so on. 

Traditionally  we (ie the left)  fought against US imperialism because it was standing in the way of all these things  - it was crushing movements for freedom and democracy and restricting progress throughout the developing world.  So naturally  we opposed it - but we opposed it because of what we were in favour of .  

kezza, you said: "Brian came right out and said it - Christoher Hitchens is now a right winger because he supported neo-con policy with regard to the Middle East."

kezza before we go any further, could you please accept that you are misrepresenting me is saying the above quote. It is pointless discussing when a fellow poster put words in your mouth as you have done to me.

I never said Hitchens is a right-winger. Nor did I say that Hitchens had changed his view on a wide range of issues that would lead to him being labelled as a right-winger.

But you are saying I did. I can only guess, so you can knock the "straw man" down. Unless you can give me another explanation. If you simply mis-read me, then fair enough. Please say.

Here is the complete list of quotes from me on Hitchens in bold type:

"Hitchens in now the cabin-boy on the good ship USS Neocon." All his utterances are almost word for word neocon policy on war in the Middle East. In particular the Iraq war.

"Christopher Hitchens renounced the left on the 11th of September 2001." He has written extensively on his feelings and how it was a watershed in thinking on that day.

"Hitchens is supporting American Imperialism. He can dress it any way he likes. He can talk about the NWO, or any neocon spin he wants. Whatever floats his boat." My opinion of his views on the Middle East and what they amount to.

Posters here are openly saying they support this view. I say they are wrong. But I don't attack their bona fides. I haven't accused anyone of being right wing here because they don't agree with me. I think it is healthy for the left to a wide range of views.

"He publicly states he is no longer of the left, and that only a few like-minded causes stir him." Still, it does not constitute anything like saying he is right wing. And of course I did not use those words.

In short kezza, you are saying that I claimed Hitchens had become right wing. I did not say that. Hitchens himself said he felt he could no longer call himself a socialist, especially after 9/11. He didn't say he was therefore right wing. Neither did I.

"Christopher Hitchens has a right to his opinion. However, why not pick a left wing commentator? Hitchens in now the cabin-boy on the good ship USS Neocon."  While I agree that you never said Hitchens is right-wing, the implication is manifest.  Especially when you read your quote/post in its entirety, rather than the selected pieces you have identified as quoting in full.   

I think that the essence of your post says what Keza indicated, but maybe she should have said Brian has as good as come out and said... Hitchens is a right-winger.  The question is, is the good ship neo-con right-wing or not?  Also, if we have not chosen a left-wing commentator then what have we chosen? 

It may well be an instance where the full implication of the statement is apparent in hindsight, and obviously wrong to the author, (Keza) as my statement in the celebrate mistakes thread where I seemed to be saying by implication that we should care about the past wrongs, over and above building a future unity on the concrete conditions now. 

Anita

Anita,

what is important to me is respecting the other person's views. You don't have to agree with them. You can even think they are way out of line. But you must accurately represent them if you want to include them in your reply.

You are free to  infer from what I said about Hitchens that I was hinting or implying  Hitchens was right wing.

keza is of course entitled to do the same.

But you are not entitled to misrepresent what I actually SAY. This is excactly what keza did.

There is a difference.

Anita, you say:  "Especially when you read your quote/post in its entirety, rather than the selected pieces you have identified as quoting in full."

Also Anita, I challenge to you to quote me on anything else I have said directly on Hitchen's politics. You say: "Especially when you read your quote/post in its entirety, rather than the selected pieces you have identified as quoting in full.  "

I particularily took issue with keza paraphrasing something I did not say. Its specific.

I went thru each of my posts, and I couldn't find anything else I said directly about Hitchens. That is, If you don't include his actual quotes.  The "selected pieces" were ALL the things I said on Hitchens. keza did not say she inferred it. keza did not ask if me I was implying it.

keza said that I had come out and said Hitchens was right wing. In my view, that is misrepresenting what I said. keza gave me an opinion I don't even have!

Then you say: "While I agree that you never said Hitchens is right-wing, the implication is manifest."

You are entitled to claim what you inferred. You are the only one who really knows that. But you can't dictate to me what I may have implied. Not unless you are a mind reader.

What is the point of engaging with people who tell you what you think and say, and then tells you you are wrong?

The joke is, I don't think he is right wing. I think he is excactly what he says he is.

I am going to post an article from 1996 regarding the sanctions in Iraq. I read it, I think, back in 1998. It was about then, that unlike some who think I'm confused, I began to realize that the problem with the Middle East was not Iraq Vs Iran, Israelis Vs Palestinians, Syria Vs Israel, Afghanistan Vs Iran....etc.

It is Imperial interference in the region. And it has been going on long before America ever got there. Check out the history of any of the nations there. You will find that many weren't even nations that long ago. They were the playthings of the conquerers.

So, America is going to clean out the swamp. Because the neocons said so. They told George. He told the rest of the world. The list of things the neocons have told the world in this way that have turned out to be fantasy is staggering. Just the lies about the WMDs was breathtaking:

Hundreds of lies. Mobile Weapons Labs; Chemical weapons out in the battlefield; large underground rooms under the palaces; Saddam's bodyguard flees to Israel and tell the world the WMDs are in Tikrit; drones capable of delivering chemical weapons; hundreds of locations they gave Blix's team where they were sure the weapons were; Testimonies  from Chalabi's exiles saying that Iraq had a terrorist training camp Salman Pak for training Al Qaeda in hijacking planes.

The above is just a couple of samples. To collect them all you would need a book. A large book.

So what?? The real reason for the liberation was to clean the swamp and give the Iraqi people democracy.

Hmmm. The trouble with liars is that even when this time for sure they are going to tell the truth, no worries,..... I don't believe them. All the other times was nothing. This time they really mean it. Just give them a chance.....I still don't believe them.

Where were the cheering Iraqis? Except for the made-for-television pulling down of Saddam's statue there was very little of the flower petal throwing activities that the neocons promised George as the troops marched in. So not only did they lie about the WMDs, they also lied about how Iraqis would feel about an invasion.

Of course most were relieved to be rid of Saddam. Do you remember those early days after Saddam was disposed? There were no insurgents back then. Or very little. The western media were free to walk about. Unlike now.

Then Al Sadr said something. He said thank you to the americans. But please leave. Now. His comments reflected a deep mistrust by the Iraqis of the Americans intentions.

Al Sadr was right. You see, its been over two years and the foriegn troops are showing no signs of leaving.

Then something else happened. In a town called Fallujah in about June 2003 there was a protest against American troops in the area. Locals did not want them there. The protest was relatively peaceful. The locals were unarmend. But American soldiers who were nearby claimed they heard gunshots and they returned fire. I believe 13 ppl were killed  and many ppl were seriously injured. This took place near a school. It was at this point I began to realize, this was no "liberation".

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/US_Iraqis_at_odds_043003.htm

"Local officials and neighbors said that US troops shot without provocation at a peaceful demonstration aimed at getting the soldiers to evacuate the school they had been occupying since Friday, so children could return to classes.

''This was random shooting without justification,'' said city councilman Sabah al-Rawi, 41, pointing out bullet holes in the walls of a home near the school.

But US forces said armed demonstrators infiltrated the crowd and threw rocks, chanted pro-Saddam Hussein slogans, and fired AK-47s at soldiers.

''We shot at the people shooting at us,'' said Lieutenant Wes Davidson, 23, of the 82d Airborne Division's First Battalion."

Soldiers shooting up a public demonstration. Heaven forfend that these ppl are oppressed!  Notice also that not one american soldier was reported wounded.

You see, the Iraqis have long suffered under both Saddam and the sanctions. They had been oppressed for a long time. And they didn't want foriegn troops patrolling their streets and smashing down their doors in the middle of the night. Understandable. It sounds like life under an oppressive regime. Does it to you? It does to me.

Right now, today, thousands of Iraqis around the country are out in the streets protesting against American occupation. If you read the western media, they are Muslim fundamentalists. And they mainly are.

But so is the newly elected Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari , who will push for a shia theocracy. He owes his allegence to Sistani. Sistani will not easily give up possession of the oil city of Kirkuk to the Khurds. And Sistani will certainly not give up on having the constitution written under Islamic law. It won't be a democracy. It will be a limited democracy under the Mullahs. Or there will be a civil war.

But anyhow, here is the article I promised. It gives a good historical perspective on the sanctions and what they were originally about. Tell me what you think of in light of today's politics and the influence of the neocons in American foriegn policy:

November/December 1996, pages 26, 112

Point of View

A Made-In-Israel Irresponsible Policy Toward Iran-And America's Allies

by Laura Drake

Back in 1990 when economic sanctions were instituted against Iraq for invading Kuwait, few understood the United States was prepared to expand the tool of economic sanctions beyond Iraq. Indeed, most nations in the Middle East, Europe and Asia accepted the Iraqi embargo precisely because they thought it was specific to Iraq. That was before 1993, whan former American Israel Public Affairs Committee officer Martin Indyk, from his new position as chief White House Middle East policy adviser, announced the new policy of "dual containment" as the governing feature of the Clinton administration's Middle East policy. Iraq, it turns out, has been little more than a test case, an experiment to see what the new post-Cold War regional and international climate would withstand.

It worked, in terms of making Middle East countries that refused to make peace with Israel pay an ever-steeper price for their "intransigence," and now the Iraq paradigm has become the model of containment for use in the 1990s against any regional state deemed to be a political or military obstacle to the advancement of Israeli interests in the region. It is ready for application to any Middle Eastern country that dares to fashion its own regional foreign policy rather than accept the pre-packaged foreign agenda made first in Tel Aviv, and only secondarily in Washington.

Though few realized it, the potential for the universalization of the Iraq paradigm was there for all to see, and Libya was the scene of its next application. Iran was the next major target, since unlike Libya, Iran had become a major strategic forcean assertive medium-sized power aggressively projecting its influence within the Gulf and the Arab-Israeli arenas alike. And as Israel's new Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu recently has informed us, he intends for Syria to be next, following in the footsteps of its ally, Iran, into the American economic gunsights.

As early as 1993, Indyk lamented that "Iran does not yet face the kind of international regime that has been imposed on Iraq" and indicated Washington's intention to "work energetically to persuade" and "impress upon" America's European allies the "necessity to act now" to alter that situation. The strategy was clearly opportunistic: take advantage of Iran's less than favorable economic situation not only to deflate its military capabilities, but to cripple its economy. The strategy of economic warfare could now be legitimately used against any regional state whose foreign policy priorities differed from those of the Israel-focused Clinton administration. And surely the Europeans would agree. After all, why should Iran be allowed to "pursue normal commercial relations on one level" while "threatening our common interests on another level"?

The United States has resorted to economic coercion against its own allies.

Not so fast, replied the Europeans, few of whom share Washington's preoccupation with normalizing Israel's status within its Middle Eastern subregion. Perhaps they thought Tehran could be prevented from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability through the normal measures of non-proliferation. Maybe they also thought it ludicrous that Iran would ever attempt an invasion of a southern Gulf country, knowing full well from the Iraqi experience that the U.S. was determined to prevent any regional power from dominating an area containing 60 percent of the world's known petroleum reserves, and would surely crush any country that tried to do so. Or, perhaps, whatever residual fears the Europeans may have had in any of these areas were far outweighed by their significant economic interests in trade with Irannot to mention their huge economic investments in Libya.

Given this picture, the Europeans balked. They refused repeated and consistent attempts by the United States in the U.N. Security Council to expand the sanctions against Libya further, or to institute any kind of sanction against Iran. They did agree to some minor diplomatic sanctions against Sudan, but that is as far as they were willing to go. After all, they also had learned another lesson as a result of their experience with the Iraq paradigm. Sanctions of this kind, once instituted, become permanent. Because of the American veto, they can never be removed unless the U.S. decides to do so. Should the state in question try to comply with U.S. terms, or make attempts at compromise, Washington can simply move the goalposts, as it has done time after time with Saddam Hussain's Iraq. By making compliance with the sanctions impossible, the real objective, containment, becomes permanent.

Permanent Impediments

Most European states, believing the sanctions against Iraq to be a temporary measure, were ready to lift them years ago, but they have been summarily prevented from doing so. Therefore, it should be no surprise that they are reluctant to institute any more such permanent structural impediments on their ability to relate to other Middle Eastern states that have refused to accept Israel, in the absence of unique and extraordinary circumstances.

Having failed to persuade the European states of their interest in permanently severing their economic and political relations with Iran, the United States, again under unrelenting Israeli pressure, now has resorted to unilateral economic coercion against its own allies in order to force them to confront Israel's number one strategic adversary. The chosen method: that of instituting a secondary boycott against any European or other foreign firm doing business in Iran.

The recent law passed to that effect in Congress and signed by the president was drafted and all the intricate internal details worked out together by the House International Relations and the Ways and Means committees, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It was these same committees that, in the 1970s and 1980s, designed interlocking laws and legislative devices to condemn, de-legitimize, and render illegal the compliance of any American firm with a primary or secondary boycott of Israel. Even the return of a questionnaire certifying that a U.S. product contained no ingredient or component made in Israel became a violation of U.S. law. That was, of course, at a time when the authors of the boycott were the Arab states. The justification for such draconian U.S. laws was that boycotts run counter to, and interfere with, the global exercise of free trade. That hinders the expansion of the global economy and of free markets, of which, of course, the United States is the leading example and front-line champion.

The internal negotiations among the committees on Capitol Hill and the White House on the Iran sanctions bill focused not on whether there should be such sanctions against Iran, but on how they should be structured. And, remember, Congress wanted to restrict not only trade in dual use items, but all foreign trade with Iran by any country, as is now the case with Iraq.

Therefore, the administration informed the over optimistic congressmen and shadow-congressmen that European trading with Iran could not be monitored in the absence of the kinds of mechanisms which are in place in Iraq. Without an enforcement structure the sanctions simply could not be implemented and, said the president's men, we want sanctions that are capable of being implemented. Therefore, the administration simply targeted foreign investment in Iran.

Libya was thrown in at the last minute for good measure, but again the administration informed Congress that it was too late to prevent investment in Libya. To sanction the numerous European companies already there would simply be too much for even the Europeans to swallow. After all, we were supposed to be allies. Therefore, it was decided that trade and not investment would be sanctioned in Libya, and only in those goods already prohibited by U.N. sanctions.

The European reaction is still one of anger and resentment at the extraterritorial provisions that remain in the bill. It is true that the number and depth of sanctions against European corporations have been somewhat reduced. As the administration also informed Congress, passage of the bill as originally written would have placed the United States in violation of its commitments in the World Trade Organization.

The WTO is the result of literally decades of GATT negotiations and serves as the globe's most important economic institution. So perhaps even Israel's vendetta against Iran could not justify going to this extreme. Therefore, the provisions in violation of the WTO have been excised, though the principle of extraterritoriality remains. The Europeans are angry at the United States for using coercion to try to impose its foreign policy priorities on its allies. And, given that those priorities are made in Tel Aviv and not in America, the Europeans are right.

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1196/9611026.htm

I really can't help myself here - despite my more rational self telling me that there's very little to gain from digging deeper into the issue of the correct interpretation of what Brain said about Christopher Hitchens. 

However, sometimes a bit of  nit-picking is soothing to the soul.    So here goes.   (it's not all nit-picking actually)

___________________________

Brian,

I don't really think it was unreasonable for me to have assumed  from your remarks  that you were expressing the view that Hitchens has jumped ship and moved  to the right.   However I'm quite prepared to acknowledge that you didn't actually write the words:  "Hitchens is now a right-winger".   I'm not in the business of distorting people's views in order to discredit them,  I honestly thought that your intended implication was that Hitchens is a right-winger.  Just stop for a minute and read over the opening sentence to the message I was referring to:

Christopher Hitchens has a right to his opinion. However, why not pick a left wing commentator? Hitchens in now the cabin-boy on the good ship USS Neocon.

 

What do you really think the average person would  think you were on about??

In my view, the  commonsense interpretation  of "why not pick a left wing commentator" taken in conjunction with "Hitchens in now the cabin-boy on the good ship USS Neocon." would be as follows:

"mmmm...Brian is telling us that we need to pick a left-wing commentator"  therefore he must think that Hitchens is not left wing . Furthermore,  in the very next sentence he says that Hitchens has apprenticed himself  (the "cabin boy" imagery) to the neo-cons (archetypal right-wingers) - so he must also be saying that Hitchens has moved over to the right.  

Any linguist will tell you that the meaning of even the most simple utterance relies to a very large extent on underlying  implications and inferences  -  combined  with  various contextual cues.  Language comprehension is an active interpretative process aimed at working out  what the speaker or writer intended to get across.  

This is of course the source of many communication breakdowns as there  are no hard and fast rules for determining meaning just  by relying on a string of words in isolation from everything else.  It is here that natural language differs from programming languages (in which each expression/symbol has a  single and precise meaning). 

The danger of misunderstanding what others are trying to  communicate is something we should all bear in mind when attempting to debate issues on a forum like this.

Nevertheless  I would still maintain that my interpretation of what you said was the one that almost any   reasonable  person would have made.  If this was not how you wanted your remarks to be understaood,  then it was  up to you to make this clear  rathar than than to expect people to somehow manage to  make the  far less probable inference that although you were saying that Hitchens is not a left winger,  and although you see him as a lackey of the neocons,  you don't  regard this as evidence that he has joined the right.

Moving on to your  the claim that Hitchens himself  no longer regards himself as a left-winger :

I think its fairly obvious that what Hitchens has been saying is that he wants to dissociate himself completely from  people who call themselves left whilst  refusing to take  a clear  stand against fascism and tyranny  if that requires them to support something that the US is doing. 

Admittedly he is a bit confusing on this issue because he continues to use the word left without putting it inside inverted commas. It's frustrating that so  far he hasn't  made use of the term "pseudo-left" (despite its  increasing popularity among the pro-war left).   Nevertheless,  I think its  clear that Hitchens sees the "left" (pseudo) as having abandoned its basic priciples,  while at the same time seeing himself as having maintained his committment to left wing ideas.

eg

With the Left, which is supposed to care about secularism and humanism, it's a bit harder to explain an alliance with woman-stoning, gay-burning, Jew-hating medieval theocrats. However, it can be done, once you assume that American imperialism is the main enemy. Even for those who won't go quite that far, the admission that the US Marine Corps might be doing the right thing is a little further than they are prepared to go - because what would then be left of their opposition credentials, which are so dear to them?

 

.......................

 

Reflecting on where the rot set it, I have come to the temporary conclusion that much of the "Left" was forced by events to adopt a status-quo position. Thus, it neither really opposed nor welcomed (with some exceptions in both cases) the historic anti-Communist revolution of 1989. It sat on its hands during the Balkan conflict. It could find no voice in which to discuss the urgent challenge of holy war. When it came to Iraq, you could even hear leftists saying that an intervention might "destabilize" the region: a suggestive choice of term from supposed radicals, suddenly sounding like Kissinger Associates.  

 

 

 

Much the same has become true on other fronts, with people essentially saying, on things like Social Security; just leave it the way it is. Even the environmental movement seems to resent modernity and be nostalgic for agrarianism. I'm perhaps over-speculating here, but another trope of "anti-Americanism" could be one that resents the United States as the country par excellence of disturbing change and innovation and, via regime-change, of revolution. The Right often makes a version of this mistake, as with stem-cell research and Buchanan-type isolationism and nativism. But the Left is really doomed if all it wants is a quiet life.

 

 

from   Interview with Hitchens: Love, Poverty and War

 

Hitchens support for neo-con policy comes from his committment to ideas that are fundamental to being left wing. 

Well -  you are almost certainly about to ask -   if the ideas of the neo-cons make them worthy of support from the left,  does that mean that the neo-cons are themselves left-wingers?   Is there any point to having 'a left ' if the neo-cons are doing the job anyway?

From a genuine left perspective any 'alliance' with the neo-cons is obviously temporary - the bourgeois revolution in the Middle East  is a giant step forward for  the people of that region and we are glad that they have finally been forced to stop holding things back - and indeed push thimngs forward -  in that part of the world

However,  unlike the  (genuine) left,  the neo-cons believe that  capitalism and bourgeois democracy are  the final pinnacle of human social and economic development - so such an alliance can only ever be of a temporary nature. 

keza, I would like to change the subject regarding nit-picking (ain't it fun though! LOL).

A lot of the confusion with understanding the Iraq war and subsequent occupation is trying to fathom the driving forces behind it.

 I recall reading an article from a Muslim intellectual back in late 2002. It was very well pieced together. It went something like this:

Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were all going off the US dollar as a trading currency. They became the axis of evil because of this more than anything else. Iraq was the easy target. It also has the cheapest cost of oil in the world: 6 dollars a barrel. Secure control of supply in Iraq by installing a friendly government. Ensure prices are low by flooding the market if Opec try to raise prices. Keep prices down and keep the oil economy trading on the US currency.

As I said, it was well written. And some of the things were true. But my feeling is he got a lot wrong. I can safely say that in hindsight.

 Maybe, it was because he could not see the driving forces behind the war. There is a lot out in the open today, that was not known back then. But the objectives those "driving forces" have are defined by who those driving forces are.

One such driving force is the neocons in the Whitehouse Wolvowitz, Feith, ...etc. There stated policy is democracy. But they are also very close to Israel.

Another group is the Iraqi exiles who are now in the current Parlianment. Chalabi is the most notable.

Another is the most powerful companies in the world: the "seven deadly sisters" as they used to be known. The oil companies. It is said they got their way in Cheney's secret energy task force, and that the Iraqi invasion was "in the can" long before 9/11. By insiders.

Then there is Israel which has a big say in American politics. They obviously want a favorable outcome in Iraq. There is talk about them wanting the place split up. Particularly the khurd part. 

Then there is major companies like Halliburton, Carlslyle. They make out like bandits in times of war.

I would be interested to know what ppl think of it all.

Having dealt some years ago with the major issues, as raised once more in a pointlessly regurgitated manner by the newly arrived pest poster, bpors, I want to address members generally on what is to be done with such people, and specifically with bpors. 

Clearly, this type of pest is not interested in exploring problems, or the new issues that are arising with, or within the basic analysis that has emerged at Lastsuperpower.  I would call this site a left wing think tank, because it is purpose driven, as described on the front page.  Lastsuperpower, is not just meandering along as some sort of collective blog, or pointless debating society.  We have, so far, mostly avoided slipping into the stupidity of the Harry’s Place comments style, and we ought to want to preserve that.

It’s important to remind ourselves that we have been involved for several decades developing a distinctive, and powerful analysis, which now as a body of work covers a very broad range of issues.  Newcomers will not be aware of that, and that’s just life, but the site should be managed with this confidence, and be as user friendly in allowing newcomers to discover the depth of issues as quickly as possible.  When they show no sign of making the discoveries themselves then members and particularly management should direct them to the detail.

Lastsuperpower has an internal consistency that has been achieved not by luck, or flailing about over the latest fad, but by honestly applying a method to the latest fad. 

There is very little that pests usefully contribute, and we should not tolerate deliberately disruptive actions.  bpors, is just involved in avoiding elephantine problems in the anti- Iraq war position, while amusing only himself with attempting to score debating points against gnats about fleas. (Do we infer or imply…etc etc)

We have all watched bpors (as is the consistent style of this type of pest) smugly avoid the main issues that have already been systematically addressed here.  I would wager that not one of us, who have been trying to genuinely understand the issues involved and develop this think tank, have time for people who are behaving so badly.

The style of such pests requires them to determinedly avoid issues, and when it is apparent they are avoiding the main issues, they should be reminded by the site managers that that is why we exist, and that if they persist they should be quickly told to go away.  This latest example is a somewhat classic example.  He should be told to read up on the earlier posts and try again or if he persists with his current style, told to go away.

Now I know that Lastsuperpower has not properly cranked up since the great silence, and that debate is still rare, but this does not mean that this type of deliberate behavior should be tolerated. 

In short given the number of times we have now seen this style re-emerge we should be inclined to act quickly.  We are all bored with tactics of disruption (intentional or not). 

The latest developments in the Middle East, such as Sharon announcing an expansion of settlement activity only to be summoned to Texas and told NO WAY by GWB, are far more interesting.  So are the latest developments, in the ongoing and accelerating collapse of global warming theories and dozens of other interesting issues where green would turn red into brown. 

I had already chosen to ignore bpors when he ran from ww2 questions etc, Barry gave him a little more time but has now moved on.   Enough!

I would like to ask the good folk who run this site: Is Patrick right according to what this site is about? Am I not welcome?

Is this just a place where the religion is to mindlessly agree with each other? I have never heard of Harry's Place. And I didn't come here to stir trouble.

But as soon as I posted something I was under attack. I don't mean my arguments were under attack. Barely anything I stated was acknowledged let alone debated. There was nothing but nit-picking. OK, I replied in kind. I admit that.

I have read a lot of the posts here. I know all about Langer's article. And his reply to Chomsky. But it wasn't the reason I started posting here.

If I don't agree with the ideas I say it, and and say what I think. So far nobody has challenged what I say in any meaningful way. Patrick is right inasmuch as instead of getting debate I end up with nit-picking.

I find the replies I have got from posters like Patrick and byork (Barry) to be incredibly rude and ignorant. And with little or no substance. I have tried NOT to reply in kind. Sometimes I have failed to remain polite.

I thought my previous post was inviting a continuation of discussion in line with the subject keza started off.

This article gives a different picture of what the american push for "freedom" and "democracy" is leading to.   The whole region is being opened up to forces that will get out of control and that is what they want,you really are naive to think theyve  decided too  right some wrongs over there. terrorism is what they want, its the best excuse ever.  read this article and tell me different. I would like to see a rebuttal, don't just keep saying "drain the swamps", even if they were trying to do that it doesn't look like its working. They wouldn't even know how. more likely that the gates of hell really will be opened up.  be carefull what you wish for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The US-British occupation of Iraq is poisoning all political processes in my country and across the Middle East. The elections held under the control of the occupying forces in January were neither free nor fair. Instead of being a step towards solving Iraq's problems, they have been used to prolong foreign rule over the Iraqi people.

Only when the occupiers withdraw from the country can Iraq take the first secure steps towards peace and stability. Once a strict timetable for withdrawal is set, Iraq's political forces could freely agree and set in motion a process of genuinely free and fair democratic elections, a permanent constitution, and a program that meets the demands of all the Iraqi people.

The occupying powers are now following a policy of divide and rule, encouraging sectarian and ethnic divisions and imposing them on all the institutions they have created.

Incidents such as the recent kidnapping of an Italian journalist, released only to be received by a hail of bullets from the US liberators, have fueled widespread suspicions in Iraq as to who is in fact responsible for many of the terrorist acts - kidnappings, assassinations, and indiscriminate bombing and killing -that are engulfing the whole of Iraq. These have coincided with a cover-up of significant military operations being conducted against the occupation forces across the country.

Not one of the terrorist crimes has been solved and not a single perpetrator put on trial. After each major terrorist crime, the arrest of perpetrators is proclaimed, using names and personalities spread by the US-controlled media. This media effort - which also seeks to bury the news of the destruction of entire towns, brutal night raids, kidnappings, curfews, and the detention and torture of thousands of prisoners - is overseen by the information department of the US forces, who earned the US defense secretary's special thanks during his visit to Iraq.

These crimes are a taste of the hell created by the US project in the Middle East. And now this hell is beginning to be visited on Lebanon, opening the prospect of endless wars of unimaginable consequences.

Syria is now withdrawing its forces from Lebanon and laying the responsibility of what happens next squarely on the other side. But what will happen next? Will the Lebanese resistance (led by Hizbullah) be disarmed? And if it refuses to surrender its weapons, how will it be disarmed? Will it be by landing new occupation forces in the country?

This was tried in the early 80s and led to the defeat of the US and the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. This could occur again, but on a wider scale across the whole region, which can no longer tolerate this endless US pressure, regarded by the peoples of the area as the implementation of Israeli demands.

Efforts must be directed at resolving the problems of the Palestinian people, who Israel refuses to allow to return to their lands, despite UN resolutions and all precepts of right and justice. The Palestinian problem cannot be resolved with exhibitionist gatherings such as Tony Blair's recent London conference. The big powers - particularly Britain, which helped create the problem in the first place - have a moral responsibility to resolve it.

In the same way, the Iraq crisis cannot be resolved by patching up a detested occupation with fraudulent elections and sectarian and ethnic caucuses supported by the occupiers. The only solution is the immediate withdrawal of occupation forces - or as a minimum, a strict internationally guaranteed timetable for withdrawal. Talk about freedom and democracy is seen as an endlessly repeated sham by our peoples because these words are being uttered by the very powers that have stood behind the corrupt dictatorial regimes. The US today is still the ally and backer of many such tyrannical regimes in our region and elsewhere.

We do not believe that the aggressive US stance towards Syria and Iran is intended to uphold freedom and democracy either, but to get rid of states that are refusing to go along with US and Israeli plans for the region. Today, Syria is being held to account in Lebanon because it is refusing to back the occupation of Iraq, and Iran is facing threats over its nuclear program because the US is worried about its role in relation to Iraq and its rejection of the status quo in Palestine.

Public opinion in the occupying countries, such as the US and Britain, needs to understand that the continuation of this unjust and dangerous situation will create the conditions for a new and more general uprising which threatens truly to open the gates of hell in the region and beyond.

Ayatollah Jawad al-Khalisi is secretary general of the Iraqi National Foundation Congress, an alliance of secular and religious organizations covering all religious and ethnic groups in Iraq.

ok this is a serious question for your "think tank": what do you mean when you say that most of the left is reactionary?  If the left is reactionary then what is the right?    

samsky

Samsky, in my opinion, what matters are not self-applied labels but the content of ideas.

The mainstream media refer to people such as Tariq Ali and John Pilger as being on the 'left', and Ali and Pilger apply that label to themselves, but content is still what matters.

A more accurate description of the situation would be that 'the left is dead' - or 'in between high tides' (to be optimistic) - and in its absence a phoney left dominates. I believe my claim relating to 'phoniness' can be substantiated in light of the content of the pseudo-leftist's views and opinions. Tariq Ali and John Pilger, for example, both support the insurgency in Iraq and opposed the recent elections (and, by implication, the transititional law guaranteeing civil liberties, etc). As the insurgents are remnant Ba'athists (national socialists/fascists) and jihadists, there is no basis to support them, if one is adopting a left position. This is because the left has always opposed fascism, even to the point of uniting with a conservative leader of British imperialism like Churchill against Hitler and Mussolini in World War Two.

I've identified with the left for forty years now (I'm 54 years old). In that time, in my experience, a genuinely left position was always developed in contention and struggle with other ideas claiming to be of the left. At best, this site represents a small beginning to that process. It's a difficult situation, as we are small in numbers and the pseudo-left has had a honeymoon period lasting nearly one generation. Hence many people have inherited a definition of 'left' that, in its content, is hardly left at all.

Rightwing media commentators take delight in calling people such as Ali and Pilger 'leftists' because they know it discredits leftwing ideas.

So, in my view, it is not the left that is reactionary but the pseudo-left. This mob is really Rightwing, if one looks at content rather than form. Support for reactionary anti-democratic forces in Iraq is a very good, topical, example.

As the introductory blurb to this site points out: two definitive characteristics of a left position are support for progress (materialism, scientific and technological advance) and identification with the oppressed (who will not get anywhere unless their material conditions are improved).

I have no problem with the dichotomy that sees the left as progressive and the Right as reactionary. But I certainly bristle every time Andrew Bolt holds up pseudo-leftists as an example of leftwing thought. 

Leftists believe in rebellion, in its spirit and practice, against reactionaries. We are never persuaded by arguments that a course of action should not be pursued because the result will be destabilising to a status quo. Opposition to rebellion (destabilisation) is currently a defining feature of the pseudo-left. Again, this places it on the Right. Just look at how they hate the 'chaos' arising from regime change in Iraq.

Barry York

samsky “: what do you mean when you say that most of the left is reactionary?”

I would say that most of the left has behaved in a reactionary manner over the issue of Iraq.  Fewer behaved in such a profoundly reactionary manner over Afghanistan, fewer still over Kosovo, and virtually none behaved in such a manner over WW2.  

First a quote, from one of the members;

“Briefly… for purposes of this discussion I'm treating anything that bases itself on both solidarity with the oppressed and promotion of progress as being (very vaguely) "left". That is not as empty as it sounds - it excludes for example most of the "alternative globalization" people who usually base themselves on solidarity with the oppressed (even though their actual policies might be harmful to people they think they are supporting) but are hostile to progress. Likewise it excludes that section of the libertarian right which is enthusiastic about progress but has no solidarity with the oppressed.”

“even if they (the US ruling elite) were trying to do that (drain the swamp in the Middle East) it doesn't look like its working. They wouldn't even know how.”

These are two strange thoughts, given that it is sixty years since Europe and Japan were even bigger swamps and they were drained so much that it is almost inconceivable for most young Europeans to even think that their grandparents were lining the streets, just to get a glimpse of such a wonderful man named Adolph Hitler.

‘Comrade’ Bush, is no lefty because he is waging this war in the interests of his class, and it is only incidentally in the interests of the oppressed peoples’ in the Middle East. He has become a progressive-right-winger because history thrust greatness upon him. He asked the big questions that had to be asked, after 9/11.

(Q)What more can they do to us?

(A)Well, Mr. President they will, if not stopped, eventually get hold of a nuke and destroy Washington, or some other city.

(Q) What strategy must we adopt to defeat them?

(A) Mr. President we must stop doing what we have been doing for the whole post WW2 period. We must reverse all our old policies. We must set down policies to turn every country in the world into a modern (bourgeois) democracy. These mosquitoes are attacking us because we caused a swamp in the Middle East which breeds them! We must drain that swamp, and then there will be no more mosquitoes. Mr. President there is no other way of winning this war.  If all countries look, and smell like Sweden, and France, we will have won. The world needs sewerage systems for the smell, and industrialization for the sewerage systems; it needs education for the industrialization, and it needs basic bourgeois political freedoms to permit the education…

At least that is what I would tell him if I was in the war cabinet.

 ”you really are naive to think theyve  decided too  right some wrongs over there.”

Even if you disagree that GWB has ‘taken my advice’, now that you have my reasoning do you think, I am naïve to think that this is how to win this war?  If you do, how would you win it?  Should it even be fought?

what do you mean when you say that most of the left is reactionary?  If the left is reactionary then what is the right?