Epistle to Foudroyaume - Installment I
As promised, I intend to pick apart the falsehoods and plain old ignorance of two commentors from John Murney's blog. I think that Foudroyaume's response on John Murney's blog provides the best place to start, because at least he presents a reasoned argument, even though it is based on a staggering degree of ignorance about pre-war Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime. I feel confident he is open to enlightenment. Sean, on the other hand, is so hard-core that no amount of killing and slaughter committed will cause him to stir, unless and only unless the killing is done by Americans as they take action that puts an end to a tyrant, in other words, to end the slaughter.
So, one by one, statement by statement, here's my response to Foudroyaume. His comments, typos and all, are in bold italics:
"On Iraq: I'm inclined to disapprove of this one. That is not to approve of Hussein, but I see the American presence in Iraq as destabilising rather than stabilising."
My issue here is not with whether Foud should approve or disapprove of the war. It's that he has not kept up with what is really happening and perhaps has been duped by the media's tiresome fixation with highly exaggerated accounts of the nature of the conflict.
But first, let's deal with the destabilizing (my preferred spelling) issue. If there was ever a case where a region needs to be destabilized, it is the Middle East. The region lags way behind most other areas. Corrupt socialist dictatorships, inheriting a legacy of brutality from the school of Arab Nationalism, have been subjecting their peoples to horrific repression for at least two generations. Saddam Hussein was by far the worst, but I will deal with him later. Just remember the old adage, peace is more than the mere absence of war. Never ending low level war against citizens by state aparatchiks, stark inequalities between ethnic groups, the lack of fundamental freedoms that we in the West take for granted, you name it. There are only a handful of countries outside of the Arab world which are worse, but none were worse than Hussein. I will refer to all of this again and in more detail when I deal with your other statements in the next installment.
More importantly, from the standpoint of a global strategy, generations of the Middle Eastern regimes have devoted their entire careers promoting hatred of the West and all of this, my friend, as George Bush correctly perceived, is the root cause of 9/11. Al Qaeda and bin Laden were merely the end products. This, my dead Foud, is the stability you wish to preserve and in my view, there is nothing about it that deserves preservation. If things were to change, this had to be confronted by a "destabilizing" force.
The next five of Foud's statements are all related. I will deal with them in the next posting.
"SH had his victims, (some, like the Kurds, haven't been treated any better in supposedly free countries, like Turkey), but it's not like the country was subject to constant feuding between thugs and fanatics."
"Also, unlke (sic) Afghanistan, where the mass of hardship was caused by the ruling regime and their opponent factions, Iraq's biggest problems were due to American sanctions."
"I think the people of Iraq on average would have benefitted more from lifting sanctions (which would have helped foster a friendlier attitude to the west--"
"SH, unlike Taliban leaders, cared about public opinion and mayb (sic) have been willing to enter into mutually beneficial negotions (sic) if he sensed a pro-western attitude growing in Iraq--he was an opportunist, not an ideologue."
"The Taliban, on the other hand, are whackos with guns who maintained a state in which constant terror was the norm for most. As a result of their religious-centerd (sic) governance, Afghanistan is decades behind in infrastructure and services (Iraq, by contrast, is quite modern)."
"And of course, there's body count. Iraq has turned into a human disaster. "
"This is another case of Americans failing to grasp that they cannot beat a guerilla (sic) foe through brute force."
"This is another case where American clumsiness and moral immaturity (which is the most neutral phrase I can find for the atrocities that are committed by many soliers (sic) on every side of every war ever fought) are creating a state of terror, rather than eliminating one."
So, one by one, statement by statement, here's my response to Foudroyaume. His comments, typos and all, are in bold italics:
"On Iraq: I'm inclined to disapprove of this one. That is not to approve of Hussein, but I see the American presence in Iraq as destabilising rather than stabilising."
My issue here is not with whether Foud should approve or disapprove of the war. It's that he has not kept up with what is really happening and perhaps has been duped by the media's tiresome fixation with highly exaggerated accounts of the nature of the conflict.
But first, let's deal with the destabilizing (my preferred spelling) issue. If there was ever a case where a region needs to be destabilized, it is the Middle East. The region lags way behind most other areas. Corrupt socialist dictatorships, inheriting a legacy of brutality from the school of Arab Nationalism, have been subjecting their peoples to horrific repression for at least two generations. Saddam Hussein was by far the worst, but I will deal with him later. Just remember the old adage, peace is more than the mere absence of war. Never ending low level war against citizens by state aparatchiks, stark inequalities between ethnic groups, the lack of fundamental freedoms that we in the West take for granted, you name it. There are only a handful of countries outside of the Arab world which are worse, but none were worse than Hussein. I will refer to all of this again and in more detail when I deal with your other statements in the next installment.
More importantly, from the standpoint of a global strategy, generations of the Middle Eastern regimes have devoted their entire careers promoting hatred of the West and all of this, my friend, as George Bush correctly perceived, is the root cause of 9/11. Al Qaeda and bin Laden were merely the end products. This, my dead Foud, is the stability you wish to preserve and in my view, there is nothing about it that deserves preservation. If things were to change, this had to be confronted by a "destabilizing" force.
The next five of Foud's statements are all related. I will deal with them in the next posting.
"SH had his victims, (some, like the Kurds, haven't been treated any better in supposedly free countries, like Turkey), but it's not like the country was subject to constant feuding between thugs and fanatics."
"Also, unlke (sic) Afghanistan, where the mass of hardship was caused by the ruling regime and their opponent factions, Iraq's biggest problems were due to American sanctions."
"I think the people of Iraq on average would have benefitted more from lifting sanctions (which would have helped foster a friendlier attitude to the west--"
"SH, unlike Taliban leaders, cared about public opinion and mayb (sic) have been willing to enter into mutually beneficial negotions (sic) if he sensed a pro-western attitude growing in Iraq--he was an opportunist, not an ideologue."
"The Taliban, on the other hand, are whackos with guns who maintained a state in which constant terror was the norm for most. As a result of their religious-centerd (sic) governance, Afghanistan is decades behind in infrastructure and services (Iraq, by contrast, is quite modern)."
"And of course, there's body count. Iraq has turned into a human disaster. "
"This is another case of Americans failing to grasp that they cannot beat a guerilla (sic) foe through brute force."
"This is another case where American clumsiness and moral immaturity (which is the most neutral phrase I can find for the atrocities that are committed by many soliers (sic) on every side of every war ever fought) are creating a state of terror, rather than eliminating one."
posted by Louise at 7:01 pm
1 Comments:
Interesting, all the alternative investigative journalists, as well as every soldier that's spoken out, has said that the corporate media is vastly UNDERRATING the damage and crime of the American army.
As well, most Iraqis I know, from workplaces and university, are by no means fans of Hussein (and they squarely blame USA for installing him in the first place), but still tend to be offended by the slanted reporting and downright lies that led up to the invasion of their country.
Is part two where you explain what the "truth" is and how you have access to it? As far as I can tell, you have either been severely misled by some source or other (maybe a resentful exile?) or simply pick and choose from competing stories which ones you like to believe. The basic point I was making on Murney's blog is thoroughly established both in alternative and corporate media: Afghanistan was as much a mess before being invaded as after (both in terms of instability and its 14th century infrastructure), while Iraq was relatively modern and stable. The lights were on, people went to their jobs, there is a large middle class, etc.
So what point are you trying to make?
Post a Comment
<< Home