catapult magazine

Gideon Strauss (http://www.gideonstrauss.com) linked to this great article today. You should read it:

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/berman.htm

Sorry jason, i don’t like it. Strauss makes some interesting points—point well taken is that the occupation of Iraq may well lead to freer Iraqi people, which is something we should all be glad about if it happens. But he keeps harping on the notion that Iraq was fascist (the comparison being made is again to Nazi Germany, which as I’ve said over and over again, is a simplistic, useless comparison) — it wasn’t fascist, nor was that the reason why Bush invaded.

And he’s right when he says that the notions of left and right don’t mean much anymore. So what’s the point of ending his essay with the two characters each calling each other traitors to the left? How can you be a traitor to something when nobody knows what that something means anymore?

Just to be clear, Gideon didn’t write the article. The author is Paul Berman from Dissent magazine. I just found it via GS’s website.

Maybe we should review why you find the fascist/Nazi comparison to Iraq (under Hussein) invalid. I recall you commenting on it in an earlier thread, but couldn’t find it. Could you point me toward your earlier comments or explain (yet again) how Hussein’s Iraq was not fascist or very nearly so? I understand that Bush’s stated reason for invading Iraq was not solely to liberate the people of Iraq, and for that he should be held accountable, but aren’t the results (or the intended, hopeful results) the same?

And I think a lot of people operate under the assumption that ‘left’ and ‘right’ really do mean something. An article like this helps to expose the terms for what they are and perhaps prevent people from adopting an uneducated opinion for the sake of adopting an opinion.

I can’t find where I wrote about that before and i’m too lazy to repeat myself. does anyone remember?

Supposing we accept this author’s perspective then, saying that yes, oppressed people should be liberated from their oppressors. And the way to do this is for America to invade, occupy, and impose democracy. If we accept this perspective, and if the Iraq experiment is successful, then who is next?

Iran?
N. Korea?
Burma?
Cuba?
Uzbekistan?

Does anyone actually believe this was about liberation? Think about it for a while. The United States has told us for 4 decades that Cuba is oppressing its people and a threat to the world, and it’s only a few miles from Flordia. But no invasion there despite Castro beating down opposition groups and daily ranting against America. Yet, in all this time there has never been an attempt by the US to set up democracy there? Why not?

Because Cuba doesn’t matter! Cuba produces sugar cane, not oil. Iraq matters because of oil. If Iraq didn’t have oil, US soliders wouldn’t be there right now. Anybody want to dispute that? Luckily for the Bush administration, Saddam was a bad guy, so it was easy to couch this invasion in humanistic terms. But the real motivations were poltical, economic, and military. It is for those reasons that it’s important to make sure Iraqis feel they have a democratic government that represents them. With American companies set to make a killing, it’s important for Iraqis to feel that they are somehow in control.

I don’t accept this author’s bologna about wars on fascism. The war against Iraq had been planned for years. 9—11 gave the hawks their excuse. And you’ve only got to look at that document Laryn keeps shoving in our faces to see that the current administration does not have the best interests of the world in mind. Only the best interests of Americans (and which Americans is up for debate). I challenge anyone to argue this war was primarily about helping the Iraqi people. Give me a break.

Thank you.

The good thing about the article is that it does say to “liberals” that they should be happy about the defeat of a despot and perhaps the liberation of a people—though I’m hesitant to use the word “liberation” until Iraqis elect their own government, US troops leave, and we see the effects of the sell-off of Iraqi resources and means of production to foreign interests. But yes, the potential is there for a liberation of sorts. We’ll see.

What Dan said:
“Does anyone actually believe this was about liberation? Think about it for a while. The United States has told us for 4 decades that Cuba is oppressing its people and a threat to the world, and it’s only a few miles from Flordia. But no invasion there despite Castro beating down opposition groups and daily ranting against America.”

Dan, when Cuba was a military threat and “worthy” of invasion, it was a Soviet satellite and I think the U.S. was right in its decision to not pursue military action beyond what it already has done.

Today, Cuba is not a military threat. On the surface this might seem to support your argument that Iraq is about oil, rather than WMD and liberation. However, even Bill Clinton and Wesley Clark were calling Iraq a threat a year ago.

Until Bill Clinton softened the U.S. policies toward Cuba, economic measures were in place to force Castro to enact reforms and play nice with his own people, moving the country toward more capitalistic practices. The U.S. always hoped the Cuban people would pick up the momentum. There were signs this was working until Clinton decided to reward Castro’s seemingly good behavior by easing up on him.

Alright, so Cuba wasn’t the best example. I should have thought this through more carefully. North Korea then. Invasion? Burma. Invasion? Of course not. And not because the people aren’t oppressed.

Maybe it’s only people who live in areas that fall into the strategic interests of the US government who will have the choice (clear throat), I mean non-choice, to be governed by elected officials, and will pursue life, liberty, and happiness whether they want to or not.

I thought this was interesting after the discussion of Cuba.

Castro vows to die with a gun in his hand when America invades: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62580-2004Jan30.html