Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:29:25 +0100
From: artefact-AT-t-online.de (Michael Eldred)
Subject: Re: What is Realism in Iraq?


Cologne 18-Nov-2003

Further to my communication of the 17th instant - - -

John Foster schrieb Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:24:16 -0800:

> M. Eldred:
> > The way I see it, it is better to support the US-led coaliation in a noble
> > effort to get Iraq onto an alternative path than that of a tyrannical
> > Baathist regime or an Islamic theocracy (a re-run of Iran or Taliban
> > Afghanistan).
> >
> > Where the opponents to the war see only machination, imperialism, lies,
> > economic self-interest, etc. I see courage and the will to do some good in
> > the MIddle East. If the regime change in Iraq is successful, it wil be a
> > positive signal throughout the region -- in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran.
>
> What historical precedence is there for that belief? The US coalition is now
> acting in violation to UN Resolution 1438. Is there something intrinsically
> wrong with Islamic theocractic rule? I see none. The Taliban were an
> ignorant, semi-literate bunch of warring tribesmen, living for centuries in
> the outback of Afghanistan, hardly a modern sophisticated organization which
> would have been chosen to run a country like Afghanistan had the US not
> supplied them with sophisticated weaponry, training, and funds in a
> surrogate conflict over land and resources with the USSR.
>
> I think most of the previous comments are about as practical and
> humanitarian as they can get , ie., Malcolm, Henry, et cetera, about what to
> do in the Middle East. If the US was assisted by other nations including a
> vast multi-national volunteer contingent of forces twice the size and with
> twice the resources, then it would have to be a United Nations led effort;
> and if the US was not in Iraq primarily to fight resistance, then it would
> be more capable of achieving the objective we all agree to which is to
> stabilize the country, improve the economy, and assist in reconstruction in
> several ways. However, the fact that the US is acting almost unilaterally,
> and where there is widespread distrust of the Iraqi's for the US, I don't
> think it is possible for the US to do any real good in the short and longer
> term.
>
> There are already positive 'signals' within the region regarding reforms,
> increased living standards, freedoms. For instance in Kuwait, Turkey and
> Saudi Arabia and some of the smaller Arab nations where education, health,
> and other benefits are improving. However none of these improvements have
> brought true democracy, nor have these reforms been brought to exist because
> of US actions, except in part because of a transfer of wealth from all
> nations (say Japan which imports 99.9% of its fossil fuels). S. A. remains
> an authoritarian state living under a rather extreme form of Islamic rule.
> Canadians have been detained in prisons in Saudi Arabia for extended periods
> of time for being suspected of links with recognized opponents of the ruling
> classes. It is really difficult for me to believe that Iraq can be
> materially assisted by the US in this action. In fact the Ba'th Party was
> supported militarily for decades by the US until prior to the Gulf War
> suggesting of course that there is widespread confusion in the population as
> to the purpose and intent of the US. Are they going to impose another
> dictator who will economically starve in a much more serious way Iraqis?

I don't think the United States government is so stupid. I hope I'm right on
this. The US had better be interested in working hard toward a flourishing Iraqi
economy under rule of law with a democratic government in which the main
population groups are represented without discrimination as to ethnicity,
religion, clan.

>
> If the Democrats in the US had been elected to power, then the situation may
> be completely different than it is now. And if the US had not invaded the
> way it did, then the UN Weapons inspection team, UNMOVIC, would have
> completed it's work in large part. Increased economic benefits would now be
> pouring into Iraq due to removal of economic restrictions, and it is highly
> possible that a national movement of profound resistance would have forced
> Hussein to leave the country and reside somewhere else or even force his
> co-team workers to resign and face courts. The good thing about dictators is
> that they usually will try to save their own lives, and will give up if
> there is enough pressure (certainly Ghandi proved that with the Brits long
> ago, as well as recently for instance in former Eastern European
> dictatorships). Eg. Napoleon, and many others.

I find this interesting. I heard a lot of Arab intellectuals on the radio and
read books and newspapers on their assessment of whether it was possible for
Saddam to be toppled by resistance from within. The assessment was pessimistic
on the whole. The stranglehold of the tyranny was too strong, most said, and
totally ruthless in repression.

But this morning I heard on BBC4 radio a half-hour interview with an Iraqi
Communist exiled intellectual who worked together with the US State Department
in the working group on reconstruction in Iraq. Unfortunately, I didn't get his
name. He was against the Iraqi nationalism as a response to the first Gulf War,
was against the UN sanctions as falsely targeted; he was for the international
isolation of Saddam's regime and for its indictment for mass murder, war crimes,
etc., and against the war that toppled Saddam. Until recently he worked in
Baghdad in the Iraqi Reconstruction and Development Council, until he noticed
that the easy military victory went to the head of the US, and they decided to
keep the Iraqis at arm's length from the process of reshaping Iraq. Serious
mistake on the part of the Pentagon whose source is hubris. The super-power
makes terrible mistakes when it does not listen (sometimes even to its own
ambassadors, let alone indigenous intellectuals).

This was a rare person I could take seriously in their views on Iraq. He is
pessimistic over the short term prospects in Iraq, but optimistic over the
medium term. As grounds for his cheerfulness over prospects he points to the 120
newspapers today being published in Baghdad, the vocal and vibrant women's
movement, that 70 per cent of Iraq's population is urban, that the country's
thirteen universities have sprung to life after the draconian repression - - -

I do agree with you that it would have been far preferable for the Iraqis to
have liberated themselves from Saddam's tyranny. But that would have had to be
supported by a strong international, UN-sanctioned policy of isolation of the
regime. UN Security Council members France and Russia, however, were pushing
more for business as usual with Saddam for the sake of the oil - - -

One fact: in September 2002, Saddam announced to the world that UN arms
inspectors would under no circumstances be allowed back into Iraq. What angle is
to be taken on this fact? Each of us has always already adopted an angle on this
fact. The fact has always already been precast into an understanding. From
within this precast angle of understanding, the fact becomes interpretable,
gains its meaning.

>From my angle, the tyrant overplayed his hand.

Michael
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-  artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-artefact-AT-t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

>
>
> Michael:
> > That's just what the peace-lovers in Europe, North America, Australasia,
> > etc. want: IMMEDIATE withdrawal of the occupying coalition. So, if JF does
> > not want immediate withdrawal, would not support for the coalition's
> > transformation and reconstruction efforts in Iraq be warranted? Forgive me
> > for thinking that logic plays any role at all in this debate over Iraq.
>
> It is not a black and white situation. It would be nice.
>
> Michael
> > Realism in Iraq does not concern establishing the facts (not that they are
> > irrelevant), but in the decision to either support or to denounce the
> > military intervention there.
>
> I cannot believe that you are saying this. Realism is about facts,
> surrealism is about facts which are apparently floating above the mass of
> disconnected packets of information. In your assumptions regarding Islamic
> rule, you are implying that the Islamic theocracy is at fault for the
> problems in the Middle East. I for one know that much of what consists of
> Islamic law is incredibly just and morally appropriate. The Koran is a very
> interesting document of human social casting (which I mean by a code of
> ethics applied in how to live together in harmony). There is nothing
> intrinsically 'amoral' nor 'fascist' to be interpreted in the Koran, and in
> fact there are at least 7 million practicing Muslims in the US. Mohammed
> lived in the 8 century, was influenced deeply by Christ's teachings, is
> considered the 'seal of the prophets' in a different way than say Christ is
> considered the Messiah.
>
> I sense that rationalizing capitalism, rationalizing the invasion of Iraq
> militarily and arguing for a positive 'teleological' outcome leads into that
> illogicality we might attribute to Hegelian ontology: thesis, antithesis and
> synthesis. The facts are real in Iraq that millions of people, innocent
> civilians are extremely inconvenienced by the invasion, and are now living
> at greater risk than prior to the invasion (see the body counts). The US
> promoter, the Muslim destroyer, and the new state as outcome which the US
> will have to ensure works.
>
> I see nothing rational about the situation or the mode of operations there
> now. The idea that 'enlightened self interest' or 'compassionate capitalism'
> can be brought to produce a democracy here is argueably the most illogical
> assertion which could be made. Where has this happened before? Iraq is the
> world's largest per capita debtor nation. The IMF and other organizations
> have indicated that for Iraq to improve would require over 2 thirds of it's
> foreign debt be forgiven, and which debts has ever been forgiven by wealthy
> nations: Aregentina, Bolivia, Haiti, or Brazil? The people in Iraq are now
> facing much worse economic conditions than ever before, even post Gulf War.
> Mortality rates in Bhagdad are way up because of crime and violence from all
> sorts. How is the US going to ensure in one year from now that the this
> improves? Well it cannot, it does not have the resources, and we have to
> aware of both the facts and the reality. Even if the US succeeds in setting
> up a puppet government the Iraq people will never be able to better their
> lives with the US multinational oil companies siphoning off of the wealth.
> Just look to Saudi Arabia which has 40% of the world's known oil
> reserves....and it has no debt to speak of. We are looking at an absurd
> proposition as proposed by the US. The solution in the longer term for Iraq
> is multi-faceted, and includes:
>
> 1    Forgiving of 2 thirds of its foreign debt
>
> 2    Massive reconstruction of the infrastructure
>
> 3    State control and ownership of the oil reserves
>
> 4    Full cooperation of the main sects within Islamic groups (eg. The
> Khurds will have to have some automony, as wil both the Sunni and Shiite)
>
> 5    And a comprehensive economic strategy to develop it's oil wealth for
> the longer term since oil reserves will run out in several decades
>
> 6    If all these items are implemented and achieved, then and only then
> will true democracy, Islamic style, be accomplished.
>
> The US and the UK are vastly interferring with that prognosis at this point
> because they are insistgating and encouraging a civil war and it is not yet
> clear who is directly involved, whether it is Shiite militia, Ba'th
> supporters, muslim sympathizers, who are working to further destabilize the
> US and the UK in Iraq.
>
> Democracy and liberalism are ideas only, and they represent a partial
> explanation of the social beliefs of all people.
>
> >
> > Henry, you know about conservative Christians in Texas, but I know more
> > about German anti-Americanism. It ain't pretty. The shame of being a
> > German after the disaster of Nazism finds subterranean transformation
> > through the coils into deep resentment against their erstwhile liberators.
> > Every death of a US soldier in Iraq these days is greeted in this country
> > with Schadenfreude and the self-satisfied confirmation, "I told you so".
> > The Germans have had the stuffing knocked out of them after the virulent
> > militarism in the first half of the twentieth century. Good riddance to
> > militarism! But pacifism and a deep-seated lack of courage is no
> > alternative.
> >
> > Michael







     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---