Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:01:08 -0700 From: Judy <jaw-AT-earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Endless War >Judy/All, > >The good reports are from Televsion, mostly Administration officials, and >sympathetic Congresspersons >who have visited Iraq. Not being tortured or murdered by Saddam is a good >thing. Children are back in school with new textbooks that don't glorify >Saddam. Electrical power is said to be restored to pre-war levels and is >increasing. The country north and south of Baghdad and Tikrete is said to >be peaceful. > >Yes, it's difficult to know who to believe. If and when the killing of >Americans and Iraquis by terrorists is stopped, there will be a chance of >peace, Maybe when Americans stop occupying Iraq, there will be a chance of peace, but maybe it's necessary for Iraqis to fight the Americans until it becomes costly enough and bloody enough that US domestic legitimacy dries up. that is a different way of thinking about the chance for peace, such as it is. When i hear about 'terrorists' killing Americans and others who support the occupation, I am always caught by the way in which the portrayal is one in which if an Iraqi kills an American soldier, they are by definition a terrorist. that bothers me. There's no thinking involved, least of all about whether the killer may have had a good reason for killing an American soldier (a reason one could identify with if in the same position). That the American military is in some way good, is presupposed in these discourses. Iraqis who oppose them are presupposed to be bad, terrorists, evil. The Americans' behavior and reasons for being in Iraq are beyond question, at least where it might be suggested that Americans are terrorizing people, slaughtering people. Somehow that is different, that is for a good cause, "toppling Saddam", and it is not called "slaughtering" or "terrorizing." But the people I read about in the blog from Iraq sound rather terrorized (by the Americans and by criiminals liberated by the Americans, including the one placed at the head of the "Iraqi" government, Chalaby). I haven't yet heard the reports from the blog of the improving conditions the administration claims. In fact, the writer of that blog tells of how prior to the overthrow of Saddam, women could move about freely in the country, holding good jobs and being respected as human beings. Now, she says that the removal of the repression of fundamentalists has resulted in women being driven back into the home, forced to wear old fashioned coverings, and being beaten for violations of these customs. I don't get the impression that the writer is pro Saddam or approves of Saddam repression, but I clearly hear that life was better in general before the US "toppled" Saddam. the writer has contempt for Bremer and others who whitewash the situation for home consumption. certainlly there are Iraqis who are better off, but from these reports, it sounds like it would be mistaken to generalize about most people being better off. I often hear on the 'news' from administration sources that the reason the US has not been able to "rebuild" Iraq as quickly as the public would hope, is because they didn't realize how bad the Iraqi infrastructure had become under 25 years of Saddam rule, caused by palace building and war on Iran in particular. The US sanctions are never mentioned, during which the country could not import spare parts to maintain infrastructure, nor is it mentioned that Iraq received an award from the UN in the late 80s for the degree to which the government had improved the quality of life for the masses of the country, in terms of standard of living, health care, education, and various cultural and social programs. It was by far in the best shape of the Arab countries. The government did a lot for the people. It's not a black and white picture, but it's a rare American who's aware of that. The occupation has been extremely destructive, and from the blog I'm reading, it's hard to see whether anything constructive has happened, for Iraqis in general. It's been very constructive for Haliburton, Bechtel, Israel, those folks. Iraqis which never experienced suicide bombers in their midst before now never know when a car or truck will blow up. Where once there was public safety, now everyone is threatened by violent crime. Was the US administration "unaware" (as they say) that these things would happen? How could they not be aware? They've had their intelligence organizations operating all over Iraq since Gulf War One. They would rather play dumb, figuring Americans will understand, after all, none of us knew, who understands those crazy arabs? The alternative to seeming dumb would be to fail to obscure the fact that they were not concerned about the destruction of Iraqi social fabric and material living standard because it was the price that had to be paid for the realization of the goals of having western corporate business and military dominance in that area. They knew exactly what would happen. It's not rocket science. thanks for the Chomsky piece. I thought it was good. Judy > but two years after the last terrorist attack in the U.S. the >authorities expect more attacks. If and when Americans believe there will >be no more attacks at home, >they can save a bundle on homeland defense, or send the bundle to Iraq, or >give more tax cuts to the wealthy. > >More and more people are saying the long-term goal of Republicans is to >eliminate the social programs that began with FDR, and that the Bush >deficits are a great way to do it. > >regards, >Hugh > > > > >> Hugh, >> Where/what are the reports that there is progress in making the lives >> of Iraqis better? last night I just read this the latest >> installment in this weblog from Baghdad: >> http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ >> Sounds as bad or worse than under the previous regime. >> judy >> >> >> >> >> >Steve/All, >> > >> >Here is a quote from a long article by Chomsky on ZNet. >> > >> >"Since the mid-1940s, Washington has regarded the Gulf as "a stupendous >> >source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in >world >> >history" - in Eisenhower's words, the "most strategically important area >of >> >the world" because of its "strategic position and resources." Control >over >> >the region and its resources remains a policy imperative. After taking >over >> >a core oil producer, and presumably acquiring its first reliable military >> >bases at the heart of the world's major energy-producing system, >Washington >> >will doubtless be happy to establish an "Arab façade," to borrow the term >of >> >the British during their day in the sun. Formal democracy will be fine, >but >> >only if it is of the submissive kind tolerated in Washington's >"backyard," >> >at least if history and current practice are any guide" >> > >> >Chomsky has a great deal to say about US ability to strike almost >anywhere >> >and any time with space-guided missiles. >> > >> >He doesn't speak of the differences between conventional war and >terrorist >> >war. Iraq may be the counterpart of Palestine in a "Sharon Model" >> > conflict - 50 years of mutual killings which neither side has the will >to >> >end.. >> > >> >The U.S. has supported Israel for 50 years - may not have the same >> >enthusiasm for endless deaths of US troops. >> > >> >On the cheerful side, thre are enthusiastic reports of great progress in >> >making life better for the Iraquis. >> > >> >regards, >> >Hugh. >> >>
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005