File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0310, message 33


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.
>>
>>


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005