Joined: Aug 2003 Posts: 1796
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 14 times in 12 posts
Gender: Country:
The War in Iraq
The War in Iraq is a prominent theme in Chomsky's Interventions. Chomsky has been a staunch critic of the war from the very beginning and this book offers many arguments against it. Perhaps we can use this thread to spell out Chomsky's argument against the War in Iraq and discuss its veracity.
Joined: Aug 2003 Posts: 1796
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 14 times in 12 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: The War in Iraq
The following is an excerpt from Interventions:
What is at Stake in Iraq January 30, 2007
In the West, some of the most important information about Iraq remains either ignored or unspoken. Unless it is taken into account, proposals about U.S. policies in Iraq will be neither morally nor strategically sound.
For example, one of the least noticed recent news stories from the tortured land of Iraq was among the most illuminating: a poll in Baghdad, Anbar, and Najaf on the invasion and its consequences. "About 90 percent of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today," United Press International reported on the survey, which was conducted in November 2006 by the Baghdad-based Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies. "Nearly half of the respondents favored an immediate withdrawal of U.S.-led troops," reported the Daily Star in Beirut, Lebanon. Another 20 percent favored a phased withdrawal starting right away. (A U.S. State Department poll, also ignored, found that two-thirds of Baghdadis want immediate withdrawal.)
Joined: Jul 2005 Posts: 446 Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Thanks: 5 Thanked: 40 times in 31 posts
Gender:
Re: The War in Iraq
One major question is why the Bush administration chose to invade Iraq in the first place. Chomsky summarizes his answer on page 73:
Quote:... gaining control over Iraq, enhancing control over the incomparable energy resources of the region, firmly establishing the norm of "preventive" war and strengthening their hold on domestic power.
In my view, geopolitical power and oil were two major reasons. And the Republicans thought it would be politically advantageous.
However, Assassin's Gate, a very good book about Iraq by liberal hawk George Packer, presents other reasons. The neoconservatives had some crazy ideas, such as those mentioned in this book review.
Quote:"Why Iraq?" Packer asks. "Why did Iraq become the leading cause of the hawks?" He gives two reasons: Paul Wolfowitz's desire to atone for America's failure to topple Saddam at the end of the first Gulf War, and the neocons' obsession with defending Israel.
Of course, most people wanted Saddam out of power on human rights grounds; liberals just objected to starting a war to achieve that goal. On the other hand, George Bush and his jingoistic crowd would probably prefer a war over having the nation at peace (or have the military devoted to peacekeeping in Afghanistan).
Joined: Aug 2003 Posts: 1796
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 14 times in 12 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: The War in Iraq
Quote:Some observers fear that a U.S. pullout from Iraq would lead to a full-fledged civil war and the country's deterioration. As for the consequences of a withdrawal, we are entitled to our personal judgments, all of them as uninformed and dubious as those of U.S. intelligence. But these judgments do not matter. What matters is what Iraqis think. Or rather, that is what should matter. If the consistent results of many polls are considered insufficient, the question of withdrawal could even be submitted to a referendum, conducted under international supervision to minimize coercion by the occupying forces and their Iraqi clients.
A common response to what should we do about Iraq is that if we pull out, things will only get worse: total chaos, brutal anarchy, a civil war with Iranian manipulation and a future course of greater instability and threat to US interests in the region and abroad...and, of course, the terrorists will be emboldened and given a new lease on their war against our way of life, moving closer to our borders and back yards.
Chomsky, on the other hand, says that none of us really knows what will happen. Nor should our dubious grasp of pullout fallout be the deciding factor. Instead it should be the will of the Iraqi population- which, as Chomsky points out throughout his book, Iraqi opinion polls consistently want US forces to leave. And, if these numerous polls don't convince, then a public referendum with international scrutiny could convey the will of the people. And, as Chomsky shows, it is the will of the Iraqi people (among other things) that is ignored by the Baker-Hamilton report.
JTA: "Why Iraq?" Packer asks. "Why did Iraq become the leading cause of the hawks?" He gives two reasons: Paul Wolfowitz's desire to atone for America's failure to topple Saddam at the end of the first Gulf War, and the neocons' obsession with defending Israel.
I'm not sure if atonement would be the right term, or failure. Sadaam was an essential ingredient towards controlling Iraq according to US interests in the region. Bush Senior had the political support and military might to enter Baghdad and rout out Sadaam, and with far more reason than Bush Junior. They knew the consequences- the ones currently engulfing that nation in civil war and chaos.
As for defending Israel, I am cautious to place Israeli defense at the center of American foreign policy in the middle east. Actually, the war in Iraq has heightened instability and greater threats to Israel, and all the countries of the region. The neo-con rhetoric highlighted Sadaam and Israel, but the actual reasons are not in that narrative.
Sadaam has served as a necessary bogey-man and Israeli defense as a trusted rationale for propaganda purposes: but I think it is clear that US dominance and control of energy sources, and setting of violent precedence to deter future threats are the actual reasons for the War with Iraq; as well as distraction from failed domestic policies during the midterm elections.
JTA: Of course, most people wanted Saddam out of power on human rights grounds; liberals just objected to starting a war to achieve that goal. On the other hand, George Bush and his jingoistic crowd would probably prefer a war over having the nation at peace (or have the military devoted to peacekeeping in Afghanistan).
I think it's important to remember that the ruling elites who shape US foreign policy felt Sadaam served a very useful purpose, human rights be damned. Liberals, especially Clinton liberals, said very little about the devastating decade long sanctions and continued bombing and the late '98 war in Iraq. I agree that Bush Junior (and Senior, or most Presidents, if not all) generally prefer war over peace; and the peace they envision is probably not one that we would prefer.
Joined: Jul 2005 Posts: 446 Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Thanks: 5 Thanked: 40 times in 31 posts
Gender:
My views
Here's why I think the US should withdraw immediately (though it might take a few months to perform an orderly withdrawal, a complex military maneuver). Though some months are better than others, over the long term things in Iraq keep getter worse. The US occupation won't continue indefinitely and won't bring stability to Iraq. I don't know what will happen when the US leaves, and it may get worse for a while. However, the occupation continues a miserable holding pattern without improve future prospects. Plus, I agree with Chomsky's and DH's views about the immorality of most wars and the right of the Iraqi people to decide their future.
Regarding the causes of war, leftists claim it's all about oil, politics, and power, and those are clearly relevant factors. However, George Packer, who spent a lot of time talking to war proponents and studying the writings, highlights other rationales. Packer might provide an accurate account of the beliefs of right-wing hawks, though we may strongly disagree with those beliefs.
Joined: Aug 2003 Posts: 1796
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 14 times in 12 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: My views
JTA: The US occupation won't continue indefinitely and won't bring stability to Iraq. I don't know what will happen when the US leaves, and it may get worse for a while. However, the occupation continues a miserable holding pattern without improve future prospects.
I agree that the US occupation will come to an end, eventually- thus we need to identify when; and I agree it should be immediately (allowing for the logistics of withdrawal to be determined by exit expediency, not occupation necessities.) I wish more of us could accept that we really don't know what will happen upon US withdrawal. I think this would allow for reasoned minds to better address the logistics of exiting without the ideology of occupation; thus making less havoc more possible. And, as you state, things will probably get worse for a short while- but the main ingredient to violent resistance (the US Occupation) will be eliminated, making it probable that violent resistance will eventually cease. What happens to Iraq afterwards should not be in our hands or according to our time tables and benchmarks. Our presence, I believe, is simply making things worse.
JTA: Regarding the causes of war, leftists claim it's all about oil, politics, and power, and those are clearly relevant factors. However, George Packer, who spent a lot of time talking to war proponents and studying the writings, highlights other rationales. Packer might provide an accurate account of the beliefs of right-wing hawks, though we may strongly disagree with those beliefs.
I am glad you brought Packer's work to my attention JTA, I hope to find the time to give it a careful reading. I think there is a tendency in Chomsky's work to reduce the mechanics of international politics and warfare to the appropriation of power. Bombs drop in order that control of resources be in the hands of those who ordered the bombing, and control of those resources trump any ideological rationale that justifies the bombing. Better, any ideology will do: just as long as it portrays the aggressor as a victim who is forced to defend himself against demonic forces of evil and terror.
My views are somewhere between Chomsky's and Packer's. While I agree with Chomsky more philosophically, especially in terms of pacifism, Packer, as a journalist, has more direct exposure to what's going on in Washington and Iraq.
Joined: Aug 2003 Posts: 1796
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 14 times in 12 posts
Gender: Country:
Quote:
JTA: I agree with Chomsky more philosophically, especially in terms of pacifism
I've not been able to clearly identify what pacifism means to Chomsky in his work. I believe I've read him state clearly in a few places that he is not a pacifist. If I understand him correctly, the issue is one of legitimate vs. illegitimate forms of force and violence. The onus of proof of legitimacy must be met by the one endorsing violence. Chomsky argues this can very rarely be done. In most cases, violence will only exacerbate the crisis or problem- thus is generally illegitimate. Legitimate force is force that remedies a problem. But, different people view a problem in different ways: one man's remedy may be another man's poison. I'm never clear how Chomsky works this out.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
The 12th Disciple is now being
stocked at Poor Richard's
Bookstore in Colorado Springs.
We're happy to have the
title at such a historic
location in Colorado Springs.
If… more
For most of us, a very big
part of our lives will be a
dark place, we wont realize
it. We live, we eat, we have
some fun, we go to school, we
sleep. But it will come the
time, when… more
The 12th Disciple's
endorsement for a Presidential
Candidate...we'll pass.
If many haven't learned
over the past several decades,
centuries, and millennia, the
gover… more
So I've been looking for
new books to read, but I
haven't found any that
have caught my attention
lately. I want to try and
venture out into a different
genre, but I'… more
For those who constantly gripe
about jobs being sent
overseas, focus your anger on
this. Read about how one of
the most profitable companies
prided by American citizens
offshores t… more
Its January 1945 and British,
Commonwealth, US and POWs from
various other nationalities
are finally awaiting
liberation from the various
camps in Eastern Europe, where
some of the… more
A good friend of mine recently
received a pre-paid credit
card. She went to pay for a
$20.00 gas purchase only to
later find out that over a
$70.00 hold was placed on her
card for… more
While watching the bube tube
(TV) this morning I stumbled
on a motivational speaker
saying “today marks a new
year, you now have a blank
canvas to work from.”
The 12th Disciple wishes you
and yours a Happy New Year.
Many of us hope and pray that
2012 will bring better
leadership in the government
of the United States, better
leadership i… more
The Cat & The
Nightingale Saga, the docu
drama version of The Weekend
Trippers, also tells Rifleman
Ted TaylorÂ’s story but in a
slightly different way. It too
tells of the… more
In 2011 I published my book;
in the book I outlined 9 Key
Principles to Prosperity
(happiness). Like
many of you, I walked through
2011 with the Woe is me
attitude. When… more
More and more these days I see
people using social media to
quote what someone else has
said. I see people posting
their favorite rappers lyrics,
lines from movies and what
seems t… more
IÂ’m down the school for the
first time today. My friend
visited two weeks ago and said
it was chaos. They must have
heard I was back
because everything is tidy and
orderly today… more
I'm quite positive that
everyone who enters this site
has the same thing in mind:
fear of seeing a world without
books, without literature. We
see it everyday, more people
qui… more
For once in my life I step off
the plane at Banjul, and
donÂ’t get a rush of elation.
I went home to see my
daughterÂ’s twins safely
delivered. They are all well
now, but IÂ’m goin… more
Last weekend I witnessed a
couple of family members
literally fall apart at the
seams because of a problem
with a couple of their
employees. They recently
opened a group home, and
… more
Tell your friends when to meet you in the BookTalk.org Chat Room.
Booktalk.org on Facebook
If you enjoy business bestsellers and would like to expand your business knowledge check out the quality book summaries offered by the world's leading book summary company.
BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.
Tweet This Topic
