Topic awaiting preservation: Selective Memory and False Doctrine (Page 1 of 1)

A generally don't like to post too many things about a single topic - today being the Bush Administration - but I've come across a lot of interesting articles in newspapers on online recently. I'm curious on reactions about this article written by Noam Chomsky.

Selective Memory and False Doctrine
by Noam Chomsky
December 21, 2003


All people who have any concern for human rights, justice and integrity should be overjoyed by the capture of Saddam Hussein, and should be awaiting a fair trial for him by an international tribunal.

An indictment of Saddam's atrocities would include not only his slaughter and gassing of Kurds in 1988 but also, rather crucially, his massacre of the Shiite rebels who might have overthrown him in 1991.

At the time, Washington and its allies held the "strikingly unanimous view (that) whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression," reported Alan Cowell in the New York Times.

Last December, Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, released a dossier of Saddam's crimes drawn almost entirely from the period of firm U.S.-British support of Saddam.

With the usual display of moral integrity, Straw's report and Washington's reaction overlooked that support.

Such practices reflect a trap deeply rooted in the intellectual culture generally - a trap sometimes called the doctrine of change of course, invoked in the United States every two or three years. The content of the doctrine is: "Yes, in the past we did some wrong things because of innocence or inadvertence. But now that's all over, so let's not waste any more time on this boring, stale stuff."

The doctrine is dishonest and cowardly, but it does have advantages: It protects us from the danger of understanding what is happening before our eyes.

For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speech writers.

The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East.

Sometimes, the repetition of this democracy-building posture reaches the level of rapturous acclaim.

Last month, for example, David Ignatius, the Washington Post commentator, described the invasion of Iraq as "the most idealistic war in modern times" - fought solely to bring democracy to Iraq and the region.

Ignatius was particularly impressed with Paul Wolfowitz, "the Bush administration's idealist in chief," whom he described as a genuine intellectual who "bleeds for (the Arab world's) oppression and dreams of liberating it."

Maybe that helps explain Wolfowitz's career - like his strong support for Suharto in Indonesia, one of the last century's worst mass murderers and aggressors, when Wolfowitz was ambassador to that country under Ronald Reagan.

As the State Department official responsible for Asian affairs under Reagan, Wolfowitz oversaw support for the murderous dictators Chun of South Korea and Marcos of the Philippines.

All this is irrelevant because of the convenient doctrine of change of course.

So, yes, Wolfowitz's heart bleeds for the victims of oppression - and if the record shows the opposite, it's just that boring old stuff that we want to forget about.

One might recall another recent illustration of Wolfowitz's love of democracy. The Turkish parliament, heeding its population's near-unanimous opposition to war in Iraq, refused to let U.S. forces deploy fully from Turkey. This caused absolute fury in Washington.

Wolfowitz denounced the Turkish military for failing to intervene to overturn the decision. Turkey was listening to its people, not taking orders from Crawford, Texas, or Washington, D.C.

The most recent chapter is Wolfowitz's "Determination and Findings" on bidding for lavish reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Excluded are countries where the government dared to take the same position as the vast majority of the population.

Wolfowitz's alleged grounds are "security interests," which are non-existent, though the visceral hatred of democracy is hard to miss - along with the fact that Halliburton and Bechtel corporations will be free to "compete" with the vibrant democracy of Uzbekistan and the Solomon Islands, but not with leading industrial societies.

What's revealing and important to the future is that Washington's display of contempt for democracy went side by side with a chorus of adulation about its yearning for democracy.

To be able to carry that off is an impressive achievement, hard to mimic even in a totalitarian state.

Iraqis have some insight into this process of conquerors and conquered.

The British created Iraq for their own interests. When they ran that part of the world, they discussed how to set up what they called Arab facades - weak, pliable governments, parliamentary if possible, so long as the British effectively ruled.

Who would expect that the United States would ever permit an independent Iraqi government to exist? Especially now that Washington has reserved the right to set up permanent military bases there, in the heart of the world's greatest oil-producing region, and has imposed an economic regime that no sovereign country would accept, putting the country's fate in the hands of Western corporations.

Throughout history, even the harshest and most shameful measures are regularly accompanied by professions of noble intent - and rhetoric about bestowing freedom and independence.

An honest look would only generalize Thomas Jefferson's observation on the world situation of his day: "We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting merely for the liberties of the seas than in Great Britain's fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth and the resources of other nations."



Jestah

I don't *completely* disagree with this article. "The British created Iraq for their own interests." ...and we invaded Iraq primarily for ours. The fact that some form of democratic government may result is icing on the cake and it is a big question as to whether it's even possible.

The administration holding the democracy banner up in front of the selfish interests of our nation is once again par for the course. ALL administrations do this. I have never expected to see this change.

quote:

---

All people who have any concern for human rights, justice and integrity should be overjoyed by the capture of Saddam Hussein, and should be awaiting a fair trial for him by an international tribunal.

---

I can agree 100% with the first part of this sentence but 0% with the last. If we want justice, the Iraqis must be allowed to deal with Hussein as they see fit. The international community (the unbribed portion that is) didn't want him out enough to have any right to try him now that someone else did.

quote:

---

The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East.

---

If that is the new reason, why was it being proposed months before the war?

I will say that I believe the administration used the WMD intelligence to push their desire to take down Hussein. I think that is very clear, then and now.

The Bush administration has two options at this point: 1) Defend the intelligence community and continue the stand that we will find sufficient WMDs to match the original reports or 2) Find a fall guy. In this case, we're talking Tenet and the faulty intelligence he presided over. The bigger the stink about the WMDs, the more they will go for door #2.

[edit misspelled his name ]

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 02-05-2004).]

quote:

---

I can agree 100% with the first part of this sentence but 0% with the last. If we want justice, the Iraqis must be allowed to deal with Hussein as they see fit. The international community (the unbribed portion that is) didn't want him out enough to have any right to try him now that someone else did.

---

It sounds as though you're less interested in justice then seeing Saddam Hussein put to death, Bugimus. I won't sit here and tell you I believe SH is innocent of those allegations but I will say that the intelligence community and this Administration have been less then accurate. There does remain a remote possibility that Saddam Hussein is innocent. Everyone should be given a chance to prove themselves innocent.

quote:

---

If that is the new reason, why was it being proposed months before the war?

I will say that I believe the administration used the WMD intelligence to push their desire to take down Hussein. I think that is very clear, then and now.

The Bush administration has two options at this point: 1) Defend the intelligence community and continue the stand that we will find sufficient WMDs to match the original reports or 2) Find a fall guy. In this case, we're talking Tenet and the faulty intelligence he presided over. The bigger the stink about the WMDs, the more they will go for door #2.

---

As Sen. Levin stated in front of the Armed Services Committee Hearing WMD programs, ambitions, and plans to democratize were never stated by the Administration for reasons to go to war. Theres very good reason for this. Ask your next door neighbors if we should invade Saudi Arabia or N. Korea. You'll be told "no". US citizens are unwilling to go much further then financial aid to help other people. To suggest the Bush Administration pushed helping the Iraqi people as reason to go to war is just dishonest.

Jestah

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 02-08-2004).]

You should have no doubts that Saddam Hussein is guilty of terrible crimes. Everything you can possibly know about him and his time in power speaks to his abuses. What data can you provide me that says he's innocent?

quote:

---

It sounds as though you're less interested in justice then seeing Saddam Hussein put to death, Bugimus.

---

Let me be absolutely clear so you don't have to guess my position. I am saying that justice is letting the Iraqi people decide the punishment for their former dictator. Do you have a problem allowing them to make that choice?

quote:

---

To suggest the Bush Administration pushed helping the Iraqi people as reason to go to war is just dishonest.

---

You misunderstand me. I never said that.

I said that the administration's longer term plans were communicated otherwise noone would have heard them. It's quite simple really, I knew that was there plan from reading articles, listening to interviews on television, and watching CSPAN. In fact, WebShaman posted those links about Pax Americana and such. Their long term goals were no secret.

I'm not saying that you would have heard this on the local news channel "news at eleven" nor would this be the main point stressed in popular speeches. In fact, Jestah, I agree with you that the WMD and iminent threat were far more "juicy" and were pushed forward to convince the public that this was a necessary war. I think they did push that aspect to bolster support.

But I never needed that sort of propoganda for me to make a decision. Please reference my reasons for supporting this war if you don't recall what they were.

. . : slicePuzzle

Of course, you must understand that history is always written by the victors.

Yes, of course it is.

But if you really do have evidence of his innocence, we ought to have a look. Right? Got any?

I heard one guy claim that the charge that he intentionally gased those Kurds in 1998 was wrong. The guy claimed he was aiming at the Iranians and got too close to the village that got wiped out. But that's just one unsubstantiated case out of thousands of other deeds of his over a ~30 year career.

. . : slicePuzzle

But if you really do have evidence of his guilt, we ought to have a look. Right? Got any?

Scads!!!

. . : slicePuzzle

quote:

---

You should have no doubts that Saddam Hussein is guilty of terrible crimes. Everything you can possibly know about him and his time in power speaks to his abuses. What data can you provide me that says he's innocent?

---

Of course theres serious doubt in my mind as to SH's guilt. A few months ago you posted in this forum that we would find seas of WMD in Iraq. The people would great us with open arms. Almost a year later WMD still haven't been found and the Iraqi people have greated us with gun fire and bombs. You're batting 0.000% and confused why I have my doubts?

Neither of us have any data that could suggest innocence or guilt. We have stories from partisan, unreliable sources. The difference is I'm willing to look at those stories and the facts behind them and make a judgement while you've already made you judgement. Facts be damned.

quote:

---

Let me be absolutely clear so you don't have to guess my position. I am saying that justice is letting the Iraqi people decide the punishment for their former dictator. Do you have a problem allowing them to make that choice?

---

Of course. The Iraqi people aren't in a state of independent power yet. The Iraqi people wouldn't be making this judgement - US backed opponents of Saddam Hussein would be making this judgement. Furthermore, even if the Iraqi people were allowed to decide SH's fate, they don't have the resources to investigate the facts throughly. Instead, they're going to be forced to rely on whats told to them by the United States and the now governing body of Iraq. These are both hardly nonpartisan bodies.

With an international court, SH's actions in Iraq can be delt with independently from those who stand to gain from his fall. Although occationally I do doubt your intelligence, you surely can see the direct conflict of interest in this situation. If not I'll elaborate.

If tried, what if SH is found not to be a ruthless dictator? No WMD were found in Iraq. No WMD programs were found in Iraq. SH was found NOT to be a ruthless dictator. How is the Bush Administration doing now? How about the new Iraqi government? No, not much insentive to play fair, is there?

Jestah

Jestah:

Many Iraqis celebrated the dethroning of their dysfunctional senile dictator yet now see Bush as just another dictator, which he is most certainly. There are always dissenters in a conquered populace. As such, some Iraqis charged themselves with the task of harassing the military. What is their reason? It could be any number of things. US soldiers could be infringing on the now defunct rights of some inhabitants perhaps by raping and pillaging as all conquering armies have done in the history of warfare. The more religious dissenters may object to the introduction of American customs which ultimately defeat the memetic and genetic purpose of their religions. Some dissenters may be remnants of a terroristic group and others may just be guncrazy like most of those in the American South. ;p

quote:

---

Let me be absolutely clear so you don't have to guess my position. I am saying that justice is letting the Iraqi people decide the punishment for their former dictator. Do you have a problem allowing them to make that choice?

---

I, too, take issue with the allowance of choice in this scenario. The United States is the conquering party. Our prize is power.

Subjugation (conquering) is the militaristic term. Liberation is the PR buzzword.

So let me get this straight, we shouldn't let the Iraqi people try their former dictator because of something we did wrong? How does depriving them of something make up for a wrong you think we did?

. . : slicePuzzle

Let's keep it short and sweet. The US, for all intents and purposes, would have been the ancient Roman Empire. We are the conquerors. The US is controls the realm of Iraq. What purpose would ceding judiciary power to the conquered serve? Humanitarianism, benevolence? Are those your reasons? Those concepts become irrelevant and weak when confronted by power unless, of course, the benefit is a political or economic advantage which it currently is not.

quote:

---

So let me get this straight, we shouldn't let the Iraqi people try their former dictator because of something we did wrong? How does depriving them of something make up for a wrong you think we did?

---

You still have it twisted. Subjective comprehension is very inaccurate. You should also define what is "wrong."

quote:

---

So let me get this straight, we shouldn't let the Iraqi people try their former dictator because of something we did wrong? How does depriving them of something make up for a wrong you think we did?

---

I think your misunderstanding the situation Bugimus. The Iraqi people wouldn't be trying SH in any circumstance. A group who came to power with the removal of SH would be. You aren't really suggesting that this group is impartial, are you? As I said before, you're much less interested in seeing justice done then SH being punished.

Jestah