From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sat Dec 11 2004 - 12:08:49 GMT
Hi Mark,
> msh says:
> Sorry. Didn't mean to sound defensive. I was just sort of stunned
> by how bad the argument is. Having heard it decried so often by
> folks wanting to justify aggression, I expected it to be more
> formidable.
In my talk this morning, I elicited the response 'we're just as bad as Saddam was'. So even if
'intelligent progressives' don't make the argument, it is a 'mood' in certain quarters.
On the question of what constitutes a 'system-wide' threat:
> msh says:
> Yes, this is a valuable question. Since the destruction of the
> American system by an external power would involve nothing less than
> a full invasion and occupation of the homeland, such as what is
> occurring in Iraq, I'd say that there is no power on earth capable
> of accomplishing it. So the question is moot, and is raised only as
> a scare tactic in trying to persuade the American population to go
> along with the expansionist agenda of its leaders. Sadly, this
> tactic seems to be working.
Don't agree that the question is moot, although I do agree that the US system is extremely robust
and something like 9/11 is a comparative pinprick as a threat. I think it would be quite useful to
try and outline what sort of thing might qualify (eg, would a terrorist group like Al Qaeda, in
possession of several nuclear weapons on US soil, exploding one, then threatening to blow up the
others in unspecified cities unless certain demands are met, would that qualify? And I'm thinking
less of the physical destruction than the psychological chaos that would ensue. Given all the
structural weaknesses of US finance at the moment, a 1930's style meltdown is not totally
unthinkable in such a situation IMHO)
> sam:
> I think the argument is invalid (in other words, I don't believe that
> this was the motivation for the USG to act as it did), but I'm not
> sure the reasons you give are the best, for the 'consistency over
> time' point that I mentioned before. In other words, it's not a
> logical fallacy for the USG (or one of their defenders) to turn
> around and say 'we've changed' - this is the neo-con argument, isn't
> it?
>
> msh says:
> Yes. I left open the the possibility of the neo-con response to see
> what you might make of it. You seem to be aware of the argument's
> obvious invalidity, so great. That saves us a lot of time.
Hang on a second - that's a very condensed comment you've given there, and there is an ambiguity
about what 'the argument's obvious invalidity' refers to. I think the brutal dictator argument is
not the true justification for the action against Iraq (which we agree on). I haven't made up my
mind about the neo-con argument yet (which we may well not agree on) - the latter being the argument
that USG policy has changed since 2000 and is, indeed, going to be concerned with establishing
truth, justice and the american way throughout the world. That's a caricature of the view, and I'm
wanting to go deeper into it (eg by exploring Leo Strauss) but I don't want you to be misled here.
But yes, I'm sure we can remove lots of the vapid argumentation swiftly.
> msh says:
> I don't see how, if the argument is invalid, it can have even
> supplementary value. But as long as we can agree that the "brutal
> dictator" argument is worthless when advanced by an aggressor who
> clearly supports brutal dictators, then I'm happy.
Psychological rather than logical support forms the supplementary value. Although there's a quibble
at the back of my mind that it can be logically valid, that is, an argument can lend weight without
being conclusive or viable on its own.... I need to think about that a bit more.
> msh says:
> Well, I think it's wishful thinking to believe that the leadership of
> the West, after more than 500 years of deliberate and very often
> extremely brutal power concentration, has suddenly experienced a
> humanitarian awakening. And there are realpolitik explanations for
> the west's actions in both Kosova and Sierra Leone.
This would be worth pursuing. I think a strong argument can be made for precisely this assertion,
that the governments of the West are indeed more concerned by humanitarian concerns than their
predecessors. That doesn't mean it's their main concern, or that they shouldn't be even more
concerned than they are, it means that present governments are better than the governments of 100
years ago, and significantly better than governments of 400 years ago. Would you disagree with that?
> So I think a lot of skepticism is warranted. Were this truly the age
> of the New Humanitarians, I would expect to see at least these events
> in short order: Cessation of support for Israel in its 37 year
> history of brutal occupation of illegally held Palestinian
> territories;
The Israeli/Palestinian situation deserves a thread of its own - can we agree to put it to one side?
I suspect we already have too much on our plate.
> immediate discontinuation of all financial, military and
> business support of all totalitarian governments, not just Cuba and
> North Korea;
Actually I think Cuba should be immediately reintegrated into the world economy. I would have
realpolitik qualms about, say, abandoning Musharraf, but in principle, agreed.
> immediate and continuous support of all majority UNSC
> and UNGA resolutions.
Don't agree with that. You'll need to be more specific about the resolutions and their legitimacy -
but again that might take us a long way from where we are. (But much happier to do this than explore
the Israeli question, at this moment - perhaps in a few months we'll have space to do that one
justice)
> msh says:
> I read Fisk whenever I can; his stuff crosses my desk pretty
> regularly. I find him very credible, most of the time. I don't know
> the article you're referring to, but will take a look. Can you point
> me to it? Given what we've learned about the activities of our spy
> agencies over the years, his idea is certainly not out of the
> question. But, if he's making the claim without credible evidence to
> back it, if he's just expressing his unsupported opinion, then I
> think he's abusing his journalistic privilege.
It was in the UK Independent on 17 November, entitled "What price innocence in the anarchy of
Iraq?". Unfortunately you need to be a paid subscriber to access their archives (which I'm not), but
the gist of his argument was that a) the people who beheaded Hassan were not the same people who had
done the other beheadings, and he pointed to various bits of evidence supporting that, and b) the
only people who really benefited from her beheading were the US forces, because it supported the
dehumanisation of the insurgents. Going from memory, I don't think he explicitly said 'the West did
it', but it was certainly a conclusion strongly implied by what he said. I actually think Fisk is
(mostly) a good journalist, with an opinion worth hearing, but this article seemed to have gone over
the edge. But perhaps he will be proved right.
Sam said imperialism wasn't bad by definition,
> msh says:
> This is a bit sly on your part.
:o)
> I don't think we should quibble
> amount the meaning of imperialism as violent conquest in the pursuit
> of material gain versus a rare benevolent imperial act. Do you?
Actually yes. But this one might fit better in the capitalism thread. Have you ever seen Monty
Python's "The life of Brian"?
> sam:
> I am wholly with you that the issue is about a properly rational
> analysis of threat and response. I am not convinced that it is an
> accurate description of current US military action in Iraq to call it
> "consciously murdering the Bathist regime's VICTIMS".
>
> msh says:
> I agree that my point was made too poetically, with a little dose of
> exaggeration for effect. Hussein's victims are not being consciously
> murdered in the sense that this is the purpose of the attack and
> occupation. As I've said before, the USG and UKG would have been
> delighted if all the innocent civilians had simply left the country
> prior to the aggression. The murder is conscious in the sense that
> the aggressors KNOW that their tactics will lead to the death of
> large numbers of innocents, and they nevertheless proceed.
The question is one of proportion. I don't believe that killing one innocent in order to achieve a
legitimate military objective makes it wrong. But if the one person becomes a hundred, or a
thousand, then the balance starts to shift. So I would dispute your use of the word 'murder'. I
think for murder to be the correct term there needs to be the clear intention to kill civilians, and
that hasn't been established. (Although see that Pilger article that came round on ZNet, because he
is arguing that it WAS the intention in Kosovo)
> Also, I mentioned the OK City attack because I want you to make note
> of the difference in the way the USG went about apprehending and
> trying the domestic terrorists versus their full-scale attack on two
> countries in response to 9/11. This obvious difference is evidence
> in support of my position that some innocent civilians are regarded
> as more valuable than others.
Noted and agreed: the USG is more concerned with US civilian casualties than with Iraqi.
> sam:
> Yep. Those who benefit from the system want to see it maintained
> (which doesn't, in itself, make it wrong - those who benefit from
> human rights want to see them maintained as well).
>
> msh says:
> Sure. But the immorality occurs when the benefits for a few come at
> the expense of the multitude of others. I can argue that modern
> corporations are not founded for the mutual benefit of all.
We can pursue that in the capitalism thread (which I'm dying to get my post out on, but it may take
a little while longer.....)
> msh says:
> You might find the others worth looking into. Lots of info available
> on the net. Richard Clarke is the Bush insider who blew the whistle
> on the fact that the Bush and previous administrations were looking
> for reasons to invade Iraq long before 9/11. A day or two after 9/11
> he was just about ORDERED to find a connection between the WTC
> attacks and Saddam Hussein, though he knew none existed.
It's quite clear that the neo-cons wanted to tackle Iraq before 9/11 happened, definitely agreed on
that. But the problem would be the manipulation of information, not (necessarily) the motivation or
rationale. (That is, the motivation and rationale might make perfect sense, but if the perpetrators
of the act concealed the truth, or actively lied to cover up the truth, then that's the problem. Is
that what Richard Clarke was exposing?)
Cheers
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 11 2004 - 12:10:22 GMT