tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23053767.post703455261065221861..comments2024-01-30T12:46:10.810-05:00Comments on Yappa Ding Ding: The Iraq War in Historical ContextYappahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18126433451905766475noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23053767.post-12106531560166015542008-06-01T20:25:00.000-04:002008-06-01T20:25:00.000-04:00To mound -I'm converted. (For the moment.) Thanks ...To mound -<BR/><BR/>I'm converted. (For the moment.) Thanks for your comments. I felt rather out of my depth on this topic.Yappahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18126433451905766475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23053767.post-24669557018465496562008-06-01T19:47:00.000-04:002008-06-01T19:47:00.000-04:00What troubles me most about Kagan's type is that t...What troubles me most about Kagan's type is that they're highly educated and, as such, are wilfully misleading. It's classic sophistry - the presentation of a persuasive, even compelling argument that is inherently false. <BR/>I don't necessarily place too much blame on the American people. They were traumatized by the events of 9/11 and that trauma was brilliantly exploited by a gang of ideological hoods. <BR/>If you read the manifesto of the Project for the New American Century (www.pnac.org) the Neocons recognized, years before 2001, that they would need a catastrophe on the order of another Pearl Harbour to spring their agenda on the American people. bin Laden gave them just that and the two sides, al-Qaeda and the Bush neo-cons, have been propping each other up ever since.<BR/>I don't think Bush has been scapegoated although I suspect he allowed himself to be manipulated by the Neo-cons through that movement's leadership which included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle and Wolfowitz. <BR/>Do the American people deserve some responsibility in this? Perhaps, to the extent they allowed themselves to be duped, but we must remember that they were also the victims of a highly collaborative media. A traumatic event, powerful government propaganda and a media that served as the megaphone for that propaganda and, that special, uniquely American element - a reverence for their president and an ingrained need to believe - and the result was predictable.<BR/>There were a number of agendas being served in the invasion of Iraq and, if you believe Scott McClellan, one of those was Bush's yearning to 1) do what his father couldn't - win a second term and 2) serve as a real, shoot'em up, "Wartime President."<BR/>No, I don't believe Bush was scapegoated. I do believe that he, like Cheney and most of his cabinet, are war criminals and that they're personally responsible for enormous suffering and the deaths of, at the very least, tens of thousands of innocent civilians.<BR/>It's ironic that the very nation that destroyed the doctrine of sovereign immunity at Nuremburg, clings to its shroud itself half a century later.The Mound of Soundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09023839743772372922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23053767.post-20673581628551698062008-06-01T16:58:00.000-04:002008-06-01T16:58:00.000-04:00Hi mound -Your point is well taken. Kagan is a Rep...Hi mound -<BR/><BR/>Your point is well taken. Kagan is a Republican and an advisor to McCain, and the slant of the article suggests it could be part of a scheme to change the election coverage of the war. <BR/><BR/>In my post I dealt almost exclusively with his description of the American view of Iraq in the last ten years and I think he makes some good points. Whether it's true that Bill Clinton changed his policy to be one of regime change in Iraq, I really don't know.<BR/><BR/>The reason I was so taken with the article, I think, is that it made me begin to think that the way we've treated the war has allowed us ("us" being Americans) to not take the responsibility we should take for it happening. Bush has in a sense been scapegoated when it is the American people who caused this to happen - and that means we're not thinking about how to stop it from happening next time (in Iran, North Korea, or who knows where). <BR/><BR/>As I said in the comment above, there is still plenty to blame Bush for, but maybe the fact that Iraq was invaded is a little bit more complicated than it's being portrayed.Yappahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18126433451905766475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23053767.post-71222989153592321272008-06-01T14:45:00.000-04:002008-06-01T14:45:00.000-04:00It's facile to suggest the Iraq war as just anothe...It's facile to suggest the Iraq war as just another extension of two centuries of American foreign policy. 1945 marked an important, crucial tide change in international law - the abolition of wars of aggression and the resolve to treat such wars as crimes for which there would no longer by any sovereign immunity.<BR/><BR/>Kagan knows that but he's being very successfully misleading by conveniently leaving it out. In doing so, he takes Iraq "out" of historical context because he knows people are gullible enough to buy his sophistry.<BR/><BR/>By the way, Yappa, just what nation led the world into this ban on wars of aggression? That would, of course, be the United States which used it to justify executing Nazi and Japanese leaders.<BR/><BR/>It was precisely because of this blanket prohibition on war of aggression that Blair tabled his final Security Council resolution authorizing war which he had to sheepishly withdraw when it was apparent it would be defeated.<BR/><BR/>Be very careful about swallowing the stuff that Kagan and those of his ilk profer. It's slimy and bitter.The Mound of Soundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09023839743772372922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23053767.post-45400780678964775612008-05-31T16:25:00.000-04:002008-05-31T16:25:00.000-04:00The more I think about this article, the more I'm ...The more I think about this article, the more I'm convinced. Partisanship, sheer disgust with the war and a disinclination for public mea culpa has led us to think that the Iraq war was the sole fault of Bush - a Neocon invention. In fact, it is the natural product of 200+ years of US history, of the US psyche, and of the historical frame of mind of Americans after 9/11. Had Bill Clinton been in power in 2001, he would probably have invaded Iraq as well. It's a pity that the author didn't give us any insight into what Al Gore might have done.<BR/><BR/>The $64,000 question is: Does any of that absolve Bush? And the answer is No. Bush is guilty of lying to Americans, the UN and the international community about the reason for going to war. He is guilty of invading a sovereign country without the backing of the country's neighbors - in fact the league of Arab nations condemned the act before it happened. He is guilty of not acting multilaterally (except for Britain, which has a "special relationship" with the US and seems to be stuck with tagging along) and a couple of dinky countries. Most importantly, he is guilty of completely mismanaging the war, making it a drawn-out quagmire of death and despair for the Iraqi people, increasing instability in the region, and destroying the US economy. <BR/><BR/>Bush's mistakes were multifold. There was no clear chain of command, and his inner circle (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice) were constantly in a power struggle. The disbanding of the Iraqi army was insane and seems to be done out of revenge. The manipulation of Iraqi law to give the US control of oil sources was criminal. The inadequate number of soldiers in the beginning made it possible for the insurgency to become powerful. The massive bombing of Iraqi infrastructure means that five years later there is still inadequate power and water. Atrocities by US soldiers against civilians and in prisons like Abu Graib and Guantanamo strip the US of any moral authority. Billions of dollars in US cash were allowed to be stolen. There was widespread incompetency in every factor of the operation.<BR/><BR/>Btw, Bush also totally screwed up the Afghanistan operation, going for an easy initial victory that was non-sustainable and that has led to years of fighting and no hope of success in the near future.<BR/><BR/>There is no reason to think that any of the other people who supported the war would have conducted the war in anything like such a monstrous, evil, and self-destructive way as Bush did.<BR/><BR/>That doesn't mean that the war was by any means justified. It was completely wrong and should never have happened. The fact that there was so much support for it in 2001-3 should lead all Americans to do some hard self-examining of what there is about the national psyche that causes Americans to kill so many people. I'm thinking it has soemthing to do with (to use Kagan's words) excessive idealism, blinding self-righteousness, hubris, militarism, overweening ambition, selfishness and greed.<BR/><BR/>We shouldn't make Bush the scapegoat and pretend that he and his buddies were the only ones to blame. After he illegally invaded Iraq, the US people voted him a second term in office. They supported the war.Yappahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18126433451905766475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23053767.post-4199480037850632302008-05-31T16:12:00.000-04:002008-05-31T16:12:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Yappahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18126433451905766475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23053767.post-73072828965417002162008-05-31T16:04:00.000-04:002008-05-31T16:04:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Yappahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18126433451905766475noreply@blogger.com