It's breathtakingly simple, I suppose, to support a potentially endless mission in Iraq when you can't imagine that your decision to leave might have anything to do with the wishes of your hosts.Our hosts? The Liberal is often confused, but lately slightly deranged. I think it must be the impending handover of responsibility for imperial management, the series of intellectual (oh, my!) contortions necessary to justify internationalism as being For Their Own Good. But we're getting ahead of ourselves.
-Lawyers, Guns, and Money
It was Mark Lynch of Abu Aardvark who put our LGM blogger on the case. Lynch attended a symposium of sorts at the amusingly, self-regardingly titled US Institute for Peace, in which Kimberly Kagan--the wife of some Kagan or other and a baying werewolf in her own right--made the rather plain, obvious point that whatever lip service we may give them and their sovereignty, the needs and concerns of Iraqis mean fuck-all in answering the question, to paraphrase the Clash: should we stay or should we go? (If we stay there will be trouble . . . if we go it will be double. Oh, how the classics help us, even now . . .) Mr. Lynch is shocked, shocked!
Finally, Kim Kagan shocked me with a comment made forcefully, twice, once towards the end of her prepared remarks and again at the opening of her closing remarks: the future of Iraq depends primarily on American decisions, not Iraqi decisions. I found this extraordinarily revealing: for her it really is all about us. This infantalizes Iraqis - and, as Kahl would surely note, demands nothing of them, since it is American decisions and will which matter and not theirs. Such a world-view, characteristic of so much neoconservative foreign policy thinking, explains a great deal. How could one possibly contemplate drawing down American forces, after all, if American actions are the only actions that matter, American power the only power which matters, American decisions the only decisions which matter? Why would it matter what Maliki says, or what Iraqi politicians or public opinion polls say, if what really matters is only ultimately us?Oh, it infantilizes them! It "demands nothing of them." How's that for post-war Liberal paternalism? Here is the sort of mind that thrills to Obama castigating black folk for being shitty parents. Personal responsibility! Get your own house in order! Up by the bootstraps! The Lord helps those who help themselves! A penny saved is a penny earned! It is to a far, far better place . . .
The curious thing about neoconservatives in this country is that although they claim Doc Strauss as their intellectual godfather, their dedication to the Noble Lie lasts only long enough for them to realize just how self-effacing the Lie really is. As soon as it occurs to them that the Lie entails a dimunition of Credit, they get wobbly and start telling the truth. (Remember poor Dustin Hoffman in Wag the Dog, who got a bullet to the brain in the end because he wanted credit due for his picture?) Kagan isn't the only attention-deficient court hanger-on to come out and say what has long been clear: invading and occupying Iraq had nothing to do with liberation or anything else so faggy. It was motivated by American interests; it was carried out for American purposes; its success or failure is measured in benefits accrued to the US; permanency is the point.
Meanwhile, it is the supposedly antiwar Donk set which seeks to polish the dirty deed with a patina of humanitarian legitimacy, yapping on and on about how shocking it is that no one seems to care what the Iraqi people, whatever they are, want. Ya think? Man, it's almost as if we invaded and occupied their country! I don't recall any local straw-polling prior to that decision. Well, I was pretty stoned back in aught-two and -three. Maybe I missed it.
Dear Liberals: the Iraqis are not our "hosts." We aren't their guests. America isn't a rude guest on a weekend at the coutry estate. This isn't hanging around the bar after last call. We are a foreign occupying power, however poorly we've acquited ourselves as such, and the Iraqis, their government, their military, their institutions, etc., are our subjects. Put away the lipstick. The pig is what it is.
10 comments:
Dear Libs: You claim to love this country, and yet I don't think you have a firm grip on it's history. We use violence to serve our interests when it is clear than there is no other way. Given that Saddam was continuously in violation of the cease fire agreements, and given the realities of a post 9/11 world, the idea that we were going to allow an avowed enemy of the US like Saddam to continue his madness is simply unrealistic. You don't have to love it, but it would help if you tried to understand it.
I do not for a second doubt that our nation will act to protect itself, and do so even if it means pre-emptively, fatally, and futilely (is that a word?). We're going to stumble into oblivion like any other empire. This is going to happen no matter what I or anyone else does or says or thinks, especially those on the internet for peet's sake. If More Wars are what "we" want, and if More Wars bankrupts "us" financially, morally, physically, etc. and initiates "our" downfall, then so be it, because that is what it will take to stop teh madness. Downfall and defeat are the goal - golden gloved hands at the helm are not going to unassume all the running assumptions that got that person there and keeps them and that power latent.
All that I ask is that I am not beholden to agree with or love and appreciate any of it. I do not.
Oh, and I also ask that I get to make fun of it all. Lol. Who am I kidding? Entertain me bitches!
I'm such a bored slave.
"host" in the sense that the liver is host to the liver fluke, maybe.
US: It's all about us.
"All that I ask is that I am not beholden to agree with or love and appreciate any of it."
That is precisely the kind of wish empires in decline routinely grant. After all, what's to lose?
IOZ: I don't recall any local straw-polling prior to that decision. Well, I was pretty stoned back in aught-two and -three. Maybe I missed it.
You don't remember? There was a poll of all 498 members of the Iraqi National Congress on this question, in February 2003, and we received 502 positive votes. Since several hundred of those votes were in Ahmed Chalabi's handwriting, we figure he simply miscounted. But you can't say that we aren't in Iraq by invitation ! !
Man, I squeamishly call myself a Liberal and I'm not nearly so deluded as that guy.
Can't you turn him into a subgroup, like you do with the neoconservatives. That way, I don't feel like you're lumping me in with him, too. :)
Dear Liberals,
When your reaction to a dude in Tennessee going nuts and shooting up a church for being "liberal" is this:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/digby/1946280313651900770/
it's far past time for you and the right wingers to just rent a fuckin stadium and do Thunderdome. Whoever wins, we shoot. We're really tired of your tedious, partisan bullshit and would rather the lot of you sportsfans just offed each other in a big orgy of violence. Two people got killed and all you cunts can do is play gotcha.
I came here via a link at The Mahatma X Files. I read your post and the linked LGM post and then read both again. Having done so, I came to two conclusions.
1. I think your assertion that the Iraq War was, and the occupation is, motivated strictly by and for US interests is absolutely correct.
2. I think your analysis of the particular post in question is bonkers.
That post, it seemed clear to me, was (first things first) about Kagan and was aimed at slamming the idea that not only does the US have no concern for Iraqi interests but that it should have no such concern, and slamming it precisely because it forms a basis for exactly what you say you oppose: permanent occupation. Lynch's "shock" may well have been the product of naivete - but he didn't write the post, someone tagged davenoon did.
Further, I'm somewhat mystified by your obsession with the word "hosts" which, again it seems clear to me, was a flip reference to the idea that "hey, it's their country, their 'house' if you will, they have the right to tell us to go and if they do, we go, our 'interests' be damned."
Finally, take this statement of yours:
the Iraqis, their government, their military, their institutions, etc., are our subjects.
Now apply to it the same sort of logic you used, and you could come out with this:
"Which is something IOZ is content to see continue, as any reference to the Iraqi government starting to take more control, to become more independent of us, is greeted with sneering denunciations of 'post-war Liberal paternalism.'"
If you find that unpersuasive, for the same sort of reason I find your argument equally so.
All in all, it seemed to me that your real complaint was that davenoon was talking about "should"s instead of "is"es and you assumed from the former that he was ignoring the latter in order to "polish the dirty deed with a patina of humanitarian legitimacy." Well, perhaps he is - but your post most certainly did not establish that.
So again, you're clearly right about the purpose of the invasion - but in critiquing "Donks," I think you need to choose your targets and your logic a little more carefully.
Further, I'm somewhat mystified by your obsession with the word "hosts" which, again it seems clear to me, was a flip reference to the idea that "hey, it's their country, their 'house' if you will, they have the right to tell us to go and if they do, we go, our 'interests' be damned."
Tone, buddy. It's all in the tone. If there's been a home invasion where criminals break in and rob/rape/murder the occupants, and someone writes a commentary lamenting how the criminals seem to have no care for the wishes of their hosts, that person deserves to be ridiculed. Sure, their point is correct: If someone doesn't want you in their home, robbing/raping/murdering them, then the proper thing to do is leave, and you know, stop robbing/raping/murdering them. But clearly, that's not how the situation is going to be solved. The Iraqis are not our "hosts." They didn't fucking invite us, they don't fucking want us there, and just like criminals, we're only going to leave once we've robbed/raped/killed to the point of our satisfaction. (and by "our", I mean "our political leaders").
It's a pernicious mindset that likes to pretend we are some sort of guardian angel who normally would be caring for the needs of the Iraqi people, except that Bush has, in a move no one could have predicted, used our $650 billion dollar military to actually do military stuff, instead of what it was intended for: helping third world countries learn about democracy, or acting as ambassadors of peace to the world, or petting kittens. This mindset needs to be fought, because liberals who are "anti-war" only in the sense that this didn't go as smoothly as Kosovo or Iraq the First, but God, aren't our troops the greatest soldiers in the world? -- these liberals just might be in the driver's seat in January. The problem isn't just Bush and the problem isn't just the Kagans. The problem is a lot greater than that, and people who casually refer to the Iraqis as "our hosts" deserve to be called out for it.
"Which is something IOZ is content to see continue, as any reference to the Iraqi government starting to take more control, to become more independent of us, is greeted with sneering denunciations of 'post-war Liberal paternalism.'"
And listen to yourself! You see the Iraqis "becoming more independent of us" and bitch that IOZ calls that "paternalism." It sure SOUNDS like fucking paternalism! It's like Daddy talking about how Johnny's becoming so independent now that he's got his driver's license. You want the Iraqis to become independent? Then let's pull our troops out and stop having our corporations write their laws. But, oops! That was the whole fucking point of going in there in the first place, wasn't it?
larrye: you must be truly confused to be here. we must not make any sense.
davenoon is implying that we should take into account what the Iraqis want. he is mocking the pwofound incomptwetence when he supposes that it is breathetakingly simple to will the wishes of the Iraqis onto themselves, without taking a poll or whatever. muahahahahahaaa. what a Believer. lol. Democracy. lol. will of the people. lol. ooh there are entire realms of possibilities and complexities that we have overlooked. oh my.
to paraphrase teh Donk: just look at how it's weakened us and our appeal in the region, and emboldened Iran. see, this is why the Donks need your vote: to get things under control and on their proper course. "this is not how we would have handled things. vote for us!"
hey you fools: we could glaze the entire region if we so chose. we're the fucking superpower, man. (who's the nihilist?) it's not incompetence, it's satisified negligence, born of superiority and fed by an absolute apathy towards our hosts (sic). it is not collateral losses and damage, which masks the reality of part and fucking parcel. regrettable is going in, it is not "oopsie I dropped something" when inside followed by a "vote for me I wouldn't have dropped that."
and: no way, we'll leave when our mission is finished, then and only then. this'll be when we're satisfied, whenever that is. Iraqisaywha? thought so. madeyalook!
my Pwog alarm was ringing throughout the post. profound incompetence was the tell. ooh so you can do better, eh? nice.
dudeman, the Iraqis are alright an shit by me yo, but like, I'm not in love with em er nuthin. sorry about your country an shit, but what do you want me to do about it? activise? raise a ruckus? vote? stomp my feet? (blog?) the Iraqis are about as in control of this situation as I am.
also, I am not a good listener.
Post a Comment