Ian Bicking: the old part of his blog

Iraq and Ulterior Motives

Well, my last post got a couple replies by people that supported Bush because of the war in Iraq. Not necessarily because they thought it was a good idea, but because we're there now. OK, that logic doesn't quite make sense to me, but anyway...

The standard Kerry line is that we didn't have a plan and we didn't have enough troops. One annoying thing about Kerry is he has a boring line that doesn't speak to the facts. Not that Kerry is lying exactly, but Bush is much worse than Kerry describes. And progressives have started getting soft as they (sometimes unconsciously) peddle Kerry's watered-down line.

A very interesting article was in a recent Harpers: Baghdad Year Zero, Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia. It describes an agenda in Iraq that was centered around a corporation-friendly government; an agenda that has nothing to do with security or any purported goal we had in Iraq. (Kind of "War for Oil", but a bit more subtle.) It explains some of the odd things about the war. Like why are there foreign workers driving trucks? Iraqi unemployment is extremely high, and they certainly know how to drive trucks. They know how to do a lot more than that, actually; it's a modern, secular, educated society that just happens to be in terrible disrepair. They aren't structurally incapable of repair and modernization, and they really don't need Haliburton's help. Anyway, the article lays it out better than I will here. (Harpers, by the way, is a great magazine.)

Created 29 Oct '04
Modified 14 Dec '04

Comments:

Ian, your last post was bordering on neutral and more about [mis]understandings so I didn't mind posting. The Harpers' piece it just a hit piece. Naomi Klein is a anti-corporitist and anti-globalization writer (pieces in The Guardian, The Nation and the book "No Logo"). She starts off by bemoaning a construction crane putting up a billboard (capitalist invasion!) and she just keeps swinging that hammer. Her basic complaint is that it is too easy and attractive for foreigners to do business in Iraq (the horror!). She compares the American commander Bremmer to the Chilean dictator Pinochet. Calls the Americans Straussians (I'm not sure why this charge is so popular, maybe because the oldest Neocons came from the left?). And recoils in horror that Iraq might get a Walmart. She envisions something more perfect for Iraqis, but it isn't clear what (other than fewer capitalists). The repeated assumption that Iraq is a giant testbed for economic theories is the stuff of conspiracy theories.

This is a piece for the converted, a mix of style and anecdote. You can't argue against it, and you aren't meant to. It is meant to stir the passions and cement opinions, not change them. In short, this is light propaganda. That is fine for in-circles where everyone can do high fives but it isn't much of a discussion piece.

I'll avoid posting in in-circle posts from here out so other people can have their high-fives in piece *wink*
# Jack Diederich

I really think, US gov need to stop this quickly. ~20 000 Iraqis died, and bunch of them were only kids or women.

Right now, quite everybody knows that money have been a good reason to start this war. In EU, the first time we heard about the war, everybody say: 'the war for oil is open'. And next we discover Haliburton's stuffs ..
US people really need to look other TV channel than CBS or Foxnew. Lot of newspapers, books, TV show here (in EU) show another reality. (I saw last week, a TV show about US army where solder talk about rapes or how many children they have kill .. that's horrifie me. ... perhaps FoxNews will do a meaculpa for this too ??? ) (I know most of don't really like Mickael Moore, but have you seen his film ? Ian ?? beside he is a extremist I learn some things..)


But it isn't the time to wonder why US decide to launch the war or if it was for a good reason, it's time to stop this. Perhaps most of you aren't agree with me, but I think UN is the key. That can be good way to stop this war, but Bush decide to go against the UN. So right now, most of UN people don't want to sign with Bush.
Two weeks ago, there was a talk, and most of people at the show say that Kerry is the only person who can right now, ask help from the UN.

So I think that if you want the war to stop, should give Kerry a chance..
# Jkx

>> I really think, US gov need to stop this
>>quickly. ~20 000 Iraqis died, and bunch of
>>them were only kids or women.

How about some proof.

>>In EU, the first time we heard about the
>>war, everybody say: 'the war for oil is
>>open'. And next we discover Haliburton's
>>stuffs ..

War for oil? Really? I wouldn't know that from the prices I'm paying at the pump.

>> Like why are there foreign workers
>> driving trucks?

Um, maybe because we can't tell who is and is not a terrorist? I mean, duh. Would you employ someone if there were a bunch of crazies running around your country and wouldn't mind getting their hands on a huge truck to store explosives in?

>> I saw last week, a TV show about US army
>> where solder talk about rapes or how many
>> children they have kill .. that's
>> horrifie me. ...

Give me a friggin break. You uber sophisticated Europeans need to wake up and smell the coffee. I forgot, we have to ask the UN persmission first. I know it's hard to think that America is something other than evil, but, really, try being more informed before spouting this bs.
# phurious

European elitists. Check
Loss of sovereignty to the UN. Check.
Anti-American bias. Check.

Well, I guess that's the standard wingnut talking points covered.
# Smidgen

I don't get it. Anecdotes aren't enough. Facts aren't enough. What is enough? The criticisms of Bush are coming from every possible angle. They are backed by facts. Facts don't seem to matter anymore. But I guess I knew that, trying to figure out why is what the last post was about.
# Ian Bicking

Ian you are at you best when you worry about technologies, and the reason for this is that you see the benefits of being pragmatic. I just wish you also saw pragmatism as the correct approach to politics, which is what I believe is happening here.
# Tony

Uhm. Calling the actions of the Bush administration "pragmatic" stretches the meaning of that word far beyond recognition ...

I really don't understand Bush supporters. It's evident that he lied to his people - he himself admitted it (the whole "weapons of mass destruction in iraq" stuff, where he and his staff had to admit that there weren't any, the whole "Bin Laden Iraq connection" where he and his staff had to admit there isn't one). This is not a minor mishap like displacing your dick in the mouth of some woman you are not married to - this is lying to the people who voted for you, lying to the people you swore to protect! You _can't_ ignore something like that. You can't call that pragmatic.

I might be able to accept that 'murkins can't understand why it is bad that he is a religious nut, but this total ignorance of the president lying in your face really ticks me off.

Over here in Germany we just recently had something similar: the Kohl-administration lying, stealing and doing harm to the state by shuffling around money without obeying the rules. Nothing where people were killed (like going to war on wrong premises), just money. Still this gave the Kohl-administration a hard time and several people were taken to trial (to bad they couldn't sack Kohl, he definitely had deserved it). You can't just accept lying administrations and call them pragmatic. You have to make them pay for their doings. The minimum would be to throw them out of office (like happened to most of the staff of the Kohl administration - even their own party don't want most of them still in higher ranks within the organization).

The US situation mostly reminds me of Italy, where people still support Berlusconi, even though he is corrupt, manipulative and a liar. Oh, and a ridiculous poser. I don't understand Italy, too. Hell, I even don't understand Hessen - state of Germany - as they are holding unto Koch as their leader, even though that one is a total putz and outrageous liar.
# Georg Bauer

>> Her basic complaint is that it is too easy and attractive for foreigners to do business in Iraq (the horror!).
This is totally false. Her main point is that the current impossibility of conducting business in Iraq makes the plan an unequivocal failure.
# Anonymous

>> I really think, US gov need to stop this
>>quickly. ~20 000 Iraqis died, and bunch of
>>them were only kids or women.

> How about some proof.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews=611455=news

If you believe this report, the number is around 100,000.

Whether you believe this report or not, it's probably safe to say that more Iraqis have died as a result of the war than Americans so far.

But that aside, what is an acceptable number to you?

>> Like why are there foreign workers
>> driving trucks?

> Um, maybe because we can't tell who is and is not a
> terrorist? I mean, duh. Would you employ someone if
> there were a bunch of crazies running around your
> country and wouldn't mind getting their hands on a
> huge truck to store explosives in?

FWIW, I couldn't find any truck driving jobs in Iraq on monster.com. There is one transportation management job for around $80 - $95k / year.
# Chris McDonough

Chris, yes the 100 000 seems to be a correct value. But the 20 000 is the number of died for which there we can prouve it. Anyway this is far enought right now.
# Jkx