Iraq and "the lowered expectation of President Bush"
Whilst the world has been focusing on the Israeli-Hizbollah war over the past few weeks, Iraq has continued to sink into the depths.
For example, whereas around 1,000 people are thought to have died in Lebanon, Baghdad morgue reports that it took in 1,815 bodies during July. Recall that (a) this is only Baghdad, and (b) the amount of bodies that wind up in the morgue will only represent a fraction of the deaths even in that city. The UK's Royal Institute of International Affairs, aka 'Chatham House', published a report yesterday saying that Iran, not the US, is now the dominant power in Iraq (and indeed the wider Middle East). Notice that this is despite the US having had 130,000+ troops, several billions of dollars worth of hardware and a massive administrative presence occupying Iraq for the last 3 years. Another lesson in the nature and limits of power in the modern world, alongside Israel's humiliation at the hands of Hizbollah.
Its perhaps with the facts described by Chatham House in mind that the US is apparently moving towards dispensing with even its formal commitment to Iraqi democracy (which was always fraudulant in any case). On August 3, it emerged that Britain's outgoing ambassador in Baghdad had warned the Prime Minister in a confidential memo that "the prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy. Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq - a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror - must remain in doubt".
Note the clear distinction the ambassador draws between on the one hand "a stable democracy" and on the other, "the lowered expectation of President Bush".
And then there's this little nugget of info, creeping in at the back-end of an August 17 piece in the New York Times:
"Yet some outside experts who have recently visited the White House said Bush administration officials were beginning to plan for the possibility that Iraq's democratically elected government might not survive.
"'Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy,' said one military affairs expert who received an Iraq briefing at the White House last month and agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity.
"'Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect,' the expert said, ‘but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy.'"
Of course, to fully understand what's happening you have to be prepared to translate from newspeak to English. In the language of western statesmen, "democracy" means a client state that is allowed a degree of internal freedom (well short of actual democracy) because it can ultimately be relied upon to do what it is told. On the other hand, "the lowered expectation of President Bush" is that Iraqis will have to hand back what meagre freedoms they have wrestled from the occupiers since Saddam's fall, in order to ensure that their country turns out to be an obedient servant of Washington in the long-term.
These differing modes of neo-colonialism, deployed variously depending on individual and contemporaneous circumstances, will be familiar to anyone with some knowledge of US policy in 20th century Latin America, for example.
Its tempting, when following the slow-grind horror story of day-to-day news from Iraq, to come to the conclusion that at least the bottom has been reached. Sadly, I doubt that that's true. The much-heralded yet elusive turning-point, in Iraq and the Middle East, is probably some way off yet. How far is in part up to us. Since the ever-unfolding disaster remains to no small extent our fault - as citizens of one of the countries that, as Arab League chief Amr Musa put it, opened "the gates of hell", and are holding them open even now - it remains our responsibility to (a) inform ourselves of the realities of the situation we helped to create, and (b) work to end the UK's national complicity.
So to finish, in the interests of consideration (a), here's a few recommended links.
Firstly, from the essential Tomdispatch, Michael Schwartz, Professor of Sociology and Faculty Director of the Undergraduate College of Global Studies at Stony Brook University, who's written some excellent pieces on Iraq at Tom Engelhardt's website, sets out "7 Facts You Might Not Know about the Iraq War".
Secondly, here's an audio link to a radio discussion between veteran activist and expert on US foreign policy Noam Chomsky, and Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post. The difference between the two men's views of what's happening is non-trivial. Ricks sees the US Iraq policy as a disastrous mistake, whilst Chomsky sees it as a crime. But at no point does the discussion approach the sort of tedious slanging match that political debate is so often reduced to. Rather we have a fruitful, informed and productive discussion that will reward both listeners that are new to the topic and those that have been following events closely.
Beyond that, you could do worse than spend 15 minutes each morning reading Juan Cole's daily news summary and expert analysis. Still the best source on the web, in my opinion.
For example, whereas around 1,000 people are thought to have died in Lebanon, Baghdad morgue reports that it took in 1,815 bodies during July. Recall that (a) this is only Baghdad, and (b) the amount of bodies that wind up in the morgue will only represent a fraction of the deaths even in that city. The UK's Royal Institute of International Affairs, aka 'Chatham House', published a report yesterday saying that Iran, not the US, is now the dominant power in Iraq (and indeed the wider Middle East). Notice that this is despite the US having had 130,000+ troops, several billions of dollars worth of hardware and a massive administrative presence occupying Iraq for the last 3 years. Another lesson in the nature and limits of power in the modern world, alongside Israel's humiliation at the hands of Hizbollah.
Its perhaps with the facts described by Chatham House in mind that the US is apparently moving towards dispensing with even its formal commitment to Iraqi democracy (which was always fraudulant in any case). On August 3, it emerged that Britain's outgoing ambassador in Baghdad had warned the Prime Minister in a confidential memo that "the prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy. Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq - a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror - must remain in doubt".
Note the clear distinction the ambassador draws between on the one hand "a stable democracy" and on the other, "the lowered expectation of President Bush".
And then there's this little nugget of info, creeping in at the back-end of an August 17 piece in the New York Times:
"Yet some outside experts who have recently visited the White House said Bush administration officials were beginning to plan for the possibility that Iraq's democratically elected government might not survive.
"'Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy,' said one military affairs expert who received an Iraq briefing at the White House last month and agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity.
"'Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect,' the expert said, ‘but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy.'"
Of course, to fully understand what's happening you have to be prepared to translate from newspeak to English. In the language of western statesmen, "democracy" means a client state that is allowed a degree of internal freedom (well short of actual democracy) because it can ultimately be relied upon to do what it is told. On the other hand, "the lowered expectation of President Bush" is that Iraqis will have to hand back what meagre freedoms they have wrestled from the occupiers since Saddam's fall, in order to ensure that their country turns out to be an obedient servant of Washington in the long-term.
These differing modes of neo-colonialism, deployed variously depending on individual and contemporaneous circumstances, will be familiar to anyone with some knowledge of US policy in 20th century Latin America, for example.
Its tempting, when following the slow-grind horror story of day-to-day news from Iraq, to come to the conclusion that at least the bottom has been reached. Sadly, I doubt that that's true. The much-heralded yet elusive turning-point, in Iraq and the Middle East, is probably some way off yet. How far is in part up to us. Since the ever-unfolding disaster remains to no small extent our fault - as citizens of one of the countries that, as Arab League chief Amr Musa put it, opened "the gates of hell", and are holding them open even now - it remains our responsibility to (a) inform ourselves of the realities of the situation we helped to create, and (b) work to end the UK's national complicity.
So to finish, in the interests of consideration (a), here's a few recommended links.
Firstly, from the essential Tomdispatch, Michael Schwartz, Professor of Sociology and Faculty Director of the Undergraduate College of Global Studies at Stony Brook University, who's written some excellent pieces on Iraq at Tom Engelhardt's website, sets out "7 Facts You Might Not Know about the Iraq War".
Secondly, here's an audio link to a radio discussion between veteran activist and expert on US foreign policy Noam Chomsky, and Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post. The difference between the two men's views of what's happening is non-trivial. Ricks sees the US Iraq policy as a disastrous mistake, whilst Chomsky sees it as a crime. But at no point does the discussion approach the sort of tedious slanging match that political debate is so often reduced to. Rather we have a fruitful, informed and productive discussion that will reward both listeners that are new to the topic and those that have been following events closely.
Beyond that, you could do worse than spend 15 minutes each morning reading Juan Cole's daily news summary and expert analysis. Still the best source on the web, in my opinion.
posted by David Wearing at 3:02 PM
1 Comments:
Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception. -- Mark Twain, "The Mysterious Stranger" (1910)
Post a Comment
<< Home