|
|||||||||
Posted April 30, 2003
Regarding "Screw the UN" by Justin Raimondo:
Burnham didn't celebrate bureaucracy in The Managerial Revolution, he deplored it, and claimed the world of managerialism was not one he would have chosen to live in. He simply said, it not only WAS coming, it HAD come. As an historical realist, he saw no reason to believe it would go away. Sixty years later, no one has made it go away.
As for his Trotskyism, he was wrong, he saw he was wrong, and he repented. It is true, as I once remarked to Jim McFadden, that Burnham, in becoming a "conservative," changed the content of his mind without altering its form. He remained, I believe, something of an ideological thinker. But that's another matter.
So far as I can recall, Burnham did not address himself to the subject of individual rights. As a writer and thinker, he was concerned with other matters.
...A man of your intelligence, analytical acumen, and erudition couldn't but see that the flap at the UN is about who disposes of the money from Iraqi oil exports: the neocons or the UN. That is the only issue here, and the answer is a no brainer. Here, the neocons (appropriately named, it would seem) are playing the big con. Unfortunately, it seems to me that your ideological idee fixe about the UN must be shackling your mind, because I don't dare to think that you may be trying to curry favor with the neocons by attacking the UN in this instance.
The sanctions regime (i.e.: Middle Ages siege) that is currently applicable allows Iraq to export all the oil it can, but it can't import certain items, items that are proscribed at the behest of our government. All what the neocons need to do is delist the items necessary for Iraqi needs. But the neocons aren't interested in the Iraqis unless they're animals at the Baghdad zoo (Our military sent a food shipment for the zoo but stopped Save the Children from bringing medicine into Iraq). So, it is the neocons who are the real hypocrites. They (e.g.: P. Wolfowitz) are using arguments (crocodiles' tears) similar to yours for putting pressure on the UN to disregard the conditions that our government imposed (twisted arms) as part of the sanctions resolutions, such as warranting the nonexistence of WMDs (the purported reason why the neocons started the military battle against Iraq). Besides getting their hands on much mulla (quite an islamophobic word, don't you think), the purpose of the neocons in requesting the abolition of sanctions (without admitting that Iraq posses no WMDs) is to subvert Europe, humiliate Russia, and destroy international institutions, which is the same purpose for which the neocons went to the UN in the first place before they sent our forces to conquer Iraq.
...Fortunately, the French and the Russian governments' present positions re the sanctions seem to indicate that they understand quite well the war that the neocons are waging inside the UN and the world at large. I wonder how long they can stand the pressure before being co-opted.
I think you fail to see the delicious irony of the UN's position. Iraq – whoever runs it – is required, by various UN resolutions that the US voted for and used as pretext for war, to prove to UN inspectors that there are no significant quantities of "weapons of mass destruction" in the country. China, Russia and France have known since the mid-1990s that there are no WMD's in Iraq and have been trying to get Iraq off the hook, while being blocked by the US. Now all the US has to do is show to the UN inspectors that there is no WMD in Iraq, and the problem is solved. But at the same time, the US wants to show that there IS WMD, so it can claim justification for the war. Without the UN approval, the US can't sell it's Iraqi oil on the world market, and has to go through the UN's oil-for food program. Har har har!
Erm, Justin, about the "hypocrisy" of the EU. Normally, I wouldn't argue with you there. Europeans (myself included) like to indulge in moral high-handedness a bit too often. All from the comfort of our armchair, of course. No need to get those hands dirty.
But this time, I'd like to add some reservations to your condemnation of the EU.
You see, ironic though it is, the UN "Oil for Food" program (which is part of the sanctions) is about the only way to get food to the Iraqi people for the moment. There is no central authority, no national bank, no government, no method of distribution, no law enforcement in Iraq. Hence, there is no authority that can purchase, distribute and safely deliver food, except for the occupation forces. Since Bush has not put aside enough money for postwar reconstruction and aid, and the US Army seems to be there to protect the Oil Ministry and oil fields, the Iraqis are practically left to starve. Funds from the Oil for Food program would enable food and medicine to reach the people. That way, I think it is a good idea to at least leave that part of the sanctions in place until there's a decent, working system in Iraq. Then, by all means, we should abolish the sanctions and leave Iraq to the Iraqis.
Am I saying that this is why the EU is complaining about lifting the sanctions? No. I'm afraid you may be right in thinking it's a sorry way of getting even with the empire. The sad fact is, though, that a part of those sanctions is the only guaranteed way of keeping the people in Iraq alive for the moment.
Keep up the great work, love those articles!
I would like to comment on the supposed hypocrisy of the Europeans and the soullessness of their attitude towards "immediate lifting of sanctions". Suspension of sanctions in effect means they are for all purpose lifted and the Iraqi people will be provided with food and medicine, so there should be no debate on humanitarian grounds. Do you really think the Europeans are intent on continuing to starve the Iraqis ? Of all people Justin you should be wary of the usual propaganda.
The difference between "suspension" and "immediate lifting" means that the legal process follows its course and that "formal" termination is concluded when the UN inspectors have finished their job and given an honest appraisal of the state of disarmament of WMD. Immediate lifting means the due process (I thought Americans loved this stuff) is not concluded to the very end.
Lifting legally sanctions now would endorse the fact the US is conducting WMD inspections by itself without impartial supervision. Let's not forget WMD was the main motivation for this destructive war and we should avoid tainting it by doubts on the veracity of the existence of WMD, should there be any.
So please, Justin, let's avoid screwing the UN, it is far from perfect but it's the closest thing we've got to an international legal body. No hard feelings, I appreciate enormously your work.
~ Philippe Chevassut, Paris, France
Casualties
I have spent the last 5 hours trying to find figures on Iraqi war casualties to no avail. Would you have any realistic, unbiased, nonpolitical estimates on Iraqi troop and civilian casualties? Why has it been so difficult for me to find this info?
Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:
No official estimates being offered.
The Iraqi government does not exist, so they are not making any estimates. The Pentagon has stated that they are not performing any body counts, and they are the only ones in a position to conduct such counts.
All estimates being made are compilation of media reports, which are essentially just reports, not verified body counts.
US troops have stated on numerous occasions that they are burying dead Iraqis on the battlefield as they find bodies, but not keeping counts.
Here is a private organization compiling body count ranges based upon news reports. These numbers are civilians only, and I believe that these are probably too low: iraqbodycount.net.
I have seen estimates by the Pentagon of many thousands of Iraqi soldiers killed, but these have been verbal reports by field commanders. As I mentioned before, the Pentagon has stated that they are not planning to provide estimates of body counts.
Two We Can't Forget
There are two people, who in the turmoil of the Middle East, have made a lasting impression. We can't forget them.
There's Ali, the little boy who lost both limbs and was severely burnt by the bombing of Iraq. He symbolizes the horrendous suffering and unspeakable pain that war brings to innocent civilians. It's terrible enough when there is an accident or an earthquake that causes such human misery, but the fact that human beings can without much regret inflict such horror, says a lot about the long, long way we have to go to really become human.
Another person, a young woman named Rachel Corrie, showed us that despite all the negative headlines of today, there are at least a few courageous and dedicated young people who truly care about others at a great personal sacrifice to themselves. Rachel and others like her, give us a little hope that perhaps somewhere in the distant future, if wars and greed don't destroy us first, we can be more than what we are today. And that maybe someday other children will not have to suffer like Ali.
Manipulation 101
Re: all of this blather about the infighting between the neocons in the administration and the State Department (Powell):
Has anyone ever heard of the "good cop, bad cop" routine. They are all on the same page, bet on it.
Regarding "Know Thine Enemy" by Christopher Montgomery:
"...'New' neoconservatism..."
Neo-neoconservatism? I think it would be a great boon to ditch these wacky semantics. My anarchic sensibilities dictate that I couldn't care less about what so-called 'neoconservatism' is, was, or ever shall be. It seems like a term created to separate these modern crackpots from a nonexistent right-wing golden age of yore, but I guess that is another debate.
What I do have – in a strictly empirical sense – is an approximation of what this group of people labeled 'neo-cons' is trying to do right now, and it seems to be more than a cheerleader analogy could cover.
Or maybe not. More likely, there is a tendency to underestimate the profound effect that cheerleaders have on George II. Approval ratings notwithstanding, it seems obvious that George II makes up for his – some may say utilitarian – lack of intellect with an unfortunate lack of will.
When the American people look to George II for a strong response, he does what he has always done – whatever he's told by whoever is most convincing. Remember that George is simple. In his case it is the physical manifestation of the neocon’s zealousness that is by far more impressive than any intellectual or ideological value they possess. The emerging post-9/11 playground politics – stronger + louder = better – suit the neocons perfectly. That they don't have administrative positions is entirely moot so long as they show a little passion, which they do. A realistic ‘economy of effort’ is a disadvantage for groups battling for the president’s attention.
Obviously they didn’t make foreign policy what it is today. Any power that they have is post-9/11 and far from absolute. They are currently in the subordinate – but far from impotent – position of pushing and contriving the more powerful forces around them. The question is: Have they succeeded?
How much did they effect the decision to go to war? It’s really too premature – with a government as tightlipped as this one is – to make a guess. ‘Know thine enemy’ is precisely what we cannot do at this point. Nevertheless, many of the sentiments expressed on Antiwar.com and elsewhere can be applied generally to all forces pushing towards war, and need not be dismissed because they are aimed at a dangerous and outspoken – but at least tangible – incarnation of those forces.
Iraqi Oil
Here in central New York, antiwar groups are discussing the idea that a trust should be established for Iraqi oil revenue, with annual disbursements to all Iraqis. Similar trusts operate in Norway, Alaska, and Colombia, according to The Economist magazine. (In Alaska, a family of four receives around $8,000 a year.)
As I see it, the virtue of such an approach would be that it would strengthen the Iraqi middle class, stimulate their economy, and prevent the formation of an oil-based plutocracy.
~ Robert Mann, Cortland, New York
Regarding "Poor Sean Hannity" by Charley Reese:
While I agree with Charley Reese, it amazes me that any serious person would pay any mind to Mr Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or any other member of so called talk radio – a medium which has evolved into group therapy for a bunch of wackos.
None of these hosts has any real background to give them credibility; they are merely entertainers, the am radio equivalent of Jerry Springer, with the same dysfunctional audience.
I'm sure that Mr. Hannity would not understand the significance of the loss of the National Archives either.
Listening to lunatics is giving them more time than they deserve.