The wind beneath my wings, indeed

The problem with internet debates is they’re rarely real-time. I posted a comment in a debate on Lenin’s Tomb, came back the next day and discovered 80+ responses afterwards. The debate had moved on, and I was left with unfinished business.

In this case it was with Brownie, one of the pro-war types who has mastered the art of argument without too much invective. Which is a compliment, given the flame wars that pass for debate in these parts. So, I’ll continue the thread here.

Back to Iraq

Speaking of the context of the London bombings, I said that Iraq was a probable cause, and that the U.S. has a long, imperialist history in the region. The response:

Point #1

Did you know that in the period 1972-1991, Iraq received more arms from Brazil than it did from the US? The top three suppliers of arms to Iraq were, curiously enough, China, Russia and France.

Apparently there’s some disagreement whether the biological weapons just came from the U.S. To me that’s besides the point. The arms industry is international – former & future enemies sell weapons to each other all the time. China, Russia, France and the U.S. have all sold weapons to Iraq. The question is political. China, Russia & France never invaded or imposed sanctions on Iraq (thought they abided by the latter). The U.S. did. Does it have the moral authority to do so, on the pretext of WMD, when they knowingly aided & abetted Saddam Hussein’s purchase of WMD, and said nothing when he used them? I don’t think so.

“Saddam killed his own people
Just like General Pinochet
And once upon a time both these evil men
Were created by the U.S.A.”
Billy Bragg

Point #2

And given your concern for the Kurds, I assume you backed the illegal no-fly zones enforced and policed by the USAF and RAF?

No. I don’t support imperialist intervention anywhere. The U.S. has killed far more Kurds than it ‘saved’ in northern Iraq, by supplying weapons to Turkey. The no-fly zone has created a Kurdish bourgeois elite, a future bargaining chip friendly to the U.S. Policy alternative: if the U.S. truly valued Kurdish independence, it would stop supporting the suppression of the PKK and other Kurdish liberation movements.

Taking the biscuit, however, is your sincerely held belief that Saddam could be coaxed from Kuwait (the non-democratic status of which you are eager to reference, although the relevance is somewhat lost on me).

Both Iraq wars were in the name of democracy. Bushes I & II said this constantly. How can there be a war for democracy when rescuing a dictatorship? I’m pointing out the hypocrisy in U.S. foreign policy-speak.



Point #3

Have you noticed this pattern of behaviour previously?: megalomaniac annexes another country; uses some vague historical justification; claims they are open to negotiation.

Ahistorical comparisons are not useful. Europe in 1933 is nothing like Iraq in 1990. The social forces are completely different. The ideologies are different. The U.S. didn’t control the terrain Hitler operated on (though its companies were happy to do business with his regime). Unlike in Europe, the U.S. has been set on dominating the middle east for 50 years now – which is why Saddam Hussein was created, supported and eventually deposed.

Point #4

Here's once for the cause and effect file:

US fleet steams towards the Gulf - Saddam claims he is willing to negotiate a withdrawal from Kuwait.

Or how about:

US fleet turns up in the Gulf - Saddam allows UN inspectors to return.

The U.S. government told Hussein he could invade Kuwait with no consequences – I’m afraid I don’t have the reference for that, I’d have to dig in my library. Later they backtracked, and I remember hearing one of the state department apparatchiks say “He thought he could invade Kuwait because he’s stupid!” Actually, he took their word for it, which was probably stupid. Anyhow, he offered a negotiated withdrawal. Bush Sr. was willing to accept it, until Thatcher told him to stand firm and make some political capital. Then the fleet steamed towards the Gulf.

The dark Lord works in mysterious ways

Point #5

Actually, the U.S. massed forces on the Saudi border, in response to a claimed threat from Iraq it knew was false.

Make up your mind, Victor. Either the US knew the threat was empty, or there was no threat at all. A "claimed threat it knew was false" makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense to sell a war. It’s a little shocking to see how pro-wars believe what the U.S. government says, and can’t fathom that they’d lie & kill to achieve their aims.

What we choose to see

These are details – the kind of thing bourgeois political scientists live by, and Marxists tolerate. I can see why pro-war types get frustrated when they want to talk about resolutions and negotiations, and we keep banging on about ‘the big picture’. The problem is that pro-wars don’t mention all the details which make up the big picture. They dismiss the context: U.S. support of Israel, the continued support of brutal, undemocratic regimes in Egypt & Saudi Arabia and, perhaps most importantly, the crushing of democratic movements throughout the world – including Iraq. The U.S. wants democracy on its own terms, or not at all. Result: tin-pot dictators like Saddam Hussein, who eventually get out of line.

Here’s my morality: Hussein killed 10,000 Kurds. Turkey has killed far more. Both had the blessing of the U.S. How can pro-war types turn around and condemn that, when they support the governments who made it happen? How can they then justify the million+ Iraqis killed in response? This is hypocrisy.

If the U.S. could apply its own principles consistently, I would cut it some slack. But to do so, as Chomsky points out, it would have to prosecute most of its own rulers past & present, and allow other countries to bomb it with impunity. This is patently ridiculous. It can’t: it’s the world’s policeman.

Here’s where Marxists draw the political conclusions others are afraid to: that violence is inherent in the capitalist system, and has been since its birth. The political & economic are linked as surely as war & oil revenues. We can’t stop wars with better diplomacy or even better governments (or by starting new wars). We need to destroy the capitalist system that causes wars in the first place.