From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Thu Apr 03 2003 - 05:12:33 MST
I wrote:
> Here I would challenge your assertion that our current actions
> have nothing to do with liberation beyond rhetoric. Iraq is currently
> ruled by a brutal, despotic regime (a point I hope all of us on this
> list might agree).
To which Samantha responded:
"That we agree on this does not mean that liberation of the Iraqi
people is the primary motivation for our action or even a very
significant one."
As I subsequently pointed out, I am under no illusion that it is our primary
motivation for moving against Saddam Hussein. It need not be. Our primary
motivation in defending Syngman Rhee's regime in Korea was not the liberation
of the South Korean people. If the end result is still the liberation of the
Iraqi people from Hussein, that is something to be celebrated.
Though our actions are being taken primarily out of
> our own self-interest, the Iraqi people will benefit from the removal of
> that barbaric thug Hussein. As I have said many times, it would be
> foolish for anyone to suggest that just because our actions are not
> based on altruism, that the end results which follow them would then be
> devoid of merit. Unless of course you believe that the removal of Saddam
> Hussein and his regime would not somehow positively impact the lives of
> the Iraqi people. If that is indeed the case, then I would respectfully
> ask that you elaborate on why you feel that removing that butcher would
> not directly benefit in the long term that beleagured people.
>
"At this point I see no way of being sure that the proposed 23
ministries headed by Americans with Iraqis as only advisors will
appear to the Iraqi people or to the world as a net gain any
time soon."
I would respectfully suggest that the outlook of post-Hussein Iraq is still
to be determined. Despite the heated rhetoric on all sides (yes, including
our government), I do not believe we will proceed in helping to administer
that nation without there being a significant role for the United Nations. I
must take issue with your contention that even a US led Iraq as compared to
the continued rule of Saddam Hussein would not be "a net gain" to the Iraqis
or the world. As I have stressed many times, the Soviet Union is gone, and
the United States is now in a position to fully embrace the growth of
democracy throughout the world, rather than having to settle for "the
(significantly) lesser of two evils" in many cases. Whoever is chosen to lead
Iraq by the United States and the coalition will be far better for Iraq than
Saddam Hussein, just as in the cases of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and
Shigeru Yoshida in Japan.
"There is likely to be a lot of strife and violence
in imposing and maintaining this occupation."
This remains to be seen and is not a given, especially in the sense that the
form of occupation and governance has not yet been determined. However there
is certain to be a lessening of arbitrary torture and mass killings within
Iraq.
"Iraqis sometimes say that any other than a very strong and domineering
leader
would not work in Iraq. I hope they are wrong."
The Russians have always said this about their country, as have many Chinese.
I would suggest it was a sentiment many English shared in the Middle Ages and
after. However, old stereotypes and superstitions are not valid
justifications for the continued allowance of brutal despotism.
"A large part of the beleaguring of the people is, or is
perceived as, the doings of ourselves and the British
especially, and the UN more generally. There is some level of
veracity to this view. The people would be most un-beleagured
by getting the control of their country back without sanctions
and continuous bombardment and interference. I don't know at
this point how far we are from that. Noone does."
That is obviously a question that will remain forever unanswered. I am
comfortable with that, however, given the brutality with which Hussein put
down the uprisings in 1991. The Iraqis will be given the chance for a better
life and the opportunity to choose their own destiny, options that never
would have come under the Husseins.
> Not by itself, no, it is not. But when one's argument is based in large
> part, as some have done, on unending criticism of the United States,
> then the record of the US needs to be fully analyzed and understood in
> historical perspective to refute such an argument.
>
"The wrongs of the US that are directly pertinent to the current
situation are still directly pertinent no matter how many rights
the US has also accomplished."
Then I would simply ask that you elaborate on what US "wrongs" you feel are
directly pertinent to this situation, so that this point might be properly
discussed or debated.
> I would respectfully disagree. Perhaps this is not an apt description of
> your point of view, nor was I referring to you specifically in that
> paragraph, but I have had debates on this forum where people opposed to
> this action have acknowledged they would like to see the United States
> "humbled" due to their preeminent position in the world.
>
"I would like to see the US "humbled" from the unabashed
arrogance of presuming the right to attack any country at any
time, even preemptively, if they feel at all threatened."
Then it is your assertion that the United States must wait to be attacked, as
it was on September 11th, before dealing with potential threats and hostile
entities? I believe you and I would agree that this is the crux of the matter
and our debate. Simply put, many Americans, not least of which the current
administration, are prepared to play such a deadly waiting game. At the risk
of expanding this into a truly long and involved conversation, I would be
curious to know if you believe that this war against Hussein's regime will
lead to terrorist attacks. I would then be curious to know if you believe
there would have been future terrorist attacks against the United States had
there been no war in Iraq.
If the answer to either question is yes, then what do you propose the United
States do regarding terrorists in the Middle East and abroad if removing
unstable terrorist supporting regimes such as Hussein and the Taliban is not
the answer? Surely the key is enabling the peoples of that region to achieve
a better life, where prosperity is the chief concern, not Zionist
conspiracies.
"I don't say *we* here because this is no part of this American's
understanding of what this country is supposed to be about. I
would like us "humbled" from the notion that we should and must
insure that no other country or group of countries ever becomes
as economically, politically and/or militarily as strong as we."
How does one accomplish such a thing that you envision without the use of
coercion or force? Were it not the United States in a position of primacy,
then another country would simply fill the vacuum with potentially more
disastrous consequences for the world.
"This also is in my mind an exceedingly un-American way of
conducting international affairs."
I would have to be privy to your definition of an "American way" of
conducting international affairs to comment.
>
> This, I would respectfully argue, is an oversimplification on your part.
> The United States is not "remolding the world" in our image, or "to our
> liking" or we would be installing democracies in countries currently
> ruled by totalitarian thugs that have not sought weapons of mass
> destruction like Laos, Vietnam, and sadly more African nations then I
> would care to mention.
"Give us time. There are two ways of domination. One is by
rearranging governments wholesale to our liking or control. The
other is by undercutting governments so that they cannot gainsay
us too effectively."
Again, I must offer, as I did with Damien Sullivan, that this is merely
conjecture on your part against an administration that I think it fair to say
you have held in low esteem since most likely January 20, 2001.
> The United States is acting in its defensive
> self-interests against a regime that has actively sought weapons of mass
> destruction, in the recent past invaded its neighbor, and shown a
> decidedly anti-U.S. fervor.
"Hell, if I was in a country that had endured what Iraq had
endured I would have anti-US fervor. I don't see how we can get
anywhere at all without admitting that a lot of Mid-East nations
have considerable reason to distrust and even hate us. Without
seeing that we are acting from fantasy land."
By the same token I would suggest that if the peoples of the Middle East
don't admit to themselves that they are as much to blame, if not more so, for
their own problems as the Americans and Israelis, they will continue to live
in an impoverished and cruel fantasy land.
>If Saddam Hussein truly possessed no threat
> to anyone, then why would a body with as many divergent interests such
> as the UN have supported any resolutions on disarmament, let alone see
> the need to ferry weapons inspectors in and out of the country for more
> than a decade?
>
"Because it was part of Iraqi War 1 agreements that he disarm and
because the case was imho over-inflated of the danger he
represented. Any attempt to reevaluate the situation over the
years was vetoed principally by us. We largely control the
Security Council. As much disagreement as recently was the case
is the exception."
I would respectfully suggest that you give United States historical influence
in the United Nations far too much credit. To suggest we "control" the
Security Council is certainly not accurate.
"Why is there so much disagreement with this
invasion if it is crystal clear it is the right thing to do and
that Saddam is still, after 12 years of sanctions, a huge
military defeat, years of inspections, continuous patrolling and
bombardment of the no-fly zones unilaterally imposed by us and
the British, a great and present threat? Why on earth would any
sane person believe he is much of a threat after all that? I
really don't understand it."
I do not think it helpful that you imply that those who come to the
conclusion that Saddam Hussein and his regime are a threat are "insane".
People could just as easily question your sanity for believing diplomatic
solutions work with such tyrants as Hitler, Hussein, and Kim, despite
overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary. But, regardless of whether
or not you feel it justified, Hussein is going to be out of power. To rehash
arguments such as the merits of this intervention are ultimately
unproductive. Every voice, including those who were opposed to it, should be
focused on demanding and delivering upon the best possible future
administration of Iraq.
"It is not our job or the UN's job to insure every country has
what we or the majority might consider a reasonable leader."
As far as I know, the UN has never accomplished this. The United States
government, on the other hand, has had to bear this responsibility on many
occasions. But you are correct, it is not within the US's abilities or
interests to make sure that every country has a reasonable leader. It is
their responsibility to deal with those they consider a threat, however.
> This is not
> surprising, given their failure to act while genocide occured in
> Cambodia, Rwanda and scores of other locales.
"And their failure to act on our illegal actions in Nicaragua or
to act to stop Israeli actions against Palestine or even to send
inspectors to see for themselves the extent of the latter
problem."
I would ask that you explain under what jurisdiction the US actions in
Nicaragua were illegal. I would also offer that I haven't seen the UN
condemning that thug Arafat, either.
"I certainly won't argue the UN is very effective.
However, that it isn't does not mean we can and should do
whatever we wish or that what we are doing in this case is
justified."
But ultimately whether or not you feel it is justified, Saddam Hussein is
going to be removed sooner rather than later. That at least, you should
celebrate.
"Actually, I think we could support internal movements for change
and not come in until/unless asked by significant representatives of the
Iraqi people and only then if it was also in our interest."
I do concede that I wish there was more of a public face from the Iraqi
National Congress or some other internal group. However, I don't follow the
circumstance in which you believe Saddam Hussein would permit "significant
representatives of the Iraqi people" to protest his regime and ask us to
forcibly remove him. But ultimately, such thoughts are fanciful and
unproductive. Hussein is finished, and the debate should turn toward the best
way to organize the new Iraqi regime.
> In more than
> one thread (such as one on the Shah of Iran), in discussions with me,
> you have consistently criticized the US's support of authoritarian
> regimes in the past. I have countered that the US did not have a choice
> between democracy and authoritarianism, it had choices between
> authoritarianism and worse.
"This is not strictly true but that is another subject."
And I would someday love to debate you on the merits of that position….:)
"I criticize us for acting extra-legally around the world,
frankly as terrorists, to change regimes to our liking. We have
used industrial espionage, economic sabotage, mass incitement to
riot, assasinations and so on for these purposes. Civilized
people must condemn this. I am amazed when I see what I presume
are civilized people excuse such."
Such mass indictments do not help the debate unless you provide specific
examples that you base such accusations upon.
Regards,
Max Plumm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 03 2003 - 05:20:54 MST