• Draining the Swamps

Youngmarxist

 

I agree that you should not have to link to your opinions.

 

When you talk about my link you say "However it doesn't appear to support your case that disbanding the army was not a revolutionary measure"

 

That it wasn't a revolutionary measure is my opinion.

 

The facts that I linked to, were as both articles said, the pre war plan was to keep the army intact.

 

Another fact in the first article was Rumsfeld being quoted saying that the army had disbanded itself.

 

So clearly theres the facts and theres my opinion. In your post dated 2007-09-19  04:10am You are asking me to link to my opinion.

Comrade Arthur,

 

I should say that in Marxist circles it is usual to add the disclaimer "so-called" or to add quotation marks around the term "glorious revolution". For a Marxist to have to resort to using this as an example of how a revolution can be associated with an invading army shows that how thin is your evidence that the invasion of Iraq can in any way be referred to as revolutionary.

 

The English "glorious revolution" of 1688 involved the English Parliament deposing one King, James II, in favour of another,  William III. It would probably be referred to a a coup in today's parlance. The transistion from Feudalism had already been well established by this time, the English Civil war of 1642 bringing an end to the absolute power previously enjoyed by the English monarchy. The English revolution was indeed a transition from Feudalism to bourgeios capitalism and took place during the middle of the 17th century with little or no outside involvement.

 

Of course a revolution can have outside involvement. The Cuban revolutionaries of the 1950s weren't all Cuban. The American revolutionaries of the 18th century weren't all American and had considerable French support but nevertheless the distinguishing feature of all revolutions, and probably even including the "glorious revolution" , is that the driving force comes from within. A revolution is indeed , as the dictionary says, a change brought about by the governed   in a society.

 

Apart from a few key individuals who were hand picked by the Americans , where is your evidence that there was any Iraqi involvement at all in the invasion of 2003? Do you have any evidence that the interim and permanent Iraqi constitutions (2005),  were anything other than what the US intended them to be?

 

Finally, are you saying that there is a small tightly knit core of people in the US establishment who understand exactly what their policy is but they don't even tell their generals? And that this such a well kept secret that there is, of course , nothing at all about it on the internet? OK I see , that is why there is absolutely no evidence at all for this theory but somehow you've figured it all out. Do tell us more. Who's in the know and who isn't?

Cyberman,

I've lost interest in the possibility of diverting you into discussing what's actually happening in the real world instead of carrying on like you would in the "Marxist circles" you go round and round in. Grow up.

Cyberman asks:

 Where is the evidence that they (the Americans) are? (fighting a revolutionary war)

 

youngmarxist replied:

 

1) The fact that they sacked the entire Baathist army, rather than do a deal with it.

2) The fact that 3 national elections have been held, against the will of terrorists who threatened to kill all those who took part.

3) The fact that an Islamist Government, part of a political movement allied to the rulers of Iran, was elected in those elections.

4) The fact that, against all the received wisdom of 60 years of global hegemony, they have caused massive disruption and instability, unlike 1990-1, when they betrayed the Marsh Arabs and made sure that Sadaam was left in power.

5) The hostility of old-school, stability-obsessed hegemonists like Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell to the overthrow of Sadaam.

 

Have been surprised  nobody has taken up ym's post point by point.

 

I would add to his points:

 

6) The fact that they banned the Baath Party and immediately embarked on de-Baathication of the Iraqi education curriculum which they completed in time for the new school year in September 03 - barely 4 months after the fall of the regime. They would have needed to prepare for this before the invasion.

 

7) The fact that they lied to their contacts in the Baath Party before the invasion as to their intentions, then implemented them immediately on taking control.

 

8 ) The fact that they have consistently, from the beginning, facilitated a viable political place for the Sunni Arabs most notably by agreeing/imposing (?) an EU model proportionally representative electoral system rather than a US first-past-post open to gerrymander by the majority interests.

 

9) The fact that they insisted on a unity government including Sunni Arabs after the Jan 05 election over the protests of the Shiite/Kurd majority.

 

10) The fact that they have consistently given the Baath and Sunni non AlQ jihadis a face saving excuse to abandon the insurgency and join democratic process by labelling the enemy as Al Qaeda in Iraq. Which is now bearing fruit,  as can be seen in Anbar, Diyala and Salahuddin provinces. 

 

11) The fact that they have played off the self interests and angsts of all the neighbours with result that the maintenance of the democratic Iraqi constitution protected by an indefinite US military presence has now become the "least bad" solution for all the neighbours, including Iran - now that the US has committed to the big arms deal with Saudi Arabia (which is why they did it).

 

12) The fact that once the PR-based democracy takes hold in Iraq, however imperfect it is in western terms,   Arab minorities in Arab countries will demand the same. Most notably the significant Shiite minority in Saudi Arabia who live on the oil fields and the Shiites in Bahrein who (I think) are the majority, or close to it.  That's how "democracy" will spread.

 

A note re the disbandonment of Iraqi Army: Bremer's argument that it had already disbandoned itself  was clearly nothing more than a debating point in context of internal US domestic politics. If the US had intended to keep the army intact  it would have kept the army intact and that's what Bremer's instructions would have been. There are obvious self-interested reasons for the US to obfuscate the origins of the decision since they are engaged in seducing the non AlQI insurgency to accept the new democratic reality: embrace the political process and make the most of it. 

 

 

guru jane your argument that the USA planned for a democratic transformation of Iraq is most impressive.

 

This makes the events following invasion as so much more repulsive.

 

If as you say the USA planned for democracy then they were responsible for security and the well being of the population.

 

In this they have failed

 

As cholera has now reached Baghdad as Syria has relaxed its borders to allow refugees to escape, as US mercinaries resume their operations after firing into helpless crowds.

 

I stand beside you guru jane in demanding to know why if the USA planned democracy did they not plan for security of the people of Iraq which under international law as the occupying power was their responsibility.

Comrade Gurujane,

If you look back you'll see I did answer the 5 original points. You've added another 7. I wouldn't matter if you added another 70. Even if the Americans and their  army went into every Iraqi workplace, dispossing the owning capitalists and setting up  workers' soviets, even if they changed Iraqi society in all the most progressive ways that you can possibly imagine, it still wouldn't be revolutionary.

I previously pointed this out, but it's an important point and worth repeating:  the meaning of  the word revolution is the overthrow of the ruling class in a society by the ruled class. Even allowing for the possibilty that the ruled class may ask for an element of outside help in their struggle, there is just no way that you can describe the American invasion as revolutionary in any way at all.

This is more than just a sterile or pedantic point of an exact dictionary definition. Its an important political point. The Russian workers revolution of 1917 had to be implemented by the Russian working class. They had to form the structure of the post revolutionary society themselves , forged through the hardship of the revolutionary process. There was just no alternative. Revolution is a process of self-emancipation and you just can't self-emancipate someone else!

 

 

 

Cyberman is ignoring the fact that the majority of Iraqis are part of the democratic revolution that is going on right now. When people dare to vote despite the threat of suicide bombs, when they oppose (in almost unanimous majorities) armed attacks on an elected government, when they take part in that government, elected from a Parliament chosen (as GuruJane points out) by proportional representation - those people are taking part in the bourgeois democratic revolution that is happening right now in Iraq.

Most revolutions have required some sort of outside force or major power shift to create the conditions to kick things off. In the case of Iraq, that was the US invasion.

The US can't create a democratic revolution that isn't there at all, but it can certainly overthrow the fascist who is in it's way, they can choose to get out of the way of democracy for once, and they can provide the armed forces to protect the new state until it can do that for itself.

But the USA won't be dictating to a majority of Iraqis against their will. The reason for this is that there is a democratic revolution going on now, and the people of Iraq are learning about their power. Do you really think the USA could stay in Iraq if a majority of Iraqis decided to actively drive it out?

The whole structure of your argument depends upon the assumption that the USA is the only political actor in Iraq. That, clearly, is not what is actually happening at all.

"But the USA won't be dictating to a majority of Iraqis against their will."

 

Really? I thought you guys were taught that political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.

 

"Do you really think the USA could stay in Iraq if a majority of Iraqis decided to actively drive it out?"

 

A lot of Americans are asking themselves almost exactly that question right now. They could stay, of course, almost indefinitely, but American public opinion is a bit of a problem for the US administration.

 

You are right in a way , there is a revolution going on in Iraq right now, but its a revolution against the American controlled ruling class.

 

PS What do you mean by this? "Most revolutions have required some sort of outside force or major power shift to create the conditions to kick things off."

Which revolutions are you thinking of?

 

Cyberman asks which revolutions were kickstarted or assisted by outside events:

•  US Revolution (against the UK) - French naval power
• French Revolution - example of the US Revolution
• Russian Revolution - WWI and the consequent weakening of the Russian state
• Indian independence - British bled white by WWII and in no position to hold on
• Vietnamese Revolution - French presitige weakened by defeats by Japan in WWII

just off the top of my head.

"But the USA won't be dictating to a majority of Iraqis against their will."

Really? I thought you guys were taught that political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.

Um, that is the point. The USA can't possibly marshal enough armed force to stay in Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people. The US didn't end up being able to dictate to a majority of the Vietnamese people either, even though the USA had guns.

"Do you really think the USA could stay in Iraq if a majority of Iraqis decided to actively drive it out?"

A lot of Americans are asking themselves almost exactly that question right now. They could stay, of course, almost indefinitely, but American public opinion is a bit of a problem for the US administration.

Rubbish. The USA is upset about 3 000 dead soliders. In the Vietnamese war, 3 000 troops were being lost a MONTH at the time of the Tet offensive. There is no way that US popular opinion would tolerate those sorts of losses - which is what you would be seeing if the USA was really trying to stay against the will of the majority and the elected Government.

I've already given you the one about the French helping the US revolutionaries. That's OK,  help when asked for is allowed. I was actually looking for some similar examples of where countries have actually invaded other countries and set up systems that they approved of, like the USA are doing in Iraq now.  You'd have been better quoting the example of the USSR invading Germany and Poland at the end of WW2. They had a bit of a problem with the 'workers states' that they'd set up there. According to Marxist theory there should have been a revolution. Arthur will probably know more about this and be able to give us more details, but as I understand it they discovered, much to their surprise, that at the the exact moment the Red Army were invading, the heroic Polish and German workers were busying themselves overthrowing their bourgoise systems. What a co-incidence! They even found some genuine Polish and German revolutionaries.

Who are the Iraqi revolutionaries?

"Rubbish"

I have to admit that you've got me with that  eloquent line of argument.

I was already aware of the help the French gave the USA in its first revolutionary war, thanks so much Cyberman.

 As to the "Rubbish" comment, perhaps you failed to read the rest of the paragraph:

Rubbish. The USA is upset about 3 000 dead soliders. In the Vietnamese war, 3 000 troops were being lost a MONTH at the time of the Tet offensive. There is no way that US popular opinion would tolerate those sorts of losses - which is what you would be seeing if the USA was really trying to stay against the will of the majority and the elected Government.

Whereas you try to claim that the USA could stay in Iraq "indefinitely" even if it was against the will of the people there. Which is rubbish.

I might not agree with it all, but your draining the swamp theory is certainly quite interesting. You should send a written copy of it all to Cheney and Bush.  I think they might be looking for  a new angle.  They may be paying top dollar, too,  for advisers who can make decent case. Who knows? I'm sure you can do a bit better than the current lot who suggested, or said, the following:

"Simply stated there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of Mass destruction" Dick Cheney 2002

"We do know that Saddam is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon" Ms Rice 2002

"We know where the weapons are. They are in the are around Tikrit and Badhdad and East , West , North and South. Somewhat" Donald Rumsfeld 2003

" I believe that demolishing Saddam Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk" Ken Adelman 2002

"It is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks, I doubt, six months" Donald Rumsfeld 2003

"Iraq will not require sustained aid" Mitch Daniels 2003

"Major Combat operations have ended" George W Bush 2003

"A year from now, I'd be surprised if there is not some grand square in Bagdhad that is named after George W Bush" Richard Perle 2003

"We're dealing with a country that can really finance {not from oil surely ?} its own reconstruction and relatively soon" Paul Wolfowitz. 2003

They do seem to have improved a bit in recent years but there must  still be an opening for knowledgable people who can advise against this sort of blunder:

"I heard somebody say, Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas." George W Bush. Sep 2007.  Whoops!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cyberman, do you teach lessons in how to stand at the sidelines and sneer? I'm not sure why you think a collection of random quotes is a subsitute for an argument, but it's not.

"Cyberman, do you teach lessons in how to stand at the sidelines and sneer? "

Yes at very reasonable rates!

Here's freebie. You don't want to use any old random quote. You need to be a bit more selective and do a few searches on Google. But its well worth it - much better than watching TV. Donald Rumsfeld is just hilarious. -  nearly as funny as Seinfeld!

For example:

"I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started."

More here:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/quotethis/a/rumsfeldquotes.htm

 

Yeah, I've always thought it hilarious that the pseudo-left sneers at Rumsfeld when he tries to lay out his positions. I suppose it was fairly stupid of him to think that the pseudo-left would let him get away with trying to say something more complex than "BusHitler!!!!!111one!".

Of course, there's that classic slogan "Abandon the Iraqis" that you like to support.

 

Must say the post by Cyberman  Cyberman at 2007-09-27 06:50 PM deserves an answer YM. Clearly you have no answers.

Lets see; what is the scorecard for LS

1. Global warming denial - totally dead in the water, LS has given up the argument.
2. Iraq, the mess is all the fault of some-one else eg terrorists (who certainly were not there prior to the invasion by the US). LS has basically stopped discussing Iraq and now balmes every-body else for the killing.
3. One Laptop per Child- Now seems to have subsided into a sort of World Vision feelgood thing where the rich give laptops to the poor starving children, how cute is that.
4. Draining the swamps theory; gone, brutally exposed as nonsense.
5. We will see about the oil, watch for hot denial when the PSA's (if they ever get signed)screw the Iraqi people blind.

Goodnight

 

No, dalek, I don't think a series of random quotes deserves an answer at all.

 If I thought you were here to argue honestly, instead of proudly splashing your reactionary ideas like  calling the Iraqi Government "Quislings" and Noel Pearson an "Uncle Tom" and a "Kapo", I'd bother to answer your 'scorecard'. But you're not worth it.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf

This opinion poll is worth reading and I'm posting up the link , not because it agrees totally with the anti-war movement. It doesn't. According to the poll there was majority support for the forcible removal of Saddam Hussein even though another opinion poll recently put the number of post war deaths at over one million.

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=67

Nevertheless, everyone has to start from the situation at the present time.  These are some conclusions from the poll.

Seven in ten Iraqis want US-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year. An overwhelming majority believes that the US military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing. More broadly, most feel the US is having a predominantly negative influence in Iraq and have little or no confidence in the US military. If the US made a commitment to withdraw, a majority believes that this would strengthen the Iraqi government.

There's nothing about oil in the poll but it does seem that one reason for the majority support for attacks on US troops is due to the belief that the US wants to establish permanent bases in the country.

In a nutshell, I think you can sum up Iraqi public opinion  on the US presence as follows: Thanks, for getting rid of saddam Hussein. We know we have problems, but, please bugger off now, or at least within the next year,  and leave us to sort them out !

Whether they now will or will not , should show whether Bush and Cheney are true to their word about the war not being about oil.