• Draining the Swamps

YoungMarxist,

In 2005 Pamela Bone published "A matter of princilpe: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq"

I know she is not a contributor here but I point her out to confirm that the humanitarian argument was currency for the pro war left at the time.

Last superpower crashed and I believe the record of discussion from the early days has been lost.

At that time people at this site would do sums for me to prove that less people were dieing as a result of the war than had died under Saddam.

I do believe in the basic honesty of people who contribute here and am confident that someone will soon aknowledge that the humanitarian war idea was something that got a run here in the early days.

Comrades,

Cyberman Youngmarxist seems to be getting at me again for not answering points that are made. I'm not ducking anything but it does get a bit tedious is there is a to and fro on every single point.

Comrade Arthur also takes me to task for "moral posturing" and suggests that I should instead go in for "concrete analysis"

Does "concrete analysis" mean I have to learn to compose sentences like this?

"The problem is that what they are doing isn't what we would like them to be doing in a hypothetical universe in which they were not what they are and the world was not as it is (the universe of liberal and pseudo-leftist discourse), nor what we could be attempting to compel or maneuver them into doing if we had any influence......"

I've just noticed that I should have written Youngmarxist not my own name in the post above. Does anyone have editing right? Thanks Pete

Comrade Arthur,

OK I'll get back right to the topic. Comrade Youngmarxist has used the term "revolutionary war". I'm suggesting that the Americans, who understand the term very well, having fought one themselves, are not thinking in those terms. Where is the evidence that they are? Its all very well to quote Condoleza Rice making making a speech at the American University of Cairo but is that all you've got? President Kennedy used to make marvellous speeches on the subject of democracy and yet the American involvement in Vietnam started off under his presidency in the early 60s. It was a smokescreen. The Americans didn't want democratic elections in Vietnam because they knew who would win.

Its not quite the same in Iraq now. However, the Americans have known from the start, or should have , what Iraqi democracy will be like  from justing looking at how weak Lebanese democracy is. It suits them to have a weak puppet government, and  pseudo-democracy, so that they can manipulate the Parliament for favourable oil laws, for instance.

What do you think would happen if somehow the Iraqi parliament were to flex its muscles and  insist that the Blackwater contractors must stand trial for murder?  Its not just the recent killings last Sunday. They've been getting away, literally, with murder for years.

You call this a revolution?

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

What do you think would happen if somehow the Iraqi parliament were to flex its muscles and insist that the Blackwater contractors must stand trial for murder?

Comrade Youngmarxist,

Its a war of occupation. The US establishment might prefer to use the word 'liberation' but I haven't heard them use the word 'revolution'.

As an occupying force they can do what they like. Do deals with armies, or disband them. Its their choice. They can set up elections if they like, just as they did  in South Vietnam in the 60s. It doesn't matter who wins - its just not a revolution.

Even if everything was going well, and from talking to Americans before the invasion, their expectaion was that Iraq would be like a de-Nazified Germany after WW2, it still would not be a revolution.

Take a look at Lebanese democracy. Its not like you are used to in Australia. Its just a stalemate of ethnic tensions. A stalemate is quite good actually because if it is broken then the alternative is Civil war. Sounds familiar?

The hostility to the Oil laws is because it is widely believed they were drafted by the US establishment, maybe in consultation with the US Oil multinationals!

Call me cynical, but I'd say that there is more chance than Baghdad will have a white Christmas this year than there is of any US national being charged under Iraqi law. There'll be no need for any whinging from US reactionaries.

Even if everything was going well, and from talking to Americans before the invasion, their expectaion was that Iraq would be like a de-Nazified Germany after WW2, it still would not be a revolution.

Well its just a complete misuse, or misunderstanding,  of the English language to refer to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq as a revolution.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary ( is that good enough for you? ) the definition of revolution is: The overthrow or the repudiation of a political system or regime by the governed.

Its news to me that the US establishment who are now the de-facto ruling class , or their army,  were in any way part of the governed in Iraq.

And yes we do want Iraqis to develop their oil wealth , we do want them to have democracy but the idea that it can be imposed at gun point by an imperialist power is just a nonsense. You can see that for yourself now - you don't need to wait for the verdict of history. All the other Marxists in the world can see this argument as plain as day, and have done from day one. Why can't you?

The history of the Middle East is one of intervention by foreign powers. Boundaries have been drawn with no references to the wishes of the people who live there. That the region contains most of the worlds oil , of course, has attracted that intervention, which has led to the present day problematic state of the region. Can you seriously think that even more intervention can fix it?

YoungMarxist

I think it is wrong to claim the disbanding of the Iraqi army as a revolutionary measure.

The plan was to keep the army intact.

The expectation was that some units would crossover and some would sit tight in their barracks.

This turned out to be wrong hardly anyone crossed over or stayed put.

Here I agree with Rumsfield, Bremer and Slocombe when they say that they didnt disband the army it disbanded itself.

There was a bit of disgruntelment when the US broke promises by refusing to pay wages and pensions. Ex army people held a demonstration about broken promises they even threw some rocks but the US army solved this by firing into the crowd killing a couple and presto no more demonstrations.

I think to say, keep the army = conservative/ disband the army = revolutionary is just a misread of what happened.

If the largely conscript arm has gone home then Bremer only acknowledged reality.

I know you like me to put in links but this stuff is so well known that if you need to verify it just google disbanding the Iraqi army.

And yes we do want Iraqis to develop their oil wealth,

 we do want them to have democracy but the idea that it can be imposed at gun point by an imperialist power is just a nonsense. You can see that for yourself now - you don't need to wait for the verdict of history. All the other Marxists in the world can see this argument as plain as day, and have done from day one. Why can't you?

....the imposition of bourgeious democracy on post WW-II Germany and Japan, both fascist states during the war, was not a bourgeious revolution at all.

No it wasn't in either case. That's just the English language for you I'm afraid. A revolution has to be the overthrow of the ruling class by the governed class. Its the same in French and probably any other language you'd care to mention, though.

Leaving that aside, I do seem to have sensed that you feel fascism is a separate state of society in addition to the usual ones of feudalism, capitalism, socialism etc. The usual Marxist interpretaion of fascism is that it is a degenerate form of capitalism.

Capitalism with the democratic veneer removed is how I've often heard it described. I'm not sure that is exactly right. The working class have always pushed against the boundaries of capitalism and much of the democratic system in western countries is a result of direct action by working people. However when the capitalist class lose patience with the constraints of democracy and  feel that there is a danger of a workers revolution as they did in Chile in the 70s and Germany in the 30s, the capitalist class will turn to the military or a strong Fascist party to guard against this.  

YoungMarxist heres a link

http://washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63423-2003Nov19?language=printer

YoungMarxist heres another (I dont get how my posts are worthless without links while your last 2 posts didnt have links)

http://neoneocon.com/2007/09/06/they-aint-marching-anymore-disbanding-the-iraqi-army/

The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe, a former undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed strongly in the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect to be paid a continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer, Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz.

"This is not something that was dreamed up by somebody at the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was discussed," Slocombe said. "The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do this."

Slocombe recalled discussing the issue with Wolfowitz on May 8 and with Feith several times, including on May 22, the night before Bremer issued the formal order. Trying to put the army back together at that point, he said, "would've been a practical disaster."

Beyond the practical difficulties of outfitting destroyed military bases, Slocombe said, an announcement that Hussein's Sunni Muslim-dominated army would retain considerable power would have produced "huge problems immediately" among the country's Shiite majority. Some at the Pentagon feared that the army could become an organized opposition to the U.S. military.

Wrong turn at a Postwar Crossroads?
Decision to disband Iraqi Army cost US time and credibility.

I get the picture now

You can claim that they sacked the army as an act of revolution. This included  no link.

But when I claim that the sacking of the army was just an acceptance of the facts on the ground, then I need a link not just of Rumsfeld saying this (as I provided) but I need a link saying that the sacking was not a revolutionay act.

Ok I can play this game please youngmarxist provide a link to your claim that the sacking was a revolutionary act.