• Spelling out the "draining the swamps" theory

 YM. I think this item from the "Independent" should open your eyes. These are your mercenaries, you support them, you want them to "win". The civilan protesters they gunned down in one minor incident were probably "islamofascists" so that makes it OK. You must be so proud when you read these reports. Dalek.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article2611720.ece

 Johann Hari: Iraq's mercenaries - with a licence to kill

'These private contractors can get away with murder... They aren't subject to any laws at all'

Published: 04 June 2007

Which shows, dalek, that the US ruling class is bad at conducting a war of liberation, even when it is in their interests to do so.

 What it does not do is provide any back up for the questionable assertions you have made previously:

However the result of the US invasion of Iraq is that the remnant leftists and democrats have been sought out and executed by US mercenaries.

Every single leftist and democrat has been killed by mercenaries? I don't think the article you quote shows that.

And it doesn't even begin to address your other claim that:

The Iraq government has been asking (sotto voce) the US to withdraw its occupation forces since it was first constituted.

You have no alternative policies, you refuse to state who you think is worthy of support (it's not exactly a revolutionary secret you know, if you've heard of them then people far closer to the USA than us know who they are), and when questioned on specifics you have nothing to back up your claims.

I have moved the following series of posts from "Iraq: The good oil" thread as they were somewhat off topic there.

keza
______________________________________

The first is from Patrick:

On September 12, 2001, a US war cabinet began to form and make decisions that would effect the whole western world, and all that were now seen to be enemies of the United States ruling class, as decided by their ruling elite in the administration of George W Bush.  War had been declared on the US and in essence the whole western industrialized world.

Egyptians and Saudi Arabian, and others, born and bred in countries that had been termed allies and 'moderate' Arab regimes attacked the west on a grand scale.  The leaders of the attacks considered implications of war waged back at them for decades, by a technically superior enemy that would inevitably follow.  Yet they chose to launch a vast and protracted war that they who were launching it no doubt did not expect to personally survive.  Only their cause mattered to them.  They are a dedicated enemy that had a confidence having fought over many years and living through the collapse of one Godless, decadent superpower at war with them.  This enemy fearing only God effectively fears nothing and therefore their war seems winnable to them. 

If we were to give up on the ideas of science, modernity, progress, the ideas of the left itself then we too would think their war winnable but we have not given up such thoughts we believe in progress and standing up with the oppressed against the oppressor.  Therefore we stand for democracy.

The enemy has to be strategically taken-on with the clear intent of ultimately defeating and not just endlessly containing it.  It was never the intent of the current US ruling elite to live side-by-side on planet earth with this enemy constantly at war with them.  As with the Nazis in a previous period before I was born, unrelenting war until total victory is recognized as required.

I have got to this point without reference to any oil. 

We are left with the requirment to formulate a policy of making war in a strategic manner such that those war aims would be served.  Obviously the US could not just invade Afghanistan (an absolute requirement from the start) when the Saudi and Egyptian allies were generating the mosquitoes.  Nor could the US invade those countries directly.

Thus we get to the only analysis that is still hanging together after all the others have suffered the inevitable time exposed collapse.  The US set out to drain the swamp BECAUSE THERE WAS NO STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVE.

Now, given that this war was being waged because there had to be a war waged, the only question was where to start draining the swamp, given that the required attack in the mountainous Afghanistan was not sufficient.  Every body who thought about the issue knew that.  Conclusion - give up the project, or look for another front to launch the war simultaneously from.  Iraq was a first choice place from which to shake up the entire region and it has done that in spades.

The region, if not the world in many respects is on the move where once a stagnant fascist swamp looked all powerful. 

It appears to me that people need oil to stop them thinking about how to defeat the enemy that was self evident to elites from all classes when it struck on 9/11.  Unite and fight in a strategic manner was the correct proletarian stand, yet divide and disrupt the war effort (against both the fascists and all the former US policies) was the response from the addled-brained pseudo-left. 

After all these years of straight forward tactical efforts and blunders to expose the ruling elite over, we are still dealing with an issue that makes no sense and never had to get raised by me to know that I was fully supportive of a state of war and a follow up attack on the Iraqi front. 

None of this would  make sense if the US planned to continue supporting the failed war for greater Israel.  So the region change continues with a State of Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital, within borders negotiated with the PLO - and still no oil.

If people lose track of what had to be strategically launched after 9/11 bankrupted the old policies, it's easy to have difficulties as the efforts of the enemy confuse you.  The conservative right-wing elements are almost screaming 'fucking rag-heads let's leave them to it', and the pseudo-left are united in this policy position, and conservatives are united in seeking the implementation of withdrawal policy. 

Take the little effort today, what was it 120 dead and a couple of hundred injured?  Every day there is a little 9/11 and still no unity from the conservative pseudo-left.  Endless repetition of 'aha we were correct after all' - 'no blood for oil' chant, yet with no credible method of the Great Satan ever stealing the oil.

Patrick

This is Steve Owens' response:

Patrick

 

I think you have pushed the comparison between World War Two and the so called war on terror too far.

 

WW2 was an attempt by several industrialised nations to take over the world. In pursuit of this they amassed  militaries and invaded countries.

 

The terrorists in 2001 at best were engauged in criminal activities. They were able to steal 4 planes to use as weapons. The obvious way to stop this type of criminal activity was better police work. Since then these criminals and some want-a-be's have been able to expolde a handful of weapons in the industrialised west. (hardly WW2)

and this is from cyberman:

Comrade Owenss,

Absolutley right! War can only be declared by a nation state not a group of criminals. If a nation state responds by declaring war itself, then it creates an impossible position.  All captured enemy combatants should have POW status, by definition.  There is no-one to negotiate a settlement with , and  the status of criminals has been boosted unnecesarily. In addition, there are more mosquitos in wetter swamps!

Comrade Patrick,

The hi-jackers were from Saudi Arabia so the USA go off to invade Iraq? Well I guess they felt that they had to do something- anything- to save face. 

"None of this would  make sense if the US planned to continue supporting the failed war for greater Israel"
Well we'll see on that one! I'd like to place a bet that nothing much will happen at least until after the next US presidential election. If that one wins I'd play double or quits  for the election after that as well. If there is a 'settlement' what are the odds of the Palestinians getting anything like a good deal?

There is always an alternative. Trust the Americans to choose the worst one! Its hard to know if it really was all about oil. If it was, it is perhaps crediting Bush and co with more foresight that they deserve. It certainly seems that they didn't have the foresight to anticipate the near impossible situation that they've created for themselves.

And here is what dalek wrote:

 

Steve, I only said that there was one policy,


of continuing till victory that is common, nothing more in the last post.  Yet what you read is something else entirely.  The truth is you try your hardest to avoid facing up to your collapsed world view and even a simple comment about what is common to two wars is unable to be understood.


You have to take such a non comprehending position because otherwise discussing the nature of a revolutionary war for the transformation of the Middle East could not be avoided.  Everything with you is the standard old position that there was another alternative (if only). 


Just criminal activity indeed!!


The 'criminals' that you speak of were protected by the government of a country that was not prepared to hand them over to 'your' police.  So what were 'your' police supposed to do with their guns etc?  US police were entirely incapable of doing any police work in Afghanistan and you know it.


That is what wars are all about.  Push came to shove and a test of violence not capable of being described as a police matter level of violence ensured.


You know that you have dodged the issues because you are talking about how to stop people hijacking planes in the future not dealing with the criminals that have organized the 'criminal activity' of 9/11.  You know that the armed forces of the US had to launch a war to defeat Al Qaeda and the Talliban.  But you did not back that war nor did you back the war to liberate Kuwait nor on memory the Falklands war.  You have real form in excusing the activities of fascists and refusing to support war against them.  Yet you think you have some high ground to snipe from despite such an appalling record.


The only analysis that is still standing is that the US war cabinet knew that they were taking a strategic decision to reverse failed US policies and getting behind the democratic revolution (required to fix the problem of Al Qaeda etc) rather than stand against the bourgeois democratic revolution because it leads to communism. 


There is nothing left standing that has any credibility, just the revolting spectacle of sectarian bombers attending to their anti people, anti left task with the pseudo left refusing to support any fight against them (police or anything else).

Hi Pat

 

Yes you are correct I did oppose those wars.

 

When war is proposed I estimate the likely outcome and the likely cost.

 

I then decide if I approve of both.

 

Take the Faulklands war. The likely outcome was restoration of British sovereignty, the cost, several thousand dead.

 

Take Kuwait. Likely outcome restoration of the monarchy, cost, hundreds of thousands dead.

 

Afghanistan. Likely outcome restoration of warlords and druglords to power, cost, tens of thousands dead.

 

Iraq. Likely outcome civil war cost hundreds of thousands dead.

 

As to using police against terrorists rather that the army well I think the results are in. Policing measures have kept terrorism to low levels in the industrialised west. The army went looking for Bin Laden and have so far failed to find him.

This is nonsense, Steve. 

 

Individual terrorist attacks can be prevented by  "policing measures", but the phenomenon can't be defeated this way.  The only solution is to drain the swamps.  The fact that numerous attacks have been foiled by intelligence and policing methods doesn't prove your point. In fact it tells us the opposite.  The sheer number of plots foiled  tells us that these fascists  are actively and continuously endeavouring to engage in mass murder. Sooner or later they will be successful again.

 

(And one thing you fail to mention is the fact that dealing with this stuff by increasing intelligence and surveillance activities both requires and enables the introduction of all sorts or draconian incursions on established civil liberties).

 

Yes, terrorism has been kept at relatively low levels (so far) in the industrialised west.  But the policing methods which have achieved this are a stop-gap method only.  They treat the symptoms and not the cause. 

 

And as you would know, the majority of victims of terrorism are not in the industrialised world anyway.  Deaths from jihadist activity are killing people in their hundreds every week in the swamp itself.  That will continue while the Middle East remains as it is.

 

The only solution is democratic revolution. However its clear from what you say that you regard the price as too high and would prefer these people to have their way in places like Afghanistan and/or be to be kept (partially) in check by the various autocratic and fascist regimes which have created them.

 

Your politics is the politics of appeasement in every case you cited above.  The people engaging in the mass slaughter that we read about every day are the most black hearted reactionaries but you don't want to fight them because they are killers.

 

Better the peace of fascism.

 

Keza Im not so much an appeaser as I am a couldntgiveatossa.

 

See I can support plenty of wars but I couldnt give a toss for British sovereignty over islands in the south atlantic or a toss for the ruling family of Kuwait or the drug barrons of the Northern Alliance and not a toss for many of those currently warming the seats in the Iraqi parliament.

Keza, on of the striking things about the so called "Al Quada" franchise is that it has been so unsuccessful in its stated aims of arousing the Arab masses. Did "Islamofascist" revolution rise up and overthrow the Saudi regime - any other US backed regime - as aresult of 9/11 ? No. Spain?-No.

The UK?- No.

 

What did happen? The US blundered into an Iraq that had nothing at all to do with the 9?11 events and invited every nutbag and wannabe "Al Quada" fantasist to attack it there instead of in the US.

The US invasion provoked more reaction by the Arab masses than 9/11 but this time the reaction was against the US and the "Coalition of the willing". Combine this with the US support of Israel and you have a guaranteed recipe for "deepening the swamps". That is exactly what is happening.

 

Now you and PatrickM have begun to run a fear campaign that is exactly the same as that run by Bush, Howard etc.

Example:

"The fact that numerous attacks have been foiled by intelligence and policing methods doesn't prove your point. In fact it tells us the opposite.  The sheer number of plots foiled  tells us that these fascists  are actively and continuously endeavouring to engage in mass murder. Sooner or later they will be successful again."

You are doing exactly what you accuse the "Pseudo Left" of doing - creating fear of the future, fear of the "other".

Patrickm blathers on about declarations of war by "Al Quada" again creating the fear he condemns in the PL. 

I guess there is a change of line coming up. Like "Well we did not really invade Iraq to install democracy at the point of a gun, we  invaded the place to fight the "Islamofacsist terrorists" that threaten our way of life - something like that. Is that the plan?

Dalek