Main Forum Archive — LastSuperpower

• Uncomprehending smugness is not an option

Posted by arthur at 2007-03-26 01:47 PM

After four years of advocacy for the Iraq war of the sort that has mobilized people against it, Michael Costello, former Secretary of Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs has written, in the last Weekend Australian newspaper, an article that is only two-thirds unhelpful.

Quitting is not an option is worth studying carefully for insight into the bizarre state of public opinion today.

After spending two thirds of the article elaborating on two themes that have been so deeply uninspiring that opposition to a war launched on those pretexts has become overwhelming, he finally gets to a third theme, the new notion that true security will be achieved only through the spread of democracy.

That notion is so novel (in the sense of Yes Minister) for the foreign policy establishment that it would of course have been absurd to even attempt to launch the war on that basis.

How deep this goes can be seen from the following illuminating paragraph:

I previously had joined the chorus of condemnation of US policy for disbanding Saddam's Sunni-dominated army and excluding the Sunni-dominated Baath party officials from government jobs. But I was wrong. It was necessary to do this at least for the first few years. To have kept things just as before to impose short-term stability would have confirmed in the minds of 80 per cent of the country that nothing had really changed. By disbanding these two Sunni-dominated institutions, it allowed the 80 per cent of the population that was not Sunni to proceed down a democratic path.

Given that the chorus of condemnation is so nearly universal these days I can only assume that Costello is telling the truth. There just doesn't seem much point in saying he accepts that position now if he doesn't, nor in admitting that he didn't understand it before if he did.

So Michael Costello really did support the war for most of the past 4 years without understanding that disbanding the Baath party and army was essential to end the (Sunni Arab) minority domination and enable any possibility of proceeding down a democratic path. He really has only just understood this recently and it hasn't yet shaken his smugness to the point of admitting that he previously didn't have much of a clue what the war he was advocating was actually about. Not even to the point of being able to avoid spending two thirds of his article on arguments for the war that never made any sense, let alone starting to analyse how to recover from the level of public hostility to the war that has been produced by such arguments so far.

Michael Costello really did write all those articles in support of a war that would have confirmed in the minds of 80 per cent of the country that nothing had really changed. Although Iraq is the country he was referring to, the same statement about confirming to 80% that nothing has really changed could be made about the impact of his main themes on public opinion about the war in every other relevant country. His first two themes, which inspire almost nobody outside the foreign policy establishment, presumably were reasons for supporting the war that he not only found convincing four years ago but still imagines are useful today. He still doesn't understand that those themes were presented as reasons mainly because it would have been futile attempting to get people like him to understand his novel third theme four years ago.

It is an inescapable fact that policy makers in the Bush administration did understand that suppressing the Baath party and its armed forces was necessary since that was Order Number 1 when the occupation began. A war based on the two themes that Costello spent 4 years and two thirds of his article on would have been completely pointless. It could not have achieved any plausible objective because it would have lined the occupiers up against 80% of the Iraqi people.

Yet it has taken 4 years for Costello to understand this much, and he is way ahead of most other experts.

Now Michael Costello is nowhere near as stupid as for example Greg Sheridan, foreign editor for The Australian. In fact he writes more intelligently than most.

It is an equally inescapable fact that the level of incomprehension about basic reality is so great among the foreign policy establishment that there was no way that policy makers could risk admitting to such a novel proposition. There was no way to do adequate planning for the war since that would have required telling the planners that they were going to be facing a Sunni insurgency and rabid hostility whipped up by the other autocracies and the realist foreign policy establishment rather than a quick handover to a purged old order without Sadaam. The war had to be launched in a great rush without much preparation because the absurd pretence that it was to enforce Security Council decisions and international law (which Costello still devotes so much of his article to) was rapidly falling apart.

Yes, its positive, and to Michael Costello's credit, that he's one of the first to break from the chorus of condemnation. But we are still in a bizarre situation in which people who cannot even openly say who the enemy is and still have to pretend that regimes like Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are allies rather than targets, imagine that they can mobilize public support for the war while they still haven't figured out what it's about themselves.

• Re: Uncomprehending smugness is not an option

Posted by dalek at 2007-03-26 06:40 PM

Arthur, has it ever occurred to you that because people are no longer quite so in thrall to the concepts of "empire" and "duty" as they were about 30 years ago they no longer whish to obey the whims of every penny ante demagogue who wants them to travel half way across the world and kill each other? Has it ever occurred to you that the campaign against empires that you participated in was outstandingly successful? (Remember when you were an anti-imperialist?) Has it ever occurred to you that the people of the world are (largely) better informed and savvy that ever in preceding history? They are not buying the neocon big lie of "democracy at the point of a gun". The very progress which you tout endlessly has exposed you.

Now you blithely talk of new "targets" that will be introduced to "democracy", you speak of the "weakness" of US imperialism while you urge it on to inflict even more death and destruction on the "Islamofascists" or whatever.

In your desperation you now ascribe the widespread condemnation of the war as a failure of the global PR machine that set it up. To you (apparently) it is all a matter of PR spin.

The fact that you, who once won honour as an anti-imperialist, have now become, in the terms you once used yourself, "a running dog of US Imperialism" seems to escape you. Oh you can justify your servile sycophancy by tryng to explain that the US and its army have turned into a shining beacon of democracy but that does not work. It is a "noble lie".

I once heard you speak of how antithetical imperialism was to democracy! If you guys really believed in your stuff you would call for the re-introduction of the draft and compel your sons and daughters to go and fight for "democracy"- after all is this not the crisis? The last stand against the establishment of a global Caliphate? Get a grip and stop the panic, it's not going to happen. A world of supermarkets, cheap consumer goods and global prosperity will make sure it does not.

All I hear from you is doom and gloom and the need for more killing.

Dalek.

• Re: Uncomprehending smugness is not an option

Posted by keza at 2007-03-26 09:27 PM

Of course it's a good thing that people are less blindly obedient than they used to be. They have good reason for not trusting the USA. That's one cause of the current weakness of those elements of the US ruling class who have tried to switch foreign policy direction.

What you still haven't worked out Dalek is that there's a very real split in this class. Instead of thinking about it and trying to work out what's going on, you've just taken the more reactionary (ruling class) side - and the one supported by most of the popular media to boot.

You haven't presented an argument above - ie a rational case for why current US policy in the Middle East is a continuation of their old one. All you've done is to fling around a few slogans and insults ("running dog of US imperialism", "servile sycophancy"etc). There's just no substance or sequence in what you say, it's just a garbled mess of politically correct jargon.

I read Costello's article and was also struck by the paragraph quoted by Arthur (and on which his whole post was based.) You've said nothing about this. Because of that your whole message is largely irrelevant to the whole topic of the thread. I bet it only took you a minute to write because you didn't stop to think at all. You just had to put your brain on automatic and churn it out. This is the very "blitheness" of which you accused Arthur!

Why not stop and think! You claim to want a better world, to dislike oppression, fascism, poverty - and to support democracy. But you engage in no analysis (except to say that a world of supermarkets and cheap consumer goods will come into existence all by itself and solve everything). However the engine of history operates by driving people to want to change things and the first part of changing anything is to seek understanding by investigating what's going on and trying to make sense of it. That sometimes means switching paradigms (which you would surely know - since you constantly push yourself as a scientifically literate person). In that regard, I recommend that you read this article by Alan Kay (think about what he means when he talks about "postponing quick recognition in favour of slower noticing").

Why do you think Costello wrote that paragraph criticising himself for having "joined the chorus of condemnation of US policy for disbanding Saddam's Sunni-dominated army and excluding the Sunni-dominated Baath party officials from government jobs."? Your "quick noticing" approach is to just say that he's some sort of running dog for US imperialism so what he says is of no importance. to you. However, like Costello you should be wondering why the US disbanded Saddam's army and excluded the Baath party officials from government jobs.

From your perspective, there's a lot about the conduct of this war which should make no sense. What is your analysis? It's not enough to wave your hand and keep repeating various mantras about "US imperialism", "oil", "conquest", "empire".

You can of course continue to sit on the sidelines with your brain on automatic. But if that's what you want to do, why bother to write here?

• Re: Uncomprehending smugness is not an option

Posted by dalek at 2007-03-27 05:28 PM

Oh I think I have keza,"What you still haven't worked out Dalek is that there's a very real split in this class. Instead of thinking about it and trying to work out what's going on, you've just taken the more reactionary (ruling class) side - and the one supported by most of the popular media to boot."

There is a real split in the ruling class of the US, there have always been splits and schisms, covert warfare and assassinations etc. Sometimes it is over tactics and sometimes over strategy, or just plain power.

It's you who (claim) to not notice what is going on. A few years ago a document called the Program For A New American Century (PNAC) http://www.newamericancentury.org/ was released, this document set forward a radical new program for US imperialism. This is the program that LS clearly supports but it is too gutless to say it does. Why is this?

The answer is simple; If LS were to come out and state its allegience to the program it would have to explain why a whole bunch of people who claim to be Marxists now support the doctrines of the Neo Fascist philosopher Leo Strauss.

You should know that some of the most powerful members of the Bush administration are Straussians, including Cheney. The "plan" for Iraq was entirely cooked up by these creatures.

The plan includes the velvet glove of "democracy". This " democracy" is to be instituted in selected countries at the point of a gun. The plan is failing in Iraq because it is at core a metaphysical one (without a material base). I think basically because the Straussian doctrine was corrupted by the Hayekian tendencies of many Straussians, thus there could be no government run plan for re-construction along the lines of the Marshall plan or Keynsian lines. Reconstruction was to be left to the "free market". Well it certainly has................

Dalek.

BTW I can do without the Alan Kay drivel thanks..

• Re: Uncomprehending smugness is not an option

Posted by keza at 2007-03-28 11:50 PM

Still no analysis dalek. You're just repeating stuff from all round the net about US policy under Bush being driven by a bunch of evil Straussians.

The analysis presented on LastSuperpower all along has been that those who launched the war did so with lies about weapons of mass destruction, an imminent threat from Saddam (etc) and that they deliberately hid their real agenda. We don't resile from that. It's no surprise or revelation to us that these people engaged in manipulation and deceit.

Where we disagree with you is that we argue that their real agenda really was democratization of the Middle East. That was not an agenda that they could have launched a war with so they started the whole thing over weapons of mass destruction.

We've never argued that these people are "good" or "virtuous" or "honest" but only that they understood that a democratic and modern Middle East was a strategic necessity for the USA. We supported them over those who preferred to leave that region as it was.

You on the other hand took the other view and supported those who wanted to leave that region to stagnate and fester.

Of course you'll deny that. But so far you've provided no contrary analysis based on anything in the real world. (It's not sufficient to simply wave your hand and come up with an impossible utopian proposal for what should have happened.)

• Re: Uncomprehending smugness is not an option

Posted by kerrb at 2007-03-29 05:08 AM

dalek:

I can do without the Alan Kay drivel thanks..

Amazing that someone who promotes themself as working at the technological cutting edge would describe Alan Kay's work as drivel. Uncomprehending smugness is an option for daleks

_________________________
Bill Kerr

• Re: Uncomprehending smugness is not an option

Posted by arthur at 2007-03-29 12:24 PM

Its worth emphasizing that "deliberately hid their real agenda" went far beyond war propaganda directed at the general public via "opinion leaders".

Its pretty clear that policy makers weren't even able to discuss it with those at top levels of the chain of command for implementation.

I think this extract from Bob Woodward's State of Denial is a plausible account of the "grand strategy" behind invading Iraq as at December 2001:

"...Overall, the report concluded, the United States was likely in for a two-generation battle with radical Islam.

'The general analysis was that Egypt and Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers came from, were the key, but the problems there are intractable. Iran is more important, where they were confident and successful in setting up a radical government.' But Iran was similarly difficult to envision dealing with, he said.
"But Saddam Hussein was different, weaker, more vulnerable. DeMuth said they had concluded that 'Baathism is an Arab form of fascism transplanted to Iraq'...
"'We concluded that a confrontation with Saddam was inevitable. He was a gathering threat -- the most menacing, active and unavoidable threat. We agreed that Saddam would have to leave the scene before the problem would be addressed.' That was the only way to transform the region."

I'd love to see the actual 7 page report but that account of the thinking of people preparing that report (like Reul Marc Gerecht and Fouad Ajami) makes sense to me - as filtered through two layers of incomprehension (DeMuth and Woodward).

If you know the key is Egypt and Saudi Arabia then you also know that it is the stagnant autocracies that breed jihadism and you also know that democracy, which the US had been bitterly fighting for decades, was the only solution.

There are no competent experts the US government could consult about why New York had just been attacked or what to do about it, who would not end up reaching the same conclusion. There probably aren't even any completely incompetent dribbling idiots who actually believe what they have to say about friendship with the House of Saud. Nor could there be many who don't know that US policy in Iran had been a disaster from the overthrow of Mossadegh onwards.

As for Egypt, there are probably lots of foreign policy experts who actually believe what they say about the Egyptian regime being a successful example of a "moderate Arab ally" serving US interests, which should not be disposed of, who don't actually dribble while they are saying it and are generally regarded as "sound". Even more would say that about Jordan and you cannot tell them they are idiots without telling Jordan that its on the target list too.

If you cannot do anything about Egypt and Saudi Arabia (let alone Iran) without first dealing with Iraq, then you basically have to present an incoherent declaratory policy. So you get things like the "Axis of Evil" including only Iraq and Iran (with North Korea thrown in to make 3 and keep the focus on WMDs rather than region change).

Only total fantasists would imagine that the US could, in the 21st century , hope to setup a puppet regime in Iraq, let alone Egypt or Iran. So all the "sound" foreign policy experts gave solemn warnings that they had grave reservations about the US invading Iraq. They could not even imagine the US strategic goal might not be pro-American regimes but democracies since the latter implies anti-American and islamist regimes and blocking that had been central to the US foreign policy they were so expert at.

The only way the swamp that breeds jihadi attacks can be drained is via democracy and therefore via anti-American and islamist regimes. But saying so would mean spelling out that you are at war with Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well as Iran. It would also mean spelling out that the game is over for Israeli rule over the Palestinians since that depends entirely on Israel's neighbours being stagnant autocracies and could not hope to continue in a modern, democratic Middle East.

Its one thing to convince policy makers that previous policies have blown up in their faces (especially when the explosion is as spectacular as 9/11). That doesn't imply the policy makers can tell their subordinates, let alone the general public that everything they think they know is wrong.

Spelling those things out would have been uniting all forces that can be united against the invasion.

So you get leaked cover stories ranging from a Hashemite monarchy to a "moderate" Baathist general as the intended replacement regime, together with hints that its all going to be very cheap and over quickly.

Although suppressing the Baathists was basic to agreements with the Iraqi opposition and any plausible strategic purpose for the war, the circles who actually knew this at the time were really tiny (and the Iraqis were totally sceptical that the US would actually do it - with even Kanan Makiya writing articles that they had been betrayed when the cover stories took hold).

There's lots of indications that not only Jay Garner, who was supposed to be in charge of civil administration, but also the CENTCOM commander Tommy Franks and the Joint Chiefs simply did not know about the plan to overturn the old order. That implies hardly anyone else involved in implementing the invasion and initial civil administration knew either.

It couldn't be kept secret within some agency that actually has a capacity to do covert operations and keep them secret. The intelligence agencies and CIA in particular were notoriously completely hostile since their job was covert operations against democracy, not for it.

While its easy to disagree with much of Mark Danner's article it's hard to fault most of this:

One can make arguments for a "deep de-Baathification" of Iraq. One can make arguments also for dismantling the Iraqi army. It is hard, though, to make an argument that such steps did not stand in dramatic and irresolvable contradiction to the Pentagon's plan to withdraw all but 30,000 American troops from Iraq within a few months. With no Iraqi army, with all Baath Party members thrown out of the ministries and the agencies of government, with all of Saddam's formidable security forces summarily sacked -- and with all of these forces transformed into sworn enemies of the American occupation -- who precisely was going to keep order in Iraq? And who was going to build that "new and fresh army" that Bremer was talking about?
These questions loom so large and are so obvious that one feels that they must have some answer, even if an unconvincing one. The simple fact is that these two enormously significant steps -- launching a "deep de-Baathification" of the government and dissolving the Iraqi army -- together with Bremer's decision, taken also during his first days, to downgrade to that of a figurehead the status of the group of Iraqi politicians known as the Iraqi Governing Council, transformed what had been the Pentagon's plan for a quick victory and quick departure into a long-running and open-ended occupation that would perforce involve the establishment of a new Iraqi army.

These questions loom so large and are so obvious that there was no way people doing detailed planning for the invasion could be told without it becoming public that this was going to be a long expensive war about region change rather than a quick handover to the old order without Sadaam.

Equally obviously neither the Pentagon nor anybody else could do much meaningful planning for after the invasion when they weren't told what the war was actually about. So there was bound to be confusion and stuff ups and equally certain to be massive public disillusionment.

I doubt that anyone who knew what was intended expected it to get as messy it has. But for anyone who does understand that a long term solution to jihadi terrorism requires draining the swamps of autocracy the mess only confirms how urgent that task is.

• Re: Uncomprehending smugness is not an option

Posted by dalek at 2007-03-29 03:36 PM

Any-one who promotes a scheme to give a laptop to each of the 1.5 million children who die from drinking polluted water in Africa is drivelling idiot in my view.

Dalek

• Re: Uncomprehending smugness is not an option

Posted by dalek at 2007-03-29 03:54 PM

The only real evidence in LS is for the "secret" US plan to bring democracy to the world comes from some failed CIA apparatchick and the desperate attempts to climb in under Chomsky's caftan. The rest is wild supposition and talk of dark conspiracy, big lies and most recently the need to dupe the US military. Talk about post hoc rationalisations. Perhaps you don't remember but one of the big rationales for the invasion of Vietnam was to "bring democracy" to the place. We all know that was bullshit.

I have made no "impossible utopian proposals", I simply believe that democracy has to be founded upon a real material base, not some hand waving promise of "freedom" without the recognition of necessity.

The stagnation you have brought to Iraq is the stagnation of the grave, well done.

Dalek.

• Re: Uncomprehending smugness is not an option

Posted by byork at 2007-03-29 05:41 PM

Stripped of his 'Marxist' terminology (eg, "real material base"), dalek is no different than the worse reactionaries who would have kept the fascist regime in power. This is evident in his claim that those who support the regime change/democratic revolution failed to recognize necessity (he says: "I simply believe that democracy has to be founded upon a real material base, not some hand waving promise of "freedom" without the recognition of necessity"). According to him, there was no necessity involved in the overthrow of the old regime. This is despicable and as bad as it gets.

Barry

• Re: Uncomprehending smugness is not an option

Posted by dalek at 2007-03-29 05:58 PM

Barry, The phrasee "freedom is the recognition of necessity" comes from Engels (Anti Duhring). I put it in to trap you supposed Marxists. Bingo!

• Re: Uncomprehending smugness is not an option

Posted by dalek at 2007-03-29 06:50 PM

My reference to "Freedom is the recognition of necessity "(Engels) of course referred to the neccesity to provide a material productive base for democracy. A necessity that seems to have escaped the neo-cons and LS. Without this base there can be no freedom. Fundamentally that's why Capitalism is better than feudalism, Capitalism was/is founded upon the production of goods and services beyond the bare necessities of life. That these things are not shared equally is another question.

The program for democracy in Iraq has no economic program at all, the sad little re-construction and aid programs that you praise to the sky don't even begin to answer the needs of the people. Instead you praise the US for storming in, destroying infrastructure, killing lots and lots of people and then leaving them starved of food, goods, services, water etc.

Oh that's right it is all the fault of the Jihadists, bad guys, Islamofascists etc. That there never was a plan, never was a program for the people of Iraq to get in behind is forgotten. I'm afraid that the bad guys have instituted their plan and all you can do is run about and wave your hands.

Dalek.

• Re: Uncomprehending smugness is not an option

Posted by byork at 2007-03-29 06:53 PM

dalek, the overthrow of the old regime was an act based on the recognition of necessity and therefore liberating. It has been set back by those who opposed the liberation in the first place (and who resort to terroristic violence) and by the awful sectarian violence.

That you can see any kind of "trap" in your use of Engels' phrase is, well, just sad.

Your use of "bingo!" merely confirms the accuracy of the thread's title: "Uncomprehending smugness".

Barry

• Re: Uncomprehending smugness is not an option

Posted by dalek at 2007-03-29 10:02 PM

Barry, I am reposting earlier post in response to your reply, they seemed to have crossed over in cyberspace

My reference to "Freedom is the recognition of necessity "(Engels) of course referred to the neccesity to provide a material productive base for democracy. A necessity that seems to have escaped the neo-cons and LS. Without this base there can be no freedom. Fundamentally that's why Capitalism is better than feudalism, Capitalism was/is founded upon the production of goods and services beyond the bare necessities of life. That these things are not shared equally is another question.

The program for democracy in Iraq has no economic program at all, the sad little re-construction and aid programs that you praise to the sky don't even begin to answer the needs of the people. Instead you praise the US for storming in, destroying infrastructure, killing lots and lots of people and then leaving them starved of food, goods, services, water etc.

Oh that's right it is all the fault of the Jihadists, bad guys, Islamofascists etc. That there never was a plan, never was a program for the people of Iraq to get in behind is forgotten. I'm afraid that the bad guys have instituted their plan and all you can do is run about and wave your hands.

There is not a single democratic state in the world that does not have a sound economic base and associated institutions (legal system, so called "civil society" etc). The sounder the base, the better entrenched is the bourgois democratic state and the less it needs to resort to force. During the great depression the bourgois states resorted to more open fascist measures becuase the more beningn institutions of the state were weakened by poverty of the "middle classes" and the increasing militancy of the working class.

In Iraq, the trials and execution of Saddam showed clearly that the legal system is corrupt. (sacking of Judges, killing of defence counsel, presence of Shiite outsiders at the hanging). Even LS muted its triumphalism over the execution. The Iraq economy is basically one of bare subsistence and clearly is unable to support the type of "civil society" that would rein in the excesses of the Judiciaryand the professions in general.

So if you want a bourgois democratic state any-where you have to firstly attend to the provision of jobs and economic developement, you also have to put in place programs that will generate a "civil society" (I don't like the term but you know what I mean). The drive for this is best coming from inside, such as that in Iran for bourgois democratic reforms, for example.

Now you blame every-body but the US for the amazing lack of planning and lack of economic programs in Iraq over the last 3 years!

Dalek.

• Meme: necessity for a material productive base for democracy

Posted by arthur at 2007-03-30 05:40 AM

Barry: I agreed with your earlier comment This is despicable and as bad as it gets.

I don't agree with your later remark that "Uncomprehending smugness is not an option" is an accurate title for discussion of dalek's pathology. I think "uncomprehending smugness" is appropriate to describe people like Michael Costello, but not dalek.

In the 1930s people like us used to call people who cackled about how successful the fascists were at destroying Spanish democracy "hyenas" and "jackals".

That's rather mild to describe someone who pretends that it is the US and Iraqi forces rather than the insurgents who have not only been destroying Iraq's infrastructure and preventing economic development but are openly out to slaughter not only anyone trying to build any institutions but also as many random civilians as they can. I honestly don't think the Spanish fascists, even when they boasted of their love of death really quite matched the level of medieval atrocities we are seeing in Iraq.

Rather than treating dalek as though he is merely uncomprehending and smug and might therefore be open to reason, lets discuss what to do about the fact that his kind of stuff really is seen as "left" by most people disgusted by it. If he is in fact merely uncomprehending and smug that may have more impact.

Some quick notes on why people would assume he's got some connection with the left.

1. He doesn't openly say "Iraqis (or Arabs or Muslims) are too backward to govern themselves and have to be governed by strong autocrats" like an old style colonialist reactionary. Instead he tosses in phrases like "The Iraq economy is one of bare subsistence" as though two thirds of Iraqis do not live in cities (more than the proportion in France of the mid 1950s) and as though the rest are not part of an exchange economy too.

There's something about phrases like the neccesity to provide a material productive base for democracy.

For some reason it doesn't trigger the reaction "typical reactionary fuckwit" that it used to do when opponents of democracy spouted these phrases to explain their support for colonial rule or vicious neocolonial dictatorships in the third world in previous decades. Instead it triggers the reaction "typical leftist fuckwit". We need to figure out how to get people to recognize it as "typical pseudo leftist fuckwit" instead.

2. He doesn't openly say he believes Iraqis had no right to vote for the government he wants to see brought down by terrorist attacks like a typical European fascist of the 1930s. He just pretends it didn't happen.

Obviously the small sampling of the species that we have here isn't worth the effort of detailed fisking. But when this site does actually get connected to the web and start seriously participating we're going to be inundated with this sort of stuff at a ratio of at least 100 to 1 and probably more like 1000 to 1. (Checkout the posts at most "political" web sites and even mainstream newspapers - there's hardly anyone out there who wouldn't identify the kind of stuff being posted by dalek as "leftist" - whether they agree with it or find it despicable).

So we need to build up a collection of material illustrating and explaining the various pseudo-left memes so we can just point links to previous explanations.

Lets try to identify the various memes in past and future posts so that effort that appears pointless in entering into debate with a dalek can instead be done more cheerfully as part of building a database of memes that can later be cut and pasted into a folder structure when we have one.

For example this post has more or less covered the "necessity for a material productive base for democracy" meme (though of course it would need to be more generic and polished for "production" use).

• Re: Uncomprehending smugness is not an option

Posted by dalek at 2007-04-01 05:36 PM

Arthur, You are in a tizz, don't worry the nice nurse will be around with your medication soon. The abuse I can handle but the (clever) distortions are another thing. I have never said that the Iraq economy is other than an exchage one. Only a blithering idiot would try to say that it is operating above a bare subsistence level.

Yes the bad guys are destroying infrastructure what there is left after the US "shock and awe" bombing campaign (that according to LS never happened). The fact that the US failed to restore the infrastructure and the economy in a timely way is the root cause of the present troubles escapes your myopia. By stuffing around for years with no tangible results the US demonstrated to all Iraqis (and the rest of the world) that the "democracy" program was a superficial bullshit. They basically invited every malcontent, jihadist and religious nutter to take up arms against them and each other. They also made sure there were plenty of arms to go around by allowing unprecedented corruption in the PA.

Interesting that you should draw parrallels with the fascist campaign in Spain. Desperate stuff. Who is flying the Stukas and bombing Guernica in your universe? Not the US planes that wipe out wedding parties and napalm Fallujah etc surely?

Abu Grhaib any-one? And you go on about fascist repression. (Oh you outsource that now - I had forgotten)

Dalek