• Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Barry,

 

I think that you might have detected an element of sarcasm in my last posting. Ok You were right. I was taking the piss.

 

So, with a straight face, can I ask if and why you are standing by your theories of 4 -5 years ago? Surely, you must see that, in large part due to US influence and support for Israel,  there is not going to be a viable Palestinian State (ie with the withdrawal of Israeli settlers from the West Bank and a return to '67 borders) any time soon, and that your current position leaves you open to this kind of ridicule?

 

If there were no US support for Israel , I would predict and expect that a settlement would be reached relatively quickly. It is US support for Israel which is fundamentally the problem.

 

The previous two posts show why it is pointless trying to engage in debate with dalek and cyberman. They are unable to argue convincingly against the 'draining of the swamp' analysis and are satisfied to just have a bit of 'sport'.

 

It's not what the site was established for as far as I am concerned (as someone who joined it early on but did not play a part in setting it up).

 

Barry

 

PS - Yes, posted again.

Yes, I do wonder why LS continues to allow Tweedledum and Tweedledee to suck up all the oxygen in the room.

What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think?

"...... and are satisfied to just have a bit of 'sport'. "

Well if the sport were boxing then the referee would be stepping in to stop the contest due to one side being incapable of defending itself. To take another sporting analogy, it wouldn't just be shooting fish in a barrel but shooting the dead fish that had floated to the surface of the barrel.

Maoists , or ex-Maoists have always had a reputation of being detached from reality in their political analysis. The 'draining the swamp' line must run a pretty close second to their support of the Pol Pot regime in a list of political stupidities.

PS Obadiah Shoher? Who's he? This is a sample of what he says: " If living in a Jew-mostly state is so valuable that it is worth fighting for, then it is surely better to have a Jew-only state, and therefore expel the Arabs. "

Well the LS comrades can speak for themselves but I'd categorise him as a fascist and class enemy.

The knock-out blow to the pseudo-left occured long ago: when the Iraqis actually voted en masse in two multi-party competitive elections and the parties in parliament voted to form a government. In both elections, the US administration's preferred choice (Allawi) only received a small percentage of the vote. Ever since then, the pseudos have been punch-drunk and unable to muster any strength at all. Just witness the pathetically small demo's: but, aaah, the glory days of 2003 when hundreds of thousands marched in protest.

 

I've actually had direct experience of the boxing fraternity, in my youth, and there were always punch-drunk old-timers hanging round the ring, spouting about their glory days, oblivious to the fact that their punches had no impact and their arrogant smugness was but a camouflage for their real weakness.

 

Better to keep training than to waste time with them.

 

Barry

 

 

I asked a question several posts ago which seems to have gotten lost in all this juvenalia from the Tweedle siblings, so I'll ask it again in the hopes of turning this thread to a more serious discussion.  I wrote:

"If the realization LS claims the Bush administration came to after 911 about the failure of the previous 80 years of American policy in the middle east is not shared by succeeding administrations, how might this affect the thinking among LS advocates?"

I realize the obvious response to this is to claim that the material changes in Iraq wrought by the Bush administration will have to be accepted by an incoming administration.  Still, I'm not sure that there isn't so much disparity in the view of foreign policy towards the Middle East between the Bush administration and, particularly the likely Obama administration, that any such acceptance will be difficult to obtain.

Another way of asking this question: would LS's view of the pre-surge plans (as advocated by the leadership of the Democratic party) for accelerated withdrawal still hold when a new administration comes into office?  If not, what changes the political, military, and or social circumstances in Iraq might explain this?

In my view, two conditions must exist to allow this draw-down.  One, that the Iraqi military and police become operationally capable of asserting the rule of law and defeating the various insurgent and militia forces arrayed against it; and two, that reconciliation occurs to such an extent that government forces can provide for the security of all Iraqis equally.  Obviously, this isn't the case yet.

Lupin, the short answer is that the US has been an Imperial player since day one. All the administrations will adopt tactics that fit with this strategy.

From the conquest of of the Indian nations, to Mexico and the rape and pillage of the Philippines in the name of "liberation from Spain" through to Vietnam and South America and selected targets in Europe, the US has become the unchallenged imperial global military power.

Iraq is but one more recipient of imperial conquest under the rubric of "liberation". All the US imperial wars have been masked with the song of "liberation". Vietnam and  Iraq being classic examples.

The LS error is to believe that Iraq is any different from all the other previous blood soaked "liberation's".

US administrations of any hue will obey the imperatives for the retention of Imperial power, they have no choice. They will do whatever it takes, including monstrous crimes against humanity, and the devastation of most of the globe. Make no mistake about it.

Dalek.

 

Iyad Allawi. You mean this guy?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/16/1089694568757.html

You should study the psychology of the three card trick. A good dealer can get the mark to pick exactly the wrong card for him, but the right one for the dealer of course.

I believe we may see a similar process played out in this years presidential elections.

Lupin; I had planned to respond to you sooner as this is a very important question but I got distracted, so I apologize.  The short answer is that if policies were reversed then they would meet with failure and would require a further reversal and I don’t mean this as a glib response because I don’t think they will be reversed.

 

 

First, I think people who are following this issue ought to review the thread Paper Tiger on the prowl.  I have and I stand by the thoughts expressed, essentially that there is no logic in going back to the failed policies and very little prospect of it happening.  Withdrawing the troops from Iraq (at a time that would then be just a little early) is only one aspect of the overall policies.   

 

 

The clearest case here is with the ending of the failed war for greater Israel.  It has really failed!  There is no way of avoiding this reality.  The world is not going back to 1967.   Yes there can be more stalling etc but the strategic direction is not going to change.  

 

 

This year is the fortieth anniversary of 1968, and despite all the ups and downs, like the emergence of mass green politics, (as delusional as 1930’s Germany) and a stark raving loony pseudo-left, ‘plucky little Israel’ led by those wonderful Zionists is not going to get more support and U.S. interests have to be thought about by U.S. Presidents. 

 

 

I am reminded that Arthur demonstrated at TPM Café that the core U.S. elite told Johnson when he got them together and asked them in 1967 that there was no prospect of victory and he made the decision to pull out of Vietnam in 1967!  Very few people know that, but then very few people do the required work to know such stuff.  (It’s interesting how small the elite that run the show really are)  But they have to try and run the show and no amount of pretense will work in the long term.    

 

 

John Howard said prior to the last Congressional election that if he were the enemy he would be praying for a Democrat victory.  Barack Obama slapped him down fairly effectively by pointing out that Australia had bugger all troops in Iraq.  Now it appears obvious that if one were an Al Qaeda type one would be praying for Obama to win the Presidency.  But just how bad he will be for the region-wide bourgeois revolution is actually quite debatable.  IMV it’s going to be a swings and merry-go-round proposition.  

 

 

I think that a substance free populist like Obama as President, could do considerable damage, and Iraq could be thrown backwards with a possible descent into civil war if he were to follow through with a precipitous and total withdrawal, but I doubt that he will do it quite so precipitously if elected.  He has to go through a long debate with McCain who will show him up, and in the end he will have to move a little closer towards the Clinton position (once she is out of the way).  Then as President I think he will likely move further in that direction once all the advisors have a go at him.

 

 

The bigger danger to the project was at the last election three years ago.  The Iraqi political forces that are prepared to compromise and hold Iraq together have become much stronger over the last year, and there is another year before the prospect of a bug-out that could not really be delivered in less than a year, looms.  Even that time span will do serious damage to U.S. ruling class interests so who knows what delay might emerge. 

 

 

If Obama has not ‘got it’ in a muscular way, he probability does ‘get it’ in a non muscular way.  Nevertheless reality would mug him as he went along.  The prospect of him being as bad a liberal, as let’s murder the Vietnamese because they want to vote for the communists JF Kennedy, are slim.   He might be a bit weaker than Bush but is still heading in the same direction.  He could for example continue the Bush initiatives and do considerable good in Africa and something more has to be done there urgently.  Given his African ancestry this is a pretty good bet. 

 

 

To want to actively try to implement the old failed policies while the U.S. is on the skids would produce no surprises because these are region wide issues with or without a full on war to worry about.

 

…the failure of the previous 80 years of American policy in the Middle East is that stark

Obama would continue to put pressure on Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc in the direction of more voting and less dictatorship.  This is the world wide trend irrespective of Putin and the Chinese. 

 

The Iraqi government forces have and will continue to become operationally capable of defeating the enemies of all progressives and that requires a united front where; ‘reconciliation occurs to such an extent that government forces can provide for the security of all Iraqis equally.’  It may go bad but I think the prospects for progress are good. 

 

PS.  I bet that Moqtada al Sadr will despite his posturing continue his cease fire.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Patrick said "PS.  I bet that Moqtada al Sadr will despite his posturing continue his cease fire."

That forecast has proven true, as al Sadr has said he would do just that.

Yesterday on NPR Terry Gross interviewed The Independent's Patrick Cockburn, with questions ranging from the British withdrawl from Basra to the impact the continued American presence has on reconciliation in Iraq.  In dismissing concerns that any withdrawal would precipitate greater violence, Mr. Cockburn claimed the expected civil war had largely already occurred, and further claimed that by their presence, the Americans fostered Iraqi dependence on the American military, preventing them from really engaging with one another!

While he admitted the likelihood of increased violence in the wake of a pullout, what was left unsaid speaks volumes: no mention of a popularly elected government still coming to terms with three decades (actually closer to three centuries) of sectarian exploitation, no mention of the Iraqi government at all! Nor of the retreat of al Qaeda, nor of the important role of al Sistani when he falsely claimed al Sadr was the "most popular" Shiite leader in Iraq.

Neglecting to mention these things masks only very slightly the fact that he is making the case not for withdrawal, but for continuing the occupation.  After all, he has pointed out that it is the American presence which prevents "engagement" between al Sadr's milita and it's Sunni counterparts, and the necessary reliance the elected government of Iraq still maintains on the occupiers.

One may reasonably presume the failure to mention any aspect of the Iraqi electoral success is because, in the absence of any American support, the national government would either simply collapse or devolve into another sectarian battleground.  For those who proclaim "imperialism" the basis of their opposition to the war, the viability of the Iraqi government in the absence of Coalition troops will certainly be (and certainly without any great deal of evidence (because its self evident!)) proof of the government's Quisling status.

This to me seems as good an illustration of the argument for immediate withdrawal as I've seen.  It boils down to a policy of accelerating the achievement of the final disposition of Iraq by wholly unleashing it's violent tendencies, in the hope that the violence unleashed this way will prove to flame out quickly, rather than burn slowly and at greater loss.  The resultant damage to Iraqi society and to Anglo-American strategic interests can simply be laid at the feet of those who initiated the war.  The dissolution of an elected government might be seen as at worst, a sad but inevitable case of collateral damage, or at best as the defeat of yet another American imperial proxy.

Its clear then that a precipitous withdrawal (ie, before Iraq's central government can maintain security) signals an American defeat, and imperialism with it.  It also appears universally agreed upon that the result of this will be an immediate increase in violence and indeed, the resumption of civil war.  The forces between which the future of Iraq will be shared are the Iranian backed Sadrists, and the Saudi backed Sunnis (for whom the inevitable struggle, absent the Coalition, will necessarily throw open the door to al Qaeda).  Is this really the defeat of imperialism?  Militias armed by bordering nations denying any rule of law, each establishing their own rule of force?

Is there any way in which the interests of the Iraqi people are served by such a withdrawal?  It will crush their expressed hopes for national unity, for the rule of law and the establishment of democracy (such as one may expect it to appear there), and betray the responsibility to provide for their security that the Coalition owes them - one which was once often repeated by the pseudo-left when it was ancient books and statues being destroyed by criminals and insurgents, rather than merely people.

This is surely what LS means when it says that anti-Americanism cannot serve as the foundation for the foreign policy of the left.

Patrick was correct in predicting that al Sadr would continue to refrain from violence in Iraq.  Why do those, who consider themselves on the left, advocate policies which would bring about the very violence the Coalition is helping to quell?

Youngmarxist,

 

This is really a continuation of the previous correspondence in the Gaza thread. This title seems more appropriate.

 

Its touching that you still feel that it is worth defending President Bush's efforts, such as they are. The issue of a settlement in Israel/Palestine goes right to the heart of the matter in terms of the whole of the US Middle East policy. As you've previously recognised, the US will only have credibility in the region if it is seen to be impartial and a progressive force rather than an imperial power.

 

So, as a matter of interest,  can I ask how many of the LS comrades, besides yourself, are still prepared to stick by the LS analysis of the last few years?  Patrick, Anita, David Mc, Keza, Barry, Arthur/lupin3 ???   

 

What if nothing much happens before the November election, and  the Bush administration ceases to be? Maybe there will even be a Democratic president next.

 

What will the new policy be then? Will you finally admit that the old one was wrong?