Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] facism gaining ground in US

[Pierce T . Wetter III]

On Jul 13, 2004, at 4:30 AM, Robin Green wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:50:10PM -0700, Pierce T. Wetter III wrote:
> >  I'm kind of weird in that I think we're at war whenever we send
> > soldiers somewhere to kill people.
>
> I think that's a good definition. However, I disagree with the rest,
> for the reasons which I will elaborate:
>
> > Iraq is really a side issue, its kind of something we had to clean off
> > the table before we dealt with the difficult problem of the lack of
> > democracy in the middle east. We kind of went into Iraq with the hopes
> > of a twofer, that is, we could get rid of Saddam, and have at least 
> > one
> > democratic yet arab country in the region to interact with.
>
> If that's the case, WHY was a system of US-selected appointees 
> selecting
> appointees selecting appointees... etc. ... even put forward and 
> seriously
> CONSIDERED? I'm not talking about the present "interim" Iraqi 
> government (although
> that the current Iraqi president is obviously very beholden to the 
> occupying
> powers)... I'm actually talking about the proposed "democratic system" 
> which
> the US floated as a possibility in the media.
>
> And WHY was this proposal dressed up as "democracy", when it clearly
> was NOTHING of the kind?? Democracy, in this context, means one person 
> one vote.
> For every adult (who is not disqualified by being a felon or similar).
> Anything which gives ordinary people zero votes, is by definition not 
> democracy.
>
> Such anti-democratic proposals, I suggest, can only be put forward by 
> people who:
>
> (a) do not think Iraqis are capable of handling democracy
>
> or
>
> (b) do not WANT Iraqis to have democracy [ ... *nods*, sounds about 
> right]
>
> or
>
> (c) both
>
> Yet, clearly, they want to decieve the American people (and the media 
> colluded in
> this, by misleadingly describing the proposals as "like caucases in US 
> primaries")
> into believing that the US wants democracy in Iraq.

 This is why I tell everyone I know to read Foreign Affairs.

 There are several viewpoints on democracy in Iraq. I'll oversimplify a 
bit
down to 3 here:

 1. Not possible, because they're arabs.
 2. Not yet, install some friendly dictatorship first.
 3. Possible.

 These are the three views that I see debated among the foreign policy
establishment in regards to Iraq. So what you're seeing are trial 
balloons
floated by various people in our policy making apparatus for discussion.

 I find #1 offensive, even though I'm not an arab. I think that all 
people everywhere wish for freedom. However this viewpoint is 
surprisingly widespread.
Even more disconcerting, its widespread among arabs.

 I find #2 tempting, but knowing US history, I see Iraq as much farther 
along
as far as democratic institutions go then the US was in 1776. As near 
as I can tell, Kerry believes this based on a couple of statements he's 
made. I think
that this is the same sort of short-term thinking that drove a lot of 
our
Cold War foreign policy. Now that the Cold War is over, I don't think 
it makes
that much sense. However, changing the State Department's point of view
could take decades.

 I find #3 worth trying. This is very much Bush's view, even though 
several
people in his administration disagree with him. That's what he's said 
over
and over again.

 I think its worth noting that while there aren't any nationwide 
elections
in Iraq, most of the local leadership was elected. They also have a 
very free
press, and there have been a lot of changes in their society that we 
don't
read about here much.

 Here are two Iraqi blogs I like:

 pro US:   http://healingiraq.blogspot.com
 anti US:  http://baghdadburning.blogspot.com

> > > In reality, the Afghanistan involvement probably is a necessary
> > > tribute for gaining a permanent seat in the Security Council.
> >
> >  Having a large enough military to matter, or providing enough foreign
> > aid to matter should be a necessary prerequisite for being on the
> > Security Council, not who won WWII.
>
> Surely you mean the SC permanent members. Because the temporary seats
> are held, at one time or another (they are rotated), by almost all the
> worlds nations. (Maybe you were just rushed. I'll forgive the slight
> inaccuracy.)

  Yeah, I typed permanent the first time, but it got removed in an edit.
> I understand your point that it's easier to vote for a policy if you
> don't have to carry any of the cost, economic or military. However,
> I believe the SC *is* still a "victor's club" and an anachronism. The
> entire UN needs to be reformed and made more democratic. I kind of like
> George Monbiot's proposals in "The Age of Consent".

  I definitely agree with the "victor's club", hence the comment about 
WWII.  The US has made some interesting movements in having a sub-UN 
that is made up of just the democratic nations. It would be interesting 
if that could develop into
a sort of world parliament...

> Ultimately, the bias introduced by small countries who don't contribute
> much, is *far* outweighed by the bias introduced by the vetos, bribery 
> and bullying
> of the US government - the world's biggest gangster. That's why I say
> the UN needs to be more democratic, not more big-power-oriented.

  The real issue is that the UN charter doesn't have a built in way it 
can
be amended. I don't think the US would have gotten as far as we have if
we hadn't been allowed to amend the constitution.

> >  What many US citizens feel is that Europeans have been skimping in
> > these two areas lately. If you don't want to spend the money on guns,
> > fine, we recognize that we have a large military partially for social
> > reasons
>
> "Social reasons"?!? No, *imperial* reasons - but I wouldn't expect you 
> to
> understand that.

 Why not? We have a military for a lot of reasons.

 I am generally skeptical of people who claim we're this evil imperial 
power.
Bottom line, your typical US citizen doesn't care enough about the rest 
of
the world for us to be that imperial. Plus empires aren't worth the 
investment.

 So if you remove the "imperial" as just rhetoric and say that part of
why we have a large military is just so that we can meddle in other
countries, I'd have to agree with you. But its not the only reason.
> Here's a clue: the increased presence of military recruiters on college
> campuses etc. of late is NOT part of a Bush "compassionate 
> conservative"
> programme to help young people by providing them with military jobs!
> (As if!) Nor is it (unless they are extraordinarily ineffective)
> a pointless PR exercise. It's for straight power reasons. Look into the
> PNAC sometime.

  Part of the reason we have a large military is to relieve some social
pressure. If we didn't have the military, we would need to have some 
sort
of national service to provide at least one way that everyone could get
money for college. The military, because they take nearly anyone, serves
as the destination of last resort for many people.

 None of that has anything to do with Bush.

> > , but then you should be spending the equivalent on foreign aid
> > then. You live in the world too.
>
> Gah.
>
> I'm sorry. You're simply WRONG. Europe spends *more* per capita on 
> foreign aid
> than the US. The US is among the *stingiest* of developed country 
> donors.
> The left-leaning country Sweden is IIRC at the top of the list, per 
> capita.

  When we have to send troops to Bosnia, to Haiti, etc. to support UN 
actions,
I consider that foreign aid too. I think the choice Europe makes to 
have a
small military is in some sense cynical because as the biggest player 
in the
world, they can expect that we'll be first to deal with any problems.

 They're not wrong, but I don't have to like it, nor do I have to take 
them
seriously when they complain when we take some military action.

 But without including that money you're right by %, wrong by $. Here's 
a pretty good document summarizing where we spend money:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf

 Interesting that Bush actually seems to be pushing to increase foreign 
aid.

> >  You're not going to like hearing this, but a widespread perception in
> > the US is that Europe wants to both not spend the money to be 
> > relevant,
> > while retaining veto power on US actions. That's not going to happen.
> > If Europe wants to be consulted, they'll have to spend the money.
>
> Gah. If the US wants to be taken seriously as a multilateralist it'll 
> have to
> start actually providing the aid it promises, not offering money and 
> then
> quietly dropping the ball later.
>
> Do these ring a bell to you at all: "Forgotten" aid to afghanistan?
>
> Multi-million dollar financial mismanagement in Iraq?
>
> Shovelling money to Dick Cheney's old company Halliburton and 
> neglecting
> the actual reconstruction in Iraq?
>
> Have you been reading the same news that I've been reading? No, of 
> course not.

  Have you been just reading the news, or doing due diligence on it to 
see if
its true? Of course not.

  Go check the financials for any of these companies that are 
supposedly making billions off of Iraq on Yahoo. If they were making 
money hand over fist, then you'd see it on the bottom line.

 You won't, because if we take Halliburton for instance, mostly what 
they do as
prime contractor is have a whole bunch of people who can speak arabic 
who
negotiate with local companies to do all the work. Some rather large 
percentage
of all money that is managed by Halliburton in Iraq goes to 
subcontractors not
to revenues.

 BTW, did you know that it was the Clinton administration who awarded 
Halliburton the "no-bid" contract? They were low-bidder. The Bush 
administration _extended_ the contract, which is actually pretty common 
in government contracting circles.

 That's why you hear Halliburton mentioned in political rhetoric but 
rarely in
any sort of debate situation: that dog won't hunt.

 There are only three construction companies in the world large enough 
to handle something like Iraq: Bechtel, Halliburton, and Slumberger. 
Bechtel and Halliburton both ended up with contracts for the 
rebuilding, while Slumberger as a French company couldn't meet the 
security requirements.

 Now all that doesn't mean that I think we managed the reconstruction 
very well. Quite the contrary. But what I see is that the CPA managed 
to bring the same sort of bureaucratic nonsense we have in the US over 
to Iraq. Which meant everything they did had to be put out for bid, (in 
English), for months.

 You probably can't see it now, but I remember reading all the "call 
for bid" notices on the CPA website about electrical generators they 
needed. So my point of view is 180 degrees from yours. I don't think 
there was too much capitalism in Iraq, I think there was too much 
bureaucracy! Having the same rules in war that we have in peacetime is 
just stupid. Someone needed to go to Iraq and cowboy the
friggin electricity on, not spend 6 months filling out paperwork to 
solicit bids.

 I expect now that we're just turning most of that money directly over 
to the
Iraqis that things will move faster.

> > P.S.
> >
> >   Fun Fact: The US Army is the only armed force in the world with a
> > "Civil Affairs" department specifically tasked with interacting with
> > civilians both friendly and hostile.
> >
> >  This is relevant because more and more, its those sort of troops that
> > seem to be needed in the world.
>
> Gah. Misrepresenting the reality, again. The US military doesn't have 
> a reputation
> for being the friendliest military in the world.

  Didn't say that. Just said they were the only one that actually had
this department. Its not a useful fact, just a fun one. :-)

 It's actually too small.

> Just ask the British senior officers who openly criticised the 
> "heavy-handed"
> approach of the American forces in Iraq some months ago. I was amazed. 
> Isn't that
> sort of public criticism of a fellow ally and fellow occupying power 
> almost
> unprecedented?

 No, very common. In fact, its common internally in that the Army 
regularly criticizes themselves. They're called after-action reports. 
He also criticized the Army not the Marines who have been doing better 
in this regard. In fact, I seem to remember the Marines criticizing the 
Army for the same thing this British officer did.
> Noam Chomsky notes that the US military have not historically been 
> trained to deal

 Ah, you're a Chomskyite! Well, the US is not totally motivated by 
corporate greed. Life is more complicated then that. There are good 
people, and bad.
The US does thing for good reasons and for bad. We're not an empire, 
but we
are more powerful then anyone (including us) would probably like us to 
be.

> with "peacekeeping" missions at all. Maybe the "Civil Affairs" 
> department is some
> small attempt to redress that balance. I'd wager it's not enough, and 
> I'd wager
> the US military has not been very reoriented towards peacekeeping 
> because that is
> not what their imperial masters WANT them doing.

  I think its because civil libertarians get a little worried if the US
military gets too easy to deploy internally... I know that's what I 
would worry
about.
> Again, if you doubt my claim that the US is an imperial power, re-read 
> my questions
> above on democracy in Iraq. Check out PNAC, as I suggested. Also try 
> the Empire Notes
> weblog sometime. You might find it opens your eyes.

  I actually do read Empire Notes occasionally. I try to read as many 
things
I don't agree with as things I do. Do you do that?

Don't know whether I look at PNAC, since you
didn't give me a URL, and pnac.org didn't seem to be what you were 
talking about.

 Pierce