Here is one of the best one-page statements about what is happening this year in Iraq, and what will happen in the future, whenever the US withdraws. It's by Camille Paglia, who for me is one of the greatest thinkers of our time. Plus she's a lesbian, and that's just hawt (sorry, couldn't help myself).
Dear Camille:
To end the Vietnam War fiasco, the U.S. did exactly what you are calling for in this Iraq fiasco: Get out now! We did get out in Nam and immediately, and nearly 3 million innocent souls were slaughtered by Pol Pot.
Question: Are you not even a bit concerned that another "killing fields" situation will occur, as will surely come to pass this time in much larger numbers?
Frank Baldino
New Haven, Conn.
Withdrawing U.S. troops and equipment from Iraq will be a complicated and dangerous process that will take many months. But it should be launched on a massive scale immediately. Iraq's fate needs to be decided by Iraqis, whose quarreling ancient tribes and factions have little motivation to compromise as long as the U.S. military is planted there to keep the peace. A democratic Iraq would be desirable in the best of all possible worlds, but it may be a desert mirage -- not worth the loss of thousands of American lives or the investment of hundreds of billions of dollars desperately needed for U.S. social services and infrastructure.
If there are parallels between Cambodia in the 1970s and Iraq now (as President Bush asserted to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in August), they simply prove the folly of current U.S. policy in the Middle East. We will never know how many horrific deaths can be traced to the ruthless dictator Pol Pot (it could have been half the number you cite), but they were not always due to "slaughter" per se. Hundreds of thousands of peasants died from starvation and untreated illness in Pol Pot's madly unrealistic plan to turn Cambodia virtually overnight into an agrarian communist utopia.
But the destabilization of Southeast Asia was in fact the result of Western colonialism and intervention in the region by France and then (with all the best intentions) by the U.S., leading to the First and Second Indochina Wars. Cambodia's leader, Prince Sihanouk, who had warned that the U.S. could not win in Vietnam, was ousted in a 1970 coup that had American approval and perhaps covert support. A month later, the U.S. invaded Cambodia to clean out North Vietnamese guerrilla bases -- an incursion that sparked protests on American campuses, including Kent State University, where four students died after being fired on by the National Guard.
American bombing of eastern Cambodia had been going on since the prior year, killing Cambodian civilians and inciting a refugee problem that would disorder the entire country. Thus U.S. actions strengthened Pol Pot's revolutionary movement by driving former Cambodian opponents (such as Sihanouk supporters) to him and by facilitating an alliance between his embryonic Khmer Rouge and Communist North Vietnamese insurgents. Pol Pot seized control of Cambodia in 1975, after the U.S. exit from Vietnam, and was deposed three years later by a Vietnamese invasion. After 17 more years of waging guerrilla war, he was arrested but died while awaiting trial.
Thus President Bush's allusion to Cambodia was grossly simplistic. The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has itself caused a massive and underreported refugee problem. America's removal of the aging dictator Saddam Hussein (whose regime was in economic decline because of U.N. sanctions), followed by the disbandment of the Iraqi military, played right into the hands of Iraq's volatile, meddling, next-door rival Iran, which now aspires to regional dominance. Our ally Turkey, a nation with a long, tough history, is also likely to respond harshly to any attempt by its Kurdish minority to break away and join the Kurds of northern Iraq in forming an independent Kurdistan. How would the U.S. respond to a Kurdish bid for freedom?
Whatever its rationale for the invasion of Iraq (arguments rage over the relative weight of Israel, oil, Halliburton, al-Qaida or none of the above), the Bush-Cheney administration seems to have been blinded by its own naive idealism, provincialism and abject ignorance of history. The continued American presence in Iraq is not a solution but an obstruction to regional cooperation. Saudi Arabia certainly doesn't want Iran gobbling up its neighbors. But the shrewd Saudis, rolling in riches, have no incentive to take responsibility so long as the U.S. goes on playing policeman and footing the bill.
Iraq is ringed with nations more economically and politically developed than Cambodia ever was in the 1970s. Geography and climate also play a role: Insurgents in the Middle East don't have thick canopies of tropical forests to hide under. Yes, there will be civil disturbances and loss of life when American forces exit Iraq -- whether now or 10 years from now. But order will gradually be reasserted from within, even if Iraq itself (originally a British fabrication) fragments. Only the Iraqis, not American soldiers with their barriers of language and culture, can identify and expel any rogue al-Qaida intruders in their midst.
The idea that millions of Iraqis would be slaughtered in a new Holocaust is a paranoid fantasy promulgated by the Bush administration to manipulate popular emotion in the U.S., where knowledge of world geography and history has shrunk decade by decade, thanks to our mediocre public education and our shallow, timid and increasingly frivolous mainstream media.
__________________
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. - R.W. Emerson
As for "Reaganesque rugged individualism" and its worship of the market, perhaps it is enough to quote the review of the Reagan years in Foreign Affairs by a Senior Fellow for International Finance at the Council on Foreign Relations, noting the "irony" that Ronald Reagan, "the postwar chief executive with the most passionate love of laissez faire, presided over the greatest swing toward protectionism since the 1930s"—no "irony," but the normal workings of "passionate love of laissez faire": for you, market discipline, but not for me, unless the "playing field" happens to be tilted in my favor, typically as a result of large-scale state intervention. It’s hard to find another theme so dominant in the economic history of the past three centuries. The current enthusiasms about the communications revolution that Sanger is reporting are a textbook case.
Reaganites were following a well-trodden course—recently turned into a comedy act by Gingrich "conservatives"—when they extolled the glories of the market and issued stern lectures about the debilitating culture of dependency of the poor at home and abroad while boasting proudly to the business world that Reagan had "granted more import relief to U.S. industry than any of his predecessors in more than half a century"; in fact, more than all predecessors combined, as they led "the sustained assault on [free trade] principle" by the rich and powerful from the early 1970s, deplored in a scholarly review by GATT secretariat economist Patrick Low, who estimates the restrictive effects of Reaganite measures at about three times those of other leading industrial countries
So, if there really is such a thing as the free market then why have so many corporations been bailed out by the gov't? (Which the TAXPAYERS PAY FOR, and NOT the corporations.)
Quote:
In fact, according to Fortune magazine, every single one of the top 100 leading transnational corporations benefited from state intervention on their behalf. Twenty of that 100 were saved from total disaster, meaning collapse, by state bailout. In effect, then, free market ideology is founded on a class-based double-standard.
"THE FREE MARKET IS SOCIALISM FOR THE RICH. The public pays the costs and the rich get the benefit—markets for the poor and plenty of state protection for the rich." -Chomsky
Here is an audio video of Chomsky called, "Free Market Fantasies"
Oh, and I want to add one more thing about Iraq. (BTW-- Nice article, Helio) What I find most amusing is that all the people who are screaming that Iraq will turn into a civil war and the next great bloodbath if US troops leave are the same people who have gotten EVERYTHING WRONG in the past about Iraq.... EVERYTHING!! Do they really expect a rational person to actually believe that this time they will be right?
Dude, as a percentage, a great deal of liberals and democrats are wise enough to distance themself from Noam Chomsky. Camille Paglia, a liberal university professor herself, is one of them.
Chomsky is a linguist. I've read several of his books. They're depressing and cynical. It was after reading Chomsky that I decided I would never listen to cynics again. Skeptics, sure. Cynics, never.
Chomsky has a few redeeming qualities, and his adoration and defense of free speech for all, as well as his spot-on understanding of how mainstream, sound-bite-driven media dumb down the masses are another. And while I won't call him a "hack" I will say that he ignores facts that plainly undermine his arguments with great (and to me, disturbing) regularity.
No, there's no such thing as a truly free market. It's an abstraction that both sides understand. All things are regulated by government. We employ a government to protect us from abuse. A truly "free" market becomes abusive through monopolies and oligarchies.
Nevertheless, the modern, capitalist world is a marvel, and no other economic system has EVER come close to its level of equality. Nope, it's not egalitarian. And it's not entirely a meritocracy, but it's the closest thing you'll find in the world.
I don't want to get into a pro/anti Chomsky debate with you. Suffice it to say I'm anti. And the readers (if there are any more than you and I left) deserve to know that Chomsky has as many intellectual detractors as he has supporters (at best).
He's a professor of LINGUISTICS...
Speaking of which, check out Da Ali G Show's interview of him. It's righteous (and non-political).
True fiscal conservatism wouldn't hand out taxpayer money to mega-corps. But don't say this is done on the right exclusively. Both sides play this gambit, and corporations know it. Money is what gets people elected, and the money comes mostly from the rich (to both sides) and the powerful (to both sides).
Not to be cynical, but both sides are playing the same game of usurping governments for their own interests, not the people. The real power in the world is wielded by non-government entities.
__________________
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. - R.W. Emerson
Fair enough on the issue of Chomsky. I completely agree that Chomsky is a cynic. To add something, his books are extremely tedious to follow.
Quote:
I will say that he ignores facts that plainly undermine his arguments with great (and to me, disturbing) regularity.
I would love for you to give me an example of this. I find that most critics are never able to disprove his arguments. Please show me where I can find these people who can disprove his arguments... I can't seem to find them.
I agree that capitalism is the best economic model we have seen, YET. I'm not one of those screaming lefties. I do believe that what we have works. I just wonder if there could be somethng better for the world. Because I don't think that the current concentration of wealth (power) is healthy for the rest of us meager folks. Do you think this concentration of wealth is the inherent flaw in capitalism? Or, is this the gov't fault for not regulating it? It seems that the people who try to shove the idea of T.I.N.A. (there is no alternative) seem like the same kind of people who wanted to keep Feudalism as the way of life. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that so much of the literature and major institutions that preach that capitalism is the glory of the world are the ones who have the majority of the power.
Check out what takemetotheriver wrote in the other topic about democracy.
I think the dirty little secret of human history is that all governments were/are kleptocracies/oligarchies.
The problem with all governments and all economic systems is this:
The nature of man is to constantly be at war (edit - look, I split my infinitive! shame on me!) between the desire to rise to our godly nature or succumb to our inevitable corruptibility.
I am a "conservative" because governmental power always devolves into the latter point of human nature, while always starting out to serve the first. I believe Hobbes was right in The Leviathan (or was it Locke, I never remember for some dumb reason).
The reason capitalism works, in my non-esteemed view, is that it's so in tune with the two laws of thermodynamics that I remember.
1) Entropy in the universe will increase (or also said, energy seeps out of a closed system inevitably)
2) Energy can be transferred (i.e. stolen) from one system to another
All biological life dies because of point 1)
All biological life survives because of point 2)
Capitalism harnesses this.
We are all greedy because of Point 2
We are all trying to escape Point 1
A man's nature can change. Human nature cannot. I don't believe in the evolution of human consciousness toward egalitarianism or altruism. Therefore, I am a conservative.
__________________
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. - R.W. Emerson
A man's nature can change. Human nature cannot. I don't believe in the evolution of human consciousness toward egalitarianism or altruism. Therefore, I am a conservative.
Helio, you say you don't listen to or believe in cynics and yet this is the most cynical thing I've heard you say. If we don't at least hope for the possibility of an evolution toward egalitarianism (more likely than altruism), what exactly do we hope for? Surely not to simply become part of the hierarchy in order to avoid being relegated to the fate of the unfortunate. That would seem contradictory to even taking part in a discourse that attempts to make the world a better place, which you do with regularity. I may sound like a "screaming lefty" or a tree hugger, but really I just think that faith and hope are essential to happiness; as TS Eliot said, "Without some kind of god, man isn't even very interesting."
Helio, you say you don't listen to or believe in cynics and yet this is the most cynical thing I've heard you say. If we don't at least hope for the possibility of an evolution toward egalitarianism (more likely than altruism), what exactly do we hope for?
All religions direct us toward one point: Salvation is an individual's journey, not a collective one. Ascension to a higher consciousness only happens within the individual. I really don't think of what I say as cynical at all. I can't even comprehend how one considers it so, and thus I can't defend my position. The nature of mankind cannot be changed. A single person's can.
What we hope for, to answer your question, is that people begin their individual journeys as soon as they can. But you can lead a horse to water... You can't force someone to be conscientious of the world around him. It tends to produce the opposite result.
__________________
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. - R.W. Emerson
All religions direct us toward one point: Salvation is an individual's journey, not a collective one. Ascension to a higher consciousness only happens within the individual. I really don't think of what I say as cynical at all. I can't even comprehend how one considers it so, and thus I can't defend my position.
I was working off the definition that cynicism is when someone believes that humans are motivated primarily by selfish or base concerns. A belief that it would be impossible for humans to care enough about each other to consciously and collectively create a system in which fairness, rather than greed, is the prime motivator, would seem to fit this definition exactly. I understand that human nature is very difficult, if not impossible, to change, but is that reason enough not to work toward that end? Perhaps your utopia looks different than mine, but it doesn't change the fact that we all believe in one. I agree that individuals change far more often than a collective human consciousness, but that doesn't make it impossible- unfortunately, the only examples I can think of right now are Nazi Germany and Jonestown , but even these poor examples show that the collective consciousness of a group of people can be altered- perhaps someday it could be changed for the better.
Did you know that Utopia literally translated means "Nowhere"?
Thomas Moore was conceiving something that by definition, he himself knew was impossible to implement.
History shows us many examples of societies that tried to become egalitarian. They fail, and they fail worse than societies that recognize the inherent inequality with which people view others around them.
My "utopia" is a society in which people are free to pursue their interests, government protects them from abuse by other people (and corporations), but otherwise leaves them to their liberty. It provides for the defenseless, but defines "defenselessness" as a tiny minority, and it enables other people to provide for others through charity and market-driven solutions to problems.
I think that makes me an optimist. I think that makes me one of John Lennon's dreamers.
__________________
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. - R.W. Emerson
Did you know that Utopia literally translated means "Nowhere"?
Thomas Moore was conceiving something that by definition, he himself knew was impossible to implement.
History shows us many examples of societies that tried to become egalitarian. They fail, and they fail worse than societies that recognize the inherent inequality with which people view others around them.
My "utopia" is a society in which people are free to pursue their interests, government protects them from abuse by other people (and corporations), but otherwise leaves them to their liberty. It provides for the defenseless, but defines "defenselessness" as a tiny minority, and it enables other people to provide for others through charity and market-driven solutions to problems.
I think that makes me an optimist. I think that makes me one of John Lennon's dreamers.
I was not aware of that literal translation; I was of course working off the connotation of Utopia as a personal ideal reality. As with most of your posts/responses, this one makes far more sense and for the most part I agree (with the exception of believing in a govt that could provide protection to the people). Does it not seem contradictory to your previous statement in that this is exactly what an altruistic society would look like, if not completely egalitarian? Perhaps you were being facetious, but I am one of John Lennon's Dreamers as well and I can assure you that altruism was high on his list of HOPES for the world, even if he was pragmatic about achieving it as a reality and even though the way he died underscores that faith. After all "no possessions, no hunger, no greed, a brotherhood of man" all indicate a desire to create equality. BTW, Lennon was also a socialist, not a capitalist, so I wonder if he would agree that enabling "other people to provide for others through charity and market-driven solutions to problems" would be better than those same people "sharing all the world."
Linear Mode
