Re: Another reason to hate dittoheads
The following post on lbo-talk seems relevant to the current discussion on pen-l. John Gulick wrote: Is any self-respecting US leftist truly _shocked and dismayed_ by the casual violence visited upon Iraqi prisoners ? Inquiring minds want to know. Just asking. Isn't it entirely predictable that a racist and imperialist occupation writ large will lead to a million acts of smug brutality writ small ? IMO undue attention to the deeply disturbing prison atrocities (which are indeed deeply disturbing, but far less heinous than imposing a dysfunctional neo-colonial client state) feeds the following sentiment which the US left should obviously vigilantly oppose: that the occupation is a mere policy mistake, horribly bungled by Bush and company. The Abu Ghraib revelations are in fact heaven-sent for the liberal clowns at moveon.org (who are annoyingly pelting my e-mailbox with overwrought appeals to dump Rumsfeld), who can now safely couch their tepid anti-occupation stance in the premise that Bush and company are congenitally incapable of bringing freedom to the Iraqi people. Said revelations are even more heaven-sent for that weak-kneed segment of the US political class that is now recognizing the inevitability of defeat in Iraq, but can conveniently blame the illegitimacy wrought by a few dozen torturers, rather than the tenacious resistance of the denizens of Fallujah, Najaf, Sadr City, and elsewhere. Or perhaps I'm just preaching to the choir ... I wish John was preaching to the choir -- but my feeling is that close to a consensus among lbo and pen-l posters holds that the u.s. must not leave Iraq until it has made up for the damage it has done. It would be, the argument goes, irresponsible to leave the Iraqi people to their own devices. Carrol John Gulick Knoxville, TN John Gulick Knoxville, TN
Re: Another reason to hate dittoheads
Carrol Cox wrote: The following post on lbo-talk seems relevant to the current discussion on pen-l. John Gulick wrote: Is any self-respecting US leftist truly _shocked and dismayed_ by the casual violence visited upon Iraqi prisoners ? Inquiring minds want to know. Just asking. Isn't it entirely predictable that a racist and imperialist occupation writ large will lead to a million acts of smug brutality writ small ? It has always been the case, so it is predictable. What did surprise me was the reaction of shock and dismay at the revelations. I would have expected the if you want to make an omlet, you've got to break some eggs routine. But no. So, one thing that it brings to mind is the Puritans/bearbaiting joke; that being that the Puritans weren't opposed to bearbaiting because the bears suffered but because the audience was enjoying itself too much. I wonder, if the pictures had shown hatchet-faced guards overseeing the humiliation/torture, whether the reaction would have been less dismayed. From where I'm sitting, the torture/humiliation of Iraqi civilians/ is all of a piece with the U.S. racist/imperial policy toward Iraq from the first Gulf war. No surprises. Should the state that is responsible for the murder, torture, starvation of Iraqis and for the wholesale destruction of Iraq be charged with its reconstruction? Are you kidding? Should it pay reparations? Of course. Joanna
Re: Another reason to hate dittoheads
Joanna writes: From where I'm sitting, the torture/humiliation of Iraqi civilians/ is all of a piece with the U.S. racist/imperial policy toward Iraq from the first Gulf war. No surprises. the only true surprise is the existence of the pictures. If Rumsfeld had been the leader he's cracked up to be, they would have been supressed. I'm old enough to remember when people were shocked by Nixon's use of obsenities (in the White House tapes). Are non-decided people going to be shocked by these pictures enough to truly rock the White House? Jim D.
