Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Actually it's the kind of pompous Western bloviating the eXile likes to mock. Dagestanis are just like Kurds! I don't know Dagestan from a hole on the ground, but they must be just like Kurds, cause, well, I don't know, they just are! They speak Dagestani there in Dagestan, they shore do! Where is Matt Taibbi when you need him. -Original Message- From: joanna bujes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:34:47 -0800 Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq Chris, I think you won. Joanna Louis Proyect wrote: Chris Doss wrote: I say: It is unreliable because the country is lawless. Now, why would the country be lawless. I wonder if it might have something to do with bands of Islamoid gunmen running around invading adjoining areas of Russia and kidnapping people. Nah, couldn't be. Reply: Well, we have differences obviously. I don't think that Putin has any problem with lawlessness. He is all too happy to please the most lawless regime in the world, namely the USA. I believe that Russia has material interests in the Caucusus that are crucial to capital accumulation. It uses all sorts of excuses about bandits and Islamic radicalism to maintain control over profit-generating assets. In any case, I believe that I have made this point in all the detail it deserves so this will be my last post on the topic. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Actually it's the kind of pompous Western bloviating the eXile likes to mock. Dagestanis are just like Kurds! I don't know Dagestan from a hole on the ground, but they must be just like Kurds, cause, well, I don't know, they just are! They speak Dagestani there in Dagestan, they shore do! Where is Matt Taibbi when you need him. I spoke too soon. They DID mock it: Moreover, Chechens are the underdog, and we Americans always root for the underdog. For example, we were the underdog against Iraq in both Gulf Wars, we were the underdog against Serbia in Kosovo, against Grenada, and so on. Chechnya is the little guy fighting for freedom. So we naturally identify with them. The argument that Chechnya's three-year experiment with sovereignty from 1996-1999 was a disaster is a Russian-manufactured myth. The fact is Chechnya was developing along the lines dictated by the IMF and such esteemed scholars as my friend Professor Michael McFaul. Indeed, Chechnya was a model of free trade. For example, when it came to trade in the thousands of kidnapped Russians, Chechens turned to the free hand of the market to settle on pricing, supply and demand. Market rationale dictated hostages be beheaded and the videotape sent back to Russian relatives, which encouraged prompt payment of ransom for other Russian hostages and slaves. It was rough capitalism, but it was capitalism. Chechnya was developing in another key area: rule of law. Chechnya set up a law, called Sharia, that would have made Jefferson and Adams proud. Sharia is all about devolving power to the people at the local level, including, yes, the right to stone adulterers, which, while I don't condone it, is certainly no worse than the Russian proclivity for demeaning wet T-shirt contests. http://www.exile.ru/173/editorial.html You Say Terrorist, Washington says Shuttup By Mark Ames ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) With Russophobes like Hiatt egging on the rightwingers in Bush's administration, the US imposed an utterly ruinous policy of flirtatious accommodation with the Chechen separatists. Ruinous because this policy was one of the key reasons why the 9/11 plot was not uncovered, and ruinous because of future unforeseen consequences not just in terms of our relations with Russia, but because, like it or not, the Chechens really are linked to international Islamic terrorism. In other words: if anything clearly wasn't in America's interests, it's America's coy and cynical game vis-+-vis the Chechen separatists. This isn't easy to print publicly, even though I know several Western correspondents who, at the beginning of the second Chechen war, said much worse things off-the-record about the Chechens and what they deserved. http://www.exile.ru/153/feature_story.html Responding In Kind-2 The Matt Bivens Terrorism Primer Matt Bivens Many people in Moscow were shocked last month when Moscow Times columnist Matt Bivens followed the tragic metro bombing with a left-of-center commentary, Responding in Kind? blaming Russians for their own deaths at the hands of Chechen terrorists: So on top of the landmines and diseases and such, there have been 22 or 44 or 66 or maybe 88 disappearances every month [in Chechnya], for more than a year now, with no end in sight. In terms of tragedy and death, that's in the ballpark of one Moscow metro bombing every month, he wrote. And no doubt this all fed the determination of crazed extremists who, upon seeing the callous murder of their own by outsiders, said things like, 'We don't negotiate with Russians -- we destroy them.' Bivens, whose consistency over the years in churning out earnest 700-word left-of-center commentaries has earned him the nickname Two Yards Bivens, was accused by many of being callous and patronizing towards Russians, much like how The Washington Post's Fred Hiatt blamed Russia for the theater siege at Dubrovka even while the hostages were still being held. http://www.exile.ru/186/responding_in_kind-2.html
Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
From: Louis Proyect -clip- Marx and Engels supported the cause of Irish independence long before Marxists like Connolly were involved. They did not extract promises from bourgeois nationalists that they would expropriate the expropriators. CB: We are in the U.S., the imperialist power that is waging war on Iraq. We best not make strict demands on the Iraqi resistance movement, whereas an Iraqi socialist might. Connolly as an Irish Marxist would have higher demands than especially British Marxists , in analogy. Or Lenin was Great White Russian and Rosa Luxemburg was Polish. Comrade Rosa L. had stricter demands on Polish national liberationists than Comrade V.I. The relation between colonializer and colonialized impacts the analysis and the analyzer.
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
I believe I will get a yahoo account. To answer the question, the issue is not Chechen independence per se, but what Free Ichkeria did with its independence and what it is believed it would do again given the chance; devolve into a militant Islamist failed gangster state specializing in banditry, a kidnap/slave trade industry, ethnic cleansing, and the depredation of its neighbors, up to and including armed invasion. That is unacceptable. That said, tehre is one upside to the whole Chechnya nightmare, and that is that absolutely no one except crazed nationalists wants to secede from Russia. Nobody in Tatarstan, to say nothing of Dagestan, which was the main target of the hostage industry, wants to end up like Chechnya. Actually it's a miracle there hasn't been a Chechnya-Dagestan war. That would be very unpleasant. Kudos to the Dagestanis for restraining themselves.
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Sabri Oncu wrote: Here is one input from one of those from that part of the world, who is not terrified to speak his mind. Fuck you Americans! Get out of our part of the world! Immediately! From this morning's local (Bloomington, Il) newspaper (under the headline: U.S. Marines fight rebellion in Falujah): At the same time, he (Marine office) said, Marine civil officers are scouting the city on how to spend a special $540 million outlay for rebuilding projects in al Anbar province, which includes Fallujah. But in Falujah, strung with black mourning banners for Friday's dead, the residents were having none of it. Residents angrily vowed revenge, saying Friday's casualties were caused by Marine reprisals for an insurgent strike on a supply convoy that took out a Humvee with a rocket-propelled grenade: For each one who is killed, we will get 10 American soldiers, saidd Abu Mujahid, 35, taunting the fresh Marine forces as cartoon characters. If they want Fallujah to be a battlefield, they are welcome here, said Abu Mujahid, who would only be identified by his nickname, which means fighter's father. Fallujah city will become a mass grave for Bush and all the soldiers of the American military.** I argued 14 years ago during the first Gulf War that after that criminal u.s. aggression there were only two alternatives for the U.S.: an Iraq ruled by a state hostile to the U.S. or an Iraq ruled by a U.S. army under continuous and unending attack. It doesn't matter what are the passive preferences of the Iraqi people: those two alternatives are still the only alternatives. The length of the u.s. occupation depends on the number of total casualties the u.s. populace will accept. When casualties pass that level, the u.s. will withdraw and the Iraqis will (probably with much blood) struggle out their own concerns, which is as it should be. Nothing the u.s. can do can bring about a smooth transition to a peaceful Iraq. Such a transition (and it will not be smooth) can only _begin_ after all non-Iraqi forces have withdrawn. The function of the peace movement in the u.s. is to keep up constant pressure on on our government to withdraw unconditionally. I think we can do it. We don't have to win anything right away. We simply have to survive as a movement, because conditions will never improve in Iraq (as measured by u.s. casualties and the total u.s. forces rquired). Carrol Sabri
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Chris Doss wrote: To answer the question, the issue is not Chechen independence per se, but what Free Ichkeria did with its independence and what it is believed it would do again given the chance; devolve into a militant Islamist failed gangster state specializing in banditry, a kidnap/slave trade industry, ethnic cleansing, and the depredation of its neighbors, up to and including armed invasion. That is unacceptable. Reply: If it is unacceptable to you, then I would advise you not to live in any such state, including Somalia, Afghanistan in the 1990s, etc. If you are saying that Yeltsin or Putin had the right to make war on the Chechens, clearly you are mistaken. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
And Russia's reaction to being invaded (twice) should have been what? How should Russia react to thousand of its citizens being kidnapped and tortured? What should the Dagestani reaction be to attempts to force it to become a medieval Islamist state? Reply: If it is unacceptable to you, then I would advise you not to live in any such state, including Somalia, Afghanistan in the 1990s, etc. If you are saying that Yeltsin or Putin had the right to make war on the Chechens, clearly you are mistaken. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
-Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 09:10:24 -0500 I should probably clarify that the First and Second Chechen Wars are completely different matters. The first was a bone-headed move by Yeltsin against a national liberation struggle. The second was a Russian reaction to a crisis on its southern border. The issue is not life _in_ Chechnya. The issue is what happened to the people _around_ Chechnya. Somehow, these people barely seem to exist in Western commentary. Slave trade? What slave trade? 2,000 mujaheedin slaughtering Dagestani civilians? Never happened! Reply: If it is unacceptable to you, then I would advise you not to live in any such state, including Somalia, Afghanistan in the 1990s, etc. If you are saying that Yeltsin or Putin had the right to make war on the Chechens, clearly you are mistaken. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Let's be clear, the determinants of policy, and anti-policy, are not polls imaginary or real that are conducted by pollsters. What somebody says a sample of the Iraqi people want or wanted had nothing to do with the invasion by the United States. What somebody now says the Iraqi people want has nothing to do with the determinants of future actions by the occupier. The occupation is not governed by polls, no more than anybody took a poll about shock and awe. Moreover neither the invasion nor the resistance have anything to do with national liberation and self-determination. National liberation has certain fundamental economic precipitants regarding land, industrialization, access to labor, articulated or not, and none of those are at issue in either the struggle for or against the US occupation. This war was precipitated by capital's need to destroy parts of the productive apparatus and maintain a high price for oil. In fact, if you look at the rise and fall and rise in the price of oil from 2001-2003, the war drums start and increase their pounding exactly when the price dips. The current increase in oil prices is the exact analogy of the increase in stock prices, and telecoms in particular, right before the shock and awe of the collapse in the second half of 2000. Supporting national liberation, or a self-determination devoid of a specific class content of that determination, i.e. a program that includes expropriation of the privatized, now and future, means of production, is ultimately meaningless. Polls are simply ideological justifications for existing conditions.
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
dmschanoes wrote: Supporting national liberation, or a self-determination devoid of a specific class content of that determination, i.e. a program that includes expropriation of the privatized, now and future, means of production, is ultimately meaningless. Not really. The Comintern backed the Kuomintang in its struggle for national liberation even though it was a bourgeois-led movement. Nor did it require such litmus tests for the Irish or any other nation suffering from direct or indirect colonial rule. If the choice is between US corporate control of Iraqi oil and bourgeois nationalist control, we support the latter. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
dmschanoes wrote: his war was precipitated by capital's need to destroy parts of the productive apparatus and maintain a high price for oil. I hear people say things like this and I wonder how they know. How do you know this? Documentary evidence, or do you just *know*? Doug
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
The Caucasus wars is fundamentally over control of oil nothing to do with fighting medievalism. _ That much of what LP writes is almost correct. It is fundamentally over control of the transport of oil, and for that reason alone the secession of Chechnya, its welcoming of Islamic fundamentalists, is another aspect of capital's attack on remnants of the Soviet Union, and should be opposed. Moreover, it is clear, from Afghanistan, and Iraq, Nigeria, that Islamic reaction, (medievalism is not really a proper application of the term, since during the medieval conflicts, those forces of Islamic culture were surely more advanced, modern, enlightened than the European medievalists), has carried capitalism's water in battling workers' struggles. dms
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Well, we know where the Comintern's support of the Kuomingtang took the workers revolution, that's for sure. And I believe you pose a false choice, in that no bourgeois nationalist control of Iraqi oil, separate and apart from the domination, military or market of Western capitalism is possible. That's what the war itself has shown, as if it hasn't been shown a hundred times before; in China, India, Spain, Angola. As for the Irish struggle, Connolly himself established exactly that sort of litmus test-- in just those terms. - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq dmschanoes wrote: Supporting national liberation, or a self-determination devoid of a specific class content of that determination, i.e. a program that includes expropriation of the privatized, now and future, means of production, is ultimately meaningless. Not really. The Comintern backed the Kuomintang in its struggle for national liberation even though it was a bourgeois-led movement. Nor did it require such litmus tests for the Irish or any other nation suffering from direct or indirect colonial rule. If the choice is between US corporate control of Iraqi oil and bourgeois nationalist control, we support the latter. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
No I just don't know, I've actually studied the price of oil, rates of return on investment, fixed asset growth in the industry for 30 years. Here's a tip-- check the Baker Hughes rig counts going back to 1973, and overlay it with prices and the industry rate of return to 2003. Makes for an interesting graph. And you can always check the spot price of oil 2001-2003, and see how it dips in 2002 just before the time Bush starts banging the (44 gallon) drum. dms - Original Message - From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq dmschanoes wrote: his war was precipitated by capital's need to destroy parts of the productive apparatus and maintain a high price for oil. I hear people say things like this and I wonder how they know. How do you know this? Documentary evidence, or do you just *know*? Doug
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
dmschanoes wrote: Well, we know where the Comintern's support of the Kuomingtang took the workers revolution, that's for sure. Excuse me? The problem was not support for the KMT, but the failure of the CP to maintain an independent presence, including a newspaper. Even Trotsky backed the KMT, just as he would back Haile Selassie against Italy or a Brazilian bourgeois nationalist against Great Britain. And I believe you pose a false choice, in that no bourgeois nationalist control of Iraqi oil, separate and apart from the domination, military or market of Western capitalism is possible. That's what the war itself has shown, as if it hasn't been shown a hundred times before; in China, India, Spain, Angola. There was a big difference in Argentina before and after the overthrow of Peron. Socialists take sides when a Peron or an Aristide opt for some kind of development path even if it falls short of socialism. As for the Irish struggle, Connolly himself established exactly that sort of litmus test-- in just those terms. Marx and Engels supported the cause of Irish independence long before Marxists like Connolly were involved. They did not extract promises from bourgeois nationalists that they would expropriate the expropriators. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
After the Soviet Union collapsed, 14 regions become independent nations. After Dzhokhar Dudayev was elected president of Chechnya, he declared independence. But Boris Yeltsin refused to accept this and sent in troops. After Chechen rebels drove off the Russian troops, a full-scale invasion was mounted in 1994. These are the facts. As far as Dagestan is concerned, Russia believes that it has the right to intervene against Islamic radical rebels there as well. -- Lord. Dagestan is PART of Russia. The Islamist radical rebels invaded Dagestan, TWICE, with the stated intent of establishing an Islamic state across the Caucasus. They were repelled by DAGESTANI POLICE AND CIVILIANS. 35,000 Dagestanis were displaced. I don't think you know what the facts are, to be honest.
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Chris Doss wrote: Lord. Dagestan is PART of Russia. That's what Ankara says about Kurdestan. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
of such neighbors would have responded with force of arms, perhaps even sooner than Russia did. The United States has done so repeatedly in Central America, in response to much smaller threats and provocations than those stemming from Chechnya in 1999. GETTING IT WRONG The failure to place the Russian intervention in this historical context is the key flaw in much of the Western coverage of the war. This coverage has not necessarily been wrong in itself, but it has lacked historical and international perspective, and a sense of comparison. Some print journalists-for example David Filipov of the Boston Globe, or Daniel Williams of the Washington Post-have presented admirably balanced accounts. But their efforts have been drowned out by the sheer weight of others' articles and still more the television coverage that did not incorporate the Russian case or include basic objective information. In behaving in this manner, the Western media have failed their own readers and audiences. My own conversations in the United States and Western Europe lead me to conclude that the vast majority of even informed Westerners are unaware of the full background to the war. A great many people working in the media and the wider field of international affairs still do not have a grasp of most of the basic facts concerning the events that led to the war; nor for that matter that the Chechens had always been offered full autonomy within the Russian Federation and were therefore not-unlike the Kurds of Turkey-fighting for elementary ethnic rights (how many times have I been asked, But why don't the Russians at least grant the Chechens autonomy?). Many informed Westerners also do not know of the presence of the international mujahedeen, since too many of the Western media have either ignored their presence altogether or, in an especially discreditable example in the Economist, presented them as a largely fictitious product of Russian propaganda akin to the legendary (but wholly nonexistent) Baltic female snipers, the White Stockings.5 Similarly, the role of Khattab and his forces, and the campaign of bombings, raids, and ambushes by Khattab's and Basayev's forces from 1998 to 1999, passed almost unnoticed. Even the August 1999 invasion of Dagestan was not adequately reported-and when it was covered, it was sometimes twisted to make it appear as an act of Russian aggression. Thus a report in the August 9, 1999 Washington Post was headlined, Russian Assault in Dagestan Recalls Chechen War, and contained the line, Russian officials say the Chechens now want to expand their self-proclaimed Islamic republic into Dagestan-as if this was an unsupported Russian assertion rather than the publicly declared aim of the Chechen and mujahedeen fighters (to be fair, the Post corrected this with a balanced piece of analysis on August 18). http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/4546.html -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:07:09 -0500 Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq Chris Doss wrote: Lord. Dagestan is PART of Russia. That's what Ankara says about Kurdestan. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Chris Doss wrote: It is clear why Russia could not have tolerated Chechnya being used indefinitely as a safe haven for such forces and as a potential base for further attacks on Russia. For how long would the United States tolerate such a situation in a neighboring state? This is exactly the excuse that Turkey gave when it attacked Kurds inside Iraq. Modern states incorporating the most retrograde features of the Czarist and Ottoman Empire should not receive such uncritical support here. This is fundamentally about access to oil, not about preserving secular values or fighting terrorism. CONFLICT-CAUCASUS: Petrodollars Behind the Chechen Tragedy By Sergei Blagov MOSCOW, Dec 7 (IPS) - As the Russian army tightens its grip around the Chechen capital of Grozny and Moscow becomes increasingly assertive, analysts stress that manoeuvring over huge oil-transit deals is the real issue of the Chechen war. On Tuesday, Russian primer minister Vladimir Putin rejected politely, but in unequivocal terms, the western criticism for Russia's ultimatum Monday to Grozny's civilians - to leave the city before Dec 11, or die under artillery and air fire. Human rights activists argue that thousands of elderly and ill civilians trapped in Grozny face death in the coming days. The Russian military dismiss the allegation, arguing that most of those left in the city are Muslim rebels, using civilians as a human shield. It has been often said that disputes over oil transit are behind the tragedy in unruly Chechnya - seen as the biggest security threat in the region. Russia has been keen to use its Baku-Novorossiisk export route for Azerbaijani ''early'' oil exports. But the pipe crosses over 153 kilometres of Chechen territory, which makes it unreliable as long as the country is lawless. Early oil is the first crude to be exported from three Azerbaijani offshore fields being developed under a multi-billion-dollar project. Larger quantities are expected to flow early next century from the Caspian basin, considered to be one of the world's most important new sources of fossil fuels. At first the Russians tried to negotiate with the rebellious Chechens' leaders. After a hard bargaining process, on September 9 1997 Russian and Chechen officials signed an agreement to allow the Azerbaijani oil travel through the separatist republic. Under this agreement,Transneft, the Russian operator, agreed to pay a 43-cent fee per ton of oil, down from the 2.2 dollars initially demanded by the Chechens. Russia also agreed to take care of maintenance and security, but the flow was soon halted after armed gangs began stealing large amounts of oil. Then the Russians decided to build an alternative pipeline in Dagestan - to bypass the Chechen section. But inroads by Chechen militants into Dagestan last August showed that this option was unsafe too. It was then that the second Chechen war commenced. In addition, presumed terrorist threat is feared to hold up the construction of a 1,600-kilometre link between the Tengiz oil field in Kazakhstan and a Black Sea port near Novorossiisk, known as the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC). The consortium - established back in 1992 by the governments of Russia, Kazakhstan and Oman - is Russia's main hope to become the main agent in moving Caspian oil, said Vladimir Stanev, Russia's deputy Fuel and Energy minister. In December 1996, 50 percent of CPC's shares were sold to international oil corporations, effectively turning the consortium into the largest privately-financed oil infrastructure project in the former Soviet states. The project, worth 2.5 billion dollars, is expected to be completed by June 30, 2001, CPC's director general Viktor Fedotov told IPS. The 750-kilometre Russian section of the pipeline is expected to be finished by the end of December 2000 with the first tanker scheduled to leave in June next year. The consortium plans to start pumping half-a-million barrels per day by October 2001. Shareholders have invested some 700 million dollars during 1999, and they plan to raise the figure up to 1.3 billion in 2000, Vagit Alekperov, head of Russia's LUKoil said. Some 60 percent of the investment comes from the two largest private shareholders - LUKoil and Chevron, he said. On December 2, prime minister Putin met with Fedotov, Alekperov and Chevron's president of international operations Richard Matzke, promising the government's support to the project. Putin, nominated by ailing president Boris Yeltsin as his chosen successor, is also widely seen as the mastermind of the military campaign in Chechnya. The CPC will be a great success, Matzke announced. ''My general attitude is of complete satisfaction with it. CPC will bring wealth to all participants,'' he told IPS. ''After meeting with Putin we are sure that we are going to honour our commitments,'' Alekperov commented. ''We have a variety of exploration projects in the Caspian and our oil will also go through this CPC pipeline,'' he said. LUKoil,
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Chris Doss wrote: I say: It is unreliable because the country is lawless. Now, why would the country be lawless. I wonder if it might have something to do with bands of Islamoid gunmen running around invading adjoining areas of Russia and kidnapping people. Nah, couldn't be. Reply: Well, we have differences obviously. I don't think that Putin has any problem with lawlessness. He is all too happy to please the most lawless regime in the world, namely the USA. I believe that Russia has material interests in the Caucusus that are crucial to capital accumulation. It uses all sorts of excuses about bandits and Islamic radicalism to maintain control over profit-generating assets. In any case, I believe that I have made this point in all the detail it deserves so this will be my last post on the topic. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Blagov is usually quite good. I am surprised to see him get so monocausal. Here, he writes: It has been often said that disputes over oil transit are behind the tragedy in unruly Chechnya - seen as the biggest security threat in the region. Russia has been keen to use its Baku-Novorossiisk export route for Azerbaijani ''early'' oil exports. But the pipe crosses over 153 kilometres of Chechen territory, which makes it unreliable as long as the country is lawless. --- I say: It is unreliable because the country is lawless. Now, why would the country be lawless. I wonder if it might have something to do with bands of Islamoid gunmen running around invading adjoining areas of Russia and kidnapping people. Nah, couldn't be. Indidentally, so many Dagestani relatives of people (Chechen warlord) Salman Raduyev killed or kidnapped had declared blood feuds on him and his clan that the Dagstani cops begged Moscow to try him anywhere else but Dagestan. The concern being that they would be overpowered and Raduyev beaten to death in the street. Chechnya and Dagestan are not exactly on chummy terms.
U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper (Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq)
Since you clearly don't want to read the actual poll, let me supply some highlights for you. These results don't sound like they're coming from people too terrified to speak their minds. Doug Here is one input from one of those from that part of the world, who is not terrified to speak his mind. Fuck you Americans! Get out of our part of the world! Immediately! Sabri If you write something like that for a newspaper in Iraq, the occupier will ban the newspaper, put it out of business, fine you and arrest you and your colleagues. Under such conditions, you can't trust any Western opinion polls of Iraqis to reflect Iraqi opinions accurately, for Iraqis can't speak their minds freely: * U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper By Bassem Mroue, Associated Press Writer Published: March 29, 2004 BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) The U.S.-led coalition on Sunday shut down a weekly newspaper run by followers of a hardline Shiite Muslim cleric, saying its articles were increasing the threat of violence against occupation forces. Hours after the closure of Al-Hawza, more than 1,000 supporters of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr demonstrated peacefully in front of the newspaper's offices, decrying what they called a crackdown on freedom of expression. Dozens of U.S. soldiers arrived at the Al-Hawza newspaper offices Sunday morning and closed its doors with chains and locks, sheik Abdel-Hadi Darraja said in front of the one-story house. Darraja is a representative of al-Sadr, who lives in the southern holy city of Najaf and has been an outspoken critic of the U.S.-led occupation, but has not called for armed attacks. A coalition letter in Arabic, signed by top U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer and handed to employees at the newspaper, said the paper's articles form a serious threat of violence against coalition forces and Iraqi citizens who cooperate with coalition authorities in rebuilding Iraq. The paper will close for 60 days, the statement said. A coalition spokesman confirmed the 60-day closure, saying several articles were designed to incite violence against coalition forces and incite instability in Iraq. The spokesman, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said any violation of the closure could lead to the imprisonment of newspaper employees for up to one year and a fine of up to $1,000. On Feb. 26, an article in Al-Hawza claimed that a suicide bombing two weeks earlier that targeted the mostly Shiite town of Iskandariyah, south of Baghdad, was a rocket fired by an (American) Apache helicopter and not a car bomb. The attack killed 53 people. In the same edition an article was titled Bremer follows the steps of Saddam, and criticized coalition work in Iraq. This is what happens when an Iraqi journalist expresses his opinion, said the white-turbaned Darraja. What is happening now is what used to happen during the days of Saddam. No freedom of opinion. It is like the days of the Baath, said Hussam Abdel-Kadhim, 25, a vendor who took part in the demonstration, referring to the Baath Party that ruled Iraq for 35 years until Saddam Hussein was ousted a year ago. In July, the coalition announced the closure of a Baghdad newspaper and the arrest of its office manager. The statement said Al-Mustaqila, which means The Independent in Arabic, published an article on July 13 calling for death to all spies and those who cooperate with the U.S. It said killing them was a religious duty. Bassem Mroue, Associated Press Writer , Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000474025 * *Ban on a newspaper angers Iraqis Jeffrey Gettleman NYT Monday, March 29, 2004 BAGHDAD American soldiers shut down a popular Baghdad newspaper and padlocked the doors after the occupation authorities accused it of printing lies that incited violence. Thousands of outraged Iraqis protested the closing on Sunday as an act of American hypocrisy, laying bare the hostility many feel toward the United States a year after the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. No, no, America! and Where is democracy now? screamed protesters who hoisted banners and shook clenched fists in a hastily organized rally against the closing of the newspaper, Al Hawza, a radical Shiite weekly. The rally drew thousands in central Baghdad, where masses of angry Shiite men squared off against a line of American soldiers who arrived to seal off the area. The protest ended peacefully as night came. The closing of the paper reflected the struggle by the American authorities to strike a balance between their two main goals, encouraging democracy and maintaining stability, as the days wind down to the June 30 target date for handing sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. But security seems increasingly elusive. On Sunday, the Iraqi public works minister narrowly escaped an assassination attempt in Mosul in which a driver and a
Re: U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper (Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq)
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Under such conditions, you can't trust any Western opinion polls of Iraqis to reflect Iraqi opinions accurately, for Iraqis can't speak their minds freely: They don't seem shy about expressing their opinions to reporters for foreign wire services or newspapers or even demonstrating in front of U.S. troops: U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper By Bassem Mroue, Associated Press Writer Published: March 29, 2004 This is what happens when an Iraqi journalist expresses his opinion, said the white-turbaned Darraja. What is happening now is what used to happen during the days of Saddam. No freedom of opinion. It is like the days of the Baath, said Hussam Abdel-Kadhim, 25, a vendor who took part in the demonstration, referring to the Baath Party that ruled Iraq for 35 years until Saddam Hussein was ousted a year ago. New York Times - March 29, 2004 G.I.'s Padlock Baghdad Paper Accused of Lies By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN No, no, America! and Where is democracy now? screamed protesters who hoisted banners and shook clenched fists in a hastily organized rally against the closing of the newspaper, Al Hawza, a radical Shiite weekly. The rally drew hundreds and then thousands by nightfall in central Baghdad, where masses of angry Shiite men squared off against a line of American soldiers who rushed to seal off the area. When you repress the repressed, they only get stronger, said Hamid al-Bayati, a spokesman for the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a prominent Shiite political party. Punishing this newspaper will only increase the passion for those who speak out against the Americans. We have been evicted from our offices, and we have no jobs, Saadoon Mohsen Thamad, a news editor, said as he stared at a large padlock hanging from the front gate. How are we going to continue? That paper might have been anti-American, but it should be free to express its opinion, said Kamal Abdul Karim, night editor of the daily Azzaman. Omar Jassem, a freelance reporter, said he thought that democracy meant many viewpoints and many newspapers. I guess this is the Bush edition of democracy, he said.
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Chris, I think you won. Joanna Louis Proyect wrote: Chris Doss wrote: I say: It is unreliable because the country is lawless. Now, why would the country be lawless. I wonder if it might have something to do with bands of Islamoid gunmen running around invading adjoining areas of Russia and kidnapping people. Nah, couldn't be. Reply: Well, we have differences obviously. I don't think that Putin has any problem with lawlessness. He is all too happy to please the most lawless regime in the world, namely the USA. I believe that Russia has material interests in the Caucusus that are crucial to capital accumulation. It uses all sorts of excuses about bandits and Islamic radicalism to maintain control over profit-generating assets. In any case, I believe that I have made this point in all the detail it deserves so this will be my last post on the topic. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper (Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq)
At 1:06 PM -0500 3/29/04, Doug Henwood wrote: Under such conditions, you can't trust any Western opinion polls of Iraqis to reflect Iraqi opinions accurately, for Iraqis can't speak their minds freely: They don't seem shy about expressing their opinions to reporters for foreign wire services or newspapers or even demonstrating in front of U.S. troops Yes, more than 1,000 supporters of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr demonstrated peacefully, but that is a tiny minority in the nation of 24,683,313 (July 2003 est., http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html), and even counting any and all who have spoken to the press, demonstrated, and taken up arms against the occupation, you would still end up with a minority of the Iraqi population. Censorship surely has a chilling effect on dissent -- especially on the minds of those who do not have the courage to speak, protest, and resist openly. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper (Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq)
On Monday, March 29, 2004 at 13:16:10 (-0500) Yoshie Furuhashi writes: ... Yes, more than 1,000 supporters of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr demonstrated peacefully, but that is a tiny minority in the nation of 24,683,313 (July 2003 est., http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html), and even counting any and all who have spoken to the press, demonstrated, and taken up arms against the occupation, you would still end up with a minority of the Iraqi population. ... Let me get this right: since only 1,000 out of 24 million came out for a very vocal demonstration, that shows how cowed they are; therefore, 10,000 in the U.S., keeping proportions constant, shows the same thing? Bill
Re: U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper (Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq)
Bill Lear wrote: Let me get this right: since only 1,000 out of 24 million came out for a very vocal demonstration, that shows how cowed they are; therefore, 10,000 in the U.S., keeping proportions constant, shows the same thing? I don't think the issue is whether you can protest in the streets in Iraq. Obviously you can. This is not exactly Pinochet's Chile, although down the road it might come to that. It is really more a question of determining what Iraqis think about the occupation, etc. As long as you shut down newspapers (even though not murdering the editors as routinely happened in Colombia), the citizenry is forced to rely on a limited menu. This will color polls. Furthermore, the USA is forced to deal more delicately with Shi'ite protests since they are the main social base of the occupation besides the Kurds. If people marched down the streets of Baghdad demanding freedom for Saddam and a return of the Baathist Party to power, their treatment might be less gentle. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper (Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq)
On Monday, March 29, 2004 at 13:16:10 (-0500) Yoshie Furuhashi writes: Yes, more than 1,000 supporters of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr demonstrated peacefully, but that is a tiny minority in the nation of 24,683,313 (July 2003 est., http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html), and even counting any and all who have spoken to the press, demonstrated, and taken up arms against the occupation, you would still end up with a minority of the Iraqi population. ... Let me get this right: since only 1,000 out of 24 million came out for a very vocal demonstration, that shows how cowed they are; therefore, 10,000 in the U.S., keeping proportions constant, shows the same thing? Bill Washington has yet to shut down a publication (e.g., _War Times_) that opposes the occupation in the United States, and it won't in the foreseeable future. I don't think that any major US newspaper has come out editorially against the continuing occupation (as opposed to the invasion, which some of them did oppose). -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper (Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq)
Bill Lear wrote: On Monday, March 29, 2004 at 13:16:10 (-0500) Yoshie Furuhashi writes: ... Yes, more than 1,000 supporters of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr demonstrated peacefully, but that is a tiny minority in the nation of 24,683,313 (July 2003 est., http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html), and even counting any and all who have spoken to the press, demonstrated, and taken up arms against the occupation, you would still end up with a minority of the Iraqi population. ... Let me get this right: since only 1,000 out of 24 million came out for a very vocal demonstration, that shows how cowed they are; therefore, 10,000 in the U.S., keeping proportions constant, shows the same thing? Bill, you're trying to reason, which is often a dead end. Even though half of Baghdadis polled expressed dislike of Bush and Blair and thought the U.S. was after their oil, and almost a fifth expressed support for attacks on U.S. forces, their expression of worry about what might happen (e.g. rampant violence and civil war) should foreign forces pull out with no replacements can't be believed, because it's inconvenient. Therefore the poll has to be discredited. QED. There's no more to discuss. It's been decided. Doug
Re: U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper (Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq)
In response to Yoshie, Bill Lear wrote: Let me get this right: since only 1,000 out of 24 million came out for a very vocal demonstration, that shows how cowed they are; therefore, 10,000 in the U.S., keeping proportions constant, shows the same thing? Saith Doug ironically, Bill, you're trying to reason, which is often a dead end. Even though half of Baghdadis polled expressed dislike of Bush and Blair and thought the U.S. was after their oil, and almost a fifth expressed support for attacks on U.S. forces, their expression of worry about what might happen (e.g. rampant violence and civil war) should foreign forces pull out with no replacements can't be believed, because it's inconvenient. Therefore the poll has to be discredited. QED. There's no more to discuss. It's been decided. I don't think Doug's irony is needed here. It seems to me that Doug's view (that Yoshie and others should read the poll more carefully) is totally consistent with Yoshie's skepticism about the validity of the poll. (I can understand it if Michael Perelman is tired of this discussion.) In effect, Yoshie is saying that without intimidation by the Occupying Authority (e.g., use of the resistance forces' attacks as a way to cow the people) maybe 75% of Baghdadis would have expressed dislike for BB. Similarly, without Bremer _et al_'s manipulation of the situation (and use of Saddam-era oppressive laws) perhaps 30 or even 50% percent would have expressed support for attacks on US forces. Of course, we don't know -- can't know -- for sure what would happen in this hypothetical situation. Similarly, if Iraq were being ruled in a more democratic way, it's possible that 100,000 of 24 million would have demonstrated. The variable to consider is not just the size of the population but also the general degree of fear. In the current situation, I understand that a lot of people are afraid to participate in civic life (partly due to hangovers from the Saddam period). With more public participation -- i.e., with less isolation and fragmentation -- people would likely feel more able to develop and express anti-US sentiments. As for the fear of what might happen if US forces pulled out, I think there's a very good reason to trust the poll results. People are almost always afraid of what will happen if the state (in this case, the US armed forces) goes away. The current situation in Iraq is perfect for sparking Hobbesian nightmares, which encourages support for the current Leviathan, just as it encouraged non-coerced support for Saddam. (This, of course, one of the reasons why anti-statism or anarchism is unpopular -- absent a well-organized mass movement that looks like it can replace the state.) Jim Devine
Re: U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper (Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq)
At the risk of overposting: Those who express ambivalence or reluctant support for the US occupation of Iraq are practicing a form of less-evilism. And like all forms of lesser evilism, this one is based on self-delusion. To be precise-- the delusion is that somehow someway the actions of the US military occupation prevent rather than foment disorder and destruction. The delusion is that the US military won't just cut and run when it suits its purposes no matter what the impact is going to be on Iraqis. The delusion is that somehow someway the humanitarian concerns of those inside/outside either/both parties counts for more than zip in the grand reckoning of capital. Look back in history and you find just this same delusional argument. Oh we shouldn't be in Vietnam, but now that we are, we just can't leave, and abandon our allies to the revenge of the NLF. But of course that's exactly what the US did do when it suited its own interests. And how about looking back further into US history? How about slavery? Slavery should not exist, but now that it does, we just can't abolish it. Look at what that will do to the poor slaves. Well, the defeat of Reconstruction proved just how much the Union cared for the welfare of the ex-slaves. So a question, and I won't bother you about this again: When US fatalities increase to 10 or 20 a day from the current 1 or 2, when every shopping mall is filled with SUVs saying bring them home, when every Senator questions our course in Iraq because of the increasing disorder, will our poll-minders still be arguing for the US to stay, for humanitarian reasons to be sure, no matter the cost to our well-intentioned military, to prevent the greater evil?
Re: U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper (Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq)
Devine, James wrote: As for the fear of what might happen if US forces pulled out, I think there's a very good reason to trust the poll results. People are almost always afraid of what will happen if the state (in this case, the US armed forces) goes away. This is not just about whether to trust the poll numbers or not. This discussion started when I replied to Milan Rai who stated that the antiwar movement in the USA should adopt the slogan that the UN police Iraq. This is a sharp debate within the antiwar movement just as it was in the 1960s when Sane/Freeze, the Nation Magazine and other mainstream peace voices opposed a precipitous withdrawal. Things got even more confused when Nixon coopted their rhetoric and spoke about Vietnamization, which has its parallel with certain arguments on the left for the need to have Arab states police Iraq. Worries about a bloodbath were raised not just by Nixon, but by many Democratic Party doves. As it turned out, the Vietnamese settled that question for themselves, just as the Iraqis will have to. At the heart of this is a different take on the question of US or UN power which some see as having a potentially benign character. This is the legacy of Stalinism in the USA to a degree. Keep in mind that illusions in the UN and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party were fostered by a party that once had 100,000 members and followers everywhere in the mass media. You can still see the same thinking at work in the ABB camp, most especially among some ex-Maoists like Carl Davidson who works with the Committees of Correspondence and initiated the petition drive on behalf of electing a Democrat in 2004. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper (Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq)
Jim, you are an excellent psychologist. I have been busy all day and have not been able to wade through the entire thread, but I think that everything has already been said. I suspect that we have pushed Chechnyia as far as we usefully can. Devine, James wrote: (I can understand it if Michael Perelman is tired of this discussion.) -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
The opinion polls in Chechnya show (rebel leader) Aslan Maskhadov and (pro-Moscow Chechen president) Aslan Kadyrov as being viewed with about equally phenomenal levels of dislike. Maskhadov has an about 1% approval rating. It's rough being a warlord. :) As I recall the polls showed more trusted Saddam than Chalabi, and Chalabi was the most distrusted Iraqi politician. Saddam was a distant second. Neither response would gladden the hearts of the occupiers.. Cheers, Ken Hanly
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Chris Doss wrote: The opinion polls in Chechnya show (rebel leader) Aslan Maskhadov and (pro-Moscow Chechen president) Aslan Kadyrov as being viewed with about equally phenomenal levels of dislike. Maskhadov has an about 1% approval rating. It's rough being a warlord. :) Is this an endorsement of Russian control over Chechnya? -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Incidentally there is an interview with Kadyrov right here (edited by moi): http://www.untimely-thoughts.com/index.html?cat=Aug%202,%202003type=3art=138. As far as I know it is the only time he has ever been interviewed by a Westerner. It is pre-2003 election.
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
You mean on the part of the Chechen population? Hard to say. My impression is that the majority of the population is very tired of being caught in a cross-fire bewteen trigger-happy, panicky Russian conscripts and jihadi nutballs and will accept anything that will get them out of the situation. The 2003 presidential elections in Chechnya were probably fixed; the same seems not to be the case with the referendum held earlier that year, in which the majority voted for remaining a part of the Russian Federation with broad autonomy (i.e. they would be in roughly the same situation as Tatarstan). What is interesting is that Maskhadov, through Zakayev, has said recently that he no longer wants independence, which makes you wonder what the hell he's fighting for. My guess is for the right to have some position in the Chechen government. His men keep crossing over to Kadyrov. Basayev on the other hand is a loon who wants to establish shariah over the Caucasus and will probably never stop fighting. Hell, he's the guy who launched the current war by attacking Dagestan, as far as I know against Maskhadov's objections (and those of Kadyrov, who has always been very anti-wahabbi and was Head Imam of Chechnya back when it was Free Ichkeria). Not that Maskhadov responded to the Kremlin's ultimatum to hand him over, which is why there was a Second Chechen War. He didn't apologize to the Dagestanis either, causing a great deal of anti-Chechnya sentiment in Dagestan. Is this an endorsement of Russian control over Chechnya? -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Chris Doss wrote: You mean on the part of the Chechen population? Hard to say. My impression is that the majority of the population is very tired of being caught in a cross-fire bewteen trigger-happy, panicky Russian conscripts and jihadi nutballs and will accept anything that will get them out of the situation. The 2003 presidential elections in Chechnya were probably fixed; the same seems not to be the case with the referendum held earlier that year, in which the majority voted for remaining a part of the Russian Federation with broad autonomy (i.e. they would be in roughly the same situation as Tatarstan). Chris, you really should get a yahoo email account. It is really burdensome to reformat your text. On the substantive matter. I am not asking you what the Chechens are for. I am asking you whether or not you support the right of Russia to rule Chechnya. Are you opposed to their right to self-determination? Frankly, I have been leery of such movements when they have been directed against socialist governments, but against Putin's openly capitalist regime I have no qualms whatsoever. It is interesting that Clinton went to war with Milosevic after he refused to allow Kosovo to break away but told Time Magazine that Yeltsin (!) was the Abraham Lincoln of Russia when he fought to preserve the union. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Since you clearly don't want to read the actual poll, let me supply some highlights for you. These results don't sound like they're coming from people too terrified to speak their minds. Doug Here is one input from one of those from that part of the world, who is not terrified to speak his mind. Fuck you Americans! Get out of our part of the world! Immediately! Sabri
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
As I recall the polls showed more trusted Saddam than Chalabi, and Chalabi was the most distrusted Iraqi politician. Saddam was a distant second. Neither response would gladden the hearts of the occupiers.. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:24 PM Subject: Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: It's absurd to think that the occupied can freely say what they believe if they suspect that they have a good chance of talking to an informer. Then why did nearly 20% say that it was ok to attack U.S. troops? Why did something like 50% say they had unfavorable opinions of Blair Bush? I ask again, have you actually read any of the poll results? Doug
Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
On Znet you can find an article by Milan Rai (author of a worthwhile study of Noam Chomsky) that argues that the antiwar movement should not call for immediate withdrawal. Why? Because, according to recent polls, the Iraqis--no matter how much they are fed up with the occupation--are afraid of the anarchy that would ensue if the USA pulled out. He writes: But, as we pointed out in JNV Briefing 50, there is a great deal of ambivalence in the Iraqi attitude to the US/UK forces. The vast majority of the Iraqi people do not want immediate withdrawal. Asked how long the occupation forces should stay, Iraqis gave these responses: 'leave now' (15.1%); 'a few months' (8.3%); 'six months to a year' (6.1%); 'more than one year' (4.3%). 18.3% said 'They should remain until security is restored'. The bulk of people, however, said, 'They should remain until an Iraqi government is in place' (35.8%). (Only 1.5% said, 'They should never leave', and 10.6% didn't know.) Although I don't have the statistics at my fingertips, and I am not sure whether it is necessary to provide them, I am quite sure that Western polltakers found support for the US occupation of Vietnam all through the Vietnam war. Since the North Vietnamese and the NLF were not permitted to disseminate their views on what a united Vietnam would look like, it would naturally skew poll results. The same situation exists in Iraq. The resistance not ony has absolutely no freedom to present its ideas about how Iraq would look after US troop withdrawal, it is subject to demonization from the quisling government and the media it tolerates. Except for sermons in the mosques, arguments for removal of US troops cannot be heard. If Iraq was a free society, you'd have debates on the evening television between opposition politicians and those favoring continuing occupation. This in fact is the main complaint that the USA had about Aristide and Milosevic, and still has about Chavez and Castro. Until there is a level playing field in Iraq, it seems rather pointless to pay attention to Western pollsters. Beyond that, there is a *political* problem involved with support of occupation, even under UN auspices. I am not quite sure what Rai's politics are, but speaking as a socialist it seems obligatory to support self-determination. The United Nations is not some kind of neutral body. It has acted consistently in the 20th century to deny self-determination to the Koreans, the Congolese, the Yugoslavs and others. Even if you disregard this principle, you still have to contend with the character of the post-USSR UN, which is run by a Security Council that either defers to the USA or supports it outright. Rai says, Therefore, if the anti-war movement is to pay heed to the expressed wishes of the Iraqi people (as determined in several polls), we should abandon the demand for 'troops out now' and call instead for the rapid replacement of US/UK occupation forces, and the withdrawal of US/UK political and economic 'advisers'. As the Iraq quagmire deepens, the same debate that took place during the early days of the Vietnam war will take place again in all likelihood. Forces such as SANE/Freeze, AFL-CIO progressives and Democratic Party doves all argued for a phased withdrawal from Vietnam. Slogans and perspectives such as peace now, let the UN solve the problem, negotiations now, etc. were put forward as slogans for the antiwar movement, which consistently chose immediate withdrawal. It is singularly depressing to see a website so connected to Noam Chomsky putting forward a perspective that he himself rejected back in the 1960s. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Lou wrote; Until there is a level playing field in Iraq, it seems rather pointless to pay attention to Western pollsters. It's mind-boggling for leftists such as Milan Rai to suggest that Western pollsters, whose governments are belligerent occupiers in Iraq, could get honest answers from the Iraqis whom they survey in the occupied territory. How would the Iraqis know if the pollsters weren't informers? -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: It's mind-boggling for leftists such as Milan Rai to suggest that Western pollsters, whose governments are belligerent occupiers in Iraq, could get honest answers from the Iraqis whom they survey in the occupied territory. How would the Iraqis know if the pollsters weren't informers? I interviewed Gallup's director of international programs, Richard Burkholder, who supervised their poll in Baghdad. He said that the surveyors were Iraqis and it was never revealed that the sponsor of the poll was an American firm. He also said that many interviewees kept talking beyond the 60-minute scheduled duration of the interview, and tried to get the surveyors to talk to friends and relatives. He attributed their enthusiasm to the fact that no one had asked their opinion on anything of significance in decades, maybe ever. Burkholder struck me as a serious social scientist who wanted to get things right. Listen and judge for yourself: http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html. Scroll down to November 6, 2003. I realize that the polls say things that a lot of leftists, who already know what Iraqis think or should think, don't want to hear. But Christian Parenti, who's spent five or six weeks in Iraq reporting there, said the results comported with his impressions of the place. To which I can already imagine the retort that Christian's gotten a Soros grant, so is now a tool of the empire. Doug
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Actually, there is historical evidence that during the Ottoman period a primitive technique of poll taking was developed and used in certain Sancaks, including in the region what we nowaday call Iraq. Doug Henwood wrote: He attributed their enthusiasm to the fact that no one had asked their opinion on anything of significance in decades, maybe ever. -- E. Ahmet Tonak Simons Rock College of Bard Great Barrington, MA 01230 Phone: 413-528 7488 Homepage: www.simons-rock.edu/~eatonak
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
At 2:27 PM -0500 3/26/04, Doug Henwood wrote: It's mind-boggling for leftists such as Milan Rai to suggest that Western pollsters, whose governments are belligerent occupiers in Iraq, could get honest answers from the Iraqis whom they survey in the occupied territory. How would the Iraqis know if the pollsters weren't informers? I interviewed Gallup's director of international programs, Richard Burkholder, who supervised their poll in Baghdad. He said that the surveyors were Iraqis and it was never revealed that the sponsor of the poll was an American firm. That gives thinking Iraqi men and women -- especially those who are involved in the armed and unarmed resistance in some fashion -- a good reason to suspect that the Iraqi surveyors are informers working for Americans. That's Self Defense 101. Are the current occupiers in Iraq the first belligerent occupier in history to poll the occupied in the hope of having the world accept the polling results as a justification for the occupation? -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Are the current occupiers in Iraq the first belligerent occupier in history to poll the occupied in the hope of having the world accept the polling results as a justification for the occupation? Did you actually read the results of the Gallup Poll? The opinions were very mixed - gratitude for being free of Saddam combined with deep suspicions of U.S. motives, significant support (though a minority) for attacks on U.S. forces, anxiety over any withdrawal of troops combined with very negative views of Bush and Blair, a desire for some kind of democratic self-rule, an eagerness to return to more traditional gender roles, etc. Doug
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Some folks sititng in university offices in the United States often will attribute to those in other parts of the world who aren't saying what they want them to say (or can't really hear what they are syaing) the quality of being a tool. It is pretty clear from Iraqi sources apart from this poll or US media (etc.) that indeed Iraqis are worried about the likelihood of civil strife and war upon withdrawal of troops. The Bush administration is using this concern to try to perpetuate his military (and political and economic) influence on the course of events. Most Iraqis of a democratic perpsuasion would prefer the presence of UN peacekeepers for the maintenance of security. Ahmed Chalabi, Bush's point man in the IGC, has tried to deny this and say that Iraqis don't want or need a UN presence, but he and his cronies, of course, have no ties or base within Iraq. I think it might be a good idea to support the UN demand. It might also be a good idea to support Iraq's growing trade union movement: http://www.iraqitradeunions.org/ _ Find a broadband plan that fits. Great local deals on high-speed Internet access. https://broadband.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Joel wrote: Some folks sititng in university offices in the United States often will attribute to those in other parts of the world who aren't saying what they want them to say (or can't really hear what they are syaing) the quality of being a tool. I am at a university, but I occupy a cubicle rather than an office--more like Dilbert's than the one that Gayatri Spivak has. Most Iraqis of a democratic perpsuasion would prefer the presence of UN peacekeepers for the maintenance of security. Ahmed Chalabi, Bush's point man in the IGC, has tried to deny this and say that Iraqis don't want or need a UN presence, but he and his cronies, of course, have no ties or base within Iraq. This is fundamentally a tactical disagreement. The Kerry campaign, old Europe, et al want a multilateral imperialist occupation. To give you an idea of what kind of machinations are possible, the newly elected socialist President of Spain has worked out a deal that the Spanish troops withdrawn from Iraq will be sent to Afghanistan to show that they are serious about fighting terrorism in line with Richard Clarke's compaints. Supposedly this will go over better with Spanish voters since this kind of occupation has the blessing of the UN and old Europe. I think it might be a good idea to support the UN demand. Just out of curiosity, is the CPUSA in solidarity with the CP of Iraq that sits on the quisling Governing Council next to Chalabi? It might also be a good idea to support Iraq's growing trade union movement: http://www.iraqitradeunions.org/ This is from Mahmood Ketabchi, a Marxmail subscriber and sympathizer of the Workers Communist Party of Iraq. It refers to the IFTU, whose website Joel urges us to visit above. From: Mahmood ketabchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 On January 27, the US puppet Iraqi Governing Council has appointed or rather hand picked a union, the Iraqi Federation of Trade Union (IFTU) as the legitimate representative of Iraqi workers. IFTU is associated with the Iraqi Communist Party whose leader was chosen by the occupation authority to serve on the the Iraqi Governing council with the primary function to justify the bloody occupation of Iraq. The Federation of Workers' Council and Unions in Iraq has issued a statement condemning this decision. Please read the statement bellow: * Statement of the Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions in Iraq on the Governing Council's Resolution that Appoints Representatives for the Iraqi Workers On January 27, 2004, the Governing Council passed its resolution number 3, which appoints an organization as the official representative of the Iraqi workers inside the country and internationally. This organization consists of the representatives of the parties grouped in the Governing Council. The Resolution 3 is a continuation of the Baathist tradition which appointed trade unions through orders and from above. This resolution contradicts all international conventions, resolutions, and agreements which stress that establishing trade unions and labour organizations is the affair of workers themselves and that workers should elect their representatives freely from among their ranks. We, in the FWCUI, believe that the Governing Council has no right to pass any resolution preventing workers from electing their representatives. Therefore, we totally reject this resolution and regard it as an attempt to enforce the practices of the ousted Baath regime which denied workers any control over their own affairs and erected bureaucratic and repressive bodies which had nothing to do with the interests of workers. The resolution number 3 is a part of the attempts by the state apparatus to control workers despite all rhetoric about freedom. The Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions in Iraq calls for a general conference, which embraces all labour activists in Iraq. The FWCUI also calls on the international labour organizations to attend this conference. Genuine and influential labour organizations, which represent workers, can only be established when workers themselves freely elect their own representatives. Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions in Iraq February 19, 2004 Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
The occupation is a situation with no good options at all. For the US to stay, for the US to pack up and leave immediately, or for the United Nations to come in all have negative consequences. In addition, a discussion like this necessarily involves several different measures that various participants will apply? What will the choice mean for imperialism as a whole, the US political future, the Iraqi people In short, there are no good answers and certainly no clean answers. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Some folks sititng in university offices in the United States often will attribute to those in other parts of the world who aren't saying what they want them to say (or can't really hear what they are syaing) the quality of being a tool. On the other hand, people do often reply to polls by saying what they feel they ought to say. I remember that (years ago), I wandered around my (middle class/upper blue-collar working class) neighborhood in Illinois asking people to sign a petition against the war (or, more specifically, against the extension of the Vietnam war into Cambodia). Two things were notable: (1) some people were _afraid_ to sign the petition, even in the land of the free, home of the brave. This seems to have been a hangover from the McCarthy era. I'd bet that the hangover from the Saddam era is stronger, especially if people in Iraq are conscious of the fact that the US used to be an ally of Saddam's. (Have you seen the picture and movie of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand?) (2) if I asked people what they thought, most of them were vaguely against the war but supportive of their president, but if I asked them what _people in general_ were thinking, the perceived anti-war feeling was stronger. My guess was that a lot of people were more against the war than they said they were and attributed their true feelings to others. If I were a pollster, I'd value this kind of info. It is pretty clear from Iraqi sources apart from this poll or US media (etc.) that indeed Iraqis are worried about the likelihood of civil strife and war upon withdrawal of troops. The Bush administration is using this concern to try to perpetuate his military (and political and economic) influence on the course of events. there was an opinion piece in the GUARDIAN [U.K.] arguing that the Bushies are exploiting terrorist attacks to cow the opposition. ... It might also be a good idea to support Iraq's growing trade union movement: http://www.iraqitradeunions.org/ good idea, especially since Proconsul Bremer decided to keep Saddam's old anti-labor law. Jim D.
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Are the current occupiers in Iraq the first belligerent occupier in history to poll the occupied in the hope of having the world accept the polling results as a justification for the occupation? Did you actually read the results of the Gallup Poll? The opinions were very mixed - gratitude for being free of Saddam combined with deep suspicions of U.S. motives, significant support (though a minority) for attacks on U.S. forces, anxiety over any withdrawal of troops combined with very negative views of Bush and Blair, a desire for some kind of democratic self-rule, an eagerness to return to more traditional gender roles, etc. Doug Sure, but if I were an Iraqi in Iraq right now, I would not reveal what I really think to any Iraqi surveyor working for an American firm or even an Iraqi firm -- I would say what I think would be safe to say, rather than blurt out something that may bring extra surveillance (and possibly even danger of arrest and interrogation) to me, my family, and my friends. It's absurd to think that the occupied can freely say what they believe if they suspect that they have a good chance of talking to an informer. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: It's absurd to think that the occupied can freely say what they believe if they suspect that they have a good chance of talking to an informer. Then why did nearly 20% say that it was ok to attack U.S. troops? Why did something like 50% say they had unfavorable opinions of Blair Bush? I ask again, have you actually read any of the poll results? Doug
Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
At 4:07 PM -0800 3/26/04, Devine, James wrote: people do often reply to polls by saying what they feel they ought to say. They often do even under normal circumstances in the United States (e.g., Americans overstate their church attendance). Doug and Joel ought to remember that Iraq is *under foreign military occupation conducting counterinsurgency warfare* with censorship, checkpoints, house raids, arbitrary arrest and detention, no due process, etc. -- i.e. Iraqis do not have freedom of speech. As Alex Gourevitch reminds the reader, In June [2003], Bremer issued a nine-point list of 'prohibited activity' that included incitement to violence, support for the Baath Party, and publishing material that is patently false and calculated to promote opposition to the occupying authority (Exporting Censorship to Iraq, October 1, 2003, http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/9/gourevitch-a.html). The CPA have attacked critical journalists and closed down hostile publications in Iraq. It is ridiculous to imagine that Iraqis under such conditions can freely say to surveyors who may very well be informers that they oppose the occupying authority, much less support any resistance to it (talking to pollsters is even less safe than talking to journalists). Only the most daring or the most foolhardy would. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: It's absurd to think that the occupied can freely say what they believe if they suspect that they have a good chance of talking to an informer. Then why did nearly 20% say that it was ok to attack U.S. troops? Why did something like 50% say they had unfavorable opinions of Blair Bush? I ask again, have you actually read any of the poll results? Doug To my knowledge, it's not yet illegal to have unfavorable opinions of Blair Bush. To make one comparison, Palestinian citizens of Israel are free to have unfavorable opinions of Sharon and Bush, but they can't freely make remarks that the state of Israel may interpret as prohibited activities -- take the case of Azmi Bishara, for instance, who was accused of having: * a. Verbally published words of praise, sympathy, and encouragement for acts of violence that are liable to cause the death or injury of a person. b. Verbally published words of praise, sympathy and a call to assist and support a terrorist organization. c. Performed in public an act that contains a revelation of identification with a terrorist organization or sympathy towards it. http://www.azmibishara.info/indictments/politicalspeeches.pdf * As for 20% of Iraqis who say that it's OK to attack US troops, I suppose that 20% of Iraqis are very courageous or foolhardy or both, just as a good number of daring Iraqis have held street demonstrations against the occupation even though some of them have been shot by occupying soldiers and a smaller number of them have taken up arms against them, an activity that is even more dangerous to themselves and their loved ones. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Doug and Joel ought to remember that Iraq is *under foreign military occupation conducting counterinsurgency warfare* with censorship, checkpoints, house raids, arbitrary arrest and detention, no due process, etc. -- i.e. Iraqis do not have freedom of speech. Since you clearly don't want to read the actual poll, let me supply some highlights for you. These results don't sound like they're coming from people too terrified to speak their minds. Doug Only one in four Baghdad residents (26%) told Gallup they would prefer coalition forces to leave immediately -- say, in the next few months. Seven in 10 (72%) said U.S. and British troops should stay in Iraq for a longer period of time. Furthermore, a substantial 85% of Baghdad's residents said they agree with the assertion that some people believe if the U.S. were to pull out its troops any time soon, Iraq will fall into anarchy. Just 11% said they disagree with this assessment. While opinions differ as to which specific groups are behind attacks on U.S. troops and what their motives are, a majority of Baghdad's residents -- 64% -- view them as either somewhat (22%) or completely (42%) unjustifiable. That said, a significant minority of Baghdad's residents are unwilling to condemn attacks against U.S. troops, at least under certain circumstances. Seventeen percent said that the current attacks on U.S. forces are sometimes justified, and sometimes not justified. Of greater concern is the fact that nearly one in five Baghdadis (19%) view the ongoing attacks as either somewhat (11%) or completely (8%) justifiable. --- Although 62% of Baghdad residents who participated in Gallup's landmark poll of that city said ousting Saddam Hussein was worth any personal hardships they have endured since the invasion, most are deeply skeptical of the initial rationale the coalition has given for its action. The 2003 Gallup Poll of Baghdad asked respondents to describe, in their own words, why they think the United States and Great Britain invaded Iraq. Just 4% of Baghdad's residents said they believe it was done to eliminate weapons of mass destruction -- the principal justification given at the time. Slightly more than 4 in 10 (43%) said the invasion's principal objective was Iraq's oil reserves, while nearly as many (37%) see the invasion as motivated primarily by a desire to topple Hussein's regime. In addition to oil, others mentioned the country's oil-derived wealth (11%) and its non-petroleum mineral deposits (7%) as motives for the coalition's military action. Some Baghdadis also cited strategic considerations: 14% said the action was intended to colonize and occupy a portion of the Middle East, and 6% said the motivation was a desire to change the map of the Middle East in a way more attuned to U.S. and Israeli interests. Just 5% of Baghdadis said the invasion's principal motivation was to assist the Iraqi people, while 15% said the coalition invaded to benefit the people of the United States. Only 1% believe that a desire to establish democracy was the main reason for last spring's assault. Approximately half (52%) of the Baghdadis interviewed said they agree with the assertion that the U.S. is very serious about establishing a democratic system in Iraq, while roughly a third (36%) said they disagree with this characterization of America's intent and commitment. However, while many appear to see the U.S. commitment to democracy as very serious, there is also concern about whether the establishment of a democratic system will provide adequate insulation from U.S. pressure and influence. Only about a third (35%) of Baghdad residents agree that the U.S. will allow Iraqis to fashion their own political future as they see fit without direct U.S. influence, while 51% disagree with this prediction. --- Although more than a decade of severe economic sanctions were imposed under its auspices, Baghdad residents are considerably more likely to view the United Nations favorably (50%) than unfavorably (20%). In fact, of the seven U.N. member states rated, only Japan (60%), France (55%), and Germany (53%) -- the latter two both outspoken opponents of the coalition invasion -- are more likely than the United Nations to be viewed favorably. Views of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan are more mixed, with 39% of Baghdadis expressing a favorable opinion and 28% an unfavorable one. In terms of net favorability (+13%), Annan is well ahead of both British Prime Minister Tony Blair (-27%) and President George Bush (-21%), but behind French President Jacques Chirac (+22%) and Coalition Provisional Authority chief administrator Paul Bremer (+24%). --- Gallup's survey sought Baghdad residents' reactions to the possibility of internationalizing the security effort -- not via troop commitments from specific nations (which would presumably remain under coalition command), but through the formation and introduction of an international peacekeeping police force.
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Doug and Joel ought to remember that Iraq is *under foreign military occupation conducting counterinsurgency warfare* with censorship, checkpoints, house raids, arbitrary arrest and detention, no due process, etc. -- i.e. Iraqis do not have freedom of speech. And I know it's asking a lot, but you might want to listen to Richard Burkholder's responses to my questions about how you poll a people under occupation. The exchange took up a substantial portion of the interview http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html. Doug
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
At 9:20 PM -0500 3/26/04, Doug Henwood wrote: Doug and Joel ought to remember that Iraq is *under foreign military occupation conducting counterinsurgency warfare* with censorship, checkpoints, house raids, arbitrary arrest and detention, no due process, etc. -- i.e. Iraqis do not have freedom of speech. Since you clearly don't want to read the actual poll, let me supply some highlights for you. What's the point of examining the content of a poll carefully if the polled are not under conditions where they can freely say what they think? You have yet to address what impacts Iraqis' fundamental lack of freedom have on any polling results (assuming that the pollster isn't fully embedded in the occupying authority). The idea of the occupier polling the occupied with a view to using the results for propaganda purposes is patently absurd, but you obviously don't think it is -- very perplexing. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
I think that this thread regarding polls is becoming repetitive. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: [lbo-talk] Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: At 4:07 PM -0800 3/26/04, Devine, James wrote: people do often reply to polls by saying what they feel they ought to say. They often do even under normal circumstances in the United States (e.g., Americans overstate their church attendance). Doug and Joel ought to remember that Iraq is *under foreign military occupation conducting counterinsurgency warfare* with censorship, checkpoints, house raids, arbitrary arrest and detention, no due process, etc. -- i.e. Iraqis do not have freedom of speech. I can't quite see the point of this argument. The (active) anti-war movement is irrevocably committed to U.S. out of Iraq Now! The debate is really over on that. No one is going to go out and organize in favor of some such slogan as The U.S. should think about leaving as soon as it has established a stable order that the U.N. is willing to oversee and that is approved by at least 63% of the Iraqi people in a scientifically organized poll. And regardless of exact percentage of Iraqis that (verbally) support this or that, it is clear that well over 10% of the Iraqi population is committed to expelling the U.S. That guarantees that upwards of 100,000 troops are permanently committed to taking continual casualties so long as the U.S. remains there. That in turn means (a) that the u.s. lacks the military resources for further aggression elsewhere -- e.g., there can be no _direct_ u.s. intervention in Venezuela, and (b) that the anti-war movement will be able to retain at least its present level of strength, with new people in it becoming steadily more committed to protracted struggle. It should even grow a bit after the present hiatus from politics ends sometime early in 2005. Nearly everyone in the local group is committed to ABB, but they are also quite free from the sectarian crap that seems to infest most (not all) ABBs on the maillists. Hence it makes sense to a very large core to work hard to build for the future. And no one has let out a peep about popularity polls in Iraq. They want the troops home. What I said in October 2001 seems to be still holding: the political future is much brighter than it was before 9/11. Carrol
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Devine, James wrote: Quoting someone: Some folks sititng in university offices in the United States often will And there are some folks who never choose to argue with specific arguments from specific opponents. They prefer to set up ghostly (and mostly nonexistent) opponents with silly arguments. It so simplifies life if one never needs to confront actual postions held by acutal people who are actually present in the conversation but can carry on this ghostly argument with some people. I agree with Jim's actual arguments, but he will never get a reply to those arguments. Someone will invent another ghostly someone somewhere to reply to. Carrol
Re: [lbo-talk] Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Doug and Joel ought to remember that Iraq is *under foreign military occupation conducting counterinsurgency warfare* with censorship, checkpoints, house raids, arbitrary arrest and detention, no due process, etc. -- i.e. Iraqis do not have freedom of speech. I'm not sure why I'm being characetrized as having argued that Iraqis have free speech. More accurately, I think that we can't just assume that people are lying or are duped or their own view of things is as clear as we think ours is. I can't quite see the point of this argument. The (active) anti-war movement is irrevocably committed to U.S. out of Iraq Now! The debate is really over on that. No one is going to go out and organize in favor of some such slogan as The U.S. should think about leaving as soon as it has established a stable order that the U.N. is willing to oversee and that is approved by at least 63% of the Iraqi people in a scientifically organized poll. The march 20th demo near where I live used the slogan US out/UN in. I just don't think the situation is as simple as US out Now! Of course they should get out; they should have never gone. To my mind, there are some similarities to the situation in Haiti. After the US unleashes terrorist gangs (former death squad types funded by the CIA), sponsored now by the Republican Party, by the way, should we just say US out Now! and let the Haitians fend for themselves? And regardless of exact percentage of Iraqis that (verbally) support this or that, it is clear that well over 10% of the Iraqi population is committed to expelling the U.S. That guarantees that upwards of 100,000 troops are permanently committed to taking continual casualties so long as the U.S. remains there. That in turn means (a) that the u.s. lacks the military resources for further aggression elsewhere -- e.g., there can be no _direct_ u.s. intervention in Venezuela, and (b) that the anti-war movement will be able to retain at least its present level of strength, with new people in it becoming steadily more committed to protracted struggle. It should even grow a bit after the present hiatus from politics ends sometime early in 2005. Nearly everyone in the local group is committed to ABB, but they are also quite free from the sectarian crap that seems to infest most (not all) ABBs on the maillists. Hence it makes sense to a very large core to work hard to build for the future. And no one has let out a peep about popularity polls in Iraq. They want the troops home. What I said in October 2001 seems to be still holding: the political future is much brighter than it was before 9/11. Carrol All very well put. Joel Wendland http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/70/1/14/ (interview with Iraq CP representative I did late last September) _ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Information Warfare (Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq)
At 9:17 PM -0600 3/26/04, Carrol Cox wrote: Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: At 4:07 PM -0800 3/26/04, Devine, James wrote: people do often reply to polls by saying what they feel they ought to say. They often do even under normal circumstances in the United States (e.g., Americans overstate their church attendance). Doug and Joel ought to remember that Iraq is *under foreign military occupation conducting counterinsurgency warfare* with censorship, checkpoints, house raids, arbitrary arrest and detention, no due process, etc. -- i.e. Iraqis do not have freedom of speech. I can't quite see the point of this argument. The (active) anti-war movement is irrevocably committed to U.S. out of Iraq Now! The debate is really over on that. No one is going to go out and organize in favor of some such slogan as The U.S. should think about leaving as soon as it has established a stable order that the U.N. is willing to oversee and that is approved by at least 63% of the Iraqi people in a scientifically organized poll. I agree that no one will organize any street demonstrations explicitly demanding the continuing foreign occupation until order is restored. I've been thinking, though, that opinion polls in Iraq are not so much to reflect Iraqi opinions as to construct American opinions. The same BBC survey that Milan Rai writes about is proudly put on display on the CPA website: http://www.cpa-iraq.org/cgi-bin/prfriendly.cgi?http://www.cpa-iraq.org/. Now, I doubt that very many Iraqis believe what the CPA peddles without a giant grain of salt, so such CPA-approved polls can't influence Iraqis, despite what Douglas Feith said. When Douglas Feith, the official who oversaw OSI, was asked whether the Pentagon might 'secretly enlist' a non-government third party 'to spread false or misleading information to the news media,' he did not rule it out. 'We are going to preserve our ability to undertake operations that may, for tactical purposes, mislead an enemy,' said Feith (AP, 2/20/02), 'but we are not going to blow our credibility as an institution in our public pronouncements.' The Pentagon might lie, he seemed to be saying, but won't announce that it's doing so (Rachel Cohen, Behind the Pentagon's Propaganda Plan, _Extra! Update_, April 2002, http://www.fair.org/extra/0204/osi.html). The main victims must be the American electorate, as William Arkin suggested: * Now, in remarks made at a November 18 media briefing, Rumsfeld has suggested that though the exposure of OSI's plans forced the Pentagon to close the office, they certainly haven't given up on its work. According to a transcript on the Department of Defense website, Rumsfeld told reporters: And then there was the Office of Strategic Influence. You may recall that. And 'oh my goodness gracious isn't that terrible, Henny Penny the sky is going to fall.' I went down that next day and said fine, if you want to savage this thing fine I'll give you the corpse. There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done and I have. A search of the Nexis database indicates that no major U.S. media outlets -- no national broadcast television news shows, no major U.S. newspapers, no wire services or major magazines -- have reported Rumsfeld's remarks. Rumsfeld's comments seem all the more alarming in light of analysis presented by William Arkin in a recent Los Angeles Times opinion column (11/24/02), in which he argues that Rumsfeld is redesigning the U.S. military to make information warfare central to its functions. This new policy, says Arkin, increasingly blurs or even erases the boundaries between factual information and news, on the one hand, and public relations, propaganda and psychological warfare, on the other. Arkin adds that while the policy ostensibly targets foreign enemies, its most likely victim will be the American electorate. (MEDIA ADVISORY: The Office of Strategic Influence Is Gone, But Are Its Programs In Place? November 27, 2002, http://www.fair.org/press-releases/osi-followup.html) * To read the full transcript of Rumsfeld's remarks, go to http://www.dod.gov/news/Nov2002/t11212002_t1118sd2.html. Opinion polls conducted by non-government third parties to spread false or misleading information to the news media must be among the most useful tools of information warfare against Americans, especially if Americans who are as smart as Doug can believe that Iraqis are free to say what they think and feel under the foreign military occupation -- including advocating armed and unarmed resistance against it -- without worrying about any potential consequences at all. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ *
Re: Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq
Yoshie writes: ?The idea of the occupier polling the occupied with a view to using the results for propaganda purposes is patently absurd, but you obviously don't think it is -- very perplexing. it reminds me of an old cartoon in the NEW YORKER, back in the 1960s: two South Vietnamese soldiers aim their rifles at peasants and ask if the election were held today, who would you vote for? Jim D
