To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » David Peterson's Blog » Iraq and Vietnam I

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

50

David Peterson's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/davidpeterson
Bio: I am an independent writer and researcher based in Chicago. (More)

All Peterson Blogs

Recent Peterson Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts

Iraq and Vietnam I

By David Peterson at Oct 29, 2006

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+

In one of his old "Turning the Tide" blogs at ZNet ("Iraq and Vietnam," June 10, 2004), Noam Chomsky wrote that he didn't "see much useful analogy between Iraq and Vietnam."  The major dissimilarity between the two cases, as NC described it, pertains to the material significance of Iraq (unquestion- ably huge--"at the heart of the world's major energy reserves," NC wrote, "which is why the US invaded in the first place") relative not only to Vietnam, but also the whole of Indochina.  

A second level of dissimilarity follows from the American intention to install and to prop up a particular kind of Iraq (i.e., "nation-building," American-style--a wholly subjugated Iraq, managed by a puppet of American Power, and wholly in keeping with the "Arab facade" method of the past century).

But, because the actual material stakes are so much greater in Iraq than they ever were in Vietnam, the Americans fear a truly independent Iraq far more than they ever feared a truly independent Vietnam.

Indeed. Reason No. Two and especially Reason No. One constitute huge dissimilarities between Iraq and Vietnam.  And if we put some meat on the bones of the old State Department memo from 1945--the Middle East as a "stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history"--by now, one of the most frequently quoted passages in the history of formerly classified U.S. Government archives--the argument for the dissimilarity between Iraq and Vietnam becomes even clearer. Much clearer, in fact.

Thus to cite a few morsels from the data for which the U.S. Energy Information Administration serves as a clearinghouse, after Saudi Arabia's approx. 262 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, "around one-fourth of proven, conventional world oil reserves" (perhaps with "up to 1 trillion barrels of ultimately recoverable oil"), Iraq possesses: 

115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the third largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia and Canada), concentrated overwhelmingly (65 percent or more) in southern Iraq. Estimates of Iraq's oil reserves and resources vary widely, however, given that only about 10 percent of the country has been explored. Some analysts (the Baker Institute, Center for Global Energy Studies, the Federation of American Scientists, etc.)believe, for instance, that deep oil-bearing formations located mainly in the vast Western Desert region could yield large additional oil resources (possibly another 100 billion barrels or more), but have not been explored. Other analysts, such as the U.S. Geological Survey, are not as optimistic, with median estimates for additional oil reserves closer to 45 billion barrels.

(One caveat, however. We need to put on a pair of gloves before handling these notions of proven versus ultimately recoverable oil reserves (and the like). The U.S. Energy Information Administration often relies upon private sector sources of information, such as the energy-sector's own Oil and Gas Journal.  What is more, the notion of ultimately recoverable oil reserves often takes into account oil for which the method of recovery exceeds even the best available current technology. The overriding factors when estimating just how proven so-called proven reserves are, then, are how recoverable the oil is (e.g., Can a well be drilled straight down into the earth and the pumps turned on?), at what kind of cost per barrel, and involving what range of risks?  Both Iraqi and Saudi oil are proven in the first sense.  But the first sense only.)

Whatever the case, ultimately, turns out to be for Iraqi oil, the fact that Iraqi national territory sits atop vast reserves of recoverable non-renewable energy makes the outcome of the American occupation of the utmost significance not just to American Power, but to the rest of the energy-gulping world.  Nothing remotely comparable ever could have been said about Vietnam or Indochina as a whole.

Still.  I think there is one axis along which an analogy between American Power in Vietnam then, and American Power in Iraq today, is both powerful, persuasive, and enlightening. This is the logic of quagmire.

(A brief digression. There is a term, 'quagmire', which turns up in commentary on U.S. occupations of foreign territories, and which saw its original use in the context of the U.S. occupation of Vietnam. Most notably, David Halberstam's The Making of a Quagmire: America and Vietnam During the Kennedy Era (Rev. Ed., Alfred A. Knopf, 1987--the First Ed. was 1965).  But this is the "quagmire" of noble American intentions gone awry.  So, for the record, I am not alluding to this standard usage of the term 'quagmire'.)

Back to the actually-existing logic of quagmire (and see my earlier ZNet Blog, "Quagmire"): As NC writes in Rethinking Camelot (South End Press, 1993):

Without exception, withdrawal proposals [from Vietnam] were conditioned on military victory. Every known [Kennedy] Administration plan was explicit on that score, notably the October 1963 "program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort," coupled with instructions from the President to "increase effectiveness of war effort" so as to ensure "our fundamental objective of victory" (N.C.'s emphasis, p. 33). (For the etext version, see Sect. 14.)

The point is that (to use another passage of NC's from elsewhere in the same book), "The US is militarily strong but politically weak, unable to elicit support for its plans for the Third World, a persistent problem in Indochina as elsewhere, always a mystery to the planners....These are enduring themes of the 500-year conquest, sure to persist." (RC, pp. 98-99. For the etext version, see Sect. 26.)

This is the most pertinent similarity, I think, between the American occupation of Vietnam 40 or more years ago, and the American occupation of Iraq today. Surely in the case of Iraq, withdrawal proposals have always been in circulation that are conditioned on a kind of military and political victory that is unachievable--where the crucial qualifications remain (a) militarily strong, but politically weak, and (b) without impairment of the war effort.  (On NC's Rethinking Camelot, see, e.g., "Stable Guidelines," "Militarily Strong, Politically Weak," and "The Military View." And, of course, read around.)

In terms of the major oil-rich states in the region (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and the smaller Persian Gulf states), American popularity is at or near an all-time low. Extending the geographic frame a little wider, from West to East, in Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is more of the same: Militarily strong (though sometimes very tenuously so), but politically weak.  Indeed.  Politically detested.  Politically vanquished.

In Vietnam, as NC shows, the consequence was the de-emphasis of the political and the escalation of the military, across four different presidential regimes, both Republican and Democrat (esp. the latter).

This dynamic of American Power, I think, is not only one of the "enduring themes of the 500-year conquest" and "sure to persist."  But it is persisting.  In Iraq most immediately.  But also across this vital region of the world.

True, the rapidity with which this dynamic has unfolded this time is far greater.  Events in the Iraqi city of Fallujah (ca. April, 2004) having been a case in point.  Imagine a whole city of 300,000 (or more) people transformed into an enemy encampment in less than a year-and-a-half!

But, politically, the Americans are finished in Iraq.  All they have left is their vastly superior firepower. But the more they resort to it to get what they want, the more hated they become. The greater the resistance.

Endnote: With very minor changes, the preceding commentary was originally posted to my now-non-existent Rocinante Blog at ZNet on June 27, 2004.  I have re-entered it here based on an old printed copy.  The argument, however, is unchanged.  Politically speaking, the Americans are nowhere inside Iraq.  All that they have is what they arrived with more than three-and-a-half years ago: Their superior violence, their threats, and their bribes.  People who resort to such means deserve to be defeated.     

 

Update (November 17): The American President just landed in Hanoi.  He is there to participate in this weekend's summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.  His trip to Vietnam marks the first ever by his Preisdency, and only the second by an American President (the first having been Bill Clinton in 2000) since the last diplomats, staff, family, military personnel, and "Tiger-Cage" administrators fled Saigon back in April, 1975.

Shortly after his arrival, the American President met with Australia's Prime Minister at the Sheraton Hanoi Hotel, where they prepared for this weeknd's APEC summit.  Afterwards, the two heads of state held a news conference at the hotel. 

Asked a couple of questions about what it means to "Americans who experienced some of the turbulence of the Vietnam War that you're here now, talking cooperation and peace with a former enemy," and, subsequently, whether he thought "there [are] lessons here for the debate over Iraq," Bush replied ("President Bush Meets with Prime Minister Howard of Australia," White House Office of the Press Secretary, November 17):

I think one thing -- yes, I mean, one lesson is, is that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while. But I would make it beyond just Iraq. I think the great struggle we're going to have is between radicals and extremists versus people who want to live in peace, and that Iraq is a part of the struggle. And it's just going to take a long period of time to -- for the ideology that is hopeful, and that is an ideology of freedom, to overcome an ideology of hate. Yet, the world that we live in today is one where they want things to happen immediately. And it's hard work in Iraq. That's why I'm so proud to have a partner like John Howard who understands it's difficult to get the job done. We'll succeed unless we quit. The Maliki government is going to make it unless the coalition leaves before they have a chance to make it. And that's why I assured the Prime Minister we'll get the job done.

Reading these words, it is true that the terms boilerplate and rhetoric come to mind.  But not entirely.  Instead, one sentence and one clause stand out above the rest.  Namely: "We'll succeed unless we quit."  And:"[W]e'll get the job done."  Why these, and not the "great struggle...between radicals and extremists"?   

Comparisons between the American wars over Iraq and Vietnam keep coming up.  (Often to be rejected, incidentally.)  So let me state here what I believe to be the most important parallels or likenesses between the American war over Vietnam (and the whole of Indochina), on the one hand, and the American wars over Afghanistan and especially Iraq, on the other.

Most fundamentally, I believe there are two likenesses. 

First, there is the overarching continuity in both the ends and the means that we find affirmed and pursued by the aggressor state over the many decades of its history--but in particular, over the course of its history since the end of the Second World War, the period during which it has reigned supreme.

Second, there is, therefore, the exact same continuity of willingness on the part of the policymaking elite within the aggressor state to achieve its ends using all the necessary means--right down to the very last drop of the victim population's blood, which it is never shy about spilling.  Whether in Vietnam (the old South especially).  Laos and Cambodia.  Neighboring Indonesia.  Afghanistan and Iraq.  And dozens of lesser--and several not-so-lesser--points in between.

And though it is true that, contra Indochina, "Iraq cannot be destroyed and abandoned."  (Failed States, NC, pp. 147 - 148.) 

Still, as a proxy for this entire geographic region where most of the world's proven non-renewable energy resources happen to be located, Iraq can be both destroyed and retained.

At least the American policymaking elite hopes this against hope.

As always, it remains up to the rest of us to prove it wrong.

"Iraq and Vietnam I," ZNet, October 29, 2006
"Iraq and Vietnam II," ZNet, November 17, 2006

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (27)

Person

Why would you?

By Kissenger, Clark at Jul 11, 2007 15:03 PM
Why would you even talk about mixed marriage? It isn't fair to remember it, even it is a simple quota. Did you think their marriage problems could affect Obama's skills? Well, think again. And keep Mr. Bush in your mind.

Reply this comment

Person

The Nightmare Scenario

By Kissenger, Clark at Nov 16, 2006 12:33 PM
Friends: 

As the great loom for maintaining the military occupation of Iraq continues to cross its warp and its woof, there have been and will continue to be all sorts of indefensible patterns energing.  Imagine how a liar and cheat might complete the following statement: The U.S. Government cannot withdraw its military from Iraq because _____________ .   My greatest fear is a Democratic Presidency added to a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, ca. 2009 and thereafter, deciding not only that U.S. troops should remain in Iraq, but that the troop level and commitment should be greatly expanded as well.  Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be a much better salesperson for military escalation (including a draft to supply the missing manpower, packaged as "national service") than the loony Republicans turned out to be.  This is the nightmare scenario, in my opinion.

"The New Media Offensive to Prolong the Iraq War," Norman Solomon, CounterPunch, November 16, 2006 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Reply this comment

Person

Iraq and Vietnam

By Kissenger, Clark at Nov 13, 2006 17:50 PM

Friends:

What the United States will never simply give up is the geographic region where most of the world's proven non-renewable energy reserves are located.  Territorial Iraq (such as it exists today) is only one part of this region, as are the neighboring territories of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, and the several smaller Persian Gulf states.  Also, for that matter, the Caspian Sea region. 

But Vietnam never was.  (Though compare the much larger South China Sea region.  In the final analysis--and prognosticators of various final analyses are around--every last drop of non-renewable energy is to be factored-in.)

My basic point about Iraq and Vietnam is that a valid analogy works like this: American state-violence inspires resistance.  American policy is either to "pacify" or to destroy all resistance.  This, in turn, inspires more resistance.  In a never-ending dynamic.    

In the States, the Democratic Party just gained slim majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and very well may capture the Presidency in two years.    Considerable optimism has greeted this event.  (Though much of it is misplaced, in my opinion.)

Now. What might an American withdrawal from Iraq entail?  Pulling-out American armed forces from Iraq alone?  Or from the entire region?  Even if the former decision is taken (and I doubt it very, very much), the latter won't be.  The reasons it won't be are (a) that the region's non-renewable energy "prize" is too great for the Americans to pass it up (or leave for anyone else to control); and (b) that the American system is so oriented around militarism as well as investment and spending on military account that the American people first would have to undo (b) before (a) will ever be possible.  (Does anyone honestly believe that the institutional Democratic Party in the States is a force for achieving (b)?  If not, then we can write-off (a) along with (b).) 

In March, 2003, the Americans militarily seized Iraq as a proxy for the entire region, including the Caspian Sea.  By then, Iraq had been rendered defenseless by a 13-year embargo and regular and quite systematic military strikes.  Plus, there was no point in invading Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.  Plus, Iran could defend itself.  All of these factors led to the American war over Iraq.

Of course, the fate of Iraq is still being contested.  Though much more gravely in November 2006 than in May, 2003. 

 

David Peterson
Chicago

Reply this comment

Person

Ok, Victor, that's a decent

By Kissenger, Clark at Nov 13, 2006 17:05 PM

Ok, Victor, that's a decent enough theory.

Still, concerning the power vacuum, didn't withdrawing from Vietnam mean the Soviets would have it? Perhaps that doesn't matter because it's not so much a prize, but then why all the trouble to invade in the first place? The powers that be were just irrationally afraid of dominoes falling?

For the record, i do think it's an over simplification to say this war is just like the Vietnam war.. but that's not the same as saying there's no useful analogies between them at all.

Interestingly, I do recall much anger in the media at the first Bush president for not "finiishing the job". A critisism that always surprised and dismayed me. I got the impression that many democrats joined in that chorus too, not really caring what the critisism is as long as it's critisism of the other party's president... Maybe some of them figured that's better than him benefiting from "victory" and possibly being elected for a second term. Sad.. It's hard to say, but I suspect that if it weren't for that chorus, the neocons might not have been so emboldened to push for Iraq War II.

Reply this comment

Person

One was Intelligent, the other a reformed drunk...

By Kissenger, Clark at Nov 13, 2006 14:56 PM
"If Iraq is such a prize that noone can ever let go of, no matter what, how do you explain the fact that George H.W. Bush withdrew from the first Gulf War?" Because unlike his stupid son, Bush senior saw at the last minute that an overthrow of the Iraqi government would leave a serious power vacuum that would likely be filled by someone even less desirable to work with than Saddam - Saddam wasn't nice, but he was a known quantity. He also recognised he had no post war plan for dealing with the change of regime in place. So he withdrew. His son was a tad thicker than his old man....

Reply this comment

Person

Iraq and Vietnam

By Kissenger, Clark at Nov 13, 2006 14:19 PM

I disagree with Chomsky, although I'm not sure of the whole context. There are similarities between Iraq and Vietnam that are useful. The elite didn't want to let go of Vietnam either if my history is any good, and it was also a very unpopular and costly war with imperialist motivation that seemed to drag on and on without end in sight.

I don't understand this Idea that there is a lake of oil and that makes it all different.. And, help me if my history is just really poor, but there was in fact a failed attempt to build a capitalist US-friendly republican democracy in Vietnam, was there not? I do not know enough to say that it was analogous at all to Iraq or not...

Of course there are differences, but there are also enough similarities to be useful too as far as I can tell. It all depends on what aspects you are looking at and what kind of conclusions you are drawing...

If Iraq is such a prize that noone can ever let go of, no matter what, how do you explain the fact that George H.W. Bush withdrew from the first Gulf War?

 

Reply this comment

Z

Comparisons of Vietnam and Iraq.

By Anonymous, Anonymous at Nov 12, 2006 20:32 PM

The US reality in Iraq, really could not have gone worse for them politically.Or am I wrong? In many ways things are looking even worse than Vietnam. Surely there were a small percentage of Vietnamese who wanted the US help?In Iraq, the vast majority want the US out!

Perhaps now that US popularity in Iraq is at an all time low, the US admin can strike a great deal.We leave by a certain date - and these are the conditions... They could strike a wonderous oil deal for the US majors, and the Iraqis will surely do anything to be rid of their conquerers.

They of course would have to keep a military base or 2 in the counrty for "security".

Really though, neo con planners did not have a plan as such for what happened after the "liberation" which some planners said would be a "cakewalk". They were right.Futile resistance. But things have gone so badly wrong now, I believe the situation must surely be deliberate.

Public opinion back home in the US can turn against the war. But Bush can now say they have to stay for the meantime, because they cant cut and run without all who collaborated with them facing death. Humanitarian reasons! Cos Dubya really cares about Iraqis!

Have the oil contracts and laws been ironed out now? With the usual stipulations such as the law cant be changed for x amount of years. It really is hard to find out whats going on in this respect. Please do fill me in.

The sectarian violence erupting into civil war certainly stops the iraqis uniting against their colonial masters.This was surely forseen so is this why there has been a lack of a plan for what happens in Iraq after Saddam's regime is toppled? Perhaps the plan was to let the country get into a sectarian bloodbath and ethnic cleansing to keep the iraqi insurgency busy killing iraqis instead of the US soldiers.

The disregard for Iraqi deathtolls in US media is shocking.Do arab death's not mean much now? Is there an American superiority complex drifting down from Europe's colonial past to the new Empire of George?

Reply this comment

Person

re foreing policy...

By Kissenger, Clark at Nov 10, 2006 14:05 PM
william please no double posting..also tell us why the US would benefit from a democrat government.. so far, I didnt see any happy news, americans are so undebted because the war started by Bush that americans will have to pay for it the next 100 years , that is if american are able to breath real air during the next 15 years..

Reply this comment

Person

Fixing "Intelligence and Facts" around the Policy

By Kissenger, Clark at Nov 02, 2006 02:02 AM

Friends:

For some of the critical public documents and presentations that carry us through the official date of launch for Operation Iraqi Freedom, see below.

Notice that 100 percent of these documents (exclusive of the House and Senate votes of October 2002) are exemplary of the kind of “intelligence and facts [that] were being fixed around the policy,” to use the infamous phrase that scribe Matthew Rycroft used when reporting the July 23, 2002 meeting among the British mucky-mucks then hovering around Tony Blair.  (“SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL – UK EYES ONLY.”)  But comprising the public face of American policy, they are only indirectly relevant to the actual agenda on the Americans' plate.  As Rycroft's memo spelled out this relationship at some length between the public and the real ("The Secret Downing Street Memo," Sunday Times, May 1, 2005):

Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.  But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record.

For some more of the leaked and declassified documents dating from the pre-invasion period, also see "The Downing Street Memos" (ZNet, June 15, 2005).

President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point, White House Office of the Press Secretary, June 1, 2002
A Decade of Deception and Defiance, White House Office of the Press Secretary, September 12, 2002.  (For the PDF version of the complete document.)
President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly, White House Office of the Press Secretary, September 12, 2002
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September, 2002  (For the PDF version of the complete document.) 
- Resolution To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, House Roll Call Vote, October 10, 2002
- Resolution To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, Senate Roll Call Vote, October 11, 2002
Radio Address by the President to the Nation, White House Office of the Press Secretary, October 12, 2002
President Delivers "State of the Union", White House Office of the Press Secretary, January 28, 2003
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the UN Security Council, February 5, 2003
President Bush Addresses the Nation, White House Office of the Press Secretary, March 19, 2003 

Reply this comment

Person

Reply to Whit9 (2006-11-01 10:42)

By Kissenger, Clark at Nov 01, 2006 23:41 PM

Whit9:

Meaningful usage of the term 'elite' presupposes a complex social order, with a hierarchical class (or caste--even if a perfect meritocracy, rule by alleged merit would be hierarchical) structure and great disparities between the top and the rest.  If we're not talking about this kind of social order (as opposed to people), the term has no relevance.  That is to say, 'elite' is not a property inherring in people.  Rather, 'elite' denotes some of the roles and positions within a hierarchichal social order that are occupied by real though largely interchangeable people.

Unfortunately, commentary on these matters is rife with boilerplate and posturing, the way that just about everything else in the human world appears to be.  (In this sense, although ant-, bee-, and termite-related orders have elites, their orders do not also have intelligentsia and ideologues.  Much to their credit, I might add.)

By the way: The year 2006 happens to mark the 50th anniversary of C. Wright Mills's invaluable book, The Power Elite (Oxford University Press, latest ed. 1999). 

The Power Elite, C. Wright Mills, a few short excerpts from the book as posted to Third World Traveler

One outstanding source for discussions of these ideas has been the journal Monthly Review.

"The Power Elite Now," Alan Wolfe, American Prospect, May, 1999


David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Reply this comment

Person

Reply to SHN (2006-10-31 18:08)

By Kissenger, Clark at Nov 01, 2006 23:39 PM

Friend:

Thanks for the hyperlink: "Hezbollah: Talks over soldiers underway," Joseph Panossian, Associated Press, October 31.

Here are several others worth sharing with everyone: "Israeli fighter jets stage mock raids," Anna Johnson, Associated Press, October 31; "Israeli armored vehicles mass near Gaza: witness," Nidal al-Mughrabi, Reuters, October 31; "Six Palestinains killed in Gaza as Israel decides not to expand offensive," Associated Press, November 1; "Israel may rethink truce commitment," Tova Lazaroff and Hilary Leila Krieger  Jerusalem Post, November 1; "Right on! An appeal of faith to President George W. Bush," Michael Freund, Jerusalem Post, November 1; "IDF troops conducting large scale operation in Gaza," Xinhua, November 1.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Reply this comment

Person

Would someone please define

By Huskerfan, Whit9 at Nov 01, 2006 09:42 AM

Would someone please define "elite" for me?  The word gets tossed around quiet a bit.  Throughout history the word has meant many things politically, from the rich to the educated to anyone not of working class.

Thank you.

Reply this comment

Person

Hezbollah's take

By Hassan, Sheik at Oct 31, 2006 17:08 PM

Iraq is Vietnam according to Hezbollah.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061031/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_hezbollah

It will take years however, not months, for the U.S. to leave the middle east.

Reply this comment

Person

re : reply to cyrano

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 30, 2006 20:48 PM

david, jezuzzes, I am speechless..I nearly fell off my chair.. ignateff won't get my vote for his stance on the israelis conflict, this is what he said (ignathief's campaign)..

I can't vote for a guy that would leave our lebanese and palestinians friends behind. If its true that each canadian count, sso the same math should apply for our brothers and sisters in the Middle east.

Reply this comment

Person

I too have been subjected

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 30, 2006 20:44 PM

I too have been subjected to Iggy-mania by the Canadian press, which begins to drool and pant any time "humanitarian" and "Harvard" are spoken in the same breath. The Globe and Mail, our wannabe New York Times, is particularly guilty of a carrying a perma-boner for this master of doublethink.

He's gearing up to be like Canada's Alan Dershowitz. Except Iggy's way lamer. And there's been no movies made about him. Yet. Love the pic - is that Guardian from Alpha Flight?

 

Reply this comment

Person

U.S. Troops Out Now!

By X, Mr. at Oct 30, 2006 20:22 PM

The U.S. should leave Iraq NOW so the more activies like this can freely happen:

(AINA) -- According to the Assyrian website ankawa.com, a 14 year old Christian Assyrian boy, Ayad Tariq, from Baqouba, Iraq was decapitated at his work place on October 21.

Ayad Tariq was working his 12 hour shift, maintaining an electric generator, when a group of disguised Muslim insurgents walked in at the beginning of his shift shortly after 6 a.m. and asked him for his ID.

According to another employee who witnessed the events, and who hid when he saw the insurgents approach, the insurgents questioned Ayad after seeing that his ID stated "Christian", asking if he was truly a "Christian sinner." Ayad replied "yes, I am Christian but I am not a sinner." The insurgents quickly said this is a "dirty Christian sinner!" Then they proceeded to each hold one limb, shouting "Allahu akbar! Allahu akbar!" while beheading the boy.

Translated from Arabic by AINA

http://www.aina.org/news/20061029141418.htm

 

Reply this comment

Person

victory

By Churchill, Winston at Oct 30, 2006 20:14 PM

Victory At All Costs

Victory In Despite of All Terror

Victory No Matter How Long and Hard Fought the Road May Be

For Without Victory

There Is No Survival!

Reply this comment

Person

Reply to Cyrano (2006-10-30 17:12)

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 30, 2006 19:52 PM

Cyrano:

Speaking of Canada: Let us not forget the former Commander Bravo of the Humanitarian Brigades, more recently an MP from a riding in the Toronto area, and the frontrunner to take over the leadership of the Liberal Party (Nov. 28 - Dec. 3), Michael Ignatieff.  (By the way: You don't herald from Iggynation.  Do you?)

Now there is a man who appreciates the finer differences between worthy and unworthy norms and victims.  Greater and lesser evils.

If you do go ahead with your idea to build a Wall of Lamentation around you, be sure that before the mortar hardens, the bricks stand in between Ignatieff and you.


David Peterson
Chicago, USA

 

 

 

Reply this comment

Person

Clinton vs Ob amAaaaaa

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 30, 2006 16:12 PM
Democrats will attempt to promotes Obama popularity but in the end it would be a one woman show, it will be mrs clinton and I am not sure I like the alternative for the US voters. Here in Canada there is Harper, Bob Rae, Duceppe and al. so I am thinking about building my own Wall of Lamentation and may be I could invite j podur to come and cry with me..(lol) David, thanks for "Great White Hope," ZNet, August 16, 2004,

Reply this comment

Person

Reply to Keir (2006-10-30 04:45)

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 30, 2006 15:17 PM

Keir:

It is a reasonable assumption that in a culture of bigger, better, faster, now, feedback mechanisms exist such that every theater that provides a shooting gallery for the military will simultaneously provide weaponeers with a lab to test and to learn how their products perform in real-world circumstances.     

The only qualification that i would add to your otherwise valid point is that I don't believe the military and the weaponeers regard these tests as "lab rats."  Instead in their minds, the terminology must be perfectly antiseptic. 

By the way: Thanks for the hyperlink to the image on the cover of the October 28 Economist: "Cut and run?"  You may have noticed that the very same issue of The Economist also includes an article under the title "Obamamania."  Therein we read: 

Mr Obama has no shortage of positive qualities. He is a superb public speaker—his address to the 2004 Democratic Convention turned him into a celebrity even before he was elected to the Senate—and bright with it. He is also black. It is hard to overestimate the extent to which many Americans would like to elect a black man—or at least one of Mr Obama's calibre. The product of a mixed marriage—his mother was "white as milk", in his words, and his father, a Kenyan rather than an African-American, "black as pitch"—he is still black enough to dodge the "Oreo" slur. His father left his mother when he was two; he was brought up by his grandparents. Common, a rapper, has even devoted a line to him: "Why is Bush acting like he trying to get Osama? Why don't we impeach him and elect Obama?"

Now.  I know that some of you guys (Keir, for example) live outside the United States.  But in this paragraph, The Economist almost sounds as if it is referring to one of the mascots that walks around Disney World and poses for photographs with the paying customers.   So if indeed, within the utterly corupted and filthy American political culture, Barack Obama's pluses include the fact that he'll provide a more Disneyesque face for voters than one of those Bush and Cheney characters does, an Obama White House would be much better positioned to escalate the American military commitment to Iraq in a way that the current regime finds itself simply incapable of doing.  Nor would I in the least be surprised to see an Obama administration return the States to the military draft.  Some form of "sacrifice" and "national service," these Disney characters will call it.

I don't know which is worse, ultimately: The unreasonable belief that the Americans are about to withdraw from Iraq?  Or the unreasonable belief that by electing a Democrat to the White House they will be electing somebody willing to do it?  

"Great White Hope," ZNet, August 16, 2004
"Barack Obama and the Clash of Civilizations," ZNet, September 27, 2004 

 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Reply this comment

Z

I would l?ke to see a USA

By Anonymous, Anonymous at Oct 30, 2006 11:43 AM

I would l?ke to see a USA that could face th?s as a grown up nat?on. Abort your k?ll?ng mach?ne. Your m?l?tary stratec?cal men where anyway aga?nst ?t. Do ?t now and the emerg?ng world w?ll not hold ?t aga?nst you. No more k?ll?ngs please!

Reply this comment

Person

More

By Organum, Baby at Oct 30, 2006 11:37 AM

Add?ng to th?s, the tw?n tower ep?sode. A fact that ?s harder , and harder to contr?bute to that saud? pr?nce, tra?ned by amer?cans, to f?ght ?n Afghan?stan. The case stands clear after the study. D?ck Cheney as the f?rst c?v?l?an head of Norad, and Mart?n.P.Bush ( The younger brother of Jeb, and George ) as the CEO of the company ?n charge of electron?c secur?ty of the tw?n WTC. The whole th?ng be?ng blown up as an arab ?ncurs?on, and the facts of the (at that t?me ) ongo?ng ) m?l?tary exerc?se be?ng forgotten.

 It does not matter wether one l?kes Obama, but he m?ght be the onely one that can br?ng ?n a crowd w?th less ?nterest ?n h?d?ng the true nature of the k?ll?ng og close to three thousand amer?cans, for protect?ng the o?l-supply and the strateg?c malevolence.

For amer?cans conserned w?th secur?ty, f?nd?ng the ones that d?d th?s h?neous deed should be of some ?nterest as well. The clues do not lead you to a rogu?e group of arabs. It ?s just as th?s pol?ce-off?cer sa?d ?t. ''I do not bel?eve ?n co?nc?dence''.

If you follow that, those who stood to ga?n should be ?nvest?gated, ?nstead of be?ng ha?led as heroes. Rudy G?ul?an? knew someth?ng, and that fellow S?lverste?n, that had bought the contract for opperat?ng the WTC a short t?me ago should allso be quest?oned. ( Some of h?s remarks to the press are qu?te reveal?ng ). It ?s qu?te clear that some of the part?c?pants here were shocked by the facts of the act?ons and were unable to play there role ?n face of the k?ll?ngs og thousands of amer?cans.

What Amer?cans need to ask themselves ?s wether those b?g cars are worth the hatred of the ent?re world. Saddam was ?nstated by you. He was thrown by you. ( After a blocade that cost half a m?ll?on l?ves ). And a subsequent war were your prez prom?sed contracts and what-nots. The same guy that gave tax-rel?efe for b?g cars ?n stead of energy-eff?c?ent cars. REPUBLICANS ARE WITH STOOPID!

Reply this comment

Person

I am no nostradamus...

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 30, 2006 11:22 AM

I agree that predicting future actions of powerful states is largely a mugs game. However, it is the surest way of getting confirmation that ones theory of political behaviour is on the mark. If I could just be a fly on the wall of US planning sessions, to see what strategies they cook up and how they arrive at them... I really should read the Pentagon Papers.

Reply this comment

Person

Reply to Bobbo (2006-10-30 01:33)

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 30, 2006 10:42 AM

Bobbo:

Prognosticating the future actions of states is a little like prognosticating what a baseball or soccer team will do next season, five seasons from now, and so on.  But not entirely.  And the more powerful, well-established, firmly ensconced and--as in the case of the United States--unchanging the fundamental institutions that comprise the systemof power channeled through a state, the better we can make educated guesses.  Particularly if a long historical pattern precedes the present day. 

Still.  In early May, 2003, I had not aniticpated the scale of the resistance to the American occupation of Iraq that in fact ensued.  And rapidly.  But by some time before the August 19, 2003 suicide truck bombing of the UN headquarters at the Canal Hotel in Baghdad, it already had become clear that the Americans were going to treat Iraq no differently than they treat a piece of meat, and rely on every form of violence they had at their command--and thus create the "epic crisis" that has gotten monumentally worse these past three years.  (See "I lived to tell the tale," Salim Lone, The Guardian, August 19, 2003.)

Right now, the dynamic of violence inspiring greater violence afflicts Iraqis almost exclusively.  But I myself don't believe that the "obvious endpoint" is an American military withdrawal from Iraq.  Quite the contrary.  My hunch is that the Americans intend to hang onto Iraq to the very last drop of Iraqi blood. The world can't afford to underestimate them.   

"War in Iraq and the Aftermath," Jean-François Berger, Magazine of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, June 30, 2003r
The situation between Iraq and Kuwait (S/PV.4791), UN Security Council, July 22, 2003.  See esp. what you can glean from the presentation by the then-Special Representative for Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, pp. 3 - 9.
"Iraq: Memorandum on concerns relating to law and order," Amnesty International, July 23, 2003
"'It was punishment without trial'," Jonathan Steele, The Guardian, August 15, 2003
"I lived to tell the tale,"  Salim Lone, The Guardian, August 19, 2003 (as posted to CommonDreams)

 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Reply this comment

Person

Another analogue?

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 30, 2006 03:45 AM
What do you think the role has been of (and so the analogue between) using the people of both Vietnam and Iraq (not to mention those of every other target of American military aggression) as "lab rats" for the development of various modes of inflicting nightmarish violence? While I doubt such research is a goal, I do suspect it is a perk happily included by at least some of the planners and promoters of aggression. The research presumably includes looking into the effects of superior firepower on the environment of targeted nations as well as on the Americans sent to use it. As for the kind of quagmire you are not referring to, get ready: it looks like at least some are planning the getaway from this particular "noble" mission. Keir The Hague

Reply this comment

Person

re: wirh this pattern

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 30, 2006 03:45 AM
bobbo, At the last Iraq's election, The US was voted out the country. It would seem that the US is also a participant in the civil war (Fisk) as it is also igniting tribal and sectarian violence. The worst scenario that could happen is that if the US does not get its way , it would push Iraq further and closer to the stone age or it will attempt to contaminate the land like it did in Vietnam with agent orange.. depleted uranium is already a contaminant and it was reported that the US also used chemecal weapons against the insurgents in Fallalujah (agent derived from napalm)

Reply this comment

Person

With this pattern... then what?

By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 30, 2006 00:33 AM

But as you say, Mr. Peterson, the stakes are so much higher in Iraq. If the vicious cycle persists as you say (political destitution backed up by violence, leading to further political destitution, and on...) then the obvious endpoint is an Iraq abandoned by the US. I agree with the dynamics of quagmire, but I just can't see it... there is no administration that could walk away from an area that pivotal. Some combination of China, Russia, Iran and even Europe would move into the power vacuum. It would seem, from the position of a global planner, to be suicidal recklessness.

What are the options for the US under these conditions?

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (27)

Loading_border