I don't agree with this criticism; I agree with the original petition. It isn't liberal imperialism to express an opinion on the government of another country or to wish for its overthrow by its own people. If, in the 1930s, I had said that I hoped the peoples of Italy, Germany and Spain would overthrow their dictators, or that I hoped the Russians would overthrow their dictator and establish a truly socialist government in his place, would that be imperialistic? When I say that I hope Americans will reject and overturn the imperialist policies of Bush, am I, as a non-American, being imperialistic? Is it imperialistic to condemn the dictatorships of Burma, Saudi Arabia and Iraq? Is it imperialistic to call for an uprising of working people against the dictatorships of the world?
It's always a good idea to start with the bourgeois dictatorships in one's own backyard. A petition that calls for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, but not that of George Bush or Tony Blair, is imperialist in character. Just because consensus plays a greater role than coercion in maintaining the current regimes in the U.S. or Britain than that in Iraq doesn't mean that for socialists they are any less worthy of being overthrown. "The main enemy is at home."
Free Arab Voice is a very interesting website in general. Unfortunately, when they do get things right--as they largely do in this essay, though there are some formulations that I'd quibble with--their history makes it hard to take them entirely seriously. For instance, they've taken part in organizing conferences with Holocaust Revisionists and otherwise promoting the propagation of that garbage in the Arab world.
I think many signers of this petition were motivated in part by a genuine opposition to the Ba'athist regime in Iraq (which as I recall began massacring Communists in the 1970's) and in part by a more-or-less craven fear of bring branded "Saddam-lovers" by the war party. Which motive predominates with which signers seems to me unanswerable--and, in the end, not very important. I may in fact have signed this petition myself; ignoring the article's warning, I'll sign pretty much anything that says "No War in Iraq," because the only people on whom this might make an impression--vacillating liberals in the government and the media--don't know or care about the principled distinctions between one sort of opposition and another.
So while I agree with epanastatis on the analysis here, political choosiness seems like a luxury with the war--which I think will be an exceptionally bloody slaughter--probably only five or six weeks away.
So while I agree with epanastatis on the analysis here, political choosiness seems like a luxury with the war--which I think will be an exceptionally bloody slaughter--probably only five or six weeks away.
Well there are aspects of this criticism I agree with, and aspects that I do not. I don't see why it is relevant in this instance whether or not the petition was written by Jews. Jews do not run the American government nor set policy on the Middle East in the United States, Christians do with very few exceptions.
Liberal petitions can be annoying in that for every criticism of the status quo it contains there are sure to be ten lines of conciliation. But Liberals do this, imo, because they are afraid of being persecuted not because it necessarily makes sense to them. For opponents of the American imperial government, these writers show a lot of faith that it really does practice the freedom of thought domestically that it claims -- which is rather naive swallowing of American propaganda, no? ;)
Otoh, I do agree that Saddam -- detestable as he may be -- has nothing to do with the American war, as least to me. It does not matter whether or not one thinks he ought to be overthrown -- the primarily issue is that a war would lead to the suffering of innocent Iraqi people, Saddam would be quite safe from it all, as usual.
In addition, Saddam Hussein was originally a US-backed lackey -- he just got too big for his britches. The US has *NO INTEREST* in freedom of the Iraqi people from the tyrant they propped up to begin with. Their sole interest is having an obedient puppet government Iraq. Whether it is or isn't tyrannical and cruel to its people is beside the point for the US -- we see this in the way it deals with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Kuwait has an even *more* tyrannical government than Iraq -- if we are so big on invasion as a means of softening harsh regimes, then by all means Saddam Hussein's government probably would have been a lot less brutal than the present Kuwaiti regime!
But this is not really the case, and to talk about the brutality of the Iraqi government as if it does really matter to the US is, I agree, reactionary. The only issue at hand is over who controls Iraq, an Iraqi maniac or an American maniac.
As far as I'm concerned the best socialist response to this all is to tell both of them to drop dead.
As far as assassinating him. I'll tell you the truth, if either Bush/Cheney or Saddam were assassinated I wouldn't shed tears. And I don't think it's true that you can always simplistically say that the sovereignty of a nation outranks the conditions of its people. For instance, Vietnam invaded Cambodia to overthrow the brutal Khmer-Rouge regime that was backed by the US and China. Americans have this strange way of hating the Khmer Rouge and yet loathing even more that someone did something to boot them out. Well, you can't have it both ways. I do not respect the concept of national or racial sovereignty -- only individual soverignty. In theory, I might support some sort of action -- even if it was violent -- if I thought it were truly designed to help a people who were being brutalized.
But it's *ridiculous* and downright delusional to imagine that the American government has even the slightest *smidgen* of interest in the Iraqi people. In fact, if there's one thing the US *DOESN'T* want it's for the Iraqi people to run Iraq -- because the Iraqi people *hate* the United States. What the US wants is an Iraqi strongman that is answerable to Washington -- something this war is designed to provide. They don't care about Iraqi civilian casualties because they don't care about Iraqis *period*, just *power*. Which is, incidentally, also the only thing on Saddam's mind.
So I don't draw a moral distinction between the American and Iraqi leaders.
However, that I hate Saddam -- who is a snake, a murderer and a butcher of even his own family -- is hardly something I hide. Of course, since most Americans don't like Saddam (NOWADAYS, anyway), it's not something I feel inclined to keep repeating at everyone, in any case.
But I believe that the liberal thing to do is to bring up "racial/cultural/ethnic/national" soverignty into all this *at all* as both the American petitioners *and* the critque do. The idea of national sovereignty is an antiquated, completely elitist indulgence. The real question is: what does this mean for the people on the ground? And the answer in this case is nothing but death and destruction. It doesn't matter two shits for an ordinary Iraqi if they are tyrannized by a pro-Western dictatorship. Whether or not their homes are obliterated by "smart" bombs, well.... that's another story.
hello there. i believe you saw my journal already, thru sammka i'm guessing. and i sillily right now would just like to say hullo! i enjoy your shparkly ikon, and was very flattered when you'd added me to friends (briefly) like a week or so ago. i'm still rather amoosed. and you seem pretty groovy...so yes. i just wanted to say pop in and out...
oh yay! what is your username? i was just playing there now excessively! but you un-added me and i was sad and didn't want to intrude by adding you back (although a bit too late...)
My username is gayle, but I'm not around there much anymore except to check my email. A few years ago I used to spend hours in the BowieNet chatroom every day with joannasatana and others, but now I have moved my social life more to LiveJournal instead.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
So while I agree with
no subject
well said.
no subject
Liberal petitions can be annoying in that for every criticism of the status quo it contains there are sure to be ten lines of conciliation. But Liberals do this, imo, because they are afraid of being persecuted not because it necessarily makes sense to them. For opponents of the American imperial government, these writers show a lot of faith that it really does practice the freedom of thought domestically that it claims -- which is rather naive swallowing of American propaganda, no? ;)
Otoh, I do agree that Saddam -- detestable as he may be -- has nothing to do with the American war, as least to me. It does not matter whether or not one thinks he ought to be overthrown -- the primarily issue is that a war would lead to the suffering of innocent Iraqi people, Saddam would be quite safe from it all, as usual.
In addition, Saddam Hussein was originally a US-backed lackey -- he just got too big for his britches. The US has *NO INTEREST* in freedom of the Iraqi people from the tyrant they propped up to begin with. Their sole interest is having an obedient puppet government Iraq. Whether it is or isn't tyrannical and cruel to its people is beside the point for the US -- we see this in the way it deals with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Kuwait has an even *more* tyrannical government than Iraq -- if we are so big on invasion as a means of softening harsh regimes, then by all means Saddam Hussein's government probably would have been a lot less brutal than the present Kuwaiti regime!
But this is not really the case, and to talk about the brutality of the Iraqi government as if it does really matter to the US is, I agree, reactionary. The only issue at hand is over who controls Iraq, an Iraqi maniac or an American maniac.
As far as I'm concerned the best socialist response to this all is to tell both of them to drop dead.
As far as assassinating him. I'll tell you the truth, if either Bush/Cheney or Saddam were assassinated I wouldn't shed tears. And I don't think it's true that you can always simplistically say that the sovereignty of a nation outranks the conditions of its people. For instance, Vietnam invaded Cambodia to overthrow the brutal Khmer-Rouge regime that was backed by the US and China. Americans have this strange way of hating the Khmer Rouge and yet loathing even more that someone did something to boot them out. Well, you can't have it both ways. I do not respect the concept of national or racial sovereignty -- only individual soverignty. In theory, I might support some sort of action -- even if it was violent -- if I thought it were truly designed to help a people who were being brutalized.
cont.
no subject
So I don't draw a moral distinction between the American and Iraqi leaders.
However, that I hate Saddam -- who is a snake, a murderer and a butcher of even his own family -- is hardly something I hide. Of course, since most Americans don't like Saddam (NOWADAYS, anyway), it's not something I feel inclined to keep repeating at everyone, in any case.
But I believe that the liberal thing to do is to bring up "racial/cultural/ethnic/national" soverignty into all this *at all* as both the American petitioners *and* the critque do. The idea of national sovereignty is an antiquated, completely elitist indulgence. The real question is: what does this mean for the people on the ground? And the answer in this case is nothing but death and destruction. It doesn't matter two shits for an ordinary Iraqi if they are tyrannized by a pro-Western dictatorship. Whether or not their homes are obliterated by "smart" bombs, well.... that's another story.
~sapphiretrance
no subject
*hides*
no subject
o_O
but you un-added me and i was sad and didn't want to intrude by adding you back (although a bit too late...)
Re: o_O