Fisking David Brooks: Iraq Is Not El Salvador
American soldiers are now dying in Iraq so that country can get to elections in January. But no one wants to ask what those elections will achieve, if anything. Time to talk about that, I think.
New York Times op-ed columnist David Brooks argues today that the 1982 election in El Salvador organized by the U.S. is a shining example of how these war-time votes produce peace:
Conditions were horrible when Salvadorans went to the polls on March 28, 1982. The country was in the midst of a civil war that would take 75,000 lives. An insurgent army controlled about a third of the nation's territory. Just before election day, the insurgents stepped up their terror campaign. They attacked the National Palace, staged highway assaults that cut the nation in two and blew up schools that were to be polling places... Yet these elections proved how resilient democracy is, how even in the most chaotic circumstances, meaningful elections can be held... They produced a National Assembly, and a president, José Napoleón Duarte. They gave the decent majority a chance to display their own courage and dignity. War, tyranny and occupation sap dignity, but voting restores it... As we saw in El Salvador and as Iraqi insurgents understand, elections suck the oxygen from a rebel army. They refute the claim that violence is the best way to change things. Moreover, they produce democratic leaders who are much better equipped to win an insurgency war...There's only one small problem with Brooks' version of Salvadoran history: It's false. And one difference between Brooks and me when it comes to that Salvadoran election day of March 28, 1982 — I was there and he wasn't. Of course, Diane Sawyer was also there, along with a small brigade of network produces and anchors. All of them ready to document the miracle that the Reagan administration was producing: the supposed birth of democracy in the midst of a barbarously bloody civil war. And all with just one simple U.S.-sponsored election. My experience wasn't quite so rosy. The morning of the election I was awakened on the fourth floor of the San Salvador Camino Real Hotel at 5 A.M. by the sounds of bombs and machine guns exploding throughout the city. And no, it's not as David Brooks tells it. It wasn't just insurgents trying to stop voting. It was, instead, another day of battle in a country suffering in its third year of internal war. As the gunfire snapped, I met in the hotel lobby with fellow reporters Ronnie Loveler and Gene Palumbo and with our driver we headed out to hunt down the battle-lines. Another car full of Chilean TV reporters headed out with us. We flipped a coin to see who would go in front. The Chileans lost"”meaning they would be in the point car. No more than 15 minutes later we found the closest skirmish in the neighborhood of Ayatuxtapeque. Salvadoran army troops behind sandbags were shooting it out with guerrillas of the FMLN. We crouched down behind the doors of our rented cars to take cover. When the Chilean camera man right in front of me got out to film, he was shot right through the neck. The fire was so heavy we couldn't get to him as he bled on the ground. We finally got to a Red Cross station down the road but by the time they got to our Chilean colleague he had bled to death. My two colleagues and I rushed over to the El Presidente Hotel where the international press was staging for the day. We approached professional blow-hard Hodding Carter who was in El Salvador doing a PBS special on the press. But he couldn't be less interested in our story — the dead guy was only a Chilean. And, really, he was there for the same reasons as most of the rest of the media: to stand witness to the rejuvenating miracle of American elections. All this is a fitting metaphor for what Brooks got wrong today. In fact, the Salvadoran elections of 1982 — IMPOSED by the U.S. in the middle of an indigenous war, not only failed to bring democracy, but rather accelerated the conflict. The war lasted a full decade more. It took the lives of another 35,000 people (mostly all civilians, mostly all killed by the "democratic" and "elected" government" legitmated by the hollow Potemkin-elections). The elections did not, contrary to Brooks' assertion, produce democratic leaders. President Duarte did not reach a negotiated agreement with the insurgency, which only ballooned in size. The process put in place eventually catapulted the extreme right party of the death squads — ARENA"”into power. The bone-numbing brutality of the Salvadoran military was hardly curbed. The war ended in 1992, not because of the U.S. sponsored "election" process but in spite of it. It was only after the insurgents brought the war into the heart of the Salvadoran capital and after the world was shocked by the grotesque murder of six Jesuit priests carried out by the American-trained First Infantry Brigade that negotiations finally took traction. (Salvador-based blogger and long-time human rights worker David Holiday has a similar take as mine). The Salvadoran peace was concluded, by the way, under sponsorship of the United Nations"”another tasty little fact omitted in today's sanitized history by Brooks. And it was cemented and lasts until today, only because that UN process folded the insurgents (or in Reaganspeak "the terrorists") into a compacted coalition with the government forces — something the U.S. spent billions in dollars and thousands in Salvadoran lives trying to prevent. In fairness, Brooks does concede deep in his piece that "the situation in El Salvador is not easily comparable to the situations in Afghanistan or Iraq." Correct. Iraq is much more dire. El Salvador, at least, had some semblance of a competitive democratic political tradition to fall back upon — including well-organized and entrenched political parties. The Salvadoran war, in addition, was fairly low-intensity and life went on as normal in many parts of the country even in the worst of times. But in Iraq? Given the complete lack of physical security, how does anyone in their right mind believe there can be an open and democratic campaign over the next four months? With car bombs and ambushes multiplying daily, does anyone think someone is going to go out and canvass door to door? I could go on. But the burden to prove elections would be farcical does not rest with me. The burden is with the promoters of the election to assure us that proper conditions exist. Who can do that with a straight face? Reflecting on these coming Iraqi elections makes me ruminate over the little, silly stories we all tell ourselves so we can get through the day. In the time of the Cold War, I can imagine the stodgy bureaucrats in the Kremlin looking at the staged photos of the Czech or Polish party presidium and then telling themselves that this must be proof, alas, of a "people's democracy." Likewise, David Brooks and Don Rumsfeld can look at the staged elections in Iraq and tell themselves that — just as in El Salvador"” American-style democracy must be finally materializing. The real lesson of Salvador, of course, is quite the opposite of Brook's thesis. What Salvador teaches us that belligerent U.S. unilateralism failed miserably in trying to stabilize that tiny and suffering nation. In the end, it was a UN-negotiated multi-lateral solution that secured the peace and stopped the bloodshed.
September 28th, 2004 at 7:01 pm
I had JUST read Brooks (quoted somewhere else) and thought of you, Marc. Thanks for your perspective.
But if you are right that Iraq is more dire, how can you really want Kerry, who is so eager to bring more troops home sooner? Or is that after more are sent their sooner.
My suggested alternative is pretty neo-con: hold elections in January where they can be held. Based on local, geographic regions, NOT national party proportional representations.
And yeah, maybe get ready for 10 years — or however long it takes for Iraqis to decide to stop Iraq terrorists; or as some “elected” Iraqi gov’t asks for the US to leave.
(maybe it goes north to future-Kurdistan?)
September 28th, 2004 at 7:16 pm
Should a letter to the editor be in order?
September 28th, 2004 at 9:11 pm
why not?
September 29th, 2004 at 1:20 am
Marc,
Well, you showed up David Brooks. He’s clearly wrong.
I think he has one salvageable point, though. If El Salvador could *eventually* become a sort-of normal place with a demcratic government, Iraq can (in theory) pull through as well. The fact that Iraq is Hell today doesn’t mean it is destined to be Hell in ten years. History moves forward. Things change. It could go either way.
September 29th, 2004 at 1:27 am
It’s worth pointing out that Guatemala was in even worse shape than El Salvador not long ago. I was just there at the end of last year. It’s still a rough place with a *lot* of problems. But it is slowly improving. Some parts of it are even nice. Most important, there is no more civil war or dictatorship. These things do end, often with freedom and democracy on the other side.
It’s also worth pointing out that Guatemala and El Salvador both had a totalitarian superpower backing one side in the conflict. Iraq doesn’t.
September 29th, 2004 at 1:43 am
mjt.. I dont agree with you regarding Guatemala. You would have needed an space telescope to measure Soviet “backing” there. Fact is, Michael, that Guatemala had an elected government that we overthrew in 1954 citing it as an immediate threat (!) That touched of a half-decade worth of civil war and turmoil that took 80-100,000 lives. I think Guatemala is a superb lesson in NON-interventionism. It’s still not back to where it was in ’54.
To Tom:
Maybe we should have elections in irag in January, declare victory and go home. I dont think the American people signed up for a teny-yeat trillion dollar bout in nation-building in Iraq. The $200b we have already spent there could have been used in a “covert” program of a magnitude big enough to overthrow Saddam a dozen times.
Indeed, MY perspective is that the Iraq debate conflates two different arguments. If the argument is that Saddam was threat to us and we needed to get rid of him when and how we did.. then I can flatly say, Not True. He was a threat– but not to us. And if you believe he WAS a threat, then why didnt we blame Bush 41, DefSec Cheney and the whole rest of the Republican apparatus for not offing him in 1991?
Whatever the “threat level” from iraq, I find it frankly absurd to place it at such a level that it consumes our armed forces and our national treasury. That dog just won’t hunt. Sorry.
If the second argument is strictly that Saddam was a totalitarian dictator and it was the right thing to do get rid of him (even if he was not a tangible threat to us).. then I would say: well, this is NOT the way to have done it. Not at the cost of a decade of occupation, hundreds of billions, and thousands of lives. If it was just about getting rid of Saddam, well then, there were many many other ways to do it..from covert programs, to intl blockades, to a multi-lateral invasion that would have been smart enough not to dismantle the entire Iraqi state and wind up “owning” Iraq– as Powell wisely put it.
Fact is GW Bush was right… in 2000.. when he campaigned against nation-building. Too bad he flip-flopped.
September 29th, 2004 at 2:51 am
“I find it frankly absurd to place it at such a level that it consumes our armed forces and our national treasury. That dog just won’t hunt. Sorry.”
Were you sorry when the Kerry led Peace Now folk helped get the US out of Vietnam … and let the evil commies commit genocide?
I’m sorry. Actually I was only a little sorry at the time, having just voted for Carter (because Ford pardoned Nixon). I’m truly sorry that Vietnam consumed so much, in lives and cash, but I’m proud the USA was trying to fight evil. Even if we gave up and lost that Cold War battle. And never seriously pursued nation building, so as to learn how to get it right.
Cuba is still waiting for elections. The USA has done a lousy, lousy job of nation building in Latin America — the old libertarian in me agrees with your pre-2001 idea of isolationism.
But in the face of oil-money funded suiciders, NOT nation-building has become the threat. The evil side of oil money plus Islamofascism will be fought by America, either before they use nukes, or after. I want before.
Will you admit that if Iran gets nukes; and then terrorists get a nuke and use one, that you were wrong?
It’s an asymmetrical question though, I know — I have the probability of Iran getting nukes (in 4 years) at 10% if Bush is re-elected; at 40% if Kerry is re-elected.
Funny, if Kerry were to make stopping Iran from getting nukes a real issue, the probability goes down for both. I wish he would do that. Creating a self-negating prophecy is one of the purposes of a democratic campaign.
September 29th, 2004 at 5:23 am
Marc,
Regarding peace in Central America, I would also mention the efforts of Oscar Arias Sánchez, the former president of Costa Rica. His Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance speech has a great nota bene:
“I know well you share what we say to all members of the international community, and particularly to those in the East and the West, with far greater power and resources than my small nation could never hope to possess, I say to them, with the utmost urgency: let Central Americans decide the future of Central America. Leave the interpretation and implementation of our peace plan to us. Support the efforts for peace instead of the forces of war in our region. Send our people ploughshares instead of swords, pruning hooks instead of spears. If they, for their own purposes, cannot refrain from amassing the weapons of war, then, in the name of God, at least they should leave us in peace.”
Greta ost, Marc.
September 29th, 2004 at 9:46 am
I beg the question on two grounds: The UN has ignored (or profited from) the situation in Iraq for at least the last 11 years so they’re irrelevant here, and Iraq is not nearly as close to apocalypse as you portray it, according to bloggers who live there (even Riverbend).
I respect your background and knowledge and righteous anger, Marc, but that’s not enough. What’s the solution? Elect Kerry, don’t worry be happy, and leave the house every day in full body armour? Our government, every goverment, kills unjustly, bungles diplomacy, fails to convert enemies and makes war. And war is a blunt instrument, no doubt about it. If you examined any one day in WWII, you would say stop it, it’s senseless, it’s murder.
In context, Iraq and the ME is worth fighting for and changing, but that’s only my opinion.
September 29th, 2004 at 9:47 am
Randy.. this is an excellent point. Arias’ intervention was also key in bringing peace to both Nicaragua and El Salvador. He also had to take on U.S. unilateralism head on. When Arias won the Nobel Peace Prize I was able to interview him at length the next week (1987) in Costa Rica for Playboy magazine no less… after some odd twists and turns the piece wound up in Penthouse! At that moment several internal US documents had just been declassified.. specifically Oliver North’s notebook in which he vowed to smear and destroy Arias. It was quite a moment when I showed those pages to him because he had not seen them. he was really aghast. Arias had always been a very pro-American moderate and he was at a bit of a loss as to why there should be so much rage focused on him. Those were astounding times– much like now. Remember we had a sitting president of the U.S. arguing that if we didnt stop them in Managua we’d be fighting them in Harlingen, Texas! How often American politics descends to a comic book level.
September 29th, 2004 at 10:00 am
To PJ and Tom: I find EQUALLY absurd the argument that Kerry is going to abandon the world and the US and surrender to Islamic fascism. Sorry, guysm but that’s just crap-level political spin. and I am NOT a kerry supporter. Democrats have –unfortunately at times– shown just as much capacity to make war as Republicabns. And whatever Kerry’s legion faults, I find Bush to be unimpressive to the point of worrisome. I have no evidence that he much understands or cares about international relations, it seems his approach is rigied and manichean, stubborn instead of resolutue, reckless instead of sober and strategig. I have absolutely no doubt that the war in iraq had compromised our overall war on terrorism and that we will pay for for decades to come. And no, I dont believe for a moment that Iraqn is any more or less likely to develop nukes under Kerry or Bush. I do know that Bush’s butt buddies in Pakistan already have nukes– as well as an intelligence service deeply entwined with the same Islamo-fascists we are fighting.
PJ: You better ask yourself whqt it MEANS to sy Iraq and the Middle East is worth fighting for.. and you better conuslt the history books to see what the Brits encountered when they tried to extend their empire over a billion muslims who didnt want it.
Yom.. Not being a Swiftie.. Im not going to re-debate Vietnam with you. The bulk of the genoice was created by B-52′s. napalm and Agent Orange dropped by the U.S. Lyndon Johnson knew the war was lost in 1968 and went ahead anyway out of hubris and arrogance. Nixon cut a peace deal in 73 that he could have had in 69, a million deaths earlier. We are just going to disagree on this.What Kerry did in 71 was honorablke. I would have done the same– except I would not have had the courage to enlist in the first place. I actively resisted the draft then, and I would do it again. The war was a dishonorable imperial adventure with no redeeming features. Other than that…..
The problem here remains what I said earlier: you are conflating two issues which are not the same 1) is defense of the UNited States which no doubt includes some pre-emptive and aggressive action and 2) is the cock-eyed notion that we are going to “win” Iraq or win the Middle East. It’s not even a mater of opinion, guys. You aint gonna win there..because victory as you are defining it is impossible. I am not willing to commit the next 50 years of the future to fighting a crusade to convert and domesticate the Mulsim world. Maybe it’s an honorable gial (I dont think so) but it’s certainly a chimeric illusion. Be careful, try hard enough and you will create abnaother Vietnam.
September 29th, 2004 at 10:59 am
Marc,
What is your take on the Contra revisionism from ex radicals like Horowitz and Radosh? Were the Contras alright guys? Did the Sandinistas have a Stalinist wing that needed to be opposed?
Any recommended reading on that moment in history? I feel ignorant on the subject. I want to go to La Liberdad in El Salvador real bad but I hear nightmare stories of 15 crack addicts pulling guns on tourists for surf wax. Don’t know if the El Salvador myth of ongoing instability is true or not. It just seems like a tragic mess.
What can we learn from El Salvador to apply to Iraq if anything?
September 29th, 2004 at 11:31 am
David Brooks is the single most unfortunate addition to the Times’ op-ed page since Tom Friedman…and Nick Kristoff…and Maureen Dowd (okay, she’s funny sometimes, but given the giants who used to grace those pages…)
September 29th, 2004 at 12:02 pm
“Butt buddies”? Nice.
I have consulted history, Marc, and my beliefs about how to interpret history differ from your beliefs.
See ya.
September 29th, 2004 at 12:33 pm
Marc: “I find Bush to be unimpressive to the point of worrisome”
You really ought to reel in the hyperbole.
September 29th, 2004 at 12:34 pm
That was a joke, by the way.
September 29th, 2004 at 12:39 pm
Josh: “Any recommended reading on that moment in history? I feel ignorant on the subject.”
I recommend “With the Contras” by Christopher Dickey. He actually marched around in Nicaragua with them.
No, they were not good guys. They were the remnants of Anastasio Somoza’s National Guard. That doesn’t mean the Sandanistas were a treat either, though. But I’d take them over the Contras. And I’d take the elected post-Sandanista president Violetta Chamorro (who was formerly a conservative Sandanista believe it or not) over both of them. She is/was a bit of a nut, but at least she was a lower-case “d” democrat.
September 29th, 2004 at 12:56 pm
Josh.. re the contras.. what MJT said. Ive read David’s and Ron’s accounts of the Sandis and they are way off. The Sandinistas had some unfortunate and worrisome aspects but they were a whole helluva a lot better than the family-based tyranny they overthrew. They also had learned from the Cuban experience and while not Boy Scouts, it’s an oversimplification to say they were Stalinist totalitarians. They did turn power over peacefully when the lost the election. and MJT is right, Violeta was a nut-case. Im not sure she was any better than the Sandis. History has shown all sides in Nicaragua to be pretty feckless. Dickey’s book is excellent.
As to El Salvador.. I think it’s doable, La Libertad is marvelous. It’s probably somewhat dangerous too. I’d keep my eyes open!>
September 29th, 2004 at 1:19 pm
PJ & Tom,
The USA’s role in the 1989, “Velvet Revolution” in Czechoslovakia was undoubtedly crucial, but not for the reasons you might believe. The Soviets sealed their fate when they rolled the tanks into Prague, deciding for us what brand of, “Socialism” we needed. However, books smuggled from the west along with Rock & Roll and jazz enabled people glimpse the freedoms we were not able to enjoy. It took 40 years but in the end we liberated ourselves.
Military intervention did not bring democracy to Vietnam. Cuba still has Castro despite the Bay of Pigs and subsequent embargo, nor did direct support of military regimes turn central America into a bastion of democracy.
The point is that over the long term, the USA can effectively counter Isalmo-fascists and tyranical dictatorships. Not by invading and forcing Amercian values down peoples throats, but by supporting policies that enable people to liberate themselves.
Note(this posting is about Iraq not Afghanistan or WWII where the US was directly Attacked).
September 29th, 2004 at 1:53 pm
This discussion was entirely readable and no “Steve”! God has rewarded us!
September 29th, 2004 at 1:55 pm
Josh,
I was recently in the El Salvador airport. Now, I know it’s asinine to judge a country by its airport (I went through it twice, but didn’t get out) but it IS extremely nice and impressive, much nicer than the airports in Guatemala, Belize, or Costa Rica.
Guatemala has more problems than El Salvador does right now. And it was okay. I mean, it was *rough* don’t get me wrong. 17-year old boys with rusty shotguns guard the stores downtown. But I did not feel threatened at any time. No one bothered me. I had a good time. I would go again. I would go to El Salvador, too. You’ll be fine if you. Just don’t look like a walking victim if you stumble into a slum.
September 29th, 2004 at 2:04 pm
Josh,
In addition to the Dickey book, I would also recommend Walter Lafeber’s “Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America” and for background on Guatemala, Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer’s “Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala.”
There has been some recent good news in Nicaragua (I’m thinking of former President Alemán’s 20 year jail sentence for embezzlement), but this article by Tina Rosenberg is not encouraging:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/24/opinion/24sat4.html?ex=1248408000&en=41ff4881065b4162&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
September 29th, 2004 at 2:16 pm
Michael,
Regarding the Belize City airport, when I went there in summer 1992, the one thing I remember above all were the people sitting in their lawn chairs on the terminal observation deck waving at the planes as they landed. What it lacked in order and efficiency, it more than made up for in charm and graciousness.
September 29th, 2004 at 2:41 pm
Ahh Randy.. what heartfelt nostalgia you evoke for Belize.. what an amazing place. I once spend a very long weekend there with a detachment of British Marines (details of that sojourn are sealed however until yr 2055).
September 29th, 2004 at 4:31 pm
I’d also recommend Kinzer’s book on the Iranian coup d’etat in 1953, which was the template for the latter Guatemalan coup, Brazillian coup, Chilean coup, etc. that the CIA sponsored and directed…
A very interesting critique follows in Kinzer’s book on how Americans’ lack of knowledge about what happened in 1953 informs their later lack of understanding of the Iranian hostage crisis and what led to 911. No, Kinzer doesn’t say that 1953 caused these, nor that they were desirable, merely that not understanding events like the overthrow of Mossadegh has disastrous consequences much like those of not knowing the history of the Guatemalan coup or the Sandinista revolution…
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471265179/qid=1096500680/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-2129741-2094566
September 29th, 2004 at 4:54 pm
Marc…excellent post. And the thread it provoked has been most enjoyably intelligent..
September 29th, 2004 at 5:04 pm
I totally agree with Rosedog I have enjoyed this thread almost (note the almost) as much as I’ve enjoyed jousting with that contrarian; Steve I think his name is, but he posts so seldom I’m not sure of my recollection (grin). I would add however, that the Iraq of the media/left may or may not be the real Iraq. Many Iraqi’s seem to be very much pro-US, as well as those that are anti-US. So, perhaps the headline should be “Fisking David Brooks: Iraq Is Not El Salvador – And it’s not the Iraq many portray it to be either.”
September 29th, 2004 at 5:27 pm
I’ve seen very little to indicate that the majority of Iraqis are supportive of the current occupation of Iraq by the US. In fact, the polls indicate the opposite, namely that their opposition to the US occupation only grows with each passing day.
September 29th, 2004 at 5:59 pm
“the polls indicate the opposite”
Wasn’t a certain ankle bighter (aka Steve) posting on the “Double Bind” thread on this blog, dismissing polls taken in regards to the November election in the US? The polls are all showing Bush winning (unfortunately).
So let me get this straight… Polls in the US are unreliable for various reasons while polls taken in a war zone like Iraq are reliable?
I don’t think anyone knows what the Iraqi people want. This is a culture ripe with fear and superstition. The Kurds love the occupation for one. Maybe it is really unfeasible that an accurate consensus can be reached by a poll.
I guess polls can be dismissed when they show Bush winning. But of course polls are flaunted when they show results that work against the occupation or support your assumption. How very Chomskish of you.
September 29th, 2004 at 6:10 pm
Wasn’t a certain ankle bighter (aka Steve) posting on the “Double Bind” thread on this blog, dismissing polls taken in regards to the November election in the US? The polls are all showing Bush winning (unfortunately).
–wrong. I was dismissing drawing conclusions from national polls in a race that is basically a matter of swingstate voting trends as opposed to national aggregate numbers. Is that difficult to understand?
–
So let me get this straight… Polls in the US are unreliable for various reasons while polls taken in a war zone like Iraq are reliable?
–You’ve just reinterpreted what I wrote and then asked an irrelvant question here.
—
I don’t think anyone knows what the Iraqi people want. This is a culture ripe with fear and superstition. The Kurds love the occupation for one. Maybe it is really unfeasible that an accurate consensus can be reached by a poll.
–I sure as heck am wary of poll taking in Iraq and would concede much of what you write (albeit it’s almost entirely irrelevant to the points I was making in the above posts). However, when those polling trends are 1) pretty consistent and 2) when corporate journalists on the ground, be they Time Magazine, CNN,…are confirming that the polls reflect a degree of reality…well. And, I can remember a time not long ago when the prowar crowd was all too happy about the polling results and loved to present thm as proof that the invasion and occupation were popular. Funny that Rummy et al don’t find them ‘convincing’ anymore.
—-
I guess polls can be dismissed when they show Bush winning. But of course polls are flaunted when they show results that work against the occupation or support your assumption. How very Chomskish of you.
–I’m reminded of how Bush takes quotes from Kerry entirely out of context ,chops them in midsentence and then declares ‘evidence’ that Kerry has said, x,y,or z. Karl Rove could use your skills.
September 29th, 2004 at 6:20 pm
Steve,
Did you not accuse the corporate journalist at the NYT of being more effective than Pravda on this Blog? Of course, when corporate journalists publish results that suit you, you will use them.
Or is it just that the NYT is Pravda? Time is ok? That is some consistency!
I don’t think anyone knows what the Iraqis want and will not until elections are held.
Anyone can go to the thread and check out your quotes. Karl Rove?
September 29th, 2004 at 6:29 pm
Did you not accuse the corporate journalist at the NYT of being more effective than Pravda on this Blog? Of course, when corporate journalists publish results that suit you, you will use them.
–sure I did. That’s why I point out that an excellent indication of how bad things are is that even the corporate media like Time, Newsweek, CNN,…are reporting how bad things are there. Ditto the CIA. About the only people left convinced everything is getting better are those in denial.
—-
Or is it just that the NYT is Pravda? Time is ok? That is some consistency!
–Really, Rove needs your help. You just take what people say and reinterpret it and then attack it.
-
I don’t think anyone knows what the Iraqis want and will not until elections are held.
–really? we should count on Negroponte and Bush to deliver elections that are any way meaningful? Sorry, their track records aren’t looking too good at this point. In fact, they’re looking so bad that even prowar newspapers like the Times and the Post are now very very critical of the Bush/Negroponte occupation of Iraq. Heck, I think even Marc Cooper has said as much…Are you sure you’re on firm ground attacking me for what is increasingly transparent with each passing day?
September 29th, 2004 at 6:32 pm
Marc,
My memories of Belize also involve a way I turned a negative into a positive. I was in San Ignácio near the border with Guatemala. We had been having a great time until some students from Dallas Baptist University decided it was their mission to convert me. (I’m Catholic, BTW, but my own personal viewpoint is more ecumenical than doctrinaire).
After several days of fending them I found myself in the television lounge of the hotel and saw them coming. I turned to HBO and was fortunate enough to have Martin Lawrence at that moment on the Def Comedy Jam giving a long and EXPLICIT accounting as to why men should perform oral sex on women. After about five minutes of hearing my loud guffaws, they realized I was beyond redemption and never bothered me again.
September 29th, 2004 at 6:36 pm
Oh no
steve.. whoever said it last nite was right. ur such a pain to read because you chop up posts and spit them back line by line. Now I am going to ORDER you to cease because that’s WHAT makes you so unreadable and aggravating (sorry, pal, it’s NOT your daring revolutionary politics which I could care less about),
But reading the comments today has been so much smoother and pleasurable without your staccato graffitti cluttering up the landscape. So that my friend is the New Steve Rule: Post in cohesive paragraph form without copying back others comments.. or dont post.
And I dont appreciate your cheap wisecrack suggesting I might be soft on negroponte. How dare you? You want me to count up for you the times I was under direct gunfire in Central America reporting on the mess he and others made. That’s just beyond the pale.
September 29th, 2004 at 6:47 pm
What the heck are you talking about? How about showing me where I said that you were “soft on Negroponte”? No, even better, how about showing me where I even so much as *implied* that you were “soft on Negroponte”?
Fine, I”ll stop ‘chopping up paragraphs’. Actually all I did was to quote accurately from what people actually said, word for word, and then responded to them, but if that’s your new policy, no problem, I can reply.
And, sorry Marc, I have actually tried to take Totten’s suggestion seriously. But I felt Legere’s constant rewriting of what I or others say as to be beyond the pale. In fact, far beyond the pale you believe I have crossed with what you imagine, incorrectly, to be my “claim” that you are “soft on Negroponte”.
September 29th, 2004 at 7:18 pm
Re: the real (as opposed to imagined) cheapshot about my “daring” revolutionary politics, I never really considered my politics that daring. They’re basically along the lines of people like Doug Henwood or Jerry Lembcke, people whose political positions I’ve not thought to be any more ‘daring’. Left wing, surely, but ‘daring’? Surely you exaggarate.
September 29th, 2004 at 10:40 pm
Speaking of Dickey, one more piece of evidence that Legere and Bush’s fantasies notwithstanding, things in Iraq are only getting worse and freedom is not raining (to borrow one of my favorite bushisms)…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6132803/site/newsweek/
September 30th, 2004 at 3:05 am
“I find EQUALLY absurd the argument that Kerry is going to abandon the world and the US and surrender to Islamic fascism. ” – Marc
How about: ‘I find EQUALLY absurd the argument that Kerry is going to abandon SE Asia and surrender to genocidal communism’?
Because, despite your claim that the genocide was the ‘million’ killed by US bombing (which I don’t believe, but I do believe over 100 000, in opposing N. Vietnamese fighters), the Vietnamese commies killed tens of thousands of defenseless civilians — AFTER they had won. Then there are 2 million murdered by Cambodian communists in their Killing Fields (with the KR then being ousted by Vietnamese commies in … 79?)
Frydek, looking at North and South Korea, I conclude the US military supporting democracy is better. There are lessons still unlearned about Vietnam, we don’t even agree on the facts, much less the meaning!
I support two A-bombs in Japan to get surrender, the 100 000 killed by Allied bombing in Dresden were terrible.
(My Slovak wife was at candlelight vigil and protests in 1988-89; her Christian father was sent to prison for having and distributing bibles.)
In late 91, I noted at an Oxford conference that Slovak unemployment of 12% vs. Czech unemployment of 3%, was based partly on Havel’s ending arms trade, for tanks (made in Slovakia), but not aircraft (could be civilian, made in Czech Rep) nor small guns (made in Czech Rep). Klaus and Dlouhy resisted any gov’t or even USAID assistance to Slovakia, or even building roads there. Politically, there were no “CSFR” parties, there were Czech parties and Slovak parties; even the Christian Democrats were two (then three, when a nationalist Slovak faction split). National party lists and proportional representation AND true separate Slovak and Czech identification made the split desired by most folks (if the 5m Slovaks have to choose split or subordination; of if the 10m Czechs have to choose split or equality). I AM sure proportional representation in Iraq is a mistake.
I am NOT sure how to do Vietnamization better in 68-73; I’m doing too much blogging to have time to read Marc’s books about Latin America, so it’s natural I don’t know how to do Chilification or Guatemalification better, the pre-89 “support OUR bastard” seems reasonable, but not particularly more moral; I’m also not sure how to do Iraqification better now.
But a BIG American OCCUPATION force, to ensure security–with a US jackboot (like in Vietnam?)– is also not an alternative I am sure about. I note that the Iraqi problems which Bush-haters use to prove incompetence seem to be cases when the US gave Iraqis more freedom: to loot(*), to come and go into Iran & Syria, to set up terrorist cells, to kill opposing clerics without being arrested (**I’m certain THIS was a mistake; but it fits the pattern), to use Muslim shrines as sanctuaries for arms and attacks. At some point, Iraqis must stop terrorism in Iraq.
Here’s the intellectual problem about Iraq. Most folk have an opinion on whether it was right or wrong to boot Saddam. That opinion is based on an estimate of the outcome; whether Iraq becomes democratic/ human rights respecting, or not, or when (40 years is WAY too long!)
Marc: “You aint gonna win there..because victory as you are defining it is impossible.”
You clearly said your objection here, Marc — it is not possible for Islamic Arabs to have a democratic government that respects human rights (when based on US military sponsored regime change).
I’m just certain you’re wrong. (MY definition of victory. Um, what’s yours? Maybe we disagree on this?)
I don’t know how long, or how expensive, and I suggest a better political evaluation is to define progress points and cost. If it costs over $1 trillion dollars over 4 years, I’ll agree that it was incompetently expensive. If it costs less than $500 billion (4 years) it was pretty good. I mean, doing the impossible is supposed to be expensive!
But I know that you know, once one accepts the “goodness” of a victory, it does look petty to argue about costs. One of my objections to Bush-hate is that the heart of their argument SHOULD be that it costs too much, it takes too long. Where is the explicit discussion of how much is “too much”?
And both sides are guilty here: Bush (/Rumsfeld?) scolded Gen Shinseki on forces needed, and was right that the regime change did NOT need more forces (but rebuilding DOES?), Bush wants to keep the costs down. But the Dems fluctuate on whether the costs are too high, or whether it should be done at all (victory impossible).
Even most anti-Iraq war folk don’t believe it will take as long as WW II, nor cost as much. And yet, given that we allied ourselves with evil commies then, the victory outcome now is likely to be much less contaminated. And more Americans died on 9/11 than on 12/7.
I really wish the Dems would come up with a better plan for victory. I’ll never vote for impossible.
September 30th, 2004 at 12:31 pm
Tom Grey: “I’m doing too much blogging to have time to read Marc’s books about Latin America, so it’s natural I don’t know how to do Chilification or Guatemalification better, the pre-89 “support OUR bastard” seems reasonable, but not particularly more moral;”
First of all, Marc’s Chile book is short. You have time to read it. And it’s good, totally worth your time, I’d say.
I also recommend “Colossus” by Niall Ferguson. He’s British and a big fan of what he calls the American “empire.” I take issue with that word, but okay. He admits our “empire” is nothing at all like the empires of old; he defines empire way, way down. And he absolutely despises the “our bastard” policy in Latin America and talks about exactly why it was not only immoral but also not effective.
I wrote about Ferguson’s ideas here:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000416.html
I linked to an interview with him at The Atlantic Monthly. It is no longer available for free, so you have to read my excerpts and synopsis. I’d be curious what Marc thinks about what Niall Ferguson says in my excerpted quotes.
September 30th, 2004 at 2:07 pm
Another fantastic source for my contention that Iraq is not getting any closer to the democracy that Mr. Legere believes Bush/Negroponte are going to deliver to Iraq, this one from the well known source of record that the business class pays close attention to, the WSJ:
http://www.forward.com/campaignconfidential/archives/001096.php
I note also that Tom Grey has just done what Marc claims is taboo, namely violating the “steve rule” (i.e. don’t cut/paste people’s quotes and be left wing). And I note that Marc has not shown any evidence that I even as much as implied that he was ‘soft on Negroponte”.
September 30th, 2004 at 2:18 pm
Gramsci,
I made not claims of success in Iraq. My argument is that the left should hope that Iraq moves towards democracy instead of supporting the rather undemocratic Islamic Jihadists.
Your “proof” that the occupation is a disaster is not any news to me or anyone at this point. Yes a number of Jihadists groups are doing everything possible to undermine elections and disrupt things. And yes I prefer the occupation with the possibility of democracy over the impossibility of anything worthwhile if the Islamists prevail. It is simple. I am not rooting for those that behead innocent people to win.
You should pat yourself on the back for posting link after link of news that everyone already knows. Your revelations are not revelations at all!
Is Doug henwood a fan of Gramsci? He is a wealthy guy…. Certainly he is not of the proletariat class. Since you are so like minded do you support Martha Stewart and outsourcing?
September 30th, 2004 at 3:20 pm
Moniseur laguerre,
I thought you were telling me everyone in Iraq was behind the occupation by the US at the moment? A number of jihadists are resisiting the Iraqis? Hmmm, so you mean the military is wrong in its analysis that the majority of attacks are not from ‘jihadists’, but from disparate groups with disparate motivations, some religious, some nationalist, some who knows what…and yes, most are certainly not left wing in orientation.
The US military disagrees with your assessment that those doing the beheadings are the main current of the resistance. You say my links are not revelations at all, yet they fly in the face of everything you’ve been telling us to believe from you, i.e. ‘the resistance is all about foreign jihadists’ or ‘beheadings’, etc. And the sources I use to refute you are US military and US corporate media no less.
Am I to take it you hate Doug Henwood, is that what you’re saying? Well, I guess Mr. Cooper and I disagree with you on that.
September 30th, 2004 at 3:23 pm
Ellen Wood’s book is a nice antidote to Ferguson’s historical confusion over the role of imperialism and American empire building in the PostWar era.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1859845029/qid=1096582949/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0022745-1616104?v=glance&s=books
September 30th, 2004 at 3:36 pm
Steve,
Using Doug Henwood as a shield gets a bit tiresome. Quote him if you think what he says is relevant to the conversation. Otherwise, why drop his name constantly? I don’t see what purpose it serves except to point out that someone else on this planet agrees with some of your opinions. And please don’t tell me you keep doing this because Marc likes Doug Henwood. Marc also likes Christopher Hitchens. Big deal.
September 30th, 2004 at 3:44 pm
Ankle Brighter,
You can’t seem to walk and chew gum at the same time.
The beheadings and roadside bombs are not being done in the name of secular democracy. Even if the “resistance” is not being conducted by jihads (but for the most part it is), they still are not fighting for secular democracy. Are they legitimate if they are fighting out of desperation? Do good things come out of desperation? Will they stop being desperate when we leave and things do not improve and possible get much worse? Will they stop blowing themselves up or killing innocent people the day we leave or will they find other people to kill? Do cold blooded desperate murderers of any orientation STOP, just turn off a switch and adapt to civic society? In my opinion NO. So I will not support them. This is not a popular uprising fighting for a free society. It is a loose knit vanguard of killers.
I understand why they are desperate. Iraq is a hell hole. But that does not justify beheadings, roadside bombings, etc… These are cold blooded murders and the desperation could be directed in much more positive ways. The fact they resort to trying to undermine positive things like the elections tells me that they are thugs and will always be thugs. US occupation or not.
I am a Doug Henwood fan. Very much so. I am just surprised that a Gramsci Marxist Revolutionary like you would support someone of the elite bourgeoisie class.
September 30th, 2004 at 4:11 pm
STEVE,
The questions in my last entry are rhetorical. PLEASE DO NOT ANSWERS THEM in your typical style.
September 30th, 2004 at 8:10 pm
michael, i do it merely to point out that marc seems to be ruffled by my political perspectives, which he attacks on a rather frequent basis. well, since my politics are along the same lines of doug’s (it’s safe to say if doug participated in this ‘discussion’ that he’d agree with probably 95% of what I’ve written, especially since i’ve referenced him to back up numerous perspectives that Marc or you or josh have attacked. I find the double standard revealing and worth pointing out. I don’t need him as a ‘cover’, especially since sometimes doug and I have quite civil disagreements too. However, I wonder if I”m an “america hater’ because of my political perspectives on a number of issues, then why isn’t Henwood also an America hater in Marc’s or your book?
Mr. Laguerre, if you think it is your place to go ballistic and use caps screaming orders at me, dare i say you suffer from delusions of self grandeur?
And, sorry Josh, if you’re a Doug Henwood fan, then your a fan of a person whose politics are 95% in agreement with mine. you work out the contradiction in your vituperative and/or hysterical reactions to my political perspectives.
And I love the way you twist my words into saying that beheadings are part of a movement toward secular democracy. That’s really rich, almost as good as the Rove’s spin machine on Kerry’s words.
October 1st, 2004 at 10:06 am
You obsession with Doug Henwood is kind of scary. Do you stalk him or are you just a super fan?
Henwood is rational and sane and you are not. That is the difference.
It is good that you know that you agree with him 95% of the time. I don’t keep track of that kind of stuff.
October 1st, 2004 at 12:27 pm
Really? Care to show an example of where Henwood is ‘rational and sane’ [I agree] and where I’m not rational and sane? Bet ya can’t even come up with one, no different than how you fold when I ask for examples of my ‘pacifism’.
If you’re glad that Henwood agrees with me 95% of the time, grand, you agree with me 95% of the time. Or, your issues with me are personality related–i.e. apolitical ones and not terribly relevant to any real discussions of the issues. I suspect it’s more political and that you dislike the politics of someone like Doug Henwood far more than you are letting on.
But, please, go ahead, if I’m wrong, show me how. Just where do you see Henwood as sane and me as insane on a particular issue? I’d love to hear these examples, I hope they’re stronger than your ‘evidence’ that I”m a “pacifist”.
October 6th, 2004 at 6:22 pm
I was in El Salvador in June of this past year. You are right, you shouldn’t judge a country by it’s airport. El Salvador is still very much in need of repair. The two extremes of haves and have nots still exist, with the have nots outnumbering the haves.
My eyes were also opened to the truth behind El Salvador and I have vowed never to read just the American press on anything anymore. I welcome those who are willing to speak out, investigate on their own and not get their opinions from those they read. That’s easy. The hard part is really taking the time to learn about something before you comment.
Marc, I appreciated your comments.
Those of you who may want more reading on the subject of Central American may also want to read LOST HISTORY by Parry.
I’d also recommend, if you visit El Salvador, and not just its airport, that you go to the UCA and sit down with Dean Brackley or read his work.
What this country needs are more people who aren’t ready to take everybody else’s word for granted.
October 6th, 2004 at 8:13 pm
Thanks Elaine. The UCA is a wonderful island of information in El Salvador.
October 7th, 2004 at 6:53 am
the war only ended in ES because no-one was winning it.
it’s a perspective thing – reading the posting about one side in each of ES and Guate being backed by a totalitarian world power – I swear I thought you were talking about the US.
PS marc, your chile book – great title.
October 7th, 2004 at 6:56 am
oh and another thing – struck me as funny how you guys have long ‘serious’ exchanges but when it comes down to it most people’s criteria for a successful country seems to be how likely a dumb US tourist is to be ripped off or mugged. slum tourism back in fashion, is it?
October 7th, 2004 at 7:17 am
…and finally, mr legere, you seem to be right about many things including the one who is called ‘steve’. and i don’t want the people who behead other people to win, either. do you want the people who chain dog leashes to naked prisoners and torture them to win ?
September 26th, 2005 at 1:03 am
hmm..this is quite interesting
October 1st, 2004 at 8:23 am
Iraq as El Salvador?
Lefty blogger Sean LaFreniere points us to a very thought-provoking historical parallel for the coming Iraqi (and Afghan) elections: El Salvador.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:39 pm
Iraq is not Central America. There’s a reason why overseas empires got expensive in the ’50s.
It was disquieting to view the roster of the dead in your old paper.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/national/IRAQDEATHS_GRAPHIC.html?th&emc=th
And on the front page we see Judith Miller, the uncritical conduit for lies from the White House to bring about this war.
And on the business pages the big three need to cut benefits and say that global competition is making the middle class extinct- not the inability to enact CAFE standards for fuel efficient automobiles that are selling well from equally expensive Germany and Japan.
November 19th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
ENZYTE
Once A Day for Natural Male Enhancement
Discover why more and more men around the globe are turning to Enzyte to help support firmer, fuller-feeling, better quality erections… For more INFORMATION just visit the link above.
July 20th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Kiss me w poker ruresbm
July 24th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Betting Bettingbaseball handicapping baseball handicappingbaseball picks baseball picks
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:03 pm
sports picks sports picks
sports picks free sports picks free
September 12th, 2006 at 6:08 am
college football picks ww college football picks ww http://college–football-picks.blogspot.comww
November 19th, 2009 at 1:57 am
Web Games with, mail companies who?Harmless The first, a little scarier.The money crisis, at a reunion.Some may be Knit Caps Men, Texas Auto Insurance Heimspiel der Hertha.Internet is making, offtrack A pound.,