There were moments--long moments--during the Iraq war when I had my doubts. Even deep doubts. Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture like this in the Arab world turning out especially well. This is, you will say, my prejudice. But some prejudices are built on real facts, and history generally proves me right. Go ahead, prove me wrong.
Of course, Iraq hasn’t turned out that well. Sunni jihadniks are still routinely murdering pious Shi’a on pilgrimage to Karbala. Still...
There are three especially compelling personal testimonies arguing that Iraq is on its way to making its own inter-ethnic and inter-sectarian history, and it will be a relatively democratic history.
The last of these judgments came today, and it came from Gordon Brown, the British prime minister who is under Tory siege in the May elections. Iraq was always an unpopular war into which Brown’s predecessor, Tony Blair, also a Laborite inhabiting 10 Downing Street, led the Brits under the command of America. Brown’s last statement in this regard, including some politic dissents from George Bush’s early Iraq policy, appears in Friday’s New York Times.
The second of these pronunciamientos comes from Tom Ricks, authoritative or especially believable because of his authorship of two critical books on the American venture in Iraq, Fiasco and The Gamble. In “Extending Our Stay in Iraq,” an op-ed in last Wednesday’s Times, Ricks focuses on President Obama’s coming predicament. Having pledged to start removing American troops early on, Obama may find that his withdrawal will come just at a time when U.S. personnel are needed most. The president put himself long ago--during the campaign, when he played to the crowds--in this Iraqi conundrum. In his West Point address, he repeated the promise of withdrawal from Afghanistan when our presence there could be most important. This is a tic of the president’s, as a recent TNR editorial pointed out and as Dexter Filkins argued in the same issue. Ricks concludes that American and Iraqi leaders “may come to recognize that the best way deter a return to civil war is to find a way to keep 30,000 to 50,000 United States service members in Iraq for many years to come. ... As a longtime critic of the American invasion of Iraq, I am not happy about advocating a continued military presence there. Yet... just because you invade a country stupidly doesn’t mean you should leave it stupidly.”
In one way or another, the logic of this last sentence will be taken up by the Obami in their irresistible volte face on Iraq. It will be an embarrassment, an enormous one. But there is no alternative save shame and defeat.
Unlike Ricks, Fouad Ajami has no reason to be unhappy about the consequences of his historic arguments about Iraq. (By the way, if you haven’t already, you should read Ajami’s review in TNR of the searing Algerian novel, The German Mujahid, by Boualem Sansal.) “Another Step Forward for Iraq” is his title and his argument in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal. He begins with a gentle slap at Vice President Joe Biden for having “the audacity of claiming on CNN’s ‘Larry King Live’ that Iraq is destined to be ‘one of the great achievements of this administration.’” I would call it chutzpah, especially for Joe, who, despairing all through the Iraq venture, recommended a break-up of the country into three sectarian and tribal states.
Ajami reopens the argument about Paul Bremer’s order No. 1, which was an edict banning adherents of the Ba’ath from political life. It was, says Ajami, “a boon to the new Iraq,” removing Hussein’s gangsters without there being a bloodbath revenge against those who had “perpetrated on Iraqis a reign of the darkest terror” ... and the longest terror. Imagine post-World War II Germany without de-Nazification.
Ajami’s argument is intricate and deepened by the knowledge of a history that other “experts” think they can pick up on the fly.
Here is his summation of it:
For decades, American policy makers have imbibed the Sunni orthodoxy of the Arab holders of power. That view seeped into the American official consciousness. It survived the terrors of 9/11 and the doctrines of the Sunni jihadists. America remained wedded to the idea of Shiite radicalism. Now a Shiite-led state in Baghdad could yet make its way into the American security structure in the region, and the Sunni rulers have taken up sword against it.
In the received wisdom of those who never took to the justice or the wisdom of the Iraq war, the balance of power in the region was upended by the destruction of the Saddam Hussein regime that had presumably served as a buffer against the Iranian theocracy.
But that view grieves for a golden era that never was. It was in the 1980s and the 1990s, when the tyranny of Saddam Hussein ran a regime of extortion and plunder in the region, that the Iranians made their way to the Mediterranean, formed and trained Hezbollah in Beirut and the Bekaa Valley, installed their proxies in southern Lebanon on Israel's northern border. It was in that fabled time that the Iranians spread mayhem all around and stoked the furies of the Sunni-Shiite schism that has poisoned the life of Islam.
There is a better way of "balancing" Iran: a regime in Baghdad endowed with the legitimacy of democratic norms. Of all that has been said about Iraq since the time that country became an American burden, nothing equals the stark formulation once offered by a diplomat not given to grandstanding and rhetorical flourishes. Said former U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker: "In the end, what we leave behind and how we leave will be more important than how we came."
We can already see the outline of what our labor has created: a representative government, a binational state of Arabs and Kurds, and a country that does not bend to the will of one man or one ruling clan.
Keep up with TNR on Facebook and Twitter.
Print
COMMENTS (30)
Not yet! Why does Marty favor a bi-national state for Arabs and Kurds, but not for Arabs and Jews? Maybe the Kurds have the same legitimate concerns about Arab racism and hegemony as do the Israelis. Fuad Ajami came from a Lebanese Shi'ite family; no wonder he favored using American power to install a Shi'ite regime in Baghdad at whatever cost. Admittedly, democratic justice justifies that. We could generously bring impose democracy on a lot of places, like Sudan. What's the reason the Administration discourages decisive military action against Iran's clerical-fascist regime? To keep this delicate, tenuous Pax Americana from being scrambled? The artificial unified Iraq will, at best, always ... view full comment
Not yet! Why does Marty favor a bi-national state for Arabs and Kurds, but not for Arabs and Jews? Maybe the Kurds have the same legitimate concerns about Arab racism and hegemony as do the Israelis. Fuad Ajami came from a Lebanese Shi'ite family; no wonder he favored using American power to install a Shi'ite regime in Baghdad at whatever cost. Admittedly, democratic justice justifies that. We could generously bring impose democracy on a lot of places, like Sudan. What's the reason the Administration discourages decisive military action against Iran's clerical-fascist regime? To keep this delicate, tenuous Pax Americana from being scrambled? The artificial unified Iraq will, at best, always be a delicate balancing act. If it's really oil we're concerned about, we paid a huge price for it and non-American (think Chinese) companies will reap most of the direct commercial benefits from it. Have we stemmed Islamic terrorism with this adventure? I don't know.
How can an honest human being talk about the Iraq War "verdict" without discussing costs, especially when their nation is in recession? Especially when their magazine has been obsessed with a health care reform whose cost is less than half of the cost spent in Iraq?
Answer: an honest person couldn't.
How can an honest human being talk about the Iraq War "verdict" without discussing costs, especially when their nation is in recession? Especially when their magazine has been obsessed with a health care reform whose cost is less than half of the cost spent in Iraq?
Answer: an honest person couldn't.
Let us grant for the sake of argument all of the wonderful achievements recited by Peretz above. If Bush, or Peretz for that matter, had said to the American people in 2003 that we will go to war in Iraq to achieve these ends at the loss of some 4,000 American lives and many more grievous injuries, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives lost, a cost to the United States of roughly $1 trillion, the exhaustion of our military, and the erosion of our diplomatic stature in the world, including their in our ability to deal with more threatening problems including terrorism, what do you suppose the reaction would have been? Anyone suggesting such a thing would have been branded forever as insane. Tha ... view full comment
Let us grant for the sake of argument all of the wonderful achievements recited by Peretz above. If Bush, or Peretz for that matter, had said to the American people in 2003 that we will go to war in Iraq to achieve these ends at the loss of some 4,000 American lives and many more grievous injuries, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives lost, a cost to the United States of roughly $1 trillion, the exhaustion of our military, and the erosion of our diplomatic stature in the world, including their in our ability to deal with more threatening problems including terrorism, what do you suppose the reaction would have been? Anyone suggesting such a thing would have been branded forever as insane. That, however, is the most favorable possible description of what actually occurred.
We went to war in Iraq for one reason alone: the belief of the American people and their representatives that Iraq was in imminent possession of nuclear arms or at the very least a nuclear arms capability. That belief rested on lies told by the Bush administration about such things as Nigerian yellowcake and aluminum tubes. The claims by Bush that these things were evidence of Iraqi intentions and capabilities were already known by the administration to be false at the time they were uttered.
There is NO possibility that this war would have been fought if the true state of Iraqi nuclear capabilities had been known. And there is NO possibility that the war would have been deemed by our elected representatives in the Congress to be immediately necessary but for the lies told by Bush and applauded by Peretz.
The war in Iraq was and is a war crime, aggressive war waged without any plausible defensive purpose and without the sanction of the UN Security Council, a sanction that council declined to give. It comes as no surprise to me that Peretz continues to advocate on behalf of this crime as it is a crime that he advocated before it was committed. Perhaps he is just following orders.
There is nothing that Peretz would not say or do in the interest of his own self-justification because there is nothing more precious to him than his own sanctimony and noisy self-righteousness, not young lives certainly.
Buried in Peretz's wretched piece of self-justification is the signal of his coming advocacy of a permanent American military presence in Iraq. This is in fact his tacit admission that the war in Iraq has not even achieved, nor can it achieve, even the stable democratic polity that he wishes now to claim as its great and lasting purpose.
Buried in Peretz's wretched piece of self-justification is the signal of his coming advocacy of a permanent American military presence in Iraq. This is in fact his tacit admission that the war in Iraq has not even achieved, nor can it achieve, even the stable democratic polity that he wishes now to claim as its great and lasting purpose.
Ideological buzzards are always flying around any complex event looking for stray carrion. The Surge, a risk taken by President Bush against all rational advice, ended up working. A victory for Bush? Undeniably. Also a victory for the wider Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld philosophy? No, because making the Surge work involved the U.S. military in Iraq changing strategy in a root-and-branch rethink, and moving to exactly the kind of counter-insurgency, civilian protection, and nation-building (with a lot of civilian input) that had been contemptuously dismissed by the White House and the Pentagon in the heady days of "Mission accomplished!"
In some ways, both the Cindy Sheehans of 2005 and the delus ... view full comment
Ideological buzzards are always flying around any complex event looking for stray carrion. The Surge, a risk taken by President Bush against all rational advice, ended up working. A victory for Bush? Undeniably. Also a victory for the wider Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld philosophy? No, because making the Surge work involved the U.S. military in Iraq changing strategy in a root-and-branch rethink, and moving to exactly the kind of counter-insurgency, civilian protection, and nation-building (with a lot of civilian input) that had been contemptuously dismissed by the White House and the Pentagon in the heady days of "Mission accomplished!"
In some ways, both the Cindy Sheehans of 2005 and the delusional "greeting with flowers, in and out in six months" fantasists of 2003 have been washed away by the tide of history. But I worry that the moment for withdrawal will never come because we are a security blanket too comforting for any Iraqi political leader to willingly throw away. We've seen how, despite all appearences to the contrary, Karzai has us over a barrell in Kabul.
I find it deeply ironic that Mr. Peretz "couldn’t quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out especially well" but ends the piece with a long, favorable block quotation from an Arab intellectual. It's a shame that someone who leads such a talented staff of journalists can't understand that his prejudices don't stem from "real facts" but rather from his skewed perception of a mixed and complicated factual record.
One reason our society can comfortably designate per se statements about a race as racist is that such statements are *always* so overbroad as to be false and therefore useless for understanding the world. It's a shame that such invective is still socially acc ... view full comment
I find it deeply ironic that Mr. Peretz "couldn’t quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out especially well" but ends the piece with a long, favorable block quotation from an Arab intellectual. It's a shame that someone who leads such a talented staff of journalists can't understand that his prejudices don't stem from "real facts" but rather from his skewed perception of a mixed and complicated factual record.
One reason our society can comfortably designate per se statements about a race as racist is that such statements are *always* so overbroad as to be false and therefore useless for understanding the world. It's a shame that such invective is still socially acceptable in this day and age, and doubly a shame that it appears on the website of a magazine otherwise committed to idealism and justice at home and abroad.
Cost indeed. All the young men and women who returned with PTSD and other injuries related to being in vehicles hit by IED"s and who can't get the VA to acjkowledge their disabilities, and even when it does, get anywhere near adequate treatment for their injuries, physical and psychic. We are not even paying for it: that will fall on our great-grandchildren. All to the greater glory of boss Chalabi, I guess.
This is as blatant an example of chickenhawk writing as I have ever seen under the TNR masthead.
Cost indeed. All the young men and women who returned with PTSD and other injuries related to being in vehicles hit by IED"s and who can't get the VA to acjkowledge their disabilities, and even when it does, get anywhere near adequate treatment for their injuries, physical and psychic. We are not even paying for it: that will fall on our great-grandchildren. All to the greater glory of boss Chalabi, I guess.
This is as blatant an example of chickenhawk writing as I have ever seen under the TNR masthead.
Amidut, what? The State of Israel had population of approximately 7,465,500 inhabitants as of September 2009. 75.5% of them were Jewish (about 5,634,300 individuals), 20.3% were Arabs (About 1,513,200 inhabitants),
Lo and behold, that is pretty much the same with Iraq. About 75% Arab and 20% Kurd, so I am really missing your point.
Not much to add, I agree with Irony above and only want to add that the US got pretty damn lucky that Sistani was the head Ayatollah in Iraq, with his "quietist" school of governance (I only wish someone like him was head Ayatollah in Iran too). The truly scary thing is I don't think Bush or anyone in his administration had the faintest clue beforehand if Sistani h ... view full comment
Amidut, what? The State of Israel had population of approximately 7,465,500 inhabitants as of September 2009. 75.5% of them were Jewish (about 5,634,300 individuals), 20.3% were Arabs (About 1,513,200 inhabitants),
Lo and behold, that is pretty much the same with Iraq. About 75% Arab and 20% Kurd, so I am really missing your point.
Not much to add, I agree with Irony above and only want to add that the US got pretty damn lucky that Sistani was the head Ayatollah in Iraq, with his "quietist" school of governance (I only wish someone like him was head Ayatollah in Iran too). The truly scary thing is I don't think Bush or anyone in his administration had the faintest clue beforehand if Sistani had wanted to he could have brought it all crashing down on us and no surge could have prevented that.
Wrong analogy, blackton, because there is no independent Kurdistan. There is no more reason for the Kurdish nation to be submerged in Arab Iraq, Turkic Turkey, and Persian Iran than for the Jews to be everywhere a minority, including in Israel as part of a reborn Arab empire. Yes, the Israeli Arabs are a minority, but the Arabs, and Moslems more generally, cannot claim alone amongst the people of the earth the right to be in the majority in every single bit of territory on which one Arab or Moslem lives. They are the governing majority in a vast swath of the planet. There is no need for special accommodation because a relative handful are a minority in one place, equal political rights t ... view full comment
Wrong analogy, blackton, because there is no independent Kurdistan. There is no more reason for the Kurdish nation to be submerged in Arab Iraq, Turkic Turkey, and Persian Iran than for the Jews to be everywhere a minority, including in Israel as part of a reborn Arab empire. Yes, the Israeli Arabs are a minority, but the Arabs, and Moslems more generally, cannot claim alone amongst the people of the earth the right to be in the majority in every single bit of territory on which one Arab or Moslem lives. They are the governing majority in a vast swath of the planet. There is no need for special accommodation because a relative handful are a minority in one place, equal political rights to be sure, but many people who have a national home also live as a minority somewhere else.
As well, the promises made to the Kurds are of the same vintage as the promises made to the Jews and to the Arabs, circa the close of WWI.
roidubuloi,
The Bush administration claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction not that it had nuclear weapons. The former is a class of nonconventional weapons that includes chemical and biological weapons. The belief was widespread among Western intelligence agencies that Iraq had chemical weapons because it had possessed them prior to the 1990 Gulf War and had used them in the Iran-Iraq War. It also believed that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program because of statements by defectors and his own actions during the 12 years of the inspection regime. To be a lie a statement must be both contrary to fact and to be known as contrary to fact by the writer or speaker at the time. ... view full comment
roidubuloi,
The Bush administration claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction not that it had nuclear weapons. The former is a class of nonconventional weapons that includes chemical and biological weapons. The belief was widespread among Western intelligence agencies that Iraq had chemical weapons because it had possessed them prior to the 1990 Gulf War and had used them in the Iran-Iraq War. It also believed that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program because of statements by defectors and his own actions during the 12 years of the inspection regime. To be a lie a statement must be both contrary to fact and to be known as contrary to fact by the writer or speaker at the time. The Bush administration was wrong, it was not lying. The U.S. had a much more serious problem than a president lying--an intelligence failure on a major issue of consequence. Incidentally, Iraq did have a nuclear program--it just stagnated after Iraq's 1991 defeat. This was a victory for sanctions.
tmithch,
Who are you kidding? Although the term WMDs is used to embrace biological and chemical as well as nuclear weapons, it is a complete re-writing of history to suggest that concern over the two former classes was the motivation for the war. Not even close. All of the hype at the time was about how Iraq was closing in on nuclear weapons.
There were key claims made by the Bush administration regarding Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium from Nigeria and its supposed procurement of aluminum tubes suitable, indeed essential, for gas centrifuges needed to enrich uranium. These were in fact the key claims made by Bush in support of its contentions regarding the Iraqi nuclear program. They ... view full comment
tmithch,
Who are you kidding? Although the term WMDs is used to embrace biological and chemical as well as nuclear weapons, it is a complete re-writing of history to suggest that concern over the two former classes was the motivation for the war. Not even close. All of the hype at the time was about how Iraq was closing in on nuclear weapons.
There were key claims made by the Bush administration regarding Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium from Nigeria and its supposed procurement of aluminum tubes suitable, indeed essential, for gas centrifuges needed to enrich uranium. These were in fact the key claims made by Bush in support of its contentions regarding the Iraqi nuclear program. They were what supported the claim that we were facing an emergency without further time or opportunity both to deploy sanctions and inspectors. Both claims were a lie when they were made, as you define a lie, false claims known by the speaker to be false. Both the uranium yellowcake procurement claim and the aluminum tube procurement claim had been debunked within the government before Bush trotted them out.. In the case of the yellowcake, it apparently never happened. In the case of the aluminum tubes, the Dept of Energy had determined (you can find the memo online) that they were unsuited to gas centrifuges and had a purpose either for rocketry or power generation.
Although the Bush administration subsequently claimed an intelligence failure was to blame for the lack of WMDs in Iraq, that too was a lie. The actual intelligence was a pretty good approximation of reality. It is just that that was not what Bush needed to start the war, so he ignored it in favor of his bogus version. The failure of intelligence was his failure to have any.
If Bush hadn't needed those lies to start the war, he wouldn't have told them. Now, I think it more than likely that Bush and company believed that they would find a nuclear program in Iraq, not because of the intelligence, but because that was what their ideology demanded. They no doubt figured that once they found the nukes, no one would remember or care that they had lied about the particulars.
Roid. I have to hand it to you. You are an anti-republican dogmatist without peer. I have a begrudging admiration for your passions. Conditionally pedantic without any conflict what so ever. I envy your unconflicted certainty of absolute republican mendacity and utter corruption even as I disagree with most of your conclusions. And you are tireless...... the kind that will rewrite history books..... regardless of what the truth might be. You don't bother with the nethers and ethers and tweeners or yeah buts. You just rock on like a hammering preacher putting his personal stamp upon the order of the universe. A blustering and erudite simplicity much in the fashion of those you accuse.
Roid. I have to hand it to you. You are an anti-republican dogmatist without peer. I have a begrudging admiration for your passions. Conditionally pedantic without any conflict what so ever. I envy your unconflicted certainty of absolute republican mendacity and utter corruption even as I disagree with most of your conclusions. And you are tireless...... the kind that will rewrite history books..... regardless of what the truth might be. You don't bother with the nethers and ethers and tweeners or yeah buts. You just rock on like a hammering preacher putting his personal stamp upon the order of the universe. A blustering and erudite simplicity much in the fashion of those you accuse.
Well, thank you, jacko. I find myself irrationally pleased by this praising with faint damn.
As I consider it a public calling of overwhelming importance in our time to fight for the sake our country against relentless Republican perfidy, mendacity, and corruption, I am delighted to be making an impression, even if it is one you don't care for.
Well, thank you, jacko. I find myself irrationally pleased by this praising with faint damn.
As I consider it a public calling of overwhelming importance in our time to fight for the sake our country against relentless Republican perfidy, mendacity, and corruption, I am delighted to be making an impression, even if it is one you don't care for.
The thought occurs to me that as a student of history you should appreciate that there is a fundamental asymmetry between the parties. The Democrats can be criticized, early and often, for fecklessness and for unrealistic beliefs about what will and will not be achieved by legislation and government, and of failing too often to understand the costs of what they do. But it would be difficult to claim that the agenda they declare as their own is not in fact what they week to accomplish: universal access to good job opportunities, education, healthcare, a decent retirement income, protection from joblessness. This is because the objectives of the Democratic agenda are hugely popular.
The R ... view full comment
The thought occurs to me that as a student of history you should appreciate that there is a fundamental asymmetry between the parties. The Democrats can be criticized, early and often, for fecklessness and for unrealistic beliefs about what will and will not be achieved by legislation and government, and of failing too often to understand the costs of what they do. But it would be difficult to claim that the agenda they declare as their own is not in fact what they week to accomplish: universal access to good job opportunities, education, healthcare, a decent retirement income, protection from joblessness. This is because the objectives of the Democratic agenda are hugely popular.
The Republicans, on the other hand, can never openly declare their true agenda, but must constantly mask it with deception and diversion. For example, can they say openly that they believe that those with money ought to control the political process in their own interest to the disadvantage of everyone else? No. So they have to cloak their repellent, anti-democratic agenda with other claims -- freedom of speech, for example -- that don't carry the heavy odor of monarchism and plutocracy. Can the Republicans say openly that American prosperity is not the result of the labor of millions, but of the genius of a handful of entrepreneurs and industrial captains and that it is therefore fitting and proper that the geniuses pay less in taxes than common workers? No. So they have to claim that cutting taxes for the richest will actually raise Federal revenues and increase our prosperity although this is preposterous and quickly proven wrong. Can the Republicans openly say that they don't care whether all Americans have access to health care, that for anyone who cannot afford it, it is their own fault? No. So they have to invent slanders about death panels, socialism, and government coming to kill your grandmother.
Just by way of example.
roid, not sure I follow your critique above. I simply pointed out the Iraq and Israel have roughly the same minority percentages as criticism of Amidut's criticism of Marty. In both Iraq and Israel minority rights are protected (in theory in Iraq, in reality in Israel). The differences between the two is that Israeli Arabs live throughout Israel, and the Israel is far too small to partition out the 25% Israeli Arabs. Kurdistan is a distinct region and theoretically could be its own nation. Now, of course, so can the West Bank and Gaza but I am leaving that out of the discussion.
Look, the reasons why there is no independent Kurdistan can be laid down at the carving up of the Ottoman Empire by ... view full comment
roid, not sure I follow your critique above. I simply pointed out the Iraq and Israel have roughly the same minority percentages as criticism of Amidut's criticism of Marty. In both Iraq and Israel minority rights are protected (in theory in Iraq, in reality in Israel). The differences between the two is that Israeli Arabs live throughout Israel, and the Israel is far too small to partition out the 25% Israeli Arabs. Kurdistan is a distinct region and theoretically could be its own nation. Now, of course, so can the West Bank and Gaza but I am leaving that out of the discussion.
Look, the reasons why there is no independent Kurdistan can be laid down at the carving up of the Ottoman Empire by the Euro allies after the war. I agree it is unfair, but unless you want there to be another huge war in the Middle east, for the foreseeable future we are stuck with what we have.
I also don't know why you are lumping Muslims and Arabs together, and even why you are pretending Arabs everywhere are the same, might as well say all European Catholics are the same. You write: They are the governing majority in a vast swath of the planet.
Who are "they"? Are you honestly saying the handful of tyrants, or corrupt medievel sultans represent the ordinary people? Because Stalin was a Georgian didn't mean Georgia ruled Russia.
By the way, Israel does make special accommodation to Arab Israelis. They don't have to serve in the Armed Forces for one. I have no problem with this. The US makes special accommodation to the original Americans. Mexico does as well, etc. so I don't really follow that point either.
jacko, I couldn't have said it better myself, and God knows I've tried.
roid, you really don't even get close. The geniuses pay less in tax than the workers? That's such BS it's hardly worth the typing. And when was this Golden Age when those with money did NOT control the political process - EVER? In any nation, at any time? Except maybe the USSR - great model, eh?
Ah, the smell of strawmen in springtime - smells like..... roid's BS. Again.
jacko, I couldn't have said it better myself, and God knows I've tried.
roid, you really don't even get close. The geniuses pay less in tax than the workers? That's such BS it's hardly worth the typing. And when was this Golden Age when those with money did NOT control the political process - EVER? In any nation, at any time? Except maybe the USSR - great model, eh?
Ah, the smell of strawmen in springtime - smells like..... roid's BS. Again.
Love the unremarked modification of the original post by Peretz: "..Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out especially well...." is now "...Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture like this in the Arab world turning out especially well...."
'Chickenhawk' means never having to admit that you screwed up....
Love the unremarked modification of the original post by Peretz: "..Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out especially well...." is now "...Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture like this in the Arab world turning out especially well...."
'Chickenhawk' means never having to admit that you screwed up....
"..Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out especially well...."
Frankly, I can't see what smac's beef is with this thought. It is awkwardly articulated but that's about it. Marty noticed it and re-wrote.
Perhaps smac can enlighten us as to what HE/SHE reads in this statement and why such denunciations.
"..Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out especially well...."
Frankly, I can't see what smac's beef is with this thought. It is awkwardly articulated but that's about it. Marty noticed it and re-wrote.
Perhaps smac can enlighten us as to what HE/SHE reads in this statement and why such denunciations.
If one credits Eric Alterman's assessment of the matter, the Iraq War certainly exacted a cost on Mr. Peretz's pocketbook and TNR's bottom line in lost subscribers, lost revenue and lost relevance in Democratic policy circles. So it is no surprise to me that he is looking for the upside and a positive verdict on the conflict that his magazine so stridently promoted, including the appealing fantasy that the democracy we midwifed in Iraq would serve as any sort of model for its neighbors. He obviously cares little for the collective intelligence and rationality of the Arab world (as he explicitly states in this post), but does Marty really believe the inhabitants of any Arab country are so d ... view full comment
If one credits Eric Alterman's assessment of the matter, the Iraq War certainly exacted a cost on Mr. Peretz's pocketbook and TNR's bottom line in lost subscribers, lost revenue and lost relevance in Democratic policy circles. So it is no surprise to me that he is looking for the upside and a positive verdict on the conflict that his magazine so stridently promoted, including the appealing fantasy that the democracy we midwifed in Iraq would serve as any sort of model for its neighbors. He obviously cares little for the collective intelligence and rationality of the Arab world (as he explicitly states in this post), but does Marty really believe the inhabitants of any Arab country are so dumb as to want to walk through the blood and fire of Iraq's post-2003 history to get to where Iraq is now?
No, butchie, you couldn't have said it at all because, as usual, you are without a clue and I have to take you through it step by step.
There area many instances in which the wealthy in this country actually pay a lower average tax rate than wage earners. Just ask Warren Buffet. This is due to classes of income that are treated more favorably than others, classes of income that are excluded from the tax base, both of which favor the wealthy, and regressive taxation including payroll taxes and sales taxes. The Republicans actually think this is still too progressive; they favor regressive taxation, such as current Medicare taxes, in which the low-earners pay a higher percentage of income. ... view full comment
No, butchie, you couldn't have said it at all because, as usual, you are without a clue and I have to take you through it step by step.
There area many instances in which the wealthy in this country actually pay a lower average tax rate than wage earners. Just ask Warren Buffet. This is due to classes of income that are treated more favorably than others, classes of income that are excluded from the tax base, both of which favor the wealthy, and regressive taxation including payroll taxes and sales taxes. The Republicans actually think this is still too progressive; they favor regressive taxation, such as current Medicare taxes, in which the low-earners pay a higher percentage of income. Do they say this out loud? Of course not. Instead they give us all sorts of bullshit about how cutting taxes for the rich is going to increase revenues, increase output, blah, blah, blah. All nonsense.
Similarly, as a true-to-form winger ideologue, you make the leap from the fact that money can never be removed entirely from politics to the position that therefore money should be given free rein. The Democrats would like to minimize the impact of money so that one-person, one-vote is the functional reality, not just a formality. Republicans actually want money to dominate politics. Do they say this out loud? Of course not. They rail against monied "special interests" who, 96% of the time, turn out to be themselves. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and they are us."
My advice to you is don't try to pile on to what JD says. He at least has a point to make. You are just wandering in the desert.
noga1: '...awkwardly articulated....' Congratulations! That gets the weasel-wording award for the day!
What would've been 'well-articulated' under the circumstances? 'Never trust an Ay-rab'? 'Those lyin' Arabushim'?
In fact, it appears that Glenn Greenwald caught both the original bigotry and the sneak editing (http://tinyurl.com/yfedk4x), so perhaps Peretz realised that his hatred of Arabs was a little too obvious on that post. It's an interesting comment on editorial standards at TNR that he was allowed to get away with it.
noga1: '...awkwardly articulated....' Congratulations! That gets the weasel-wording award for the day!
What would've been 'well-articulated' under the circumstances? 'Never trust an Ay-rab'? 'Those lyin' Arabushim'?
In fact, it appears that Glenn Greenwald caught both the original bigotry and the sneak editing (http://tinyurl.com/yfedk4x), so perhaps Peretz realised that his hatred of Arabs was a little too obvious on that post. It's an interesting comment on editorial standards at TNR that he was allowed to get away with it.
Isn't Marty Peretz the owner again? If you're the boss, you don't get "edited" in that sense, and especially not in blog mode. Which can go either way, of course.
Isn't Marty Peretz the owner again? If you're the boss, you don't get "edited" in that sense, and especially not in blog mode. Which can go either way, of course.
"noga1: '...awkwardly articulated....' Congratulations! That gets the weasel-wording award for the day!"
smac has still not furnished a plausible explanation at what exactly in Marty's formulation he takes umbrage.
Where is the bigotry in
"..Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out especially well...."
I'll try to paraphrase what Marty is saying:
To be honest, it is difficult to imagine any project that calls for trust from Arabs being very successful.
My paraphrase is based on an understanding of "trust" to be:
"Assured resting of the mind on the integrity, veracity, justice, friendship, or other sound principle, of another person; confidence; re ... view full comment
"noga1: '...awkwardly articulated....' Congratulations! That gets the weasel-wording award for the day!"
smac has still not furnished a plausible explanation at what exactly in Marty's formulation he takes umbrage.
Where is the bigotry in
"..Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out especially well...."
I'll try to paraphrase what Marty is saying:
To be honest, it is difficult to imagine any project that calls for trust from Arabs being very successful.
My paraphrase is based on an understanding of "trust" to be:
"Assured resting of the mind on the integrity, veracity, justice, friendship, or other sound principle, of another person; confidence; reliance; reliance."
I presume smac has a different interpretation. Unless he thinks that the belief that Arabs suffer from the-ability-to-trust deficiency, and tend to see everything in terms of conspiracies, counts as bigotry.
Even the shortest excursion into the Arab media and blogosphere will confirm this perception. Enough to recall Al-Jazeera's editor-in-chief's mother of all grievances:
"At whom are you angry?
It's not only the lack of democracy in the region that makes me worried. I don't understand why we don't develop as quickly and dynamically as the rest of the world. We have to face the challenge and say: enough is enough! When a President can stay in power for 25 years, like in Egypt, and he is not in a position to implement reforms, we have a problem. Either the man has to change or he has to be replaced. But the society is not dynamic enough to bring about such a change in a peaceful and constructive fashion.
Why not?
In many Arab states, the middle class is disappearing. The rich get richer and the poor get still poorer. Look at the schools in Jordan, Egypt or Morocco: You have up to 70 youngsters crammed together in a single classroom. How can a teacher do his job in such circumstances? The public hospitals are also in a hopeless condition. These are just examples. They show how hopeless the situation is for us in the Middle East.
Who is responsible for the situation?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most important reasons why these crises and problems continue to simmer. The day when Israel was founded created the basis for our problems. The West should finally come to understand this. Everything would be much calmer if the Palestinians were given their rights.
Do you mean to say that if Israel did not exist, there would suddenly be democracy in Egypt, that the schools in Morocco would be better, that the public clinics in Jordan would function better?
I think so.
Can you please explain to me what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to do with these problems?
The Palestinian cause is central for Arab thinking...."
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=395
Or more anecdotally, here is the most recent conspiracy theory I encountered from an Arab blogger:
http://bujassem.blogspot.com/2010/03/mabhouh-gone-quiet.html
I would say that Marty's assessment of Arab capacity for trust has nailed it.
ironyroad: Martin Peretz is indeed the owner, although I'm not sure how that's determinative: his formal status has varied through the last few years. Evidently, that status gives him a lot of editorial freedom: it's difficult to see how a blog like The Spine, with its bigotry and carelessness, could exist on the TNR web site otherwise.
ironyroad: Martin Peretz is indeed the owner, although I'm not sure how that's determinative: his formal status has varied through the last few years. Evidently, that status gives him a lot of editorial freedom: it's difficult to see how a blog like The Spine, with its bigotry and carelessness, could exist on the TNR web site otherwise.
noga1: Taking just this one case... Peretz didn't simply change the wording to 'trust from Arabs' (which would have been the simplest way of expressing your meaning). He changed the phrase completely, eliminating any mention of trust, which rather renders the rest of your explanation moot.
More broadly, Peretz has a long history on The Spine of expressing his dislike and contempt for Arabs and Muslims more generally. It's not as if this latest example was anything new.
noga1: Taking just this one case... Peretz didn't simply change the wording to 'trust from Arabs' (which would have been the simplest way of expressing your meaning). He changed the phrase completely, eliminating any mention of trust, which rather renders the rest of your explanation moot.
More broadly, Peretz has a long history on The Spine of expressing his dislike and contempt for Arabs and Muslims more generally. It's not as if this latest example was anything new.
"There were moments--long moments--during the Iraq war when I had my doubts. Even deep doubts. Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture like this in the Arab world turning out especially well. This is, you will say, my prejudice. But some prejudices are built on real facts, and history generally proves me right. Go ahead, prove me wrong."
__________
"...Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture like this in the Arab world turning out especially well...."
"..Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out especially well...."
_____________
smac: your casuistries nothwithstanding, you still have not explained why Marty is wrong to say what ... view full comment
"There were moments--long moments--during the Iraq war when I had my doubts. Even deep doubts. Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture like this in the Arab world turning out especially well. This is, you will say, my prejudice. But some prejudices are built on real facts, and history generally proves me right. Go ahead, prove me wrong."
__________
"...Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture like this in the Arab world turning out especially well...."
"..Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out especially well...."
_____________
smac: your casuistries nothwithstanding, you still have not explained why Marty is wrong to say what he said in Version 1 or Version 2.
In either one of his versions, Marty articulated his deep scepticism about any project for democratization in the Arab world being successful. In the first and now defunct version he had implied a reason where this scepticism springs from: because it is project that required "trust with Arabs". Not "trust IN Arabs" but "trust WITH Arabs". There is the little nuance of the preposition there which puts the lie to your entire thesis.
I daresay Marty is not much enamored with Muslim Arabs who keep saying things like this:
http://bujassem.blogspot.com/2010/02/iraqn.html
http://www.honestly-concerned.org/HC_Infomaterial/Flyer_Booklets/Compari...
or like this;
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/754.htm
Please teach me, smac, how to trust and like and respect people who write, preach, teach and transmit things like that about one's family and friends.
noga1: The Spine's an excellent illustration that hatred of Muslims is just as possible as hatred of Jews. Does that mean that disgusting hatred of Jews does not exist among some Muslims? Not at all. Does it even mean that the puerile chest-thumping that one sees on The Spine (over the Dubai assassination, for example) is going to hurt specific Muslims? Not at all. It simply means that hatred can run both ways. The primary reason for the existence of The Spine (for both Peretz and his acolytes) is Muslim- and Arab-bashing: this has involved, in the past, explicit wishes for the elimination of all Muslims on the planet from some of his less discreet followers. One doesn't have to respect peo ... view full comment
noga1: The Spine's an excellent illustration that hatred of Muslims is just as possible as hatred of Jews. Does that mean that disgusting hatred of Jews does not exist among some Muslims? Not at all. Does it even mean that the puerile chest-thumping that one sees on The Spine (over the Dubai assassination, for example) is going to hurt specific Muslims? Not at all. It simply means that hatred can run both ways. The primary reason for the existence of The Spine (for both Peretz and his acolytes) is Muslim- and Arab-bashing: this has involved, in the past, explicit wishes for the elimination of all Muslims on the planet from some of his less discreet followers. One doesn't have to respect people who espouse such ideas - but it also doesn't mean that they are exemplars for all members of their nationality or religion.
And how, exactly, does your claim 'put the lie to my entire thesis'? Peretz felt it politic to change the wording of the sentence by stealth... which hardly indicates that this was a simple little change in context.
Well smac, you seem to support the position that those who express eliminationist antisemitism are morally on par with those who expose them.
You have a bizaro view of the world, in which the Spine, in pointing out the many failings (to put it mildly) of Arab- Islamic behaviours and expressions can only be matched by the kind of hatred I illustrated in my links. Clearly there is no way you can ever accept ANY criticism of the stagnation, dogma and violence of thinking in the Arab world. For some reason your heart bleeds for the injustice done to the good name of Arabs by the suggestion that theirs is a culture of deep resentment, suspicion, superstition and victimization.
Why not, instead o ... view full comment
Well smac, you seem to support the position that those who express eliminationist antisemitism are morally on par with those who expose them.
You have a bizaro view of the world, in which the Spine, in pointing out the many failings (to put it mildly) of Arab- Islamic behaviours and expressions can only be matched by the kind of hatred I illustrated in my links. Clearly there is no way you can ever accept ANY criticism of the stagnation, dogma and violence of thinking in the Arab world. For some reason your heart bleeds for the injustice done to the good name of Arabs by the suggestion that theirs is a culture of deep resentment, suspicion, superstition and victimization.
Why not, instead of trying to argue your case by denigrating Peretz, furnish us with a few examples that broadly counter and contradict his views. Namely, why don't you tell us how highly civilized, enlightened, thoughtful, decorous and fair-minded these societies are so that we can get a sense of the great injustice done to them by representing them as otherwise.
BTW, smac, you have not answered my plea from an earlier comment:
Please teach me, smac, how to trust and like and respect people who write, preach, teach and transmit things like that about one's family and friends.
BTW, smac, you have not answered my plea from an earlier comment:
Please teach me, smac, how to trust and like and respect people who write, preach, teach and transmit things like that about one's family and friends.
I think I can conclude from smac's silence that he has no answer to my question.
I think I can conclude from smac's silence that he has no answer to my question.