Recently, I posted a commentary entitled, The Ghosts of 9/11. Ow, the blogger at Oil Wars, an essential source of information about events in Venezuela, commented upon my perspective, considering it overly harsh, initiating this dialogue:

Richard,

I disagree somewhat with your last two paragraphs. People like Navarro and Cummins didn't have anything to do with the US invading Iraq. There was no public clamor for that war. Maybe you could say there was for going after the Taliban but that was a seperate issue.

The US went to war in Iraq because it had wanted to take over that country for some time to control its oil, extract revenge, and take out what it considered a regional threat to its very large interests in the M.E. All 9/11 did was provide the pretext.

And in point of fact, at the time they did use the WMD BS a lot more than 9/11 to justify the war. Its only after the invasion when the WMD line was revealed as non-sense and any "threat" from the Ba'athists was long gone that they now need to milk 9/11 as a last ditch justification for continueing the war.
ow | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 8:25 am | #

Ow,

There was plenty of information around before the war that Iraq wasn't a threat. It didn't possess WMDs, and its military capabilities had been degraded by the 1991 Gulf War and sanctions.

Indeed, one of the reasons Iraq was selected for attack, beyond the geopolitical ones that you mention, was precisely because it was perceived (wrongly) as a cakewalk. People just didn't want to listen, just like they didn't listen to the warnings about the NASDAQ bubble. They had a pre-existing disposition to believe, and that pre-disposition was based upon their anger at Arabs as a result of 9/11, and possibly, even a racism towards Arabs that existed pre-9/11.

Now, I agree with you that there was no clamour for the war. But there was no opposition to it, either, and why was that? I believe it was because of what I have written here. Once Bush targeted Iraq, for the reasons you state, people of the right, especially men for some reason, started pushing the line about how evil Saddam was, how terribly he had treated his people, how something had to be done about him. Bush, and his radio apparat, lead by people like Limbaugh, skillfully tapped into it.

I heard this all the time. People, mind you, who had never expressed the slightest concern about treatment of people in the Middle East before, and who, quite predictably, and contradictorily, support any Israeli brutality against the Palestinians.

This, as they say in poker, was a tell. Saddam was a chance to get even after 9/11, as Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin Laden was not sufficient to slake their thirst for revenge, and their concern for the people of Iraq was an excuse for what they already wanted to do, attack Iraq after Bush so conveniently suggested it to them. Saddam was the stereotype of the evil Arab, the personification of what they held responsible for 9/11, Arabs in the Middle East.

More confirmation can be found after the war was started. These same people, who purportedly supported the war partially because of their humanitarian concern for the Iraqi people, never express any concern for what our troops have done there. Never any concern about the use of cluster bombs, the poverty, the lack of medical care, killings of civilians at checkpoints, or, more tellingly, the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib. On that one, they were, and remain, silent as church mice, if they aren't mimicking Limbaugh's characterization of them as fraternity pranks.

And, lastly, people continue to this day to volunteer to to participate in this horror, they enlist and re-enlist, despite the knowledge that Iraq had no connection to 9/11. Factually no, but, emotionally, it still endures for many people, as it does for Cummins and Navarro.

So, people like them go about their business, tormenting the people of Iraq, as they continue to lie to themselves about their motivations, which have nothing to do with fighting terror and WMDs. And, they are perfectly willing to participate in admiminstration public relations events, like the one described in the article, a 9/11 memorial in Iraq, to continue to persuade all of us to believe in the lie as well.

For me, I have come to the conclusion that the institution of the state itself is inclined to manipulate these sorts of motivations, and as you post on a blog about Venezuela, it is one of the anxieties that I have about the future of the revolutionary project there.
Richard Estes | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 11:54 am | #

I have some additional comments that I’d like to make, especially on your last comments. Rather than a debate or disagreement I think they are just a difference of perspectives which are in and of themselves interesting and educational so let me share them:

[There was plenty of information around before the war that Iraq wasn't a threat. It didn't possess WMDs, and its military capabilities had been degraded by the 1991 Gulf War and sanctions. ]

True, but I think 9/11 inclined a lot of people to give the government the benefit of the doubt. And just to give my own experience with this as you can imagine I am highly skeptical of what the US government says. Yet, I at least half way believed them on the WMD issue. The government lies about a lot of things but it also tells the truth about a lot of things. For people like me who have no information outside of what is provided in the mass media it is hard to know when they are being truthfull and when they are lying. My rational for believing them was that if they were to invade and then be discovered to have not told the truth about this it would be a big blow to them. So I thought this was simply too big a lie for them to tell. Obviously I was wrong.

BTW, I was still dead set against the war regardless of the WMD issue. My view was (and is) is that as a soviergn nation Iraq had just as much right to decide what weapons it wants to posses as the US, Britian, Russia or China do.

[Indeed, one of the reasons Iraq was selected for attack, beyond the geopolitical ones that you mention, was precisely because it was perceived (wrongly) as a cakewalk. People just didn't want to listen, just like they didn't listen to the warnings about the NASDAQ bubble. They had a pre-existing disposition to believe, and that pre-disposition was based upon their anger at Arabs as a result of 9/11, and possibly, even a racism towards Arabs that existed pre-9/11.]

Again, on this I was wrong too. I thought that Iraq would indeed be a cakewalk for them. My reasons for thinking that had nothing to do with hatred for Arabs, but rather that as a brutal dictator Saddam was probably despised by the vast majority of Iraqis and that they would indeed welcome being freed from his rule. And they may well have felt that way right after the initial invasion. If the US had toppled Saddam and immediately left its possible they would be viewedfavourably in Iraq. But their intention was clearly to occupy and control the country and the rest is history. So while you sure have me pegged in terms of being wrong I’m not sure that most people’s believing this stemmed from hatred of Arabs. In fact Bush was at least initially very careful not to go the route of race baiting or religion baiting. The US was supposedly going there to help people and “democratize” the M.E.. I always new THAT was bullshit (after all, if that was their goal why didn’t they start by just cutting off the money to all the dictatorships they support there) but I think many people believed it.
ow | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 9:29 pm | #

[Now, I agree with you that there was no clamour for the war. But there was no opposition to it, either, and why was that? I believe it was because of what I have written here. Once Bush targeted Iraq, for the reasons you state, people of the right, especially men for some reason, started pushing the line about how evil Saddam was, how terribly he had treated his people, how something had to be done about him. Bush, and his radio apparat, lead by people like Limbaugh, skillfully tapped into it.

I heard this all the time. People, mind you, who had never expressed the slightest concern about treatment of people in the Middle East before, and who, quite predictably, and contradictorily, support any Israeli brutality against the Palestinians.

This, as they say in poker, was a tell. Saddam was a chance to get even after 9/11, as Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin Laden was not sufficient to slake their thirst for revenge, and their concern for the people of Iraq was an excuse for what they already wanted to do, attack Iraq after Bush so conveniently suggested it to them. Saddam was the stereotype of the evil Arab, the personification of what they held responsible for 9/11, Arabs in the Middle East.]

I see this a little differently. I think 9/11 definitely DID help the selling of the Iraq invasion. No two ways about it. But again I don’t see it as a thirsting for revenge. I think most people are inclined to believe their political leaders until reality smacks them in the face and convinces them that they are being misled. That is always a majority of the population. What 9/11 did was bump way up the number of people who were willing to give the government a free pass and accept everything it said at face value. Say it increased it from 60% to 80%. And it did so even amongst normally skeptical people. Of course, the insurgency happened and so did Katrina so a lot of people have been smacked back to reality now.

[More confirmation can be found after the war was started. These same people, who purportedly supported the war partially because of their humanitarian concern for the Iraqi people, never express any concern for what our troops have done there. Never any concern about the use of cluster bombs, the poverty, the lack of medical care, killings of civilians at checkpoints, or, more tellingly, the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib. On that one, they were, and remain, silent as church mice, if they aren't mimicking Limbaugh's characterization of them as fraternity pranks.]

I agree with your observation but not with your conclusion on this. Yes, people care about the US troops much more than the Iraqis. I think there are two explanations for this (not justifications, but explanations). First, a big part of this is the effect of the propaganda of the media. The media shows and humanizes the American troops. So you empathize with the young 20 year old who had big dreams for his life but died in Iraq. It is only human to have such empathy. But of course the media never does anything to humanize the Iraqi insurgents or tell us of their dreams and their suffering. To the contrary, the few times they are portrayed in any way it is simply as the bad people who have caused the tragic death of that 20 year old that we empathize with. This is of course very deliberate on the part o f the media and its how they rally support for the war which is their clear mission. Maybe people shouldn’t so easily fall for propaganda but they do (somewhat understandably) and I am always going to apportion a lot more of the blame for those creating the propaganda than for those who fall for it.

Secondly, most human beings are going to care much more about people who are like themselves then people who are dissimilar to themselves. Seeing something bad happen to people close to you fosters a “there but for the grace of god go I” mentality whereas when something happens to people who don’t speak your language, don’t look like you and who live a very long ways away it’s not likely to have much of an impact. I’m not trying to justify this, but I do think most human beings, not just Americans, are this way.
ow | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 9:30 pm | #

[And, lastly, people continue to this day to volunteer to to participate in this horror, they enlist and re-enlist, despite the knowledge that Iraq had no connection to 9/11. Factually no, but, emotionally, it still endures for many people, as it does for Cummins and Navarro.]

On this I do share your sentiments more. For the first few years I could see the US soldiers as sort of being victims too. For all I knew they signed up for the educational benefits, not to kill anyone. But now its pretty much impossible to believe that. So I too have little patience at this point for the “support the troops” mentality. I’m not going to support people who joined the military to go fight this war.

[So, people like them go about their business, tormenting the people of Iraq, as they continue to lie to themselves about their motivations, which have nothing to do with fighting terror and WMDs. And, they are perfectly willing to participate in admiminstration public relations events, like the one described in the article, a 9/11 memorial in Iraq, to continue to persuade all of us to believe in the lie as well.]

This is true, but do remember MOST Americans oppose the war at this point. Unfortunately they don’t oppose it ENOUGH to actually do anything about it (much to our shame) . But don’t let the few hand picked examples that the media use for their propaganda purposes lead you to think this is how most people think.

[For me, I have come to the conclusion that the institution of the state itself is inclined to manipulate these sorts of motivations, and as you post on a blog about Venezuela, it is one of the anxieties that I have about the future of the revolutionary project there.]

Well, that is a REALLY big topic for thought and discussion. So big I’ll leave it alone for now.
ow | Homepage | 09.12.06 - 9:31 pm | #

A HOFSTADTER-MOEBIUS LOOP?: From tomorrow's Guardian:

"The question needs to be asked: if the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom who are permanent members of the security council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account?"

Let's hope that the solution is not as dire as described in 2010: Odyssey Two.

Labels: 9/11, Iraq War, Occupation of Iraq, Racism