[Peace-discuss] Hawaii to Iraq

[Robert Naiman]

If you are being rhetorical -- I suspect you are -- then you are of
course right to call attention to the danger of an overly
one-dimensional understanding of the causes driving US policy. Of
course there are multiple causes that overlap and intersect. But to
say that there are multiple causes does not imply that all causes are
equal in importance. On the other hand, to say that commercial
interests play a decisive role does not suggest that organizing is
irrelevant.

Why does it matter? Well, when President Bush says that we are
fighting a war in Iraq for democracy, unfortunately a lot of people
believe that. Many people don't, but many do, and one of the many
difficulties we face in organizing against this war and other wars is
the depth of this kind of belief. And one way -- not the only way, but
one way -- to counter this belief is to try to educate people about
the true history.

Of course, if by being sloppy and one-dimensional we managed to
convince people that there is nothing to be done, that would be bad.
But, while such things have happened in the past (see: orthodox
Marxism) I don't see too much of that around us now, so it doesn't
seem like a big danger to me.

RN

On 4/23/06, John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If what you two are saying is true - and I'm not disagreeing - then what
> difference does it make whether or not we somehow succeed in impeaching
> Bush?  What difference does it make how many Americans regard American
> foreign policy (or domestic policy) as "fundamentally wrong and
> immoral"?  The two of you (and Kinzer, if he was just a bit more aware of
> the implications of his own data) would seem to be suggesting that American
> policy has remained substantially the same (intentionally and fundamentally
> wrong and immoral) for 100 years, irrespective of administration in power
> and irrespective of public opinion.  So why should we bother with activism
> at a national level at all?  Aren't we just tilting at windmills?  Pissing
> in the wind?  Isn't the sole achievable purpose, really, to pull an
> isolated body out of the fire here and there?
>
> John Wason
>
>
>
> At 05:35 PM 4/22/2006, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
> >Exactly right.  Kinzer's position seems similar to that of the
> >left-liberal extreme of respectable opinion regarding Vietnam,
> >e.g., Anthony Lewis in the NYT in 1969, that the war had begun
> >with "blundering efforts to do good" but had become a
> >"disaster" -- at a time when 70% of the public regarded it as
> >"fundamentally wrong and immoral," not "a mistake." --CGE
> >
> >
> >David Green wrote:
> >
> > > I think that Kinzer does a great service, but I would
> > > have at least one concern. From the portions of the
> > > interview yesterday on DN that I saw, he seems to be
> > > saying that--for example--if only we hadn't overthrown
> > > Mossadegh in 1953, we would have had a liberal
> > > democracy in Iran all these years, and wouldn't the
> > > whole Middle East look different, implying that our
> > > leaders would be happy with that. Well, yes it would,
> > > and no they wouldn't, and that's exactly why we
> > > wouldn't allow that to happen. Kinzer still subscribes
> > > (I think) to the "good intentions gone wrong" version
> > > of history, rather than imperial intentions done well,
> > > if messily, with too many dead bodies left behind. We
> > > put a lot of effort into making sure that Arab
> > > nationalism could not set a bad example for the Middle
> > > East--in Iraq in 1958, in Egypt in 1967, etc. We put a
> > > lot of effort into making sure that Saudi Arabia does
> > > not become democratic, or Kuwait, for that matter.
> > >
> > > David Green
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>


--
RN