TC08 worries in comments that we're not addressing responsibility for the (Iraq, I assume) war. OK, starting with the Republicans, the whole party shares in the blame. I don't know of a single prominent Republican or Right Winger who opposed the war, at least not until it had already become obvious to everyone that it was an absolute disaster. Not only did none of them oppose it, they actively exploited it as a political cudgel to bash the Democrats and pick up seats in '02 and '04. The Republican party of today is corrupt from top to bottom, intellectually bankrupt, and run by and for authoritarian extremists and religious fanatics. I don't think there's anything redeemable left to it.
In the run-up to the war in '02 and '03, the vast majority of Democrats were either too chickenshit to speak out against the war, cynically hoping to achieve some political advantage by supporting it themselves, or actually thought it was a good idea. Regardless of which of these reason any individual dem was operating from, they failed miserably at the greatest political test of the decade (and beyond). Those that have admitted that they were wrong and show some signs of having learned from the experience (Edwards) I'm willing to cut some slack. Those that continue to support the idea of the war, and only criticize its execution (Hillary) deserve nothing but scorn. Those that didn't support the war (Obama, Gore) deserve praise. Talking about responsibility for the war's continuation into it's fifth year now is a bit more complicated a question as even though a growing number of dems have wanted to end the war for a while now, they're actual ability to do so is pretty limited. It's a lot easier to start a disastrous war than it is to end one.
The mainstream media also deserves huge heapings of blame and scorn for their role in this. They completely failed in their duty to question the claims made by the government, to investigate and try to find the truth. They were too excited about the ratings boost they'd get from showing bombs raining down on Baghdad and get to dress up as soldiers and embed with the troops.
I think that there's plenty of blame to go around, and I don't think anyone should be let off the hook for their role in making the Iraq war a reality.
6 comments:
Tigrenoche - I've noticed in your various assessments of democrats that you never mention Dennis Kucinich. Any reason for that? As I understand it he has actively opposed the war from the outset and has an interesting proposal for a single payer health care system.
He's a total flake who doesn't have a chance of winning national office. I can provide details to back this up if you're interested, but that's it in a nutshell.
Please do fill me in on the details regarding Kucinich's flakiness. On your quick run through of responses of major democrats to the war it is interesting that the only two who actually opposed it (Gore and Obama) were not currently in national positions of power. The others seem to simply be swaying with popular opinion and have never questioned the underlying imperialist interests that drove the war in the first place. Also, as far as I know, Democrat plans to leave Iraq make very little mention of what happens to Iraq's oil - presumably this remains open to control by private corporations.
One other thing is that there was an article in the NY Times Sunday magazine by David Rieff arguing that the dems positions on Iran are essentially the same as the Republicans in that they leave open the possibility of using military force to prevent Iranian development of nuclear weapons.
I'll have to dig up the thing I read on Kucinich's flakiness; that'll have to wait as I'm about to go to bed. It's certainly true that Democrats in Washington did much worse on getting Iraq right than those outside of Washington, though of course there are exceptions. You're right that the question of Iraq's oil isn't getting addressed directly in any of the dem bills or media coverage of what withdrawl from Iraq would entail. I imagine that the the laws recently passed allowing private companies in wouldn't change, Chevron or whoever will make money hand over fist and Iraq's new political elite will get to join the ranks of all the other corrupt heads of petro-states.
On the Iran point, I got into this a bit in my original e-mail to Franz. I haven't read the David Rieff article you mention (this is a blog--you're supposed to include a link!), so can't address it; but basically, yes, they'll all include a mention of "all options are on the table" in speeches on Iran, especially if they're speaking to what they believe are particularly Hawkish audiences (AIPAC, for example). This seemingly obligatory reference to all options being on the table is, in my humble opinion, annoying and unnesecessary, but I don't believe that it means the dems have the same position on Iran as the Republicans. Now Hillary I don't know about, since she appears to be genuinely hawkish on foreign policy stuff and arguably has to pander more to the bloodthirsty vote to prove that just cuz she's a woman doesn't mean she's afraid to kill people. Obama, Edwards and Richardson on the other hand have all stated pretty clearly on numerous occasions that they think military action against Iran would probably be a huge mistake and we haven't even begun to try diplomacy, so there's no point in rushing into confrontation (most reputable sources on Iran's nuclear program, as opposed to Bush admin sources, think it'll take Iran 5 to 10 years to get the bomb. With Russia starting to back off on their support and supplies to Iran's existing nuclear program, that date could get pushed even farther back). Probably no one seriously running for president could afford to say "I categorically promise that if elected I won't attack Iran" as it opens you up to too many bullshit attacks from the right about not being willing to stand up to the terrorists. This sucks, but that's the reality. I think any of them would steer American foreign policy back towards the way it operated in the '90s, which, while far from perfect, at least doesn't involve pre-emptively invading middle eastern countries based on phony intel and crackpot ideas.
The term war responsibility seems to be taking on increasing importance as the capture of the British sailors opens a new opportunity for war and its makers. This term I introduced does not necessarily refer only to past actions. And it also doesn't apply only to politicians, although they make convenient targets since the larger forces are more difficult to attack directly. It seems the daily practices defining the contours of contemporary society must certainly be included within the scope of the significance of "war responsibility". Hence that rather difficult call I made for a mode of questioning past, present and future. But more concretely, the spatial dimensions DM has touched upon seem to offer an ideal site to consider as well. In what ways can we identify the local practices which directly or indirectly sustain or intensify, the current war, as well as future wars? And most locally, which of our own individual practices might be responsible for these, and what responsibilities do we have to confront our own, as well as other local practices to prevent the war?
This last is the most difficult, but also the one we have the most say over. From the most immediate to the most abstract, through these questions we can outline different scales, and multiple sites of responsibility. It should be noted that responsibility is a noun which itself contains many problematic nuances, yet remains a starting point for "change" however we define it.
Tigrenoche - we're still waiting on your promised analysis of Kucinich.
Post a Comment