Mycroft:
"For some, freedom doesn't mean being free to choose one's own destiny, but just being taken care of by someone else. It's too bad, but that attitude isn't uncommon."
An interesting statement. It takes it place alongside the other homilies which say that "America wants democracy in the Middle East now because it is in its interests". Democracy in the Middle East is, of course, in the interest of the 250 million other Americans who have no say in policy, but not in the interests of the actual governing elites who make the policy.
Similarly, violence in Iraq, and other places, actually is a setback to US aims, if you are thinking of the people of the US. But since violence is the only realm in which the US ruling class has any real advantage, it must use it to further its aims. There is no other tool.
For instance, if our Neocon crusaders try to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East, along with genuine reform of its own foreign policy and a respectful diplomacy, it may well fulfill the needs of the American people, but it cannot fulfill its own needs, which are an extension of its power and control over the resources of the Middle East, and breathing space for Sparta-on-the-Littoral, Israel, which apart from its special role in the Middle East, has been complicit in atrocities, arms sales and training to US client states on behalf of US elites in Latin America and elsewhere. (If there is any "special relationship" with the US this is it.)
To actually bring something positive like democracy and freedom is not half so difficult as the US rulers now claim. But it is bloody difficult to sell the lie of democracy and freedom because intent is written all over its actions.
If you were to imagine the actions you would NOT take after going into Iraq to bring democracy and freedom, then how about the following:
- you would NOT try to privatise the economy and gain control of oil through such a process (Bremer was forced to moderate his plans here, but the original plan is clear),
- you would NOT try every trick in the book to put your Iraqi exile crew, riddled with criminals and CIA hacks, in power,
- you would NOT put off elections,
- you would NOT saddle the Iraqi government with special "orders" for 5 years and control the ministries with US personnel in order to entrench control over the country's ruling elite, direction and resources ,
- you would NOT pour those billions of dollars of aid into job creation programs for Americans but WOULD channel it to Iraqis quickly,
- you would not undersecure the country and let its institutions dissolve, its culture get smashed etc.
This is just basic, no-brainer stuff.
To do what they did is simply inconceivable, unless democracy and freedom was the furthest thing from their mind. No matter what it says, US actions tell a different story. And so it is reduced to the role of violence, because Iraqis aren't stupid. They see the pillage of their nation and seethe at the gutless, hypocritical weasel words of the US administration.
The US ruling elite, now that cover is blown, must simply be proactive in the arena in which it regards itself as superior, at least in which it has a chance of reaching its targets - which are antithetical to the goals of the US population. It has done the same throughout Central America, the Far East and elsewhere, failing dramatically in some cases (Vietnam), succeeding very well in others (Nicaragua, Haiti, Colombia and numerous others).
They are going to lose this one.
"For some, freedom doesn't mean being free to choose one's own destiny, but just being taken care of by someone else. It's too bad, but that attitude isn't uncommon."
An interesting statement. It takes it place alongside the other homilies which say that "America wants democracy in the Middle East now because it is in its interests". Democracy in the Middle East is, of course, in the interest of the 250 million other Americans who have no say in policy, but not in the interests of the actual governing elites who make the policy.
Similarly, violence in Iraq, and other places, actually is a setback to US aims, if you are thinking of the people of the US. But since violence is the only realm in which the US ruling class has any real advantage, it must use it to further its aims. There is no other tool.
For instance, if our Neocon crusaders try to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East, along with genuine reform of its own foreign policy and a respectful diplomacy, it may well fulfill the needs of the American people, but it cannot fulfill its own needs, which are an extension of its power and control over the resources of the Middle East, and breathing space for Sparta-on-the-Littoral, Israel, which apart from its special role in the Middle East, has been complicit in atrocities, arms sales and training to US client states on behalf of US elites in Latin America and elsewhere. (If there is any "special relationship" with the US this is it.)
To actually bring something positive like democracy and freedom is not half so difficult as the US rulers now claim. But it is bloody difficult to sell the lie of democracy and freedom because intent is written all over its actions.
If you were to imagine the actions you would NOT take after going into Iraq to bring democracy and freedom, then how about the following:
- you would NOT try to privatise the economy and gain control of oil through such a process (Bremer was forced to moderate his plans here, but the original plan is clear),
- you would NOT try every trick in the book to put your Iraqi exile crew, riddled with criminals and CIA hacks, in power,
- you would NOT put off elections,
- you would NOT saddle the Iraqi government with special "orders" for 5 years and control the ministries with US personnel in order to entrench control over the country's ruling elite, direction and resources ,
- you would NOT pour those billions of dollars of aid into job creation programs for Americans but WOULD channel it to Iraqis quickly,
- you would not undersecure the country and let its institutions dissolve, its culture get smashed etc.
This is just basic, no-brainer stuff.
To do what they did is simply inconceivable, unless democracy and freedom was the furthest thing from their mind. No matter what it says, US actions tell a different story. And so it is reduced to the role of violence, because Iraqis aren't stupid. They see the pillage of their nation and seethe at the gutless, hypocritical weasel words of the US administration.
The US ruling elite, now that cover is blown, must simply be proactive in the arena in which it regards itself as superior, at least in which it has a chance of reaching its targets - which are antithetical to the goals of the US population. It has done the same throughout Central America, the Far East and elsewhere, failing dramatically in some cases (Vietnam), succeeding very well in others (Nicaragua, Haiti, Colombia and numerous others).
They are going to lose this one.
