1. the April Glaspie 'go ahead, invade Kuwait' flap; there was enough smoke over this to instigate Congressional hearings; my rule of thumb is that if a scandal involving the illegitimate use of imperial power rises to such a level, it's probably true;
2. the serial betrayals of Kurds and Iraqi Shi'ite Muslims by the USG, spanning decades;
3. the USG destruction of Iraq's civil infrastructure; can there be any doubt that this has indirectly resulted in a non-trivial level of casualties? People don't live as long, babies don't survive to the same extent during the Stone Age, do they?
4. Saddam's record as an anti-Iran U.S. client, during which time there transpired its celebrated use of "weapons of mass destruction."
5. Allegations of Western assassination attempts on Saddam;
6. To me, this quote from the review is pretty interesting: "When the war started, Iraqis were jubilant, certain that it meant the end of Saddam and his brutal regime. They looked in childlike innocence to the West to rid them of the monkey on their backs. By the time the war was over, however, they were confused: Why had their homes and their cities been bombed to smithereens while Saddam was left in power? When I visited the country two years ago, the mood had changed yet again. This time a weary hatred and suspicion of all things Western predominated."
What does it all add up to? USG policy seems vicious and incoherent, and the response of Saddam is used to justify heightened USG belligerence. The USG has made a hero out of this guy, complicating its relations with the EU and Arab/Muslim nations, not least in matters pertaining to Osama & Co. It seems to add up to a huge foreign policy mess, and we have not seen the beginning of its implications.
mbs
> Looking back over what I wrote about that book review,
> I believe I may have overstated its relevance as a
> model for All Left-Wing Communication.
>
> Still, I think it's well worth looking at. I
> particularly think it's worth learning from his appeal
> to self interest at the end. When I discuss these
> things with relatives, etc., I usually try to
> emphasize how a change in US policy is actually in
> their interest, since it will reduce their chances of
> being killed. Because of the terrorist attacks, people
> are open to seeing this in a way that they might not
> have been before.
>
> And once they see that, they usually come to care much
> more about the morality of US policy, because they see
> that its not a zero-sum game. Since Justin mentioned
> Saul Alinsky, I will quote Alinsky also: "This is the
> low road to morality. There is no other."
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
>