[lbo-talk] Iraq war "clearer" to Americans than WW 2

H. Curtiss Leung hncl at panix.com
Tue Apr 8 10:22:48 PDT 2003


I said:
>
> -That's pure conjecture, and a pretty dubious one at that. Given that some
> -depressingly high percentage of the populace thinks that Saddam Hussein was
> -involved with the WTC bombings, why not say that the fatal flaw of antiwar
> -organizing was the inability to disspell this misconception?
>

And Nathan replied:


> The latter was also no doubt a problem but since we were discussing why the
> warhawks managed to convey a clear message of why we should fight this war
> and there is no doubt that the "liberation of Iraq" has been a clear motive
> given for the war, it is hardly conjecture to focus on the antiwar
> movement's failure to posit an alternative method of liberation.
>

You're assuming something you need to prove here--namely, that a desire to liberate Iraqis was the chief force behind pro-war sentiment. Also, I'd dispute that the warhawks had a clear message of why we should invade Iraq; rather, they had a menu of reasons, from which ordering a la carte was encouraged. You could have freedom for the long suffering Iraqi people as a main or a side; if you had it as a side, your main could be eliminating WMDs or getting rid of terrorism. Less popular was the chef's special, American hegemony, but it was there if you asked the waiter.

I would also say that antiwar forces also had a menu of refutations, and I'm sure if you asked some, they even had alternatives for liberating Iraq (Max had a link to a few on his blog a while back.)


> As I said, when so much of the left is saying it's none of our business
> whether Kurds are being gassed or human rights being violated, it's not
> surprising that a large chunk of even liberal-minded people could be
> convinced that war was the only option to help the Iraqi people.

If there's one thing that is making me NUTS its the hue and cry about the Kurds getting gassed as something that needs to be addressed. Guess what? THE KURDS HAVE BEEN IN THEIR OWN AUTONOMOUS ZONE IN NORTHERN IRAQ FOR OVER TEN YEARS NOW. They have a parliament and a militia. The last documented gas attack was back on '88--that's before Gulf War I. If you want to be concerned about the Kurds, worry about what Turkey might do to them, not Iraq. In the beginning of the year, Turkey was making noises that it had old treaties that gave them claim to Kirkuk. Guess where the Kurds would like to establish a capital? Also, Turkey was going great guns putting down their own Kurdish population, but had quieted down. More than a few people, little old me included, think this war will give them opportunity to take up this ugly little hobby again. Does that meet your criterion of caring about the peoples of the region? Or your criterion of having a positive antiwar message?

-- Curtiss



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list