Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Official Dogma: Iraq War a Success
American Elites Abandon Their Faux Regret Over Iraq
The New York Times' Tom Friedman, who did as much as any single individual to persuade large numbers of Democrats and "moderates" to support the invasion of Iraq, today writes:
Former President George W. Bush's gut instinct that this region craved and needed democracy was always right. It should have and could have been pursued with much better planning and execution. This war has been extraordinarily painful and costly. But democracy was never going to have a virgin birth in a place like Iraq, which has never known any such thing.
Some argue that nothing that happens in Iraq will ever justify the costs. Historians will sort that out. Personally, at this stage, I only care about one thing: that the outcome in Iraq be positive enough and forward-looking enough that those who have actually paid the price -- in lost loved ones or injured bodies, in broken homes or broken lives, be they Iraqis or Americans or Brits -- see Iraq evolve into something that will enable them to say that whatever the cost, it has given freedom and decent government to people who had none.
Sure, the war that I helped sell and cheered on led to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings (at least), the long-term displacement of millions more, and the complete destruction of another country that had done nothing to us. But I'm not interested in clouding my mind with any of that. I don't care about that. That can be talked about once I'm dead. After all, as the great humanitarian Joseph Stalin taught us, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, and as the great scholar and torturer Condoleezza Rice explained, we should just gently shut our eyes and think about the massive slaughter and destruction we caused in that country as mere "birth pangs" on the road to something beautiful.
Back in 2003, I said -- with bloodthirsty sadism rabidly drooling from my mouth -- that the real purpose of the war, what made it the Right Thing to do, was that we needed to make large numbers of Muslims "suck. on. this" in order to show them we mean business, and we randomly picked Iraq because . . . . we could. But now -- to justify the enormous amounts of blood I helped spill and the incalculable amounts of human suffering I helped spawn -- I'm going to pretend that I was motivated by a magnanimous, noble desire to Spread Freedom.
It was only a matter of time before American elites abandoned their faux regret over Iraq. For tribalists and nationalists, America can err in its execution but never in its motives. There's no question -- as this glorifying, propagandistic Newsweek cover story reflects -- that it's now official dogma that this was the right thing to do, or at least that we produced something great and wonderful for that country, as was our intent all along (leaving aside the what is actually happening in Iraq). It's nothing short of nauseating to watch those responsible glorify what they did without weighing -- or, in Friedman's case, affirmatively dismissing as irrelevant -- the extreme amounts of death and suffering that they caused, all based on false pretenses. But this is why Tom Friedman is the favorite propagandist of "Washington insiders"-- because he feeds them the justifications they need to feel good about themselves. Forget all those innocent dead people and destruction you caused; it all worked out in the end.
UPDATE: Several
people argue in Comments that this effort to portray the invasion of
Iraq as a good thing is motivated not only by a desire for
self-cleansing on the part of those responsible, but also to enable
future, similar wars to take place. I don't know whether that's the
motive, but it's definitely the effect. That the invasion of Iraq has
been so widely perceived as a horrific debacle had the effect of
minimizing the likelihood of future invasions. Having it now depicted
as something that worked out and produced Great Results necessarily
makes it easier to justify future wars in that region. After all, if
attacking and invading Muslim countries we don't like in order to
change their government is the good and right thing to do, shouldn't we
keep doing it?
UPDATE II: Freedom is on the March:
we shouldn't burden our minds worrying about this, though; just do what
Tom Friedman does and leave it to the historians while patting
ourselves on the back.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
117 Comments so far
Show AllI am always amazed at the way USAns, especially the liberaloid elite class use "willful amnesia" to justify their vile murderous crimes.
The dark movie "Memento" comes to mind.
Which member or members of the "liberaloid elite class" have used "willful amnesia" to justify "their vile murderous crimes?"
Well, both Clintons and a majority of Democrats for starters, anong with their sec. of State Madeline Albright - they killed at least as many Iraqi children as Bush did, then there are NYT and WP editorialists like Tom Friedman. Finally there is Obama himself who says that pursuing those that commit crimes against humanity are "dwelling on the past", while planning even more crimes against humanity, which when brought up, well just be called "dwelling on the past" and so on ad-nauseum.
How is this a liberal thing? The conservatives are different how?
I mean, I agree with you about the culpability of the people you mention there. Do you single out the liberals for some reason?
First of all, the use of the term "liberal" has historically been used to mean the the promotion of lazzez-faire market economics. The word is still often used in this way in Europe. Australia's party which most resembles the US Republican party is called the "Liberal Party". More commonly nowadays, the term for it's globalist maifestation, "neoliberalism" is used.
Secondly, closer to home, many of the most war-mongering and jingoistic and repressive leaders in US history have been called "liberal" - Woodrow Wilson, Truman, LBJ.
Thirdly, in serious US leftist circles, "Liberal" have always been tainted with an association with the cosmopolitan bourgeois, and a refusal to go beyond lip-service for a cause when their position of economic or racial privlege might be threatended in the least. I refer you to Phil Och's song "Love Me I'm a Liberal" (look it up).
If you are anti-imperialist, and belive in working class rather than than capitalist-class based economics, I suggest you begin to use a different word to describe yourself rather than "liberal". Less-committal types like "progressive". I call myself a "leftist" or just a "socialist".
>>First of all, the use of the term "liberal" has historically been used to mean the the promotion of lazzez-faire market economics.<< Even if this is true for modern European politics the accepted non-party political meaning of liberal is still a promoter of DEMOCRATIC liberties and expansion of human freedom. But the word has been degraded by mis-usage by both left and right pundits and critics.
Too bad the real original meaning is so screwed up -- it used to stand for an honorable tradition.
Gary
"A liberal education is at the heart of a civil society, and at the heart of a liberal education is the act of teaching."
-- A. Bartlett Giamatti
PJD - thank you for the very clear and succinct distinction....one which is really needed.
along those lines -- i might as well, as labels go, call my own convictions as being socialist.
at least that's what it seems to me the more I ask myself..although obviously there is no actual political or economic reality that has much power or influence in the way the global economic regime is played.
i was previously beginning to ask myself:
"are you a progressive?"
but I did always feel that it's somewhat vague..but perhaps has its own merits for being so.
but then - "EXACTLY define what your beliefs are - or would hope the world can be like for a better condition for all?"
and find that indeed, I should be calling myself a socialist in my views or - hopes.
"dwelling on the past" reminds me of a line out of Monty Python's Holy Grail, after a run of mindless killing defends his actions by asking "Why quibble over who killed who?"
that statement by Albright - on the question of whether it was "worth it" that women, children, old people, the sick, the poor, and others died from malnutrition and starvation due to the American led Sanctions merely to make Saddam Hussein "obey" - because his obedience to the USA was supposed to be GOOD for the Iraqis - and that it was therefore "WORTH IT" that iraqis suffered and died and starved
towards THAT purpose....
is one of the most EVIL and CALLOUS statements ever made by any world leader.
Madeleine Albright too - was the one that famously said:
"what good is all of this Great Army of OURS if we can't use it?"
as well as- eyeing RUSSIA's great land and treasures :
"it's SO unfair -- that ONE country has ALL those resources...something ought to be done about it".
namely?...surround russia of course , prepare for a future of an actual invasion....
what else?
it's in the DNA of the USA - since the time of the NATIVE INDIANS.
NEVER forget the INDIANS.
if one understands and remembers THAT - one understands EVERYTHING else that follows in the US imperial project.
[ After all, if attacking and invading Muslim countries we don't like in order to change their government is the good and right thing to do, shouldn't we keep doing it?]
And it's worked out so well for all of us. Just think of how happy the rest of the Muslim world will be after we've taken out the nation of Iran. The USA will be hailed as the great liberators again! After Iran we could overthrow that evil absolute monarchy that's running Saudi Arabia. I can't imagine any bad reaction from delivering 'freedom' bombs to Mecca and Medina. (grin)
This just proves that Tom Friedman is always right. Outsourcing of American jobs and insourcing of foreign slaves is great for our economy. I'm tired of people taking this nitwit seriously. The only times he's really right is in a "Captain Obvious" way. This moron is America's equivalent of Joseph Goebbels.
Thank you! My exact sentiments. I wonder if the full of himself, Friedman, warrior of the keyboard, would be so gun hoe in retrospect if he had to do some of the shooting and being shot at, or his kids had to.
It is very easy to be for a war when the only blood you had to spill for it was the paper cut you got when you pulled out one of your B.S. war articles out of a damn printer.
Hilarious. That is precisely the thought I had when I read this...
"This war has been extraordinarily painful and costly."
Ya...but not for you, eh Tommy?
If the world is better off without Saddam Hussein, just think how much better off the world would be without the GOP!
Ummmm I'm pretty sure a world without the GOP would be exactly the same as this world.
Yah, they'd just be called something else. Much like how the Communist party just changed its name after Yeltsin banned them in 1991...
No, I mean that would leave the Dems as the sole political force and they would act with impunity to push forth their corporate masters' agenda, much like the GOP did under Bush.
Sorry, I misread you. But I still think that even without the gop, your nation would have developed another party to give the appearance of being able to change government. If the dems and the gop were gone tomorrow, two new parties would spring up. Otherwise too many people would notice that there is no difference between them.
-"If the dems and the gop were gone tomorrow, two new parties would spring up. Otherwise too many people would notice that there is no difference between them."
Possibly, or common American thinking might go from "don't waste your vote on a *third* party" to "don't waste your vote on a *second* party". (voting second party, is a wasted vote, only one party can win, you know!!)
Hey, having the one "Institutional Revolutionary party" worked for your good friends in Mexico for seventy years!!! Maybe that is your future???
But even with only one major party, the corporate media would still be blaming Nader for the election results - and the RepuDems or whatever they will be called, will still cry that they don't have enough votes to do anything but what their corporate funders want them to do.
[Hey, having the one "Institutional Revolutionary party" worked for your good friends in Mexico for seventy years!!! Maybe that is your future???]
The LDF (I think) of Japan ruled for nearly 60 years postwar. I'm from Canada, where we've had up to 5 political parties in our national government; one of which advocated separating...
Without the GOP the Democrats would no longer have the excuse, "The Republicans made me do it."
"Several people argue in Comments that this effort to portray the invasion of Iraq as a good thing is motivated not only by a desire for self-cleansing on the part of those responsible, but also to enable future, similar wars to take place. I don't know whether that's the motive, but it's definitely the effect. That the invasion of Iraq has been so widely perceived as a horrific debacle had the effect of minimizing the likelihood of future invasions. Having it now depicted as something that worked out and produced Great Results necessarily makes it easier to justify future wars in that region. After all, if attacking and invading Muslim countries we don't like in order to change their government is the good and right thing to do, shouldn't we keep doing it?" -- Glenn Greenwald
Since I don't watch M$M, I haven't seen the capitulation, except that Jon Stewart did a segment on this issue just the other night -- in fact, the segment was specifically related to the elections, and the "success" in Iraq. Jon Stewart showed the destruction and talked about the number of deaths of Iraqi citizens, questioning exactly what success means to the M$M, and our elected officials, as success, or not, pertains to Iraq. Therefore, I saw several clips which were quite shocking to me, but on the other hand, NOT so surprising! Double-speak crosses party lines and is bipartisan!
Most of us on this site know the skinny, so to speak -- both parties are corrupt!
When a jester, Jon Stewart, is making the most sense, that could be an indication that the "msm" is doing what it does best, reciting the "successful elections" party line of today, regardless of how much death and destruction happened yesterday.
Hi Kay,
You state that you "don't watch M$M", but go on to reference a segment from The Daily Show.
Please enlighten me on what differentiates "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" from the "Main Stream Media". His show is broadcast nightly on a cable television network owned by a multinational conglomerate (Viacom). Bill O'Reilly's show is broadcast nightly on a cable television network owned by a multinational conglomerate (News Corp.). What makes one 'M$M' and not the other?
I actually watched this particular clip on one of the progressive websites.
I suppose you could lump Jon Stewart with Bill O'Reilly, if that's the purpose of your response. And, maybe, I should stay away from all of them -- even if they are posted on progressive websites. And, I know exactly when Jon Stewart is on the air, and I hardly need you to tell me who owns what. Since the TV in my apartment belongs to my son, I don't often have access. At the same time, other than an occasional film, I have little interest beyond Bill Moyers on PBS and Amy Goodman on MNN, both of which I can watch on my computer if I can't watch them on the TV.
I actually have a background in Community Radio, and I tugged at the sleeves of everyone I knew to try to do something about, and to curtail the 1996 deregulation of the media, signed into effect by none other than Bill Clinton. However, no one listened to me. After all, what did I know?
Thanks for the challenge!
Thanks for the clarification... I was just pointing out the irony in your post.
Good article. Not to quibble, but:
"... Joseph Stalin taught us, you can't make an omelette [sic] without breaking a few eggs..."
The omelet quote has been attributed to both Clausewitz and Napoleon, but not Stalin, I believe.
An apt Stalin-ism for Iraq might be "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic".
An especially apt Stalin quote regarding Thomas Friedman might be "Everyone has the right to be stupid, but some people abuse the privilege". ;)
"omelette [sic]"
Omelette is acceptable spelling, it comes directly from the French. American English favors "omelete" but both spellings are correct.
Also the quote is not from Stalin, Napoleon, or Clausewitz, it is from Maximilien Robespierre.
You mean "omelet".
The omelet quote has been attributed to so many people that I am beginning to wonder if it's just an old French saying.
No. I mean "omelette". A perfectly acceptable spelling in English. Look it up, I did before posting.
>>>>"American English favors "omelete" but both spellings are correct."
Moron.
According to many credible reports, Muslim Nations control approximately 70% of the worlds oil and gas reserves. Enough said.
Just exactly which one of the 6 corporately owned media giants is the liberal one????
Corporate and liberal,,, billion dollar firms , liberal.
We are told the truth every day by these corporate liberal giant media organizations.
Thats why the next war will be different, they will just tell us its not happening.
Go back to sleep, or shopping, if you have any money left.
Friedman sez: "... democracy was never going to have a virgin birth in a place like Iraq, which has never known any such thing."
***
Why, no, which is why the benevolent rapist Uncle Sam needed to stick his randy schlong between the Tigris and Euphrates to plant the seed. Problem is, the only thing growing in the womb of Mesopotamia is a malignant tumor.
I will concede a point for your apt metaphor, though, Tommy.
I generally prefer to avoid making vulgar comments, but the line "democracy was never going to have a virgin birth" is just crying out for a response like "So the US oligarchs decided Iraq needed to be completely f****d?"
Shock and Awe-- the ultimate gang-bang!
Goes nicely with 'Full-Spectrum Dominance'....(democracy, American-style).
I love the satire. But in all respect, Glenn, you really should consider running for office. You got my vote.
BodhiHawk: Be careful of what you wish for. Do you know that Greenwald has spoken in favor of the recent Supreme Court decision (Citizens United v. FEC) opening the electoral floodgates to corporate money (under the claims that corporations are persons and money is free speech)?
Check it out: www.salon.com/news/.../glenn_greenwald/.../citizens_united/index.html
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
I've been long wondering when someone in the mediasphere was going to do an article on this subject. This is the contempt in which our political class and its media arm holds ALL "little" people, whether they are Americans or Iraqis. Even many on the Left devote scant thought to the millions of Iraqis our predatory foreign policy displaced or killed. There is a sad general lack of imagination and moral compass in our thoroughly dumbed-down America necessary for the sensitivity of true empathy for the levels of suffering we have inflicted there. My personal estimate based on various sources and extrapolated guesses is that Bush's preemptive oil grab/barbaric occupation in Iraq has killed somewhere in the close vicinity of 2 million Iraqis. And Iraq is still unstable and that tally is added to every day from the continuing aftershocks of the invasion in 2003.
There are many DLC apologists who visit this site to tout Hillary Clinton as being somehow better or more compassionate regarding U.S. foreign policy than Obama. Many of them excuse her more bellicose or indifferent foreign policy statements since she became Obama's Secretary of State by saying that 'she's just saying what the administration is telling her to say' (an ominous use of the Nazi "Nuremberg defense" of 'I was just following orders' as Orwellian "diplomacy").
I find Hillary's behavior and statements with regard to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel & Gaza, Pakistan, Venezuela and especially Honduras morally indefensible, dangerous and icily cold blooded. What the U.S. has condoned in Honduras under Obama and Hillary bodes darkly for such chickens coming home to roost in the U.S.
If she had any moral integrity whatsoever she would resign rather than act as a human megaphone repeating Obama foreign policy talking points--if she, in fact, did not actively support those policies as part of her demonstrable record of doing or saying anything she thinks will get her into the White House. The only difference I see between Hillary's foreign policy and Sarah Palin's is that Palin would have already invaded Iran and Hillary might hesitate on that and she might not. A pox on both their houses. But the fascist Stockholm Syndromed Amurkan sheeple should both have higher expectations and demand better from their leaders.
metal: "There are many DLC apologists who visit this site to tout Hillary Clinton as being somehow better or more compassionate regarding U.S. foreign policy than Obama." Say what? I visit this site pretty often and seldom if ever do I see anyone apparently a "DLC apologist" making favorable comments about HRC. Or is this a re-post from something, like maybe, HuffPost? If you see one of these CLC apologist critters please point him/her out, I'd love to get a glimpse of one.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
They''re there, lurking like moray eels. It takes certain article topics to bring them out.
I would not say "many", but even I have noticed one or two.
There were certainly many Hilary apologists during the campaign in 2008. Hilary's, "I will obliterate Iran," quote didn't even seem to faze them. There seem to be fewer now but I suspect metal is right they are laying low in embarrassment for now.
Future wars in this energy rich region not only benefit the giant multinational energy corporations by giving them an excuse to raise the price of energy to exorbitant levels but also to finally own the energy resources of the nations in the region (like they own the US government).
War itself benefits the US military/industrial/media axis who make gigantic sums of $$$$ by reaping enormous profits from killing tools and selling violence. The bloated "defense budget" is sacrosanct and immune from examination or criticism.
Benefit the MIC, steal the oil and appease Israel's desire for dominance in the region it's a 3fer for the wealthy elite.
"Some argue that nothing that happens in Iraq will ever justify the costs. Historians will sort that out." - Tom (Tough Hombre) Friedman
No, you MoFo, you'll sort it out when you die and go to Hell where you'll be repeatedly terrified and blown to bits unto eternity. Suck on that!
I wish someone would come along and make me not hate so much of this "experiment" that is the USA.
There are good people doing things in the margins like community gardens, bike lanes, food coops, activist groups, etc, you aren't going to hear about them on tee vee though that's for sure.