Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
What Corruption and Force Have Wrought in Egypt
The uprising in Egypt, although united around the nearly universal desire to rid the country of the military dictator Hosni Mubarak, also presages the inevitable shift within the Arab world away from secular regimes toward an embrace of Islamic rule. Don't be fooled by the glib sloganeering about democracy or the facile reporting by Western reporters-few of whom speak Arabic or have experience in the region. Egyptians are not Americans. They have their own culture, their own sets of grievances and their own history. And it is not ours. They want, as we do, to have a say in their own governance, but that say will include widespread support-especially among Egypt's poor, who make up more than half the country and live on about two dollars a day-for the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic parties. Any real opening of the political system in the Arab world's most populated nation will see an empowering of these Islamic movements. And any attempt to close the system further-say a replacement of Mubarak with another military dictator-will ensure a deeper radicalization in Egypt and the wider Arab world.
The only way opposition to the U.S.-backed regime of Mubarak could be expressed for the past three decades was through Islamic movements, from the Muslim Brotherhood to more radical Islamic groups, some of which embrace violence. And any replacement of Mubarak (which now seems almost certain) while it may initially be dominated by moderate, secular leaders will, once elections are held and popular will is expressed, have an Islamic coloring. A new government, to maintain credibility with the Egyptian population, will have to more actively defy demands from Washington and be more openly antagonistic to Israel. What is happening in Egypt, like what happened in Tunisia, tightens the noose that will-unless Israel and Washington radically change their policies toward the Palestinians and the Muslim world-threaten to strangle the Jewish state as well as dramatically curtail American influence in the Middle East.
The failure of the United States to halt the slow-motion ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Israel has consequences. The failure to acknowledge the collective humiliation and anger felt by most Arabs because of the presence of U.S. troops on Muslim soil, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but in the staging bases set up in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, has consequences. The failure to denounce the repression, including the widespread use of torture, censorship and rigged elections, wielded by our allies against their citizens in the Middle East has consequences. We are soaked with the stench of these regimes. Mubarak, who reportedly is suffering from cancer, is seen as our puppet, a man who betrayed his own people and the Palestinians for money and power.
The Muslim world does not see us as we see ourselves. Muslims are aware, while we are not, that we have murdered tens of thousands of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have terrorized families, villages and nations. We enable and defend the Israeli war crimes carried out against Palestinians and the Lebanese-indeed we give the Israelis the weapons and military aid to carry out the slaughter. We dismiss the thousands of dead as "collateral damage." And when those who are fighting against occupation kill us or Israelis we condemn them, regardless of context, as terrorists. Our hypocrisy is recognized on the Arab street. Most Arabs see bloody and disturbing images every day from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, images that are censored on our television screens. They have grown sick of us. They have grown sick of the Arab regimes that pay lip service to the suffering of Palestinians but do nothing to intervene. They have grown sick of being ruled by tyrants who are funded and supported by Washington. Arabs understand that we, like the Israelis, primarily speak to the Muslim world in the crude language of power and violence. And because of our entrancement with our own power and ability to project force, we are woefully out of touch. Israeli and American intelligence services did not foresee the popular uprising in Tunisia or Egypt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, Israel's new intelligence chief, told Knesset members last Tuesday that "there is no concern at the moment about the stability of the Egyptian government." Tuesday, it turned out, was the day hundreds of thousands of Egyptians poured into the streets to begin their nationwide protests.
What is happening in Egypt will damage and perhaps unravel the fragile peace treaty between Egypt and Jordan with Israel. It is likely to end Washington's alliance with these Arab intelligence services, including the use of prisons to torture those we have disappeared into our vast network of black sites. The economic ties between Israel and these Arab countries will suffer. The current antagonism between Cairo and the Hamas government in Gaza will be replaced by more overt cooperation. The Egyptian government's collaboration with Israel, which includes demolishing tunnels into Gaza, the sharing of intelligence and the passage of Israeli warship and submarines through the Suez Canal, will be in serious jeopardy. Any government-even a transition government that is headed by a pro-Western secularist such as Mohamed ElBaradei-will have to make these changes in the relationship with Israel and Washington if it wants to have any credibility and support. We are seeing the rise of a new Middle East, one that will not be as pliable to Washington or as cowed by Israel.
The secular Arab regimes, backed by the United States, are discredited and moribund. The lofty promise of a pan-Arab union, championed by the Egyptian leader Gamal Abd-al-Nasser and the original Baathists, has become a farce. Nasser's defiance of Washington and the Western powers has been replaced by client states. The secular Arab regimes from Morocco to Yemen, for all their ties with the West, have not provided freedom, dignity, opportunity or prosperity for their people. They have failed as spectacularly as the secular Palestinian resistance movement led by Yasser Arafat. And Arabs, frustrated and enduring mounting poverty, are ready for something new. Radical Islamist groups such as the Palestinian Hamas, the Shiite Hezbollah in Lebanon and the jihadists fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are the new heroes, especially for the young who make up most of the Arab world. And many of those who admire these radicals are not observant Muslims. They support the Islamists because they fight back. Communism as an ideological force never took root in the Muslim world because it clashed with the tenets of Islam. The championing of the free market in countries such as Egypt has done nothing to ameliorate crushing poverty. Its only visible result has been to enrich the elite, including Mubarak's son and designated heir, Gamal. Islamic revolutionary movements, because of these failures, are very attractive. And this is why Mubarak forbids the use of the slogan "Islam is the solution" and bans the Muslim Brotherhood. These secular Arab regimes hate and fear Hamas and the Islamic radicals as deeply as the Israelis do. And this hatred only adds to their luster.
The decision to withdraw the police from Egyptian cities and turn security over to the army means that Mubarak and his handlers in Washington face a grim choice. Either the army, as in Tunisia, refuses to interfere with the protests, meaning the removal of Mubarak, or it tries to quell the protests with force, a move that would leave hundreds if not thousands dead and wounded. The fraternization between the soldiers and the crowds, along with the presence of tanks adorned with graffiti such as "Mubarak will fall," does not bode well for Washington, Israel and the Egyptian regime. The army has not been immune to the creeping Islamization of Egypt-where bars, nightclubs and even belly dancing have been banished to the hotels catering to Western tourists. I attended a reception for middle-ranking army officers in Cairo in the 1990s when I was based there for The New York Times and every one of the officers' wives had a head covering. Mubarak will soon become history. So, I expect, will neighboring secular Arab regimes. The rise of powerful Islamic parties appears inevitable. It appears inevitable not because of the Quran or a backward tradition, but because we and Israel believed we could bend the aspirations of the Arab world to our will through corruption and force.
188 Comments so far
Show AllDon't look now but I think Egypt is finally making its way to the US. Check out the latest in similar arrests in CA as progressives protest against the Koch brothers.
http://www.alternet.org/news/149730
We may be a long ways from being as fired up as Egypt but this could eventually lead to the US waking up to sympathy with the Palestinians and deciding to tell government "Hey, stop sending weapons to Israel to pit the Israelis and the Palestinians against each other !". I know, wishful thinking.
This in today's local paper in Tacoma, WA - Ex-worker at JBLM collected activist data
A former Joint Base Lewis-McChord employee who spied on war protests in Olympia helped compile detailed information on protesters, including names, photos, addresses and, in some cases, Social Security numbers, according to 133 pages of law enforcement records released by the City of Tacoma.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/01/31/1524254/
ex-worker-at-jblm-collected-activist.html
Tunisia and Egypt are making the world safe for democracy, not the US. Will democracy come to the US from North Africa?
That's a good point and chalk that up on to the list. Earlier I talked about health care there compared to the US. I think Saudi Arabia will be the ultimate force that will give the US a major blow. The Saudi citizens would do well to protest the royal puppets of the US. Without Saudi Arabia, there's not much in the way of oil sources to keep the war machine running.
Is it fair then to ask whether, long-term of course, Arabs taking control of their own socio-political destiny, away from the direct influence and interference of the West, will actually lessen anti US sentiments in this part of the world. Long term.
Or is that a bit naive?
Domiciled in South Africa (but currently working in Muscat) I think I have just answered my own question - old resentments last a long time.
just when we thought we could very confidently assume the empire was falling apart in iraq and afghanistan we now have the crisis in egypt coming out of the blue
due to amerikan ignorance we couldn't find tunisia on a map so we are taking a mulligan on that one
i personally thought it was in the pacific because it ryhmes with indonesia
those sneaky bastards - obviously they are naming their countries with the intention of fooling us
one more thing - i though mubarrak was the president of the united states - mubarrak obama - whom we all know was born in hawaii and that's not even part of the united states
do you see how much the commies and the queers have take over
and it's not like we weren't warned either
sarah did her best - winking the sos with her left eye during the debates
she even through in a few youbetcha's
one thing for sure is if we can dump mubarrak obama on the fools in egypt - then we should do that before they realize their mistake
smile.
Recognizing the corrupting role of religions should not be limited to movements which claim the term "religion", such as jewish, christian, islamic,....
Within each and every one of these is the corrupting belief in the religion of Capitalism.
Without the balance of Marxist reality, which failed in the Soviet Union because it was more a religion (the love and worship of absolute power) than an actuality, we will see more of the same.
The greatest corrupting religion is so-called "free market capitalism." Mubarak was merely another version of a Goldman Sach's CEO. The same is true of most of the world's "leaders."
Democracy must be part capital, part marx - and both of these must be transparently scrutinized and regulated or else they become just another corrupt religion.
You show your ignorance of the scriptures of these religions. None support the idea of capitalism. They all talk of taking care of the less fortunate.
One of the main reasons for our militaristic economic policies in Muslim countries:
Islamic values do NOT support consumerism, the constant waste needed to enable capitalism. Left to themselves, they would not support US policies geared to our imperial economic requirements. We had to pay strongmen to implement our greedy policies.
He's absolutely wrong, but you're a bit wrong too in saying "none support the idea of capitalism" :-) Max Weber would definitely not agree with you - and while he is not completely spot on, it's a fact that a lot of (Protestant) Christians think that worldly success means being in God's favour.
any religion, as a coherent set of teachings of ideals, including christianity IS anti-capitalism. granted that some parts of the scriptures may not fit in the overarching theme, no matter how you try to interprete them.
even if it's a fact that most who call themselves christian buy into capitalism, that fact does NOT negate another fact that the najor religious scriptures can only stand as coherent bodies of ideas that are fundamentally anti-capitalism, contrary to their pseudo-followers' claims.
I do not see that the Judeo-Christian Bible nor the historical record of various related religions represent a coherent body of ideas. The Bible is a collection of tribal rules and legends, messianic poetry and guides to life written by several authors over decades and centuries. You can find anything you want there.
How are slavery, cold patriarchy, and the "Workers in the Vineyard" parables anti-capitalist? Some of Jesus' teachings, Song of Solomon, Psalms and Proverbs can be very humanistic. Individuals take from the Bible what is already in them. Institutions cherry-pick what serves their political purposes.
Joe
If you actually look at religions as they exist, particularly Christianity, particularly post-Reformation, you're clearly wrong. For a lot of Christians, even now, material success is a sign of being chosen by God.
And of course no single religion can be viewed as a coherent set of teachings of ideals. None. Not one of them, not even remotely. They're all, every single one of them, very far from coherence - which is why Jefferson had to create his own Bible, for example; which is why you have heretics and sects and which is why we have hundreds of separate Christian denominations. There is *nothing* in the concept of religion that makes all of them automatically and innately anti-capitalist. Especially because religions are quite a bit older than capitalism.
Daniel C. Maguire in his book Sacred Energies cautions that humankind is being subjected to the greatest seduction in the history of the world. “It is the snake oil of global capitalism in its present form that is almost like a universal religion that promises to cure all our ills and bring us happiness. What is particularly disturbing is that religions used to be the main culture makers and value givers and are now being overwhelmed by this new belief system of global capitalism.”
Daniel Maguire further states “that it is time for a new reimaging, for people of conscience to demand respect for all persons and the right of all persons to meaningful work. The secret is with the wisdom of the world’s major religions that have in common a reverence for life, for the life of people and for the rest of life that fills the earth. As far as all the religions concerned, the corporate tyranny of dumping people and destroying nature is heresy.”
In Sacred Energies, Maguire declares “We are right in the middle of a revolution that makes all the revolutions in the past look paltry, and most people are looking the other way.” Of interesting note, Maguire mentions a 1972 book produced by a study group at M.I.T., The Limits to Growth, that saw the disaster pending for the human race and concluded: “Probably only religion has the moral force to bring about (the necessary) change”. Maguire states that all religions are concerned with the weakness of selfish disregard for the common good”.
Maguire goes to great length to describe in well thought out chapters the basic spiritual values and common bonds of the major religions of the world. He concludes that the religious confrontations of the world “are mainly due to India not being Hindu enough; so too Christian lands are not Christian enough; Muslim is not Islamic enough, and modern Israel is not Jewish enough”.
much of what mcguire and you call "new imaginings" are nothing new.
throughout human history, those ideas have been practiced in various names, with varying successes, in differently challenging envioronments.
socialism / communism is only their modern names.
no need to waste time and resources trying to reinvent the old wheel.
when people overcome the fear of socialism and communism and see what it really means, a meaningful democracy will be achieved in which the participants, informed of their true options, exercise their power without fear.
There IS a spiritual revolution going on, though it is more like an evolutionary mutation to a whole higher stage of human psycho-spiritual development. In other words, it is based on higher modes of Consciousness-Intelligence, not mere "beliefs" spun out by the meager human conceptual mind.
The religions of today are pathetic, dessicated fragments of true spirituality, which is based upon direct experience - direct Realization - not mere beliefs. And exoteric religion has always waged war against esoteric spirituality, because they want you looking outside yourself to the priests and their "gods" for guidance and revelation - so they can control you - instead of within YOURSELF where Truth and Divinity eternally dwell as the Supreme Identity, and as the Vedic tradition puts it, "Thou Art That."
"There IS a spiritual revolution going on, though it is more like an evolutionary mutation to a whole higher stage of human psycho-spiritual development. In other words, it is based on higher modes of Consciousness-Intelligence."
I've been hearing about the impending evolution of consciousness for decades, but I've yet to see it.
In fact, I've never received a clear answer as to what this evolution of consciousness is. I've been willing to listen but have herad anything that really meant anything.
It seems like just so many high sounding words, and the advocates of this theory always lay claim to this evolution, which seem sto me both elitist and too convenient.
Not only elitist but this idea of spiritual evolution is the foundation of nazi religion.
I kid you not.
http://www.shoaheducation.com/darwin.html
DreamJoeHill: I hope someday soon you will see yourself in the mirror winking and smiling back at yourself with a inner glow of knowledge that can not be spoken.
This is when you will know and feel what 'Kijah' is talking about. I am very fortunate to have experienced just a glimmer of this amazing spiritual feeling.
Let it shine in spite of the 100th Baboon monkey.
Yours Truly, Peter, another Transcendental Monkey
Well Peter, that's exactly the kind of patronizing non-answer that I have been getting for decades.
So the great consciousness evolution that will save us all is "winking and smiling back at yourself with a inner glow of knowledge that can not be spoken."
and "getting an amazing spiritual feeling."
Spiritual evolution as narciscism.
Not very convincing there, Peter.
your clear-eyed assessment is generally valid. there's too much rubbish in the "intellectual discourses" on the "left" in your way to the rare philosophical truth.
consciousness may evolve, but revolution requires a rupture, a leap, in consciousness, in understanding, in thinking, in imagining.
some have found Louis Althusser's (philosophical) writings, such as Lenin and Philosophy, most helpful and insightful in understanding Marx's (social-historical) writings.
by no means, anyone's entire body of writings, including Marx's, is an internally coherent and complete whole. even geniuses self-contradict, learn, change, evolve, and sometimes make a leap in their thinking. the key is, learning from Althusser the perspective that helps you see the big picture emerging out of piles of pieces.
kitaj: I totally agree.
I respect Chris Hedges' writing. Always intelligent, insightful, and fearless. But I wish he could have offered a faint glimmer of hope, or suggested some course of action that might be taken in Egypt or by the West to help the situation, get the best outcome (if such a thing is possible).
--Just Waking Up In California
I thought Hedges' article was overly optimistic if anything. Why would we not hope for despotism to crash and burn and people become free to choose their own leaders and chart their own destiny? What is it about the withdrawal of support for Israel that would not make the heart sing? Who would not wish America to finally be forced to sit down and shut up? It seems like a bad outcome only to people who make common cause with the bad guys. I pretty much have to be an American, but I don't have to wish America well when it behaves like a giant stupid bully.
Will the US continue to give $1.5-2 Billion in military aid after the government is
overthrown? Will a new government accept it even if offered?
I do not think Hedges is being prejudiced that Muslims can never per se have democracy. I think his point is that this could go the way of Iran's revolution
which began with a mix of secular and religious elements but wound up with the
more organized religious elements taking over.
On the other side, most Westerners are unaware of the wealth redistribution which
did occur in Iran after the Shah was deposed.
A friend of mine was a very well-educated intellectual whose family had taught
in the Universities. She was not a religious fanatic and not totally happy when
she visited Iran a few years after the Revolution with some of the restrictions on
women's rights.
But she did report that many of the Shah's properties and palaces had been
turned over for public use and there was income redistribution to the poor.
IF this winds up in ending MILITARY aid (as opposed to true economic aid such as
funding a solar array energy project in the desert) this could be a good thing.
Undoubtedly it will be another crack in the American Empire...
The solution is what I'm calling a "Bottom-up Democracy"
The current paradigm is a Top-down democracy in which bills are written and passed into law from the top-down with almost no oversight from the the electorate. This allows for the current Oligarchical system that we have to take place. Those of influence, money and power have taken control of the top and thus have taken control of a Gov't for the People.
In a Bottom-up Democracy, the People meet regularly at community meetings to discuss political issues and create bills of their own to pass into law. These suggestions move upward to a City, County, Regional, State, and then National level so that are laws come from the People, rather than the small elite at the top. Also, in a bottom-up democracy the People have the right to vote for or against EVERY law that would be passed at a state or national level. If we the people are suppose to be running our Government, then we should be decididng which laws will govern it, rather than someone who is working for their own benefit. The communities will also elect someone to represent the community at the next tier (City level), several communities will elect someone to represent them at a county level, several counties can choose someone to represent them at a state level, and finally someone at a national level. Instead of choosing a person to represent us from the top-down, we choose someone from the bottom-up, that way it is easier to hold the person in congress accountable since the choices they make will come directly from those who elected them. What we have is a system where we elect people, who then turn around and make decisions based on whats good for others.
Become a community leader. Gather up the People in your Apartment complex or neighborhood/suburb and get to know your neighbors. Then work together to begin restructering our Gov't from the ground up.
TyerDurden, I like your model for a grass roots people's democracy. As a matter of fact, I wonder if we even need "representatives" to do our bidding for us. With a secure internet system, why not vote on important issues rather than for people. If we'd had real democracy, a single payer or at least a public option would have been the people's health care choice.
Personalities can often get in the way of clear thinking. A charismatic leader can become a dangerous tool of empire. It has been shown, time and time again, that a tool like that can be used against a population's genuine intentions and concerns. A charismatic leader can make you think black is white and 2 + 2 = 5. The same goes for "authorities." Studies have consistently shown that a person in a position of authority can coerce people into doing things they wouldn't ordinarily do, as if they were hypnotized.
First we need to understand where this human tendency comes from and second how to fashion a political/social system that keeps it at bay.
Take a look at the National Initiative website. During the last presidential campaign, Ralph Nader and Tel Gravel talked about this potentially powerful tool, just sitting there waiting for We the People to pick it up and use it.
http://ni4d.us/
How about an integrated combination of both ideas?
You write, "First we need to understand where this human tendency comes from and second how to fashion a political/social system that keeps it at bay."
We know where it comes from - the failure to develop beyond the adolescent, narcissistic ego. The "cure" is self-actualization and higher spiritual development. We humans are still at a larval stage of development, and that is our problem.
Kitaj,
Along with your description of the human tendency is willingness to remain in denial (ignorance and laziness) so "others" are responsible to "take care of things" and do the "hard work."
Denial is systematized to serve the status quo, hierarchical order which requires secrecy. Human development most probably needed this stage in order to experience the consequences of denial, which is ultimately based in fear.
thanks, Kitaj! just sos ya know, i copied your "the failure to develop beyond the adolescent, narcissistic ego"
during viet nam i saw the peace movement and for one brief moment thought i caught a glimpse of a nation, a world, in the throes of spiritual growth...
...and then,
bombings of rotc buildings on university campuses...
fixation on the beauty, the pageantry the rites of religiosity so distract the "faithful" and wrap the follower in a security blanket that many fear to leave the comfort zone. like the child who against all reason clings a bit longer to his belief in santa clause, he resists exiting egypt's razzle-dazzle, growing up and risking the trek though the wildness of the unknown to seek the promise land within.
Thanks Mr. Hedges for disabusing the notion that Mr. El Baradei can become the "George Washington of Egypt" because there will be no separation of church and state in Egypt if he becomes its president.
I assume that Egypt's women have the voting right. What all of the optimists overlook is that the great unknown of future "free" elections is how the women will vote. If history is a reliable guideline they will vote overwhelmingly conservative that is to say Muslim Brotherhood. Of course my assumption here is that nearly all women of voting age will actually go to the polling places.
Don't be so sure the women will all be conservative. They have a feminist movement and the great Nawal El Saadawi. Google her.
Well, if a great number of the women of Egypt are like the ones I saw last night on BBC World News then I think there is great hope. They appeared strong and outspoken.
I'm not 100% convinced that the fall of Mubarak will mean the rise of the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt. I think that the global interconnectedness of young people could lead to a new political force here. Like most young people in Iran, they don't blindly follow traditional religious dogma, they just want a chance at a freeer, more prosperous life. They have a much broader knowledge of the world than the revoloutionaries of a generation ago. That's what I'm hoping for, at least.
I share your same hope that the young will be a transformational force in the world.
Hedges has shown that he is NOT on the side of the Egyptian people when he claims their attempts at a peaceful, secular revolution will lead to an Islamic state.
I have never entirely trusted Hedges because he supported the US war in Yugoslavia.
Now it is clear where he stands. Not with the people of Egypt, but with the US State Department!
He just dropped off my list of credible critics of US policy and tops my list of suspicious journalists standing in the way of real democracy in the Middle East.
The problem is that Hedges has a somewhat more refined and differentiated opinion than what you deem acceptable (or maybe understandable). His point is that secular, leftist movements have no credit in the Arab world (not like they have much in most of the rest of the world either fwiw), for several reasons, and that something different, a more religious, Islamist approach will be more successful and people will trust it more. He might be wrong about secularism being discredited, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with whose side he's on. Your claim that he's on the side of the State Department is simply retarded.
It is also surprising to see Hedges writing that "we have murdered tens of thousands of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan." It is quite hard to believe that a well read man like Hedges is not aware of the findings that were published in The Lancet which said over 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion of Iraq as well as the study that was done by the British organization Opinion Research Bureau in 2007 which said that 1.2 million Iraqis have violently died since 2003. Today it is estimated that 1.4 million Iraqis have died since their country was invaded by the United States in 2003.
Those are the figures that should be accepted as being true and not the "tens of thousands" that have been constantly stated by the corporate media. Over a million Muslims being killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan by the U.S. makes a hell of a bigger impression upon people than saying that tens of thousands have been murdered in those countries.
Who was it that said "one death is a tragedy, a thousand deaths is a statistic" Lets not quibble about the numbers but focus on Hedges message. I, for one, think hes the very knowledgeable and credible.
I do not deny that Hedges' message is quite valid. But I must strenuously disagree as the difference between stating tens of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed since 2003 and 1.4 million is hardly inconsequential. If he is, as you claim, quite knowledgeable, then why in the world is he not citing the studies done by The Lancet and the ORB? It is bad enough when right wing sites as well as the rest of the corporate media do that but I think that there is no excuse for someone as intelligent as Hedges to minimize the number of Iraqis who have been killed since their country was illegally and immorally invaded by the United States in 2003.
I believe that if we and especially Hedges do not acknowledge those million plus Iraqis who have perished since 2003 then we are supposed to think that the deaths of those people did not count. But the deaths of so many of those Iraqis certainly should count because they had meaning to their family and friends. Pretending that they did not occur is not going to lessen the reality that they did indeed happen as a direct result of the United States having unjustifiably invaded their country almost eleven years ago. Since Chris Hedges is supposed to be a leftist it then becomes quite shocking to see him totally ignore the higher and quite valid figures that have been presented by The Lancet and ORB. As a leftist, I certainly find it incumbent to state, both on this site and in the real world, that the number of Iraqis who have died since 2003 have been over a million as compared to the quite conservative figures given by Mr. Hedges.
Joseph Stalin
It is hardly quibbling to point out that Hedges casuakty estimate is off by about a million deaths.
That you even refer to this as "quibbling" is kind of sick.
Also there is another factual error in the article. Hedges writes:
"the presence of U.S. troops on Muslim soil, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but in the staging bases set up in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia"
But all US troops were withdrawn from Saudi Arabia in 2003.
These are gross factual errors, especially for a journalist.
Joe,sorry for the late come back: But why don't you write Hedges and ask him to clarify his remark about the Military in Saudi Arabia.
But before you do that: I think you should start shaving twice a day. Double your chances.
Mirror Mirror on the wall, when will you wink back at me?
I think you may have read to much Spengler on atimes.com or am I having a Sufi moment?
Peace Bro
Well I'm glad you don't take yourself and your spiritual evolution too seriously.
That's some compensation for your otherwise patronizing attitude about it.
Well imo this issue is probably more about choice of tactics - if you want your article to be read and not immediately dismissed by more than the already committed left, you have to start with the accepted and undeniable facts. I mean, any time you mention the Lancet article on a non left wing site, you'll get loads of people debating how valid it is and will get into anecdotes and the whole point will be lost. Seriously, maybe it's changed now, but it's really difficult to use these facts in actual argument :-/ I agree with you though, it's better to see the full extent of the destruction - I always get a bit angry when Americans claim 1.2m Vietnamese deaths (the lowest low estimate iirc). The counterargument is mostly about what "excess deaths" means (if you mean that study) and how reliable the study is (afaik eventually it turned out to be spot on, but noone cares about that :-/)
I mean, the right-wing media is pretty vicious and incredibly committed to denying facts. I don't think this kind of "appeasement" is a good tactic either tbh, but believe me, I've tried, and if you start a debate based on the realistic casualty estimates, all your arguments will be immediately dismissed and voided and you'll only be laughed at as a crazy left wing Marxist maniac (trying to undermine the constitution, according to that ringworm Jon Stewart).
Indeed, that quote ("we have murdered tens of thousands of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan") again illustrates that I am not 'paranoid' and that Hedges, does, in fact, repeat the very same propaganda as does the State Department on key issues of so-called 'fact, which, under closer inspection, turn out to be myth. Why does Hedges underestimate the murderous actions of the US government? Why? Apologize for him all you want "Crowsnest" (and others), but his words are familiar to me. I have been an activist for over 30 years. I argued intensely with friends about the US war against Yugoslavia and some 'leftists' got it wrong, supporting the US and ignoring the details about the bogus "Rambouillet Accords"-- do your own research. I did mine. Hedges' line on Yugoslavia is identical to the State Department, a "liberal" wing of the US government. Sorry to pop you delusional bubble about Hedges--no one is perfect.
(See, for example, the State Department's attempt at historical revisionism: http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/fs_990301_rambouillet.html )
But here again, like elements within the US government (and Israel) who warn us the future of a democratic Egypt may be an Islamic one, Hedges is fear mongering and, frankly, his views are quite shocking to many of us on the left. I have found myself in agreement with many of the articles he has written, but I don't have to worship him when he comes out with a cynical piece about the most amazing revolution we have ever seen in recent memory, a revolution that is, to date, predominantly secular. No one knows where it will end up, but I personally hope that it will eventually lead to precisely what is being called for: real democracy and social justice. I think that this will be a powerful social revolution. Women, poor, various minority groups, etc. will play a role and the empowerment of the disenfranchised will grow. Certainly, a minority group like the Muslim Brotherhood will also have some role, but they have publicly said they seek no political role in a future government.
Watch Al-Jazeera live--http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/
Insulting me is silly. I am not exaggerating my position, nor that of Hedges. Read his article very, very carefully. In fact, go back and read what he has written about the US war against Yugoslavia. Did Hedges ever call for US officials or the US military to be prosecuted for the war crimes they committed in Yugoslavia? Why not? In that war, the US bombed the Chinese embassy! The US blew up civilians and civilian infrastructure. The US blew up a TV station! But never does Hedges mention those facts in his "reporting" on that war. Beware those who call our "enemies" Nazis while failing to note the war crimes of our own government.
Stiv:
To accuse Hedges of standing with the US State Department and not the Egyptian people is beyond ludicrous and ridiculous. Please, get a grip on the paranoia. I don't agree with everything in his article but to a make a leap to the conclusion that Hedges is a tool of the US State Department is off the charts and into another galactic mind set.
The way this conversation is going is totally a waste of good leftist energy.
All Hedges is saying there MAY be more Islamic (religious) elements in the next Egyptian government. The Moslem Brotherhood, who are NOT FUNDAMENTALST zealots perhaps "represent"the thinking of 20% of the Egyptian populace.
Note further, this is the first Hedges Monday essay in a long time, that is not a direct variant of his latest book, "The Death of the Middle Class".
It's stupifying to note how quickly intolerant a few left posters here become if time-proven journalists don't exactly follow "their party line"!
It is instructive to discover that some posters here consider Mr. Hedges to be an idiotic "progressive" while others consider him a puppet of the US State Department. Mr. Hedges has, in my opinion, analyzed the uprising in Egypt and drawn his own conclusions for Egypt's future taking Egypt's history into account. That has nothing to do with how he would like to see Egypt develop. I know Mr. Hedges well enough that he holds that Egypt will remain a basket case politically, economically, and socially as long as the ties between religion and state are not permanently and irrevocably severed. I tend to agree. I also think that Egypt badly needs an uprising of its women against a machismo society.
"I know Mr. Hedges well enough that he holds that Egypt will remain a basket case politically, economically, and socially as long as the ties between religion and state are not permanently and irrevocably severed. I tend to agree. I also think that Egypt badly needs an uprising of its women against a machismo society."
Your comment strikes me as an example of liberal cultural imperialism. Maybe the Egyptian don't care what you and Hedges think they need to do.