Skip to main content

View Diary: The Iraq Election: Defining Success (489 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Progressives and Iraq (4.00)
    Naiomi Klein has discussed in an excellent interview how progressives should approach Iraq.  I found her line of thinking useful.

    She notes that anti-war progressives are understandably reluctant to cheer the elections, for a number of reasons (good ones, and not so good ones).  It's a tough question: how can one applaud the consequence of the war without admiting that the war was a Good Thing?

    Klein argues cautions against simply dismissing these elections as inconsequential and shouting "US out now!"

    For her, the lefts need to pay more attention to how things are being run in Iraq--how the country's debt has been only partially erased, and how the place is being sold off piece-meal to corporations, and how the US is trying to privatize Iraq's food distrubution system, and etc.  

    In short, the Bush administration, in "freeing" Iraq, is trying it's hardest to make sure that Iraq ends up serving the interests of the United States.

    Progressives, on Naiomi's account, need to re-focus their efforts on publicizing and countering the Bush admin's undemocratic efforts to make Iraq a paradise for the free exercise of corporate power.

    The public discourse should not be: "Rebublicans support the arrival democracy, while Democratic bemoan it," but rather "Democrats push for real democracy, and oppose the exploitation of Iraq and its people."

    Cheers to most of the Iraqi people for voting today, and jeers and worse for the Bush administration's plan to make Iraq into an outpost of American corporate hegemony.

    •  I disagree with Wolf (none)
      What is her rationale?  Political effectiveness?  Well she's out there.  Good policy?  And this effects it how?  I'm not sure I follow the thinking.

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:11:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agree... (none)
      "Cheers to most of the Iraqi people for voting today, and jeers and worse for the Bush administration's plan to make Iraq into an outpost of American corporate hegemony. "

      Agreed - they want us out and this is the first step... it will be hilarious when the neo-cons reanize that their hard bought puppets turn on the puppet masters...

      Well I want our boys out too - as fast as possible so let's hope this happens before the puppet masters realize how independent their puppets are... else they'll fabricate a reason to keep us there.

    •  sounds like something kerry might say (none)
      The public discourse should not be: "Rebublicans support the arrival democracy, while Democratic bemoan it," but rather "Democrats push for real democracy, and oppose the exploitation of Iraq and its people."

      and, like kerry, i agree with it 110%...... and like with kerry, i know america is too fucking stupid to understand it.

    •  Thanks. (none)
      That is a very helpful perspective.
    •  "rudimentary" 4 (none)
      (for some reason at a certain point on this thread you can't rate anybody....)

      the vision of a predominantly capitalist success, rather than a democratic one is worrisome.

    •  A very important voice (none)
      Naomi Klein's "Baghdad: Year Zero" was a real eye-opener for me.  In all the talk of bringing democracy to Iraq, no one mentions how the Bushies snuck in the gift of rightwing laissez-faire capitalism, and brought their friends to bid on all the Iraqi assets put up for auction.

      The real test of the new government, and our imperialist adventure, will come when and if an Iraqi government stands up to the neocons and reclaims its economy (and oilfields) for itself

      •  Good Point. Naomi Klein was first to write about (none)
        Bremer's Order 39, which is essentially a codification/legalisation of Bushco-allied interests' actions to steal Iraq national industries and resources at fire-sale prices and take all profits out of country without paying any royalties.
        •  The best piece of the puzzle (none)
          that Baghdad: Year Zero filled in for me was explaining why Bush was so hell-bent on "transfering sovereignty."

          Well, it turns out a little thing called international law forbids an occupying power from selling the occupied country's assets.  Bremer was holding auctions, but the bidders were afraid to buy because, ya know, they weren't so sure we could deliver good title.

          So, we 'transferred sovereignty,' and voila! let the auction begin.

          •  Klein's "Baghdad: Year Zero" (none)
            I agree that Klein's "Baghdad: Year-Zero," from Harper's magazine a couple months ago will be of great interest to anyone who wants to see what Bush & co. are trying to accomplish in Iraq in the name of "Freedom."  Fortunately, the piece is available on-line, for anyone who's not yet seen it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site