Monday 3-3
Xymphora writes:
King of Zembla: "It's Not Bad Apples, But Bad Barrel-Makers"
from Nir Rosen's "Myth of the Surge", in Rolling Stone:
Juan Cole:
Counterpunch continues its pathetic campaign of attempting to explain the abject failure of the traditional left (as exemplified by editor Cockburn) by blaming it on 'conspiracy theory'. We know that the real reason for the failure of the anti-war movement is the conscious decision by its leaders to abuse it for the partisan political purpose of getting Democrats elected. The worst thing that could happen for the Democrats is for Bush to authorize an end to the American presence in Iraq before the next election. The anti-war movement is a failure because it is really a pro-war movement.(Emphasis mine. Although I disagree with his broader view of Counterpunch think he's right in the more particular view, insofar as the left has given up principles for tactics.)
(also, "Freud on Zionism")
King of Zembla: "It's Not Bad Apples, But Bad Barrel-Makers"
from Nir Rosen's "Myth of the Surge", in Rolling Stone:
"Before the war, it was just one party," Arkan tells me. "Now we have 100,000 parties. I have Sunni officer friends, but nobody lets them get back into service. First they take money, then they ask if you are Sunni or Shiite. If you are Shiite, good." He dreams of returning to the days when the Iraqi army served the entire country. "In Saddam's time, nobody knew what is Sunni and what is Shiite," he says. The Bush administration based its strategy in Iraq on the mistaken notion that, under Saddam, the Sunni minority ruled the Shiite majority. In fact, Iraq had no history of serious sectarian violence or civil war between the two groups until the Americans invaded. Most Iraqis viewed themselves as Iraqis first, with their religious sects having only personal importance. Intermarriage was widespread, and many Iraqi tribes included both Sunnis and Shiites. Under Saddam, both the ruling Baath Party and the Iraqi army were majority Shiite.
Juan Cole:
McCain (and the US corporate media) manages to avoid noticing that Turkey has staged a major incursion into Iraq and still has ground troops there and is refusing US requests to withdraw! Ironically, Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, the Turkish chief of staff used McCain's own language against the Bush administration, rejecting the idea of any timetable for withdrawal.
Labels: Iraq, journalism, war
posted by Jonathan Versen at 12:12 AM
5 Comments:
One thing I notice about Counterpunch is that it publishes essays by various people who write opposing views on the same topic often on the same day. Cockburn criticizes Nader and at the same time lets Nader post essays on Counterpunch. I would also point out that the link provided by xymphora was not written by Cockburn but by a Stephen Philion so I find xymphora to be misleading or in error in this respect. Just because Counterpunch publishes an essay sent in does not mean that Cockburn automatically agrees with the content of the essay. Here is a link to Cockburn speaking about the anti-war movement if anyone is interested in his actual views which seems to be that the anti-war movement is pretty much dead, no mention of conspiracy. However I have not read every single essay by Cockburn but my impression of him in general is he is not big on conspiracy theories. I would also point out that the link provided by xym is to an interview and the general tone of Lembcke is that he is not big on conspiracy theories either, did xymphora actually read the interview?
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13240
Hi Rob,
1st, I am not my xymphora's keeper-- and so while I have no way of knowing if X read the interview, I suspect perhaps he was zeroing in on this part of the exchange, maybe excessively to the point of distortion:
Phillion: Is the conspiracy theory movement manageable at all, as it were? Or do such groups continue to pose a barrier to progressive left organizing in the antiwar movement?
Lembcke: Well I think conspiracy theory is a barrier to progressive organizing. It doesn't mean it's an insurmountable one.
I do think that
a. Xymphora is being unfair to the site as a whole(as I said above), but,
b.Nevertheless I think his point that many people in the left have put excess emphasis on getting Democrats elected, and thus warping the antiwar movement, is valid.
(I won't call them exhibits a and b because it'll just be confusing at this point, but I'd point to the groupthink at DailyKos and MoveOn as prime examples.)
I think Xymphora, who often deals in sundry conspiracy theories, is arguing that Phillion and Lembcke, and by extension, Cockburn, are trying to marginalize leftists who take some/any/all conspiracy theories seriously in order to gain respectability in the eyes of the mainstream.
Jonathan,
Your not x’s keeper? Just kidding. I was not trying to imply that you were.
The way x phrased his statement it sounded like he was saying that Counterpunch was saying that the anti-war movement was a victim of conspiracy theory. That was not the case when I visited the link, pathetically unclear writing I would say on x’s part. I do agree on the point that getting Dems elected seems to be in excess, no argument there. I’ll keep reading Counterpunch probably not x.
I didn't read it that way because I am familiar with Xymphora's preoccupations.
His(?) meaning was clear to me(unless my interpretation is also wrong, of course), and maybe he deals with certain themes more elliptically than I generally allow for, because I'm familiar with his usual themes and I automatically fill in the blanks.(??)
Annoyance with people suggesting somebody is a conspiracy-monger in order to marginalize or discredit him/her is one of his regular themes--as well as preoccupations with Israeli expansionism and the influence of AIPAC, which he just calls "The Lobby", although I think other people refer to them that way too.
Hi Jonathan,
Here is Norman Solomon’s take on the failure of the anti-war movement.
“If the ultimate argument against the war is that it isn't being won, the advocates for more war will have extra incentive to show that it can be won after all.
If a steady argument against the war maintains that it was and is wrong -- that it is fundamentally immoral -- that's a tougher sell to the savants of Capitol Hill and an array of corporate-paid journalists.
But by taking the political path of least resistance -- by condemning the Iraq war as unwinnable instead of inherently wrong -- more restrained foes of the war helped to prolong the occupation that has inflicted and catalyzed so much carnage. The antiwar movement is now paying a price for political shortcuts often taken in the past several years.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/solomon03042008.html
Post a Comment
<< Home