Re: [Marxism] Howard Zinn: "Support our troops: Bring them home"

["Eli Stephens" <elishastephens@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Zinn's article is ok, although I've seen better polemics to make into a
pamphlet than this. This, for example, I think is very poorly formulated:

"Here is the flawed logic: We are alone in the world in this
invasion. The insurgency is growing. There is no visible
prospect of success. Therefore, let's send more troops?"

So what is he saying to the reader? If we WEREN'T alone, but were being
joined by troops from Germany and France, and if the insurgency WASN'T
growing, and there WAS a visible prospect of success, that it would be ok to
stay? It most certainly would NOT be ok, and even the indirect inference
that it would be is unacceptable.

And then this:

"We must stay in Iraq, it is said again and again, so that
we can bring stability and democracy to that country. Isn't
it clear that after almost two years of war and occupation
we have brought only chaos, violence and death to that
country, and not any recognizable democracy?"

Now most people would say that there is some kind of "recognizable
democracy" in Afghanistan now, and I guarantee than on Jan. 31 the U.S.
government and U.S. media will be saying precisely the same thing about
Iraq.  Not only does this statement suggest that if there is a recognizable
democracy that "we" will have been "making progress" and hence should stay
on and "finish the job", it even gives a certain tacit acceptance to the
idea that if the U.S. COULD have brought about a "recognizable democracy" in
Iraq without two years of "chaos, violence, and death," that it would have
been ok to invade.

And one very common factual error:

"The casualty toll on the American side
includes more than 1,350 deaths"

No, it includes more than 1500 American deaths. 150 of them happen to have
been "contractors" who weren't "official" members of the U.S. military, but
virtually every one (with some exceptions like Nick Berg) was doing a job
which the U.S. military would have been doing in the absence of the
"privatization of war." And what kind of internationalist would omit 160
British, Italians, and assorted others who also died as part of the
"coalition", for a total of 1650 deaths on the "American side"?

Eli Stephens
 Left I on the News
 http://lefti.blogspot.com



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism