[Marxism] On Michael Ignatieff's latest

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Professor Mike,

I am beginning to get the same kind of perverse pleasure out of reading
your war whoops in the NY Times Magazine section that I used to get from
reading Max Lerner on the Vietnam War in the NY Post during the 1960s or
A.M. Rosenthal on Central America in the 1980s. Despite being much younger
than Lerner or Rosenthal, you really seem to have mastered the kind of
pomposity and sanctimoniousness that comes with advancing years and power
in the opinion-making class. It is good for a chuckle, like watching the
elderly George Jessel in a soldier's uniform.

Although I am afraid that pointing out your errors in your latest offering
("The Uncommitted", http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/magazine/30WWLN.html)
would be an exercise in futility comparable to recommending chess openings
to a chimpanzee, I will do so anyhow. Since your article snipes at the
antiwar movement, whose members participate on the same Internet forum as
me, it deserves a reply--at least to make the record.

To begin with, you state that no other election in human history has been
threatened by a campaign of violence as has today's election in Iraq. I can
understand why you might have a blind spot on questions such as these (as
did your predecessor A.M. Rosenthal), but the electoral process in
Nicaragua was marked by systematic violence and intimidation far greater
than what is occurring in Iraq today. Contras based in Nicaragua and funded
by US tax dollars singled out Sandinista candidates for attack. In
addition, the entire country was basically intimidated into voting for a
US-backed candidate in 1990. Unless the lever was pulled for Chamorro, more
war and economic blockade was threatened. In countries such as Nicaragua,
Haiti and Cuba, US military interventions were mounted repeatedly in the
20th century in order to reverse the people's will manifested through free
elections. You seem only interested in violence prior to an election, when
in fact the US military has wrought systematic violence far in excess of
the Iraqi insurgency when election results were not to its liking. Perhaps
the most striking example was when the USA took part in an expeditionary
force consisting of more than 21 invading armies when the people of the
USSR had the temerity to vote for Bolshevism in 1917. The
counter-revolution cost the lives of millions of Russian peasants and
workers, to the great satisfaction of your ideological forefathers we might
add.

You continue, "Establishing free institutions in Iraq was the best reason
to support the war--now it is the only reason--and for that very reason
democracy has ceased to be a respectable cause." This statement
encapsulates the utter mendacity of Wilsonian imperialism, which you are a
grand master of articulating. Put simply, a foreign occupation army can
never be the instrument of democracy. Democracy must be achieved
internally, not at the point of a bayonet wielded by outside military
powers. In fact, the entire history of the USA and its junior partner Great
Britain in the region has been to support dictatorship against democracy.
The British ruled Iraq with an iron fist in the 1920s and even considered
the use of poison gas against pro-democracy rebels. In the more recent
past, the CIA backed Saddam Hussein as he jailed and tortured leftwing and
trade union opponents. I can certainly understand why despite all this
evidence you would suspend all critical judgments with respect to the
Anglo-American alliance now trying to maintain rule today. It goes
hand-in-hand with the obtuseness of your President, the ineffable Larry
Summers.

You state that "antiwar ideologues can't support the Iraqis because that
would require admitting that positive outcomes can result from bad policies
and worse intentions." It depends on which Iraqis you are talking about.
Yesterday the NY Times quoted Ahmed al-Kauai, a pro-Sadr cleric: "Ayatollah
Sistani has his political statements, and we have our own. We won't be
voting." Does this mean that al-Kauai and others that think like him are
enemies of democracy? The May 20, 2004 Financial Times reported that Sadr
was the most influential Iraqi after Sistani in a poll that showed a sharp
decline in US support.

"Saadoun Duleimi, head of the centre, said more than half of a
representative sample - comprising 1,600 Shia, Sunni Arabs and Kurds polled
in all Iraq's main regions - wanted coalition troops to leave Iraq. This
compares with about 20 per cent in an October survey. About 88 per cent of
respondents said they now regarded coalition forces in Iraq as occupiers."

The poll revealed that "Respondents saw Mr Sadr as Iraq's second most
influential figure after Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country's most
senior Shia cleric. About 32 per cent of respondents said they strongly
supported Mr Sadr and another 36 per cent somewhat supported him."

Now, Professor Mike, you say that you favor democracy. If 88 percent of the
Iraqi people tell pollsters that they regard the US and British as
occupiers, it would appear to me that the best way to respect democracy is
to leave the country at once.

In any case, you know that this is not about "freedom". It is about oil.
The USA never invades a country to allow free elections to take place. It
invades in order to protect vital economic interests. As Smedley Butler
once said:

"It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison.
Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in
active military service as a member of this country's most agile military
force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second
Lieutenant to Major General. And during that period, I spent most of my
time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and
for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

"I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it.
Like all members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my
own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended
animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with
everyone in the military service.

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests
in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City
Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen
Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of
raceteering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international
banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the
Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped
to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

"During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell
racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few
hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I
operated on three continents."

Yours truly,

Louis Proyect


Louis Proyect
Marxism list: www.marxmail.org


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