[lit-ideas] Re: A Genuinely Useful Thought
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 08:08:00 -0800
Irene,
We threw them out of society? Not true, Irene. Nassar, the first Baathist
was assassinated as was his successor. The Muslim Brothers took the blame
for that, but Sadat's successor wasn't a Baathist. So perhaps the Muslim
Brothers kicked the Baathists out of society in Egypt. But Saddam was very
much a Baathist. Actually Baathism was whatever Saddam said it was, and he
said it was the secular equivalent of Khomeini's revolution. It was
Pan-Arabism which was the secular equivalent of the idea of the restoration
of the caliphate. Just as Sayyid Qutb taught that there should be no
borders the Ummah, so did Saddam teach that thee should be no borders in
Pan-Arabia. One view had the Ummah led by the Caliphate, the other had it
ruled by Saddam.
I don't think we need to try any more nation building in the Middle East as
it exists today. And there will be no charming people to our side. The
truth is whatever the most influential person says is the truth. If Saddam
said he won the first Gulf War, then he won it and was greatly admired for
doing so. We will be listened to if we are great warriors like Saddam. We
won't be listened to if we behave like people Arabs hold in contempt.
No, we can win wars, but we can't rebuild Arab nations very well. The war
college is recognizing this. All the focus, all the war-gaming has been on
winning wars. No one has been trained in what to do with the defeated
people after the war is over. So far we have no law against being rich, nor
even one against making as much money as you can. I would rather start with
all those rich empty-headed movie stars. Let's arrest them first. Also,
the news anchors, the talking heads who are paid obscene amounts of money.
Let's arrest all of those. And then the football and baseball players. It
is scandalous how much they get paid for playing silly games.
Ah, you don't like rich CEO's? What would you have us do with them? Would
you like to see a new law created that has them arrested? Something along
the lines of what the Soviets did after their Revolution?
As I said, or at least implied, while we don't need Iraq's oil, we are the
guarantors of Liberal Democracy at present and anything that doesn't flow
smoothly, especially oil is a concern. We couldn't very well let China's
economy fail for lack of oil now could we. Who would buy all our bonds?
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 7:22 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: A Genuinely Useful Thought
The Baathists were just a party, like the Communists. One had to be in the
Communist Party to get a decent job, like teacher. Not all Baathists were
militant. We made all Baathists militant when we threw them out of the
society and in effect told them they were scum. Not a way to win friends.
What the U.S. needs to do is nation building, but minus first destroying it.
In other words, we need to do what organizations like Hezbollah know
intuitively to do, which is charm people to our side. Our problem is we
hate people, so charm is anathema to us. We simply don't know how to do it.
We do anything we can not to support people, like eliminate Social Security,
eliminate housing assistance, loot Medicare, institute draconian bankruptcy
laws skewed completely toward banks, etc. We begrudge anything and
everything that helps people. I'm not necessarily pro Welfare; Welfare is a
trap, but other help, like medical or educational assistance.
At the same time we give major tax breaks to the the ultra rich, and our
corporations are on the dole. Our Congress is owned by industry. We don't
blink an eye when the CEO of Home Depot is fired with a $200 million
severance package. We rail against the "socialists" of Europe. So not
surprisingly we're baffled when it comes to anything other than influence
through force. Not coincidentally we have the biggest military the world
has ever seen, and it's all but useless. We can fight battles, but we can't
win wars anymore, because today's wars are a battle for hearts and minds,
and we have neither. In WWII we had both. We were the world's haven. Now
we talk a good line about democracy, but we love money and force and hate
people. And it is coming back to bite us in a big way.
Also, if we didn't need Iraq's oil, we wouldn't have rushed to protect it on
the first day of the invasion. Iraq's oil was supposed to pay for the war
and the reconstruction. If we disrupt the Middle East so civil war
overflows from Iraq, we get our oil from ... Venezuela? Russia? Africa?
Alaska? Where? The Gulf of Mexico maybe, but that's miles under the ocean
and not viable at the moment.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Helm
Sent: Jan 9, 2007 4:23 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: A Genuinely Useful Thought
Andreas: I went all through this misunderstanding with Irene. I said the
Baathist were Militant Islamics. They are Militant and they are Islamics.
The threat isn't just from religious Militants. Baathism was intended to
achieve Pan-Arabism, bringing all the Arab nations under one head. It was
begun by Nassar who was assassinated. Saddam liked the idea as well. He
was just as much of a threat with his Pan-Arabism as Khomeini was with his
religious revolution. They both wanted the same thing, and then they
fought.
Well yes Militant Islam is a threat and no we don't need to leave a viable
successful government in Iraq. The alternative to a viable successful
government in Iraq isn't Chaos, it is three viable successful governments,
or perhaps only two, the Kurds and the Shias. The Sunnis better give up
messing around if they want to retain anything in Iraq.
Pulled into war? Were any nations pulled into war when Iran and Iraq fought
for eight years? No.
As to needing oil. We don't need that oil. Europe, China, Japan etc needs
it. We probably need to make sure those nations get their oil and those
nations count on us to keep the flow going, but we can do that. We are the
only nation in the world that can project an army-sized fighting force any
place in the world. Perhaps Britain is next but they are getting rid of
their navy. . . .
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've already told us how evil Bush is, but you don't
appreciate how evil Saddam was and what a danger he represented with his
Baathist Pan-Arab aggressive plans. We would not have been better of
leaving him to his own devices.
No, our army isn't broken. We could fight another Saddam-Hussein-sized Army
next month if we needed to. What we couldn't do is spend another three
years or perhaps even three months trying to rebuild an Iraq-sized nation.
It is the latter thing we can't do not the former.
Lawrence
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change
your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off),
visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
