Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia

[shetline]

Before reading this article at harpers.org (http://harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html) I new that the Bush administration had really screwed up in Iraq. This article, however, gave me a totally new appreciation for the extent of the screw up.

The neocons went crazy trying to turn Iraq into an ideological experiment in nearly unrestrained capitalism and international trade. Paul Bremer instituted laws totally at odds with international law and the UN resolution by which we'd claimed justification for going into Iraq. There was a complete disregard for the practical consequences when doing things like Bremer's first major order of business soon after taking over the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority): firing around 500,000 state employees, many of them soldiers, many of them not only losing their jobs but pensions they'd been counting on, all of sudden becoming very disgruntled and unemployed at the same time.

Some choice quotes:
[This] theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the war's ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which creates jobs and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need or want. The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal conditions for corporations to pursue their bottomless greed, so that they in turn can meet the needs of the society. The problem is that governments, even neoconservative governments, rarely get the chance to prove their sacred theory right: despite their enormous ideological advances, even George Bush's Republicans are, in their own minds, perennially sabotaged by meddling Democrats, intractable unions, and alarmist environmentalists.

Iraq was going to change all that. In one place on Earth, the theory would finally be put into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A country of 25 million would not be rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no ownership restrictions.
The great historical irony of the catastrophe unfolding in Iraq is that the shock-therapy reforms that were supposed to create an economic boom that would rebuild the country have instead fueled a resistance that ultimately made reconstruction impossible. Bremer's reforms unleashed forces that the neocons neither predicted nor could hope to control, from armed insurrections inside factories to tens of thousands of unemployed young men arming themselves. These forces have transformed Year Zero in Iraq into the mirror opposite of what the neocons envisioned: not a corporate utopia but a ghoulish dystopia, where going to a simple business meeting can get you lynched, burned alive, or beheaded.
Iraq was to the neocons what Afghanistan was to the Taliban: the one place on Earth where they could force everyone to live by the most literal, unyielding interpretation of their sacred texts. One would think that the bloody results of this experiment would inspire a crisis of faith: in the country where they had absolute free reign, where there was no local government to blame, where economic reforms were introduced at their most shocking and most perfect, they created, instead of a model free market, a failed state no right-thinking investor would touch. And yet the Green Zone neocons and their masters in Washington are no more likely to reexamine their core beliefs than the Taliban mullahs were inclined to search their souls when their Islamic state slid into a debauched Hades of opium and sex slavery. When facts threaten true believers, they simply close their eyes and pray harder.
The Bush administration has gone far further out of control than I would imagine could or should be possible in a modern, free society. Where are the checks and balances on this kind of unrestrained abuse of power? Where are all of the pragmatists who should have been speaking out loudly and clearly against all of this ideological zeal? Where did the major media disappear to, leaving important truths about this war at the level of background noise behind barely-questioned Whitehouse press releases, Jessica Lynch propaganda, and body count sensationalism?

[giant]

And this is why they are considered ideologues. They basically take one fundamental idea that needs to be considered in a larger context and try to apply it in its raw form, with predictably disastrous consequences. It's the most stereotypical model of extremist possible. Personally, I think University of Chicago bears the bulk of the blame. This place was the source of almost all of the extremist theories that made up this war, from Friedman's economic model to Strauss with his wacked-out political philosophy (in addition to his students' horrible failure in misapplying Strauss to intelligence) and the near-purposeful overestimations in the tradition of Wohlstetter.

And the international crime mentioned in the article isn't even the end of it. I doubt that anyone can even come close to fathoming the level of crime surrounding the businesses, and not just "white collar" crime, that has been committed during this.

We've also heard far too little about how they essentially have these kids, barely out of school, running the country. I remember some time ago a series of articles on it for a day or two, but it was just a blip.

It's interesting, too, in that the major problem, one that even some americans know about, is the outsourcing of Iraq rather than attempting to create a competitive Iraqi market. Every one knows the contracts have been extremely poorly handled (by 21-26 year olds, no less) and this is perhaps the biggest mistake made in this whole fiasco.

And that's the fundamental difference between Chile and Iraq. It's the most obvious one, but it's somehow totally lost on the neocons. Pinochet's coup, assisted by the US or not, what something many Chileans wanted and would have happened (or did) with or without the US. Pinochet and others in Chile were reacting in a logical way to a situation that was spiraling out of control (even, likely, as far as Allende was concerned). Iraq is so horrendously different it needs no explanation.

Of course, here is the US most people are blissfully ignorant to what is really going on there, as usual. To them, the 'terrorists' just want to destabilize the government because that's what 'terrorists' do. No thought is given to the actual motive since to consider them anything but crazed muslims is supposedly playing right into their hands.

[pfflam]

But that's too many words . . . they gave Iraq 'freedom'


I read that Harper's article in the magazine . . . at first I thought it was going to be a biased 'hit piece' . . . but it is really good and researched.
The parallels between Iraq and the 'Shock therapy', -you know the 'therapy' that FAILED MISERABLY in Russia?- is amazing to see . . .

Its sickening . . . . but the kind of person who would bother to actualy read that article is too concerned and thoughtful to be the same kind of person that would vote for Bush . . .
'

[giant]

Here it's put very well:
We both thought that a shock to the system and a scheme to jar at least one Arab country onto the right track might be worth it. In the end, we both decided that it would be a bad idea, and for good conservative reasons. Utopian social programs rarely work domestically, in circumstances in which the architects of social engineering share a language and culture with their subjects and in which the surrounding society is stable and prosperous. If this is the case, how can we expect a radical experiment in social engineering to succeed in a foreign country with a radically different culture, and in which distrust of the United States is imbibed with mother's milk? Arabs are fixated enough on what they perceive as past humiliations, how can adding another defeat to the list help them?
email to andrew sullivan (http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_09_26_dish_archive.html#109648034044882770)

[SDW2001]

I don't see how anyone takes you guys or articles like this seriously. The criticisms in the article are so unreasonable (comparing "neocons" to the Taliban!?) that the entire thread has no credibility to begin with.

There are criticisms to be made in Iraq. There have been mistakes. Everybody knows that. When people start with this kind of talk, it makes it impossible to actually discuss fixing those problems or to point out things that should be done differently.

But I'm wasting my breath. In five seconds I'll be called a blind Bush lover who is reading from Republican talking points. The real extremism can be be found in the ones making such unreasonable criticisms and charges. You're not interested in Iraq suceeding or reasonable and informed critiques. You're interested in trashing the President and his team without mercy.

Edit: Fixed the typo on "everybody". Aquatic can sleep now.

[giant]

Oh well. This thread was nice while it lasted...

edit2: post reinstated

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by SDW2001
There have been mistakes. Everyboday knows that.

That is the exact phrase Bush said in his press conference with the Iraqi PM a week or so ago. He said it at least three different times exactly as you are quoted above.


But I'm wasting my breath. In five seconds I'll be called a blind Bush lover who is reading from Republican talking points.

Indeed. Be careful what you say if you do not want this.

Fellowship

[shetline]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't see how anyone takes you guys or articles like this seriously. The criticisms in the article are so unreasonable (comparing "neocons" to the Taliban!?) that the entire thread has no credibility to begin with.
It's called an analogy. Unless you've made up your mind to be ready to find offense wherever you can find it, I think it's clear that the only criticism implied by the Taliban analogy is in regard to the danger of stressing ideology without regard to practical realities.

If you think that even this is too much criticism of Bush and his people, please explain how you would interpret Bush's policies in Iraq and how you'd describe his key people as pragmatic rather than ideological. Can you honestly paint the current mess in Iraq as the result of mostly good, mostly wise decisions which merely "hit a few snags"?

There are criticisms to be made in Iraq. There have been mistakes. Everyboday knows that.

I don't know that everybody knows that. Not counting the obvious admission you can get most people to make about any human endeavor, that "nothing's perfect", I think there are quite a few people out there who believe, or have let themselves be convinced, that everything in Iraq is going swimmingly. Oh, sure, we've had a few problems, but that's to be expected, right? Strength, optimism, and "staying the course" will win the day!

There is some power in positive thinking, but that doesn't mean optimism is always warranted, and optimism of-and-by-itself does not a policy make. You wouldn't know that from listening to a Bush campaign rally, however.
You're not interested in Iraq suceeding or reasonable and informed critiques. You're interested in trashing the President and his team without mercy.
If you can poke holes in the substance of the Harper's article -- the actual substance of it, rather than latching onto whatever you can find to take offense at -- be my guest. If you can find that Harper's is actually wrong about, say, the policies Paul Bremer instituted while in charge of the CPA, the more power to you.

And yes, I am of a mind to trash Bush and his team without mercy. At my worst, however, I show Bush far more consideration than Bush, Karl Rove, and his army of smearmongers show Kerry.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Fellowship


That is the exact phrase Bush said in his press conference with the Iraqi PM a week or so ago. He said it at least three different times exactly as you are quoted above.



Indeed. Be careful what you say if you do not want this.

Fellowship [/B] :wow:

ouch!

[giant]

The rest of that email to Andrew Sullivan pretty much nails it:
Subsequent rationales for the war were not convincing. Engage the terrorists in Iraq or face them here? Does anyone really believe that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had a one-way ticket to the US and a scholarship at a flight school but decided to turn around and have a go at us in Iraq after he heard about the invasion? Iraq, in fact, supplies a theater for attacking the US that most of the fighters there, foreign and Iraqi, would not have if we had not given it to them. If Saddam Hussein were still in power, we could continue to contain him for 2 billion per year and when his system did finally collapse, it would be up to Iraqis to sort out the mess, not us. As for Blair's claim that Muslim militants hate the West for our very existence, I don't buy it. Resent us, yes. Envy us, sure. But if we didn't meddle in Middle Eastern affairs, I doubt they would attack us. Bush's claim in his first public statement after 9/11 that they hate us for our freedom is a close parallel to the claim of Muslim militants that we hate them for their core identity and values, that is, that we hate them for being Muslims, that we hate Islam as such. The Middle East is a disaster. Its economies are stagnant, its resources are minimal and being depleted, its population is growing, its infrastructure is crumbling, its literacy rates are low and so on and so forth. There will be no stability there in the foreseeable future and the correct response to this should be to minimize involvement with the region.

Now, we are stuck fighting to try to democratize a polity that is inherently unstable. If there are democratic elections, the result is not likely to be a liberal democracy, but rather one of the illiberal sort. Defeat would be a disaster, victory will be hard to define and unlikely to bring great reward. I agree with Christopher Hitchens that it is shameful to be wishing defeat on the US in Iraq in the hopes that this translates into defeat for Bush at home. I agree that we have to face the fact that we are committed in Iraq now and cannot afford to talk about the past as though turning back the clock were an option. I am no fan of Kerry. Despite all of this, I don't want to hand another four years to a man who brought us unnecessarily into this predicament at such great cost and who waged this war so incompetently. This, combined with the irresponsible economic policy that you have also criticized, have convinced me to cast my vote for Kerry. We cannot afford to dwell on the past at the expense of engaging with the present as it is. But neither can we forget past lapses of judgment and hope that they will not occur again.

[Aquatic]

Originally posted by SDW2001
There have been mistakes. Everyboday knows that.


That is the exact phrase Bush said in his press conference with the Iraqi PM a week or so ago. He said it at least three different times exactly as you are quoted above

I bet Bush couldn't spell the word "somebody" either. Dumbass.:rolleyes:

[SDW2001]

It's called an analogy. Unless you've made up your mind to be ready to find offense wherever you can find it, I think it's clear that the only criticism implied by the Taliban analogy is in regard to the danger of stressing ideology without regard to practical realities.


And it's an inappropriate analogy. Someone who compares the Bush administration with people that forced men to wear their beards at certain length, banned music, raped women for looking at them the wrong way....all with threat of death in the event of non-compliance? I can't take that person seriously, nor can I take seriously someone who embraces the analogy, including you.



If you think that even this is too much criticism of Bush and his people, please explain how you would interpret Bush's policies in Iraq and how you'd describe his key people as pragmatic rather than ideological. Can you honestly paint the current mess in Iraq as the result of mostly good, mostly wise decisions which merely "hit a few snags"?


First, you imply that ideological people are inherently wrong and ill-suited for government. I don't agree. Ideology can give someone a core set of values that can guide decisions. Too much pragmatism can be bad. As far the "decisions" made in Iraq, I would like to know what, specifically you can point out. The one that I agree with from the article is the disbanding of the Iraqi army. I also think we should have had more troops for security purposes. Other than that, what are your specific critiques?





I don't know that everybody knows that. Not counting the obvious admission you can get most people to make about any human endeavor, that "nothing's perfect", I think there are quite a few people out there who believe, or have let themselves be convinced, that everything in Iraq is going swimmingly. Oh, sure, we've had a few problems, but that's to be expected, right? Strength, optimism, and "staying the course" will win the day!

There is some power in positive thinking, but that doesn't mean optimism is always warranted, and optimism of-and-by-itself does not a policy make. You wouldn't know that from listening to a Bush campaign rally, however.



And to listen to Kerry, you'd think that Iraq is lost. You'd think that we'd lost 50,000 men. You'd think that elections will never happen. The way to achieve things is to set a goal and aggressively pursue it. If not optimism, what would you propose? I think the bush administration has been fairly clear. If you listen to Rumsfeld and Powell, they have made some clear statements on where things stand. The problem is that when they do that, the left goes nuts. "LOOK! Rumsfeld said that we not might be able to have elections everywhere in Iraq!.....I knew it!" When Bush speaks optimistically, he's criticized for glossing over the problems. I just don't know what you want to hear, and what you want to do differently. Further, I don't see that Kerry has proposed anything different on how to handle situation.


As for the article, the entire premise is that we invaded Iraq as some sort of economic and ideological experiment....that the evil Bush administration is simply power hungry, and Iraq was the place where they could demonstrate that lust for total domination. Put simply, that premise is stupid. It's nearly a conspriracy theory in itself.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Aquatic
I bet Bush couldn't spell the word "somebody" either. Dumbass.:rolleyes:

Give me a fucking break. It's a typo.

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
And it's an inappropriate analogy. Someone who compares the Bush administration with people that forced men to wear their beards at certain length, banned music, raped women for looking at them the wrong way....all with threat of death in the event of non-compliance? I can't take that person seriously, nor can I take seriously someone who embraces the analogy, including you.
Go to school. Comparing countries is what political science is all about.

Stop making it so painfully obvious that your school didn't require band majors to get a real education.

[rageous]

Originally posted by giant
Go to school. Comparing countries is what political science is all about.

Stop making it so painfully obvious that your school didn't require band majors to get a real education.

And stop making it so painfully obvious your parents forgot to teach you any tact.

[giant]

Is it even possible for you to contribute on topic, rageous? Should I link to a list of your posts where you've entered a thread, totally disregarded the topic and done nothing but attack another poster? I can think of a number of them off the top of my head.

Like I said back when SDW entered: this thread was nice while it lasted...

[rageous]

Originally posted by giant
Is it even possible for you to contribute on topic, rageous? Should I link to a list of your posts where you've entered a thread, totally disregarded the topic and done nothing but attack another poster? I can think of a number of them off the top of my head.

Sort of like you did above? Yes? Great.

Sorry you are so put off by behavior quite similar to your own.

[rageous]

I'll tell you what giant, go ahead and compile your list. Also while doing so, make sure you include every post I was replying to in your list. I think you'll discover an interesting pattern.

[giant]

So what's that, 3 posts now where you totally disregarded the topic to do nothing but make personal attacks? Look in the mirror.

[giant]

Originally posted by rageous
Sort of like you did above? Yes?
Yeah. Look up at my posts. 3 posts of measured, informed content. Look and learn. You, too, SDW. In two of them I even quoted a conservative's statements from another conservative's site.

[rageous]

Originally posted by giant
Yeah. Look up at my posts. 3 posts of measured, informed content. Look and learn. You, too, SDW. In two of them I even quoted a conservative's statements from another conservative's site.

Did I quote all your posts in my reply? Or did I quote the one where you were being a mouth and merely insulting someone instead of maintaining the substantive trend you'd set for yourself in this thread?

I ask rhetorically, of course...

I did not address your other posts because I had no disagreement with them. The last, however, was a much different matter.

[giant]

So what is that, 4 posts where ignore the thread topic and just jump in to attack me? At least you haven't called me an 'asshole' like you did last time you decided to try to derail a thread by attacking me.

Sit down, get out a mirror and STFU. After all, who was the one that jumped into this thread, contributed absolutely nothing and totally derailed it? That's right, you. Get off your high horse.

[rageous]

Originally posted by giant
So what is that, 4 posts where ignore the thread topic and just jump in to attack me? At least you haven't called me an 'asshole' like you did last time you decided to try to derail a thread by attacking me.

Sit down, get out a mirror and STFU. After all, who was the one that jumped into this thread, contributed absolutely nothing and totally derailed it? That's right, you. Get off your high horse.

I apologize. You are absolutely right. I did indeed derail the thread when I started insulting other participants in this very thread. Specifically when I said:

Go to school. Comparing countries is what political science is all about.

Stop making it so painfully obvious that your school didn't require band majors to get a real education.

I had no business insulting SDW's intelligence and perceived lack of education. It was entirely inappropriate of me, and you've done a great job in exposing me for stepping across the line.

[giant]

So what is that, all 5 posts of yours devoid of content and just attacking me?

SDW's argument, like so many, was along the same lines as saying java isn't OO. Just because the subject is politics doesn't negate the fact that his argument was totally extremely ignorant.

[rageous]

Originally posted by giant
So what is that, all 5 posts of yours devoid of content and just attacking me?

SDW's argument, like so many, was along the same lines as saying java isn't OO. Just because the subject is politics doesn't negate the fact that his argument was totally extremely ignorant.

And perhaps I agree with your final asessment of SDW's posts. I suppose that's why I may not have chimed in on the thread earlier. I understand you like to see people publicly agree with you, but I feel no real need to post "You're right, giant." or "Perfect point." every time I agree with you. If I feel my point of view has already been summed up by you or anyone else, then I haven't much more to offer.

Now, where I did choose to enter in is where you strayed from being someone who elects to present their case in a well researched and thorough manner, and instead opts for your best impersonation of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog.

You might look at my calling you out for unnecessary personal attacks as derailing a thread. But I disagree. Once you chose to personally attack someone else, you already derailed it. And I'm going to tell you you're being an ass for doing so.

[giant]

Originally posted by rageous
Now, where I did choose to enter in is where you strayed from being someone who elects to present their case in a well researched and thorough manner, and instead opts for your best impersonation of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog.
He was given a chance. If someone told you java wasn't oo, and then you pointed out that it obviously is and they countered with the same moronic statement, it's crystal clear that they are not rational or honest. This is particularly true when the member is someone who constantly posts this garbage and even flat out fabricates information repeatedly.

The only reason he gets a pass at all is because the subject is politics and in these days "balance" means letting these people get away with constant BS. Constant.
Once you chose to personally attack someone else, you already derailed it.
If we were in future hardware having a discussion about G5 powerbooks and someone came in posting that apple wouldn't ever put in a 64MB vram card in a powerbook and wouldn't shut up about it, it's that person that derails the thread. It's no different here, except that everyone thinks that these lunatics should get away with it because the subject is politics.

[rageous]

I'll agree that's the sorry state "balance" has gotten to and leave it at that.

[giant]

And I agree I am an ass about it, but it's out of frustration and bewilderment.

[rageous]

Originally posted by giant
And I agree I am an ass about it, but it's out of frustration and bewilderment.

:lol:

Fair enough

<shakes hand>

[talksense101]

Originally posted by SDW2001
And it's an inappropriate analogy. Someone who compares the Bush administration with people that forced men to wear their beards at certain length, banned music, raped women for looking at them the wrong way....all with threat of death in the event of non-compliance?


You need an example... How about the law that prevents people in Iraq from honking their car horns? People do get arrested for violation and their vehicles get siezed whimsically even otherwise. "The US government needs this vehicle, get out!". I think that resembles the Taliban.

To quote a more serious example, Fallujah's siege.


...
As for the article, the entire premise is that we invaded Iraq as some sort of economic and ideological experiment....that the evil Bush administration is simply power hungry, and Iraq was the place where they could demonstrate that lust for total domination. Put simply, that premise is stupid. It's nearly a conspriracy theory in itself.

There can be no justification for the US to attack another country without proof of any sort. Pre-emptive attack, my ass. You sir, have been brainwashed by the system to believe anything your government tells you. A government that spends billions of tax payer dollars to satisfy the greed of it's corporate masters.