Keith, what we're into here is the thorny question of the extent to which the people of a modern democracy are responsible for the commitments their leaders make on their behalf. IMHO, they are responsible, even when it later becomes evident that the commitments were based on misconceptions or lies. I don't think you could have a functioning democratic state without public acceptance of that responsibility. Public indifference and apathy can not be used as an excuse. People who enjoy the benefits of citizenship in a modern state must be prepared to take responsibility for what that state does.
If Bush and Blair lied, one would expect public outrage, forcing resignations. I don't know if impeachment is a possibility in the UK, but it certainly is in the US - witness Nixon's resignation in 1974 when it was pretty obvious that he was facing impeachment. >From what we read, there has been a substantial outrage toward Blair in the UK, but not very much toward Bush in the US, at least not yet. Keep the pressure up and Blair will be forced to resign. When the enormity of what the US has committed itself to in Iraq and the impact of the Bush tax cuts on the US ability to deliver become more evident, Bush could become a one-term President. However, even if Bush and Blair were out of the picture, the commitment to fix up Iraq would remain. The big question would then become whether the coalition of the willing would turn into the coalition of the unwilling. I think it would be shameful if it did. Yet I accept your point that it probably will. Ed > Ed, > > At 08:37 31/08/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >Keith, the point I was making was not about Blair or Bush, it was about > >Britain and the US as collectives. As such, they made certain decisions via > >the highest offices of their lands. Those decisions, at the time, were > >popular. > > Hold on! I'm not the one who's confusing things. If Bush's and Blair's > decisions were popular because they misinformed the public, then if the > public lose confidence in them later then the latter are quite likely to > call for the return of the troops, particularly if they're getting shot up, > and if the occupation troops can't restore security or minimum basic > services such as water, electricity, etc. > > > That the end result has been something of a disaster does not > >permit the US or Britain to deny their responsibility toward the people of > >Iraq as a collective. > > Once again, there's a confusion here. You can't switch the responsibility > from Bush and Blair to the people when the latter were misinformed. The > people of the US and UK may, or may not, feel a sense of responsibility to > the Iraqi people. I think the chattering classes (say the top 20-30% in > income and education) probably do feel synmpathetic to a limited extent > because Bush and Blair belong to their 'set' as it were, but the rest of > the population is largely indifferent because they're normally largely > indifferent to anything that happens abroad. Most newspapers carry hardly > any foreign news because of this. Most people buy lottery tickets and > gamble at the bookmakers. They don't support international aid charities. > I'm not making any sort of moral or elitish point here. This is human > nature. The in-group/out-group syndrome -- as humans have been for at least > 100,000 years. I'm talking simply about reality. > > > They made a mess and, regardless of who becomes > >President and Prime Minister, they have to fix it up, or at least > >demonstrate leadership in doing so. If sincere and genuine leadership were > >shown, other nations would probably join in. But, IMHO, to say oops, sorry > >and walk out is not an acceptable option. > > Of course, any responsible leadership in the US or the UK ought to shoulder > a great deal of responsibility for trying to put things right. But they > won't do. Politicians seldom do. > > There are two entirely different points involved here: > > 1. Don't expect the majority of the populations of US and UK to feel any > sense of responsibility at all apart from *fleeting* sympathy when some > unique tragedy, usually involving children, occurs; > > 2. It took someone as brutal as Saddam to bang the heads of the Kurds, > Sunnis and Shias together (and killing many of them in the process) to > bring about a country that was gradually making progress towards becoming a > nation with a cultural identity. The Americans and British don't have a > snowflake's chance in hell of producing a government that will work unless > they're just as brutal as Saddam and remain so for at least another > 30/40/50 years. That's my opinion, but the evidence is already plain to > see. I don't just mean the increasing terrorist incidents (largely of > Saddam cronies), but I mean the impossibility of producing a provisional > government of these disparate political/national/religious groups. Time and > again, a new provisional council has been announced, and then it's > collapsed. It's happened about four times already since the invasion, and > each time it happens, one party or another will raise the ante afterwards. > For example, until the latest provisional council had collapsed a week or > so ago, the Shias were in agreement with the Americans that a > constitution-forming committee should be formed -- without any provisos > except the reasonable one that such a committee should represent all shades > of Iraqi opinion. It's now the case that the Shias (even the moderate ones) > will not agree to a constitution-forming council until it's been elected by > the people. In other words it will be Shia-dominated. All the time it's one > step forwards and two steps backwards. > > Since the latest Ayatollah assassination, the position now is that even if > Saddam is captured and all his henchmen terrorists rounded up, the Shias > (or the Sunnis, or the Kurds) will start to become terrorists. Have you > noted that the Ayatollah's coffin in procession today was surrounded by > armed Shias? This is an entirely new manifestation of a worsening situation. > > The fact that the Americans and the British have produced a social, health > and economic catastrophe, and the fact that Bush and Blair have a moral > responsibility towards the Iraqi people are both now beside the point. They > happened to have resurrected age-old enmities that only they (the Iraqis) > can sort out -- that is, if the Americans and the British insist that Iraq > must remain what is basically a conglomeration of three different nations > hastily put together by the British many decades ago. It was a stupid > decision then, and it remains a stupid decision today to hold these parties > together unless you're prepared to tolerate a tyrannical regime which will > oppress them long enough (two or three generations) until there's a gradual > cultural merging between them. > > The Americans have failed totally in Afghanistan -- only a portion of Kabul > is secure now by means of 3,000 American-paid mercenaries armed to the > teeth who follow the President around 7/24. The countryside is now divided > much the same as before with warlords and tribal chiefs. Afghanistan is now > a major producer of drugs. The only difference between now and before the > Americans bombed them is that the Taliban is now (as it was originally) > just one of those factions and is holed up in one particular part of > Afghanistan (together with Osam bin Laden, of course). > > The Americans failed in Afghanistan. > > The Americans are going to fail in an even more difficult situation -- > namely Iraq. > > Before the invasion I was writing on FW that the only thing that the > Americans would be able to achieve would be to guard the oil fields and get > the oil out. It would seem that they can't even do that now. As the oil > starts to flow, the pipeline is sabotaged. > > Even the 'greedy' oil corporations which, in my naivete, I previously > thought would go into the Iraqi oilfields with alacrity are having nothing > to do with them becaue they know that any putative 'contracts' with the > American occupation authorities will not stand up in court in later years > and they would have to pay back any gains they might make. > > This has been the most egregious mistake the Americans have ever made. At > least in Vietnam they gave their honest reasons for going in. > > There is absolutely nothing that the Americans can do to produce a peaceful > society and a provisional government that will be agreed and obeyed by all > parties. I don't know how long they will stay in Iraq but it's my judgement > that the American people will be calling for an end to it within 12 months. > Please let us not talk about morals or responsibility -- they're not words > in the normal politicians' lexicon, least of all in Bush's and Blair's as > they've already shown by the deaths they've imposed on thousands of Iraqi > citizens and the thousands to follow because of insanitary conditions and > lack of services. What will be more to the point is political expediency > -- and such things as the unemployment rate in America, the size of the > budget deficit, and whether Bush's team can invent a reason for getting out > of Iraq 'with honour', as it were, (which, of course, they are quite > capable of doing), etc. > > Keith > > > Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England, > <www.evolutionary-economics.org> > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
