At 21:00 24/08/09 +0200, Nasir Khan wrote:
[see [Marxism] The US War against Iraq: The Destruction of a Civilization]
[full text: http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/08/the-us-war-against-iraq/]
>by James Petras, Dissident Voice, August 21, 2009
>
>The US seven-year war and occupation of Iraq is driven by several
>major political forces
>
>[including] the following (in order of
>importance).
Unfortunately the quote ends there so you do not get Petras' "list" of
political forces behind the Iraq war unless you go to the full article as I
did. What you will find is exactly TWO items on his list (of why the US
went to war in Iraq), which are, "in order of importance":
1) What he calls "The Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC)," essentially
referring to JEWS in the US government whose "top priority was to advance
Israels agenda."
and (of less importance):
2) "Civilian militarists (like Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney)"
who are NOT JEWISH.
I'm sorry to boil it down to this, but that is just about what he says; I
don't think that I misread it! My revulsion isn't just that his "analysis"
is wrong, as most people reading this will recognize (but I'm not putting
it beyond debate). I'm worried about the EFFECT of framing the issue in
such terms which go beyond analysis and into ethnic identification of the
enemy. That has a miseducational effect on the left (the majority of those
who would be reading this) and misrepresents the legitimate positions of
the left which oppose western imperialism without requiring (in the first
instance) a distinction between the interests of the US and the Israeli
ruling classes, let alone identifying the ethnicity of US government leaders.
I don't want to be dogmatic and certainly an in-depth analysis of
individuals/ideologues involved in government decisions can discuss all
aspects of their background. But it is clearly troubling when one's
analysis of a imperialist nation going to war requires an ethnic
identification of the leaders who are considered responsible, especially
when it is further stated that they are acting in the "interests of a
foreign power." Petras essentially says that, but being a leftist doesn't
go so far as to call them "disloyal" or acting against the interests of the
US as is openly charged by right-wing "antiwar" forces such as Paul Craig
Roberts and Jeff Gates, whose columns have also been forwarded to this list
by Nasir Khan, with equal disregard.
BTW my objections here are not directed to Nasir Khan, the poster, who
apparently doesn't read what's posted to the list (or if he does, he has
essentially never reacted to what someone else has written). I assume he
isn't reading this (but if you are, please prove me wrong!). I am worried
about this form of discourse infecting the left, or even being seen as
acceptable. There does exist, especially in the US, a right-wing antiwar
movement (antiwar.com, Pat Buchanan, etc.) and they never fail to direct
their anger against Israel. Indeed most of what they say about either the
US government or Israel and their filthy wars is not unlike our own
propaganda. But you can look a little deeper and they generally betray
their identification of Zionism with "Jews" and an international link which
is tantamount to the "International Jewish Conspiracy" theories of yesteryear.
Unfortunately Petras seems to be walking the same ground. I say
"unfortunately" because unlike the above listed individuals, I can see that
Petras IS an actual leftist, so I consider this also a matter of
embarrassment rather than just denouncing someone as an antisemite (as I
will happily do with those right-wingers I mentioned). And there is a
possibly legitimate debate about whether "Israel led the US into the Iraq
war" as these right-wingers like to claim, but is also erroneously believed
by some leftists. There was a debate over the role of the importance of the
Israel lobby in determining US policy between Petras and Norman Finkelstein
which is transcribed at:
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=978
The spectrum on this issue is described by the moderator as spanning views
from Walt/Merscheimer to those of Noam Chomsky. While Petras is in the
former camp, Finkelstein places himself in "the middle" of this spectrum
(but I doubt Petras would give him any credit relative to Chomsky!). I
think Finkelstein "wins" the debate (my own prejudice, perhaps) but in the
course of the discussion, Petras even laments Finkelstein's "blind spot,
which is understandable" given his ethnicity! I suppose that would also
disqualify reasonable discussion of these issues by many members of this
list. :-(
Petras makes the extent of his views rather clear in this excerpt:
>I think it is impossible to deny this and say 'Well, you can't deduce policy
>from ethnic affiliations." Yes, you can! When that ethnic group puts forward
>a position that puts the primacy of a foreign government at the center of
>their foreign policy and prejud
