[Marxism] Are they winning ? Wolfowitz on inhumanity

Jurriaan Bendien bendien at tomaatnet.nl
Sun Feb 1 15:37:45 MST 2004


Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, visiting the Iraqi capital Sunday,
said the suicide bombings at the offices of the country's two main Kurdish
parties in Irbil on Eid al-Adha (killing at least 56 people and wounding
more than 235) showed the inhumanity of those responsible. I'm not sure that
is the case, since a protest against the negation of your humanity can also
be human, even if you kill yourself with it. But, certainly, killing other
people in the process shows no love of humanity.

Personally, I abhor the suicide bombings just as much as Wolfowitz does, but
the controversy doesn't end there. "They [i.e. the bombers] are not about
Islam," he said. "They're about their own fanatical view of the world, and
they will kill to try to advance it." This is not merely an expression of
regret, it seeks to blame and politicise.

So whereas the suicide bombers represent a fanatical minority at odds with
Islam, the PNAC sect in Washington with their secret societies and mystical
rituals represent the true love of Christ manifesting itself on behalf of
the American christian majority ?

So PNAC doesn't orchestrate mass killings, and the provision of military
weaponry to those who perpetrate mass killings ?

As far as I am concerned, this idea goes over the limits of credibility.
Wolfowitz himself is among the most ferocious ideologues of American
imperialism, prosytelising the divine right of the US government to subvert
and overthrow foreign governments, after American weapons sales turn out
bad, because they're used against American interests. Then, when the
"compensation" strategy turns sour and brutal revolts occur, it's the work
of an "inhuman" minority.

Wolfowitz added: "But we're winning, and they're losing."

You see here the American ideology: winning is the most important thing, and
winning means above all defeating the opponent, defeating the enemy in a
competitive struggle, reflecting the competition between corporations for
profits and markets, the exultation of a fight to the end, as vindication of
human and cultural superiority.

The question ought then to be asked, (1) whether they really are winning, if
people are prepared to blow themselves to smithereens, (2) what exactly they
are winning, apart from oil profits and a bit of geostrategic advantage, and
(3) when Wolfowitz talks about "humanity" or religion, what humanity or
religion on his own part that reflects.

What Wolfowitz is really after is an Islamic capitalism that would be
non-violent and profitable, people that you could do deals with on an
equitable basis. But that is unlikely to happen, until the occupation ends,
and a sovereign Iraqi government can negotiate itself about the help that it
needs. However, the Pentagon strategy cannot even tolerate direct elections
at this stage.
The problem in Iraq is not the politics of occupation, but the occupation
itself.

The new justification of the occupation then becomes, that if the occupation
forces were not there, Iraqi's would be at each other's throats, a
peacekeeping argument already alluded to by Democrat Ike Skelton. In other
words, we'll do the job that the United Nations used to do before we ditched
them.

Wolfowitz imagines a liberating war in Iraq, at the conclusion of which
there would not be a civil war, but deep gratitude to the United States for
removing a tyrannical regime. But that is not how it works - a people has to
free itself, it cannot free itself on the basis of a unilateral imperialist
intervention. Foreigners might be able to help, at the invitation of the
local people, but in that case, it's a collaboration on a parity basis and
not the imposition of a foreign agenda.

Wolfowitz believes that Operation Desert Shield should have finished in 1991
by annihilating Saddam Hussein, then things would have gone so much better.
He would disagree there with the New York Times, which considered at the
time that the Gulf War war "a bargain" (sic.) because of the small number of
American lives lost (great "humanity" on display there).

But the decision not to launch an assault on Baghdad at that time was in
fact deliberate. The oil market was secure. With Hussein in power, Iraq did
not fragment and break up as a nation. The Kurds did not form their own
nation, and did not threaten Turkey. The Shiites could not form an alliance
with Iran. So although the result of the war was not optimal, it maintained
a relative stability in the balance of power. The supreme command knew that
very well, and that is why, after smashing a large part of his military
capability, they let Hussein stay. What did the US government do during the
Iran-Iraq war ? Well, not very much. In reality, that war was fought in good
part with American weapons.

Jurriaan









More information about the Marxism mailing list