The Decent Left or Whatever
As I have explained on more than one occasion, I was prompted to start this blog by a piece I read in Dissent Magazine by Norm Geras, a man for whom I had a great deal of respect, derived from his past work. In this article (Jan. 03) he was taking "the left" to task for not supporting George Bush's war in Iraq. His was an anti-totalitarian ,pro-democracy position ( like Hitchens) which remained oblivious to the the motives of the Bush administration, the history of Iraq, the pre-emptive rush to war but above all, the incalculable risks to a population of already desperate people ( years of war, oppression and UN sanctions). Because I and many others were skeptical I was being accused of supporting a tyrant, but I had done tons of research and was unconvinced not only of Sadaams possesion of WMDs, but that shock and awe followed by invasion could lead to anything but disaster.
Here is Norm yesterday: "Had I been able to forsee in Jan. and Feb. of 03, that the war would have the results it has actually had..I would have withheld my support without giving my voice to the opposition to it." Pathetic bastard, does this mean he would have just sat in his lounge chair and drank? Does he realize how much blood he has on his hands for lending his support? Those poor people were depending on our ability to look into some crystal ball?
And me, Im so smart, so godamned brilliant ,I think Ill sit here and gloat? No, no, Im actually just another silly fool, sitting in this comfortable room, intellectualizing about the decent left and wondering how many will die tommorro. I actually sent Geras an email back in 03, the tone was a bit nasty and he wrote back saying he would not engage me if I couldn't be civil. I was being honest, like he still isn't.Whatever.
posted by troutsky @ 8:54 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
At least he realizes, it appears, that he was wrong in supporting the war. Hitchens will never admit that. He is going on about evidence that even the pentagon disregards
It fits us all in one way or another trout. And the fitting is hardly something new.
"Oftentimes have I heard you speak of one who commits a wrong as though he were not one of you, but a stranger unto you and an intruder upon your world. As a single leaf turns not yellow but with the silent knowledge of the whole tree, so the wrong-doer cannot do wrong without the hidden will of you all." - Kahlil Gibran.
I second Graemeanfinson. Some of us were really stupid when this war started--like me. Some of us are still a bit stupid, but we learned a bit along the way--me again.
I don't think Geras has that much blood on his hands. We were going to war whether or not he clamored for it. I do think, however, that he could make up for some of that blood by learning from his experience and showing others how to avoid his pitfall.
I can't recall meeting a single person who actually believed in the rationale for the Iraq adventure. Every security analyst, every ME specialist (excluding Israeli ones) that I read, every Joe Bloggs in the street or the pub that I spoke to in this part of the world knew the WMD/terrorism thing was a lie.
Just about every poll outside of the US suggested that pretty much everyone knew that they were lies before the war, and people even vaguely aware of international affairs well knew that Iraq was a broken country with over a million dead from the (US/British administered) sanctions.
I know pretty much why Australian politicians jumped on the bandwagon and pushed the lies in face of public scepticism and outright disbelief.
But, how/why did the Democrats get sucked into voting for what was well known to be an imperialist grab for resources?
One notices the lack of contrition in Geras'mea culpa, even while distancing himself from responsibility or consequences.As wiser points out, were he to acknowledge complicity he could work towards redemption but instead he redirects blame towards others.
I understand the essence of your and Gibrans point, pocho, but on a less ephemeral level it seems to suggest there can be no critical analysis from one directed toward another.How can we reclaim the political?Which in the end this is, a political failure by Geras.Who is not just some democrat but in fact a smart leftist who understood imperialism!
I mentioned the bloody hands on neo-neocons sight and she defended herself by saying I forgot all the blood of Sadaams tyranny.Again, I am aware of that opression as I am aware of oppression around the globe but it is necessary first to DO NO HARM, to apply a precautionary principle just because righteous intent is no substitute for studied awareness and CRITICAL ANALYSIS.If the US invades Sudan or N Korea or Congo or Timor there could be hell to pay by innocents,surely there are other ,more thoughtful approaches?
I think the war Geras supported, and Hitch still does, is in their heads. Their vision of the war, was intellectual, not what Rumsfeld was doing in practice.
I bet when the Republicans lose the house, Hitch will try to jump left.
I think you are exactly right Ren.Easy talk when you don't have to wade through the blood. Hitch will be so irrelevent by then he won't be able to sell an astrology column.
Post a Comment
<< Home