From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Wed Dec 08 2004 - 19:19:00 GMT
Hi Sam,
Note subject change. Maybe we can use this thread to discuss the
Iraq situation, as well as other power and quality issues. I'd very
much like to bring the MOQ into this when appropriate, with the
understanding that both of us find it inadequate, in some respects.
On 3 Dec 2004 at 10:58, Sam Norton wrote:
Picked up a copy of Understanding Power yesterday, I'll let you know
how I get on with it.
msh says:
Great. I look forward to discussing it with you. One of the things
I like about that book is that you can jump around in it, focusing on
topics of interest, without having to read from cover to cover.
It's very difficult to find someone with whom to discuss Chomsky's
ideas in a thoroughly critical yet respectful manner. People haven't
read him, but revile him because of what others have told them he
says. Then there are those who read him as if he were some kind of
superhuman force of nature, never wrong, and just plain saintly in
all regards. He's a genius, that's for sure, and since he's focused
a lot of that brain power on international affairs for 60 years, he's
worth listening to, IMO. His lifetime dedication to revealing
entrenched Power's assaults on human freedom and dignity certainly
deserves our respect; but in other ways he's as imperfect as the rest
of us, and he's the first to say so.
> sam:
> I used to subscribe to Norman Solomon's regular
> e-mails, until after 9/11, when I got fed up with him.
>
> msh asks:
> Why?
<snip> I shifted 'rightwards' after 9/11, through following the
discussions that that provoked about the value(s) of the US system.
There seemed to be a sense of moral equivalence between the US system
and other regimes (specifically the Taliban in that case) which, in
the end, I found that I profoundly rejected.
msh says:
This idea of "moral equivalence," though it's frequently tossed
about, seems to me to be rather ill-defined. Can you tell me what
you mean by it? And did you find that Solomon advocated this idea?
Or was this something you sensed just from reading the MOQer posts.
If Solomon, can you remember a specific column or two? Or maybe
another example of the moral equivalence argument in action, and who
made it?
sam:
That is, I am comfortable with the notion that the US system is, in
an absolute sense, qualitatively superior to many of the alternatives
on offer - and, with caveats, it needs to be defended as such. I'll
look at him again now.
msh says:
Well sure. But this brings up the whole issue of viable threat
assessment and rational response. When the Oklahoma City terrorist
bombing occurred, US authorities behaved more or less rationally,
using normal criminal procedures in apprehending and trying and
convicting the terrorist. If McVeigh had escaped back to Idaho or
wherever, and authorities suspected he was there, they wouldn't have
bombed Idaho (or Montana or Texas). Any sort of rational concept of
justice would have precluded this: you want to apprehend and punish
the criminal, not everyone and anyone within a thousand miles of
where he once lived. After 9/11, when the US bombed Afghanistan on
the pretext of trying to apprehend SBL, we were murdering his and the
Taliban's VICTIMS. When we invaded Iraq under the serially
discredited pretexts of revenge for and protection against other
9/11s, disarming Hussein, or democratizing Iraq, we were consciously
murdering the Bathist regime's VICTIMS.
sam:
My most consistent source of news and comment, since I became
interested in current affairs as a teenager, has been the Economist.
msh says:
I've scanned The Economist on the web, but will now take a closer
look. My experience has been that financial journals (Wall Street
Journal, The Financial Times) are often excellent mainstream sources
of information, discounting the editorial pages, of course. The
reason is that their readers demand accurate information in order to
make the best business decisions.
sam:
I think it's a mistake to conflate the 'corporate' agenda with the
'conservative' agenda, especially on values questions. The thing I
like about the Economist is that it's own attitude and bias is
remarkably consistent and obvious, which makes it easier to weigh
things in the balance.
msh says:
I agree completely. The corporate media are concerned with
maximization of profits, as well as centralization of power. They
will appear conservative only to the extent that conservatism
supports this agenda. It's just that there is an obvious connection
between conservative values and corporate values, so, more often
than not, the folks in control of corporations will be conservative.
msh earlier:
What's clear to me is that any human being who seeks for himself
immense power over others (and all the perks that go with it), is
going to be somewhat corrupt to start with. Once power is achieved,
the unwillingness to relinquish it often leads to exponentially
greater levels of corruption. I believe that this outcome is
unavoidable as long as we retain within our societies hierarchies of
unaccountable power and authority, of any kind.
sam:
I have sympathy with that, but I think we need to be careful to
distinguish between the 'systematic' corruption, and the individual
corruption of particular people within the system. That is, you can
be a very nice person, kind to your children etc, and still commit
abominable acts because the nature of the system dictates it.
msh says:
Sure. But such people have either internalized the values of the
system so that they've convinced themselves that the abominable acts
are necessary; or they are truly suffering from some sort of
psychological disconnect. And, as you suggest, there are also people
who absolutely will not commit or contribute to abominable acts
dictated by the system. It's just that such people are usually
weeded out long before they can take a public stand. There are great
exceptions of course: William Blum (US State Department), Philip
Agee (CIA), Scott Ritter, Dennis Halliday, Ramsey Clark, Richard
Clarke. And my personal favorite: Hugh Thompson, the US helicopter
pilot who set his chopper down between My Lai villagers and American
soldiers who were trying to kill them. He ordered his door gunner
and crew chief to "cover him" as he went to confront the American
forces and subsequently coax civilians out of a bunker to enable
their evacuation. This guy trained his guns on his own troops and
stopped them cold, saving many innocent lives. (I believe this
incident is documented in the notes to Understanding Power. But you
can find plenty of confirmation on the Internet.)
msh earlier:
But I also understand your reluctance to reject the idea that OUR
leaders are somehow different in nature from THEIR leaders. This is
the expected result of being told from the cradle, every day in a
hundred ways, that our country is great and good, our leaders
beneficent and wise; though they may make a mistake here or there,
our leaders are diligently and selflessly striving to make the world
a better place for all. But the educational and mass media
apparatus of EVERY state is dedicated to inculcating these exact
notions. This fact alone should make us suspicious of our own
beliefs along this line.
sam:
Yes, but even after viewing comparative political systems through the
hermeneutic of suspicion I remain of the view that the "Western"
system (I'm thinking specifically of: the rule of law; individual
autonomy; democracy; free speech etc) is indeed better than the
alternatives.
msh says:
Sure. Better than the alternatives, in some ways. And it's
interesting that the values you mention are intellectual not social,
in terms of the MOQs moral hierarchy.
But there are many other so-called American or Western values that
are not so clearly worth defending: capital punishment, privitization
of vital public services, regressive taxation policies, union
busting, uncompensated transfer of public resources into private
hands. We also need to make a distinction between how a government
treats its own people, and how that same government acts in foreign
affairs. See the example I gave above regarding the difference in
response to domestic versus international terrorist attacks. Or, as
I've mentioned elsewhere, think of ancient Greece which treated its
citizens wonderfully (except for women and slaves, of course), but
was absolutely brutal in it's conquest of non-Greeks. It's just pure
confusion to point to some admirable domestic policies as
justification for contributing to international terrorism in the
process of conquering other nations.
sam:
The problem is that the way the system functions means
that it falls seriously short of where it should be (and where it
claims to be). But pointing out the flaws should not, I believe,
blind us to the benefits that obtain under it.
msh says:
I agree completely. And I'm sure that you'd agree such benefits
cannot be used to justify aggression against sovereign nations,
unless in response to direct or imminent attack.
sam before:
Thing is, I was also having this argument with a friend, and saying
that Bush wasn't quite as immoral as my friend was alleging. And
then my friend pointed out that Bush was happy to execute minors and
the mentally retarded, and I was silenced, because (as my friend
well knew) I think capital punishment is indefensible.
msh replied:
As do I. And how different, really, is this from sending a Cruise
missile screaming into an apartment building full of sleeping
Iraqis? In fact, it's obvious to me that the latter is far worse.
sam:
Hmm. That there are specific 'war crimes' of which the US/UK etc
should repent is, I think, clear - but I'm more worried by things
like cluster bombs, napalm and phosphorous etc than the cruise
missile attacks (unless there is a mistake in targeting - Chinese
embassy anyone?)
msh says:
Of course I agree with you on the use of cluster bombs, napalm, and
would add DU munitions and boring old landmines, all of which were
and are being used in the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq.
sam:
I still think that our munitions are greatly more targeted than they
have ever been before, and we take much more care to avoid civilian
casualties than other cultures.
msh says:
Well when I hear about "precision bombing" I can't help but think
about that wry description of Organized Crime: it's not all that
organized. Here's how I see it. If someone drives a bus at high
speed through a crowded neighborhood and kills a dozen people, ok
that's an accident. But if the same guy does the same thing the next
day and the next day and the next, in what sense can we claim that
the deaths he causes are unintentional?
It's clear to me that governments use aerial assaults rather than
direct infantry attacks because such assaults, especially when we are
talking unmanned missiles and stealth aircraft against primitive or
non-existent anti-aircraft activity, are essentially risk-free to the
aggressor. But massive bombing of civilian areas ALWAYS results in
the indiscriminate killing of civilians. What follows from this is
obvious: the lives of the aggressor's fighting men are considered of
greater value than the lives of innocent civilians living in the
nation under attack. This, to me, is morally indefensible. Again,
for emphasis, think back to the USG's response to OK City bombing
versus the WTC attacks.
sam earlier:
I think it has been well established that Blair, for example,
strongly distorted the evidence re WMD to drum up support for going
to war. What I am not so convinced about is that this distortion
makes the overall decision worthless.
msh earlier:
And my point would be that the distortion is evidence of his
corruption and, therefore, the overall decision should be regarded
as HIGHLY suspicious, if not worthless. His argument is very
simple:
1) We want to invade and occupy Iraq.
2) We need to persuade people this is necessary for their safety.
3) There is evidence that this isn't necessary for their safety.
4) Therefore, we must distort the evidence.
sam:
I think his reasoning was more: the present situation cannot
continue; the choice is therefore "military action or retreat?";
msh asks:
What was unbearably different about the "present situation" that
forced a choice between military action or diplomatic retreat? If
anything, UN inspections had revealed that Hussein was weaker and
less dangerous than ever before. How all of a sudden did this brutal
thug's behavior become intolerable? Especially in light of the fact
that his most brutal behavior was carried out under the watchful eye
and with the tacit support of the US and UK, which were now so
desperate to topple him.
sam continues:
he chose military action (on liberal internationalist/humanitarian
grounds, I believe);
msh says:
The liberal internationalist/humanitarian grounds for his choice are
certainly open to question. But this isn't necessary here because I
think premise one is invalid.
sam continues:
we must maximise political support for this;
msh says:
Ok.
sam continues:
the argument about WMD is a useful one; let's push it as far as it
can go.
msh says:
If he had any inkling of the evidentiary weakness of the argument,
then pushing it becomes dishonest. Besides it smacks of using an
ogre story to scare children into obedience. Why focus on that
argument if there were stronger ones to be made?
Anyway... enough for now...
Talk later,
Mark
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 09 2004 - 18:49:27 GMT