Comments on: The Politics of Genocide http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/ Sat, 07 Jan 2012 13:12:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: George Carty http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/comment-page-1/#comment-12287 George Carty Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:19:57 +0000 http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/#comment-12287 Andrew Reynolds: <blockquote>When the US started supporting Hussein militant “Islam” of the Osama Bin Laden variety was not even a shadow on the horizon. </blockquote> Yes re Sunni jihadism, but <i>Iranian</i> Islamism was very real, and seemed very threatening to the US. Andrew Reynolds:

When the US started supporting Hussein militant “Islam” of the Osama Bin Laden variety was not even a shadow on the horizon.

Yes re Sunni jihadism, but Iranian Islamism was very real, and seemed very threatening to the US.

]]> By: George Carty http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/comment-page-1/#comment-12285 George Carty Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:13:09 +0000 http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/#comment-12285 Actually Ba'athist ideology was very much an Arab version of Nazism. Fortunately Saddam's personality was far more Stalin-like than Hitler-like, and Iraq did not have an industrial capacity even close to as strong as Germany's... Actually Ba’athist ideology was very much an Arab version of Nazism. Fortunately Saddam’s personality was far more Stalin-like than Hitler-like, and Iraq did not have an industrial capacity even close to as strong as Germany’s…

]]> By: sindbad http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/comment-page-1/#comment-12250 sindbad Fri, 09 Mar 2007 06:33:19 +0000 http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/#comment-12250 Pardon the 'scanveging' in my previous comment ;). Pardon the ’scanveging’ in my previous comment ;) .

]]> By: sindbad http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/comment-page-1/#comment-12224 sindbad Fri, 09 Mar 2007 02:20:28 +0000 http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/#comment-12224 Andrew, I agree with your Kuwait argument but that's not fully right, because the US played a role in the invasion of Kuwait: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/47359/" rel="nofollow">Video</a> Their objection was merely to do with the fact that Saddam's plan was a bit more ambitious than they bargained for. Saddam was actually more of a Socialist than anything. As for him being fascist, indeed. To kill people or invade them for oil or other resources is pure fascism, just as it is exhibited by the the governments of the countries that are scanveging for oil in Iraq these days. Andrew, I agree with your Kuwait argument but that’s not fully right, because the US played a role in the invasion of Kuwait:

Video

Their objection was merely to do with the fact that Saddam’s plan was a bit more ambitious than they bargained for. Saddam was actually more of a Socialist than anything. As for him being fascist, indeed. To kill people or invade them for oil or other resources is pure fascism, just as it is exhibited by the the governments of the countries that are scanveging for oil in Iraq these days.

]]> By: Andrew Reynolds http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/comment-page-1/#comment-12204 Andrew Reynolds Fri, 09 Mar 2007 00:32:25 +0000 http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/#comment-12204 George, When the US started supporting Hussein militant "Islam" of the Osama Bin Laden variety was not even a shadow on the horizon. The US was concerned about the influence of the Soviet Union and the survival of Israel. Fascistic despots like Saddam were seen, as sinbad rightly points out, as "our sons of *******" (lets use "SOB" from now on). The US did not see it as being their job to care about how the people were treated, provided their leaders were prepared to supply oil and support the US geopolitically. The long term results of this were either not appreciated or not cared about. I think this attitude started to change with the Iranian revolution when the US realised that one of their SOBs could be replaced, not by the communists, but by their own people. The collapse of the Soviet Union made the SOBs redundant and a potential liability. The growth of the militants, partly originally funded and encouraged by the US against the communists made the situation worse. US policy in the Middle East has been largely reactive ever since. George,
When the US started supporting Hussein militant “Islam” of the Osama Bin Laden variety was not even a shadow on the horizon. The US was concerned about the influence of the Soviet Union and the survival of Israel.
Fascistic despots like Saddam were seen, as sinbad rightly points out, as “our sons of *******” (lets use “SOB” from now on). The US did not see it as being their job to care about how the people were treated, provided their leaders were prepared to supply oil and support the US geopolitically.
The long term results of this were either not appreciated or not cared about.
I think this attitude started to change with the Iranian revolution when the US realised that one of their SOBs could be replaced, not by the communists, but by their own people. The collapse of the Soviet Union made the SOBs redundant and a potential liability. The growth of the militants, partly originally funded and encouraged by the US against the communists made the situation worse.
US policy in the Middle East has been largely reactive ever since.

]]> By: George Carty http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/comment-page-1/#comment-12116 George Carty Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:59:16 +0000 http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/#comment-12116 No, I think that fear of Islamism (either Iranian or home-grown) was the main reason for Western support of despots like Saddam Hussein. France was against the 2003 invasion of Iraq not out of any moral conviction, but because after the experience of 1990s Algeria (where a free election produced an Islamist victory that had to be invalidated by military force) they believed in "Better Saddam than Shari'ah". No, I think that fear of Islamism (either Iranian or home-grown) was the main reason for Western support of despots like Saddam Hussein.

France was against the 2003 invasion of Iraq not out of any moral conviction, but because after the experience of 1990s Algeria (where a free election produced an Islamist victory that had to be invalidated by military force) they believed in “Better Saddam than Shari’ah”.

]]> By: Andrew Reynolds http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/comment-page-1/#comment-12083 Andrew Reynolds Thu, 08 Mar 2007 07:32:35 +0000 http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/#comment-12083 No, sinbad - the day he went beyond the pale was when his forces crossed into Kuwait. But for that invasion he probably would still be in power. He was always happy to supply oil to whoever would pay for it - he needed the funding to build still more palaces. No, sinbad – the day he went beyond the pale was when his forces crossed into Kuwait. But for that invasion he probably would still be in power. He was always happy to supply oil to whoever would pay for it – he needed the funding to build still more palaces.

]]> By: sindbad http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/comment-page-1/#comment-12020 sindbad Thu, 08 Mar 2007 03:06:59 +0000 http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/#comment-12020 Atilla, have you watched the documentary "Pay the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq" by John Pilger? It is clearly proved that Washington played a major role in installing Saddam Hussein. An American CIA official infamously said: "Saddam is a son of a ***** but he is our son of a *****." Saddam Hussein would still be in power if he had been a bit more humble and forthcoming to Washington's demands for oil. The very sanctions imposed on Iraq were a great crime against humanity. Atilla, have you watched the documentary “Pay the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq” by John Pilger? It is clearly proved that Washington played a major role in installing Saddam Hussein. An American CIA official infamously said: “Saddam is a son of a ***** but he is our son of a *****.” Saddam Hussein would still be in power if he had been a bit more humble and forthcoming to Washington’s demands for oil. The very sanctions imposed on Iraq were a great crime against humanity.

]]> By: Attilla http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/comment-page-1/#comment-11869 Attilla Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:53:09 +0000 http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/#comment-11869 Prof anon: look at the old-fashioned way of waging war. This relied on taking food from the population of the country invaded, destroying growing crops, killing and eating livestock and leaving them to starve. This was standard warfare for a very long time. It was the only way to supply an army and served to damage the resources of the invaded country. That was why horse using nomads were so successful in invading and conquering settled populations for so long. The reason many wars then lasted a long time was because the armies didn't actually meet and fight one another until they were forced to or- as with the nomads- only after they had destroyed the society that supplied and fed the army. The Thirty Years war is probably the classic example of such a war; there weren't many battles but an awful lot of corpses. The same is true of Caesar's invasion of Gaul when you look at it without Caesar's self-serving gloss. The reason the armies of the Greeks had such an effect on the much larger Persian armies was because they went for clashes of arms as soon as possible and intended to destroy the enemy army. Muhamad: I was not disputing that Dresden, Hiroshima etc caused massive civilian casualties. However, the civilian casualties were a consequence of operations justified on military gounds. If you think Stalingrad another significant example you don't know much about siege warfare through history; in sieges any civilains in the besieged fortress were the chief targets of the attackers. The number killed by the Luftwaffe's attacks on London were statistically insignificant. The difference between the Kikuyu and Kenyans in general is important: quite a lot of other Kenyans joined in enthusiastically to attack the Kikuyu. More important, horrible though it was, it was not a genocidal war of extermination or a war of starvation. What makes you think i am 'defending' the methods used in either Iraq or the Congo? I am distinguishing between them and any kind of warfare. Sindbad: the only 'war against Vietnam' recently was the Chinese invasion. The US had South Vietnamese allies, which rather disproves your accusations of racism, though not other accusations. The same is true of Korea. Pol Pot was a Cambodian kiling other Cambodians. He didn't kill them because they were Cambodians but because they belonged to the wrong class in his eyes. The extermination of some of the smaller tribes may have been genocidal or it may have been bureaucratic convenience. What 'new weapons' did Washington 'test' in the Iran-Iraq war? Iraq was almost entirely armed by the USSR and France and one reason Iran had to make peace was because the USA wouldn't supply spare parts for thir US-made equipment. As Saddam Hussein put himself into power and made it plain through his long and controversial reign that he wasn't anybody's puppet you can't really blame anyone else for his activities, unless you blame the USA for not destroying him sooner. If he had been willing to be someone's puppet he'd probably still be in power. The point I was trying to make is that the contemporary ideal 'norm' for warfare, the complete destruction of regular armed forces and establishment of a new government in the defeated country, the sort of warfare that western armed forces are supposed to train for and fight, is actually the aberration and that what happened in RWanda, the Congo, Yugoslavia etc is much more like what has usually happened in history and that western armed forces ought to either accept this and recognise that the way to win wars effectively is to exterminate the enemy or not to go to war at all unless they are actually directly threatened. The economic powers of the west- as the example of Vietnam shows- are much more powerful than the willingness of their sentimental peoples to accept the logic of warfare unless they are immediately in danger. Prof anon: look at the old-fashioned way of waging war. This relied on taking food from the population of the country invaded, destroying growing crops, killing and eating livestock and leaving them to starve. This was standard warfare for a very long time. It was the only way to supply an army and served to damage the resources of the invaded country. That was why horse using nomads were so successful in invading and conquering settled populations for so long. The reason many wars then lasted a long time was because the armies didn’t actually meet and fight one another until they were forced to or- as with the nomads- only after they had destroyed the society that supplied and fed the army. The Thirty Years war is probably the classic example of such a war; there weren’t many battles but an awful lot of corpses. The same is true of Caesar’s invasion of Gaul when you look at it without Caesar’s self-serving gloss. The reason the armies of the Greeks had such an effect on the much larger Persian armies was because they went for clashes of arms as soon as possible and intended to destroy the enemy army.

Muhamad: I was not disputing that Dresden, Hiroshima etc caused massive civilian casualties. However, the civilian casualties were a consequence of operations justified on military gounds. If you think Stalingrad another significant example you don’t know much about siege warfare through history; in sieges any civilains in the besieged fortress were the chief targets of the attackers. The number killed by the Luftwaffe’s attacks on London were statistically insignificant.
The difference between the Kikuyu and Kenyans in general is important: quite a lot of other Kenyans joined in enthusiastically to attack the Kikuyu. More important, horrible though it was, it was not a genocidal war of extermination or a war of starvation. What makes you think i am ‘defending’ the methods used in either Iraq or the Congo? I am distinguishing between them and any kind of warfare.

Sindbad: the only ‘war against Vietnam’ recently was the Chinese invasion. The US had South Vietnamese allies, which rather disproves your accusations of racism, though not other accusations. The same is true of Korea. Pol Pot was a Cambodian kiling other Cambodians. He didn’t kill them because they were Cambodians but because they belonged to the wrong class in his eyes. The extermination of some of the smaller tribes may have been genocidal or it may have been bureaucratic convenience.
What ‘new weapons’ did Washington ‘test’ in the Iran-Iraq war? Iraq was almost entirely armed by the USSR and France and one reason Iran had to make peace was because the USA wouldn’t supply spare parts for thir US-made equipment. As Saddam Hussein put himself into power and made it plain through his long and controversial reign that he wasn’t anybody’s puppet you can’t really blame anyone else for his activities, unless you blame the USA for not destroying him sooner. If he had been willing to be someone’s puppet he’d probably still be in power.

The point I was trying to make is that the contemporary ideal ‘norm’ for warfare, the complete destruction of regular armed forces and establishment of a new government in the defeated country, the sort of warfare that western armed forces are supposed to train for and fight, is actually the aberration and that what happened in RWanda, the Congo, Yugoslavia etc is much more like what has usually happened in history and that western armed forces ought to either accept this and recognise that the way to win wars effectively is to exterminate the enemy or not to go to war at all unless they are actually directly threatened. The economic powers of the west- as the example of Vietnam shows- are much more powerful than the willingness of their sentimental peoples to accept the logic of warfare unless they are immediately in danger.

]]> By: sindbad http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/comment-page-1/#comment-11779 sindbad Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:21:11 +0000 http://austrolabe.com/2007/03/03/the-politics-of-genocide/#comment-11779 Well, the racist war against Vietnam was a genocide, and so was the bombing of North Korea by the US Air Force which in my view is the number one terrorist organization from the victim's standpoint. Other genocides I can think of are the ethnic cleansing of Jews in Europe, not just under Hitler. Even the bombing of Dresden in Germany was a great crime against humanity, and the popular sentiment was to demonize every German possible. In Dresden, even the animals from the Zoo came out to the streets and trembled in fear from the bombs. Other genocides are the extermination of indigenous peoples of North America or the Native Americans, and other indigenous people around the world. There is no doubt that genocide has occurred in African countries, the so-called Third World countries and in Asia. The name Pol Pot is well known. Over 1.5 million people were killed in the Iran-Iraq war, and the victims basically served as guinea pigs for Washington to test their new weapons. Of course, the fault mostly lies with Saddam Hussein who was a dangerous nationalist and puppet of the people who put him into power. Well, the racist war against Vietnam was a genocide, and so was the bombing of North Korea by the US Air Force which in my view is the number one terrorist organization from the victim’s standpoint. Other genocides I can think of are the ethnic cleansing of Jews in Europe, not just under Hitler. Even the bombing of Dresden in Germany was a great crime against humanity, and the popular sentiment was to demonize every German possible. In Dresden, even the animals from the Zoo came out to the streets and trembled in fear from the bombs. Other genocides are the extermination of indigenous peoples of North America or the Native Americans, and other indigenous people around the world. There is no doubt that genocide has occurred in African countries, the so-called Third World countries and in Asia. The name Pol Pot is well known. Over 1.5 million people were killed in the Iran-Iraq war, and the victims basically served as guinea pigs for Washington to test their new weapons. Of course, the fault mostly lies with Saddam Hussein who was a dangerous nationalist and puppet of the people who put him into power.

]]>