Sites you may be interested in SE Nuke or “SENuke”Open Source » Blog Archive » Nir Rosen on Iraq Tags blog templ [...]

KUOW did yeoman’s work this morning:

Thursday on Weekday

05/11/2006 9:00 am

Mark Danner on Iraq

Why did we invade Iraq? Journalist and Berkley Professor Mark Danner has a new book out on what he calls, The Secret Way to War. Danner poured over documents including the infamous “Downing Street Memoâ€? of July 2002 that indicates the intelligence and facts were ‘fixed’ around the war policy. But regardless of how we got there, what should the U.S. do next? We’ll talk to Danner about the run-up to war and the latest news on U.S. intelligence and Iraq.

Guests:Mark Danner professor of journalism at the University of California, Berkeley and a regular contributor to The New York Review of Books. He’s the author of Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror and The Secret Way to War: The Downing Street Memo and The Iraq War’s Buried History.

Related Links: KUOW does not endorse nor control the content viewed on these links as they appear now or in the future.

· ‘Rumsfeld Denies Making Claims Iraq had WMDs,’ The Seattle PI

· ‘The Secret Way to War’, The New York Review of Books

· ‘The Great Debate,’ Salon.com

· ‘The Struggles of Democracy and Empire,’ The New York Times

· ‘Mark Danner Waves the Smoking Gun,’ Truthdig.com

http://www.kuow.org/weekday.asp

After today you’ll be able to find it in the ‘Recent Shows’ archive toward the web page’s lower right-hand corner.

http://www.radioopensource.org/guttersnipe-alley-april-2006/#comment-10973

No, Potter. I am interested in the medium and the process and Jon Garfunkel has posted ideas along those lines on a number of occasions that interest me. And I would hardly describe his or my posting as “complaining,” or either of us as “complainers.” Perhaps we are offering “criticism,” but then only with the hope of being constructive.

I notice, Potter, that you use the expression “deepest feelings” twice. I personally am more interested in my, and your, “clearest thinking.” This is just a personal preference, just as legitimate, in my opinion, as yours. And so since we are in such a deeply felt, and not clearly thought, thread, I leave the room. Instead, I focus my attention on the threads from which I am still learning something, especially the race and class threads.

In some sense, this is no problem at all. The ROS forum participants are free to self-select at will. But to those of us who hoped for a more intellectually engaging discussion, well, we’re disappointed.

We have 4 criticizers of the mode of discussion interwoven with the substance of discussion itself.

It seems that we have folks who are okay with the way ROS discussion is going by and large, and those who are disappointed. Those who are disappointed do not take part as much. They do show up to complain or have discussion about the discussion as here. Are you all attracted by the heat produced here?

Raymond I agree that the medium enables the behavior which is all too human. That we are all too human is something we cannot avoid bringing here for some more perfect version of discussion.

To have a mode of expression of your deepest feelings and to have audience ( even of one) and reaction is a privilege.

Other complainers have also said that ROS is not “living up to it’s potential”. Why not participate and make it happen? Why not explain what your idea of that potential is? Why not add your unique voice, your deepest feelings to the substance of this discussion for instance?

If a topic stirs some to form a discussion group or even twosome in a certain vein, nothing prevents anyone from chiming in to make a point or overlay that with another discussion/points. We both address and ignore each other variously. What’s the problem? What am I not getting about this disappointment that is being registered? This is all so existential folks.

But you are wrong about associating the behaviour in this thread with cheering for a team.

Umm, I don’t think that I am wrong here … but if I am, please do not miss my main point.

The conversation of politics is all about emotion. And while campaigners may have known this all along, it is wonderful to see the science. My main point, however, was not about the discusson in this one thread, but in the discussions in general on ROS. I have been wondering if the medium itself was the cuase of the behavior under discussion. And this research brought to light that the behavoir may be all too human, and the medium may simply provide the mode of expression. This conclusion is somewhat discouraging to some of us who see the conversation here at ROS not living up to its potential.

You may personally see the world as a two team league where the Red Sox and Yankees perpetually do battle, but I think there are many more teams and I know I don’t like either the Republicans or the Democrats all that much or the two party system …

Here we are in agreement … I have posted before that the candidates brought forth by both the Republicans and Democrats are not compelling. And I admit to being confused about the “two-party” system. I have even thought that it would be good to do a little research here to understand the historical background.

Perhaps others, or ROS, could fill in here.

Also, I think there is much more to the story of why Sr. Bush did not take out Saddam than you suggest. Here is what George Bush Sr. and Brent Scowcroft said in 1998.

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.’s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different–and perhaps barren–outcome.

WinstonAs I said above you can always go off on a tangent and argue one aspect like “The US only goes to war / works for its own self interst so . . . . “. That is almost always true and goes without saying – why would you ahve it any other way. But that isn’t the end of the analysis but only one dimension. You have to add other dimensions like “On a contiuous scale how hard would it be to intervene?â€?, “How likely is it to come out positively?â€?, “Will it have postive affect oh human rightsâ€? etc.

Your comment above and several other ones show where our thinking diverges in three important regards. First, you obviously feel that the human rights dimension has much more salience than I. I see all the talk of rights, freedoms and democracy just as propaganda to sell to the American people who are taught to believe in the ideals of their nation and expect their leaders to uphold them to some extent. Why is this ruse necessary? Because many of the military aggressions are not for the benefit of the whole nation but just some special interest groups. This is our second divergence. The third is that you feel the US must take these bold steps to secure the homeland and the world, but I think the global assimilation approach makes the world a more dangerous place and provokes attacks like 9/11.

Still, thanks for the exchange.