American Exceptionalism and the "Iraq Syndrome"

[prole]

From Asia Times:

Remember the "Vietnam syndrome", which made its appearance soon after the actual war ended in defeat. It did restrain the US appetite for military interventions overseas - but only briefly. By the late 1970s, it had already begun to boomerang. Conservatives denounced the syndrome as evidence of a paralyzing, Vietnam-induced surrender to national weakness. Their cries of alarm stimulated broad public support for an endless military buildup and, of course, yet more imperial interventions.

 

The very idea of such a "syndrome" implied that what the Vietnam War had devastated was not so much the Vietnamese or their ruined land as the traumatized American psyche. As a concept, it served to mask, if not obliterate, many of the realities of the actual war. It also suggested that there was something pathological in a postwar fear of taking US arms and aims abroad, that the US had indeed become (in the late president Richard Nixon's famous phrase) a "pitiful, helpless giant", a basket case.

 

Ronald Reagan played all these notes skillfully enough to become president of the US. The desire to "cure" the Vietnam syndrome became a springboard to unabashed, militant nationalism and a broad rightward turn in the life of the United States.

 

[Crux]

Repetition of such a trend can only have one end.

[joblo7]

that big elephant called 'the milt ind cplex' aint going nowhere until humans grow up. war is good for business.

[ashw_justin]

What the fuck is "surrender to national weakness" supposed to mean? Is that like when you realize that it's a stupid idea to go halfway around the world to take over a country for no reason? Who is primitive enough to believe that our self-respect as a country must be based upon our ability to invade others? I thought that bullshit died with the Nazis.

[kevbone]

war is good for business.

 

 

Who's business are you referring too? What about all the people that have died? Is is good for their business?

[catbirdseat]

war is good for business.

 

 

Who's business are you referring too? What about all the people that have died? Is is good for their business?

You know the answer already- the companies who make the bullets and bombs- you know the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about.

[prole]

war is good for business.

 

 

Who's business are you referring too? What about all the people that have died? Is is good for their business?

You know the answer already- the companies who make the bullets and bombs- you know the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about.

 

Some of the best analysis from the post-invasion period sheds light on these and other questions, placing the second Iraq war in the broader context of US imperialism and neoliberal globalization. A good antidote to the "all about oil" arguments.

The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the war's ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which creates jobs and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need or want. The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal conditions for corporations to pursue their bottomless greed, so that they in turn can meet the needs of the society. The problem is that governments, even neoconservative governments, rarely get the chance to prove their sacred theory right: despite their enormous ideological advances, even George Bush's Republicans are, in their own minds, perennially sabotaged by meddling Democrats, intractable unions, and alarmist environmentalists.

 

Iraq was going to change all that. In one place on Earth, the theory would finally be put into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A country of 25 million would not be rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no ownership restrictions. The people of Iraq would, of course, have to endure some short-term pain: assets, previously owned by the state, would have to be given up to create new opportunities for growth and investment. Jobs would have to be lost and, as foreign products flooded across the border, local businesses and family farms would, unfortunately, be unable to compete. But to the authors of this plan, these would be small prices to pay for the economic boom that would surely explode once the proper conditions were in place, a boom so powerful the country would practically rebuild itself.

[Crux]

And so with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al, could further their life-long and devoted support of the military industrial complex as well as secure a sterilized laboratory for proving their neocon socio-economic theories. All these good things they could accomplish, because there would be no pesky liberal involvement to mess things up.

 

History will show that these guys ran the military industrial complex from the end days of the Nixon administration until the present time, at least.

[prole]

Given that the dismantling of the Iraqi state and the privatization of state assets created the unemployment that in large part fueled the insurgency, we can add Iraq to the list of states in which neoliberal policies have wreaked disaster.

Ironically, now that Iraq is in complete meltdown, it may have become just about the oil. Although I, like others on this board, question how the Iraqi Oil Law is likely to survive any future state that opposes it.

[Crux]

 

Looked this one up: Neoliberalism

 

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

 

1. THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

 

2. CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICE like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

 

3. DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

 

4. PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

 

5. ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

[Stonehead]

Look if the Iraqis just trained their police like they do in Iran there wouldn't be a problem. Take a looksee.

 

[gvideo]8071337793166478323[/gvideo]

[Crux]

Hot climbing girls?

[Stonehead]

.

[Stonehead]

..