Logic, Mythology and the Iraq War
Gary Sudborough | 14.04.2004 23:07 | Anti-militarism | World
A logical explanation about why George W. Bush's rationalizations for the Iraq war are asinine and the discussions among pundits and so-called experts on US corporate television are based on false assumptions and are ridiculous as well.
In science there are two methods of reasoning. One is inductive reasoning. If an experiment or observation of some natural phenomenon yields the same outcome many times without failure, the probability expands that, if repeated, the same result will again appear. For example, a ball thrown into the air always falls back to earth. The sun rises every morning and the likelihood of it rising tomorrow morning is exceedingly high.
Inductive reasoning can also be applied to human affairs and human systems. Due to a superiority in weapons, ships and navigational instruments, the Western European capitalist nations like Britain, Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Holland and Germany were able to militarily conquer and exploit the natural resources and labor of the peoples of Asia, Africa and America-now a part of the so-called Third World. Indeed, because of its powerful navy, Great Britain attained a very large empire. It was so vast that it was said that the sun never set on the British empire. Later, the United States and Japan developed into militarily powerful capitalist nations. By inductive reasoning one would expect the same result as with the European powers. In other words, they would also exploit the weaker Third World nations, attempt to build empires, and their capitalists would profit from the natural resources and labor power of these nations.
This is what happened. Japan conquered Korea and Manchuria and fought a successful war with Russia in 1905 over control of Port Arthur. During World War 2, the Japanese empire extended its control over China, southeast Asia and many Pacific islands. Under the pretense of liberating people from Spanish domination, the United States colonized Cuba, the Philippines and Puerto Rico. Then, however, for some inexplicable reason the US ostensibly became more interested in bringing people democracy, freedom and the rule of law, rather than allowing its capitalists to make huge profits. No logical explanation or timeline is given in US history books for this magical transformation or radical departure from the history of all other capitalist nations. I maintain this US exceptionalism is more the result of the growing sophistication of propaganda in the US corporate media and a figment of their fertile imaginations, than it is a failure of inductive reasoning.
Previously, there were continuous wars fought by these capitalist nations over the division of their colonies or to crush rebellions by the oppressed people in these colonies. In propaganda by the corporate media, these wars now started to be described as wars between democratic and autocratic powers. World War 1 was portrayed as a war to make the world safe for democracy. World War 2 was supposedly a war between democracy and fascism. Actually, nothing had changed but the ability of propaganda to influence people's perceptions. Both World War 1 and World War 2 were imperialist wars among capitalist nations over the division of the world's resources. Germany was one of the last great European powers to become unified as a nation. Consequently, it had very few colonies and desired a lot more. The same can be said about Italy in World War 2 with its conquests of Ethiopia and Albania. World War 2 was different in one respect in that the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 had introduced the world's first socialist state, which was a threat to the wealth and power of capitalists everywhere. Therefore, another goal of the war was the weakening or destruction of the Soviet Union.
The economic empires of the United States and Japan clashed in the Pacific. The United States had a steel and oil embargo against Japan before the attack on Pearl Harbor. This clash of economic interests is not immediately apparent because the United States practices a camouflaged form of colonialism called neocolonialism. It doesn't possess actual colonies, but installs client-state rulers and induces them to obey by allowing these rulers to enrich themselves by corruption. Sometimes obedience is enforced by threats of bombing or invasion. A more recent method is to enforce compliance by threats to withhold IMF and World Bank loans or the utilization of CIA covert actions. The exploitation that accompanies these puppet rulers is most clearly visible in the sweatshops American corporations have established in poor countries around the planet.
I hope to have shown by inductive reasoning that very little has changed since Columbus landed in the Caribbean. Columbus and others like Cortez and Pizarro wanted gold and silver and were willing to exterminate Native Americans to get it. The United States wants the oil in Iraq and is willing to greatly diminish the population of Iraq to obtain it.
The second form of scientific reasoning is deductive reasoning. If an experiment manifests an identical result numerous times, a theory can then be constructed to explain the mechanism by which this occurs. Deductions can then be made from this theory predicting the results of future experiments. If the theory is valid, the deductive reasoning will give accurate predictions. Can deductions be made as to why capitalist countries develop colonies or puppet governments and start wars with one another or Third World nations over natural resources and cheap labor?
I believe the answer is Karl Marx's theory on how capitalist economies operate. Capitalist economies always enter into periods of crisis, where corporate profits fall, enterprises go bankrupt and many workers are laid off. This situation happens because workers are not paid the full value of their labor and overproduction occurs. To regain profit margins, capitalists seek out new markets for their commodities, new natural resources, cheaper labor and public wealth that has not yet been privatized of deregulated. If war is necessary to obtain these objectives, capitalists can use the power of the state, which they control. Karl Marx predicted that capitalists would search into every corner of the globe for the last remaining resources and profit opportunities. Corporations must grow or die. If one corporation doesn't expand, another will and either force it out of business or swallow it up in a corporate merger. Therefore, other nation's natural resources and publicly owned utilities and industries are highly desirable to obtain, particularly in periods of crisis in the capitalist system. They are even attempting to privatize and profit from a public resource so abundant and essential to life as the world's water supply. That indicates their desperation for profits.
The unfounded assumption of all debates on corporate television in the United States is that the US military forces are in Iraq to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people and aid in the fight against global terrorism. They still cling to the remote assumption that weapons of mass destruction will be found by these troops, which was the very first assumption they made to justify the war. The guests invited to these discussions are invariably generals, military experts, terrorism experts and people from right-wing think tanks. Never do they invite someone like Noam Chomsky or Michael Parenti, who might challenge the very assumptions on which the debate is organized. The limits of the debate are how successful they are being in the effort to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq and fight terrorism and the mistakes that are being made and possible strategies for the future.
They are conducting a supposedly very serious discussion in fantasy land because all of these assumptions can be proven to be false. It is pure mythology. Inductive reasoning would indicate that the primary goal of US troops being in Iraq is the potential enormous profit to US and British oil companies from the large oil reserves there. The United States is simply following in the footsteps of all other capitalist and mercantilist powers, who for 500 years have been exploiting the natural resources of weaker countries. Deductive reasoning would indicate that this war is a logical consequence of the internal workings of the capitalist system. Corporations must expand or perish, and this fact necessitates their efforts to dominate natural resources and labor power all over the globe. Capitalism causes wars, although the game is over with powerful capitalist nations attacking each other because of the development of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction. However, relatively defenseless countries like Iraq are still fair game.
Inductive reasoning can also be applied to human affairs and human systems. Due to a superiority in weapons, ships and navigational instruments, the Western European capitalist nations like Britain, Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Holland and Germany were able to militarily conquer and exploit the natural resources and labor of the peoples of Asia, Africa and America-now a part of the so-called Third World. Indeed, because of its powerful navy, Great Britain attained a very large empire. It was so vast that it was said that the sun never set on the British empire. Later, the United States and Japan developed into militarily powerful capitalist nations. By inductive reasoning one would expect the same result as with the European powers. In other words, they would also exploit the weaker Third World nations, attempt to build empires, and their capitalists would profit from the natural resources and labor power of these nations.
This is what happened. Japan conquered Korea and Manchuria and fought a successful war with Russia in 1905 over control of Port Arthur. During World War 2, the Japanese empire extended its control over China, southeast Asia and many Pacific islands. Under the pretense of liberating people from Spanish domination, the United States colonized Cuba, the Philippines and Puerto Rico. Then, however, for some inexplicable reason the US ostensibly became more interested in bringing people democracy, freedom and the rule of law, rather than allowing its capitalists to make huge profits. No logical explanation or timeline is given in US history books for this magical transformation or radical departure from the history of all other capitalist nations. I maintain this US exceptionalism is more the result of the growing sophistication of propaganda in the US corporate media and a figment of their fertile imaginations, than it is a failure of inductive reasoning.
Previously, there were continuous wars fought by these capitalist nations over the division of their colonies or to crush rebellions by the oppressed people in these colonies. In propaganda by the corporate media, these wars now started to be described as wars between democratic and autocratic powers. World War 1 was portrayed as a war to make the world safe for democracy. World War 2 was supposedly a war between democracy and fascism. Actually, nothing had changed but the ability of propaganda to influence people's perceptions. Both World War 1 and World War 2 were imperialist wars among capitalist nations over the division of the world's resources. Germany was one of the last great European powers to become unified as a nation. Consequently, it had very few colonies and desired a lot more. The same can be said about Italy in World War 2 with its conquests of Ethiopia and Albania. World War 2 was different in one respect in that the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 had introduced the world's first socialist state, which was a threat to the wealth and power of capitalists everywhere. Therefore, another goal of the war was the weakening or destruction of the Soviet Union.
The economic empires of the United States and Japan clashed in the Pacific. The United States had a steel and oil embargo against Japan before the attack on Pearl Harbor. This clash of economic interests is not immediately apparent because the United States practices a camouflaged form of colonialism called neocolonialism. It doesn't possess actual colonies, but installs client-state rulers and induces them to obey by allowing these rulers to enrich themselves by corruption. Sometimes obedience is enforced by threats of bombing or invasion. A more recent method is to enforce compliance by threats to withhold IMF and World Bank loans or the utilization of CIA covert actions. The exploitation that accompanies these puppet rulers is most clearly visible in the sweatshops American corporations have established in poor countries around the planet.
I hope to have shown by inductive reasoning that very little has changed since Columbus landed in the Caribbean. Columbus and others like Cortez and Pizarro wanted gold and silver and were willing to exterminate Native Americans to get it. The United States wants the oil in Iraq and is willing to greatly diminish the population of Iraq to obtain it.
The second form of scientific reasoning is deductive reasoning. If an experiment manifests an identical result numerous times, a theory can then be constructed to explain the mechanism by which this occurs. Deductions can then be made from this theory predicting the results of future experiments. If the theory is valid, the deductive reasoning will give accurate predictions. Can deductions be made as to why capitalist countries develop colonies or puppet governments and start wars with one another or Third World nations over natural resources and cheap labor?
I believe the answer is Karl Marx's theory on how capitalist economies operate. Capitalist economies always enter into periods of crisis, where corporate profits fall, enterprises go bankrupt and many workers are laid off. This situation happens because workers are not paid the full value of their labor and overproduction occurs. To regain profit margins, capitalists seek out new markets for their commodities, new natural resources, cheaper labor and public wealth that has not yet been privatized of deregulated. If war is necessary to obtain these objectives, capitalists can use the power of the state, which they control. Karl Marx predicted that capitalists would search into every corner of the globe for the last remaining resources and profit opportunities. Corporations must grow or die. If one corporation doesn't expand, another will and either force it out of business or swallow it up in a corporate merger. Therefore, other nation's natural resources and publicly owned utilities and industries are highly desirable to obtain, particularly in periods of crisis in the capitalist system. They are even attempting to privatize and profit from a public resource so abundant and essential to life as the world's water supply. That indicates their desperation for profits.
The unfounded assumption of all debates on corporate television in the United States is that the US military forces are in Iraq to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people and aid in the fight against global terrorism. They still cling to the remote assumption that weapons of mass destruction will be found by these troops, which was the very first assumption they made to justify the war. The guests invited to these discussions are invariably generals, military experts, terrorism experts and people from right-wing think tanks. Never do they invite someone like Noam Chomsky or Michael Parenti, who might challenge the very assumptions on which the debate is organized. The limits of the debate are how successful they are being in the effort to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq and fight terrorism and the mistakes that are being made and possible strategies for the future.
They are conducting a supposedly very serious discussion in fantasy land because all of these assumptions can be proven to be false. It is pure mythology. Inductive reasoning would indicate that the primary goal of US troops being in Iraq is the potential enormous profit to US and British oil companies from the large oil reserves there. The United States is simply following in the footsteps of all other capitalist and mercantilist powers, who for 500 years have been exploiting the natural resources of weaker countries. Deductive reasoning would indicate that this war is a logical consequence of the internal workings of the capitalist system. Corporations must expand or perish, and this fact necessitates their efforts to dominate natural resources and labor power all over the globe. Capitalism causes wars, although the game is over with powerful capitalist nations attacking each other because of the development of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction. However, relatively defenseless countries like Iraq are still fair game.
Gary Sudborough
e-mail:
IconoclastGS@aol.com
Homepage:
http://www.theblackflag.org/iconoclast
Comments
Hide the following 13 comments
Not its not difficult to understand why the war happened
15.04.2004 07:59
Iraqi exile living in the UK
Crack open the bubbly geezer!
15.04.2004 09:12
What you still doing here pal? Your country has been liberated. That means you can go back there now. You're free!
Moon
Sigh
15.04.2004 11:31
I'm afraid you are wasting yout time with the truth when it comes to Iraq, most of the people here have an anti_american agenda that transends facts. Of course the UK/USA went in for the reasons you say but don't expect anyone to here to admit that.
Freddie
Lets see . . .
15.04.2004 12:00
"despotic" - obviously, nobody suggests otherwise.
"genocidal" - Ethnic cleansing, yes of the Kurds and Shia. Mass-murdering, yes. Genocide, 'an attempt to eradicate a whole people'? Questionable. The sanctions and particularly the US blocking of UN-approved and Iraqi paid for aid were definitely genocidal.
"dictator" - Obviously.
"who was a threat to both his own people" - I agree.
"to world peace" - er, what world peace?
"who had links with Al Qaeda" - Complete bollocks. except: iraQ : al-Qaeda. The clue is in the Q!
"a desire to build up a vast stockpile of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons" He seemed to have given up on that to be honest but whose to know. At least were safe in the knowledge our leaders would never harbour such desires.
"He was simply too evil and dangerous to be left in power. Thats the only reason America and Britain went to war with Iraq" - Ahh yes. Superpower benevolence, that well known phenomenon.
This whole course of argument is IRRELEVANT. Why? Because the dichotomy of 'remove saddam by invasion'/'leave saddam and have a spliff' is a false one. The Ba'ath regime offered to hold internationally verified free elections within 2 years and allow US troops into Iraq to aid the search for WMD - WITHOUT A SHOT BEING FIRED. So the noble aims you ascribe to the coalition could have been achieved without killing 10,000 more Iraqi innocents. There would have been unanimity internationally for this course of action, and if Saddam was lying, hey Tomahawks on Baghdad within the hour.
The coalition have no nobility. For example, the northern 'no-fly' zone to 'protect' the Kurds was regularly suspended to allow incoming Turkish bombing missions to destroy Kurdish villages (M Curtis, Web of Deceit, 2003). The Iraqi people are not free, their economy is being sold off on the cheap, healthcare is sub-sanctions level and the Americans have absolutely no intention of allowing democracy. Oligarchy at best. They have rehired the feared Mukhabarat, they're rehiring Ba'athist generals to ensure the Irai Security Forces follow orders and slay their countrymen. The Americans want the Saddam regime minus Saddam, and if you care for the Iraqi people you are a fool to support the Americans.
human exile
As I said
15.04.2004 12:15
"America is an Imperial power bent of world domination"
" The US elections are fixed by a secret electronic means"
"Bush is part of a great secret society dominating international trade"
"All opponants of the US are heroic freedom fighters"
From the more nutty we get,
"Bush and the Queen are related" (My favourite for a long time)
"All elections are fixed in favour of Jewish candidates"
"9/11 was planned by the CIA / Mossad / FBI/ The Republican Party"
All good fun and about as relevant to the world as a chocolate T pot.
Freddie
freddie freddie freddie
15.04.2004 12:34
to help us understand perhaps?
how benevolent of you.
when are you going to post some real info then - instead of short personal criticisms of the people whose arguments you characterise as false?
you have nothing to say on:
the build up to war - how could you, considering the fact that the very forces now destroying iraq and iraqians were the ones that supported and maintained saddam and his power structures (perhaps their sell off of iraqs assets is just chasing bad debts for all those WMD's sold on credit - and forfetted for the tax payers back home to save the profit/loss balance sheets of the corporations that entered these agreements), were the same forces that then got involved in a 'border dispute' that they conveyed to the iraqi leadership they had no interest in, were the same forces that declared it was worth the deaths of a million plus women and children from the bombings of sewerage plants, desalination plants, water purification plants, that withheld vital medicines to alleviate pain disease and suffering, were the same forces that sold out the, now wised up, shias, that allowed the bombings daily of kurds, iraqians and any others that they had no interest in ...
we could list the other 56 countries that the us has bombed in living memory
or the other hundreds of dreadful dictators it has proped up
and the millions of people it has had a direct and indirect hand in killing
or the hundreds of questions still unanswered about 911
but ... we have it all wrong, and now you are going to set us straight yes?
karen elliot
Red herrings
15.04.2004 12:36
Ian
and again
15.04.2004 12:39
Freddie
I can see I'm ..
15.04.2004 13:09
but still no clearer to recieving your implied wisdom ...
you are a tease ...
karen elliot
Here is why American didn't take up Saddams offer to co-operate!
15.04.2004 15:11
Iraqi exile living in Britain
Oh Mr Iraqi exile, killing's so much easier from a distance
15.04.2004 15:53
Might? Yeah he might have been. The real reason Saddam 'played games' for so long was that the authority of the UN was undermined by the lack of will of the powerful nations e.g. Britain and America, who didn't give a shit about the Iraqi people for years. All of a sudden (when peak oil became an issue, btw) Bush and Blair discovered great humanity and proffessed to be reasserting the authority of the United Nations . . . By completely undermining it. D'oh.
"He was also given the chance to avoid war which was to go into exile, which he refused to do."
Not entirely true. The US said it would invade anyway to 'restore order' [= install friendly regime].
10,000+ innocent Iraqis have perished and the toll keeps rising, like in Falluja where US snipers are benevolently liberating civilians from their foreheads. Saddam couldn't have bluffed so long as the finger was on the trigger. But the US/UK didn't want to reassert the authority if the UN, they wantesd to play realpolitik and the Iraqi people are the pawns. It seems they are now realising this.
Does DU and Cluster bombs on urban areas look like the actions of an army concerned with liberation? Why protect the oil ministry over hospitals whilst sending home troops? I'm afraid you are being conned my friend, and it is the Iraqi people who will pay the price. It is worth remembering who sustained Saddam in power for so long - and has there reallyu been a metaphysical mutation in US policy since then?
And before freddie goes rabid, I suggest people read Mark Curtis - Web of Deceit, it uses declassified documents to show how the UK (and US) has systematically undermined the UN since pretty much it's inception.
human exile
well not really
15.04.2004 16:52
Well no not really - what Mark does is pull together a number of theories, documents that may or may not be genuine, a lot of supposition and produce a "you see they were trying to undermine it from day one" story. It's quite fun to read in the same way the X-Files is fun to watch after a few beers but it's not proof of anything.
Freddy
Interesting
15.04.2004 17:48
The reason I recommended the book is of course so that people can read it, as you purport to have, and form their own opinion. I think the book contains ample evidence to disprove the official version of events and is worth a read for anyone interested in such things. 200,000 dead east timorese killed with western weapons and secret memos confirming British foreknowledge and complicity - Proof? Read it and decide for yourselves.
human exile