Ein Volk, Ein Meme, Ein Volokh
By Mitch Berg
As a history geek who speaks German pretty well, it’s probably not a surprise that I spend a lot of time reading about twentieth-century German history. And one of the more aggravating subjects in the field is the notion that Naziism – the German contraction of Nazional Sozialismus, “National Socialism” – is, in fact, socialist and not capitalistic.
Of course, if you had a mainstream, left-of-center history teacher – and I had a few – you learned what’s become the orthodoxy in learning about the era; since Hitler and Stalin fought the bloodiest war in history against each other, Hitler must be the opposite of Stalin; ergo since Stalin was “far left”, Hitler must be “far right”; since communism hated capitalism, Naziism must have been pure capitalism.
It was all buncombe, of course. In Modern Times – perhaps the essential libertarian/conservative apologetic of my lifetime, at least from my little perspective – Paul Johnson spelled out the case that Hitler learned a lot – a lot - from Lenin and Stalin, positive (the need for total, brutal control) and negative (the need to do it by co-opting, rather than destroying, society’s institutions).
But the message – and its importance today – still need to sink in, in some quarters.
Fortunately, Ilya Somin at Volokh is on the case, reviewing two new books on the subject, The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy, by Adam Tooze and Hitler’s Beneficiaries: : Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State, by Gotz Aly.
Why care?
Nonetheless, the socialist element of National Socialism matters for three reasons. First…some still claim that Nazism was a form of “capitalism” and try to use this association to discredit free markets. Second, and far more important, Tooze and Aly show that far-reaching state control over the economy was an essential element in Nazi policy, without which Hitler could not have carried out his plans for conquest and mass murder. It also helped quiesce potential German opposition to Nazi policies; both by imposing state control on economic resources that any opposition movement would need to support itself, and by “buying off” potential opponents through welfare state handouts (as Aly emphasizes).
The concentration of economic power in the hands of the state does not always lead to atrocities as extreme as Hitler’s. But it does significantly increase the risk that these types of abuses will occur – not to mention numerous lesser (though still severe) atrocities. In the twentieth century, both left-wing (communist) and right-wing (Nazi) forms of state domination of the ecoomy paved the way for war, repression, and mass murder. There is little reason to expect better results from similar policies in the future. This is an important point, given the recent renewed popularity of socialist ideas in some parts of the Third World, such as parts of Latin American.
Finally, Barkai’s discussion of Hitler’s view of the world economy bears a remarkable similarity to the analysis put forward by many of today’s opponents of free trade and globalization. Both view the world economy as a zero sum game; both reject the possibility that free international trade can provide for a growing population and lead to the development of “have not” nations; and both claim that the wealthy nations of the West had “rigged” the rules of the international economic game in their favor.
Stuff for the summer beach reading list.
Next job for historians: write a book explaining to the attention-span-deprived that even though Hitler exploited endemic anti-Semitism in German society (and in the native Lutheran and Catholic churches), he wasn’t actually a Christian…
(Via Jay Reding)
July 25th, 2007 at 10:17 am
It’s not the slavish pro-corporate orientation of you wingnuts that makes you Nazi-like, Mitch. It’s the desire to empower government to spy on citizens, promote a chauvinistic nationalism, enforce conservative morals and attempt to project power through ill-conceived wars. Hope that helps.
Since you’re a student of history (and not just a Nazi-era fetishist like a good many of your fellow wingnuts), you’ll recall that the economy of the United States – the nation that saved the world in that war – was under stringent government control, including rationing, price controls, labor controls, unprecedented government spending, borrowing and taxation, all directed from Washington.
July 25th, 2007 at 11:18 am
I think you are slandering your teachers in South Dakota. I doubt you can come up with one person calling the Nazis an example of “pure capitalism”. “Far right” – sure, “capitalist” – sure, “pure capitalist” – not a chance (except maybe in circa 1940 editions of Pravda).
Having actually read the first few chapters of Aly, you misstate his central thesis. He does not argue that Nazi Germany, compared to other WW II regimes, had an especially large public sector. Nor that Nazi Germany relied more on “far reaching state control” of its economy. Nor that the Nazi social welfare program was more generous than its neighbors.
Rather he argues that much more than any other WWII country, the Nazis shielded their own public from the actually costs of their large scale military spending. They did so by forcing non-aryans (Jews and conquered populations) to pay for the very large costs of military spending. Indeed if you read Chapter 2 sections like “Tax Breaks for the Masses”, the Nazi aversion to raising income taxes to pay for military spending, is positively Republican.
July 25th, 2007 at 11:22 am
I think you are slandering your teachers in South Dakota
And you, in turn, slander me. I’m from North Dakota. Or in Latin, “Dakota Superior“.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I stand corrected. My apologies.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
“It’s not the slavish pro-corporate orientation of you wingnuts that makes you Nazi-like, Mitch. It’s the desire to empower government to spy on citizens, promote a chauvinistic nationalism, enforce conservative morals and attempt to project power through ill-conceived wars. Hope that helps.”
Wow. FDR was a Wingnut. I especially liked that long, Christian prayer he recited on the radio on D-Day. That goofy Conservative.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Tax breaks for the masses? I thought Republicans only gave tax breaks to the rich Rick.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
[...] UPDATE: Mitch Berg has more on the topic of what Hitler learned from the left. The mistake most people make is thinking that Hitler despised Communism because he disagreed with their economic theories — state control of production suited Hitler just fine. He wanted to exterminate the Communists (and the German labor unions who were heavily influenced by the Communists) because they posed a threat to his power. [...]
July 25th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Yeah, no kidding. What Kermit said. FDR must have been a major wingnut. A wingnut for all wingnuts.
Same thing for JFK and RFK. Seems like there was a lot of domestic spying going on then.
“…..ill-conceived wars” Could you name a few of those for me?
Speech codes, anti-semitic, slash and burn political tactics. Nazis or todays liberals?
“you’ll recall that the economy of the United States – the nation that saved the world in that war – was under stringent government control, including rationing, price controls, labor controls, unprecedented government spending, borrowing and taxation, all directed from Washington.”
Tell me you didn’t put that there as a model for us to achieve again? Not even you could think that. Could you?
July 25th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
AC,
It is the slavish pro-corporate orientation you dislike about normal grown up people (wingnuts).
The politically correct reason you hate wingnuts is the government’s desire to empower government to spy on citizens, promote a chauvinistic nationalism, enforce conservative morals and attempt to project power through ill-conceived wars. Hope that helps.
July 25th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Chad:
I was feeling charitable and not bothering to go beyond the rhetoric. Of course, all analogies break down at some point.
Buzz:
“…..ill-conceived wars”
The invasion and occupation of Iraq.
July 25th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
The last “well-concieved” war was conducted by Julius Ceasar in Gaul.
July 25th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
I think a threshold requirement for “well-conceived war” is that we should win, Kerm. Your guy doesn’t seem to be able to deliver that.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
With all of those knives in his back is that some kind of surprise?
July 25th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I think a threshold requirement for “well-conceived war” is that we should win, Kerm. Your guy doesn’t seem to be able to deliver that.
How about applying that standard to JFK and LBJ, Moonbat Clown? Or does it only apply to Republicans?
July 25th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
What makes a “well-conceived” counterinsurgency?
And can you name one or two of them?
I can – but I’ll wait for a bit.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
“How about applying that standard to JFK and LBJ, Moonbat Clown? Or does it only apply to Republicans”
I am not sure what planet you have been on for the last 40 years, but Democrats pretty much universally believe Vietnam was a disaster of huge proportions that will forever stain the record of LBJ and JFK. But you would have to search high and low to find some Republicans (other than Javits) who wanted to get us out of Vietnam. That said, it was your boy Nixon who dragged it out for another 5 years and Gerry Ford who watched the choppers take off from Saigon.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Democrats pretty much universally believe Vietnam was a disaster of huge proportions
Which is uncharacteristically honest of them, since it was they who made it a disaster. JFK and LBJ turned it into a major “hot” proxy war rather than a small-scale, low-intensity counterinsurgency war, while refusing to really fight it as a hot war. And it was the Dems who sold the nation the whole “peace with honor” canard, as well as promising to support the South and to come back if the war went really badly for them — exactly as they say they will in Iraq.
They’ve also refused to cop to the millions of lives on their hands. Exactly as they’re positioning themselves for now.
This was one of the three or four big issues that made me reject the Democrats in sour disgust.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Besides this, the Democrats were being pressured by communist groups like the SDS, groups with an active hatered for America and zero desire to see success in that conflict.
Funny how history repeats itself.
July 25th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
That wasn’t a bunch of Republicans rioting outside the ‘68 DNC in Chicago.
July 25th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
t was your boy Nixon who dragged it out for another 5 years
Yeah, cleaning up the mess LBJ made. There’s a reason that LBJ–a sitting president–got his ass kicked in the Democrat primaries.
Gerry Ford who watched the choppers take off from Saigon
Because a Democrat veto-proof majority Congress blocked him from doing anything.
July 25th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Mitch:
Sweet Mother of God. “Peace with Honor” was sold to the nation by President Nixon. It was his phrase for the peace deal negotiated by him and Kissinger.
http://www.watergate.info/nixon/73-01-23_vietnam.shtml
As for promising to support the South, not being in the White House, no Democrat was in a position to promise the South anything. It was Nixon, who made repeated secret pledges to South Vietnam to attack North Vietnam if the latter violated the Paris Peace accords. Those pledges of course were worthless, since Nixon told no one of them and never asked Congress to approve them. No Congress could be bound a secret Presidential pledge it had not been consulted on.
As for Kermit: Maybe you wet your pants everytime some punk in fatigues makes a few threats, but you would have to search pretty hard for a Democratic politician who changed their view on Vietnam in order to court the SDS vote. The SDS moved into violence, precisely because they had no impact on the Democratic party.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Rick you ignorant putz. America signed the Paris Peace Accords. The North Vietnamese violated them. The Democrat Congress refused to fund President Ford’s desire to honor them and save South Vietnam. No amount of revisionist history will wash the blood from the hands of the Democrat party.
Democrats have caused the death of millions in Southeast Asia.
“you would have to search pretty hard for a Democratic politician who changed their view on Vietnam in order to court the SDS vote.”
You’re right. At the time they were too busy trying to block civil rights legislation.
July 26th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Kermit:
There was nothing in the Paris Peace Accords that committed the U.S. to attacks on North Vietnam. That is why Nixon, in order to get South Vietnam to sign, had to make several secret pledges of U.S. retaliation to President Thieu that were not part of the Paris Peace Accord. Not only were those pledges not part the the Paris Peace Accord, Nixon did everything he could to keep them a secret from Congress and the American people. They quite correctly did not feel obligated to honor them.
But then, such basic historical ignorance can be expected from someone who thinks that in 1973-74 southern Democrats were still “too busy trying to block” the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. By that time, the Democratic party was firmly in the camp of civil rights. It was the Republican Party that embraced Nixon’s southern strategy to court ex-segregationist voters with new Republicans like Jesse Helms.
July 26th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Rick,
Sweet Mother of God. “Peace with Honor” was sold to the nation by President Nixon.
Doy.
But as usual with your points, it’s only half the story. Nixon had to deal with a Democrat majority and a media that was in the bag for them. In trying to devise a way out of LBJ’s war (and let’s face it, LBJ and JFK before him botched Vietnam in some of the same ways that the Bush Pentagon botched Iraq in ‘04-’06), Nixon had to thread the needle between a nation that still largely supported the war, and a Democrat majority (and an in-the-bag media) that had gone over by ‘72 to the anti-war movement.
“Peace with Honor” was political lipstick on a pig, not a strategy.
In any case, Rick, let’s do try to stay on point: it was the Democrat majority and then supermajority in Congress that turned an “over the horizon” withdrawal into a complete abdication, and led to the bloodbath, re-education camps, the boat people and so on.
Focus.
July 26th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Funny, I thought the president was commander in chief. Guess when things turn sour it’s Congress. Specifically Democrats in Congress.
July 26th, 2007 at 11:45 am
If the nation “still largely supported the war”, Nixon would not have worked so hard to keep his pledge to Thieu secret. Nixon threaded the needle between publicly appearing to end the war, as the public wanted, and continuing secretly to sustain the largest possible U.S. military involvement, as he wanted.
July 26th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Rick boasted “By that time, the Democratic party was firmly in the camp of civil rights.”
Unless those folks had slanty eyes and lived in Southeast Asia. Screw those people.
Today? Firmly in that camp, unless those people have brown skin and live in the Middle East. Screw those poeple.
If the Democrat party gets it’s wish and we pull out of Iraq there will most likely be a fresh layer of blood on their hands.
July 26th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
If the nation “still largely supported the war”
They did, until Walter Cronkite lied his ass off on national television about the Tet Offensive, and some guy named John Kerry lied his ass off on the Senate floor.
(And before you tell me Kerry told the truth–or wasn’t accusing anyone of anything, like Doug–tell me why Kerry suppressed the republishing of the book Winter Soldier.)
July 26th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Kermit:
You bore me now. The people in Iraq who are going to die can lay their blame at the feat of morons like you who thought occupying their country would be a splendid idea.
Paul: Maybe Republicans want to go around calling the American people gullible fools, but Americans trust them to get it right. They used good old fashioned common sense and turned against the war because they saw that it was not worth the cost.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Gee Rick, hate to bore you, buddy. You’re such a charmer.
So tell me, am I responsible for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were murdered before we “occupied” their country too?
Oh that’s right. You don’t believe America has a moral obligation to stop genocide.
Moral, Rick. Look it up.
July 26th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Kermit:
The vast majority of Iraqis who were killed under Saddam, were not murdered, they died in his war with Iran, during which Ronald Reagan sold both sides weapons. How many did Saddan murder, one Iraqi exile group says up to 200,000 (www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html). But they have release no detailed evidence. They also said, in 2003, that “iraq’s security organisations operate to conceal Weapons of Mass Destruction from UN Inspectors”. So I guess we should take their claim with a grain of salt.
Until you can master the most basic of historical facts, I will find my moral instruction elsewhere.
July 26th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Or not find it, as the case may be.
July 27th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Rick, your own command of historical fact is very much in question.
Nobody knows exactly how many Iraqis Hussein murdered. Cherrypicking the estimate of one exile group (apparently for no other reason than to allow you to snark about their WMD remark) isn’t exactly a dispositive case.
I’ve seen estimates between 200,000 and a million. Which is right? We don’t know, because Hussein and the Ba’ath party intended most of their victims to simply disappear. It’s the same reason we’ll never know exactly how many people died in the Gulag; there was no real imperative for anyone in the system to keep track.
For you to claim “historical fact” when tossing numbers plucked, as the Romans said, de anus, is either groaningly disingenuous, hopelessly naive, or a case of trying to baffle ones’ opponents with BS.
July 27th, 2007 at 10:08 am
That’s ok, Mitch. I have a feeling those same Romans would describe Rick as a little cunni.
July 27th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Mitch:
I picked a number because there was someone (The Iraq Foundation) who on record and standing behind the claim. It was also the largest number I could find and tracked Kermit’s estimate. Then I tried to evaluate the credibility of that estimate. That is how historical research works. Sorry if the most basic of historical research methods baffles you.
As for pulling a number, de anus, can you provide any source that says Saddam murdered a million Iraqi’s. Remember this is killings of internal opponents, not foreign wars.
Interesting side note, Saddam’s single largest tally of Iraqi deaths was the Anfal campaign (50,000 – 100,000 according to HRW) against the Kurds in the late 80s when Ronald Reagan was selling him weapons.
“In 1988, immediately after the end of the Iran-IraqWar, using US-built helicopters, Saddam unleashed brutal gas attacks on the Kurds. Approximately 30 villages were gassed with chemical agents that included mustard gas and nerve toxins. Normally the United States would lead the outraged international response to anysuch act. . . . In fact, the Reagan Administration did sponsor a resolution in the United Nations condemning the use of chemical weapons, and it tightened some export controls; however, the great majority of all dual-use export licenses were approved by the Reagan Administration.
While the record clearly shows that the United States refused to
pursue a highly confrontational approach (in the form of economic sanctions), there is little evidence that Washington made any serious attempt to alter Saddam’s behavior by using any form of leverage that the burgeoning asymmetrical economic ties had created during six years of engagement.”
See page 5
carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03summer/borer.pdf
July 27th, 2007 at 11:26 am
picked a number because there was someone (The Iraq Foundation) who on record and standing behind the claim. It was also the largest number I could find and tracked Kermit’s estimate. Then I tried to evaluate the credibility of that estimate. That is how historical research works. Sorry if the most basic of historical research methods baffles you.
As usual, Rick, condescenscion doesn’t work for you, and you’ve certainly not earned the right to be arrogant.
As for pulling a number, de anus, can you provide any source that says Saddam murdered a million Iraqi’s. Remember this is killings of internal opponents, not foreign wars.
No, I can’t. It was a number that an NBC News report ran with (”…estimates range as high as a million…”) back in 2003. Ask them what their source was. Get back to us.
But the fact that you draw a sharp line between state murder and deaths in foreign wars shows either your naivete or the extent to which you either misunderstand, coddle, or lust after totalitarian dictatorship. To totalitarian society, war is a means of social control. In Hussein’s military, Sunnis were a preponderance of senior officers, as well as most of the elite forces (with better equipment and training); most of the “cannon fodder” infantry who bore the brunt of the years of attrition warfare were Shiite, Kurd and Turkoman. War was an instrument (as well as useful cover) for getting rid of individual threats, as well as gutting the heart out of ethnic, social and religious opposition groups.
Interesting side note, Saddam’s single largest tally of Iraqi deaths was the Anfal campaign (50,000 – 100,000 according to HRW) against the Kurds in the late 80s when Ronald Reagan was selling him weapons.
I’d stomp that particular misleading meme into putty right now, but I figure I’ll toy with you a bit, Mr. “Bored Historical Researcher”: what weapons were they? More importantly, what was the dollar value of that aid? Even more importantly, express that aid as a percentage of analogous aid received from France and North Korea, to say nothing of the USSR?
Go to it, Mr. Historical Researcher.
July 27th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
“But the fact that you draw a sharp line between state murder and deaths in foreign wars shows either your naivete or the extent to which you either misunderstand, coddle, or lust after totalitarian dictatorship.”
Let us not forget that Rick believes America has “no moral authority to stop genocide”, so what’s the difference, really? His Starbuck’s is relatively safe from bombing.
July 27th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Lord you people are lazy.
NBC was probably citing an estimate from Human Rights Watch which looks like it breakdown:
500,000 Iraians killed in the Iran-Iraq War.
250,000 Iraqis killed in the same.
100,000 Kurds killed in Anfal campaign
100,000 Shia in the post-Iraq upraising
50,000 miscellaneous.
Please note that the U.S. rewarded Iraq for invading Iran and using mustard gas to attack Iran, by resuming full diplomatic relations in 1984.
During the Iran-Iraq war the whole world was happy to provide military assests to both sides for cash (the U.S. who did so for Iraq gratis). While the U.S.S.R. probably provided the bulk of Iraq’s basic weapons (guns and tanks) the U.S. and the West provided high quality military assets of special value. EG: http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html
“US aid includes battle-planning assistance. According to a report published in ‘The New York Times’ on 18 August 2002, more that 60 officers of the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) secretly supplied Iraq with detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb-damage assessments. Satellite photographs of the war front were also provided by the CIA”. High quality intelligence was a priceless asset.
“The British Government also becomes entangled in Iraq’s chemical weapons programs, secretly providing a British-based company with financial backing for the construction of a chlorine plant capable of producing the precursors necessary to manufacture mustard gas and nerve agents. The plant, Falluja 2, is located about 60 km west of Baghdad. It is later reported by ‘The Guardian’ newspaper that the British Government, at the time headed by Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher, was aware that the plant could be used in the production of chemical weapons.” Looks like Saddam could not build his own WMD, because he needed our help.
Most importantly of all, it was U.S. naval intervention in the “Tanker War” that prevented Iran from stopping Iraqi oil exports. The U.S. Navy was the sole power able to carry out this mission. So without the U.S. Navy, Saddam would have lost the war.
So how many of those million deaths do you want to lay at Reagan’s feet?
July 27th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Kermit:
“Let us not forget that Rick believes America has “no moral authority to stop genocide””
Just to be clear, my position is that the U.S. ought not to invade a country where there has been nothing remotely close to genocide going on for over a decade and then put into power people who look like they may start a campaign of genocide.
As for a potential future genocide in Iraq my position is that we have no ability to do anything about it. The best we can do for the Iraqis is to leave and stop arming all sides to the tooth.
July 27th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
As for a potential future genocide in Iraq my position is that we have no ability to do anything about it.
Really? And why is that?
The best we can do for the Iraqis is to leave and stop arming all sides to the tooth.
All sides?
July 27th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
“why is that”
Basically because there is no significant local group we can rely on to not promote sectarian conflict. As a result sectarian violence has grown worse every year we have been in Iraq.
“All sides”
Kurds check
Shia:
SCIRI check
Dawa check
Sadr check
Sunni:
ex-Bathists check
tribal sheiks check
Who did I miss?
July 27th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
“Who did I miss? ”
Um, the elected Iraqi government? Oh, that’s right. They’re going to commit genocide. We’d better disarm them. One less playah…
July 27th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Kermit:
Really – please – just stop. Even I am starting to feel embarrassed for Mitch’s team.
Your glorified moral concern with genocide in Iraq, is given lie to by your complete ignorance of what is happening in Iraq. The parties I listed ARE the “elected Iraqi government”. The current ruling majority is a coalition of the Kurds and the three major Shia parties (SCIRI, Dawa, and Sadr). The Iraqi armed forces are completely infiltrated with these sectarian militias. The Sunnis, who most fear genocide, believe the Iraqi government is working hand in glove with the militia men who are currently killing them. They hate and distrust the U.S. precisely because we put the Kurd/Shia alliance in power.
July 27th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
We’re arming the ex-baathists?
Sadr?
Hm.
July 27th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Even I am starting to feel embarrassed for Mitch’s team.
File under “France declares victory from Dunkirk’s beaches”.
July 27th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
“given lie to “?
Is that like the heave ho?
July 27th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Kermit blundered: “Um, the elected Iraqi government? Oh, that’s right. They’re going to commit genocide. We’d better disarm them. One less playah…”
Kinda like giving nukes to F Troop.
July 27th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
RickDFL said:
“Lord you people are lazy”
Lord you are whiny.
RickDFL also said:
“So how many of those million deaths do you want to lay at Reagan’s feet?”
So your goal is to find a way to blame Reagan for everything. Check.
July 27th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Mitch:
Remember Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who George Bush had a big crush on until Maliki came along. He was an ex-Baathist. He appointed Falah al-Naqib, another ex-Baathist as Minister of the Interior. He filled the security forces with lots of ex-Baath and armed them with U.S. help. Then Maliki came to power and purged most of them. All of that stuff about reforming the de-Baathification laws, that is so we can arm even more ex-Baath.
Sadr’s Mahdi Army has infiltrated many of the local police forces in southern Iraq and through them received U.S. pay, supplies, weapons, and training.
Mitch think about it for ten seconds. Your an American Major, your General is on your ass to ’stand up’ lots of Iraqi security forces. A few hundred guys show up and pinky swear to be good little non-sectarian troops. How do you tell if they are all Mahdi army? Ask the local Iraqi government representative? Chances are he got his job precisely to make sure you armed the right sectarian militias.
And if by some stroke of good fortune you managed to recruit a few troops without sectarian loyalty, how long before the sectarian militias pay them a visit and convince them to get lost?
You folks started a house on fire and now you are upset that no one will let you fill the fire hoses with gasoline.
July 27th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Troy:
Actually, I do not know that Reagan’s policy overall was that bad. Trying to engineer a stalemate not a bad strategy. I would have tried a little less military aide, and a little more creative diplomacy, but he had the tough job not me.
I just get annoyed whenever you people get the vapors and start fainting at the thought we may just have to live with a world with lots of not-so-nice people running countries.
July 27th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
I would have tried a little less military aide, and a little more creative diplomacy, but he had the tough job not me.
Ah. Well, he shoulda asked first, I guess.
I just get annoyed whenever you people get the vapors and start fainting at the thought we may just have to live with a world with lots of not-so-nice people running countries.
There’s a big post on that very topic – and the vapors you people get about getting realistic about it – coming shortly.
July 27th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
File under“France declares victory from Dunkirk’s beaches”
Well you seem to be doing all the retreating, changing the subject, and now just generally standing there saying “gee really we screwed up Iraq that bad?”.
July 27th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
“There’s a big post on that very topic – and the vapors you people get about getting realistic about it – coming shortly”
Try to avoid the really glaring factual errors.
July 27th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Angryclown belched “Kinda like giving nukes to F Troop.”
Or the U.S. military to a Democrat. Jimmy Carter comes to mind…
July 27th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
RickDFL said:
“The best we can do for the Iraqis is to leave and stop arming all sides to the tooth.”
Really. That is the best we can do. That is your honest opinion?
I am underwhelmed by your estimate of our country’s potential for good, and I cannot disagree more. What do you think of the United States of America, RickDFL?
July 27th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Carter, right, four years of peace. That sucked. If only he had lost a war in Iraq, Kermit would have so totally gone for him.
July 27th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Carter, right, four years of peace
Well, actually Carter was more like 18 months of unreciprocated war.
July 27th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
“I am underwhelmed by your estimate of our country’s potential for good”
Gee, Troy, next you will tell me we should launch a War on Poverty here at home.
Seriously, it is no crack on America. For the most part, Americans are pretty good at running America. The French are pretty good at running France. In retrospect the Iraqis were doing a lot better running their country than we are now. I am unaware of any country that has really developed the art of running other countries. Running a country is almost always best left to the people of that country. Independence and self-determination uses to be core principles for America, at least until you people showed up.
July 27th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
“Well, actually Carter was more like 18 months of unreciprocated war.”
Yeah, he should have made Rumsfeld SecDef and invaded Iran. That would have worked out, right. No way Rumsfeld could lose to a poorly armed Middle Eastern country. Oh wait a minute . . .
July 27th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Paul: Maybe Republicans want to go around calling the American people gullible fools, but Americans trust them to get it right. They used good old fashioned common sense and turned against the war because they saw that it was not worth the cost.
Nice dodge, Mr. Historical Researcher.
July 27th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
“In retrospect the Iraqis were doing a lot better running their country than we are now.”
Yes, Jackbooted military dictatorships have always been the government of choice on the Left. All that pesky “democracy” lets the wrong people have a say.
“I am unaware of any country that has really developed the art of running other countries.”
Germany and Japan leap to mind immediately, Mr. Historical Researcher. Oh my! The US ran them, dint they?
But keep going. There’s room for your other foot between those gums.
July 27th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Gee, Troy, next you will tell me we should launch a War on Poverty here at home.
That’s already been tried, Rick…by LBJ.
July 27th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Try to avoid the really glaring factual errors.
Don’t you mean the “really glaring factoid errors” Rick?
July 27th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Just to be clear, my position is that the U.S. ought not to invade a country where there has been nothing remotely close to genocide going on for over a decade and then put into power people who look like they may start a campaign of genocide.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Never read those Amnesty International Iraq reports from the late 90s, did you?
Do you know why Eason Jordan stepped down from running CNN? (Hint: it had to do with CNN’s Iraq bureau.)
Maybe you should ask 18-20 year-old-girls what they thought of winning a personal audience with Uday Hussein:
Imagine that you are a seventeen-year-old girl tied with electrical cords in a basement in Baghdad. It’s Monday evening. Uday Hussein, a young psychopath given godlike power over life and death since birth, was driving his pimpmobile on Friday afternoon, and saw you walking home from your university classes. He ordered you into the car, took you to one of his compounds, and raped you for three days, sharing you with all of his sycophants. Then, when your family had the temerity to question what might have happened to you, they were brought to this basement. You were raped repeatedly in front of your father and mother, your younger sister, too –- just so she could see what was in store for her. Your 7 year old brother then had his brains blown all over a wall in front of the entire family. Then your parents were killed, or you were killed, or your sister -– the order doesn’t matter, since none of you are getting out of this room. Inhuman wails of agony, pleas for mercy, begging, promising, mothers offering to be raped in place of their daughters, fathers begging to be killed if only they will release his family -– all of this. Perhaps you’ll be raped to death, or beaten to death; perhaps electrocuted with a wire brush plugged into a wall as salt water is thrown onto your lacerated body. Maybe father will be placed into one of the industrial shredders –- head first, if you can imagine such a thing…that would mean Uday is feeling merciful. Feet first will take a few moments longer. No, looks like it’s feet first for him today.
And you? What is your last thought, a pretty seventeen year old girl majoring in Chemical Engineering, say? What is the last thing that crosses your mind before the lights go out on you, your future, and the future of all the children you will never have?
July 27th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Kermit:
I think it is very clear to everybody (at least those who get out ouf mom’s basement) that our Iraq occupation is not going to turn out like Japan or Germany.
Paul:
If you read those Amnesty reports you will notice that Saddam’s last major internal killing spree was against the Shia uprising in 1991-1992, a full decade before our invasion.
Now, sorry to interrupt your little rape fantasy scene, but should the U.S. invade every country where women get raped? Iraqi women getting raped is a problem best solved by the Iraqi people. It is a virtual dead certainty that far fewer Iraqi women were raped in the 5 years before our invasion, than in the five years since which have seen civil war and a complete breakdown in law and order. Simply put we exchanged one Uday Hussein for hundreds.
July 27th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
No Rick, it’s not “very clear”. And my mom lives in Florida. I’m 49 and sitting in the kitchen of my 4 bedroom split-level in the burbs, but thanks for the insult.
The only way we “lose” in Iraq is if you frigging cowards on the Left force another Vietnam type surrender on America. But we’ve been over that time and again.
You’re a coward and a fool, Rick. Mitch is a nice guy and doesn’t like to say things like that on his blog. I have no such compunction.
If you actually knew half as much about Human history as you think you do you would realize that it is a long, repetitive series of conflicts. There are winners and losers. The losers either A) die, or B) are enslaved. You and your fellow travelers are losers, Rick. Thankfully you don’t represent most of America.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:25 am
If you read those Amnesty reports you will notice that Saddam’s last major internal killing spree was against the Shia uprising in 1991-1992, a full decade before our invasion.
It’s obvious you didn’t read them Rick, because AI was screaming about Iraq in the late 90s and early 2000s. Actually made the top of their human rights violation list at one point, hovering near the top at all others. Nobody prominent on the Left paid them any attention. Rush Limbaugh actually posted the PDF documents of the AI Iraq reports on his website back in 2001-2002 precisely because no one on the Left was paying attention, questioning why.
Now, sorry to interrupt your little rape fantasy scene, but should the U.S. invade every country where women get raped? It is a virtual dead certainty that far fewer Iraqi women were raped in the 5 years before our invasion, than in the five years since which have seen civil war and a complete breakdown in law and order.
Care to offer some proof of that, Mr. Historical Researcher? Since it is a ‘virtual dead certainy?’
There’s a reason Eason Jordan (the guy at the top) lost his spot at CNN: the CNN Iraq bureau lied their asses off about the massive human rights violations taking place there, in addition to his stupid comment about the US military hunting down journalists, a charge even Barney Frank couldn’t swallow.
Just keep on, Rick, you’ll look even more idiotic than you do now.
July 28th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Kermit: you keep saying that the war is not lost, but you also fail, time after time, to provide any evidence. I would suggest you head over to the Victory Caucus website, but the Bush Admin just stopped reporting electrical production figures, which the VC site had IDed as a key metric of success. Ouch.
Paul: AI was reporting on human rights abuses in Iraq between 1992 and 2002, just not on the widescale (1000+) murder of regime opponents. They were not reprting this because it was not happening. Maybe I am wrong, but please post a link.
As for Iraqi women (and for Christ sake can’t you people do any research)
Here is a July 2003 Human Rights Watch report
hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq0703/1.htm#_Toc45709960
“At a time when insecurity is on the rise in Baghdad, women and girls in Baghdad told Human Rights Watch that the insecurity and fear of sexual violence or abduction is keeping them in their homes, out of schools, and away from work and looking for employment. The failure of the occupying power to protect women and girls from violence, and redress it when it occurs, has both immediate and long-term negative implications for the safety of women and girls and for their participation in post-war life in Iraq.”
Here is Amnesty International in 2004
news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE14310320042004
“Violence against women and girls has sharply increased in Iraq compared to the time before last year’s war. After the war, there was a complete breakdown of law and order. Even though the situation has generally improved since those first months, the lack of security still remains a serious threat to the population. Many women and girls live under constant fear of being harassed, beaten, abducted, raped or murdered.”
And finally here is a report from 2007:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12286
“Since the US invaded Iraq, women there have endured a wave of death threats, assassinations, abductions, public beatings, targeted sexual assaults, and public hangings. Much of this violence is systematic-directed by both Sunni and Shiite Islamist militias that mushroomed across Iraq after the US toppled the mostly secular Ba’ath regime. We’ve heard about the brutality of the Sunni-based groups, but much less about the Shiite militias that are the armed wings of the political parties that the US boosted into power. Their aim is to establish an Islamist theocracy and their social vision requires the subjugation of women and the elimination of anyone with a competing vision for Iraq’s future.”
Congrats your war will impose Sharia on Iraqi women.
July 28th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
A four year old report, a three year old report and an opinion piece.
Gee Rick, does your elbow get sor4e waving that white flag?
July 28th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Maybe I am wrong, but please post a link.
I would, but AI mysteriously yanked them down. OK, not so, since leaving them up doesn’t fit with their BDS agenda. The originals are still available, but you have to be a Rush 27/7 member to get them.
They were not reporting this because it was not happening.
I guess National Geographic simply made up everything in this DVD: Inside Saddam’s Reign of Terror.
For 24 years, Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party executed political rivals, Shias, Kurds and anyone else who dared disagree – or even tell a joke about the dictator. A chorus of testimonials, unearthed mass graves and discovered documents now reveal the extent to which Saddam and his Baath Party tortured, maimed, raped and murdered Iraqi citizens. As he faces trial for his crimes, NGC goes inside his reign of terror – with rare videotape that shows Baath Party members carrying out Saddam’s brutal laws.
Guess that wasn’t a fantasy, huh?
Congrats your war will impose Sharia on Iraqi women.
That’s merciful compared to Uday and his sycophants. Assuming that actually happens, O Prophet of Doom.
July 28th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Kermit
“Gee Rick, does your elbow get sor4e waving that white flag?”
No but I do get tired of you being totally unable to provide any evidence. Yes one report is four and another three years old. But everyone agrees that personal security for Iraqis has gotten worse since our invasion. Yes one piece is an opinion piece, but it is evidence. So how about it big talker, can you find one source willing to say that Iraqi women have less fear of sexual violence in 2007 than in 2001?
Paul:
AI seems to have lots of reports on Iraq during the pre-invasion period. Try here:
web.amnesty.org/library/eng-irq/index&start=300
If Rush has some unavailable report there is this little feature on your computer called cut and paste. Otherwise I just think your lying.
As for National Geographic please read your own quote more carefully “For 24 years, . . . Saddam and his Baath Party tortured, maimed, raped and murdered Iraqi citizens” There are discussing Saddam’s record since the start of the Iran-Iraq war (24 years), not his record in the 10 years prior to our invasion. As I listed above most of Saddam’s internal killing took place during 1986-88 (Anfal anti-Kurd campaign) and 1991-92 (Shia uprising). After that Saddam continued to execute some criminals and opponents (Amnesty put the number in the “hundreds” in 2001). He was a bad guy, but his killing was no longer genocidal. Indeed far fewer Iraqis were being killed by Saddam after 1992, than are being killed yearly by the forces our invasion has unleashed.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
“Gee Rick, does your elbow get sor4e waving that white flag?”
“No”
Didn’t think so. Refer to previous comment: ”
You’re a coward and a fool, Rick.”
July 29th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Guess what, Rick? AI put’em back up. They were down for a few years, but probably realizing that copies and cached versions still existed, a little CYA was in order.
1998
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar98/mde14.htm
“The fate of thousands of people who “disappeared” in previous years remained unknown. They included hundreds of suspected members of opposition groups and their relatives who were arrested when Iraqi government and KDP forces took control of Arbil in August 1996″
1999
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar99/mde14.htm
“In April the un Commission on Human Rights condemned the “systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the government of Iraq”, and extended for a further year the mandate of the un Special Rapporteur on Iraq.”
2002
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/mde/iraq!Open
“Political prisoners and detainees were subjected to systematic torture. The bodies of many of those executed had evident signs of torture. Common methods of physical torture included electric shocks or cigarette burns to various parts of the body, pulling out of fingernails, rape, long periods of suspension by the limbs from either a rotating fan in the ceiling or from a horizontal pole, beating with cables, hosepipe or metal rods, and falaqa (beating on the soles of the feet). In addition, detainees were threatened with rape and subjected to mock execution. They were placed in cells where they could hear the screams of others being tortured and were deliberately deprived of sleep.”
Indeed far fewer Iraqis were being killed by Saddam after 1992, than are being killed yearly by the forces our invasion has unleashed.
That claim of 100,000 Civilian Deaths may be about to be proven bullsh1t because no one else can reproduce the statistical results and the Lancet authors aren’t releasing the relevant data:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/25/document-drop-a-new-critique-of-the-2004-lancet-iraq-death-toll-study/
July 29th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Right back at you.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:58 am
“AI put’em back up”
Delusional does not even begin to cover it. It just so happened that they put em back up just in time to make you look stupid.
As for the reports you cite.
1. Yes, during Saddam’s brief late 90s incursion into Kurdistan, hundreds were executed. Hardly thousands and not genocide. Please note that Saddam’s partner in this operation was a KDP, one of the key elements of the new Iraqi government we put in power.
2. No evidence of large scale (1000+) killing.
3. Ditto
As for the Lancet study, there best guess in 600,000 excess deaths, which is far different from murders.
But between 1992 and 2002, Saddam was killing in the 100s not thousands or tens of thousands. His total even at the high end was 15,000 in ten years. Now at least 3,500 U.S. troops have been killed. Just counting published reports of Iraqi deaths Iraq Body Count gets between 68,000 and 75,000 Iraqi deaths. And that is in four years.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org
That does not count all of the unpublished and unreported deaths.
So at a minimum, our Iraq is killing people 4 to 5 times greater than Saddam’s between 1992-2002.
July 29th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
So at a minimum, our Iraq is killing people 4 to 5 times greater than Saddam’s between 1992-2002.
The Lancet study could be wrong by 98%. And they aren’t telling how they got those numbers. Nobody can reproduce them.
July 29th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Just counting published reports of Iraqi deaths Iraq Body Count gets between 68,000 and 75,000 Iraqi deaths. And that is in four years
That’s assuming those number are reliable.
From the Wikipedia article on Iraq Body Count:
IBC’s online database shows the newspaper, magazine or website where each number is reported, and the date on which it was reported. However, this has been criticized as insufficient because it typically does not list the original sources for the information: that is, the NGO, journalist or government responsible for the number presented. Hence, any inherent bias due to the lack of reliable reports from independent or Allied sources is not readily available to the reader.
In the light of many atrocity stories proven false that the MSM have run with as historical fact these could be a pack of bald-faced lies.
July 29th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Paul:
I find it impossible to take your concerns of a future genocide seriously when you are so eager to dismiss evidence of current Iraqi deaths on the slightest pretext. In December 2006, President Bush acknowledged at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian casualties. Can we at least start from there?
As for the Iraqi Body Count, if you want to dispute their number and put out your own please do. Given the difficulty of reporting in Iraq and the fact that they only cite deaths that appear in published sources, it is more likely that they have undercounted the number.
As for their sources, I love Wikipedia, but I checked this one out myself at
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
I checked 9 off the 195 pages of fatal incidents and I could not find a single one that did not cite a original published source. The pages are there feel free to find large numbers of unsourced deaths.
Of course, no one knows the precise number of Iraqis killed under Saddam and under the occupation, but grownups can get by on pretty good estimates. The overwhelming evidence is that far larger numbers are dying under the U.S. occupation that under late era Saddam.
So be a man and quit this passive skepticism. How many Iraqi civilians do you think have been killed since our invasion? Is that number larger than the number killed under Saddam between 1992 and the invasion?
July 30th, 2007 at 1:10 am
I find it funny that RickDFL said this:
“Independence and self-determination uses to be core principles for America, at least until you people showed up.”
And to trust Iraqi Body Count you simply have to trust that every news story (from every news “organization” under the sun) they site is true, and that none of stories sited are reports of the same incident. And then he says:
“grownups can get by on pretty good estimates”
If RickDFL is one of the “grownups” in question, it seems he can get by on estimates of much lower quality.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:11 am
s/sited/cited/ — hehe
July 30th, 2007 at 6:42 am
“As for the Lancet study, there best guess in 600,000 excess deaths, which is far different from murders.”
Wouldja feel better if they was pushed outta windows Little Girl?
July 30th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Gee the NY Times editorial this morning must be giving poor Rick vapors. The nerve of those linerals! Suggesting we could actually win in Iraq!
July 30th, 2007 at 7:29 am
linerals? Subtract the n, add a b. Get coffee.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Troy:
As I said to Paul, if you have a better more accurate estimate of Iraqi civilian killings, me a man and put a number up. If you think any specific incidents listed on the Iraq Body Count have been misreported, feel free to say so and try to discredit their count.
BTW: If you clowns had shown a similar level of skepticism towards the Bush Admin’s claims about WMD, maybe we would not be in this fix.
Kermit: I give NYT editorials as much credence as I give Judy Miller reports of WMD.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:57 am
RickDFL:
I read what you wrote to Paul, and it still makes little sense. I need to come up with a “better” estimate? I need to prove any “incident” this source is “misreported”? I don’t think so, RickDFL. You can ignore the undiscriminating mix of sources and the possibility of duplication if you wish, but if you think yours is a good defense of Iraqi Body Count, I think you are sadly mistaken.
And “Bush Admin’s claims about WMD” says a lot about what you’ll allow yourself to believe, RickDFL. As if nobody else in the world believed those things. I chuckle in your general direction.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Troy:
Any matter of fact is subject to any number of reasons for doubt. Reasonable people like me apply those doubts equally across the board. You simply apply them when you lack the courage to face facts. You are unwilling to face the consequences of your policy in Iraq, so you wring your hands and say who can really know how many people have been killed. You wanted to invade Iraq, so you blindly accepted any evidence of WMD no matter how flimsy.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:03 am
RickDFL said:
“Reasonable people like me”
and I chuckle once again.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:07 am
RickDFL slandered: “BTW: If you clowns had shown a similar level of skepticism towards the Bush Admin’s claims about WMD, maybe we would not be in this fix.”
Don’t blame the clowns, RickDFL. It was the wingnuts who got us into this mess.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Troy:
“I chuckle once again”
Wait at minute, I know you. You are that guy on the bus. Sits alone, smells bad, chuckling to himself.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
No RickDFL, but I hardly imagine I am the only one to chuckle at you.