Shrill

Michael Hirsch on Bush and Blackwater:

Imagine a universe where a man can gun down women and children anytime he pleases, knowing he will never be brought to justice. A place where morality is null and void, and arbitrary killing is the rule. A place that has been imagined hitherto only in nightmarish dystopian fiction, like “1984,” or in fevered passages from Dostoevsky—or which existed during the Holocaust and Stalinist purges and the Dark Ages. Well, that universe exists today. It is called Iraq. And the man who made it possible is George W. Bush.

Again, note the staggering fact that the allegedly sovereign government of Iraq has been allowing this state of affairs to persist for years and has already backed down from efforts to do otherwise. It's a perfect encapsulation of the fundamentally imperial nature of the enterprise.

Comments

I would go further, and argue that the nature of counterinsurgency warfare is itself imperial, a product of the era of decolonisation.

For those interested, check out Caroline Elkins' harrowing book, _Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya_.

Empire is the sine qua non of counterinsurgency, and no matter how friendly and erudite someone like Petraeus seems, we must remember: he is hawking Empire, and Empire is ultimately about violent domination of Others.

Posted by Ben Cronin | September 21, 2007 5:37 PM

If the U.S. "wins" this argument over Blackwater with the Iraqi Interior Ministry, the Iraqi government will be in the position of the South Vietnamese governments that we supported from 1963 until the fall of Saigon in 1975: looking the other way while powerful foreigners killed civilians. It won't -- and can't -- end well.

Posted by Hal | September 21, 2007 5:40 PM

he is hawking Empire, and Empire is ultimately about violent domination of Others.

The Bush administration is hawking empire, and hiding behind the general. The general is just doing his job. (He could resign.) I don't know what percentage of the Army wishes we weren't in Iraq, but it's gotta be high.

Does everyone agree that "Empire" is about the violent domination of "Others"? Since we're referring to Orwell, is that like "the point of torture is torture"? I thought empire was about enriching the empire, and violent domination was (often) a handy means to the end.

Posted by Bill | September 21, 2007 5:44 PM

Just another example that Gene Roddenberry Was Wrong. People will never be able to "improve themselves" into not behaving the way people have always behaved. Immutable Human Nature will just force them into different sorts of evils and errors. I mean, other occupying powers have used mercenaries before...but mercenaries that are not even informally controlled by the military authorities? Such a thing would have been unthinkable to previous generations of imperialists.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | September 21, 2007 5:53 PM

Empire and dominating behavior is not limited to the administration. Senator Biden wants to partition the country. Wonder where he thinks the authority to do that comes from. But, yes, empire and domination appears to be the theme of this disgrace.

Posted by JackD | September 21, 2007 5:55 PM

I don't see why it isn't pointed out more frequently that George W. Bush is, and has been, the supreme ruler of Iraq.

Posted by neil | September 21, 2007 6:00 PM

incidentally, this is exactly the state of affairs that the Israeli army enjoys in Palestine.

If you don't believe me, check this out:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1643573,00.html

Posted by trev | September 21, 2007 6:06 PM

Please save this phony moral outrage, Matt. The mission of our army changed in January 2007 to protect civilians from the Islamic Khmer Rouge. There is a lot of dirt under the fingernails of Blackwater, but to sum up all of Iraq based on this incident (and there are more that will come out) as if the withdrawal right now crowd actually cared about making Iraq any better is just craven.

Posted by Eli Lake | September 21, 2007 6:21 PM

Imagine a universe where a man can gun down women and children anytime he pleases, knowing he will never be brought to justice. A place where morality is null and void, and arbitrary killing is the rule. A place that has been imagined hitherto only in nightmarish dystopian fiction, like “1984,” or in fevered passages from Dostoevsky—or which existed during the Holocaust and Stalinist purges and the Dark Ages. Well, that universe exists today. It is called Iraq. And the man who made it possible is George W. Bush.

'Hitherto only'? I think Hirsch needs to take a deep, trembling breath and calm down. Until the last couple of lines, this snippet could have been a teaser for Iraq under Saddam and Sons, or most of sub-Sahara Africa, or the Sudan, or...

And why don't we all save ourselves potential embarrassment and wait for the investigation to conclude? Blackwater says they came under attack in one of the most dangerous places on the planet and responded with overwhelming firepower. If that is true, then they are not to blame for the dead civilians. The attackers are: they opened fire in a public place, they decided not to wear distinctive uniforms. They made this happen, not Blackwater.

And on the "accountability" issue, if Blackwater broke their ROEs, that would be a breach of contract and perhaps a felony. Even if we can't put them in jail we can sue them into bankruptcy and/or make sure they never operate again. Not to mention wrongful death claims filed on behalf of the Iraqis. Whether you think these incentives are sufficient, they are still there.

Look, I understand how against the war most of you are. I thought at the time it was a bad idea, too, and have since become certain that it was. But some of you seem a mite quick to believe that Americans are murderers and sadists and racist imperialists, even when all you go on is a report from a corrupt Iraqi Government, which you trust when it's convenient and distrust when it's convenient.

And to compare Blackwater personnel defending themselves and others -- however over-zealously -- to 1984, the Holocaust, and Stalin's purges . . . well, that's funny queer.

Posted by JA | September 21, 2007 6:26 PM

Imagine a universe where a man can deny 4 million children health care & then blame his opponents of endangering those same children for political purposes, knowing he will never be called to question. A place where morality is null and void, and arbitrary obstruction of government is the rule. A place that has been imagined hitherto only in nightmarish dystopian fiction, like “Atlas Shrugged,” or in fevered passages from Coulter. Well, that universe exists today. It is called the Whitehouse. And the man who rules it is George W. Bush.

Posted by raff | September 21, 2007 6:37 PM

Can anyone speak the veracity of this video? It appears to be someone driving around shooting at random cars, causing accidents, maybe killing people. It claims these are mercenaries in Iraq

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoRpfRhXDFc

Posted by eh | September 21, 2007 6:42 PM

Has anyone brought up that video of Bush being questioned about contractors by a Johns Hopkins student? He dodged, and said he would discuss the issue with Rumsfeld.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvvPzVdP-DM

Eli Lake doesn't give a shit about Iraqis, nor about the truth. The "mission" in January was to provide stability so that Iraqi politicians could make progress. They haven't, and what stability exists is because more neighborhoods a re ethnically homogeneous due to ethnic cleansing. The idea that we're preventing an Iraqi Khmer Rouge is just another instance in an endless string of examples of neocons moving the goalposts.

If neocons gave a shit about Iraqis, they would be saying that the US needs to do much more in the way of admitting Iraqi refugees. Instead, they moves the goalposts and rewrite the "mission".

Posted by tomboy | September 21, 2007 6:50 PM

Eli Lake says:

but to sum up all of Iraq based on this incident (and there are more that will come out) as if the withdrawal right now crowd actually cared about making Iraq any better is just craven.

Ah yes, the conservative bleeding heart gambit. Talk about craven.

Posted by Bill | September 21, 2007 6:50 PM

Shorter JA: People that shoot civilians are not responsible for the deaths of those civilians- if the shooters are being paid by the U.S. government.

Posted by Dan | September 21, 2007 6:56 PM

If neocons gave a shit about Iraqis, they would be saying that the US needs to do much more in the way of admitting Iraqi refugees. Instead, they moves the goalposts and rewrite the "mission".

When it comes to implementing policy and putting lives on the line, "caring" about making Iraq "better" begins and ends with the U.S. national interest, as it should. There was an honest disagreement about whether invading Iraq was in the national interest (the dipshits won). There is now an honest disagreement about whether staying or leaving will serve the national interest best (the dipshits are winning).

Posted by Bill | September 21, 2007 6:57 PM

JA complains:

But some of you seem a mite quick to believe that Americans are murderers and sadists and racist imperialists

Name an aggressive foreign occupation, by a powerful country, of a weaker country, in history, that did not involve 1) murder 2) sadism and 3) racist imperialism, by the occupiers. Not and/or. All of the above. Take you time.

Posted by Bill | September 21, 2007 7:00 PM

But some of you seem a mite quick to believe that Americans are murderers and sadists

In 2004 there were 16,000 murders in America. Am I to believe that it was all foreigners who committed these murders?

Posted by neil | September 21, 2007 7:16 PM

Imagine a universe where a man can gun down women and children anytime he pleases

don't forget that reported eyewitness accounts said that the car that was said to be ignoring a policeman telling it to stop was driven by a man and had a woman and baby in the passenger seat. they set it on fire with a grenade.

so it's not just shooting. it's burning women and babies alive.

Posted by this guy | September 21, 2007 7:23 PM

Is it safe to assume that this incident has erased any actual "gains" made by the Surge?

Posted by alphie | September 21, 2007 7:31 PM

Right, Eli. The reason that people like Rumsfeld and Abrams, who armed Saddam and covered up and enabled massacres in Latin America, were driven to agitate for the Iraq invasion was because they just cared so much about the Iraqi population. After all, they had long been at the forefront of the movement opposing the sanctions on humanitarian grounds in the 1990s. And they again showed that heartfelt concern with their immaculate, broad-based planning for the occupation.

Go die in a fire.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | September 21, 2007 7:58 PM

Re: A place that has been imagined hitherto only in nightmarish dystopian fiction

Not really. It's pretty much been common in all conquered lands from the earliest periods of history (replace "gun" with ancient or medieval weapon of choice). The US behavior in Germany and Japan after WWII was quite exemplary, and rather rare, historically. Recall though that the US forces did commit massacres in Vietnam, and only a fraction of them were punished. Of course seeing Iraq as "conquered land" very much gives the lie to any notion that we liberated the country from tyranny.

Posted by JonF | September 21, 2007 8:12 PM

It is astonishing that the U.S. government blithely starts up the Blackwater machine again, without even an explanation to the Iraqi government. Plainly, Blackwater has been a murderous mercenary force for bad in Iraq for years. But when the government of Iraq itself kicks the company out, the U.S. should simply comply. I can't imagine a parallel situation in which U.S. authority within its own borders could be so carelessly flouted by another power.

This speaks to the deepest level of the pro-war hypocrisy, all the decent lefties and supposed liberal interventionists. Where's the democratic agenda, guys? Although on the highest level - the Bush level, the level that invaded Iraq and made all the decisions - there was never any question that this was an imperialist measure justified in the name of 'free enterprise', there were still those beards and freaks, the Hitchens type, the Paul Berman type, who defended the invasion as a liberation. Indeed, the liberation has freed Iraqis from the seizures and secret police of Saddam, only to deliver them to the neandrethal criminality of Blackwater. And not a voice on the pro-war side will protest. Although, to be honest, what with the Democratic party's collusion at the highest levels with the money machine fun of privatizing the Pentagon (public money, private enterprise = money for all of K street and beyond!) we'll never hear a peep from the Dems, either. God, we are in the hands of a devious and deviant bunch of crapheads, with seemingly no way out.

Posted by roger | September 21, 2007 8:14 PM

"capitalism and socialism in their selfish forms are different routes to global totalitarism". This passage was written by Tom Stoppard in the preface to his new play "Rock & Roll". I can't think of a better quotation to describe what the Bush administration has done in Iraq.

Posted by carmel schwartz | September 21, 2007 8:19 PM

Wow, guess the guy never really noticed Guatemala under Reagan's genocidalist buddies.

Posted by El Cid | September 21, 2007 8:39 PM

Re trev

The Guardian is about as reliable a source of information about the State of Israel as O. J. Simpson is about Nicole Brown Simpson.

Posted by SLC | September 21, 2007 8:41 PM

Yes, JA, plenty of accountability (from the same article):

Take the case of the Blackwater guard who got drunk at a Green Zone party last Christmas Eve and reportedly boasted to his friends that he was going to kill someone. According to both Iraqi and U.S. officials, he stumbled out and headed provocatively over to the “Little Venice” section, a lovely area of canals where Iraqi officials live. He had an argument with an Iraqi guard, then shot him once in the chest and three times in the back. The next day Blackwater put him on a private plane out of the country—probably only because the incident involved a rare killing inside the Green Zone and the victim was a security guard for a high-ranking politician. That was it. The company has refused to disclose his name.

They sent the guy home. What more could anyone ask for?

Posted by KCinDC | September 21, 2007 8:45 PM

But...but... we gave the Iraqis back their sovereignty on June 27, 2004. Bush said so. They made a big deal of it. A huge deal of it.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | September 21, 2007 8:48 PM

Actually no, this is the world of Ahmadinejad and his associates in the IRGC like Hirsch's new pen pal Gen. Mohsen Rezai. Actually, Mahmoud fits all those categories; he has kidnapped American diplomats, he has administered the torture of civilians,gunned down dissidents in foreign capitals; well you get the idea. Yet Columbia gives him the red carpet treatment, while giving
the ROTC the finger. But that's a good try, Mike,
auditioning for Al Jazeera.

Posted by narciso | September 21, 2007 8:51 PM

Imagine a world where a woman can burn up a whole church with all the children inside because the church leader didn't obey a summons. Imagine a world where the administration she belongs to then then gets to investigate itself and pronounce itself blameless. The reporters who voted for that administration check out the situation and pronounce that all is well. Previously this existed only in dystopian fiction, but then it came true in Waco, Texas.

Imagine a world where privileged white athletes can rape and sodomize poor black women with impunity. Where one lonely district attorney is the only force standing between a mob of vicious rich white boys and utter barbarism. . . .

O never mind. Imagine what you want, you are so silly.

Posted by y81 | September 21, 2007 9:05 PM

That Eli Lake twit is dumber than Al. The Repub trolls continue to decline in quality.

Posted by mq | September 21, 2007 9:22 PM

Eli Lake is not dumb, and he has been to Iraq and knows more about it than I do.

Nonetheless, he's dodging the issue, which is that we are dictating to the supposedly sovereign Iraqi government that it must maintain legal immunity for our contractors so that they can murder any Iraqi civilians they want to.

No matter what you think of the war, this is an outrage.

Posted by Dilan Esper | September 21, 2007 9:29 PM

All of this was predicted in the "cyberpunk" science fiction stories of the '80's and '90's.

Corporations merge with and control the state. Corporations end up buying their own private armies to wage "corporate war" with each other (in Iraq and Iran, this is the US oil companies vs OPEC, using the Pentagon as their "mercenaries.") Next thing you know, ordinary criminals and even ordinary citizens have to carry heavy hardware to defend themselves against the corporations and their loose cannon mercenary companies.

The result of all this in every cyberpunk story: the central government becomes weak and despised. Corporations, gangs and resistance groups become the controllers of violence.

In essence, this is the ultimate denouement of thousands of years of the state: anarchy sets in. And not the peaceful anarchy that the anarchists have been advocating for centuries - but the violent anarchy that the state was (allegedly) set up specifically to prevent.

The end result of the state IS violent anarchy. The nature of the state is a (claimed) monopoly on violence. And there is no such thing as a monopoly on violence - merely an investment in it that, once perceived by everyone as a valid investment, becomes a common investment until the rate of return is reduced to below the general rate of return. In other words, everyone has to become violent because violence is profitable - until everyone expends all their efforts controlling violence - and nothing in productivity.

The investment in violence is done in two ways: directly and indirectly. The indirect way is done by corporations and the wealthy taking possession of the state by bribing the members of the state (your typical Republicans and Democrats). The direct way is by using the indirect influence on the state to start wars profitable for certain beneficiaries outside the state - your standard war profiteers like the oil companies, Halliburton, and others.

Meanwhile, the investment in violence eventually forces the citizenry to engage in violence themselves to survive. Example: pass drug laws which, while ostensibly intended to support "public morality",are actually intended to control minorities while simultaneously denying minorities opportunities in the market. Law creates crime. When the lower classes turn to crime, pass more laws, create more prisons, develop a "security state". The resulting violence from the lower classes frightens the middle and upper classes, so they support more laws, more state power, giving up their civil rights for more "security". A never-ending spiral occurs until at some point the local state breaks down and is either overthrown in a revolution or insurrection, or is overthrown by its neighbors as a result of the equivalent procedures done on an international scale.

This is the economic argument why the state is doomed. No one has ever refuted this argument.

Kissinger did an op-ed for WaPo saying that Iran can't be allowed to have influence in the ME because the nations can't accept a nation with radical notions in charge of the resources the rest of the nations need for their economies - in other words, oil.

Pretty much makes it clear. Greenspan said the Iraq war was for oil - Kissinger says the Iran war is for oil.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 21, 2007 9:45 PM

The State Department is crazy to send people out with Blackwater now. Not because of the message it sends because it's far to late to rehabilitate that. No, because it's like painting a target on their backs.

This thing was a political Godsend for Maliki. A no lose situation vis a vis his own position. Well I guess that was already beyond hope. Now the backdown seals his fate. He would have been better off not saying anything. It's almost like he has been studying the tactics of the DLC.

Posted by rapier | September 21, 2007 10:12 PM

The Islamic Khmer Rouge might be the dumbest phrase I've seen a pro-war writer write. Groups like the Ba'athists or al-Qaida in Iraq have done enough bad things to people that somehow tying this war emotionally to the Killing Fields of Cambodia just shows how desperate Lake is. Like how Sartre and other French socialists feared that any criticism of the Soviet Union or Stalin would risk the chance for a better world, neocons today fear that admitting any real fault with their use of violence will threaten their utopian vision. He shows how someone who cannot be honest with himself can go to Iraq a lot and yet never connect with the actual people there. There are good soldiers in Iraq, but we also have the soldiers there that do things like write "New Testament" on their tanks. We throw them into a situation where they fight a guerrilla war in a land where they don't speak the language and they lack the local societal knowledge to tell a Sunni from a Shi'ite and tell them to torture people. That is a recipe for Haditha and Abu Ghraib. The British troops stationed in North America before the Revolution spoke our language and shared the same religion and cultural background, yet the beginning of the end for the British in America came with the Boston Massacre.

Posted by Reality Man | September 22, 2007 12:51 AM

Dilan writes: "Eli Lake is not dumb, and he has been to Iraq and knows more about it than I do."

Of course he's not dumb. He's a malignant True Believer who sees nothing wrong with 180,000 mercenaries running around Iraq doing whatever they want and answering to no one.

He's a whole lot worse than dumb. He's an apologist for murderers and thieves. It makes me wonder what sorts of things he did when he was in Iraq.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 22, 2007 1:38 AM