Comments on: Allawi the thug

By: dipnut

dipnut — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 22:02:08 +0000

Satisfy your right-wing troll tonight! All you have to do is say, “Arafat was worse than Ayad Allawi”. Unless that would use up all the remaining time and space.

By: John

John — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:25:53 +0000

My piece: Yassar Arafat is one of those people who desperately need a Speaker for the Dead to speak at their funeral. If you’re familiar with Orson Scott Card and know what a Speaker for the Dead is, you probably know why a Speaker for the Dead would be quite appropriate.

By: George

George — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 20:46:17 +0000

Incidentally, if anyone’s still reading this, TNR’s editorial on Arafat’s death just about perfectly captures my opinion of the man: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041122&s=editorial112204 I wouldn’t, as a rule, class TNR with “the usual suspects.”

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:45:16 +0000

Walt Pohl, again, I don’t doubt for a second that the guy had bank accounts with millions (or, perhaps, billions, thought I find it hard to believe) of dollars. It’s just that it seems absurd to imply that he was considering it his personal fortune. Note that the Aljazeera article you linked is talking about ‘a bitter fight’ among Palestinian leadership, not Arafat’s cousins and nephews. So, if this, indeed, was the movement’s money, can this really be called ‘corruption’? I don’t think so. One could point out that this is bad management style, but even that would be hard to judge – considering the circumstances. Thanks.

By: stuart

stuart — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:20:22 +0000

Ignoring the Arafat issue as I am sure it is being brought up enough elsewhere anyway, the question about Allawi and the future of Iraq under him is an interesting one. For example his history as a Ba’athist and his appoint of a few key Ba’athists in the government apparatus could be worrying in itself, although being attack by someone with an axe might be convincing that he had turned against the principles they held. Or his appointment of his cousin and brother in law might be a glimpse of a potential return to a dictatorship in planning, or the lack of people he can truly trust yet. You could also see his appointment as a repayment for his efforts with the INA, or just that he is one of few known to the alliance that can be considered unlikely to just reform a group of pro-saddamites in charge. You could look at his alleged involvement in several violent incidents as evidence of his potential as a brutal dictator, or as political necessities in a state nearing civil war, or as uncorroborated slurs to try and discredit him. You could look at his taking powers to himself as proof that he does not intend to be a western pawn, or his intention to rig the elections to put himself into power, or just a necessity in a dangerous situation. Trying to guess Allawi’s motives, and hence Iraq’s immediate future, is somewhat hard to do from the relatively little we know about him for sure. Seeing he has worked with MI6 and the CIA a fair amount however, you presume the choice of him is likely based on a far stronger knowledge of what he is likely to do. Of course then you have to hope for the Iraqi’s sake that they aren’t intending to install yet another favoured dictator with a sham democracy as they have done so often in the past when they have had the option. Hopefully with the larger media interest in Iraq they didn’t think they could get away with it again.

By: washerdreyer

washerdreyer — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 07:44:26 +0000

Mark- I appreciate your response to my post. However, it seems to me that there is a massive contrast between what you say in that post and in your other posts. Your claim is that because “the left” (it’s unclear which individiuals are described by this term) opposed this particular war in Iraq, they supported Hussein. Yet you acknowledge that you only support wars against dictators when they are morally, politically, and financially feasible. Isn’t it perfectly clear that many people on “the left’ think this war is morally unfeasible, and the reasons it is morally unfeasible have nothign to do with support for Hussien?

By: Martin Wisse

Martin Wisse — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 07:15:01 +0000

Allawi is an US installed thug with no legitimacy in Iraq, who is itching to become the next Saddam, useful to the US until he gets above himself. The sooner he is killed, the better. Arafat was a legitamite leader of his people and unlike some, actually elected… Comparing him to Alwai is doing him a dissservice.

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:12:41 +0000

They may be idiots, but they can’t be trolls. Trolls, by definition, try to derail discussion on other people’s sites.

By: Abiola Lapite

Abiola Lapite — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:49:39 +0000

“Abiola: By definition, you can’t actually be a troll on your own site.” So what does that make the likes of Adam Yoshida and Emperor Misha?

By: jet

jet — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:24:23 +0000

Spot on Kevin, it isn’t about the fact they were bastards in the past, but what they have to offer in the relative morality of today. Arafat was never a tool for progress. Allawi is a tool (although not a good one) for progress in Iraq. There lies a very important difference. It is hard to argue that people like Ngo Dinh Diem were good tools for progess. But they were all that was available. So simply because he is a bastard, but our bastard doesn’t make the fact of his position morally bankrupt, as this post might imply.

By: seth edenbaum

seth edenbaum — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:15:49 +0000

I find it odd that the moment one or two people start sounding off like idiots others say the thread’s gone in the crapper. I was annoyed at H. Farrell for his tactics in the recent Israel post. Some things take time (and server space). Slop is part of the process. As regards this post- and the blather of Mark and Abiola- the point is that none of Allawi’s backers in the White House or the Pentagon will describe him as anything but a paragon of virtue. And since the majority of Iraqis, not just the insurgents, think he’s a piece of shit, this FACT is something we should take into consideration. Read the papers kids. He’s not that interested in freedom and democracy; he’s interested in power and he won’t be able to keep it without our help. Arafat, like G.W.B. has a following. In the real world that changes things.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:13:34 +0000

abb1, Thank you for clarifying your comments. The realpolitik employed by the left and right during the cold war often was used to profit from the oppression of innocent people around the world, rather than to serve any legitimate end. (I see george has already noted the SIPRI figures; US “support” was negligible; anti-war nations were the main Saddamists partners, unsurprisingly.) US Administrations sometimes, and sometimes not, could use the bad excuse that by giving aid to bad regimes, they forestalled the rise of worse regimes. However, past US support for Saddam would argue for greater moral responsibility to remove him, not less. It is disingenuous for you to profer it. Moreover, it admits the point in my favour that one should not support brutal dictatorships – as the anti-war left did during the Iraq war. washerdrery, I’m all for eliminating fascist dictatorships when it is (morally, politically, financially) feasible to do so. I consider this to be a good thing. That the left is now unable to engage in coherent moral discussion on this point is indicative of the decline of serious intellectual activity. Remember when the left used to (pretend to) care about aiding oppressed people? Again, no one on the anti-war left has the character to face the damning moral issue squarely: The practical difference for Iraqis between your support for Saddam and Ba’athist support Saddam was zero. This makes declarations of concern by comfortable academic leftists for Iraqi welfare absurd and more than a little offensive.

By: kevin donoghue

kevin donoghue — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:14:52 +0000

George, My comment wasn’t directed at you, it just seemed a pity that the thread went to pot. Blame the trolls; no point in naming them, since shaming them is impossible. If we must make it a discussion of Arafat – although there is no good reason why we should – then surely the relevant question is: does a guy in Arafat’s position have the option of behaving decently, assuming he wants to? Reading your comments I get the feeling that if he had been a better class of killer, you wouldn’t judge him too harshly. You say he was unable, or unwilling, to deliver the goods; brought misery on his people; he was corrupt. The fact that he had blood on his hands is not in the indictment. Your objection to Arafat seems to be, not that he was a bastard, but that he was a worse-than-useless bastard. Even LBJ would have signed up to that kind of morality. Indeed, an obvious criticism of American support for Allawi is that he is the wrong bastard; he isn’t winning the loyalty of his people. We probably don’t differ very much on the principles involved. My feeling is that there isn’t much room for morality in politics, at least in rough neighbourhoods like the Middle East. There is something worth discussing here, but the discussion won’t get far if we let the trolls shape it. I’m afraid they have won this round.

By: washerdreyer

washerdreyer — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:24:37 +0000

Mark- Is there any fascist dictator who you are not in favor of using military force against immediately? If so, why do you support this dictator? You do understand that the above questions are the precise argument you are using, right?

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:17:28 +0000

Abb1: There’s no real question that Arafat skimmed off a bajillion dollars over the years. It’s even gotten coverage in al Jazeera: http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=5458