With so many of the usual suspects showering opprobrium on the still-warm Arafat, it is perhaps worth raising the issue of consistency. If Arafat’s past included some of the items on Iyad Allawi’s _curriculum vitae_ then those acts would certainly have been added to the bills of indictment that feature on so many blogs. [1] Andrew Gilligan (formerly of the Today Programme, Hutton Report etc.) has “an article on Allawi”:http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=5239&issue=2004-11-13 in the latest Spectator. A snippet
bq. With a friend, Adel Abdul Mahdi, he arranged to kidnap the dean of the university to publicise the Baath cause. ‘We took Iraq’s first hostages,’ recalls Mr Abdul Mahdi, now Iraq’s finance minister, nostalgically. The two men did time for the offence, until a Baathist coup got them back out again.
And later ….
bq. The INA’s most controversial operation during this period was a campaign of what can only be termed terrorism against civilians. In 1994 and 1995 a series of bombings at cinemas, mosques and other public places in Baghdad claimed up to 100 civilian lives. The leading British Iraq expert, Patrick Cockburn, obtained a videotape of one of the bombers, Abu Amneh al-Khadami, speaking from his place of refuge in Iraqi Kurdistan, claiming that the attacks had been ordered and orchestrated by Adnan Nuri, the INA’s Kurdistan director of operations — an account that has not been seriously disputed.
He may be a bastard, but at least he’s our bastard?
fn1. Of course Arafat’s biography does include many disreputable actions.
{ 55 comments }
belle waring 11.11.04 at 3:08 pm
given that the people involved are innocents, this doesn’t make me any more sympathetic to those who have just kidnapped Allawi’a relatives. nonetheless, it’s ironic.
belle waring 11.11.04 at 3:10 pm
that’s “allawi’s”, duh.
JR 11.11.04 at 3:29 pm
This is standard fare: demonize the uncooperative thugs and apologize for the others.
My pig-headed American take is that Allawi is bad news, and not because of his checkered past. The best possible outcome is that (1) Iraq manages to hold elections, (2) the winner is basically legitimate, and (3) he asks us to leave.
Allawi ain’t that guy.
George 11.11.04 at 4:42 pm
The rap on Arafat is not just that he has blood on his hands. In that part of the world, it’s pretty hard to find anyone with any sort of power or influence who does not — Allawi is, I’m sure, no different. The rap on Arafat is that he’s been canonized by (some portions of) the left as a champion of the Palestinian people, an anti-colonial warrior etc — even to the point of being awarded a Nobel peace prize — yet has been totally unable, or unwilling, to actually deliver the goods: for his people, for the region, for anybody but himself.
Whatever one thinks of the justice of the Palestinian cause, there is no single person more responsible for the present misery of that people than Yassir Arafat. What a monstrous fraud. One can ony hope that his death brings some hope for change.
Abiola Lapite 11.11.04 at 4:48 pm
“Of course Arafat’s biography does include many disreputable actions.”
So perhaps it isn’t such a bad thing for him to be on the receiving end of opprobrium after all, “consistent” or no? And why add this in small print? Aren’t Black September in 1970, the 1972 Olympic slaughter, the plunging of Lebanon into chaos, the nurturing of thugs like the Achille Lauro kidnappers and the funding of Al Aksa “martyrs” worthy of more than a footnote in mentioning Arafat’s career? Finally, as George points out, all Arafat has achieved in his long and ignoble career (besides diverting billions into accounts whose whereabouts he’s taken to the grave with him) has been to leave his people yearning for a deal nowhere near as good as that they could have had in 1979, and yet he was lionized as a “liberatory” figure by most of the left.
Allawi may be a thug, but Arafat was a monster on an entirely larger scale, and it sure would be nice to see more on the left come out and say so forthrightly, without hemming and hawing, resorting to footnotes in small-type, or pointing fingers at “the usual sources” for allegedly engaging in hypocrisy.
Chris Bertram 11.11.04 at 4:49 pm
I wasn’t aware that “the Left” awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Oh well, you learn something every day….
Chris Bertram 11.11.04 at 5:00 pm
Abiola, I don’t speak for the “Left” and I’m certainly not going to have you insist that I include a ritual extended denunciation of every disreputable figure I might mention in passing. We’d soon run out of time and space and you right-wing trolls would never be satisfied anyway.
Extinct Tory 11.11.04 at 5:01 pm
Didn’t that nice Mr Kissenger get a Nobel as well? ;-)
Anyway, I thought this thread was about Allawi, not Arafat. However big a thug he may be, I’d like to point out two things: 1) a nice guy would not be likely to get far in current Iraqi politics, and 2) what matters is that he’s smart enough and dedicated enough an operator to do what he can to get the country on it’s feet–and then has the guts and brains to let someone with greater legitimacy take over at least officially, afterwards. If he can keep the country from dissolving into a civil war and at least set it on the path to a reasonable future, I don’t care if he eats babies.
abb1 11.11.04 at 5:28 pm
Whatever one thinks of the justice of the Palestinian cause, there is no single person more responsible for the present misery of that people than Yassir Arafat.
Care to substantiate your claim?
I suppose one could argue that ‘that people’ would not exist as a nation without Arafat, so it’s true as far as that goes, but you probably meant something else, correct? What is it?
Abiola Lapite 11.11.04 at 5:31 pm
“you right-wing trolls”
Cheap ad hominems, the reliable refuge of the intellectually defeated. What if I took to calling you a left-wing troll, eh? And you call yourself an academic.
Mark 11.11.04 at 5:31 pm
Since the anti-war left was content to see Iraqis live as slaves under Saddam & Sons, I’m not sure they can now be heard to object to its present conditions. Unsavory as Alawi might be (and I note that your source is a thoroughly discredited “reporter”), he is slowly moving his country toward democracy and liberty. Your claim to actually care about this process is belied by your previous endorsement of Saddam’s fascist dictatorship.
Abiola Lapite 11.11.04 at 5:38 pm
By the way, I found the following particularly telling:
“I’m certainly not going to have you insist that I include a ritual extended denunciation of every disreputable figure I might mention in passing.”
But you did manage to do the same for Allawi. Isn’t it pathetic of you to point out the alleged “hypocrisy” of “the usual suspects” even as you refuse to be held to the same standards yourself?
Don’t worry, I already know what’ll come from your end – nothing by way of an intelligent, reasoned response, just more cheap name-calling and accusations of “trolling”, which is evidently the best that sterling intellects like you lot can manage. That a simple challenge to the consistency of your own position can drive you to inarticulate rage makes me wonder how you react to challenging questioning from students and colleagues.
Chris Bertram 11.11.04 at 5:51 pm
(1) Abiola, you _are_ a right-wing troll and you’ve infested many a CT comment thread — to universal annoyance — amost since we started.
(2) I haven’t been inconsistent or hypocritical. To have been inconsistent or hypocrical I would have had to have praised or excused Arafat whilst condemning Allawi. Since I manifestly didn’t praise or excuse Arafat, I wasn’t hypocrical and inconsistent.
Now please go and troll on someone else’s blog.
Uncle Kvetch 11.11.04 at 6:14 pm
Your claim to actually care about this process is belied by your previous endorsement of Saddam’s fascist dictatorship.
Mark, the President of Uzbekistan (our ally in the War on Tayrrr) is a known thug who has killed political opponents by, among other means, boiling them to death.
Since your post did not include a denunciation of Karimov, I can only assume that you “endorse” his totalitarian dictatorship, and the boiling of political dissidents. You should be ashamed.
Abiola Lapite 11.11.04 at 6:16 pm
“Abiola, you are a right-wing troll and you’ve infested many a CT comment thread — to universal annoyance — amost since we started.”
Anyone who dares to suggest you’re wrong has to be a “troll”, of course, especially if he can make a substantive argument in his favor. It’s simply self-evident, isn’t it? Why else would anyone possibly disagree with you or find anything you have to say outrageous? As for the “universal annoyance” bit, it’s a good thing I don’t live for your approval.
“To have been inconsistent or hypocrical I would have had to have praised or excused Arafat whilst condemning Allawi. Since I manifestly didn’t praise or excuse Arafat, I wasn’t hypocrical and inconsistent.”
And why can’t “the usual suspects” say the same thing? They aren’t “praising or excusing” Allawi by failing to mention his misdeeds as they mention Arafat’s; in fact they aren’t mentioning Allawi at all. If you are innocent of the charges, then so are they, and your case is entirely lacking in substance.
“Now please go and troll on someone else’s blog.”
Such deep thoughts! Such respect for differing opinions! Either show me where I’ve “trolled” this blog, or admit that it’s simply a matter of my getting under your skin by going against the conventional wisdom here.
The one thing I repeatedly get from the behavior of you lot is that there are two classes of people – those who either agree with you 100 percent or are fellow academics (and therefore worth kissing up to), or those who you regard as somehow beneath yourselves for holding the wrong opinions and having the temerity to voice them. The sad thing is that you probably think yourself highly enlightened and open-minded even as you engage in this bigotry.
Danny 11.11.04 at 6:21 pm
I don’t know how to interpret this piece of whataboutery (CBs phrase, I knw), except as an apologia for Arafat.
Martin Wisse 11.11.04 at 6:28 pm
Arafat is somebody history will accord a place as a great if flawed leader, who through times of immense trouble managed to keep the Palestinian people alive as a nation.
Allawi will be remembered as the first post-Saddam, US installed, thug ruler of Iraq.
I’d rather have Arafat.
George 11.11.04 at 6:43 pm
Abiola: in fairness to Chris, I think one can reasonably expect that most people should be well aware by now of the misdeeds of Arafat, but that not everyone is as aware of Allawi’s dirty deeds (if they’re true; I don’t know enough to pass judgment). In that light, I don’t find his post to be biased merely because it dwells more on Allawi’s flaws than Arafat’s. It’s not an essay, it’s a blog post.
But Chris, my comment was meant to explain the difference between the two: there is still reason to hope that Allawi, however dirty he is, may yet have a positive impact on his nation, and thus the region. Sadly, that has not been the case for Arafat for years.
Sometimes it takes a man of violence to make peace. Arafat failed spectacularly in that regard. There’s still hope for Allawi.
As for the Nobel, I hope we can agree that the Nobel committee today is quite a bit more representative of the left than of the right, however you define those terms. Ergo, Jimmy Carter’s prize. I tried to qualify my imprecise terms with the words “some portions of.” Your snark does not reflect well on you.
George 11.11.04 at 6:46 pm
Abiola: in fairness to Chris, I think one can reasonably expect that most people should be well aware by now of the misdeeds of Arafat, but that not everyone is as aware of Allawi’s dirty deeds (if they’re true; I don’t know enough to pass judgment). In that light, I don’t find his post to be biased merely because it dwells more on Allawi’s flaws than Arafat’s. It’s not an essay, it’s a blog post.
But Chris, my comment was meant to explain the difference between the two: there is still reason to hope that Allawi, however dirty he is, may yet have a positive impact on his nation, and thus the region. Sadly, that has not been the case for Arafat for years.
Sometimes it takes a man of violence to make peace. Arafat failed spectacularly in that regard. There’s still hope for Allawi.
As for the Nobel, I hope we can agree that the Nobel committee today is quite a bit more representative of the left than of the right, however you define those terms. Ergo, Jimmy Carter’s prize. I tried to qualify my imprecise terms with the words “some portions of.” Your snark does not reflect well on you.
J. Ellenberg 11.11.04 at 6:56 pm
I just want to further derail this thread by saying that I’ve read lots of Abiola’s comments on Matthew Yglesias’s blog, and I sometimes read Abiola’s own blog, and he’s not a troll. I wouldn’t feel completely correct in calling him right-wing, either.
Mark 11.11.04 at 7:03 pm
Uncle kvetch,
Since you are now, apparently, able to discriminate between moral and immoral positions with respect to dictatorships, as you previously had not been, I expect you will reverse your opposition to the Iraq war. That way, you can consistently sanction totalitarian regimes instead of supporting those who oppose the U.S.
Or you can make my job easier by holding to the cynical, immoral, intellectually bankrupt positions taken by so many on the left.
At what point do you think people will forget that the anti-war left supported a fascist dictator in Saddam? More pointedly, at what point do you think the majority of Iraqis will forget that the anti-war left condemned them to slavery, mass torture and genocide? Do you think your faux concern for their well-being now is the least bit convincing?
George 11.11.04 at 7:06 pm
Damn double post! Somebody really needs to work out the bugs in your commenting system.
Anyway, to respond to abb1, though I’m not an expert on the subject I’d say the following:
(1) the PLO’s nasty habit of plotting coups and in general causing trouble in host counties (Jordan, Lebanon) probably has a lot to do with the failure of the Arab world to absorb Palestinian refugees — whereas, for example, Israel absorbed virtually all Jews kicked out of Arab countries. (Note that I’m not saying anything about *why* there are Palestinian refugees in the first place, or whose fault that is, merely that Arafat has made it much more difficult for those people to find any home outside of Palestine.)
(2) Over the past several decades, massive amounts of aid have flowed to the Palestinians, yet they live in squalor and poverty — except, that is, for a select few, notably including Arafat and his family, who have (I’ve read) billions secreted away in Europe. His corruption is legendary. Does that sound like a champion of his people? More like a gangster.
(3) At a bare minimum, it should be clear by now that Arafat’s absolutist negotiating stance wrt Israel has been an abject failure. Whether or not one thinks that the Camp David peace deal was fair or generous, it was a far sight better for the Palestinians than what they’ve got now, or what they’re likely to get anytime soon.
George 11.11.04 at 7:23 pm
Uncle Kvetch: Uzbekistan has been the left’s overused trump card when discussing the Bush Administration’s claims to morality in foreign policy. But it’s a fair point; an alliance with the Karimov regime is nothing to be proud of.
But I’d like to point out that the American embrace of Karimov has been less than complete. It passed without much comment at the time, but about a year ago (I believe) the State Dept determined that Uzbekistan had made insufficient progress toward curbing human rights abuses, and the White House promptly withdrew most of the discretionary aid (ie, not directly associated with the operations of our military assets there) we had pledged to that country. Karimov, in turn, promptly and publicly turned his affections toward Moscow.
A case study in realpolitik: acting on principle does have its costs.
Uncle Kvetch 11.11.04 at 7:30 pm
But I’d like to point out that the American embrace of Karimov has been less than complete.
A less-than-total embrace is of no significance here. As Mark has pointed out, anything short of a full-scale military invasion is indistinguishable from an “endorsement” of dictatorship. If those of us who opposed the Iraq invasion were, in the process, “supporting” Saddam, then you and Mark are “supporters” of Karimov.
abb1 11.11.04 at 7:41 pm
Well, George, I disagree with all 3.
1. There are over 1.7 million Palestinians in Jordan, 1.4 million “not in camps” (absorbed?). As for PLO’s nasty habits – the PLO is Plaestine Liberation Organization, why would they want to be absorbed? And if there were absorbed, like I said before – there wouldn’t be any nation to suffer. This is absurd.
2. I find it really impossible to believe that Arafat had stolen any money for himself, for personal use. He spent the last 3 years of his life in a basement in Ramallah – why not at a resort in Hawaii? It just doesn’t make sense. I don’t doubt that he had secret bank accounts, but so would you if you were the head of Palestinian government under occupation.
3. What absolutist negotiating stance? You can’t be serious. He was the first Palestinian politician who embraced the two-state solution and recognized Israel. Peres called it ‘the most important change in the ME in the past 100 years’ or something like that. He recognized Israel in exchange for 22% of Palestine; if that’s absolutist, then what do you call ‘bending over backwards’?
Mark 11.11.04 at 7:56 pm
Uncle kvetch,
Your misdirection is ineffective.
The practical difference for Iraqis between your support for Saddam and Ba’athist support Saddam was zero. The left condemned Iraqis to slavery, mass torture and genocide when it had a chance to lend support to their rescue. Your claim now to care about their welfare is laughable. Trying to turn the discussion to alleged US support for another dictator is a transparent attempt to avoid public ridicule.
Politics is almost always a choice between better or worse alternatives; the left chose Saddam. If there is a better way for the advancement of democratic globalism than alleged US support for Karimov, then by all means profer that argument. I’ll protest with you against alliance with tyrants. But don’t expect a simple invokation of Karimov’s name to conceal your complicitly in helping to perpetuate Saddam’s fascist dictatorship.
abb1 11.11.04 at 7:56 pm
Mark,
At what point do you think people will forget that the anti-war left supported a fascist dictator in Saddam? More pointedly, at what point do you think the majority of Iraqis will forget that the anti-war left condemned them to slavery, mass torture and genocide?
Why do you call the Reagan/Bush administrations “anti-war left”? They were neither anti-war nor left as far as I remember.
jet 11.11.04 at 7:56 pm
You put your emPHAsis on the wrong sylALLable. Your premise is all wrong. If, before his death, Arafat had renounced his ways and decided to play fair with Israel and come up with a solution, you wouldn’t find many voices not wanting to work with him. So just because Allawi’s done some seedy stuff in the past, his current stance is one of doing the right thing.
And since our choice of people to work with is more limited than contestants for a virgin contest at a whorehouse, he will have to do.
But if calling the people who denounce Arafat yet support Allawi hypocrits makes you smile, go right ahead. But understand that some people think you are being a bit too morally uprighteous and could use a tad bit more nuance.
Mark 11.11.04 at 8:08 pm
abb1,
I don’t believe I called Reagan/Bush administration anti-war leftists. If you believe otherwise, please provide evidence. Quotes from my posts would be most useful in this regard.
You could, of course, attempt to make a coherent argument.
baa 11.11.04 at 8:13 pm
I’m a CT reader, and I wouldn’t characterize Abiola as a troll. Some of his comments can be hard-edged, perhaps, but for Pete’s sake, you’ve got D^2 on the site!
Also, wouldn’t we all agree that the Nobel prize committee tilts left? That seems to me almost incontestible.
All in all, a puzzling thread…
abb1 11.11.04 at 8:20 pm
Mark,
sure you did – who else ‘supported a fascist dictator in Saddam’ during the time he was gassing Kurds and Iranians and torturing the opposition (not sure about slavery, you seem to have gotten carried away on that one)?
I am not aware of any other group providing any significant support except for the Reagan administration.
Uncle Kvetch 11.11.04 at 8:23 pm
Mark, abb1’s point was that the Reagan and Bush I administrations supported Saddam when it was politically expedient to do so. And it did so in ways that little ol’ antiwar lefty me could never hope to equal.
baa 11.11.04 at 8:31 pm
I’m a CT reader, and I wouldn’t describe Abiola as a troll. Some of his comments can be hard-edged, perhaps, but for Pete’s sake, you’ve got the legendarily gentle D^2 posting on the site.
Also, wouldn’t we all agree that the Nobel prize committee tilts left? That seems to me almost incontestible.
All in all, a puzzling thread…
abb1 11.11.04 at 8:41 pm
And it did so in ways that little ol’ antiwar lefty me could never hope to equal.
Not to mention the pro-war right providing critical support to Iranian mullahs and radical Islamists like Osama bin Laden by attacking their sworn enemy. Treacherous bastards.
kevin donoghue 11.11.04 at 9:17 pm
“He may be a bastard, but at least he’s our bastard?†Discuss.
Arriving late to the thread, I thought this question might have prompted a debate about the place of morality in international politics. Sadly, what follows in the comments is just more of the usual shite about moral equivalence, Saddamists and the anti-war left. (Quite why the anti-war right is ignored is unclear.)
Have yiz no pride? You can do better than this.
Walt Pohl 11.11.04 at 9:27 pm
Abiola: By definition, you can’t actually be a troll on your own site.
This thread has gone in the crapper faster than most. It’s pretty clear that Chris’s point is that Allawi is as bad as Arafat, not that US support for Allawi makes Arafat retrospectively okay. I don’t agree with this point, but it’s not totally nutty.
Mark: You are objectively pro-death-for-American-troops. Why not just head down to your local Army base and gun them down yourself, rather than dragging Iraq into it?
George 11.11.04 at 9:30 pm
Kvetch: I’m not arguing with you, nor am I defending Mark. I was just putting some little-known perspective on the much-maligned relationship between the US and Uzbekistan. If you think that it’s irrelevant to the conversation at hand, feel free to disregard.
abb1: regarding US support for Saddam during the 80s, you’re right that it existed and you’re certainly right that it was not a high point for the morality of American foreign policy. But your statement “I am not aware of any other group providing any significant support except for the Reagan administration” betrays a serious lack of perspective and information. Russia, France and China all provided far more support to Saddam — before, during and after his war with Iran. In fact American military transfers to Iraq were never more than 5% of total military transfers to Iraq — and if you look at Saddam’s reign in aggregate, it’s more like 1%. These figures come from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute; they are displayed on the first table on this page (http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/atirq_data.html), although for some reason I am not able to call up the table myself right now. I’ve seen it before, though.
Regarding Arafat’s legacy, it seems clear that I’ll never be able to convince you, nor you I, so let’s leave it at that. In truth, there’s such a welter of conflicting narratives and histories in that part of the world that it’s hard to reach *any* incontrovertible position. Yet I still maintain that had Arafat been, say, hit by a meteor 30 years ago, the Palestinian people would be in much better shape today.
George 11.11.04 at 9:39 pm
Whoa: feeling somewhat chastised by kevin’s and mark’s comments. I was trying to be constructive, not noncombative. If it came out the other way, sorry.
Uncle Kvetch 11.11.04 at 9:50 pm
George:
Understood. Sorry for the inadvertant lumping-in.
George 11.11.04 at 9:52 pm
‘Scuse me: meant to say walt, not mark. Am by no means chastised by mark’s comments.
Walt Pohl 11.11.04 at 10:17 pm
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
washerdreyer 11.11.04 at 10:24 pm
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?
kevin donoghue 11.11.04 at 11:14 pm
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.
Mark 11.12.04 at 12:13 am
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.
seth edenbaum 11.12.04 at 12:15 am
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.
jet 11.12.04 at 12:24 am
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.
Abiola Lapite 11.12.04 at 1:49 am
“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?
Walt Pohl 11.12.04 at 3:12 am
They may be idiots, but they can’t be trolls. Trolls, by definition, try to derail discussion on other people’s sites.
Martin Wisse 11.12.04 at 7:15 am
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.
washerdreyer 11.12.04 at 7:44 am
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?
stuart 11.12.04 at 11:20 am
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.
abb1 11.12.04 at 11:45 am
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.
George 11.12.04 at 8:46 pm
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.”
John 11.12.04 at 9:25 pm
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.
dipnut 11.12.04 at 10:02 pm
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.
Comments on this entry are closed.