A nicely balanced Professor...

Submitted by aqwe05 on 02nd December 2004

Tags:

So Fred Halliday is professor of international relations at the LSE, is he? Remind me not to recommend that department to anyone who seeks impartial education in that subject, then. I foolishly understood that the role of a pedagogue was to provide his/her students with the ability to think rationally and dispassionately about topics under discussion: this is obviously not how he sees his role: "Politics - indeed the future of the world - require a continued, cool and resolute engagement in the face of the latest decision of the American electorate, benighted and reckless as it is" One is irresistably reminded of Moe Udall: 'the people have spoken, God damn them all'. How frustrating it must be to be a jolly important professor, firmly rooted in the euro-elitist role of un-elected guider and father of the nation, to have to come to terms with the fact that Bush was re-elected by the largest number of Americans ever to vote for a presidential candidate, after four years of his policies. Like it or not, he represents the views of more Americans than Michael Moore and his friends. It is also interesting to note that this obsessive desire to rubbish America appears to contradict the main 'futurology' thrust of his carelessly constructed article, which is that the 'Non European world is now...finally striking back at western domination', and that China is where it's all about to happen. If he actually believes that, then the future of the world is presumably not at stake because of four more years of republicanism... We should be far more concerned, in that world view, about the influence and effect of the 'gross distortion of political debate by unelected fanatics' such as those who sent the tanks in when Chinese students sat down in Tianamen square - who, the article implies, are a much more reasonable bunch than the likes of Dick Cheney... It's a shame, because the 2 core ideas - that there might be a re-alignment of the global 'centre of gravity', and that the American approach to terrorism is poorly thought through and executed, are both worthy of intelligent analysis. However, the lure of America bashing proves irrisistable, and we close with that childish, foot stamping little dig implying that Bush will 'hopefully' be indicted for something illegal. I am saddened to see what amounts to a partisan diatribe coming from someone who should be able to separate their personal agenda from the subject they profess to be an expert on - or am I just hoping for too much? Message was edited by: aqwe05

373 reads

owly

2 December 2004 - 10:19am

I don't know why you are surprised by Halliday's article aqwe05. The vast majority of academics in the United Kingdom are of the 'left' and seldom a 'right of center' thought enters their bone heads. You will also find that the 'fascist left', as they are sometimes called, are always on the wrong end of any argument and never admit they were wrong. Such a thing is unthinkable. And 'the lure of America bashing proves irresistible' to the vast majority of them, as it does to the editors of this very site.

Hobbes

2 December 2004 - 11:04am

Aqwe-- "I foolishly understood that the role of a pedagogue was to provide his/her students with the ability to think rationally and dispassionately about topics under discussion: this is obviously not how he sees his role:" Without defending Prof. Halliday (he does quite nicely himself, thank you), let me point out that teaching a class and expressing one's own opinions are not the same. In this context, we are citizens, not students. Like you, I thought his article was poorly constructed and a bit hasty. But saying that Bush was duly re-elected, by however great a majority, hardly answers the charge that American policies are "benighted and reckless." In keeping with Owly's call elswehere for a season of Goodwill and Charity, I hereby call for a moratorium on the words "fascist" (viz. Nazi) and "elitist." Anyone who subscribes to OD is ipso facto part of the elite, and should be careful when throwing stones. :)

aqwe05

2 December 2004 - 12:34pm

Fair enough Hobbsey: although I am quite clear that I am elitist (I can read and write, for God's sake, and think for myself - by definition that makes me part of a small elite circle who were actually educated, despite the best efforts of the likes of the prof..), I will refrain from calling others 'elitist'... :) As an aside, my take on the article was not that American policies themselves are benighted and reckless - that appears to go without saying in his world view - but that he seemed to me to be implying that the voters' decision to re-elect Bush was - hence my reference to 'the people have spoken, the bastards' style comments... I have some sympathy with the concept that US foreign policy is 'less than perfect' - I just don't like the tone of spluttering, frustrated 'I know better than an entire nation' coming from someone whose preferred alternative appears to be those nice gentlemen in Peking, whose track record in both home and foreign affairs is not exactly a model of reasonableness, care for the environment or respect for the human rights of others.

brolly2_1

3 December 2004 - 12:50am

aqwe05, ["I just don't like the tone of spluttering, frustrated 'I know better than an entire nation' coming from someone whose preferred alternative appears to be those nice gentlemen in Peking, whose track record in both home and foreign affairs is not exactly a model of reasonableness, care for the environment or respect for the human rights of others."] Well, didn't many spluttering and frustrated non-Germans (including many academics in the UK) know better than the entire (German) nation what was better for the world as well as the Germans themselves, back in 1933, when Hitler was elected as Chancellor. Weight of numbers has never been a cogent argument for the wisdom of the choices made. I think Halliday like many on OD,is terrified by the direction that American politics is taking. The Christian right fundamentalists and their president, the neoconservative ideolgues and their Bush Doctrine, the enormous US military power at their disposal, a Congress that has a Republican majority , and a 'preventative war', is enough to rattle anyone's cage who remembers the Cold War and how narrowly catastrophe was averted in 1961 (Berlin) and (Cuba) 1962. Message was edited by: brolly2_1

aqwe05

3 December 2004 - 7:36am

Lovely Brolly: Bush = Hitler... Setting aside questions such as whether this comparison can be taken as anything other than absurd or plain mischievous, you are right, there were some individuals apeaking out against fascism (on both the right and left - let's remember which European leader killed most people in the 20th century, shall we?). The difference, however, is that they aspired to write lucid and intelligent critiques to form opinion: try any of Orwell's writing on either totalitarian state.

owly

3 December 2004 - 10:04am

I remember seeing an interview with Lady Castle (Barbara Castle) shortly before she died. During the 1930s she had been one of those who had gone to the Soviet Union and reported how it was a land of milk and honey. The interviewer produced some of the articles she had written at the time. They were all arrant nonsense, and she knew it, but even then when the reality of Satlin's Russia was well known - indeed the full horror has only really come to be known of late - she could not and would not admit she had been wrong. The comparison of Bush = Hitler is stupid and pathetic. It also has one serious hole in it. President Bush has submitted himself for re-election. Hitler never did.

brolly2_1

3 December 2004 - 8:42pm

aqwe05 and owly, You both missed the point of what I was saying. I did not compare Bush to Hitler in the terms that you both imply. I believe that Bush and the neoconservatives are extremely dangerous because they have a view of the world and how it can be ordered which is based on a flawed ideology. They are prepared to use military force in order to achieve this new order. I will not argue that case in more detail for this purpose but merely say that in the case of Germany, the vote of the majority to support an ideologue with a world view that was never going to be acceptable to other nations, and in the case of America, and the majority of the electorates support for Bush, I see a parallel.History proved the German majority to be gravely wrong and I beleive it will deliver the same judgement on Bush's tenure at the White House. I would suggest that both of you should be more careful as to how you interpret the meaning of what someone is saying. Owly, in particular, you are like a shark that is always loitering for blood and you would deliberately falsify a view, even when you know better. Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1

owly

3 December 2004 - 10:22pm

Today I read a piece in the Daily Telegraph of a poll which had been commissioned (by the BBC I think) to mark the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. It found that a majority of the adult population of the United Kingdom did not even know what Auschwitz was. With idiotic posts like that, one is hardly surprised.

brolly2_1

5 December 2004 - 1:32am

owly, Someone like you has no real appreciation of Auschwitz unless you are a Jew. Are you? Half my extended family perished there!

Iron Mike

5 December 2004 - 2:15am

Brolly, For yours and the world's sake, you'd better hope you're wrong that only Jews can appreciate the horrors of Auschwitz. I suppose that means that only Christians can appreciate the horrors of being thrown to the lions? I'm sorry for the loss of your family. But it's the horror of what happened to them that makes me proud that my country and yours took the lead to shut down the torture, rape rooms, and mass graves of Iraq. Oh...wait a minute. I forgot that you think the Iraqis are worse off now than before the liberation. Would the family you lost in Auschwitz agree with your position? How about the families of hundreds of thousands of murdered Iraqi men, women and children? Really, I'm not trying to bait you. I just find the inconsistency of your position so ironic and sad. IM

brolly2_1

5 December 2004 - 12:49pm

Iron Mike, I am not inconsistent. You are forgetting the reality of the situation in 2003. Saddam was no longer killing the Shia in the Marsh area of Iraq nor the Kurds ( In fact the Kurds were killing each other in some places). In other words Saddam was being 'contained'. So the horrors you refer to were in the past.The US has created them in the present. Invading Iraq therefore served no purpose but to enable Bush to lash out after 9/11 and to try to implement a pseudo democracy with the likes of Chalabi or Allwai leading it.(This is what the neoconservatives have desired for a long time). These people are not representative of the Iraqis, be they Shias,Sunnis or Kurds but puppets of the US. The plan has gone seriously wrong as the Iraqi factions are resisting the imposition of these people.Sistani, Sadr, the Sunni insurgents, and even the Kurds are all unhappy with the invaders. The Shia are wanting to proceed because they believe it will favour them and the others want them postponed. The US would look rather silly if 'the man who says what he means and means what he says' did not get 'his election' to take place in January. So the comparison with Auschwitz is one of your making and not a parallel. If there was such a parallel it was in 1991 when Bush Senior left the Shias to become victims of Saddam. In destroying the country over ten years later and defying most of the world's most important countries, the US is merely an aggressor and is seen as such. If the situation was more genuine then there would have been more support from the people of all the major countries as distinct from their leaders. Even in your country nearly half of those that vote saw through the pretexts that were offered. No, you can't get away with making a false comparison. The greatest inconsistency, according to your humanitarian argument is that between the pragmatic and realpolitically aware Bush Senior and his allegedly humane son, George W. Bush. The father and his advisers stayed out of Iraq after the Gulf War and the son did the opposite. Are you saying that Bush Senior is less humane than his son because the same issues were confronting both, according to you, the fate and welfare of the Iraqi people.If you disagree spell out what the differences were between father and son and then justify them using your present arguments.

Iron Mike

5 December 2004 - 1:13pm

OK...Saddam takes a pause in his wholesale genocide before the invasion and that makes my comparison to Auschwitz fall apart? I don't think so! Had Hitler taken a "time out" during WWII would you have forgiven him for the loss of your family? I doubt it. You are so fond of the "Bush and Hitler" comparisons, that you are incapable of seeing a "Saddam and Hitler" comparison, when both engaged in systematic murder on historical levels? Frankly, I would have thought you were a big fan of Bush senior. He gave in to the UN and stopped the offensive short of Bagdad in deference to a fragile coalition, even when he knew it wasn't in the long term security interests of the United States. The achievement of short term humanitarian goals of freeing an ungrateful Kuwaiti people and achievement of a temporarily stable region had to be sufficient...for a time. The UN did not predict how Saddam would turn his wrath inward against his own people. The UN would do nothing except spend 14 years passing impotent resolutions and profiting from the Oil for Food fiasco. So you ask, what is the difference between Bush senior and Bush junior? In short, Bush senior achieved humanitarian and security victory in the first Gulf War and despite predictions of UN failure, grudgingly agreed to let them take the lead. Bush junior saw 14 years of UN failure and said, "Enough is enough." IM

brolly2_1

5 December 2004 - 5:31pm

Iron mike,m Absolute nonsense. Bush Senior stopped because he knew that Iraq was a quagmire. Brent Scowcroft his National Security adviser has said as much and that is why he opposed the invasion of 2003. He is not the only one. An impressive list of former US diplomats and military men have also criticised the war, because they can see that it will not lead to any victory for democray but further instability in the region. You have never given any answer to why Ahmad Chalabi was flown into Iraq with his gang. You avoid this like the plague because you know that it was part of the plan to install him as a US surrogate. He had the full support of the Pentagon until not so long ago. Alawi is now the favoured man. Answer the question Mike about Chalabi. Is installing your own man an example of giving the Iraqis the right to determine their own leaders and future? Answer the question as to whether it was right for Paul Bremer to impose Order NO.39 of the Provisonal Iraqi Authority, which opened Iraq up so that foreign investors could acquire up to 100% of their industrial concerns and to export up to 100% of the profit. Where was the mandate from a popular elected government to do that? Answer the questions! Your flimflam is quite impressive but thats all it is. Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1

brolly2_1

5 December 2004 - 6:34pm

Iron Mike, [“OK...Saddam takes a pause in his wholesale genocide before the invasion and that makes my comparison to Auschwitz fall apart? I don't think so! Had Hitler taken a "time out" during WWII would you have forgiven him for the loss of your family? I doubt it. “] This is an example of rewriting history. Hitler didn’t pause and Saddam had been contained on the one hand by the ‘no fly zone’ and on the other that if he ever hoped to get sanctions lifted (and he did), he knew he could not commit any more genocide. [“Frankly, I would have thought you were a big fan of Bush senior. He gave in to the UN and stopped the offensive short of Bagdad in deference to a fragile coalition, even when he knew it wasn't in the long term security interests of the United States”]. You are rewriting history again. Bush stopped for the opposite reason you have given. He thought that it was not in the long term interests of the US to go into Iraq. Read his own words at http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm I have included an excerpt below: “While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren—outcome”. Of course you are likely to twist the meaning of Bush’s words but then it is open to others to interpret Bush’s words for themselves. [“The achievement of short term humanitarian goals of freeing an ungrateful Kuwaiti people and achievement of a temporarily stable region had to be sufficient...for a time.”] You don’t say why they were ungrateful. [“The UN did not predict how Saddam would turn his wrath inward against his own people. The UN would do nothing except spend 14 years passing impotent resolutions and profiting from the Oil for Food fiasco.”] You talk of the UN as if it is one person, who is deliberately dragging his foot. I need to remind you that the US has the loudest voice in the UN , was a founder member and should not complain so much in these circumstances. It is not a US Fiefdom but is based on some democratic principles. It is for the Security Council to make decisions and if the US administration doesn’t like them, then it should not preach the virtues of democracy. It should be joining in attempts to reform the Charter in the light of developments over the last fifty years. Condemning it is a case of sour grapes and is completely negative. As for the ‘oil for foods’ fiasco, the US was one of the monitors of the administration of this program. It obviously hasn’t done its share to see that it was done properly.Are you telling me that the US is so impotent? [“You are so fond of the "Bush and Hitler" comparisons, that you are incapable of seeing a "Saddam and Hitler" comparison, when both engaged in systematic murder on historical levels?”] Vietnam and B 52 bombing of civilians apart from military personel, is systematic murder. Agent Orange defoliation is another form of systematic murder, at one stage removed. Are you completely blind to reality or so biased that you can only see one side of an issue. It would seem so.