Last night (16 July) I was listening to Pacifica Radio’s Flashpoints program, which consists of a news summary at the top of the program, followed by feature discussions with guests.
Editorially, Pacifica, and the programs it hosts, has a generally leftist viewpoint, and the network has never seemed to have any problem with injecting editorial content into what most people would consider straight news items (for example, a long-standing habit of referring to the US Secretary of Defense as “Secretary of War”). Nevertheless, I was brought up short when during news items on US setbacks in Iraq, the announcer referred to the newly-appointed Iraq Ruling Council as a “Vichy-style government”, and to the mayor of Hadithah, who was assassinated yesterday, as a “Quisling”.
The question for debate is a simple one: was this terminology used appropriately? My view is that it was not.
I used to listen regularly to KPFA many years ago, when I lived in Berkeley. Now I occassionally tune in to WBAI in New York. I still find them charming, albeit nuts.
It’s an understatement to say that Pacifica has a “generally leftist viewpoint.” ISTM that their POV is something like 1930’s Communists. One aspect of their charm is that they evoke a long-dead past. Some of my family members were sympathetic to communism in the 1930’s, so I find Pacifica’s broadcasts nostalgic. It’s like listening to a radio through a time machine.
In answer to the OP, it’s obviously ridiculous to compare the US liberation of Iraq to the Nazi occupation of France.
I agree, neither was appropriate. Especially calling the poor fucker who was whacked a “Quisling” - at best it draws a moral equivalence between Sadaam and the democratic opposition in Europe against the Nazis. Despicable.
Oppose the war and the Admin incompetence post war, don’t become a Sadaam apologist or a raving lunatic.
Hardly. It draws a parallel between occupying forces and the imposition of authority.
Pray tell El_Kabong, why is it not, in your view, “appropriate” ?
Occupation my dear december, they’re both occupations. Even the Shiites call it Ihtelal, so the spin is pretty much only convincing to people like you.
Oooohhh, I can tell you’re pretty sure what you think I’m going to say, and just can’t wait to slap me around for it, rhetorically speaking, of course.
I don’t think it’s appropriate because whatever one may feel about whether invading Iraq was justified or not, the behavior of occupation force bears little resemblance to that of the Nazis (well, there’s those helmets they wear now, but I’m satisfied the design was based on practical considerations, not some desire to emulate the Wehmacht). I likewise do not think that the Iraq Ruling Council is a permanent entity, but a short-lived transition body to a democratically-elected government. Nor do I think that Iraqis who choose to cooperate with the occupiers are leading their people into concentration camps.
Perhaps if you could clearly draw out the parallels for a simpleton like me, I could better see how the comparison is justified.
Amir Tehari sees it differently.He says nobody he met in Iraq wants Saddam back. Although Iraqis have many complaints, he says they are grateful to the US and UK.
Tehari says that preachers are downplaying the notion of occupation.
He says that most Iraqis see the coalition presence as necessary for the time being.
The Iraqi Ruling Council is a puppet government in the same measure, if not more, than Vichy was of the Germans. Their first act was to proclaim the day of Iraq’s defeat a national holiday. Gimme a break. Not even Vichy did that. They are nothing but a puppet government of the USA and nobody believes they have any freedom of action.
Which doesn’t at all address the issue I noted above, Ihtelal means occupation, that’s the world I hear used, not tahreer. Don’t like it, lump it stary eyed believer.
Gotta ask for a cite for that, as I was under the impression that their first act was to rescind several national holidays established by the Ba’athists. Close, admittedly, but not exactly the same thing.
I actually agree with this statement, but the difference is perceived intent, and the expected duration of the body in question.
A question for comparative purposes: would one also say the US imposed a “Vichy-style government” in Japan after WWII?
Occupation is a morally neutral word and is obviously appropriate for what is going on in Iraq. Vichy and Quisling are not morally neutral because of their implication in complicity with the Nazis and their crimes. The Vichy government shipped 76,000 Jews to the concentration camps. Quisling betrayed his people to the Nazis. To equate the government to Vichy and the mayor to Quisling, you have to believe that liberating prison camps is the same as sending Jews to be gassed and that perpetual servitude to Saddam was the Iraqis wish. That is the sort of moral bankruptcy which discredits all those who have legitimate concerns about the Iraq war. It does show the complete lack of perspective and morality of some leftists.
I remember reading a quote from a German who said that when one talked casually to members of the WWII generation about 1945, some would refer to it as “our defeat” and some as “our liberation.”
He felt that the choice of words told him a lot about the person. YMMV.
I’ve never listened to Pacifica radio, but I am aware of it. I know that it has a leftist slant, and I don’t think it airs in the St. Louis area. I, myself, would be considered leftist, though I get my info mostly from various sources from the Internet.
As presented, I don’t agree with those Nazi analogies, but I do believe that Secretary of War is more accurate than Secretary of Defense. You don’t need to outspend the rest of the world combined in military funding in order to protect yourself. Just thought I’d throw that in to stay true to my leftist leanings.
Well, obviously. The same is true in Iraq today. The puppet regime talks of liberation (which is ironic because half of them did not live in Iraq) and those who would like to see the occupation forces go talk of defeat. There is no question that it was a defeat in the case of Germany and in the case of Iraq. Liberation is a trickier concept. Germany was militarily occupied for the next five decades but they had started the war which devastated the world so there was somejustification. Iraq had done nothing of the sort and will probably be militarily occupied for long time to come. And it is still to be seen whether the occupation will result in a stable and democratic regime similar to Germany or whether the occupation will be a messy affair which will achieve little for the Iraqis. For now prospects are not good in this regard. Only history can tell
For the puppet government to declare the day of defeat a national holiday serves no purpose. Few Iraqis will support it and many will hate it. There is almost a year to go before it comes around and we shall have to see what the situation is then. It would be very ironic if by then the US forces are still fighting a guerrilla war. If the guerrilla war continues and the US starts to get bogged down there, more countries in the region will be willing to support the guerrillas and it could get messy.
And yes, I know the value of propaganda. In China everybody calls the communist revolution the “war of liberation”. That’s what they call it without ever stopping to think about the actual meaning or if it is appropriate.
Well, you’d feel right at home, given the interests you’ve displayed in other GD threads, and I mean that in an entirely respectful manner. Five outlets: Berkeley, New York, D.C., Houston, and uh, Phoenix, I think; all non-profit, AFAIK. The Houston outlet, KPFT, is quite popular here. Quite a trip to compare their view of things with that of, say, the Clear Channel news affiliate KTRH. Best stop here as I am hijacking my own thread.
