Iraq and the War on/of Terror

Here's a few links to interesting articles that I have read recently relating to the invasion of Iraq and the "War on Terror" (this term is a flat-out oxymoron: war is terror).

First up a US academic called Juan Cole gives Christoper Hitchens the intellectual spanking that he has deserved for a very long time. In my opinion there was a decent case to be made for invading Iraq; one which had nothing to do with WMDs or fighting Al Quaeda but was, instead, based on the humanitarian cause of freeing the people of Iraq from the tyrant Saddam. While I still, ultimately, opposed the invasion of Iraq, I did think that left-wing commentators like Johann Hari made compelling arguments for supporting the invasion. Hitchens, on the other hand, was just rotten from the start: disingenuous, dishonest and - apparently - more motivated by personal vendettas than by any desire to realistically assess the pros and cons of invasion. And – finally – someone (Juan Cole) does the long required task of exposing Hitchens’s arguments for the nonsense that they are. Cole's piece is here.

But if Hitchens is bad, some of his opponents on the left are just as gruesome - the top contender here being George Galloway. Galloway seems to firmly believe that "my enemy's enemy is my friend"; something which lead to him cosying up to Saddam before the invasion and now making comments which - apparently – indicate his support of the innocent murdering insurgents in Iraq. What is thoroughly depressing is that Galloway has become a spokesperson for a reasonable slice of the anti-war left - sigh. If you are a real masochist you can watch Hitchens and Galloway debate the war here.

When it comes to Hitchens and Galloway I am with Greg Palast: they are both redundant - somewhere out of the wreck of neo-conservatism the left needs to find a way forward that eschews the dogma of these two.

The New York Times has a very interesting piece on the way that the Iraq war has hurt the "war on terror". It's here but, unfortunately, you will have to pay to see it (about $5).

I've recommended this before, but Mary Kaldor's take on Iraq is one of the most sensible that I have read. It's on Open Democracy so you might have to register to read the article but it ought to be free.

And, finally, Johann Hari - always the sanest of the pro-war left - has another good take on Iraq.

An antidote to politics

And here, as an antidote to the politics of the previous posts, are two very cool poems. Both by American poets.

The first - "The Fox" - is by Kenneth Patchen - an anarchist and a pacifist (the two ideologies that my heart finds most attractive even if my brain doubts their plausibility). The second is by Laura Fargas and is about Kuan Yin - the Chinese goddess of mercy.

Enjoy.

The Fox

Because the snow is deep
Without spot that white falling through white air

Because she limps a little - bleeds
Where they shot her

Because hunters have guns
And dogs have hangmen's legs

Because I'd like to take her in my arms
And tend her wound

Because she can't afford to die
Killing the young in her belly

I don't know what to say of a soldier's dying
Because there are no proportions in death.

- Kenneth Patchen

Kuan Yin

Of the many buddhas I love best the girl
who will not leave the cycle of pain before anyone else.
It is not the captain declining to be saved
on the sinking ship, who may just want to ride his shame
out of sight. She is at the brink of never being hurt again
but pauses to say, All of us. Every blade of grass.
She chooses to live in the tumble of souls through time.
Perhaps she sees spring in every country,
talks quietly with farm women while helping to lay seed.
Our hearts are a storm she trembles at. I picture her
leaning on a tree or humming or joining a volleyball game
on Santa Monica beach. Her skin shines with sweat.
The others may not know how to notice what she does to them.
She is not a fish or a bee; it is not pity or thirst;
she could go, but here she is.

- Laura Fargas

So now what (there may be trouble ahead)…

post missing

What do we spend our taxes on?

.

Everyone knows that our hard-earned taxes are simply wasted by the government on things like hip hop tours, dole bludgers, the treaty of Waitangi and a vastly bloated bureaucracy right? Wrong In fact, most of our taxes go on core services like education, health and taking care of our elderly - the idea of squandered taxes is another one of the great myths of the New Right. So in order to try and correct this misconception I have published below the "Great New Zealand Tax Graphic" which shows what proportion of government spending is spent on what. Unfortunately – due to software limitations – the graphic isn’t particularly clear, so I’ve reproduced the relevant numbers below it (or you can click on the graphic to view a larger version of it). There are all sorts of interesting things to note regarding the spending of taxes, but I thought I’d just point out one point that is particularly relevant to the pre-election “debates” on taxation. At present the New Zealand government spends approximately 5% of its tax-take on debt financing. That is as much as it spends on the DPB and Dole combined. It is also as much as we spend on law and order. And this is after a concerted effort by the government of the last few years to pay off debt. Given these points, do we really want to start borrowing more money at present? (PS Thanks to Tim for directing me to the treasury website).

.

.

Unemployment Benefit - 2%
Dom Purposes Benefit - 3%
Other Benefits - 16%
NZ Super - 13%
Health - 20%
Education - 18%
Core Government Services - 4%
Law and Order - 5%
Defence - 3%
Transport & comms -4%
Financial Costs - 5%
Other Costs - 7%

All figures from:

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget2005/taxpayers/