PBS Documentary on
posted
to www.marxmail.org on
Last night PBS aired a Frontline documentary that marked the
first retreat from its lockstep support for US wars of aggression since 9/11.
You will also be able to view the entire show on the website
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/) starting on October 11.
Titled "Truth, War and Consequences", it was basically a liberal
"tragic mistake" interpretation such as the kind that cropped up in
the 1960s when things turned sour in
By "wrong" PBS does not mean the same thing as in
the sentence: "Insider trading is wrong". By "wrong" they
mean that something has backfired, for example the decision to overrule Jay Garner's plan to hire former Iraqi soldiers to repair roads
and other infrastructure. Once these soldiers found themselves unemployed, they
naturally resorted to violence. The PBS documentary never once asks the
question of whether the
The most useful aspect of the documentary is that it allows
Ahmad Chalabi and Kanan Makiya, who are featured
prominently, to hoist themselves on their own petard. For example, when
Frontline interviewer Martin Smith, who is also credited as writer, asks
Chalabi if there is any connection between
There is a telling moment in this documentary that makes the
Iraqi resistance understandable. Shortly after a decision has been made by the
Makiya is a real piece of work, as we put it in the
Makiya has often been described as an ex-Trotskyist. This
morning I examined an online version of his "
All of this
development highlights a dilemma whose underpinnings in our century arise
within the communist tradition. The Russian experience has deeply affected all
thinking on the relationship of political freedoms to development in backward
countries irrespective of political persuasion. The contradictions were most
paradigmatically expressed in the thought of Leon Trotsky. In his trenchant
attack on Stalinism, The Revolution Betrayed, Trotsky
sought an explanation of the Stalinist phenomenon taken from outside its own
peculiar distinctness and history of development. He wrote of the despotism of
the new state as being an outcome of "the iron necessity to give birth to
and support a privileged minority" in conditions of backwardness and how "the
power of the democratic Soviets proved cramping, even unendurable, when the
task of the day was to accommodate those privileged groups whose existence was
necessary for defense, for industry, for technique and science." The sense
is of a transcendent causality maybe beyond the capacities of human
intervention, through which today's freedoms have to be sacrificed in the
interests of progress. This did not come from an economist, academician, or
armchair revolutionary; it came from a leading intellect and political actor of
the Russian revolution who had himself been cast aside by the "iron
necessity" of the course it later took.
What was for Trotsky a
wrenching universal and personal dilemma, which he could only resolve by
holding fervently onto the idea of world revolution, was transformed in the
nationalist withdrawal and accelerating parochialism of all subsequent
revolutions into an immutable law of the historical process, one that had been
proved by the Stalinist experience. Invariably the ideology that captures this
quality of imperial economic necessity in the
So evidently Makiya did at least read Trotsky. Whether he
understood him is another question altogether. The freedom pole of the
development/freedom polarity referred to above needs to be elaborated on. What
does Makiya mean by freedom? It appears that this is the freedom to organize
political parties, to put out newspapers--in other words the sort of freedom
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. It does not address social and economic
freedom, however. If a nation does not have the freedom to develop its resources
for the national good, then what use does civil liberties have? If Egyptians
lacked the power to nationalize the
These questions constitute the cutting edge of politics
today. Since the