WHEN NAOMI KLEIN ATTACKS

Read Klein's article, in the Guardian (UK), on the reconstruction efforts in Iraq as "robbery" here. Probably lots of people talked about Klein's argument when it appeared in the Nation and I just missed it. It's pretty much vintage Klein: the neoliberals in Washington are happy about having bombed Iraq and are now getting a piece of some free-market lovin' from the Bush administration. Who knows? Perhaps the attempt to open up markets in the face of a recalcitrant global opposition to neo-liberalism was itself a factor in the decision for war.

It's an irrefutable thesis anyway. As much as I like No Logo for its trenchant critiques of advertising culture and its attempt to link the situation of part-time workers, postmodern culture, and sweatshops (even though I'm not entirely sure about the seamless web Klein weaves), and as much as I am attracted to Klein's criticisms of the evacuation of the public square and the replacement of the university with some version of a shopping mall, I can't go in for the larger ideological picture. It's too neat and tidy. Reminds me too much of that fantastic scene in True Stories where the revival-style preacher is singing "Puzzling Evidence" and evoking some connection between MasterCard and the Trilateral Commission. In other words, Klein's individual criticisms are worthwhile but the broad claims are overdrawn. I'm also amazed at the ease with which members of Congress can push for advantages for their big contributors in reconstruction efforts, though. There's something very creepy and wrong in the whole process, mostly because it emits the scent of war profiteering.

For a different take on Klein's argument go to the Frankfurter Allgemeine's discussion of her article, the looting of the National Museum in Baghdad, and controversies over a proposed statute in honor of Napoleon in Venice. According to the avowed neo-liberals at FAZ, the German papers have given the Americans a bad rap for their inaction in the face of looting at the National Museum, but the papers' response was predictable. "Of course the Americans are at fault." And, according to FAZ, combining the looting of the museum with Klein's conspiracy theory you can come full circle: the stolen goods will end up on the market, albeit a black one.

FAZ counsels its readers to recall the difference between professional state looters and the Iraqi "criminals" who went after the National Museum. The most famous of the former is probably Napoleon, who plundered Venice (which is one reason why there is so much Italian art in the Louvre). FAZ argues that even if the Americans turn out to be totally innocent with respect to the looting of the National Museum, Bush still won't get a break from the German press: then the explanation for American reluctance to loot will probably be cultural boorishness, as in:

Napoleon was a criminal? Yes, but at least he had taste.