Conservative hypocrisy update

Great Debates
1

I support the war. It has always been clear that the only way to get rid of Saddam Hussein’s regime was through military force, and I’ve been looking forward to the effect a democratized and modernizing Iraq can have on the rest of Middle East. I favor an activist foreign policy in challenging authoritarian regimes, and expediency sometimes requires that sovereign powers such as the US be the ones to act.

I supported all the military operations launched during the Clinton Administration, but I recall a great deal of opposition from Republicans to the Bosnia operation, howls of protest over the Haiti operation, and strong criticism for being too aggressive in Somalia.

It’s now time to rebuild Iraq, to begin the complex and painful task of establishing a prosperous and democratic society. The Bush Administration wants the US to play the primary role in this process, and yet one of their earliest statements on foreign policy was “We’re not into nation building”.

Part of Bush’s justification for the attack was that Saddam’s regime had violated it’s international agreements and international law, but the Administration has broken any number of international agreements and shown a lot of disregard for international law and international organizations. And they’ve shown little inclination to get tough with Israel for it’s violations of international law.

Conservatives are jealously protective of the nation’s sovereignty, to the point where ridiculously insignificant “threats” to it are grounds for torpedoing just about any internationalist initiative, such as the ICC. But in the past year-and-a-half we’ve happily gone into 2 foreign countries and completely taken them over. Because there was a good reason for it, that’s why. Imagine that.

We went into Iraq espousing the highest ideals. We would overthrow the Evil regime and bring Freedom, Democracy, and not the least Rule of Law (although if no one in the Administration actually used the phrase they get a pass). But we seem to have just established an international security arrangement based on US hegemony. We’ll be the ones to decide when Interventions will take place–and when they’ll not take place. And we’ll make sure that the UN or other such bodies lack the power to effectively conduct these kinds of interventions under the imprimatur of the international community, and the legitimacy that goes with it.

I suppose I’ll also bitch about the republicans using the war/terrorism to stifle their political opponents while pushing through their own “divider” legislation such as new abortion restrictions (and the tax cuts, blah, blah, blah…).

2

Quick question:

I thought the Republican line was that we weren’t agressive enough – i.e., we should have had armor available in Mogadishu.

FTR, I was initially opposed to the Bosnia operation when it started, mostly because I didn’t think the heavy reliance on airpower would be a successful strategy. I was completely wrong. I think the Clinton administration deserves kudos for helping change the situation down there. Ditto for Haiti. I’m no fan of Clinton, but I do believe in credit where credit is due.

3

At the time I didn’t imagine we were going into Bosnia effectivly, and Clinton deserves applause for making it work. I overestimated the enemy’s will to fight.

I’m afraid I don’t even recall this one. Did I miss something? I was a little young when Clinton was first elected.

I’m in line with D C U on this one. Its my understanding we conservvies criticised him for being too ishy-washy on the whole subject. My opinion was and is that we needed to at the least crush the bastard responsible for thr “Black Hawk Down” incident.

Now I’m wondering if I should see that movie.

4

I heard that the book was qualitatively much better… less propaganda and more analysis.

According to an analysis by a research fellow from the Australian Land Warfare Studies Center I read a while ago, the responsibility for the Black Hawk Down incident lies to a non-negligible degree on the fact that the US forces involved in the incident had their usual problems interacting with a partially hostile civilian population. The end result was that they had pissed everyone off and had no safe haven and no one coming to their aid when the shit hit the fan.

5

Another one that thinks he didn’t go far enough. IMHO you either use overwhelming force or stay the f*#% away. Anything inbetween is just asking for trouble.

6

This just in:

"The Pentagon contract given without competition to a Halliburton subsidiary to fight oil well fires in Iraq is worth as much as $7 billion over two years, according to a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers that was released today.

The contract also allows Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary, to earn as much as 7 percent profit. That could amount to $490 million."

7

If Haliburton hadn’t have been awarded part of the contract it would have been a bigger shock. Should we have excluded the largest and one of the best at the work simply because of his ties to Dick?

Even if Cheney had never been born, there would be a great chance that SOME Haliburton subsid. would have gotten part of the contract.

They are HUGE in the industry. They own SO many companies.

8

Also don’t forget that Somalia was a little post-election parting gift from Bush the Elder, lovingly conceived and executed without the consultation or consent of Congress in December of 1992.

9

I thought the Black Hawk Down movie was pretty loyal to the book. I recommend them both.

To answer the OP, I don’t think it’s hypocracy for Bush to change his tune on foreign policy. 9/11 significantly changed a lot of things. When Bush was campaigning he was more isolationist. 9/11 changed that.

10

Not at all, but the key words you’re overlooking in elucidator’s post were “without competition”. What’s your view of that?

11

Before we all begin hyperventilating here, the article seems to imply (I believe incorrectly) that Halliburton, through Kellogg Brown and Root, is going to collect $7 billion on this contract. Such a notion is ridiculous; surely this is a contingency contract and the figure quoted is a maximum allowed for in a case where large numbers of wells had been set ablaze. In fact, so far only 12 wells were sabotaged in the entire country, all in the southern part of Iraq.

BTW, according to the Houston Chronicle, Houston-based Boots & Coots and a Kuwaiti company have extinguished and capped at least one well each in the southern oilfields. As of a couple of days ago, apparently all fires were out and no more than two wells remain uncapped. That is to say, much of the work was done by subcontractors who will be paid out of the contingency money. K B & G essentially plays a management role.

In any event, unless the remaining Iraqi troops in the North get cracking, there seems little chance that the Halliburton subsidary will collect more than a small fraction of the money earmarked for well control during the two years of the contract.

Hey, maybe there is some kind of massive conspiracy of log-rolling going on here. But, uh, just asking, if Cheney were not currently in government would this deal even be an issue?

12

I’ll admit the Somalia issue was a bit more complex than I presented it, bugun as it was by Bush Sr. Some of criticism was for not going in with enough force, including tanks, but liberals aren’t the only ones who would have protested this Vietnamesqe “escalation”. “Mission creep” was the bugaboo catchphrase of the day, and this is where the aversion to nation building arose. Building up a nation of little strategic value was seen as not worth a handful of American lives, so we quickly got out.

[quote]
I’m afraid I don’t even recall this one [Haiti]. Did I miss something? I was a little young when Clinton was first elected.

It’s difficult to unearth press clippings that can recapture a political mood rather than relying on recollections, but there’s no doubt about Republican opposition to the Haiti operation. Newt Gingrich later admitted he was wr…he was wrrrro…he was wroooong. I also recall a political cartoon from that time showing an elephant dressed as a hippie outside the White House chanting “Hell no, we won’t go!” .

(Yes, liberal anti-war activists who supported Clinton’s military adventures can be accused of hypocrisy, but it ain’t me.)

13

Boots & Coots? Is that some kind of mall-based fetishwear chain that caters to the elderly?

14

Gee, not many posts disagreeing with me. Tha must mean I’m right.

15

Boots & Coots

16

Ooo, I forgot a bigggie (this thread is going like gangbusters): If so much as one penny of their tax money goes to a program that they object to (like international family planning), they’ll have the whole thing shut down. But if you object to hundreds of your tax dollars being spent on war with Iraq? Too bad. Quit your job.