http://www.brainthink.com/view_article.php?articleid=1195
Pretty balanced article/commentary. Anything overdone or bad ?
Is this a good article to show Bushites or moderates ?
It doesn’t say anything new. His thing at the end–that he himself was one of those shallow people–means just that he was shallow. He’s too egotisitical to realize that because he was vain and ignorant about the world, doesn’t mean all of America was vain and ignorant. He’s making a basic mistake and now that he’s become “enlightened”, he sounds smug and superior.
It’s not bad writing but its original assumptions are insulting and ill-founded. America has some of the greatest universities and writers and think tanks in the world. Just because not everyone pays attention to them all the time doesn’t mean that the whole country was acting like ‘a kid in a sandbox’.
Ignore it. It’s sloppy thinking, condescending, and sounds like a Berkeley freshman who just got a subscription to the Village Voice.
Too bad he’s right.
Please explain “sloppy thinking.”
Well…
Oversimplification.
The first sentence is stating the painfully obvious, the second: Maybe the way changed as the world did?
Speak for yourself, buddy. Speak for yourself. The amount of ink and electrons expended by Americans in debate about our place in a post-9/11 world is endless. And I’ve had more political discussions with different kinds of people than I ever dared pursue before. You know what? I was raised with the idea that it was often insulting and taboo to talk about politics with people I didn’t know very well.
Aha, this is what I meant by sloppy thinking–“Many Americans” becomes We. As in all Americans.
And I do think the rest of the world sees things through ‘partisan lens’ as well.
Oh my. Bombs in Belfast, assassinations in Greece and Italy, the Munich Olympic massacre, Puerto Rican nationalists spraying Congress with gunfire, etc. etc. etc.
…and so on and so on.
Anyway, the point is not whether the guy is right or wrong. Rashak wasn’t asking if he was, just if the article was worthwhile to show to a ‘Bushie’. I don’t think it is. Saying that America needs to pay more attention to the rest of the world is a brave or clever or daring thing to say, esp. not in such a hectoring, condescending way. It’s obvious to anybody with a brain. And if I were a Republican, I would be kind of insulted that anybody would think I needed to be lectured to in such a simplistic way.
Dammit, preview! I didn’t know that the quotes would all be replaced with question marks, and the sentence “Saying that America needs to pay more attention to the rest of the world is a brave or clever or daring thing to say, esp. not in such a hectoring, condescending way.” should be “is NOT a brave or clever…”
You expend electrons and ink. I expend electrons and ink. We both subscribe to the SDMB, so no surprise there.
But the expenditures of this kind are probably not significant compared to the aggregate expended by Americans (pre-9/11) concerned with feng-shui, Madonna, NASCAR, working out, the Super Bowl, fishing, the Beatles, Wrestlemania, home brewing, yadda yadda.
So I don’t reject the article’s claim that more Americans should have been concerned with the Big Picture before 9/11 happened. Whether they were hawks, doves or other.
The fact that you and I are more comfortable discussing any of these *subjects with strangers might also be relevant. We were both raised before 9/11.
I agree that the guy might be out of line singling out ‘Bushies’ as people who’ve not paid sufficient attention.
But IMO, the article would be as relevant to show to a so-called ‘Bushie’ (assuming I know what that means) as to a pro-union Democrat who hasn’t voted on anything but ‘jobs’ for the last 20 years.
- I have nothing against any of the above subjects, but I think they all fit into the category of ‘sandbox’. At least better than most doings our our federal government.
I agree that for most dopers this article isn’t much too sneeze at. Information wise. I do agree with the author that most americans were ignorant and continue to be so. After all having the best uni and think tanks only means you have some very well informed small groups. They don’t create widespread informed populations. In fact some think tanks are better at creating misinformation, dealing out whatever pays them wants to hear.
One reason I liked the article was that whenever he attacks a Bush “thought” he counter balances with a comment. He never is too aggressive and he keeps it touching points as a personal experience… not academic insight. Though Bushites might not like what he says… its harder to dismiss as democratic party bull ?
Well, if that’s your point of view, we have a disagreement about this country’s intellecutal life so profound that I don’t see how my opinion–or that of any other Doper who has problems with the article–is of any value to this thread. Frankly, I don’t know why you started this thread if you don’t really want the opinions of Americans who think the article is flawed and makes assumptions that might insult your friend rather than enlighten him. I for one would not be happy to be handed something by a “friend” that insisted that I, as an American, must be an uninformed Philistine. Unless you are sure that your friend has his head in the sand, be careful.
Just out of curiousity, do you believe Brazil has a “widespread informed population?”
Or any country, for that matter…
I suppose one could argue that the US, being the sole superpower, can do the most damage in the world.
Sigh…
The big problem I have with this is that its implying that 9/11 was some sort of ‘revenge of the little guy for America’s selfishness’. And that is just pure bullshit.
Al-Qaida is not, in anyway, acting on behalf of the impoverished peoples of the world. If the US had been just as rich, just as powerful, just as so-called ‘unconcerned’, but had been a muslim nation we would not have been attacked. The fact that everyone with an axe to grind is jumping on 9/11’s coat tails doesn’t make this the least bit true.
And one can state flat out that being the world’s only super power and being a moral, generous, humanitarian nation you can do the most good in the world as well…
jeez… you guys getting defensive or what ? Hate these silly… “What about Brazil ?” comments. Seriously… just about every country has a big majority of uninformed and unwashed masses. Brazil and the USA included. If the topic is Middle Eastern politics then things get even more lopsided. Having more intelectuals won’t help average out… they are a way smaller group.
Basically people don’t much care about politics… and even less do about Foreign politics. In fact its normal not to care about more complicated aspects… I don’t blame them. They have better stuff to do than to discuss politics in the Straight Dope like us.
I think that the article contains a lot of rhetoric with virtually no supporting evidence.
Firstly, I’d like to make the following point regarding an inaccurate and key notion that the article outlines.
-The article makes a great distinction between the tactics used in the Cold War and the “War on Terrorism”, when they are, at essence, identical. Neither the Cold War, nor the War on Terrorism solely involved the military, as the article suggests. During both the Cold War and the War on Terrorism the government of the United States has pursued a large variety of strategies, including domestic security, international diplomacy, diplomatic and financial support of friendly movements, and covert operations. One of the reasons why he makes this inaccurate distinction between the two conflicts is because he claims that communism had borders but terrorism does not. This statement is also incorrect. In proving this, I will demonstrate that neither “communism” nor “terrorism” have been unified movements, as in fact, communists and terrorists have been both America’s stalwart allies and sworn enemies during and after the Cold War.
In order to understand why neither communism nor terrorism have distinct borders, I first need a make the point that neither are or were unified opposition movements. During both the Cold War and War on Terrorism, America has pursued many foreign and domestic policy initiatives to curb its opponents. During the Cold War, the opponent was not “communism” but the Soviet Union. In its pursuit to contain the Soviet Union, a nation that has borders, America supported anti-Soviet communists in Yugoslavia (during the Informbiro), Angola (UNITA), and even the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia to a certain extent. Similarly, some would argue that Saudi Arabia, Israel, and even the United States itself have recently performed initiatives that border on terrorism. However, so long as the communists and terrorists do not oppose the United States, there is no reason for America to oppose them either.
A key problem with the article is his mistaken assumption that the War on Terrorism is simply a matter of the use of military force. The Bush administration has demonstrated that it believes some of the most serious threats come from within. The passing of the Patriot Act and the creation of the Information Awareness Office and Department of Homeland Security represent a few examples of the titanic effort the American government has made to eliminate domestically-based, anti-American terrorist groups. Similarly, even in foreign policy the military is not America’s only weapon against terrorism. In recent years, the government, in particular Colin Powell, have tried successfully to convince other nations to independently work both domestically and internationally to eliminate terrorism. Recently, America has strategically forged close ties with nations such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Morocco, and convinced each of them to crack down on internal terrorist groups. My nation, Canada, has similarly responded to American pressure by passing a new Security of Information Act, and increasing border security. All this is no different from the containment alliances made, international aid distributed, and international security arrangements agreed upon during the Cold War. For instance, although NATO was created to contain the Soviet Union, it served just as well to fight the Taliban in 2001, which was in fact the first time its collective security clause was ever initiated.
The author also is mistaken in making a distinction from the Soviet Union with clear borders, and the apparently much more ambiguous threat of terrorism. Just as the United States was not fighting the abstract ideal of communism during the Cold War, America is not fighting terrorism now, but rather, a select group of anti-American terrorist groups, such as Al-Qaida, Hezbollah, and the Abu Nidal Organization. During the Cold War, the global competition between the United States and Soviet Union caused them to support friendly governments, as well as unions, political parties, businesses, and of course, various terrorist movements (such as the Krizari and Mujahideen in the case of the United States, or the PLO and Viet Cong in the case of the Soviet Union). Many of these groups, such as the terrorist ones, essentially lacked “borders”. The Mujahideen could not have survived without American aid, although they were based in Afghanistan. The Viet Cong could not have survived without Soviet aid, although they were based in Vietnam. Other nations, such as France, Cuba, North Korea and Libya, have also kept terrorist movements alive that otherwise would have been defeated easily. Other times, the subversion was peaceful. The communist parties of both Canada and the United States were funded by the Soviet Union, yet these institutions also existed within our borders, not unlike some terrorists today. Methods of fighting communism domestically included the Internal Security Act (1950), a kind of a Cold War Patriot Act. Similarly, the organized type of anti-American terrorism that the United States seeks to fight is not located in any one area, just as Soviet communism was not. However, the funding and harboring of such groups can be pinpointed whether domestically as I have described, or in other nations. For instance, Iran has funded Hezbollah, and Afghanistan has harbored Osama Bin Laden. Iran and Afghanistan do have borders, like the Soviet Union and United States, and like the Soviet Union and United States they have supported international terrorism. Terrorists are simply people, and like everyone else they need to gather funds from or within nations.
To eliminate these international threats, governments, including Bush’s administration, are always reluctant to use military force, not because diplomacy works better, but because it is cheaper and does not need to involve the civilian population. Most of the solutions that are sought are resolved peacefully and do not make headlines. However, when diplomacy fails then military might is applied. For instance, when the United States discovered Bin Laden had planned the September 11th terrorist attacks, the government gave an ultimatum to the nation that harbored him (Afghanistan), ordering that he be extradited to face trial in America. That having failed, Afghanistan was invaded. Among the various reasons for America’s war on Iraq, Iraq’s own defiance towards diplomacy is no doubt among them. Saudi Arabia has worked to crush anti-American, international terrorism upon America’s insistence. Iraq remained largely intransigent toward the United Nations, such as when it infamously expelled weapons inspectors in 1998, or its consistent policy to flout UN sanctions. Throughout this, it knowingly harbored anti-American terrorists such as Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal, and funded suicide bombers and insurgents against America’s closest allies in the Middle East, Israel and Turkey.
Because the enemy has “no borders” America should and has used a variety of techniques to fight the War on Terrorism. America was presented with the exact same problem during the Cold War and attempted to solve it in a basically similar fashion.
That being said, even ignoring factual concerns the essay is still of poor quality. There’s enough rhetoric in the article that not only does he not support his propositions, he really doesn’t even make propositions. He does say that American foreign policy needs to be “re-examined and overhauled” and that Bush’s policies are “dreadfully shortsighted and utterly counterproductive”, but the closest he ever comes to proposing an alternative is in just one sentence when he says America must fight terrorism “through non-military means.” As I pointed out in my last paragraph, various non-military strategies to fight terrorism are being pursued vigorously. I can only assume he means non-military policies other than the ones already being used, although he does not even bother to make note of the ones he prefers.
What really takes up the majority of the space in his essay is not his criticisms or his poorly-defined, one sentence solution. He spends paragraphs and paragraphs railing on about how Americans are ignorant. He offers no polls, circumstantial evidence or even anecdotes to support this. To me, what he is saying is that those who disagree with him are ignorant. He is well-informed about the world and knows what’s right and then precedes makes dissidents seem like fools.
Here are some other examples of unsupported rhetoric.
As I said before, he must name specific abuses and propose specific solutions, or at least a specific solution to his highly ambiguous criticisms. If he had cut out the half dozen paragraphs he spent complaining about America’s ignorance, he would have had more than enough space to do this.
I still can’t seem to pinpoint exactly what America did not learn from 9/11.
I’d also like to point out that the author’s ideas on foreign policy seem rather convoluted to me. Does he think we should avoid intervention, as the first paragraph suggests, or does he prefer that we worry about their “problems”, as stated in the second paragraph? Interventionism is the root of most of the “good deeds” America has performed in the world. Interventionism is also the root of the “terribly dumb things” America has done. These actions were not done with malice or benevolence, simply in the realpolitik “self-interestism” that all powerful nations must follow. So long as a nation commits itself to having an active foreign policy, as the United States has in the Middle East, it will experience both failures and triumphs in the course of pursuing that policy. On the other hand, if America eschews interventionism completely it would simply create a power vacuum to be filled. In the process, America would lose any further chance to influence the region, as diplomacy is often pointless without the threat of military force to back it up. Through its intervention, America has never really tried to “reshape the world in its image.” American realpolitik has caused to nation to support various combinations of freedom fighters or fascists, religious fundamentalists or communists, the oppressors or the oppressed. I consider this unfortunate because I believe that the democratic, free, and capitalist society that America promotes domestically would greatly benefit most of the Middle East. During the 1980’s for instance, Iraq pursued independent foreign and domestic policies that America supported. America did not try to “reshape” the dictatorial, socialist, and repressive nature of the government that were completely opposite to its domestic values.
As I demonstrated earlier, the American government has always known that what occurs in the Middle East will affect America, thus explaining the USA’s interventionist foreign policy in the region. Among the various problems that the Arabs have, the United States has helped to created some and is working to solve others. On one hand, America has been involved in subversion of legitimate governments in Lebanon and Iran. On the other, the United States is highly active in the Israeli peacemaking process, from Camp David to Bush’s recent initiatives. America’s intended actions (acting in self-interest) have had either unintended, beneficial results or unintended, negative results. On the beneficial side, America recently toppled one of the world’s most cruel dictatorships, that of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and is making a sincere effort to replace it with a democracy that respects basic human rights. The United States did not intervene in Iraq for humanitarian reasons, however, through the military force that the author despises I think that America has performed a “good deed” for the world. The alternative would likely have been inaction, as in the 1980’s, although if this is what the author proposes I can only wonder.
Sure, we would have. Just by Christian fundamentalists instead.