The issue has indeed been addressed. Democracies don’t attack one another, as has been exhaustively proven by the academic historical studies of Dr. Ross E. Scenario. (The example of Germany doesn’t count, since it devolved from a democracy into an autocracy, a fate that is unlikely to occur to the more educated, liberal and sophisticated Middle East democracies, unhindered as they are by ethnic and religious prejudices. Also, very few ME residents speak German. Dr. Scenarios seminal papers are available at the American Enterprise Institute web site, which requires registration as well as a complete abandonment of critical faculties.)
This unshakeable principle of democratic goodyness is but another benefit of the merging of metaphysics and political science.
Well, I’m not sure what this stuff about democracies not attacking each other has to do with anything, since the whole point of the ME exercise was supposed to be to minimize the terrorist threat to the US mainland (or homeland, if you’re a Bushie). There has not been much, if any, state-sponsored terrorism directed at the actual territory of the US anyway, first of all.
Secondly, terrorists come in many flavors, and many of them emerge from democratic countries. There’s homegrown examples like Timothy Mcveigh, the SLA, and the Weathermen. There was the Japanese Red Army, the Italian Red Brigades, and I think some German version as well. The IRA in England/Ireland and the ETA in Spain are still around.
So, what exactly does Democratic dominoes falling in the ME have to do with the safety of the US, especially as it relates to stopping al Qaeda? Not a thing. Irrelevant would be a kind way of describing it. If Saudi Arabia became a democracy tomorrow and then elected a strictly secular party, as unlikely as that may seem, al Qaeda would still be unhappy, and they’d probably still find a way to relate their unhappiness back to us. None of what is going on in the ME has anything to do with whether I encounter a bomb on the NYC subways on this anniversary of Madrid’s 3/11. And that’s the only bottom line I care about, and the only one I should care about.
Dismiss it if you like, or critique it if you like in your thread.
I for one would not like to argue against working for better lives for oppressed peoples on the grounds that the effort does not offer an ironclad guarantee that it will have sufficient direct benefit to me, but you can feel free to.
The hypocrisy of the right is truly unsurpassed in recent times. Seeing people who have no respect for democracy and human rights go on and on about how people in other lands are allegedly rising up in revolt for their rights brings a tear to the eye.
Do they care about torture? Alberto Gonzales is their answer to that.
International law? John Bolton is their answer to that.
Truth? Condoleeza Rice is their answer to that.
Justice? Extraordinary rendition is their answer to that.
Even the security of the US? They’d rather engage in a transparent attempt to win a debating point by pointing to photogenic demonstrators in a country they could care less about as opposed to holding the USG and this Administration accountable for its abject failure to get anyone who consititutes a real threat to the US, like OBL, Zawahiri, al-Zarqawi, or Mullah Omar. When was the last time any of them gave a shit about any of these people? I can’t remember.
You touchy-feely approach to foreign policy is certainly commendable in some circles, however, when hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives are on the line I think the bar should be a little bit higher than, “Wouldn’t it be great if this worked?”
Well, sure. But I see no reason to ignore a plan because it would be great if it worked. Especially when it shows signs of doing so, and especially, especially when nobody else is offering an alternative.
Hoo boy. Wait, are you going to claim libertarian (in which case why you would be for imperialism for any reason is the question that comes up), or what, exactly? Just curious. I think I’m going to start a study on all the different ways of squirming around being called a rightie some of the members of this board have.
I don’t consider myself a conservative because I differ from them on most social issues, and I don’t care for the coziness with big business (though really both parties do that now).
I was quite a liberal at one time, and voted for Jesse Jackson for president. That sort of do-gooderism for the oppressed peoples of the world is still very much my motivation. But after working in social services for a few years, I became more or less a “practical libertarian,” much like Johnathan Chance, and I am registered as a Libertarian. But I think the extremist don’t-blame-me-I-voted-for-Ayn-Rand crowd are nuts. On a theoretical level, I agree with the idea that letting some people (and some states) fail is the best way to go.
On the other hand, I don’t believe in putting theory on such a throne that we ignore real human consequences. IMO, that is what both the (traditional) right and the left do in foreign policy. The former by insisting that we fully recognize the sovereignty of unjust and illegitimate failed states while strictly pursuing our self-interest, the latter by submitting ourselves to “international law” or the UN or Europe, all of which bluster and blunder and bloviate but actually accomplish very little good (unless you think that restraining the US is a good thing in and of itself).
So my motives are the same as would be quite familiar to an earlier generation of liberal – Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK – while adopting an “I don’t care if the cat is black or white” pragmatism as to the means. I agree with Christopher Hitchens a great deal, if that tells you anything. I think that advacing human freedom when and whereever possible is both morally right and in the US national interest (highly, highly recommend that article). That seems to me to be quite a “progressive” position. If holding it means I have to support a “conservative” politician, I really don’t care.
No, it just makes you conservative. You need to read your own cite:
Any intervention in a foreign land is going to be dangerous to us because of the potential blowback. That includes Iraq; that includes Bush shooting off his mouth about Syria departing Lebanon, which only allowed Nasrallah of Hezbollah to paint the anti-Syrian demonstrators as dupes of the US and Israel. That includes promoting democracy like it’s some kind of magic elixir to solve all problems.
If you want to see what’s really behind all this pro-democracy nonsense that gets spouted in public, here’s an example from a private - note that, private - communication between Woodrow Wilson’s ambassador to England and his son. The kind of racism you see on display in his list of things that are good about World War One is what’s really behind all this pro-democracy stuff, right down to the present day:
That’s what he said in private. To the president, he wrote the following:
In one, raw racism, in the other, the March of Democracy. Note that the vengeful peace under which Germany was forced to labor was in sharp contrast to what happened to France after Napoleon a century earlier. Note as well that a follow-up war even bloodier than the first one wasn’t needed for France, and was for Germany. So much for your early “liberals”.
I don’t quite get your response. I don’t think PatriotX is advocating ignoring the policy (democratization domino theory) - rather I think it’s an issue of critically examining the policy. In other words, it’s incumbent to those that support such a policy to convince others that it’s workable, but especially workable in the context of a broader policy of US national interest (at least, that’s how I interpret his response; which also happens to be similar to mine as well).
We (you and I, along with pervert, I think) touched on this in the earlier thread. One of the objections I raised was that while - in theory - the policy had some merit, what I had problems with (and still have problems with) is the details.
Particularly with the execution (relying almost exclusively in using almost unilateral military force in re Iraq), and neglecting other important elements that could (and probably should) have been considered (implementation of institutions that allow democractic reforms to take root and flourish; greater understanding of the cultural/ethnic/religious elements of Iraqi society; economic reforms/improvements in Iraqi economy; greater international involvement - political/social/economic/militarily - in the entire process; along with a host of other considerations).
I think I outlined one proposal in an earlier thread (can’t remember if was in response to you or pervert) in what I would have liked to have seen done. I can’t state unequivically that others have done some thing similar (maybe PatriotX has). Still, the jury is out on whether the policy the US DID implement (and how it was executed) is in the long-term strategic interests of the US. Just because it appears initially to be working out doesn’t mean that it will. I, for one, would like to know what the US is doing specifically to ensure that the process will continue. And more importantly, that the specifics have a long-lasting impact on the region (i.e democratization takes root).
Because, barring the specifics that allow the process of democratization to take hold - if that’s what we, the US, truly want, the whole theory becomes (in the final analysis) largely empty rhetoric.
Unless, of course, the rhetoric acts as a mask for the true long-term strategic national interests of the US (force countries to adopt a facade of democratic reforms - to better able to sell to the Americans/International community America’s role in championing “freedom” or “democracy” - all the while asserting its hegemonic presence in the region to control the flow of oil). The US’s ability to control the flow of oil from the region to other regions gives the US a strategic advantage in relation to those others regions (especially with regards to Europe, but also China, Russia, etc.).
My Rush-Limbaugh-fan uncle will be shocked and gladdened to hear it.
I have, many times. You need to take it in context. The essay is not an argument for isolationism; it is an argument that any foreign policy – intervention or non-intervention – needs to be conducted with an eye to advancing our core values and not short-term expedience.
The problem is that non-intervention can also be dangerous. There is no “safe” course. None, zilch, zero. Every possible action has possible unintended consequences. “Do nothing” is indeed option, and a case can be made that it’s often the best one. In fact, I’d say it probably ought to be the default setting.
In the wake of 9/11, however, I was persuaded that the preexisting approach to the middle east had been shown inadeqaute. YMMV.
As to the rest, I have no idea how it can be expected to have more than a tortured, tangential connection. Obviously, historically, some interventionists have been racist. (I suppose you’ll quote Kipling next?) Historically, some isolationists have been racist. Historically, most people were racist by today’s standards. I fail to see what’s proven by quoting the private writings of an obscure official nearly a century ago.
Which, again, raises the question: Are we seeing the opening stages of a fully independent Lebanese democracy – or the opening stages of yet another Lebanese Civil War?
As I read it, he regards it as utterly unworkable, but perhaps I am wrong.
And this is where we perhaps have our key disagreement. In a debating parlor such as the SDMB, it is all well and good to say that a person advancing a solution must support it, and that no solution will be adopted until it has been shown to be airtight. In the real world, however, an executive is given options, and she may choose to adopt any one of them or none at all. But choosing to do nothing is in fact a choice. To argue that “we can’t do A” without advocating a plan B is, in effect if not in intent, to argue in favor of the status quo.
The effect is that sometimes – indeed, perhaps usually – what an executive has to do is choose the least bad option. And in some cases, the options may be between one plan that will probably fail and another that is almost guaranteed to. In that grim scenario, the plan that will probably fail is clearly the lesser of two evils (since it does have at least a chance of success).
The flaw in SimonX’s original thread was, IMO, that it was applying debating- society logic to a pressing practical problem; placing the burden of proof on those who advocated a particular solution, rather than addressing the root issue of “what is the problem here, and what should be done.”
Yes, and as I said, I would agree with many of your critiques. Some of it might be Monday-morning quarterbacking, but that’s part of the deal for top-level politicians and policymakers.
And if the debate on this issue were over proper execution of the overall strategic framework – on tactics – I might well find myself on the anti-Bush side. But by and large, the dispute has not been over tactics, but strategic-level decisions.
You did indeed come close, but without looking, IIRC your ideas amounted to Bush’s plan of spreading democracy in the Middle East, only centering on Afghanistan instead of Iraq. I don’t think that is a good idea, as I explained … but on the strategic level it is the same war plan: create a military beachhead and from there let the war advance culturally, politically and economically. Your differences from the overall policy are more tactical than a strategic ones, akin to saying that D-Day should have landed at Calais or Holland and not Normandy. That’s different, but not strategically different in the way that “beat Japan first” or “wait a year and then nuke Berlin” would have been.
SimonX and many others were questioning the strategic vision, and it’s on that level that I had a problem.
In other words, I’d have been very interested if the international left had been saying that “we agree that the US is ill-served by our longstanding willingness to prop up oppressive regimes in the Middle East; such a policy was morally odious and, as we see now, counterproductive, and so we agree that we need to change the focus of US foreign policy from ensuring continued governmental stability to advancing self-determination and human rights. However but we think that a better way of advancing that agenda is ____,” followed by something more concrete and reality-based than “let the UN handle it.”
I have never heard any such practical, realistic different strategies. Some argued for appeasement, but most just said that their plan amounted to “not what Bush is doing.” De facto, that amounted to accepting the status quo.
And here is perhaps another crux of contention: I make no moral distinction between evil that results of one’s action and evil that results from one’s inaction. None. If I unintentionally hurt someone in the pursuit of good, I bear some responsibility for their harm. But sitting by and allowing someone to be harmed and not stopping it is equally wrong. I recognize that not everyone sees it this way. To my mind, the focus should be on minimizing the other’s suffering, not my own personal culpability.
Trying to create a “wave of change” in the Middle East certainly will result in immense amounts of suffering; civilian casualties from military action in Iraq being the obvious starting point. So much so, that the majority of the time, it’s the better option. But not doing anything allows suffering to continue, and we can never, ever forget that. And when things were as shitty as they were in the Middle East in 2001, with oppressive western-backed dictators as far as the eye can see fueling the spread of militant 12th century Islamism with nothing but slavery or death for women, gays, dissidents and infidels and continuing backwardness for everyone… when things are that bad, with no sign of getting better, I say it’s worth it to roll the dice, because the odds are it won’t get worse.
True that.
Yes, and there are those who operate on the inellectual level that “the Ds are good and the Rs are evil.” There’s no shortage of those sorts of idiots (or their mirrors) in the world, on these boards, or indeed in the leadership of both parties.
I think it probably is true that, long-term, the world’s oil supply is safer in the hands of the free people of those nations than in the kleptocrat du jour. And I’m 100% sure that figured into the thinking. But I don’t care. If someone wants to advance human freedom because it’s in their own self-interests, that’s fine with me. If the people are better-off, that’s all I care about. Motives are God’s province, not mine.
IIRC, what I wrote was that the mechanism by which this theory was to work was mostly undiscussed. And, I asked, even if it does work, how does it benefit the US to implement it.
The whole issue strikes me as being about as useful and meaningful as the whole “They hate our freedoms” schtick.
The question is, how accurately does the above description describe the onversation under discussion?
I’d say very poorly.
I didn’t say that the idea had to be airtight, just that it had to be more than assertion only. All I’ve been looking for is an explanation. I’ve been unable to see mere proximity as a mechanism.
It seems to me in a country where the electorate is ostensibly sovereign that the electorate should have access to the whole story and the real story.
In re the invasion of Iraq, there’s no clear cut reason as to why this was imperative. Nor is there any good reason to believe it has been or will be beneficial to the US.
Absent a compelling reason to expend huge amounts of money, blood and credibility the expenses shouldn’t be made. In the individual, idealism can be admirable, even honorable, idealism in the conduct of nations is foolhardy and potentially disastrous.
So you didn’t see it as questioning politicians’ sales pitch of their desired course of action.
I merely wondered how this course of action actually addressed the problem here, and should it be done. The reports that i supplied in that thread made it clear that from the pov of Muslims/Middle Easterners the issue at the crux of the biscuit is American foreign policies and their effects in the region.
From that pov, the invading of Iraq is more of the same. The invasion is the status quo.
I’m still adamant that the primary focus US foreign policy should be advance US interests.
Most people diverged merely at the invasion of Iraq. Which, afaict is a tactical level decision rather than a strategic one.
Lovely little ananlogy. Not particularly germane, but lovely none the less. While this a commendable view for governing an individual’s actions, it is insufficient for guide the fate of nations.
Why military action in Iraq is a starting point is not obvious.
Here we diverge because I think that national interests should dictate how human freedom is advanced by a country’s foreign policy.
Not an obscure official: a close friend of Woodrow Wilson, and ambassador to England at the precise time that the more than 100 year policy of staying out of purely European conflicts was scrapped in favor of a pro-British policy. The cite I think proved that this pro-British policy had its origin, in the mind of this person, who was crucial to convincing Wilson to get into WWI on the British side, in the superiority of the English race. He couched his racism as pro-democracy, so as to give it a coating of values that would look better in public and appeal to Wilson’s soft spot.
Not much different than what happened with Iraq. For whatever reason, the neocons wanted Saddam out badly, and had written extensively in favor of that outcome well before Bush’s term began, as has been extensively documented in all kinds of threads around here. They sold it as WMD, and now that that’s been discredited are trying to sell it as being some kind of pro-democratic crusade. This ignores that the elections in Iraq happened at the insistence of Sistani and served the interests not of the US but of Iran and, secondarily, the Kurdish independence movement, this latter being something that goes directly against the interests of a longstanding ally of the US, Turkey. This ignores that Lebanon has been a democracy for 80 years, and that Syria will continue to influence that country regardless of whether it has troops there or not; it’s known as a sphere of influence, a concept that should have been familiar to Condoleeza from Diplomacy 101. Apparently she slept through that class. This ignores that Mubarak’s halting step towards democracy only brings it, purely on paper, to the level of Mexico before Fox, when that country was de facto a single-party dictatorship - in other words, it changes exactly nothing about the situation in Egypt.
All of this at a cost in blood and treasure that no one would have consented to had it been presented in 2002, and had it been presented at that time not as a way to remove an imminent threat, but as a way to “transform” the Middle East. No one would have bought it then, and I see no reason why anyone should buy it now, except for strictly partisan reasons.
A lot depends on those who previously opposed the Bush policy toward the Middle East. Are they ready now to stand with the “Arab street” they were so convinced was going to hate us? Here’s a hopeful sign:
Chirac is indeed is starting to get it; it wasn’t too far a stretch for him, as he got it as regards Haiti which is if anything an even tougher situation.