When asked if the French Revolution had been a good thing, Chou En-Lai replied “It’s too soon to tell.” That’s the time scale we have to be thinking of, and damn straight it’s too soon and will be for quite some time. Yes, it’s hard and largely guesswork.
On the other hand, when one wants, or needs, to declare a success, it’s instructive to see how narrowly the objectives have to be (re)defined in order to do so. Sam, versus what objectives are you declaring the Afghanistan operation a success, and on what factual basis? I’ll spot you the overthrow (so far) of the Taliban.
I’m not even sure I’d conceed that. They’re obviously still coherent enough to put together an intelligence network that can warn them and Al-queda about raids on their mountain hideouts so they’re gone with a fair bit of their equipment before the raid force arrives. They have correctly fingered informants who are working with the coalition and are threatening to execute them. Last I heard Mullah Omar is still alive and leading the resistance. They’re still widespread enough that women and girls who try to go about without the burqa and unescorted have been shot by snipers and there are places the women won’t even try to exercise their newfound “freedom” because of such attacks.
I have killed a significant portion of my day slogging through these digressions, tangents, red herrings, wild-goose-chases, hijacks (stop me any time)…
Back to the real OP:
Every single post in this thread has been oblivious to the fact that the Congressional majority dictates what legislation is considered in committee and on the chamber floors. Alternatives to the administration’s “foreign policy” (and I use the term loosely) are plain and simply never even given a hearing for public debate. Nor would it be a productive exercise by legislators of either party to waste time and energy publicizing their ideas if those ideas would be dismissed out of hand. That’s what stump speeches are for. THEREFORE, there is no possible way for any of us (unless somebody here is a Congressional legislator? Anyone? Bueller?) to ascertain whether there are or are not articulated foreign policy alternatives espoused by Democrat legislators.
It is reasonable to conclude that Mr. DeLay (and his allies here in GD) belittle, vilify, and denigrate articulated alternatives to administration “foreign policy” as “not serious” more from the standpoint of ideological disagreement rather than from any studied comparison of risks/rewards. As a veteran of peer reviews for scholarly publications, “I think you are wrong” is NOT an acceptable response when asked for analysis of someone else’s work.
As several posts have pointed out, the alternatives to current administration policy have in point of fact been remarkably well articulated despite the fact that none of the individuals espousing alternatives are in a position to actually do anything about it. International engagement, coalition building, multi-lateralism, burden-sharing, restoring the credibility of the U.N. as a security mechanism and forum for debate, have all been quite explicitly expressed. Again, dismissing these alternatives as “not serious” is rather obviously an issue of ideology, not substance.
The term “cohesive foreign policy” has been bandied about as an indictment that the policy alternatives in 3) are scattershot, and implies that the Bush administration does indeed have a “cohesive foreign policy”. Any serious student of the history of U.S. foreign affairs would laugh uproariously at the idea of a “comprehensive” U.S. foreign policy. One of the principal reasons for the rampant anti-US sentiment throughout the world is precisely the fact that U.S. foreign policy has been selectively and subjectively applied to achieve the goals of whatever administration happens to be in place. Idi Amin, Reza Shah Pahlevi, Ferdinand Marcos, Manuel Noriega…do I have to go on?
Now if you mean “cohesive foreign ideology”, well sure, the Republicans have a monopoly on that - now that we’ve gotten rid of all the subversive Commies, let’s get those Ay-rabs!
And finally, some post-ers (you know who you are) have through their expressed opinions actually had the temerity to suggest the ideological rigidity of the Bush administration (and it’s lackeys in Congress and statehouses across the nation) is a virtue. I cannot imagine what the aformentioned individuals were taught in their middle school civics or high school U.S. history classes. If memory serves, the Declaration of Independence, the Consitution, and the Bill of Rights are all quite specific about freedom and liberty. Respect (and indeed outright reverence) for la difference is fundamental to the very idea of the United States. Far from being patriotic or expressing love of country, ideologues crowing “Love It or Leave It”, who perceive of the world as “us” and “them”, are quite literally the furthest thing from an American citizen one can get. If DeLay wants to pander to such extremists, he’s welcome to them - they are not the electoral majority (well, except in certain parts of Texas, that is).
welcome to the Board, kwildcat. I appreciate your input, but have some disagreements.
You answered your own point by the use of the word, “articulated.” We can determine the positions of politicians by what they say. Furthermore, it’s normal for a Congressman or Senator to introduce legislation that s/he supports, whether it passes or not. E.g., a few Senators tried to undo their approval of Bush’s Iraq invasion, which was an appropriate way to make their position known.
I see our point as being that the “alternatives” are really evasions of the decision. More below.
Let’s take these one at a time.[ul][li]International engagement – Bush attempted to get UN support and NATO support for the war in Iraq. He did succeed in building an international coalition, although the ?US were the main fighting force. So, Bush did what he could to get International engagement.[]Coalition building – I’m not sure how this differs from international engagement. Anyhow, Bush did build a coalition.[]Multi-lateralism – I assume this means not going to war until AFTER some international body had agreed, such as NATO or the UN. If that’s what it means, then it’s equivalent to not going to war at all, since France was always going to veto action in these two bodies.Restoring the credibility of the U.N. – No doubt it would be nice if the UN had more credibility. It would also be nice if they deserved more credibility. But, this is a long-term challenge, which wouldn’t have dealt with the immediate problem of Saddam Hussein.[/ul][/li][quote]
Again, dismissing these alternatives as “not serious” is rather obviously an issue of ideology, not substance.
[/quote]
Real alternatives would solve the problem. Do you assert that these steps would have removed Saddam from power? Or, that they would have given the confidence to the world that Saddam had given up WMD programs for all time?
Give me a break. The rest of the world has supported or not opposed evil tyrants just as much as the US has. Look at the support for Saddam from France and Russia. What country stepped forward to end the misrule of the USSR, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Robert Mugabe, Moammar Khadafy, the Mullahs in Iran, Kim Il Jung in North Korea, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosovic? None of them did. The US didn’t deal with all of these evil tyrannies, but our record is better than any other country.
By that logic, isn’t it also too soon to say it’s been a failure?
So prognostication aside, wouldn’t you say that TODAY, Afghanistan is a better place to live than it was under the Taliban? Wouldn’t you say that TODAY, the world is better off than it would have been had the U.S. stayed home and let Osama run his terrorist nut-hatchery?
Or here’s a better yardstick: If you could get all the Afghans to vote to invoke a magic time machine, go back to the Taliban days, and have the U.S. not invade, how many of them do you think would vote for that? Make sure the women get a vote, too.
That’s a hell of a spot, considering that the Taliban were a bunch of brutal assholes, especially towards women, and that Afghanistan under their regime was a seething cesspool of al-Qaida terrorist camps and funding conduits.
Under the Taliban, the people were starving, women were brutalized, education became indoctrination, valuable artworks were destroyed, and it was the happy playground for every terrorist nutjob and wannabe.
The rest of you: Look, no one is saying that Afghanistan has turned into Kansas. It’s not the shining pearl of the Middle East. Links pointing to problems in Afghanistan are beside the point, unless they are making the case that the country would have been better off today with the Taliban still in power.
Is anyone willing to make that claim? Do you wish the Taliban were still in place? If not, how can you say that the invasion was a failure?
If you want to claim that there’s plenty of work to do in Afghanistan, fine. No argument. If you want to claim that mistakes have been made in the post-war reconstruction, ditto. But this handwringing about failure, disaster, quagmires, and the like is just over the top. There HAS been lots of reconstruction in Afghanistan. The army Corp of Engineers have completed literally hundreds of reconstruction projects, including building the largest women’s hospital in the country. Little girls get to go to school now. For that matter, so do the little boys - all the schools are open again. And now they’ll get to learn actual subjects rather than just Taliban indoctrination all day. The soccer stadium will be used for sports, and not for shooting women in the back of the head because they were out of line.
And Bin Laden is hiding in a cave, instead of holding planning meetings in Kabul diners.
I call that a success. Regardless of how much work remains to do.
**Sam, ** perhaps, and highly arguably, Afghanistan is better off now than un der the Taliban. But you are making a mighty huge assumption in picking Taliban rule as your yardstick for comparison, as it sure wasn’t the start of U.S. intervention in Afghanistan.
[ul][li]*Bush attempted to get UN support and NATO support for the war in Iraq. *** By telling transparent lies regarding the evidence of the charges he leveled against Hussein.He did succeed in building an international coalition, although the ?US were the main fighting force. So, Bush did what he could to get International engagement.Well, aside from the lies and the 22 months of unilateral activity on the part of the administration before they came back demanding rubberstamp approval for their actions.[/li][li]Coalition building – I’m not sure how this differs from international engagement. Anyhow, Bush did build a coalition. By bribing and threatening a large number of poor or tiny countries.[/li][li]*Multi-lateralism – I assume this means not going to war until AFTER some international body had agreed, such as NATO or the UN. If that’s what it means, then it’s equivalent to not going to war at all, since France was always going to veto action in these two bodies.Well, except for the part of sending U.S. troops into the region before he even sought a vote of action in the U.N., indicating to all that he was going to act unilaterally, regardless. And, of course, we see the repeated lie regarding France which only indicated that it would not rubberstamp Bush’s adventurism. The statements of Chirac that they would not agree to the vote were clearly in reference to the action proposed for that week and were not a statement of universal and perpetual intransigence.[/li][]*Restoring the credibility of the U.N. – No doubt it would be nice if the UN had more credibility. It would also be nice if they deserved more credibility. But, this is a long-term challenge, which wouldn’t have dealt with the immediate problem of Saddam Hussein.*Well, the U.N. deserves more credibility than an admisitration that lies about evidence, takes unilateral action to initiate extra-legal war, and then pretends that they “tried” to get support.[/ul]
I believe that you are missing the actual point regarding Afghanistan ans success or failure. There may be those who believe that we should not have gone into Afghanistan. I am not among them. In fact, I have seen a number of people who supported the Afghan action who now point to its overall failure–because we quit too soon.
Bush did nothing to ensure that there would be a stable regime after the shooting tapered off and, instead, went haring off after the Iraqis. There are numerous reports that people in Afghanistan (and not just in the south) are murmuring that they at least had stability under the Taliban. We have recreated the situation that brought the Taliban to power the first time and there is no indication that the administration is addressing that issue.
Don’t forget that the funds allocated for Afghanistan in the latest Bush budget was originally $0, until a sharp-eyed intern noticed the problem and the Administration made an 11th-hour scramble to get some money for it. Real commitment we’ve got for the Afghanis there, eh?
Slate this week is running columns with a synopsis of the foreign policy initiatives of all of the Democratic contenders. Here is the first, Carol Moseley Braun’s:
Note that her opposition to war is not really treated as a foreign policy point. It is used to show how she would structure her foreign policy: stop saber rattling, increase foreign cooperation, stop the erosion of the UN and NATO.
Excellent idea. I await your cite to a reputable, independent, polling organization establishing the view of a representative sample of the Afghani people. After all, you’ve asserted that “it is undisputable that Afghanistan is better off for having been invaded.” An appeal to invisible authority is all you have right now. You should start with some cites.
First things first. You are not empowered to restrict the form or content of replies from posters who question your assertions. Nor are you in any position to demand they make specific counter-assertions. You ARE bearing the burden of proving things are better now than they would have been otherwise. Beyond that, you bear the burden of proving the war was a “success”. I have provided evidence that many of the same kinds of abuses are still abundant. Some strides have been made, but the country is still only afloat because of the massive amounts of international aid being poured into it. Under the Taliban it needed less aid. Not quite fair to point to a country being mostly self-managed and self-supporting and to note their struggles, level of corruption, human rights abuses, etc. and then compare that to a country being supported by the resources of the international community and administrated by some of the best organizers on the planet under the eye of the international community and ruled in line with international agreements on things like human rights. Not a fair comparison at all. Even then stuff like this is still a concern
**I take great offense at this total straw man. I couldn’t stand the Taleban. I followed the situation in Afghanistan before 9/11 and I was much more informed on the situation than most people. I couldn’t stand those bastards. In my estimation they had perverted Islam for their own ends and were absolute slime. I was ready to personally put my foot up each and every one of their asses after they dynamited the ancient cliff carvings. Absolute fucking brutes who have no business with any kind of power. On the other hand I had no better solution to offer the people of Afghanistan, so I gnashed my teeth in impotent rage. Putting the fucking words in my mouth that I “wish the Taliban were still in place” is absolutely despicable.
I say the invastion of Afghanistan has been, SO FAR, a failure. Osama is not captured or dead. Al-Queda is still carrying out attacks and is, in fact, reportedly growing at a record pace. The people of Afghanistan seem only slightly better off in a handful of measures, and even those get shaky under scrutiny, than they were under the Taleban and it is taking the combined resources of the international community and the direction of the UN to make even that happen. The idea was to go in, get Osama and scatter Al-Queda beyond recovery, set up a new, benevolent, government and boost the Afghani state into self-sufficiency. So far, those goals have not been accomplished. Ergo, so far Afghanistan is a failure.
Probably. Don’t know how long that will last, though, but the signs aren’t good.
Speaking of Osama, where is he? Not dead or in jail, or even publicly being pursued. So no, I would not say that. If you feel you need to, and apparently you do, go right ahead, though.
/quoteLinks pointing to problems in Afghanistan are beside the point, unless they are making the case that the country would have been better off today with the Taliban still in power.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Do you wish the Taliban were still in place? If not, how can you say that the invasion was a failure?
[/quote]
We try and try here to break you loose from your binary view of the world, your constant use of false dilemmas as ‘debating tactics’, but this thread is another example of our failure.
Pal, there’s at least as much factual evidence, and historical analogy, not to make the claim you’re asserting as obvious truth as to the contrary. Why do you persist in doing so anyway? Never mind, that question was rhetorical; we know the answer.