Allow another to jump into the fray.

On the original topic, we can go back to that article in Foreign Affairs about "Why Hawks Win." Between 9/11 and the commencement military action in Iraq the Bush Administration and their supporters presented a case for Operation Iraqi Freedom that went something like this.

Saddam has various WMD arsenals, definitely chemical/biological and very soon nuclear. He will, if he hasn't already, turn these over to Al Quaida terrorists who will use them to directly attack the United States. The U.N. inspection teams' inability to confirm the existence of these WMD (definitely established by U.S. intelligence) demonstrated either the incompetence or corruption of the U.N. itself. Saddam, being a cruel and venal despot, had little to no actual support among the people of Iraq, thus his regime would quickly collapse once the most fanatic loyalist troops were disposed of.

Following military victory the people of Iraq, supplemented by the return of highly trained and well-educated Iraqis who had fled the country during Saddam's rule, would express their gratitude at being liberated. Soon, a democratically elected government would emerge. The Iraqis would then be able to freely re-enter the global oil market. Oil revenues would fund the rapid rebuilding of Iraq and they might even be able to repay the U.S. and U.K. some of what we were going to spend on OIF. A democratic (not to mention free market) Iraq would provide both a moral and political example for other Arab, oil rich, nations in the Middle East and a strategic base for military operations in the region as well.

All of this would furthermore enable us to "bring the fight to the enemy" in what would, in all likelihood, be a generation or more long War on Terror. Terror here defined as the province of "Islamic Fundamentalists."

Relations grew testy and cold between most of our European allies and the U.S.; the French especially were derided as cowardly, out of touch, obstructionists. Domestic critics were accused of, at best stupidity and cowardice, at worst self-hatred or treason.

I remember being very circumspect when expressing my dismay about what I thought would prove to be a dangerous mistake that would fuel, rather than weaken, the position of the terrorists. It seemed logical to conclude that, even if everything went exactly as we were being told it would, the result would be a Shia majority in Iraq. Their strongest ties were with the religious fundamentalist regime in Iran and with the Taliban. The Kurds, with whom the U.S. had the strongest ties, were the smallest minority and were problematic in terms of their perpetual independence struggle with both Turkey and Iran. If Saddam DID have WMD wasn't he likely to use them in some last ditch effort? Would he nuke Israel? Would he release toxins to keep everyone from the oil fields for fifty years?

Oh, I was such a brie-eating surrender monkey!

So, how did things play out again?

And, as this thread took on a life of its own and expanded the scope of discussion, I've been trying to wrap my mind around the implications in several of the postings by BIOH et al. Let me see if I've understood the ideal U.S. and our place in the world as you'd like to see in the (near) future.

Immigration is halted, except for a very small number of educated, Christian, white English speakers who might be allowed in annually. Once the borders have been sealed all illegal immigrants would be rounded up. Those from the Western Hemisphere and others who came for "economic" reasons would be deported. Those from most of the rest of the world would be detained, perhaps indefinitely, to determine whether they pose a terrorist threat. All Arabs and followers of Islam would, by definition, pose a threat and either be imprisoned or executed.

We'd revise and improve upon our own governance by moving beyond the archaic ideas set forth in the Constitution of being a republic, with state sovereignty, individual rights, and a system of checks and balances between three separate branches of government. A pure democracy would elect an administration with vastly expanded powers. They would be better able to "do what has to be done" ... "stay the course" ... "make the tough decisions" ... in our global struggle with Islamofacists without interference.

Journalists, hippies, gays, secular humanists, atheists, feminists, Greens, People of Color, New Englanders and most Democrats (I'm sure more categories will be added) will be constrained from expressing opposing opinions by the threat of being detained themselves on the Cheney (or One Percent) Doctrine. [If there is one percent chance this individual could be, or in some way assist or encourage, a terrorist, then our security concerns allow them to be indefinitely detained.] Any interrogation techniques that the government thinks might work, regardless of legalistic niceties, will be used at will on anyone detained under the expanded (yet again) PATRIOT Act.

We will (re-)emerge as the penultimate white, Christian, English speaking nation and use our military might, from conventional forces to nuclear arsenal, to expunge from the planet all communists, socialists, and believers in Islam. The jury is still out on the Chinese, Hindus and Buddhists. Of course, all this will be to expand the Ultimate Greater Good, the triumph of Free Market Corporate Capitalism.

Well, count me among the G** D***, self-loathing, race-traitorous, modernist brainwashed, New England hippie scum for saying that I don't share this vision.

Posted by: Chris White on February 1, 2007 3:00 PM

To get back to the query outlined in the original post, I think BIOH’s comments, in particular his (or her! I’ll be inclusive!) statement:

“Liberals would have us thinking and not acting forever”

provides a bit of an insight into the problem here. As do the responses to his general views on things.

There is a very large anti-intellectual streak in this country. Always has been. Our nation has been founded on relentless, radical and rapid progress and incredible dynamism. Sitting around thinkin and talkin didn’t get tea into Boston Harbour, the British defeated, the prairie settled and the frontier tamed.

One of the themes of this anti-intellectualism is this false dichotomy between thinking and doing that BIOH’s quote there encapsulates. Thinking isn’t accomplishing anything, it isn’t work, it doesn’t produce anything. Talk is worse. It wastes time and is the very antithesis to acting, the very antithesis to progress. this anti-intellectualism rejects complexity as being some needless trick being played, sophistry and befuddling illusion which can be overcome through simple action. Id conquers superego every time. We think from our gut (which has more nerve endings than our brain – I heard that somewhere), and that’s enough. You don't need to talk to achieve concensus when you are just objectively right.

We were also founded on the capacity for relentless expansion. Up to a hundred years or so ago, we could just keep pushing west and plant our society on the empty (except for the native inhabitants) spaces in the middle of the continent. A little blood was shed, a few natives (who weren’t doing anything with the land anyway) were killed or displaced, but nothing good ever came without violence (right BIOH?). It’s been the key to our growth and success. We’ve never been inward looking because it’s not been necessary or productive. We could sustain an isolationist approach to international relations, simply because there was so much scope for expansion and growth within our own borders.

As the 20th century progressed, that was less and less possible. Resources, products and markets that we rely on for prosperity and growth are international. Threats or disruptions internationally to these elements of our propserity become domestic concerns. And they are befuddling, as these disruptions often result from others exercising choices that we would never make, because they don’t make sense within our political or cultural frame of reference, and we've never been ones to puzzle out why folks would do things differently than we would. (You nationalised your pineapple production? Why? You’ll lose money and won’t grow and prosper like we will! And now my can of fruit cocktail costs more! It makes no sense!). The tendency is to intervene (Here, we’ll get rid of that crummy government and show you the right way to run an economy.), and to push back the frontier of our way of life into the pockets of the world that haven’t figured it out yet, and are fucking things up for everyone else by not doing things our way.

We are a nation of paradoxes. We love freedom so much we’ll become a police state to protect it. We were founded by those seeking religious freedom, but became one nation under God. We cherish the freedom to choose, but loathe those that do not conform. We hate rules, but idealise those that enforce them. We’re libertarians that want to tell everybody else what to do. We want peace and security and will keep killing until we get it.

Posted by: myron on February 1, 2007 6:59 PM

My last post on the topic:

There are two facts which all of the left-wingers who oppose the war do not understand properly.

1) Terrorism and terrorist organizations are third party armies who fight for their sponsors without carrying their banner. They seem to be independent, but they are not. Radical muslim terrorism is sponsored by all of the major arab governments of the middle east or from factions within those governments, including Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, and Egypt. Their goals are to destroy Israel and weaken the west to the point of driving them out of the middle east. They control about 2/3 of the known oil reserves on the planet, which is vital to the world economy. Many nations, including Europe, know this, and are happy that US is fighting this, but make a show of oppostion to gain favor with their liberal and declining populations back home. Since the people of the US and the media really are confused, they really think our enemy is al-Queda, or Hamas, or Hezbollah, and not the states which fund this. The US walks a tightrope of trying to fight against this while keeping the oil flowing and appealling to the western friendly factions in these states, while trying to run a politically correct war, fight a hostile propagandizing leftist media, and not kill any civilians, which the terrorists melt into and out of on a moments notice. As has been played up time and again, the region is powderkeg not only of the clash between western and muslim, but also between jew and muslim, sunni and shia, kurd and turk, etc. But what are we to do when they are blowing up american citizens and buildings? What are we to do when we know that Hussein is funding these terrorist organizations, pursuing WMD (whether he had them or not), and shaking his fist in our face? It would be nice to get a solution to all this from the left. Retreat into America is not an option. We have already been attacked here. Appeasment and talk do not work with these people--they see it as a sign of weakeness. Just look at the Israeli experience for that one. We don't have much of a choice, the way I see it.

2) All peace throughout history, whether on our own streets or others around the world, is bought through violence or the threat of violence. Anyone too ignorant of history or of the human nature they see on display around them to understand this is siimply a fool. I'm sorry that I don't take the non-violent approach seriously, but its an idiotic fantasy. Believe it if you like, but don't expect the rest of us to buy into it. Power goes to the ones who win the violence game. Its either us or them, take your pick. And this time, it really is and either/or argument.

I have no idea what Chris White is talking about. I think he has problems with the idea that freedom has limits, something you might only have difficulty understanding if you live in a world of absolutes and idealism and not the real one. Good luck with that.

Posted by: BIOH on February 1, 2007 9:53 PM

Some of the conservative commenters on this thread have been essentially making stuff up in order to have an excuse to kill more people. They apparently killing, regardless of the justification or lack of justification, as a positive good and a demonstration of national toughness.

Posted by: MQ on February 2, 2007 4:08 PM

At the risk of looking like I"m trying to get the last word in, I'll add the following.

First, thanks for the lucid insult-free post, which sums up your position better than the previous nastiness.

Second, I have said that I agree that fanaticalism, rogue or failed states, thugocracies, etc. are a problem. Where we differ is that I just don't see how invading Iraq could ever have been viewed as a means of getting progress on that front. It merely played into the fanatics' hands. Saddam, villain that he was, was a bulwark against Iran and Shia territorial ambitions. A threat to Israel, yes, provided the means. But much less so than many others. As the now old joke goes, it's as if following Pearl Harbor we attacked Argentina.

Third, I don't expect you to take the non-violent approach seriously. I don't either. But viewing Iraq as a colossal blunder doesn't necessarily mean that one is an unwavering pacifist.

And I think your assessment of the international approach to these problems is off. There was multilateral cooperation around Iraq 1. Military incursions that violate state soveriengty are something widely agreed upon to be worth fighting about. There was multilateral cooperation around Afghanistan -- that was about state supported terror. There was undisputed evidence that the Taliban condoned and supported Al Qaida. And the international community together toppled that regime, as it presented a threat to global security. Why not continue along those lines? Get solid evidence of state support of terror, and get multilateral support for action? Perhaps by getting a broader approach to what is undoubtedly an issue for the security of a number of nations, not just us, we'd be less of a lightning rod. We could also get others to do the work we are less inclined to do -- policing (as opposed to attacking, which we rock at), institution building etc. Of course the answer is that we're to impatient and arrogant to play with others, and are inclined to simply tilt off as we see fit. Problem is, we've started to look like the rogue nations we so despise. We squandered the international goodwill from 9/11, and missed the opportunity to really do something about these problems. We've alienated allies and validated the fanatic's rhetoric about us. Mission Accomplished.

Posted by: leftie dipshit on February 2, 2007 6:37 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?