New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | December 2, 2004

Michael Young says goodbye to realpolitik.

Comments

|12.2.04 @ 3:34PM|#

"The strategy of containment, for example, was very much a product of high Wilsonian optimism, based on an avowed willingness to embark on an open-ended struggle against a perceived evil"

This is only believeable if you think the evil of the Soviet block, rather than its power, was the primary motivator for our opposition, and shaper of our policies. When you look at the rapproachment between the US and the far-more-evil Chinese government, and our willingness to buddy up to rightist governments and movements in Latin America that were much more evil than their Soviet-backed opposition (95% of the human rights abuses in Guatemala were committed by our allies), the idea that the Cold War was anything but a power conflict - sugar coated with moralistic rhetoric - is completely untennable. Or are we to believe that the Reagan State Department and Pentagon protected the Salvadoran nun rapists out of moral conviction?

"Liberals were at sea on how to react to the mass murders" Nonsense. The liberal response was to invade Afghanistan, wage a covert global war against Al Qaeda, improve domestic security, and address problems in our dealings with corrupt Muslim regimes that legitimized terror and radical anti-American Islamism. Whether Mr. Young agrees with this program or not, his need to pretend it was never presented looks mighty suspicious.

|12.2.04 @ 3:36PM|#

When the Bush administration began preparing for war in Iraq after the 9/11 attacks

.. shouldn't that read "... preparing for war in Iraq after Bush's inauguration..."??

|12.2.04 @ 3:39PM|#

Though they were bastards, the realists kept us from getting nuked. I'd like the realists back. Neocons are utopians, the deadliest thing in the world.

I don't think you advance liberty though foreign policy. That's for keeping you out of ruinous wars. You advance liberty through the wonderfully subversive effect technology and pop culture.

David|12.2.04 @ 3:53PM|#

Joe,

""Liberals were at sea on how to react to the mass murders" Nonsense. The liberal response was to invade Afghanistan, wage a covert global war against Al Qaeda, improve domestic security, and address problems in our dealings with corrupt Muslim regimes that legitimized terror and radical anti-American Islamism. "

Hmm, I thought that was the Bush administration's reaction, and that a portion of liberals (those I refer to as rational liberals :)) signed on with it. Many on the Left were strongly against the invasion of Afghanistan and against taking any unilateral actions. Some were busy making excuses for the terrorists and spinning conspiracy theories.

|12.2.04 @ 3:54PM|#

I agree with everything that Brian said above.

|12.2.04 @ 3:56PM|#

jemezhobbit, there's a difference between "hoping" and "preparing."

I do have to compliment Mr. Young for correctly using the term "realist" in the discussion of the Iraq war. In their typical Orwellian eagerness to redefine familiar words, war supporters have taken to throwing out the term upon any non-believer in the brilliance of their grand crusade. It got quite strange when John Kerry, scourage of the Contras and hippie would-be-slasher of our first strike nuclear capabilities, was regularly denounced as a vile "realist" for such amoral atrocities as - um - noticing that things weren't going particularly well.

Perhaps "realist" is best understood as the short form of "member of the reality-based community."

|12.2.04 @ 4:05PM|#

David, the dovetailing of much of the liberal and Bushie strategy, during the initial months, was noteworthy, and explains why there was so little dissent during the first six months or so. You can call it "liberal signing on to Bush's policy," but had the Florida votes been counted correctly, it would have been called "conservatives signing onto Gore's policy." What differences there were revolved mainly about how to achieve goals for which there was broad support. If you think of Bush's initial opposition to the creation of a DHS, or of a 9/11 commission, and his eventual flip-flops in the face of sustained pressure from his left (not THE left, mind you, just HIS left), it's tough to say that the consensus position on fighting terror was a product of one side of the fence only, with the other saying "Me, too."

Though the fourth item, "address problems in our dealings with corrupt Muslim regimes that legitimized terror and radical anti-American Islamism" - has never been on Bush's agenda. He has worked to solidify our relationship with corrupt regimes like those in Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Israel, whose treatment of Muslim dissenters motivates anti-Americanism. As you may recall, his intellectual supporters spent the past three years equating such a strategy with supporting Al Qaeda.

Jason Holliston|12.2.04 @ 4:13PM|#

Great column, Michael. The return to the early 90's and the realists would be a disaster for world wide liberty. The return to the status quo just returns us to the path we were on, slowly, but surely making the citizens of the autocratic world dislike us and what we stand for.

I couldn't disagree with Brian more. You can advance liberty through lots of ways: foreign policy, (in a round about way) at the end of a gun, and through propoganda. Technology and pop culture can only go so far by themselves.

|12.2.04 @ 4:28PM|#

"The liberal response was to invade Afghanistan, wage a covert global war against Al Qaeda, improve domestic security, and address problems in our dealings with corrupt Muslim regimes that legitimized terror and radical anti-American Islamism."

No one ever seemed to be able to give us a picture of a covert global war against Al Qaeda. There are all these super powerful special forces, you see, and they are armed with perfect intelligence. No one will hate these guys because they only go after the bad people and there will be no collateral damage. Tyrants will be perfectly happy to let these super special guys operate at will, and certainly wouldn't dare protect the bad guys because they would be too afraid of the UN issuing an 94th proclamation against them. I remember distinctly that the the global part of this was supposed to be based on John Kerry's overwhelming charm.

Improving domestic security? I heard Kerry mention inspecting EVERY CONTAINER that crosses the border. He was going to pay for it by revoking some tax gift to the rich, I think.

Addressing those problems with Saudi. I can't recall anyone who had a snoball's chance in hell of touching the Oval Office mentioning that they would crack down on Saudi. For some reason, it just didn't seem smart.

It isn't that there were no proposals from the left, just no serious ones.

|12.2.04 @ 4:30PM|#

Though the fourth item, "address problems in our dealings with corrupt Muslim regimes that legitimized terror and radical anti-American Islamism" - has never been on Bush's agenda.

Joe, you should probably learn to differentiate between "was not executed exactly according to my unrealistic best-case scenario" and "has never been on Bush's agenda." There's a lot of middle ground in there.

|12.2.04 @ 4:47PM|#

"No one ever seemed to be able to give us a picture of a covert global war against Al Qaeda."

Well, except for what's going in western Pakistan. But other than that, and in the Phillipines, no one has been able...oh, wait, there's also the weeks of skullduggery that went on in Afghanistan prior to the beginning of the official war.

OK, other than Pakistan, Western Afghanistan, and the Phillipines, there have been no...ok, and the odd action in Africa.

Fear, surprise, and a fanatical devotion to the Pope.

Josh, whatever baby steps Bush took in that direction have been pissing into the ocean, compared to his cozying up to tyrannies in order to pursue his Iraq war. It's not that he hasn't pursued a reform agenda aggressively; it's that he's actively opposed it on a massive scale.

|12.2.04 @ 4:52PM|#

Joe's commentary reminds me of the committee in "Life of Brian": "What have the Romans done for us, other than roads, sewers, and keeping the peace?"

|12.2.04 @ 5:01PM|#

"...The first is why on earth are realists, people essentially wedded to stalemate, so highly rated?"

Perhaps it's because they're widely credited with two remarkable achievements, the first is winning the Cold War without provoking a nuclear holocaust and the second is keeping America out of another Vietnam.

|12.2.04 @ 5:02PM|#

I always despised Republican realists. I couldn't imagine anything worse than seeing them with total control over our foreign policy.

Oops.

|12.2.04 @ 5:06PM|#

"... the idea that the Cold War was anything but a power conflict - sugar-coated with moralistic rhetoric - is completely untenable."

I could understand arguing that it was unnecessary to support unsavory regimes during the Cold War. I might not agree, but I can see it as a plausible argument.

I cannot understand the argument in quotes. Our opposition to the Soviet Union was based simply on the fact that they were powerful and any argument to the contrary is untenable? The United States has done some bad things (sometimes with good intent, often with bad) but resisting Soviet Communism was not one of them.

And one more thing, can you really calculate the CHICOMs as "far more evil" than the SOVCOMs? Is it just based on body count? Number of countries successfuly invaded? Evilness of revolutionary parties supported? Incomprehensibility of official political doctrine?

Joe, you're sounding like those on the right who, for mainly very stupid, very dishonest and very bad reasons, like to argue that Commies are much worse than Nazis.

|12.2.04 @ 5:28PM|#

"OK, other than Pakistan, Western Afghanistan, and the Phillipines ..."

What seems worth pondering is that Afghanistan and Pakistan are not covert opertations that can be viewed as independent of the toppling of the regime in Afghanistan. The question the liberals are posing is, can you just send in the green berets and be effective in a global sense?

I concur with your implicit argument that so long as terrorists remain within the borders of countries governed by people who won't hide them or supply them, much can be accomplished without toppling regimes. This is akin to saying that if terrorists were easy to arrest, we could arrest them.

|12.2.04 @ 5:30PM|#

"Joe, you're sounding like those on the right who, for mainly very stupid, very dishonest and very bad reasons, like to argue that Commies are much worse than Nazis."

I dunno Fabius. They are at least comparable. Collectivization was about as heinous as you get. That is a lot of dead people.

|12.2.04 @ 5:48PM|#

Nice article, Michael.

|12.2.04 @ 5:58PM|#

I just finished reading the weekly email update from "The Economist" sent to me, and I wanted to report to this thread that the CIA has posted a help-wanted ad looking for spies.

http://www.economist.com/classifieds/view_ad.cfm?adid=3339

And here's their main classified page. If you know how to grow maize, Zimbabwe has a job for you.

http://www.economist.com/classifieds/index.cfm

|12.2.04 @ 6:00PM|#

you're sounding like those on the right who, for mainly very stupid, very dishonest and very bad reasons, like to argue that Commies are much worse than Nazis

Um, by 1945 the Soviets had already murdered more people than the Nazis -- and they didn't stop after that. And that's before Mao, Pol Pot, et al. came on the scene and started in with the really serious killing.

Arguing about whether the Nazis were worse than the Communists or vice-versa is like arguing about whether boiling an innocent person alive is more evil than flogging them to death. It really just comes down to aesthetics. Both Nazism and Communism were, and are, irredeemably evil.

|12.2.04 @ 7:06PM|#

Jennifer - looks like I need to get my Bachelor's degree with the next 4 years so I can join the CIA's "Clandestine Service".

David|12.2.04 @ 8:17PM|#

Joe,

My point was, if you are going to slam Bush for the parts of his foreign policy you disagree with, you could at least give him credit for coming up with those parts which you support.

" He has worked to solidify our relationship with corrupt regimes like those in Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Israel, whose treatment of Muslim dissenters motivates anti-Americanism. As you may recall, his intellectual supporters spent the past three years equating such a strategy with supporting Al Qaeda."

Israel is just one of many excuses for Arab anti-Americanism. I don't consider Israel a corrupt regime. And even if I did there's no comparison between it and any of the other mentioned countries. As for our dealings with Arab "allies..." Let's get real. Bush has already been under intense criticism for alienating allies and acting unilaterally. You think it would be wise to add some more open enemies to the list of adversaries? Obviously we can't take on everyone at once.

And if Bush cut ties with Arab states that were corrupt and undemocratic he'd have to cut ties with them all. This would no doubt be criticized as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim.

|12.2.04 @ 8:57PM|#

Democracy at gunpoint? Sounds like Vote or Die to me. :)

Look realpolitik has gotten a bad rap and if you think it's dead, just look at how Bush is treating Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (and to a lesser extent Egypt, which is brutal and corrupt, but is somewhere between SA and Israel on the liberal scale [I'd say about halfway in between]). However, I've never been a big fan of democracy by gunpoint, especially if you go in with the gun. Japan and Germany were different because they came at us with the gun and lost a war of aggression. It seems like there needs to be a trauma and coming in and invading to tell people to be democratic a) gives democracy a bad name and b) does not give the people the choice in the price to pay for democracy. In the Japan and Germany cases, the price was paid for aggression, not democracy. In the former Soviet bloc, it came from the people.

|12.2.04 @ 9:12PM|#

A product of the emerging European state system�a founding father was French Cardinal Richelieu...

Actually, its a product of such classical world thinkers as Thucydides, Tacitus, Cicero (yes, even Cicero), etc., which saw a renaissance during the Renaissance (and in other periods, such as Carolingian France, Angevin England, etc.). That's where the duo of Louis XIII and Cardinal Richelieu picked it up (Louis XIII was and still is underestimated - he had the "vision thing" and Richelieu was his dutiful, adept bureaucrat).

In a phrase abounding with Hobbesian skepticism, Scowcroft said: "It's not that I don't believe Iraq is capable of democracy. But the notion that within every human being beats this primeval instinct for democracy has not ever been demonstrated to me."

Of course the fact is that he's right; some cultures - despite Bush's PC talk - are simply less adept than others.

If that wasn't proof of an ingrained longing for liberty...

It wasn't. Eastern European publics (and not all of them by any stretch - just look at Romania) were slowly acculturated to these norms in part because of the massive influence of sitting next to a bunch of liberal states for nearly half a century as well as the protest efforts seen in states like Poland. Indeed, we've all witnessed the nightmare of states not ready for primetime in Africa. The time frame for Eastern European liberation is not 1989, but 1945-1989; an incubation period that probably worked out well for Eastern Europe in the long run.

A product of a pre-20th century state system...

Its a product of the classical world, particularly the Roman (Republican and Imperial) version of it.

Wilsonianism...

Which includes irredentist notions of nationhood at its very core.

Realists (no less than liberals and libertarians one hastens to add) have yet to resolve the question of how to simultaneously advance national interests and liberty.

You've yet to demonstrate why we should buy your unstated pre-supposition - that somehow its our duty to pro-actively advance liberty.

|12.2.04 @ 9:31PM|#

"Israel is just one of many excuses for Arab anti-Americanism.

Let's ignore Bush's foreign policy; what are the other excuses?

"I don't consider Israel a corrupt regime. And even if I did there's no comparison between it and any of the other mentioned countries."

You're right; Israel stands alone.

"As for our dealings with Arab "allies..." Let's get real. Bush has already been under intense criticism for alienating allies and acting unilaterally."

Alienating our allies was stupid. Acting unilaterally was also stupid. Acting in Iraq was profoundly stupid.

"You think it would be wise to add some more open enemies to the list of adversaries? Obviously we can't take on everyone at once."

Did you think joe was suggesting that we should invade Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan?

Are you daft?

"And if Bush cut ties with Arab states that were corrupt and undemocratic he'd have to cut ties with them all. This would no doubt be criticized as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim."

Never mind that Musharraf walks a tight rope between authoritarianism and keeping nukes from the Taliban's sympathizers, the important thing is that no one criticizes Bush.

|12.2.04 @ 10:38PM|#

I seem to remember a time when "conservative" meant a skepticism about the power of the state to change people's behavior and habits. "Disseminating humanistic values" reminds me of a weird sort of internationalist Marxism turned inside out. Precisely the sort of principles neo-cons were supposedly railing against for decades.

If anything, this argues for the notion that neo-cons don't really have core principles that make any sense. Their engine runs on grand narratives antipolar to whatever it's most convenient to be antipolar about. International communism, islamofascism, whatever. They learned from Leo Strauss that the ultimate realpolitik is effected by decade long struggles against a mythologically constructed enemy. After the Soviet collapse, thinking their huffing and puffing about the godless forces of the evil empire had something to do with it, they actually began to believe their own myths.

I have nothing against spinning a good historical yarn. But let's get a grip and not make this the center of our foreign policy, eh?

|12.2.04 @ 10:49PM|#

I seem to remember a time when "conservative" meant a skepticism about the power of the state to change people's behavior and habits. "Disseminating humanistic values" reminds me of a weird sort of internationalist Marxism turned inside out. Precisely the sort of principles neo-cons were supposedly railing against for decades.

If anything, this argues for the notion that neo-cons don't really have core principles that make any sense. Their engine runs on grand narratives antipolar to whatever it's most convenient to be antipolar about. International communism, islamofascism, whatever. They learned from Leo Strauss that the ultimate realpolitik is effected by decade long struggles against a mythologically constructed enemy. After the Soviet collapse, thinking their huffing and puffing about the godless forces of the evil empire had something to do with it, they actually began to believe their own myths.

I have nothing against spinning a good historical yarn. But let's get a grip and not make this the center of our foreign policy, eh?

Matt Frost|12.2.04 @ 11:06PM|#

Can't we all just get past the "Wilson vs. Kissinger" framework for this particular debate? There are some good prudential arguments to be made for each position, but they are getting lost in the tumult - in the clash between the "grand narratives" mentioned above.

Between George Bush and Andrew Sullivan, the neocon argument comes across as terribly emotional and callow. These guys believe in the inherent moral superiority of their worldview, and they expect that to be enough for everyone else.

In fact, the Wilsonian vision has some very realistic arguments going for it. It's the neocons' responsibility, which they have unfortunately not lived up to so far, to explain in practical terms how spreading democracy abroad can improve the security and sovereignty of the US.

|12.2.04 @ 11:16PM|#

Let's ignore Bush's foreign policy; what are the other excuses?

The Arabs have, historically, had two kinds of rulers: murderous thugs, and foreign nations. Sometimes the two overlap. Currently the Arab world is primarily ruled by murderous thugs. But to blame that state of affairs on Israel or Bush is to ignore the simple truth that the Arab world has, from a human-rights standpoint, been a shithole for all of recorded history. Its sole saving grace was that Europe was, at one time, worse.

"Disseminating humanistic values" reminds me of a weird sort of internationalist Marxism turned inside out. Precisely the sort of principles neo-cons were supposedly railing against for decades

Neo-conservatives (a.k.a. "liberals who weren't Communist sympathizers") opposed Communism not because it was internationalist, but because it invariably led to the systematic annihilation of human rights in the nations in which it gained power. People who supported Communism, whether out of stupidity, ignorance, or malice, were supporting the destruction of human rights. "Neo-cons" opposed that.

If you want to claim that support for the spread of democracy is "precisely the same" as support for the destruction of human rights, you are, of course, free to do so. It's just not a very intelligent thing to think.

Matt Frost|12.2.04 @ 11:23PM|#

And one more thing - spreading democracy is not a utopian notion. It's the antidote to toxic utopianism. People engaged in the quotidian hassles of pluralist democracy have a way to define themselves and resolve their conflicts without retreating to fantasies and transnational utopian ideologies.

Mark Bahner|12.2.04 @ 11:59PM|#

"...while our own libertarian brotherhood, always uneasy with overseas ventures, had to wrestle with criticism that it supported liberty at home, but couldn't be bothered to do so overseas."

Uh huh. And how many of the people making this criticism were young men and women in the military, about to be shipped off to fight in Iraq?

None that you know of?

Why doesn't that surprise me?

|12.3.04 @ 12:10AM|#

Dan,

The Arabs have, historically, had two kinds of rulers: murderous thugs, and foreign nations.

That doesn't make Arabs unique.

Neo-conservatives (a.k.a. "liberals who weren't Communist sympathizers")...

Not really true; Irving Kristol (for example) was never a "liberal." The ideological movement has a far more varied background than you allow (or that you have knowledge of).

...but because it invariably led to the systematic annihilation of human rights in the nations in which it gained power.

That's somewhat hyperbolic (that neo-conservatives were in the main concerned with human rights). Indeed, the human rights record of neo-conservatives is pretty spotty at best. I suggest you educate yourself a little more on the movement.

|12.3.04 @ 12:30AM|#

I suggest the following:

John Ehrman, The Rise of Neoconservativism: Intellectuals and Foreign Affairs, 1945-1994

Mark Gerson, The Neoconservative Vision: From Cold War to the Culture Wars

Richard Perle, et. al. A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.

There are also a bunch of Weekly Standard pieces on Leo Strauss, etc.

|12.3.04 @ 12:54AM|#

And how many of the people making this criticism were young men and women in the military, about to be shipped off to fight in Iraq?

Critics of "libertarian" ideals like isolationism and strict, self-defense-only restrictions on the use of military force aren't hard to find in the military. Try asking any randomly-selected Marine. He probably won't be able to tell you what libertarians believe, because most Americans neither know nor care, but if you explain it to him I'm sure he'll be happy to explain why they're wrong.

None that you know of? Why doesn't that surprise me?

It shouldn't surprise you for the simple reason that Iraq veterans who give a shit what libertarians think are practically nonexistant. Only a fraction of a percent of the American people have served in the war, and the overwhelming majority of Americans in general are uninformed about Libertarian foreign policy positions (which, let's face it, matter considerably less than, say, George Clooney's foreign policy positions).

|12.3.04 @ 2:18AM|#

"saying that israel and bush are the only reasons that the US is hated proves that you are an anti-semitic leftist/anti-american... sorry, but it does"

First, who said any such thing? I don't think the suggestion that our unquestioning support of Israel is a cause of great resentment in the Arab world is very controversial. I suspect our support of brutal dictatorships and our apparently related presence in Saudi Arabia caused some resentment in the Arab world too. I dare say our bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq may have caused further resentment. Israel certainly does stand out from the crowd of brutal regimes we support. None of these statements make me anti-Semetic or anti-American.

Second, calling me a leftist is ridiculous. People get tired of hearing me say this, but I'm an ol' time Republican from way back. When I was a kid, I went door to door for Ronald Reagan. I want free trade, a deep cut in marginal tax rates, deep cuts in spending and a pragmatc foreign policy a la Kirkpatrick, Baker, Powell and Shultz. I have turned against Bush, whom I voted for the first time 'round, because he has betrayed each and every one of those core Republican principles.

Don't believe me? My cyber-stalking ex-girlfriend from yesteryear was tryin' to call me back to the Republican fold in one of yesterday's threads.

Lastly, and I say this because I really do want you to undertand that I'm neither anti-Semetic nor anti-American, go fuck a duck.

|12.3.04 @ 2:19AM|#

Michael:

like realists, the neocons refuse to shudder when contemplating force

"Refuse to shudder"? That's praise by understatement. More to the point is that the neocons showed no compunctions at all about engaging in wild duplicity to make the case for using force on Iraq.

Michael:

like Wilsonians, they can embrace grand projects that supposedly advance the greater good, even if that means ignoring state sovereignty.

To accept that the neocons currently in control of US foreign policy actually believe that the coming to fruition of their plans of their plans serves some "greater good" is a real act of faith. Some history will help here. Remember that Wolfowitz actually pounded the table for going after Iraq right after 9/11 instead of Afghanistan. Wolfowitz was one of the authors, with a number of neocon biggies, of A Clean Break, a 1996 policy advisory written for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The advisory advocated the elimination of Saddam Hussein as a primary goal. Baghdad was depicted as the lynch pin in the undermining of both Iran and Syria for the good of the Israeli State. After A Clean Break the neocons start a campaign to put forth those goals laid for the Israeli government as something America must do in its own interest. Fabrication and exaggeration of Saddam's WMD capacity are part of this campaign.
"Only ground forces can remove Saddam and his regime from power and open the way for a new post-Saddam Iraq . . ." PNAC founder Kristol wrote in a 1997 report. Kristol's Weekly Standard magazine is owned by News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Fox News

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/011604Leopold/011604leopold.html

One of PNAC's first goals when it was founded in 1997 was to urge Congress and the Clinton administration to support regime change in Iraq. This was before Rumsfeld was approached by the group. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) sent this letter to President Clinton in January of 1998:

http://themoderntribune.com/letter_to_clinton_1998_war_on_iraq_project_new_american_century.htm

It's signed by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol, James Woolsey, Robert Kagan, Elliott Abrams and others. The letter argues for aggression against Iraq. They lobbied both Clinton and Gingrich to remove former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power using military force and indict him as a "war criminal."

Unsatisfied with Clinton's response, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Kristol and others from the Project for the New American Century wrote another letter on May 29, 1998, to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott:

"U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power..."

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/022003Leopold/022003leopold.html

Michael:

When the Bush administration began preparing for war in Iraq after the 9/11 attacks, it quickly became obvious that the only serious intellectual opposition it faced was that put up by the realists. Liberals were at sea on how to react to the mass murders, while our own libertarian brotherhood, always uneasy with overseas ventures, had to wrestle with criticism that it supported liberty at home, but couldn't be bothered to do so overseas.

The case made for war on Iraq was never what to do about "mass murders". It was about alleged threats to the US in the form of WMD and terrorist connections. This was the only way that the attack could be foisted on the American public. The question that libertarians ask of even the best intended foreign intervention with a real goal of liberty, which the Iraq war wasn't, is this: Why should we be forced to support intervention in other nations when that intervention is not necessary to secure our own liberty? This concern is a fundamental one to libertarianism. Dismissing the writings against the Iraq war that issued from Cato, Antiwar.com and the Independent institute as not being "serious intellectual opposition" cannot be justified. Also, Michael leaves out the cogent conservative opposition to the war that appeared in The American Conservative.

Michael:

Realists (no less than liberals and libertarians one hastens to add) have yet to resolve the question of how to simultaneously advance national interests and liberty

What are "national interests"? We are individuals in a republic whose founding principles are dedicated to the sanctity of individuals. The only national interest that makes any sense for us is that our nation maximizes individual liberty and allows each of us to pursue his/her own happiness as we see fit, as long as we don't commit force or fraud against others. Government may not force us to support the liberation of those in other lands, only for the sake of their liberty, without diminishing our own liberty. The ethical way to promote liberty abroad is thru capitalism. It's effective too. Look at the progress in China. Private, voluntary action may be ethical and fair in the quest of the liberty of others. Forcing other Americans to undertake this goal via government power can never be ethical and fair.

However, as it concerns the neocons, this question of the liberty of others is as beside the point as Michael's beating up on the Realists when the best opposition to neocon interventionism is to be found on the libertarian and paleocon right. The neocon agenda in the Mid-east includes supporting US tax dollars for the thieving and murderous Israeli occupation. This is hardly consistent with a desire for liberty. Nor is the neocon support of US tax aid for the brutal and authoritarian regimes in Egypt and Jordan. The evidence is that 9/11 happened because the neocons have had their way with US tax support for the Israeli government's occupation.

Liberty for people in the Mideast is fine desire. Government intervention is an unethical and counter productive way to pursue it. Capitalism however is a powerful liberating force.

|12.3.04 @ 4:56AM|#

Rick Barton... I believe the American Conservative editors and other paleocons are basically realists with a bit of non-interventionism thrown in.

digamma|12.3.04 @ 8:37AM|#

Well, that article settles it: I'm a realist. Do libertarian hawks realize that when they talk about Iraq, they sound EXACTLY like leftists talking about public schools?

"We're almost there." "We're making progress." "You can't expect instantaneous results." "The media aren't reporting our successes." "The naysayers don't care about the people we're helping and they want us to fail." "It'll only cost a tiny bit more than we projected." "No one could have foreseen these unintended consequences."

David|12.3.04 @ 8:49AM|#

Ken,

"You're right; Israel stands alone"

If you actually believe Israel is somehow worse than the Arab states, then I won't call you anti-Semitic -- like someone else did -- but I will call you irrational, at least on that issue.

"Let's ignore Bush's foreign policy; what are the other excuses?"

Wow, I guess I must have forgotten that Arabs just loved America before Bush was elected. The fact that they hate America must be all his fault. I guess the fact that many of them are backward fanatics who are fed a steady diet of anti-Americanism by their government-controlled media and government-supported radical clerics doesn't have anything to do with it. It's really all America's fault, and specifically George W. Bush's, right?

"Never mind that Musharraf walks a tight rope between authoritarianism and keeping nukes from the Taliban's sympathizers, the important thing is that no one criticizes Bush."

Really? Who here is saying that you can't criticize Bush? I'm certainly not and I have plenty of criticisms for him myself. Try arguing against what I'm actually saying instead of making up your own strawman.

|12.3.04 @ 9:21AM|#

I am probably at some mid point between the realists and the neocons on foreign policy. I believe that toppling tyrants is perfectly moral within the context of the non-initiation of force principle. I believe that the freeing of an oppressed people is an argument for military action that has at least some weight.

I don't believe that which is morally acceptable should necessarily be performed and damn the costs. I don't believe that by itself the weight liberating a foreign people is sufficient to counterbalance the costs one could reasonably expect in an operation to change regimes.

I think arguments about the moral implications of collateral damage are compelling to a degree, but these are usually presented in a misleading way. Oppressed people can either be viewed as hostages of a despot who are used as cover, or they can be viewed as assistants to the tyrant who are complicit in his actions by failing to resist his wishes. The realist in me argues that negotiating with hostage takers is counterproductive and the neo-con in me argues that the big picture morality favors eliminating the tyrant in either case.

Once we are dealing with a despot, I am left with no real moral compunctions about getting rid of him. What remains are realist considerations of costs - financial, casualties, loss of freedom on the domestic front, etc. I suspect most hawks are in the same boat, which is why it is unfortunate when you hear doves screaming that hawks should either want to invade Saudi, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea or no one at all. The costs are not the same, and those who make such arguments know it. I hate to break it to doves everywhere, but the evangelical belief on the part of most neocons that tyrants should be eliminated is tempered by some notion of acceptable costs, just as the evangelical belief on the part of doves that nonintervention solves every problem is tempered by costs.

The positions of the two camps can't be accurately characterized as holy warriors vs. reasonable people. It isn't an exercise in reason to give a tyrant known to obfuscate the benefit of the doubt so as to avoid having to chase him down. It isn't reason to anticipate that the costs of military intervention always exceed the benefits. These positions are defensible if one weighs certain types of costs very highly while not considering certain types of benefits to be of much value, but doves should not delude themselves that they are more rational.

All we can do when contemplating war is to first determine the moral implications of the conflict, then lay out costs and benefits and each of us explain why we see them in a certain way.

gaius marius|12.3.04 @ 11:13AM|#

I think arguments about the moral implications of collateral damage are compelling to a degree, but these are usually presented in a misleading way. Oppressed people can either be viewed as hostages of a despot who are used as cover, or they can be viewed as assistants to the tyrant who are complicit in his actions by failing to resist his wishes. The realist in me argues that negotiating with hostage takers is counterproductive and the neo-con in me argues that the big picture morality favors eliminating the tyrant in either case.

mr ligon, i think what is particularly damaging to the american cause is the willingness of our armed forces, through technology, to shift casualties away from our solidery and onto (in multiples) non-actors and innocents, not to mention massive physical damage. in some sense, we are refusing to pay our share of the price of war -- even as we take other steps to reduce civilian deaths.

we have selfish reasons -- political expediency resulting from popular empowerment -- for doing this. but it is, imo and in many others, deeply unethical. dropping 500 pound bombs in to city blocks so that american soldiers need not be exposed to fire is a rejection of the christian principles of protecting innocents (which may itself have been a casualty of the western invention of mechanized warfare).

i'm aware that many an ancient conquerer razed cities and slaughtered whole populations to great effect. but these were nakedly interested in intimidating populations into submission. is that what we profess to accomplish?

|12.3.04 @ 11:14AM|#

Don't judge us by our failures, judge us by our good intentions and the urgency of our mission.

That's the hawks' line on Iraq.

|12.3.04 @ 11:39AM|#

You said it thoreau.

It might be different if they had sold us on the Democray deal in the first place, but I remember half of Powell's case at the UN being about WMD and the other half beinng about Al Qaeda. It feels like the old bait and switch.

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody that Americans are willing to support things in the name of self-defense that they aren't willing to support in the name of democratic pipe dreams--a steady stream of bodybags being a prime example.

Assuming a democratic Iraq is possible, how many dead Americans is a democratic Iraq worth? That's one realist question that the neoconservatives will eventually have to answer.

gaius marius|12.3.04 @ 11:55AM|#

And one more thing - spreading democracy is not a utopian notion. It's the antidote to toxic utopianism. People engaged in the quotidian hassles of pluralist democracy have a way to define themselves and resolve their conflicts without retreating to fantasies and transnational utopian ideologies.

mr frost, i would note that your presumption is of a rational, informed and modest democracy.

i submit to you that no such thing has ever or will ever exist for long. mobs are given to hubris; our mob is no exception.

the fact that our democracy is currently engaged on a fantastic and hubristic mission of rousseauian utopianism in the mideast with significant public support is only the latest evidence to back the assertions that several social philosophers have made w/r/t ochlocracy -- from plato and aristotle to burke.

|12.3.04 @ 12:50PM|#

The statement in the article that "national sovereignty is gradually eroding (even if it won't disappear)" seems to refer only to the sovreignty of nations that are not the United States, and is mostly a lament that they won't 'give it up already' and acknowledge a largely symbolic status, except perhaps for local issues -- to behave as counties or territories.

The realist position addresses the management of relationships between state actors and as such, it should not be directly concerned with the individual citizens of those states any more than air traffic control should address the well being of individual passengers. Direct interference in the internal affairs of other nations is always considered to be a hostile act, and often to be an act of war. The foundation of a "society of states" rests on the premise of national sovreignty, just as the foundation of civil society rests on the premise of individual rights. If we lose that, theres no longer a reason to distinguish between state and non-state actors such as multi national corporations and, perhaps, groups like al Quaida -- the only meaningful distinction is on their ability to exert power over the (atomized) population of the world. That gives political entities no "privileged" role in setting norms and boundaries beyond what their raw power permits. This may be a more "realistic" position than the "realists" propose, but it is difficult to see how it advances "deeper human needs".

The US chooses to pursue policies that "promote democracy" as an expression of its national priorities and interests. When those differ from the interests of another state, there's no "free pass" for them or the US to meddle in the other's internal affairs, and -- similar to the justification for the Geneva Convention -- refusing to honor that norm invites others to treat us similarly.

|12.3.04 @ 1:03PM|#

"Well, that article settles it: I'm a realist. Do libertarian hawks realize that when they talk about Iraq, they sound EXACTLY like leftists talking about public schools?"

You don't have to be a realist, being a libertarian puts you in good stead to oppose the foreign intervention of hawks, regardless of what word hawk is appended to.

digamma|12.3.04 @ 1:18PM|#

You don't have to be a realist, being a libertarian puts you in good stead to oppose the foreign intervention of hawks, regardless of what word hawk is appended to.

Of course, but libertarians' ears should be especially attuned to arguments in defense of government programs that don't work.

|12.3.04 @ 1:19PM|#

"If you actually believe Israel is somehow worse than the Arab states, then I won't call you anti-Semitic -- like someone else did -- but I will call you irrational, at least on that issue."

Don't be ashamed. It's quite common for Americans to be unfamiliar with the extent of Israel's human rights abuses. Why don't you check out what the State Department has to say?

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm

Start under the heading "RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS"; it's about half way down the page.

...Oh, but before you go, please note that there's a section under "Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment." You already commented on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment yesterday to my full satisfaction; so, please, I don't need to hear about how "placing detainees in extremely cold rooms with loud music blaring and forcing them to kneel for long periods of time", etc. simply amounts to another "rough interrogation", thank you.

Israel stands alone in that, of those states that enjoy a relatively large portion of my paycheck, its human rights record is among the worst. Why Israel is right up there with Egypt! Of course, our support for the Mubarak Regime was originally predicated on Egypt's willingness to make nice with Israel, so, as exceptions go, that's probably not a good example.

" The fact that they hate America must be all his fault. I guess the fact that many of them are backward fanatics who are fed a steady diet of anti-Americanism by their government-controlled media and government-supported radical clerics doesn't have anything to do with it. It's really all America's fault, and specifically George W. Bush's, right?

Propaganda can be extremely effective and not just in the Arab world. Why, I bet you know someone who has been adversely affected right here in the USA!

You completely ignored my other post. Why? I wrote:

" I don't think the suggestion that our unquestioning support of Israel is a cause of great resentment in the Arab world is very controversial. I suspect our support of brutal dictatorships and our apparently related presence in Saudi Arabia caused some resentment in the Arab world too. I dare say our bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq may have caused further resentment."

In what way does this blame it all on George Bush? Apart from our foreign policy, I think much of the Arab world's criticism of America sounds much like their criticism of Western Europe. Believe it or not, our foreign policy is a significant part of the reason why extremists like bin Laden were able to get traction in the Arab world.

"Really? Who here is saying that you can't criticize Bush? I'm certainly not and I have plenty of criticisms for him myself. Try arguing against what I'm actually saying instead of making up your own strawman."

You wrote this in response to my post, which, including your post in bold, reads as follows:

"And if Bush cut ties with Arab states that were corrupt and undemocratic he'd have to cut ties with them all. This would no doubt be criticized as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim."

----your comment

"Never mind that Musharraf walks a tight rope between authoritarianism and keeping nukes from the Taliban's sympathizers, the important thing is that no one criticizes Bush."

----my response

I didn't suggest that you said Bush shouldn't be criticized.

You might have pointed out that there were real American security concerns about cutting ties with people like Musharraf, but no. Like a robot, your prime concern here appears to be the avoidance of criticism. Tell me, do you now or have you ever referred to yourself as a "dittohead"?

|12.3.04 @ 1:19PM|#

"Don't judge us by our failures, judge us by our good intentions and the urgency of our mission."

Not exactly. More like "keep our failures in perspective, and don't call something a failure just because you are predisposed to believe that military action always results in failure".

To this, you could also add "stop going over the deep end asserting that enemy body count doesn't matter at all to the success of the mission. It's pretty damned important."

|12.3.04 @ 1:26PM|#

"The foundation of a "society of states" rests on the premise of national sovreignty, just as the foundation of civil society rests on the premise of individual rights."

The problem here, of course, comes in assigning sovereignity to tyrants, who just took the title by force anyway. In my view, sovereignity has absolutely no meaning when applied to a tyranny. It is harmful rather than helpful to conflate the wants of the tyrant with the wants of the people he oppresses, and recognizing sovereignity formalizes that error and makes it prominent on the world stage.

David C.|12.3.04 @ 2:15PM|#

Ken,

"Don't be ashamed. It's quite common for Americans to be unfamiliar with the extent of Israel's human rights abuses. Why don't you check out what the State Department has to say?

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm

Start under the heading "RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS"; it's about half way down the page.

...Oh, but before you go, please note that there's a section under "Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment." You already commented on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment yesterday to my full satisfaction; so, please, I don't need to hear about how "placing detainees in extremely cold rooms with loud music blaring and forcing them to kneel for long periods of time", etc. simply amounts to another "rough interrogation", thank you."

Ok, Ken, now you are getting both ridiculous and insulting. If i'm ashamed of anything it's that an educated American thinks Israeli human rights abuses top those of Arab countries. I never claimed there were no human rights abuses by Israel. But by any rational standard, such abuses are far worse in Arab countries. Would you rather be a citizen of Israel or Syria? And no, I don't agree that our support of Israel is in any way "unquestioning." I could cite examples, but I doubt they will faze your Israel is the font of all that is evil in the Middle East position.

"You already commented on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment yesterday to my full satisfaction; so, please, I don't need to hear about how "placing detainees in extremely cold rooms with loud music blaring and forcing them to kneel for long periods of time", etc. simply amounts to another "rough interrogation", thank you."

And once again you totally misinterpreted what I was saying and are arguing against your own strawman. At no time did I justify said actions. I merely pointed out the the definition of torture was a subjective thing. I guess a theoretical argument is just too subtle for you. In fact I personally do think that exposing people to the three techniques you mentioned does constitute torture.

"You might have pointed out that there were real American security concerns about cutting ties with people like Musharraf, but no. Like a robot, your prime concern here appears to be the avoidance of criticism. Tell me, do you now or have you ever referred to yourself as a "dittohead"?"

Of course there are real security concerns and I'm not an advocate of cutting ties with Musharraf or any other state that is cooperating with us. In fact, I'm not an advocate for a human rights-based foreign policy at all. Just because I defend certain aspects of Bush's foreign policy doesn't make me an administration spokesperson or a blind ideologue. Again, saying that I'm robotically concerned with "avoidance of criticism" is simply ridiculous. And no, I have never referred to myself as a "dittohead," nor would I. Spare me the silly personal attacks and try to sustain an argument.

|12.3.04 @ 2:38PM|#

"Would you rather be a citizen of Israel or Syria?"

Now there's a humdinger! Whenever I get one of these, I always point out that the problem with hypothetical questions is that you only get hypothetical answers. Now, with that out of the way, you know? I think I need more information.

It seems like a false choice to me. Being a citizen of Syria probably isn't such a great deal; I think being a citizen of Israel might be better. But that's not really the question, is it?

Shouldn't the question be whether I would rather be a Palestinian in Israel or a Palestinian in Syria? Just out of curiosity, do Palestinians even exist in your vision of Israel?

David C.|12.3.04 @ 4:08PM|#

Ken,

"It seems like a false choice to me. Being a citizen of Syria probably isn't such a great deal; I think being a citizen of Israel might be better. But that's not really the question, is it?"

Ok, yeah, a hypothetical is a hypothetical, but I don't see that as a hard one. Personally I'll take a western-style democracy over autocratic state any day. It was the question. I didn't ask if you wanted to be a Palestinian in Israel. Although if you make the question do I want to be a Palestinian in Israel or a Jew in Syria then I choose Palestinian. As for being a Palestinian in Syria, if living in Arab countries was tolerable (or widely permitted) there wouldn't be so many Palestinians packed into squalid refugee camps and overcrowded hellholes inside Israel's occupied territories.

"Just out of curiosity, do Palestinians even exist in your vision of Israel?"

As a person I feel sorry for the condition of the Palestinians, although I blame their leaders and partially other Arab states for their plight, far more than I do Israel -- which is in a no-win situation regardless of which course it takes. I see no resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian problem anywhere in the foreseeable future. Positions are too hardened on both sides.

From a U.S. policy perspective I currently regard the Palestinians as enemies of the U.S. who have done nothing whatsoever to merit U.S. assistance in establishing a state. Our previous efforts to help them have gained us nothing other than a large helping of spit in the face. Until they develop a responsible leadership, outlaw terrorist organizations, stop deliberately targeting civilians for death, stop teaching their children to hate jews, and provide some actual evidence that they are really willing to live in peace alongside Israel, the only efforts on their behalf I would support are those that restrain Israel from exacerbating the situation by building settlements, etc.

|12.3.04 @ 4:30PM|#

I feel sorry for you.

|12.3.04 @ 4:51PM|#

The problem here, of course, comes in assigning sovereignity to tyrants, who just took the title by force anyway. In my view, sovereignity has absolutely no meaning when applied to a tyranny.

The problem, of course, is that your view (my view, whatever) doesn't align with theirs; if in fact it's true that "they hate us for our freedom", we've got a battle of opinions that can only be resolved by (a) force, or (b) respecting right of the other nation to govern its own internal affairs. Force might look like a good option when you've got the world's most kick-ass military (tm), but once that's legitimized as the only useful determinant, it's a Hobbesian world. Even when they fail to meet their larger objective, their attempts to free OUR citizens from a government that - uh - forces us to be free, have a cost.

|12.3.04 @ 5:27PM|#

"The problem, of course, is that your view (my view, whatever) doesn't align with theirs"

Who is the 'they' in 'theirs'? In a foreign policy dispute between a democratic republic and a dictator, one side is arguing policy formed through the consensus of the governed and the other is arguing a single man's preferences. There is no parity in these situations, and we should not pretend that there is.

Foreign policy based on treating the Iraqi people as synonymous with Saddam's whimsy can lead to foolish outcomes. Sending cruise missiles into asprin factories can only help Saddam at the expense of his people, for example. Sanctions against a country with a dictator hurts the people and helps the dictator, as he will be the last man in the country with a cheeseburger, and in many cases has claimed humongous oil reserves as his personal fortune. You can't make HIM poor, you can only make THEM poor.

The only way to affect a dictator is to pose a credible threat to his personal existence. If you let him seize power by force on the one hand and simultaneously claim that he is the defender of the national sovereignity of the people under his boot on the other, you have simply chosen to never have an effective policy of engagement with that country - with the possible exception of bribery.

|12.3.04 @ 5:49PM|#

To this, you could also add "stop going over the deep end asserting that enemy body count doesn't matter at all to the success of the mission. It's pretty damned important."

When did I assert that enemy body count doesn't matter? However, since you brought it up, what is the significance of these enemies? How many of the people that we have killed would have otherwise attacked American civilians at home, or at least aided such an attack?

I realize that we might not be able to point to precise individuals and say "Khaled over there had his plane ticket to Los Angeles and was all set to bomb the Bank of America tower in downtown, but he was killed in the attack on Fallujah. And Marwan, the guy in the body bag next to you, was supposed to move to Chicago and help forge fake ID and launder money for a terrorist cell, but he was killed in Basra. Good thing we got him, the encryption software on his laptop is pretty sophisticated, so he would have been a real problem if he'd made it to the US!"

Still, it would be nice to have an estimate of how many people we pre-empted from killing Americans. You can estimate things statistically, "X% of the enemies that we've killed would have otherwise killed American civilians."

Anyway, you brought up the importance of the enemy body count, so I assume that you mean it's important from the standpoint of protecting Americans.

Oh, wait, I get it: The people that we're killing were pre-empted from killing US soldiers in Iraq. That's certainly a good thing, but if our only goal was to protect American soldiers we could protect them with even greater certainty by bringing them home. However, the goal is (I hope) to protect people in the US, so I'd like to know how many of the people we're killing would have killed us at home otherwise. You don't need to point to individuals, just give me an estimate of what percentage.

|12.3.04 @ 8:03PM|#

Still, it would be nice to have an estimate of how many people we pre-empted from killing Americans. You can estimate things statistically, "X% of the enemies that we've killed would have otherwise killed American civilians.

The emotion behind the proposition presupposes (correctly, to me) that X is approaching zero. Discounting the value of killing people who may kill others who are not American, there's is still a counteremotional proposition that I'll try to summarize by asking: What percentage of fissionable material in Mbuki's briefcase is converted into energy upon detonation?

There will always be some threat from foreign agents. One of the terms of the realpolitik equation might be how much threat, and of what nature, will the people tolerate.

We tolerated total annhilation on twenty minutes warning for quite a span, and a few thousand deaths without warning has got people actively worried again.

|12.3.04 @ 9:05PM|#

"We tolerated total annihilation on twenty minutes warning for quite a span, and a few thousand deaths without warning has got people actively worried again."

There weren't any sensational media images of total annihilation on twenty minutes warning. We were afraid, and there were effects, but it was different. It's entirely irrational, isn't it?

We were all in much greater danger in the '70s and '80s than we are now, and, yet, if President Nixon, Ford, Carter or Reagan had called for the kind of domestic spying and foreign policy adventures that Bush has enacted, just to protect us from Communists, that President would have been made a laughing stock.

|12.3.04 @ 9:26PM|#

thoreau, is it fair to judge the importance of killing enemies by the standard of whether or not those specific enemies would have eventually attacked US civilians at home? It's a safe bet that few, if any, of the German, Italian, and Japanese soldiers we killed during WW2 would have ever attacked US civilians at home -- the only even vaguely credible threats to the US domestic civilian population involved long-range bombers, missiles, and WMDs. Should we therefore conclude that there was no value in killing those soldiers?

It seems to me that there was value in killing them, because they were the force propping up the ideologies and governments we were opposed to. That's the case with the insurgents we're killing in Iraq, too. The fascism and Islamism those insurgents are fighting to protect (a) threatens us and (b) cannot survive without minions to do its dirty work. Killing the minions kills the problem.

|12.3.04 @ 9:29PM|#

Dan, would you grant me that the link between a Japanese soldier in the Phillipines and the people who attacked Pearl Harbor was stronger than the link between insurgents in Fallujah and the people who attacked us on 9/11?

|12.3.04 @ 10:33PM|#

thoreau, you're being logical. That's not how decisions are normally made. :-)

|12.4.04 @ 2:41AM|#

Dan, would you grant me that the link between a Japanese soldier in the Phillipines and the people who attacked Pearl Harbor was stronger than the link between insurgents in Fallujah and the people who attacked us on 9/11?

Given that some of the people fighting us in Fallujah are explicitly working for al Qaeda? No. I'm not willing to grant that, at least not without qualifications.

Besides, the link between Italy and the people who attacked Pearl Harbor was certainly no stronger than the link between the insurgents and Fallujah and the people who attacked us on 9/11. Yet we still killed Italians. And the Germans had never attacked US citizens at home, and yet we killed hundreds of thousands of them and helped the Soviets kill millions more. Using the "Americans threatened at home" standard we had absolutely no business getting involved in the war in Europe (and using the "they declared war on us" standard, well, Iraq went to war with us in '91 and remained at war until their defeat in '03).

In any event, the two root causes of 9/11 and the other terrorist attacks we've suffered were Islam and the lack of political freedom in the Arab world. Whether or not our enemies have direct connections to al Qaeda isn't terribly relevant. What matters are their ties to Islamists and Arab fascists, which the insurgents in Iraq most certainly have.

digamma|12.4.04 @ 3:18AM|#

Besides, the link between Italy and the people who attacked Pearl Harbor was certainly no stronger than the link between the insurgents and Fallujah and the people who attacked us on 9/11. Yet we still killed Italians.

Italy declared war on us. Not the other way around.

|12.4.04 @ 5:38PM|#

Dan:

"...the two root causes of 9/11 and the other terrorist attacks we've suffered were Islam and the lack of political freedom in the Arab world.

"Islam" What?? If offending adherents to Islam is a root cause of 9/11, why haven't they hit Sweden or Denmark? The chief exporter of pornography into the Arab world is Scandinavia. The Islamic clerics complain bitterly, but of course there were no 9/11 attacks on Stockholm or Copenhagen. Why not France? The government there has adopted shmeful laws limiting the wearing of religious regalia. These laws were aimed straight at Muslims. You'll see no Fatwas from Bin Laden giving terror ultimatums to France if those girls aren't allowed to wear their head scarves.

"the lack of political freedom in the Arab world"

Well, now you're getting closer to the real reason, but it's not just the general lack of political freedom in the Arab world that motivated 9/11. It's the deprivation of political and other freedoms in the Arab world that are caused by our government, that motivated the attacks against us.

The overwhelming evidence is that then 9/11 happened as a direct result of our government's hyper-interventionist foreign policy vis a vis the Mid-East. Specifically, its support of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. Note that the 9/11 commission findings reveal:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, said the final report of the Sept. 11 commission.

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/nation/9222612.htm

The best way to prevent terrorism against US citizens is to stop our government from doing needless things that increase the risk that those who use terror as a weapon will attack us. It's well known that our government commits stupid interventions in the domestic economy that hinder the prosperity that should flow from capitalism. Well, the government also commits stupid foreign interventions in the Mideast that endanger us.

|12.4.04 @ 6:41PM|#

"When did I assert that enemy body count doesn't matter? However, since you brought it up, what is the significance of these enemies? How many of the people that we have killed would have otherwise attacked American civilians at home, or at least aided such an attack?"

The argument that our military strategy is a failure nearly always centers on the notion that yes, we are killing tons of insurgents and are taking few casualties, but that doesn't matter because you can't win this thing by killing people.

As to the question posed, this is the difference between us in the identification of the problem. I do not dispute a certain aspect of the 'replacable enemy' argument that people use to say that killing the insurgent doesn't matter. Specifically, terrorists can replace their ranks. This is the reason that going after AQ alone is grossly inadequate. Where I differ from most doves is in the method of dealing with the replacement issue. Doves seem to believe that we can somehow satisfy potential AQ recruitees with foreign policy modifications. I would respond that the average recruit doesn't know crap about US policy - just what they've been told. An envrionment in which terrorists can exist without facing consequences must be reshaped into one where there are consequences. Middle eastern tyrants are not going to do that left to their own devices. As I mentioned above, they only recognize threats to themselves.

All this aside, finding out what was actually going on in Iraq was pretty important. To find out for sure, we needed boots on the ground. Once you have boots on the ground, you will be fighting insurgents who represent entrenched interests and interests who can't have a democratized Iraq be a success (read Iranians). Killing those people is doing good work.

|12.4.04 @ 8:47PM|#

The chief exporter of pornography into the Arab world is Scandinavia.

As long as we're on the subject, I think George Bush should order the Iraqi puppet government to put an embargo on Scandanavian porn. If we can't stop the Iraqis from fighting us, we can at least make sure that their money is spent on smut from the San Fernando Valley rather than smut from Scandanavia. LA has plenty of buxom blondes willing to take it in the ass on camera! There's no reason why they need to buy from the Norwegians!

And I have an indirect financial interest here: I am moonlighting as an optics lecturer at a college for film and motion picture students in southern California. Increasing the demand for US porn (as opposed to Swedish porn) means that there will more photographers training in southern California and hence more people taking my class!

I've finally learned to love protectionism! ;->

|12.4.04 @ 8:58PM|#

"And one more thing - spreading democracy is not a utopian notion. It's the antidote to toxic utopianism. People engaged in the quotidian hassles of pluralist democracy have a way to define themselves and resolve their conflicts without retreating to fantasies and transnational utopian ideologies."

That depends on what definition of "democracy" you're using. Do you mean the respect for individual rights, universal suffrage and integration into civil society, opportunity for the public to change the government, and vertical and horizontal checks and balances on government power that most Americans use to define the term?

Or do you mean the capitulation to American power and international finance that the neocons use to the define the term?

The same people yelling about how much more noble they are for supporting war for "democratization," have spent the last three years denoucing France, one of the oldest, most stable, most decent democracies in the world, as our enemy, because they aren't on board with this alleged "democratization" scheme.

The neocons, many of them anyway, genuinely do seem to be enthusiastic for spreading democracy, and bully for them. But it's a shame they have no idea what democracy is.

|12.5.04 @ 5:05AM|#

This is kind of sad because the wishing of liberty for the peoples of the Mideast is such a noble and worthy desire and Michael Young is sincere in this desire. But, hitching on to the neocon train to see it come to fruition is a hideous mistake because the neocons aren't sincere in wishing liberty for the Mideast. They just use it as a pretext to agitate for action that they think will benefit the Israeli state. (Not to be confused with benefiting the Israeli people. See How Israel Lost : The Four Questions by Richard Ben Cramer)

All the neocon organizations with "democracy" in their names exist because none of the nations in proximity to Israel are democracies, or at least good ones. And, the neocons don't agitate against Egypt and Jordan because their governments have been bought off for Israel with US tax dollars.(three billion and one half billion respectively)

If the neocons were sincere in this desire for Mideast liberty they would be urging and end to the Israeli occupation and our government's paying for it as well as urging an end to US tax aid for the brutal and authoritarian regimes in Egypt and Jordan. Of course, these positions are the opposite of what the neos advocate. So, although the neocons successfully, and dishonestly, engineered the American toppling of the ruthless Iraqi dictator at the cost American lives and money, don't expect them to work for real liberty for the Iraqi people. (BTW, Saddam was literal murder on fundamentalist Islamists.)

But, liberty for the peoples of the Mideast is important, so how can we as private citizens foster it? In Lebanon, in Palestine, In Iraq, Iran and the rest. Aggressive government action isn't warranted since we are not threatened by any of these places and so our troops should come home from Iraq immediately. The neocons want them to stay so that they may be sacrificed against Iran and later, Syria.

I try to speak with people from the Mideast. Both online and in person. I tell them that many of the shameful actions of our government in the Mideast are not consistant with the desires of the American people. I speak with them of the liberties that we enjoy here such as freedom of speech and capitalism and freedom of association. And, I urge them that when their governments are repressive of these liberties, that they are right to change or abolish their governments, and that they should do so.

If our government doesn't blow it by giving in to the neocons and become aggressive against Iran, there is a real chance for progress. The situation in is very fluid. Iran has real internal pressure for a freer society and a public discourse that is open in a way that was very unlike Iraq, the Soviet Union until the very end in a few parts, and in Cuba today. The reformers complained that the "axis of evil" speech hurt their cause. Note also that Iran has real elections. Those in power limit there effect when the wrong folks win, but they can't completely negate them. If you want to help, go to their chat rooms:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Iranian+chat+rooms&btnG=Google+Search

Listen to what they have to say and tell them about the wonders of free enterprise and civil liberty. Tell them that the US government does hideous and stupid things that most private citizens would never do. Relate to them our struggles against the expansion of power by our own government and how much better it is to fight against state power when individual liberties are guaranteed.

There are many Iranian entrepreneurs and others over here who travel back and forth and communicate with the Iranians back home. Some in the Iranian government complain that are a bad influence on the polity of Iran. Good! Let's encourage more of it. Our government should let more of them in. History provides many examples of tyranny wilting when it interfaces with liberty.

Michael, what non-government actions do you think we can take to foster more liberty for any and all the peoples of the Mideast?

BTW, sometimes I point out to people from the Arab Mideast and Iran, the relative liberty of Lebanon and Dubai of the UAE.

|12.5.04 @ 12:13PM|#

joe: Democracy is, I think, a widely-abused term. The most necessary bit is universal suffrage. If the majority doesn't endorse rights or social integration, the oppression is democratic. (viz. any rant against Leviathan)

thoreau: The only porn company I can own shares of, Private Media Group, is EuroPorn. Your tariff steals my bread.

|12.5.04 @ 12:57PM|#

digamma,

Right, and the policies also need to be ethical and constitutional. Many of the neocon's advocacies most certainly fall short of the first qualification.

BTW, is your screen name taken after an elementary particle or perhaps a math function?

|12.5.04 @ 2:14PM|#

thoreau,

That's funny stuff. Tell it to your students as well. :)

|12.5.04 @ 5:03PM|#

Rick, it just seems to me that if those Euroweenies won't risk their blood and treasure to overthrow an Islamofascist despot, they should be reaping the benefits by exporting porn to Iraq. I want the Iraqis to buy their porn from the red-blooded, God-fearing Americans who liberated them! ;->

And as long as we're subsidizing the governments of Egypt and Jordan, we should put the pressure on them to exclude Scandanavian porn in favor of American porn!

|12.5.04 @ 5:14PM|#

CORRECTION:

they shouldn't be reaping the benefits

gaius marius|12.6.04 @ 9:29AM|#

There weren't any sensational media images of total annihilation on twenty minutes warning. We were afraid, and there were effects, but it was different. It's entirely irrational, isn't it?

absolutely and completely, mr schultz. once again, we prove why democracy is rule by animal passion. why we ennoble it so, i'll never understand; it's the legacy if individualism run amok.

gaius marius|12.6.04 @ 9:33AM|#

It seems to me that there was value in killing them, because they were the force propping up the ideologies and governments we were opposed to.

mr dan, this is a terrible shoddy piece of idealism. why not kill everyone who disagrees with you then? you just justified every war of religion. if this is your standard, you should be prepared for endless warfare. there is always someone around who holds the other opinion.

only this sort of mystical rationale for killing could make realism seem desirable.