Looking For Due Diligence In the World of Foreign Policy

Tim Cavanaugh | January 30, 2006

Try to reconcile these two quotable quotes:

"We want you nervous. We want you to realize now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you -- the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family -- most fear: We're on the side of your own people."
—Former CIA Director James Woolsey, in April, 2003

"I've asked why nobody saw [Hamas' election victory] coming. It does say something about us not having a good enough pulse... I don't know anyone who wasn't caught off guard by Hamas' strong showing."
—Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, yesterday

Secretary Rice is a vast improvement over her immediate predecessor, and she shouldn't be tied too tightly to the neoconservative democratization project, for which her support always seems to have been pretty lukewarm. But come on, this soup is so thin you could read a fine-print Koran through it. How can anybody in a responsible foreign policy position claim she didn't know there was, at least, a strong likelihood that Hamas would win a Palestinian election? She doesn't know anybody who wasn't caught off guard? Who is she hanging out with—those Pauline Kael cronies who didn't vote for Nixon?

Even if Rice was honestly surprised, she shouldn't admit it. What's wrong with saying something like: "Of course, we've always known there was widespread support for groups of this type, but we're confident that with time and increasing opportunities for political expression, that support will burn up in Freedom's Unstoppable Wildfire." I don't have a lot of faith in that scenario, but I'd expect the Bush Administration's secretary of state to have faith in it.

Though it's entertaining to play gotcha with Rice, there's a more disturbing issue here: Are the architects of democratization prepared for the electoral strength of Islamists? Two or three years ago I'd have said: Sure, these guys are all otherworldly geniuses; they figured that stuff out ahead of time. Maybe they're betting that the popularity of Islamists is really a function of lack of political freedom (as in Egypt, for example, where Ayman Nour is in jail and the Muslim Brotherhood is one of only two parties on most ballots). Or possibly they're figuring these groups will be moderated or discredited once they get into power. But there's just no way they haven't considered such a basic question. Right?

Today, I would bet exactly $0.00 on the foresight of the Forward Strategists of Freedom. The problem isn't just that the War On Terrorism is being opposed by people who don't believe in it. It's that it's being waged by people who don't believe in it.

Related: In Time, Daniel Pipes, Moises Naim, Abdul Sattar Kasim, Dennis Ross, Ziad Abu Amr, and Richard Haass put in their combined 12 cents on Hamas' strong showing. ("Hamas have been taken by surprise by this as much as anyone else," says Abu Amr, who may be angling for a job at Foggy Bottom.)

Comments

|1.30.06 @ 6:43PM|#

"Two or three years ago I'd have said: Sure, these guys are all otherworldly geniuses; they figured that stuff out ahead of time."

I really, really hope that was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, Tim.

If not, well, name one instance that would lead you to believe that they were otherworldy geniuses capable of figuring out anything ahead of time.

|1.30.06 @ 6:46PM|#

Remember Rice's hamhanded response to the just-about-to-fail coup in Venezuela. If she were a Democrat, or a guy, we would be all over her for her incompetence.

Tim Cavanaugh|1.30.06 @ 6:55PM|#

I really, really hope that was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm

Well, I'm exaggerating for (no doubt side-splitting) comic effect, but no: I did think the big shots had given some thought to this scenario, and at least had an idea how they would respond to it-in public comments if not in actual policy.

|1.30.06 @ 6:58PM|#

Haven't Islamist parties won or nearly won elections in some other countries? Say Turkey, Algeria, Persia, Mesopotamia ...

I suppose the powers that be will express surprise when the Muslim Brotherhood wins an election in Egypt.

|1.30.06 @ 7:05PM|#

The problem isn't just that the War On Terrorism is being opposed by people who don't believe in it. It's that it's being waged by people who don't believe in it.

You lost me there. Last time I checked, Hamas was a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of one of our allies. Being against Hamas is hardly inconsistent with believing in the war on terror. On the contrary, if you are for the war on terror, then it is axiomati you are against Hamas.

Kudos to the goverments withholding, or threatening to withhold, aid to the Palestian government while that government is run by terrorists. We'd have to throw our heads-of-state in prison if they (illegally) gave money to such terrorist organizations.

fyodor|1.30.06 @ 7:07PM|#

I believe an Islamist party won in Algeria a while back, eight or nine years ago at the minimum, resulting in the results of the election being canceled and an ensuing insurgency/civil war. Haven't heard much about violence there for a while. Could it be they've lost interest? Or more likely we've lost interest in them. Or maybe they're busy frying bigger bacon.

|1.30.06 @ 7:12PM|#

I have no insight into Rice's inner mind, but if one did expect a Hamas victory, one would be wise to say that it was unexpected. Look, supporting jihadic terrorism has been until now fairly cheap for the Palestinian people, compared to what the potential cost is. Very shortly, they may have a more sober appraisal of the potential cost of openly choosing a government which wages war on a far more powerful neighbor. If they don't, the lessons taught are going to be so harsh as to make previous experiences seem positively mild. The keenest insight Sharon ever had was how much more politically possible it was to wage war with utter ruthlessness on a people who elected a government which chose war. Hamas and it's supporters are about to gain this insight as well.

|1.30.06 @ 7:17PM|#

For a real hoot, go find all the quotes with Woolsey sucking Judith Miller's dick.

|1.30.06 @ 7:20PM|#

The keenest insight Sharon ever had was how much more politically possible it was to wage war with utter ruthlessness on a people who elected a government which chose war. Hamas and it's supporters are about to gain this insight as well.

Ah, a terrorist victory at the polls is not a bug, it's a feature.

|1.30.06 @ 7:24PM|#

Yes, Thoreau, for Sharon it was, for it politically allows for a more ruthless application of violence. Clarity in the application of violence can be a very good thing, strategically speaking, especially if one has a lot more firepower than the enemy.

|1.30.06 @ 7:48PM|#

Give Rice a break. The briefing paper she received - the one titled "Hamas Determined to Win Inside Palestine" - could have been referring to anything.

kgsam|1.30.06 @ 8:23PM|#

On the contrary, if you are for the war on terror, then it is axiomati you are against Hamas.

As the terrorist party OUT of power as opposed to Fatah, the terrorist party IN power.

|1.30.06 @ 8:28PM|#

""Give Rice a break. The briefing paper she received - the one titled "Hamas Determined to Win Inside Palestine" - could have been referring to anything.""

LOL

That was really funny, thanks for the laugh.3

Yeah, anyone who say the end of the movie "Indpendence Day" could have foreseen the concept of an airplane ITSELF as a missile.

In the movie, the "hero" slammed his jet into the alien spaceship as it was about to shoot its main weapon. Funny post 9/11 I wonder if that guy could be called a "suicide bomber". Of course, I'm being sarcastic, but to spin the whole thing as "beyond anyone's wildest imagination" is either depicting how sadly empty some of our government officials' imaginaion is or they're not telling us the whole truth as it is not very convenient...

You decide, time will tell...

|1.30.06 @ 8:32PM|#

Barely disguised glee at the prospect of lots of dead Arabs is extremely unbecoming, Mr. Allen.

|1.30.06 @ 8:42PM|#

"Barely disguised glee at the prospect of lots of dead Arabs is extremely unbecoming, Mr. Allen."

Thank you Joe.

People like you make Al-Qaida's recruitment more difficult in the Muslim world.

People like Mr. Allen (provided his comments are representative of his entire worldview) make the Islamist argument that the west is ultimately in the mideast to divide, rob and conquer in small incremental steps plausible, especially in the mind of a young man with misguided education.

I hope likeminded people to Joe win the argument in policy circles or we'll be in a very long conflict with no end in sight, and after each and every failure of the military, there will be a complaint of lack of funds and a demand for more soldiers and funds to "win the mission".

Rome was not destroyed in a day...

|1.30.06 @ 9:02PM|#

Semantics aside, Will allen has a point. It is very easy to be the opposition party, or in the absence of a party, the "oppostion". All you have to say is that the party in power sucks, you never have to come up with a way to rule successfully.

Hamas now has to find a way to rule successfully, and they aren't going to. They are committed to Israel's destruction, despite the toning down of their rhetoric in English. They want to create an army, and that means they want or expect to use it, given the current situation there.

In the short term they are the worst thing that could happen to the Palestinians, but in the long run, when their method of dealing with Israel is shown to be totally bankrupt and totally unworkable, then maybe the parties that actually want a peace will have the political capital to make a real peace stick, because there will be no theoretical untried alternative.

Perversely the (likely) coming massive bloodshed between the Palestinians and the Israelis may be the best way towards peace.

|1.30.06 @ 9:04PM|#

I don't think it'd be too hard to have the "Official" government talk of peace, while the darker side still blows things up. It avoids the consolidated target issue.

|1.30.06 @ 9:31PM|#

Tim,
I don't think you should be so quick to discount the notion that Rice's idiotic response was calculated. If the plan all along (and I certainly think this was Sharon's plan at least) was to let Hamas and the Palestinians hang themselves with their own rope, then the US really shouldn't be saying or doing anything. Let them make the first move. From a practical standpoint, that isn't possible. Rice can't just "no comment" any and all questions about Hamas' victory. So what's the next best thing? Well, saying that you anticipated it, expect Hamas to foul things up, and then plan on quietly acquiescing as Israel goes ahead full steam on permenant, unitlateral, territorial settlemen and massive retaliation to any Hamas provocations won't exactly go over well with Europe and the peace process folks. So you do the next best thing. You say it shocked the hell out of you and pretend like you don't know what to make of it. Rice looks stupid in the short term, but in the long term its path of least resistance to what the adminstration ultimately wants.

|1.30.06 @ 9:40PM|#

Joe, what it is also unbecoming is to pretend to have mind-reading powers, and thus be such an a-hole as to ascribe to another person glee at the prospect of a lot of people being killed. I described the strategic situation accurately: the Palestinian people have chosen to elect a political party which wishes to annihilate the Jews which live in Israel. The Jews which live in Israel have far more military power. When a far weaker people choose to attempt the annihilation of a far more powerful people, the far weaker people have a much greater chance of being annihilated instead. Thus, the Palestinian people will either modify the strategic goals of Hamas, or the Palestinian people will likely suffer a massive quantity of violence, since the political obstacles to Israel using such violence are greatly mitigated by the fact that the Palestinians have chosen a political party which has as it's strategic goal Israel's annihilation.

If the people of Canada were to freely choose a government which showed by word and deed it's desire to annihilate Americans, the people of Canada would suffer titanic violence in turn. That these are ugly little facts doesn't make them less factual, even if you are too stupid to grasp this reality.

|1.30.06 @ 10:06PM|#

Perversely the (likely) coming massive bloodshed between the Palestinians and the Israelis may be the best way towards peace.

I'd love to believe this, because it looks like there will be more bloodshed. I don't claim any deep insight, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to suspect that there will be more killing in the Middle East.

So it would be nice to think that this bloodshed will have a happy ending, since the bloodshed is going to continue.

I'm not holding my breath for peace.

|1.30.06 @ 10:15PM|#

Well, Thoreau, given a sufficient number of people killed, there will be peace. Quite a number of groups of people, throughout human history, stopped waging war once a large enough percentage of them were slaughtered. This is the road that is now being travelled, and it can only be hoped that the abattior at the end of this path is recognized by enough people in time, so as to allow for a change of direction.

|1.30.06 @ 10:22PM|#

Brad,

You're right about ID4, and there was another possibly fictional instance of a plane being used as a missile before 9/11. The pilot of the X-Files spinoff, The Lone Gunmen, aired in March 2001, and featured a plot to fly a commercial airliner into the WTC by remote control.

The faction of the Defense Dept behind the plot reasoned that there would be plenty of "tinpot dictators racing to claim responsibility and begging to be smart-bombed," which would certainly be good news for the military-industrial complex.

http://killtown.911review.org/lonegunmen.html

As one of the show's writers noted in response to the administrations pleas of ignorance regarding this type of tactic, "What's disturbing about it to me is, you think as a fiction writer that if you can imagine this scenario, then the people in power in the government who are there to imagine disaster scenarios can imagine it, too."

|1.30.06 @ 10:39PM|#

I don't understand some of the reflexive comments here that make it sound like libertarians are now somehow against democracy.

I realize that's not what is being meant. But I see no conflict between being against the Bush doctrine of waging war in the Middle East in an attempt to generate democracies, and for a more general trend of more and more of those countries becoming democratic. I find people being able to freely choose their governments who hadn't had that opportunity before, to be an unquestioned good. I'm not sure that justifies the kind of aggressive means the Bush administration has chosen to try and affect those changes, particularly when there's some doubt as to whether it will work. I like Gyros, I don't like them enough to pay $100.00 for one. You can be for the goals and against paying a particular price to try and reach them.

I'm happy the Palestinians got to choose their leader, regardless of who they chose. And I'm hoping if they choose different down the line, that the current group will remain committed to the democracy and not obstruct it.

I don't know, I think it's too early to say what Hamas is going to do, but the big key remains whether now that they have power, whether they'll use it to prevent anyone else from getting it in the future. I think that's a bigger key than their stance toward Israel.

I'm not sure having governmental authority does much for their ability to wage a war against Israel. They're clearly more likely to have more success with the non-military type of operations they've been using than building an army and trying to attack Israel conventionally. It may give them more influence at the UN, but they already plenty there to begin with.

|1.31.06 @ 1:04AM|#

Yeah, anyone who say the end of the movie "Indpendence Day" could have foreseen the concept of an airplane ITSELF as a missile.

Or read the Tom Clancy novel where someone wipes out the president speaking to a joint session of Congress with a plane.

Or remembers the Pacific theater of WW2.

joshua corning|1.31.06 @ 1:06AM|#

I'd love to believe this, because it looks like there will be more bloodshed. I don't claim any deep insight, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to suspect that there will be more killing in the Middle East.

So it would be nice to think that this bloodshed will have a happy ending, since the bloodshed is going to continue.

I'm not holding my breath for peace.

i bet someone said the exact same thing 40 years ago.....

hey I have an idea how about fuck palistine and israel and instead lets work on other parts of the middle east like syria, iraq, iran and saudia arabia.

Oh wait.

|1.31.06 @ 5:19AM|#

Will Allen:

Now look what you've done. You've chased away joe with logic and rationality. Where is amaingdrx to give me my dose of liberal nincompoopery, now that joe has been chased away and M1EK doesn't post here anymore?

For what it's worth, I truly would like to buy the world some coke, and teach it harmony.

|1.31.06 @ 8:24AM|#

I got your point the first time, Will. It's really not complicated enough to require a second exposition like that.

My comment didn't go to your logic, but to your attitude, and the obvious glee with which you greet the prospect.

|1.31.06 @ 8:57AM|#

I don't understand some of the reflexive comments here that make it sound like libertarians are now somehow against democracy.

Libertarians are first and foremost for liberty, not democracy. They are not the same thing. Democracy gave us the Drug War, McCain-Feingold, the Eternal War on Terror, and many other governmental initiatives that curtail liberty.

If given the choice, I'd rather live under an unelected ruler-for-life who only used his authority in situations where someone's rights were being violated, than under a democratically-elected govt which feels free to regulate every aspect of my life.

|1.31.06 @ 8:58AM|#

If given the choice, I'd rather live under an unelected ruler-for-life who only used his authority in situations where someone's rights were being violated, than under a democratically-elected govt which feels free to regulate every aspect of my life.

That would be a good point if such leaders were actually available. No doubt there have been a few, but we don't seem to have any reliable mechanisms for identifying and installing them.

Well, besides mounting a coup to install me as Leader For Life. I swear I'll only use my powers for good, not evil. Tin foil hatters of the world unite!

|1.31.06 @ 9:02AM|#

But Will,
What if, in 1850, the Canadian's elected a government to eradicate slavery on a global scale (ham-handed analogy I know)?

Honest question here. What is the stated goal of Hamas? Is it the genocide of the jews, or is it the end of an explicitly Jewish government?

If the latter, that position could be consistent with non-violence. My guess is, that their position is ambiguous enough to transform into the latter, and that Hamas itself is amorphous enough to transform pretty quickly.

|1.31.06 @ 9:51AM|#

thoreau,

You're right about my "libertarian despot" idea not being practical. However, I was merely illustrating that liberty and democracy are not the same thing, and indeed sometimes cannot coexist.

|1.31.06 @ 10:02AM|#

titanic violence.

I think that would be a great name for a band.

OT: What happened to M1EK? Why doesn't he post here anymore?

|1.31.06 @ 10:16AM|#

A human libertarian despot? No. A robot programmed with anti-democratic and libertarian principles? Ah, now we're getting somewhere.

|1.31.06 @ 10:21AM|#

crimethink-

I will agree that elections should be seen as a means, not an end. And those means seem to work better when conducted frequently, fairly, and openly.

|1.31.06 @ 10:51AM|#

A robot programmed with anti-democratic and libertarian principles? Ah, now we're getting somewhere.

The Three Laws of Libertarian Robotics:

I. A libertarian robot may not try to win an election, or through inaction, allow an election to be won by it.

II. A libertarian robot must follow any principles laid out in The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, or Libertarianism in One Lesson, except where such principles conflict with the First Law.

III. A libertarian robot must protect its own drug stash, prostitution ring, and ferret farm as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

fyodor|1.31.06 @ 10:53AM|#

I love this blog.

|1.31.06 @ 11:00AM|#

zirakzigil, that's the funniest thing posted on H&R in quite a while!

|1.31.06 @ 11:00AM|#

"I don't understand some of the reflexive comments here that make it sound like libertarians are now somehow against democracy."

There's actually a long history of (lower case "l") libertarian antipathy toward democracy, pretty much taking the "it's the worst form of government, excepting all others" view, because pure democracy allows the majority to vote away the rights of the minority. (And, as Ayn Rand observed, the individual is the smallest minority of all.)

|1.31.06 @ 11:18AM|#

To quote Scott Adams:


I imagine a room full of Hamas leaders looking at each other behind closed doors and saying, "Oh crap, we won."

And I imagine the Israeli leaders sitting around behind closed doors and saying, "It just got a lot easier to find the people we want to kill."

I have to think it will be difficult for Hamas to reconcile the whole "destroy Israel" platform with "We'll all be at the Parliament building at noon talking about how to do it."

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/01/dog_catches_car.html

|1.31.06 @ 11:22AM|#

Wait, I'm confused. Shouldn't EVERYONE be happy with this outcome?

The hawks can claim this is all part of the plan to either co-opt or kill Hamas.

The doves can claim we should respect other cultures, and this is a natural expression of Palestinian frustration at oppression by both Fatah and Israel. After all, Hamas builds hospitals and such.

The only people who should be upset are the Angry Left chicken-doves: The ones who really think that Arabs are incapable of self-rule and that we should be supporting dictatorships who keep them in line. Who admits to being that person? I mean, other than the editorial board of the New York Times.

|1.31.06 @ 11:44AM|#

That doesn't even make sense on its own terms, bubba.

An election is held, and freakin Hamas - they of the suicide bombers - wins. The outcome is likely to be an upsurge in violence, possibly crossing borders. Uh, yeah, all those people who don't think Arabs should live under democratic governments must be really embarrassed right about now, what with their warnings that something bad could happen.

And that's just the internal logic of your post. Nevermind reality.

|1.31.06 @ 12:03PM|#

Y'know, if we could somehow promote atheism more effectively, maybe we could convince folks to stop shedding generations' worth of blood over one of the shittiest little patches of ground on Earth.

Sort of like having a war over who gets to occupy Needles, California.

Given Middle Eastern Jews' history of dhimmitude in Arab lands, I can certainly understand why they and the Ashkenazis have no desire to live in a majority Muslim state.

|1.31.06 @ 12:08PM|#

I have this notion that Hamas is much more competent at keeping the water running, patching potholes and delivering the mail than the corupt bastards of Fatah were. Here's hoping that when the reality sinks in that it's a fulltime job they'll find they have no time for suicide bombing etc.

I know, it would take some time and there will probably be some false starts and it may not happen at all. And they may just degenerate into the same kleptocracy as Fatah.

But you know the ANC was a terrorist group and now they're the ruling party in South Africa, and they're not even that competent.

|1.31.06 @ 12:40PM|#

No one imagined Hamas winning.

No one imagined the Iraqi insurgency.

No one imagined the levees failing.

No one imagined terrorists would fly planes into buildings.

You'd almost think there was a pattern here or something.

|1.31.06 @ 5:59PM|#

"They are not the same thing."
But certainly one is a pre-condition of the other. A necessary pre-condition of liberty is the ability to have a say in who makes and who enforces the law.

Without that, your freedom extends only as far as the current despot allows it. At least if you have the ability to switch despots every four years, that's a start down the right road.

More and more I think a huge a chunk of the libertarians are anarchists who don't want the stigma that comes with that word.

|1.31.06 @ 6:06PM|#

"Y'know, if we could somehow promote atheism more effectively, maybe we could convince folks to stop shedding generations' worth of blood over one of the shittiest little patches of ground on Earth."

Keep telling yourself that the world would be all cupcakes and candycanes if the atheists ran things. Hopoefully there won't be a Cambodian within earshot, and if there is, hopefully he'll able to control his temper.

The 20th century was nothing if not the atheists maniacs asserting their rights to be just as crazy and bloodthirsty as religious folks can be.

|1.31.06 @ 6:36PM|#

No, Joe, you did need to have it explained again, if only in an attempt to to convince you to stop being such a pompous ass as to presume to be able to peer into the souls of others, based upon a few sentences in this forum. Are you typically such a jerk?

|1.31.06 @ 9:06PM|#

zirakzigil, if Asimov were alive and writing about libertarian robots, those are the laws he'd use.