Fallout

The continuing failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is taking a political toll abroad, and possibly at home. Jim Lobe of the Inter Press Service has written a useful roundup of recent developments.

Comments

[Croesus]

The way Blair is taking a beating over the EU and the Iraq War, one wonders if the Labor party will outlast him (though given how totally disorganized and demoralized the Tories are, it might be hard for Labor to maintain control).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12476-2003Jun4.html?nav=hptop_ts

[Croesus]

might not be so hard

[Lazarus]

Lefty hits on a good point. It is unlikely that Bush had PERFECT information. They could have been destroyed or shipped just before the bombs fell. The anti-war types keep hyping this as rational and moral reason of why we shouldn't have fought. I don't buy it. All it proves is that Bush should have given himself a bigger "out" on the WMD claim.

Worse case scenerio he will just say "ooops, guess there wasn't any. Saddam should have let us look more!" and it still doesn't invalidate the fact that the world has one less bloodthirsty tyrant and the US is in a better position to fight the war on terror.

And dude, it had nothing to do with WMDs and everything to do with squeezing the Saudis and the scaring the Axis of Evil. If people are dumb (or naive) enough to buy the government's story they deserve to be made fools of.

[david f]

hey Laz,

you're right with the points about believing the government (it's similar to the "fool and his money") -- and you're also basically on with the strategic moves to squeeze the saudis and free us from their black gold. however, that letter by rummie, wolfie, et al in 1998 urging clinton to move in and end that regime was a huge part of the argumentation. this was pre 9-11. were there any rumblings back then about squeezing the saudis or changing the alliances over there?

and it's nice to see you and Lefty in agreement on something besides disagreement 🙂

cheers,
drf

[Stretch]

My opinion - the administration demanded that the CIA and DIA produce proof of Iraqi WMD. We already know that much of that they threw up was declared by Colin Powell to be "bullshit".

If this is true, it's a catastrophic failure of leadership.

I wish it weren't true. American credibility and standing in the world aside, I'm pleased as punch that Saddam is living in stark terror and that his mass executions have been permanently scotched. The peace process has been reinvigorated. There may - hopefully, maybe - be a major new model Muslim democracy. All this is terrific news.

Unfortunately, there's North Korea. There's Iran. Who's going to believe a damn thing we say anymore? Who's going to follow our lead? Who's going to trust our judgment? Who's going to look to us as a model of clean, open governance? Who's going to respect us?

I will feel personally betrayed if it turns out this indisputable, overwhelming evidence of WMD turns out to be wrong - FOR WHATEVER REASON. Mistakes happen, but the mistake here (if there was one) was not that intelligence was wrong (as it often is), but that the president personally assured us that he knew things we didn't, and that those things proved things that are turning out not to be true. That's bald lie, plain and simple.

I also suspect that you're right, that they assumed (hoped) that they would find something incriminating after the fact. Whoops.

[Croesus]

Lazarus,

How is the US in a better position to fight the so-called war on terror? Because US troops will be largely out of Saudi Arabia? BTW, you're going to have to demonstrate how the Saudis were "squeezed," and how the other so-called Axis members were frightened (NK, for example, is still doing what it did before GWIII, being recalcitrant and pursuing bi-lateral talks with the US). If any country was fightened, it was Syria, but even there the dogs were called off, and the status qou appears to remain.

[Sara]

Last night on the radio some U.S. official (unfortunately, I came into the program late so didn't get the name) was making the argument that Saddam HAD to have WMD, because why would he have put his country through cruel economic hell for more than a decade to hide nothing?

Come on! It wouldn't be surprising at all--even by the White House's logic. Their line all along has been that Saddam is a maniac, with exactly ZERO respect for human life. Such behavior would fit exactly into his profile!

[Stretch]

It's a cop-out to say that anybody who believes anything the government says is a fool. Attitudes like that make it impossible to differentiate between the administrations of Bush and, say, Mugabe or Kim. Anybody who BLINDLY, AUTOMATICALLY believes EVERYTHING the government says - yes, that's a fool. But expecting honesty from government is not foolish - it is a prerequisite for living in a civilized liberal state.

I don't cop out and I'm not so cynical as to feel ashamed or embarassed at having believed something told to me by the government.

Government is one institution among many required (at least at this stage of human evolution) for civilization to flourish.

I expect truth from the media, from government, from my friends, from my family, and from Jiffy Lube. I also expect to be let down, frequently. But we still must hold them accountable, and I, personally, am not quite ready to give up on civilization. Sorry.

[Croesus]

Has the peace process really been reinvigorated? If you think that, then I got some ocean-front property in Arizona to sell you. 🙂

[Lazarus]

drf: Rummie is a smart guy. The war on terror didn't start 9-11-01, the saudis have been playing both sides for years. It was a smart move then and a smart move today.

Stretch: Hope that teaches you not to trust the government. That being said, we don't really need the rest of the world for N. Korea and Iran. We could easily destroy those regimes alone and they know it. If they are smart they will play ball (and if you dig a little bit it seems they are, which is a very good thing).

[JDM]

Much of the case that Saddam had them was based on the analysis that he would have been acting irrationally by not making a serious attempt to prove he had destroyed the WMD the world knew he had in 1998 if he in fact did not have them in 2003. It is possible that he was just an imbecile, or terribly ignorant and misinformed.

He could have shown up the US horribly if he had opened all the doors, let his scientists leave the country, etc.

I don't think that Bush or his administration was lying about thinking they had them. It's too much of a risk for him not to be able to control the damage when the truth comes out. I realize also that it's not the real reason they wanted to go to war.

[Croesus]

Sara,

The UN sanctions regime allowed Saddam to have greater control over Iraq, because they controlled the food shipments, etc.

Mark Bowden's article is hilarious:

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/columnists/mark_bowden/5937888.htm

[Stretch]

Lazarus -

I understand what you're saying, but I couldn't disagree more. Your foreign policy stance is implausible, to put it the kindest way possible. If you feel that unilaterally nuking North Korea and Iran would be in our long-term best interests, you're smoking banana peels.

If you see the absense of all trust amongst institutions and their constituents as a sign of sophistication or honor, then you live in a sad world that I'd want no part of.

[Lazarus]

Croesus: Sorry I don't have a list of links handy, but believe there is indication that both Iran and N. Korea are quietly falling into line.

As for the Saudis, it puts the royalists in a very dangerous position. They have been playing both sides for years, knowing full well that their regime was protected by US bases and by their control of oil. Now the US militiary is out and we have a huge reserved of conquered texas tea. Unless they wish to be toppled by fundementalists they need us more than we need them. If they are toppled, we simply roll back down and replace them a la Iraq.

Let's not also forget about a US base in Kurdistan, within striking distance of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iran.

[Stretch]

Lazarus -

It seems that your entire foreign policy program consists of bombing shit. This is why people like you never get into positions of power.

[Lazarus]

Strech: We have proven we do not need nukes. Sophistication or honor have nothing to do with it, I am just try to see things for what they ARE.

Croesus: I am tring to find my links. Having technical difficulties, please stand by.

[Croesus]

Lazarus,

The problem is that you want it both ways; you want FP "realism" (which tends more to be part fantasy-land than anything else, partly because of the arrogance of the realist crowd) tied to FP moralism (ain't it grand the tyrant is gone, etc., which is also prone to its own variety of arrogance). Unfortunately, these two "values" tend to come to loggerheads generally.

[Lazarus]

Stretch: Untrue. The THREAT is all one needs. Why do you suppose policemen carry firearms?

[Brian]

Hmm...either:

1) WMD are there, and we haven't found them yet, which suggests we never really knew whether they were there or not, which means they were bullshitting us all along but figured it'd pan out;
2) WMD were moved somewhere else (Syria, Iran, etc.), which constititutes a failure of intel and/or the military, not to mention making the world a _more_ dangerous place;
3) WMD aren't there and haven't been for a while, and we were flat-out lied to as a pretext for a _WAR_.

Either our intel is incompetent, our military not as effective as we thought, or our leaders are liars and murderers. Possibly a combination or all three. Any way you cut it, heads should roll.

And so what if the world and Iraq are better off without Saddam? If that justifies war (before or after the fact) then we've got an awful lot of wars left to fight.

[Lazarus]

Croesus: Please don't get so technical. These are my own homegrown concepts and do not spring from any school of FP.

[Croesus]

Lazarus,

Well, I'll have to read them later, as I've got to buckle down and get some work done. I, however, believe that you are overly optimistic.

[Stretch]

Lazarus -

You say:

"We have proven we do not need nukes. Sophistication or honor have nothing to do with it, I am just try to see things for what they ARE."

Are you seriously saying that ignorning all world opinion, eschewing all foreign policy, and just bombing shit we don't like is "how things ARE"?

That is NOT how things are. Foreign policy does not work that way.

[Croesus]

Brian,

Well, the fact that governments may fight evils selectively, is not really a very good criticism. After all, governments have only so many resources. A more viable criticism would be to claim that the government is acting too boldly or rashly - the philosopher Oakeshott often argued that governments should be cautious in their use of power, etc. because the consequences (long and short term) can be so unknown and devistating.

[Lazarus]

Stretch: Put your thinking cap on and maybe we can discuss this.

[Croesus]

Stretch,

Goodness, if you think FP is bad today, read about Rome's rise to power and how it trampled on treaties, invaded w/o provocation, etc. The world is a fairly benign place in comparison to what it was in the past (whether you buy Kagan's idiotic mars v. venus argument or not), even the recent past.

[SM]

Tom Freidman has a fine op-ed column explaining the whole thing. If one or more administration folks lied about WMD, IMHO, then it should impinge on their careers; it shouldnt change any pro-war positions - i know it wont change mine.

As for WMD - there was a very convincing article in the New Yorker which had Rumsfeld and Hawks helping reluctant CIA analysts to creatively interpret intelligence data into evidence of the same, weaving it pretty much from hints. Sounds about right to me.
For people who are distressed by BS form InstaPundit, Andrew Sullivan whoever - surely they have a button which says "OFF".

[Lazarus]

How terrible of Rome to spread civilizaton! 😉

[Croesus]

Lazarus,

I'd say the Greek city-states they conquered, as well as Carthage, were as civilized as they were (more, given how the Romans slavishly adopted Greek culture and customs), if not more so. In fact, most of Rome's early expansion with its its Latin allies were against cultures older or at least as old and more advanced or at least as advanced as theirs, though lacking Rome's interesting military punch - that is against the Etruscans, the Greeks, the Sabines, the Carthaginians, etc. Greed was a far more important factor than advancing civilization; particularly since they were the ones adopting it and not spreading it during the early and middle Republic.

As far as say the Gauls were concerned, given that after 201 the Romans attempted to exterminate them in and around the Po River, I can't say it did much to "civilize" them.

[Stretch]

Croesus - You misread me.

SM - I agree. I am still pro-war. I supported it, and I still do. But the administration sold the war to the world based on what is likely a lie.

It is not inconsistent to support the war (even in retrospect) and still feel that leaders who lie about such matters are too discredited and corrupt to lead. The war was justifiable on humanitarian grounds. Hell, it was justifiable on grounds of WMD in the sense that we have good reasons to suspect that eventually Saddam would restart his WMD programs, if he hadn't already.

That's not what Bush said. He said, he has vast quantities of WMD right now, and we know where they are. And that was (probably - we'll see) a lie.

Bush decided in advance that WMD would be the issue he sold the war on. And he ordered up some evidence - much of it was falsified, much of it was misinterpreted, much of it was exaggerated. All of it, so far, has been proven wrong, flat-out wrong.

[Mark]

Anyone who criticizes Roman liberation of the Mediterranean lands is objectively pro-Persian.

[david f]

hey Stretch!

and taking the thoughts that the WMD argument was flat out wrong, what you're still saying is that the removal of this jackass from power in iraq was still okay. and combining that with Croesus's point that government resources are limited (and that's why we're not more engaged in africa getting rid of those tyrants, too), and probably throwing in strategic considerations (oil, our alliance with israel) that point to a huge interest in that region... there's the justification? is that right?

it's just that lying thing by the administration. while sure we figure that the govt will lie to us. nixon really ensured that for people who were born post 1965... we expected more from clinton, why can't we expect more out of bush, too? being disappointed in the lying and having some sort of consequence from that (hopefully not in the forms of WMD smuggled into the us from iraq)in the political arena might be in order...

cheers,
drf

[david f]

oh, and either way, the lying thing by the govt should suggest that the govt have as little power as possible...
drf

[Stretch]

Mark - Ha! You've been reading Andrew Sullivan, I see.

Ok, I just read Tom Friedman's article today, and I can't say it any better than he did.

Well, I can in one respect. He states that if Bush turns out to have lied about the cassus belli, it will discredit him and his team. Friedman is only partially correct. That lie will also discredit this country as a whole and hinder our ability to act in our interests in the future.

This country has always benefitted more from soft power than hard power (I believe I'm channelling Kagan again here). Hard power is a fallback position - essential, but always the last choice. But we can't become so enamored with the use of hard power that we destroy all our soft power - influence, respect, trust, admiration, hope, all of the things that have given the US such influence over so many things for so long.

Bush's lie, if that's what it was, will cause great damage to this "soft" power, to the United States as a whole, not just to his FP team.

[Lazarus]

I admit greed was the cause, but none the less it expanded civilization greatly -- bringing peace and prosperity to millions of people. How much progress would the West have had if it was a bunch of barbarians and squabbling dinkystates?

[Stretch]

So, what should the consequences be if it turns out Bush's team fabricated, exaggerated, or lied with regard to its "evidence" of WMD?

My opinion - he certainly deserves to lose the next election. Too bad - he has brass balls and is taking on tough jobs no president before him has dared try. Examples: Israeli settlements (he has pushed Sharon to acknowledge that they must go), Arafat's terrorist games (he has sidelined Arafat), civil service rules (no more guaranteed lifetime employment in the federal government no matter how much of an idiot, slacker, or jackass you are), etc.

Fabricating reasons to send 200,000 soldiers into war trumps that.

Should he be impeached? (Granted, I acknowledge he has a better chance of being struck by lightning than being impeached, but still...)

[david f]

hey stretch!

why should he be impeached?

didn't congress give him authority to move in to iraq with the "anti terror" measures? no link to terrorism is harder to prove. in fact, since many feel that there is no link to "non-terror" in iraq, it's terror and totally fine to go after. so, where would the crimes and misdemeanors be here? (and that was a democrat controlled senate there!!)

(and the war did cause great profit from greed here at home, too! pat lehey got some good profit for his puddle... errrr. "great lake". typical new englander there -- his 700 sq mile is a "great lake" in his mind just like 12 cm = one foot for him...)

cheers,
drf

[Brian]

Croesus: Point taken. I would definitely argue that the lack of/loss of/lies about WMD all point to a not-very-judicious use of our power in this case.

[Lazarus]

Strech: Do you really think respect, trust, admiration and hope are the driving factors between the governments of hostile tribes? All solid FP is based on naked force. Save respect, trust, admiration and hope for individual citizens in other lands. Wasting these vitues on governments (of any nation) is futile and wasteful.

[Stretch]

Lazarus -

You're not reading what I said very carefully and I don't feel like restating them or correcting your mischaracterizations.

drf -

You are correct that Congress abdicated (if that's the right word) its responsibilities with regard to this war, but then they've been doing that for decades.

Impeachment is political, though it's dressed up in the language of the law. It's fundamentally an exercise of political judgment. Sure he could be impeached for massively deceiving the American people. Will he? No. But he could.

[Lazarus]

Strech: You are one to talk! Show me where I said that the correct policy is "bombing shit." Or "nuking people we don't like." If you do not want a rational discussion then simply refrain from commenting on my posts.

[Stretch]

I was using the term "nuking" figuratively, but I apologize for not being more specific.

With regard to characterizing your FP stance as "bombing shit", I believe that's an accurate characterization, homes.

You wrote: "...we don't really need the rest of the world for N. Korea and Iran. We could easily destroy those regimes alone and they know it..."

In other words, bombing shit. The questions, my friend, is not what we're capable of destroying, but what we're capable of rebuilding, and what the consequences are to our use of power around the world. That's what makes FP a tricky business and not just a matter of calculating whether we have enough sticks of dynamite to take out this regime or that regime. I mean, come on, a monkey could throw a dart at a world map and hit a country we could destroy in an afternoon.

That's not FP, that's bombing shit. Bombing is, of course, a very important part of FP, but doesn't constitute FP in and of itself.

Your characterization of what I said - that FP involves trust, honor, etc. etc. - was entirely and totally wrong. When I spoke of trust etc., I was speaking of "soft power", which has little to do with FP. They are separate things, which is why I spoke of them separately.

[Gene 6-Pack]

It is not against the law for foreigners to take flying lessons, but I still wish more attention had been paid to the report of that agent.

[Stretch]

Gene -

Scary to think, but a simple message board like this one, that every federal agent could access, would have certainly alerted them to the flight school patterns that look so obvious in retrospect. Government technology is permanently stranded in 1974...

[Lazarus]

Stretch: You are misrepresenting my argument. That is OK, I am used to that here. Let me state it another way: The only useful policy when dealing with hostile tribes is naked force. Notice I didn't say bombing, that this applies in all cases of intertribal activity, etc. That is my argument.

The application for this argument is NOT that we SHOULD destroy any pigsty country in an afternoon. But that we should make it very well known that we COULD destroy the regimes of hostile countries and to reinforce this meme by violence and the destruction of regimes, if necessary. This is what I belive the Iraq War was about and I belive the results have verified for me that 1) this was the aim of the policy and 2) that this policy has WORKED.

[Croesus]

Lazarus,

The Greek city-states, the Carthagians, etc. already had peace & prosperity. In fact, it was the fact that were so wealthy that made them such prizes in the eyes of the Romans, not vice versa. Now your argument may work for say Roman Briton, and the Gauls and the like, but all the Romans were doing when they invaded a Greek city state was rent seeking; they weren't expanding trade or bringing peace or civilization with them to some distraught people, they were ripping them off.

[Croesus]

Lazarus,

Just out of curioisity, you do realize that it was those barbarians and the rival dinky states that they created which brought about, let's see, the fantastic technological advances (heavy plow, stirrup, windmills, new kinds of seeds, advances in the making of steel, etc.) of the middle ages, the renaissance, the enlightenment, etc., right? And if you think the "barbarians" brought on the so-called "dark ages" (only referred to as dark bexause of Renaissance propagandists) you need to read a little bit of 2nd-5th century Roman history. It has been argued successfully by many that the break-up of Europe was the best thing possible for Europe, because it spurred technical and economic competition over the long run that was not possible under the empire.

[Croesus]

Lazarus,

Your argument only works when the hostile tribe is inferior militarily; you Clauseqitzian arugment doesn't work when they are equal or stronger than you.

[SM]

Croesus,
"It has been argued successfully by many that the break-up of Europe was the best thing possible for Europe"

By whom - I'm guessing Jared Diamond may be one ? Can you cite a few examples ? I'm pretty much a Plutarch/Tacitus etc & Gibbon reader & would be interested in reading comtemporary assessments - probably not ones which depened on Foucault for first principles though.

[Lazarus]

Croesus: Depends on how you look at it. The Greeks et al were clearly militarily weak. Perhaps they would have been conquered by some barbaric tribe. Instead they were able to preserve their culture under the shield of Rome's legions (really exapand, as Rome became Hellanized). One could also argue that a unified law and increased order allowed Greeks to interact with the rest of the Republic/Empire (including Gaul, Briton, etc).

Those fantastic technological advances you tout were transfered and preserved by Roman culture. I am curious how it could be "the best thing possible" as the Empire was a highly centralized State, which meant it was doomed anyway. Politically the Emperors were finished, but Rome as culture continues to exist to this day.

[Lazarus]

Croesus: Not necessary, they only need to believe you are superior militarily. Actual military prowess is only discovered as the result of armed combat.

[Lefty]

Here's the text to the resolution giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq. It goes on an on about enforcing UN resolutions and the threat Iraq's WMD (including nucular) poses to the US. There's a passing reference to regime change but it's obvious the reason for the resolution was to protect us from Hussein's imminent threat.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/10/attack/main525165.shtml

If I were a Congressman, knowing what we know now, I would be embarrassed and pissed to have signed this.

[Croesus]

SM,

You can read David Landes "The Wealth & Poverty of Nations," where he argues what I've written above. You can also look to the French historian Fernand Braudel's work "The Wheels of Commerce: Civilization & Capitalism 15th-18th Century." Both works deal with more than Europe, but the implication of both is that the competition between nations spurred the growth of science, technology, etc. in Europe during this period, partly because one state could not stranglehold an advance by itself (think of what was done to Galilleo for example), unlike the Chinese empire, where centralized control nipped in the bud China's scientific revolution that it was undergoing in the 15th and 16th centuries.

[Croesus]

Lazarus,

"The Greeks et al were clearly militarily weak. Perhaps they would have been conquered by some barbaric tribe."

They were, they were called the Macedonians. You might have heard of one of their leaders; Alexander the Great. 🙂

"Instead they were able to preserve their culture under the shield of Rome's legions (really exapand, as Rome became Hellanized)."

Hmm, the Greeks had preserved their civilization for a far longer period without Roman help than with it. And there is nothing to say that they couldn't have done it without a humiliating (read the primary documents if you don't believe me) Roman invasion.

"One could also argue that a unified law and increased order allowed Greeks to interact with the rest of the Republic/Empire (including Gaul, Briton, etc)."

Greek ways never really penetrated the Western portion of the empire; the backwater that it was. What it did bring about was an ugly balance of trade issue which sent gold to the East, and goods to the West. Ever wonder why the Eastern empire was able to sustain itself in a way that not possible in the West? Because the East was civilized long before the Romans came about, and had networks of internal trade and the like which allowed it support itself.

Basically all you provided are a bunch of post- hoc excuses for Roman militarism and greed.

"Those fantastic technological advances you tout were transfered and preserved by Roman culture."

Bullshit. Most of the technological advances seen in the middle ages the classical world had not even dreamed of. The classical world was certainly advanced as far as arts are concerned, philosophy, etc., but it was the middle ages that brought about real, long-lasting technological advances that eventually led to the industrial revolution - which to be honest about it, makes us much more like the people of the middle-ages, than it makes us like the people from the classical world.

[Croesus]

Lazarus,

There must be some basis of that belief; if there isn't, all you are is a paper tiger. When the British had so much trouble against the Boers in the 19th and early 20th century, this fact led to a long period during which Britain was viewed as a paper tiger, and it helped convince the Germans they could kick the crap out of them. A Clauseqitzian worldview only works where you can kick the crap out of someone quickly. WWI is a perfect example of where such a worldview breaks quickly down.

[fyodor]

Lazarus,

Your biggest problem is that you forget that all those guns you like to point at others to intimidate them into seeing things our way are operated by real, live, breathing, volitional human beings. If we base our FP on purely Machiavellian vantage points, we will have lost the value system we are supposedly ordering our military to fight for. And once we thoroughly trash the values on which our civilization is based, who says this experiment in relative liberty will even continue?

Your second biggest problem is that you ignore the fact that the more you push, the harder the other side pushes back. For every government functionary we can scare into towing the line, how many terrorists will we breed who don't give a damn about guns that can't find them?

In short, your vision is one of madness.

[Jesse Walker]

Croesus: I'm basically with you on the Rome question. But I was under the impression that most of the technological evolution you're talking about took place in the High Middle Ages, not the Dark Ages. Am I wrong?

[Croesus]

Lefty,

I think everyone thougth that the nuclear threat was bogus.

Clauswitzean

[fyodor]

Lefty,

Re: "If I were a Congressman, knowing what we know now, I would be embarrassed and pissed to have signed this."

Naw, only if your constituents both know AND care, and what are the chances of that! 🙂

[Lefty]

"Greek ways never really penetrated the Western portion of the empire ..."

That cracked me up. Sorry.

[Lazarus]

Croesus: What a fun debate! OK, here are my issues, my point is that Roman militarism and greed resulted in stronger Western civilizaton. Can we agree that was "good" as opposed to "bad"? Perhaps that sucked for the Greeks, but maybe they were doomed anyway from eastern invaders.

And it is pointless to dicuss those techonological advances in a vacuum. Those 'dark age' advantages were preserved and spread by a still somewhat unified and Roman (read that as Christian) culture. As for the move from the middle ages to the industrial revolution, part of that advancement was the rediscovery of classical ideas.

[Anonymous]

Croesus,

Re: "I think everyone thougth that the nuclear threat was bogus."

Are you serious? I heard repeatedly that Hussein could use nukes to make threats that we would have to take seriously and especially that he would give nukes to al-Qaeda to get us with. That latter charge was the focal point of several drawn out Hit & Run debates. Hussein's nuclear threat was very important to those supporting our conquest!

[Croesus]

Jesse Walker,

Professional historians as a rule don't use the term "dark ages" anymore - or so I've been told by medieval scholars; partly because its a question of "dark" in comparison to what (like I wrote earlier, it was Renaissance writers who coined the phrase partly as a means of maligning everything that passed before their age).

Here is a brief chronology of the technological advances that occurred in the middle ages (500-1400).

Heavy plow invented in slavic lands (500 CE); revolutionizes agriculture; spreads to the Rhine by 800 CE.

Horseshoes invented in the 6th century; these spread throughout Europe.

Stirrup introduced in the 8th century (makes mounted armies much more effective than was the case in Roman times).

The horse collar appears around the time of the stirrup.

8th century, change from two to three crop rotation.

Franks invent soap (8th century); spreads throughout Europe.

Only in the 8th century does Iron become common in Europe; the Romans and Greeks made very little of it. Iron plows, good for agricultural production, and of course iron weapons, better than bronze. Shoes for horses as well, pitchforks, etc.

Rotary grindstone first described in Europe (may have come from China) in the 9th century; sharper weapons and plows.

10th century, whippletree invented or adopted; allowing tandem hitching of horses to a wagon.

11th century, horizontal loom introduced; mechanized version follows in the 12th century.

11th century also brings tidal and windmills, and percussion drilling.

12th century, knowledge of the compass.

In the 1280s, eyeglasses (convex) are invented; expanding worker productivity significantly.

14th century, first cannon introduced; mechanical clocks come to Italian cities.

[Lazarus]

Croesus: RE: paper tigers, I don't belive a Clauswitzean is perfect, only that it is more effective than the alternatives.

[Croesus]

Lazarus,

It is my argument that it was the division and lack of uniformity which spurred European technological and economic advancements, and not whatever uniformaity was left over from the end of the Empire. In fact, as was often the case with the RCC, it was attempts to re-create that uniformity that led to stagnation (see the Italian peninsula post-Gallileo). Its no conicidence that the Dutch, English and French were commercial powers in the early modern period and also some of most significant resistors of the Catholic church's attempts to create a unified "christendom."

[Croesus]

And please don't think that I am Catholic-bashing; the dream of a united Europe was not only the Catholic church's dream (SEE Charlemagne, the Hapsburgs, Justinian, etc.).

[Croesus]

Anon. @ 04:44 PM,

Well, let's put it this way, I never thought the three of a nuclear attack from IRaq was credible.

[Lazarus]

fyodor: Our military isn't there to protect our "value system." It is there to project the will of those in power over others with power. Some of us who are smart and enjoy our liberty don't disagree when that will is to intimidate hostile tribes from destroying us. And you are a fool if you ignore the fact that much of our civilization (and liberty) is based on the expectation that people will act from Machiavellian vantage points.

As for your second "biggest" point, it is not a given that the other side will push back. Most will fall into line rather than be destroyed. The terrorist problem is based on a very appealing and seductive idea, simply doing nothing will only encourage the spread of terrorist culture and allow terrorists to seize control of nation states. I have no problem pushing these criminal tryannical thugocracies to do our will and crush the terrorists within their borders. Most likely they will simply withdraw their support of these activites -- which is still a victory.

[Jesse Walker]

Croesus: Point taken re: the term "Dark Ages." What's the preferred substitute phrase? "Early Middle Ages"?

And thanks for the timeline. Very interesting stuff.

[Croesus]

Jesse Walker,

So, yes, you would be right to say that during the high middle ages that technological advancement (along with the raipid expansion of markets I might add) happened much more quickly than say during the 600s; but the earlier periods also technological advancement that tended to differentiate it from classical times. Historians of technology tend to focus on the changing outlook of people, and change in how technology and the creation of that technology was viewed - which I can only describe as being much more like how we view technology and how it is created than the classical worldview's.

[Lazarus]

Croesus: That may be, but you can't escape that the biggest contributor to Dutch, English and French culture was Rome. None of these cultures would have existed without a Roman and Christian foundation. And the interaction of these cultures was a large factor of their technological development -- which wouldn't have been possible if there were not more alike than dislike.

[Croesus]

Jesse,

Well, I've heard historians say everything from "post-Roman Europe" to the "early middle ages." It used to be that the "dark ages" started when Augustilus was deposed by Odovacar (who saw no point in continuing the charade that a Western Roman empire still existed) in 476 CE; but the Western empire had been collapsing since the 4th century, with all variety of "pretender" emporers fighting for power, taking territory, etc. The beginning of the end of Empire came in 406, when Alaric, a Goth king, led a campaign which threatened the Italian peninsula itself; which forced the Romans to pull their forces from the Rhine, which the Vandals took advantage of, by crossing the river, and invading Gaul. Soon thereafter, the Romans abandoned Britain for good, and the Emporer Honorious killed his best general (because he was of German ancestry), abandoned Rome to Alaric, and retreated to defended marshes around Ravenna. In 410 Alaric entered Rome and sacked the city for three days. To me its always read like a really bad sci fi novel. 🙂

[Croesus]

Lazarus,

Well, the Dutch and the English were protestant countries, not Catholic; and the French were oddball Catholics who disliked the HW of their church. I really think you overestimate how influential Rome was - expecially outside elite circles (and it was outside elite circles that technological created, though this is less of science). Trust me I had these same damn arguments in graduate school. 🙂

[Croesus]

HW = HQ

[Croesus]

And for anyone remotely interested in this historical geekery of mine, here are some good books:

White, _Medieval Technology and Social Change_ (1962) - a classic text on this subject.

Claughton, _Silver mining in England and Wales, 1066-1500_.

Gies & Gies, _Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel_ (1994).

Langdon, _Horses, Oxen, and Technical Innovation_ (1986).

Hillsm _Richard Arkwright and Cotton Spinning. Pioneers of Science and Discovery_ (1973).

Ross, _Oracle Bones, Stars and Wheelbarrows : Ancient Chinese Science and Technology_ (1982).

There is also the kickass Internet Medieval Sourcebook @ http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html

[Lazarus]

Croesus: They were Christian countries that spoke variations of latin and were part of Christian/Roman culture for hundreds of years. Protestantism evolved from the Church. My point, of couse, is that in your alternative history of a weenie Romans who were not miltiaristic or greedy, there is a very good chance that the West would be a land of savages.

[Croesus]

Lazarus,

You're going to have to demonstrate why that would be the case. Also, I never claimed that the world without the Romans would be a better place; however, I have demonstrated that they were greedy bastards, and that the Greeks and many of their early conquests didn't need to be civlized, because they already were. 🙂 As to my points about the technological advances during the middle ages, and the like, I stand by my position. 🙂

[Lefty]

Croesus, you and Laz were awesome today. Thanks.

[Croesus]

Lefty,

Yeah, and I wasted another portion of a day on Hit & Run. 🙂

[fyodor]

Laz,

Second point first, of course we shouldn't do nothing, as you straw-man me into saying. But we can overreach, too. And qualitative mistakes matter as much as quantitatve mistakes. My point isn't that power doesn't matter, it's that it's not the be all and end all of security.

First point next, no I never said the point of the military was to enforce our values. But it kinda helps if a military believes in what they're fighting for, no? The U.S. has always had that going for it thus far...scratch that, it's usually had that going for it. Not believing in why we were there was actually a major reason why we lost in Viet Nam. Your Machiavellan vision would create a lot more of that problem. But you think as long as we have the bigger guns, we can do what we want as long as we're willing to use them in an agressive and intimidating way. We people with brains (oh gawd, why am I letting you drag me down to you level?!?) know it's not as simple as that.

[fyodor]

Croesus,

Sorry, that was me on the nuclear threat.

Well, my hat's off to you, and I agree, there was no evidence that Iraq was about to do us harm, nuclear or otherwise. I thought you were saying that no one took that threat seriously, and I would disagree with that. No one seems to be talking about it anymore, that's for sure!

[Stretch Cannonbury]

Funny how the rightwing blogs - Insta, Andrew Sullivan, the Corner - that normally carry on about personal responsibility and government accountability, are now suddenly meek and quiet when it comes to holding the Bush administration accountable for its repeated assertions that Saddam definitely has huge quantities of horrible WMD all over the place.

Accountability for thee, but not for me.

(I say this as a full-throated war supporter who trusted Bush's and Blair's assertions.)

We still need to give this process more time before declaring anybody guilty of deception or manipulation of defense intelligence - but, you know, tick, tock.

If I hear Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) suggest, one more time, that people concerned about the administration's WMD claims are in favor of torture and mass executions, I'm going to scream.

[dude]

So, what do you guys think:

1) Bush lied about WMD being in Iraq.

2) The CIA lied to Bush about WMD being in Iraq. (Because that's what he wanted to hear).

3) The CIA's sources in Iraq lied to them about WMD being in Iraq and/or the CIA overheard Iraqis lying to Saddam about WMD. (Sure boss, we got plenty of the stuff, just like you wanted! Gulp!)

4) Eh, they'll dig up something at some point, if only some anthrax in a dorm fridge.

I was sorta agnostic about the war but not necessarily opposed. I never bought the overt rationale (WMD) for it though. In history wars are often based on rather flimsy pretexts so this wouldn't be the first time.

[Croesus]

Stretch Canonbury,

That's a common logical fallacy known as the "false dilemma."

[Croesus]

dude,

I am reminded of the first Punic War. 🙂

[Lefty]

In '98 when we pulled inspectors out of Iraq, didn't we bomb the hell out of all the suspected WMD sites? Nobody refers to it and maybe I'm wrong, but is it possible that we destroyed all that stuff sometime over the past dozen years?

[Lazarus]

fyodor: Ok, let me revise my argument -- I maintain that in dealing with hostiles, power (or perceived power) is MOST important, far outweighing any other consideration. Hope that clears any rumors that I am simply a brainless thug.

Secondly, the driving values of any (sucessful) military is the defeat of the enemey - NOT any belief that what they are doing is "right." Great soliders are expert killers, not philosophers. We lost Vietnam because of political decisions - it was a military blunder because there was simply no way to "win" in the field and still maintain stability in the region.

[Stretch]

Croesus - Wow, 800 years without soap. Holy cow, that's some kind of stinky.

(Or 40,000 years, depending on how you're counting.)

Lazarus -

You know, I agree with your last reply to me. Let me say that your brand of FP consists of tools that are necessary but not sufficient. It is essential to be able to kick the asses of despicable little tinpot shitbag countries that decide, for whatever reason, that taking on the United States for any reason will benefit them. I agree totally. I also agree that this was the fundamental reason we went into Iraq, took a few hits, hit back harder, and now own the place. In short, "Don't fucking mess with us because we will utterly destroy you." That must be the foundation of an effective FP in my opinion, and is why Europe can never be trusted to maintain peace and order in the world. It's simply too effeminate, if you'll pardon the sexist slur.

But in the long run, we have to move well beyond JUST bombing shit.

The world gave us a big pass on Iraq, and that's because Saddam was a uniquely despicable and charmless bastard with no allies anywhere in the world.

We don't have that option in Iran or NK, which is why we can't afford to burn through all our goodwill bombing the bombable 1% of trashcan countries when we still have to jawbone with Europe and Asia about the remaining 99%.

[Pulcifer Jeremy]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.TRY-PENIS-PILLS.NET

DATE: 12/10/2003 07:09:34
If you're going through hell, keep going.Everybody is a star with the potentiality to shine in the infinite sky of eternity.

[Tsao Sandy]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 68.173.7.113
URL: http://penis-size.drugsexperts.com
DATE: 01/09/2004 05:51:11
With love comes strange currencies.