Compare and Contrast

Andrew Greeley compares the Bush Team to Joseph Goebbels and the Nazis. But his real stretch is boo-hooing about all the liberal, big government stuff that will not happen because money is being spent on Iraq.

Comments

[M.J. Basial]

OK, here's my big theory of Why The Bush Administration Really Knows What It's Doing:

Assume the administration knows the following (I know some of these are debatable, but just for the sake of argument):
1) 15 of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudis
2) Saudi money got used to fund the 9-11 escapade
3) An immediate retaliatory attack on Saudi Arabia would throw the US economy into turmoil and leave the country more damaged than the 9-11 attack did.

So, being smart, the Bush administration does the following:
1) Attacks the base of operations for the 9-11 group (Afghanistan)
2) Finds an oil-rich country with a real jerk in charge that nobody's going to miss when he's gone (Iraq)
3) Makes up some half-assed reason to take over said country, and gets the oil flowing again, giving the US additional oil supply

This results in the ability to attack Saudi Arabia without completely screwing the US economy.

Thoughts? (Yes, I was sober when I came up with this, thanks for asking.)

[Jason Ligon]

Thoreau,

I would disagree with the reason for the Afghanistan attack. That attack was to create the image globally that we will hit 'the people who dun it.' More entrenched dictators who support terrorists won't identify with the Taliban, so it doesn't serve that purpose. Now, the guy right next door with big army of dozens of divisions on the ground, that is a different story. Don't forget that the locals actually thought that Saddam's elite would inflict miliarily significant casualties in the streets of Baghdad. To Syria, we walked through the most powerful local military like they weren't there.

Russ,

Oil doesn't matter directly. Regional fame and the perception of invulnerability matters to make the point correctly. Regional power may be correlated to oil, but that is of secondary importance.

CL,

The 'oil bomb' is a myth. They can't eat sand, so they can't afford not to sell 260 million customers oil.

[CL]

jason -- they might trade 260 cash paying custoemrs for a nuclear device. not saying oil is the only factor, just another to consider.

[thoreau]

So, in this and other Iraq-related threads I'm now hearing that our reasons for going into Iraq include the big goal of reshaping the Middle East. These goals are in addition to the more narrow goals of dealing with possible weapons of mass destruction and freeing the Iraqi people. Specifically:

1) Send a message to Middle Eastern governments that might not have been intimidated by our invasion of Afghanistan.
2) Establish a base in the Middle East so we can fight the terrorists on their own ground (never mind that we had bases in the Persian Gulf area already).
3) Establish an enclave of democracy and freedom in the Middle East for the general purpose of reshaping the whole region into a place less likely to spawn future terrorists.

All laudable goals if they work. But big projects to reshape a region are dubious. We can't even win the domestic war on poverty. Now, don't mock me for making a comparison with domestic issues. The US gov't has embarked on ambitious programs to end poverty, end all bigotry and discrimination, end the scourge of drug addiction, promote strong families, make sure every American has good health care, promote healthier lifestyles, and make sure that every single decision made by a business is "fair."

We've all seen how well it is working out. Most of us here are quite skeptical of our government's (or any government's) competence to solve those problems. Many don't even think the gov't should try to solve those problems even if it was competent to do so. Yet we think that we can use our control of one country in the Middle East to bring about some sort of transformation in the whole region?

After WWI the leaders of the world were determined to end all war, by starting a League of Nations. It didn't work, but after WWII they finally got a UN which was supposed to bring about peace in the world. Many of the people here would say the UN is a threat to US sovereignty (whereas I think it's simply a benign and ineffectual body).

After WWII we set up a system of alliances to contain the threat of Communism, only to see a domino fall 90 miles off the Florida coast, and US forces defeated in Vietnam. We bankrolled the defense of Western Europe, and Western Europe built weak militaries while spending most of its tax money on welfare states (why spend on defense when Uncle Sam is doing it?). Now much of Western Europe is hostile to our foreign policy objectives.

If we can't even get the support of a region that we saved, defended, and forged alliances with, how can we reshape a region where many people are hostile to us? We only have control of one country (Iraq). We have some leverage over Egypt and Jordan, mostly because they are friendly to the country that the rest of the region loathes (Israel). Nothing against Israel, I don't want to get into that can of worms in much detail. But the point is that the conditions leading to our leverage over Egypt and Jordan will not easily translate to the rest of the region.

So, how will our grand re-shaping of the Middle East be so much more successful than the rest of what our gov't has tried to do?

[CL]

thoreau: comparing domestic programs to "solve" social problems and a military strategy as if they are the same is a dubious assumption. saying "all big governmetn programs fail" is just rhetoric.

i have complete faith that military can crush internal opposition and maintain order and central authority. i am actually skeptical of the government trying to build liberal institutions in iraq, in other words libertarianism 101 - only iraqis themselves can build such institutions.

to do so however, requires law and order and keepers of the peace. given that this exists in 50 states and most parts of the world thanks to uncle sam, i think we can say that the US government is able to do this.

but if we do maintain the peace and build a limited governmetn and the iraqis then fail at building liberalism, i think that says a that a lot of libertarinaism is bunk.

clearly it would be proof that limited government does not lead to liberty and some cultures are anti-libertarian (i.e. liberty is not just human nature). i think a lot of libertarians know and fear that, so that is maybe why they don't want to give the iraqis a chance.

(your examples don't really show the US goverment failing at defeating tyranical enemies. as much as those other places claim to hate us, they are not making threats or attacking us.)

[Russ]

CL,

My point is, it doesn't matter who has the oil. The Saudis don't "have us over a barrel". Nobody sells us oil because they like us. They sell it because they like our money. If they don't sell it now, they'll sell it later (and if they're smart, they'll wait for higher prices, since its not costing them anything to store it underground).

Fact is, the amount of oil and related hydrocarbon fuels on the planet is finite. Our future demands for energy are infinite.

Right now, oil and hydrocarbons are the cheapest and most abundant source of energy. When that changes, as it inevitably will, we will adapt and employ other energy sources, or get by with less. Will it be pleasant? No. Will it be accompanied by complaints and unrest? Definitely. Will it matter who's in charge in the middle east? Not in the least, since it won't add a drop to the total global supply.

[Jeff Clothier]

Thoreau -

Your points are well-taken. Big policy initiatives involving domestic "wars" against this or that have not been successful, in no small part because they are not "wars" at all, are extra-Constitutional, tend to be supported only by the party in power and are largely politically motivated. A lot depends on whether you consider our actions in Iraq as policy/politics-driven, defense-driven, or some combination.

I find it difficult to swallow the argument that our Iraq attack was driven by a policy of transformation in the Middle East. Bush began his term with a policy of staying out of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict altogether and has been dragged into it kicking and screaming by the political aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He had no broad-based Middle East strategy to start with at all, and little motivation to develop one.

Bush's motivations, it seems to me, are one-third personal vendetta, one-third goading by the fossilized flappers from his father's administration who have wanted Saddam's head for years, and one-third sincere concern for the national defense. Any "reshaping" that may occur in Middle East politics will be an accidental outcome of dubious merit, and I think even Bush is intelligent enough to understand that.

The War on Terrorism SOUNDS like the "War on Poverty," but is different in kind as well as quality. It is a war of defense, for which a good offense is a strategic necessity. The Iraq attack, misguided and premature as I think it was both in theory and execution, was nevertheless a strike in the correct general direction, and a legitimate option in defense against state-sponsored terrorism.

[thoreau]

OK, I have no problem whatsoever with real wars, and I am not such a skeptic of government that I'll deny the gov't's ability to wage a military war.

But a lot of the justifications being given on this forum indicate a belief that we can do more than just subdue hostile elements in Iraq: That we can bring about a change in the region. And there I have very deep skepticism.

Now, if one wants to defend the war on the grounds of (in no particular order of importance)

1) Bringing down a tyrant
2) Dealing with whatever weapons of mass destruction Iraq might have had
3) Ending whatever terrorist activities Iraq might have sponsored

then fine We can debate the extent of the threat posed by Iraq, but those are well-defined goals. But when people start talking about "Invading Iraq will send a message to other countries and is part of a long-term strategy in the Middle East", well, I have to express deep skepticism. The 3 narrowly defined goals above are very legitimate military goals. But the "message to other countries" and "long term Mideast strategy" is comparable to the "war on poverty": The idea that gov't can change the whole world through some grand program.

[thoreau]

The first sentence should be "I have no problem whatsoever with the notion that gov't is capable of fighting real wars competently."

Obviously I have a problem with real wars, believing they should be fought only when all other options have failed. And I think any reasonable person would agree.

[Jeff Staller]

Regardless of the "real" reasons for the war, if they're not the ones used to sell it, it's bad for democracy. This is true for any policy decision, but especially true for war, which will affect our moeny, some of our lives, and our ability to do business in the world.

[Lefty]

I think, thoreau, that you just summed up the Powell Doctrine - if you must fight, know what your fighting for, take overwhelming force and make sure you've got the political capital to back it up.

But it's a new world now. We can fight when we don't have to, we can have multiple, vague reasons for doing it and we can do it alone.

[CL]

russ -- i think you are discounting that discomfort politically. americans want it all, cheap gas, no wars and no threats of terrorism. that isn't possible, something has to give.

thoreau -- but all the goals you list are valid military goals. you are wrong on your last point: governments can change the world, especially armies. and it isn't always negative changes. they just can't change human nature. (are libertarians just anti-state? i thought they were also pro-liberty? just asking

jeff - but what if there are multiple reasons? can anyone give me a single set of reasons for the civil war? WW2? WW1? Vietnam? (-- without a massive debate!). WMDs were a valid reason, but so was destroying a dangerous regime, setting a policy ("sending a message") etc.

[joe]

"I find it difficult to swallow the argument that our Iraq attack was driven by a policy of transformation in the Middle East. Bush began his term with a policy of staying out of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict altogether and has been dragged into it kicking and screaming by the political aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He had no broad-based Middle East strategy to start with at all, and little motivation to develop one."

Jeff, look at some of the links at http://www.PNAC.org - you will find a finely articulated philosophy of using an Iraq invasion to extend democracy and capitalism (or American hegemony, they get used interchangeably) to the Middle East. You will also find names like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Libby, Bolton...basically, the foreign policy and defense people who were at Shrub's elbow on September 12 when asked "Now what do we do?"

[Jason Ligon]

thoreau,

I think you are under-appreciating the credible threat motive.

Why does no one take the UN seriously?

Despite the length of time the Arab world has disliked the US, why was it not until 2001 that a large scale attack was made on American soil? If you overlook our failures of commitment in Somalia, in response to the Khobar Tower bombing, the Embassy bombing, and the USS Cole, I am arguing that you are making a big mistake.

This is not the position that we need to depose authoritarian asses or that we need to create democracy in Iraq, it is the position that the only thing middle eastern dictators can really appreciate is self preservation. Our security is enhanced if they believe we will chase them down like dogs. Saddam makes a good target for the other reasons you mentioned, though.

[Jeff Clothier]

All -

Bush committed one grave error in opting to prosecute an optional war prematurely, and without support given the lack of clear and immediate provocation. I have no doubt we'd have had to deal with Saddam militarily at some point. As with Manuel Noriega, we'd have had to, at some point, help destroy the monster we essentially created.

We are now placed in the position of second-guessing our leaders' motivations for a war that, while ultimately justifiable, may not have been *just* - at least not in the manner and at the time it was waged.

I am beginning to wonder how much of this debate is an attempt on the part of each one of us as Americans to come to grips with our own interior feelings and motivations for or against this war. Reading the mind of our President is about as productive as trying to read the future in a pail of sand.

I go round and round in my own mind as to what I would have done in Bush's place - sketchy but plausible evidence that Saddam is "up to something," clear violations on Saddam's part of Security Council resolution but no resolve in the UNSC to hold his feet to the fire, the need to defend the US against state-sponsored and religio-political terror, and an election year looming with the bloom off the rose with regard to our military victory in Afghanistan - What would I have done?

I am left where I began - On a razor's edge, and with a 51% inclination toward letting slip the dogs of war.

[Jeff Clothier]

joe -

I am aware of those arguments. There was also a fantastic Frontline program last year on PBS on the Neocons surrounding W., their hatred for Saddam, their ambitions in Iraq, and how they've continued in that philosophy since 1992. I believe it is still available for streaming on the PBS/Frontline website.

Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. are clearly opportunists, granted, which is why I argued that they are at least a third of W.'s motivation. My point, however, is that I don't think President W. himself had any particular ambitions in the Middle East including Iraq. I think he got led by the nose, to tell you the truth, and may be regretting it now. I can't help but hope he is second-guessing himself at least a little bit, as many of us are in our own minds.

[thoreau]

OK, so the argument is that attacking Iraq sends a message to dictators. Indeed, it does send a message that dictators should fear the US.

But as long as we're in the game of figuring out how people will react to this and using people's reactions as justifications for war, we should ponder the possibility that we make even more enemies. Why do terrorists hate us in the first place? I know it's unpopular to ask that question, but as long as people are saying "The world will respond to our military actions" as a justification for those actions, we might as well ask if those actions will elicit unintended reactions from some quarters.

Many say that terrorists hate our freedom. Well, I've never heard a Bin Laden tape on CNN where he says "We demand an end to market economics" or "We will continue our jihad until Western women wear burkas." I have heard him complain about US involvement in the Middle East.

This is in no way a justification for terrorism. But if people here subscribe to the (reasonable) notion that our enemies in the Middle East respond to US foreign policy, I'm going to suggest that some of them will respond negatively to our shows of force.

This is not a suggestion that we shouldn't fight back if attacked. It is, however, a suggestion that we should think a little more carefully about fighting somebody who did not attack the US.

In summary:

Some people here say that Middle Eastern dictators respond to US foreign and military polcies.

I agree. I ponder the possibility that the dictators aren't the only ones responding. Perhaps, just perhaps, other people also respond with anger and swell the ranks of terrorist groups. So we should very carefully pick and choose our fights, and realize that if we use an enemy's (positive) response as a justification (he fears us) we should carefully examine other enemies' (negative) responses (they're even more determined to attack US civilians).

Now, people have offered other justifications besides our enemies responses. Just as I believe that scaring dictators is insufficient cause to attack, I acknowledge that making people mad is insufficient cause to refrain from attacking. But let's not throw the "scare 'am all!" argument around without considering the possibility that we "anger 'em all!"

[Jeff Clothier]

thoreau - "Many say that terrorists hate our freedom. Well, I've never heard a Bin Laden tape on CNN where he says "We demand an end to market economics" or "We will continue our jihad until Western women wear burkas." I have heard him complain about US involvement in the Middle East."

Do you not believe there was a point in attacking the World Trade Center, rather than, say, the UN building?

[Jason Ligon]

thoreau,

There is some fuzziness here about who 'they' are. To subscribe to the credible threat theory, one has to essentially believe that the element who poses the threat to the U.S. already hates us enough to blow up a bunch of civilians who have done nothing to them. I agree with Jeff C. that target selection can't be overlooked.

I will never, as long as I live, forget the images of the Palestinians in the streets, as far as the eye could see in one particular image, celebrating their victory on 9/11. I know this is not a sound basis for foreign policy, but it gives me great pause when I hear about 'the vast majority of peaceful muslims who abhor this violence'.

I think you may get more people signing up, but I think the theory would be that a few extra goat farmers aren't the problem. Broad institutional support and state sponsored training are a problem, as is the unwillingness of 'moderate' governments to crack down on terrorists they know are in their borders. The former concern is addressed by making a show of cutting off the head of the guy who signs the checks, and the latter is addressed by demonstrating that we are willing to do it without having a police investigation (as this has historically been the shield for those who tolerate terrorists, as in "We couldn't find them").

In summary, I don't know what 'even more determined to attack' means. Muslim terrorists wanted to send a message, we responded with a message of our own. Maybe we understand each other better now.

[Curt Warner]

The message Kim Jong Il got when the U.S. invaded Iraq was that this was absolute evidence that the only way to deter American aggression was to possess nuclear weapons.

[Lefty]

The reason they hate us and attack us, sages, is quite simply because we are there. Whether it be the British, the French or the Romans, those guys don't like outsiders in their sandbox and they make it miserable for those who try.

[Emperor Kramden]

I was at about 51-49 for the war, but I don't think we should go to war unless you can convince me to (say) 67-33.

[thoreau]

Jason-

I agree that signing up one or two extra goat farmers to the terrorist cause won't make the difference between ruin and continuing American survival. And going after state sponsors of terrorism against the US is a very good idea. I'm glad we invaded Afghanistan.

And let's talk about the Palestinians dancing in the streets: Why would they? Could it possibly be that they resent US involvement in the Middle East?

The conflict between the US and Muslim militants is not some sort of long-standing grievance like, say, Muslims vs. Hindus in India and Pakistan, or Serbs vs. Bosnians. It seems to be of recent vintage, and it seems to be related to US involvement in the Middle East.

Now, obviously we have to try and bring some semblance of order to Iraq. We helped Hussein in the 80's (Rumsfeld met with him around the time that he used chemical weapons against Iran), and then we created a power vacuum when we overthrew him. So we can't wash our hands of it immediately. But maybe we should limit our involvement to Iraq only, not a greater regional transformation. And maybe our goal should be to leave sooner rather than later.

Jeff- I have no idea why they attacked the WTC instead of the UN building or the Empire State Building or whatever. There are many, many tall buildings with economic and political significance in New York, and lots of people in them. I don't deny that if you're going to attack a country and send a message to your enemy, buildings with economic and political significance make more sense.

Although I don't know NYC geography, I understand that the WTC was next to the water. That suggests there would be few obstacles for an incoming airplane. Then again, maybe there were even riper targets.

To get to a factual rather than political question, does anybody here know whether the WTC was a ripe target in the sense of few obstacles between it and an incoming airplane? Were there other tall buildings in the immediate vicinity? I know that if there's a cluster of tall buildings, the easiest ones to hit will be the ones on the edge. Can anybody shed light on this?

[Jeff Clothier]

I don't think we can accurately attribute motivation to the average terrorist any more than we can read George W. Bush's mind. I am sure motivations vary: Some are true believers. Some are suicidal crazies and adreniline addicts. Some are reacting hideously to legitimate grievance. The majority, I am afraid, whatever their personal motivation, are often simply pawns of power-hungry meglomaniacs like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Paul Wolfowitz.

One of the most interesting takes on the terrorist mentality was a novel by Frank Herbert of "Dune" fame. "The White Plague" deals with a scientist who develops a killer virus in response to his wife's accidental killing by the Irish Republican Army. Just about every flavor of terrorist is dealt with in thoughtful fashion. They all have one thing in common: Their absolute conviction that their hideous acts are justified.

It is useful to remember that nobody is a villain in his or her own eyes.

[joe]

Lefty, "because we're there" is a little complicated. That phrase encompasses money sent to Israel, troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, and bombing runs that killed Iraqi civilians in the 1990s. But is seems to also include McDonalds doing business in Saudi Arabia. I'm afraid that "not being there" would require us to stop doing a lot of things, and using our muscle to stop individuals from doing a lot of things, that we really shouldn't have to stop.

[Jason Ligon]

Curt,

Kim Jong Il may have taken that lesson, but he is fair to middlin' insane. He has now provoked a confrontation he can't win. We won't attack him on the ground, we will park an Ohio class off the coast of Hokkaido and yank the 101st speedbump off of the 38th.

He will back down, because his nuclear capability doesn't really mean much to us directly. As much as he is worried about our conventional forces, he is much more concerned about a nuclear capable Japan.

In any event, he is only screaming because he has to keep his subjects occupied.

[Jason Ligon]

thoreau,

I think that the standard libertarian position that if we leave people alone, they won't hate us, is much more fantasy than reality.

When we talk about our involvement in the middle east, which part are we talking about? That we provide financial support to the lone democracy in the region who have been attacked on how many occasions by their neighbors? I recall, "Drive them into the ocean," as a motto.

The only end game there is for is for Israel to pull back to her original borders and for there to be two states. Let us not forget the circumstances around the original acquisition, and what happened when they pulled back last time. I can't fathom why people seem to believe that all violence stops if Israel pulls back and stops settlements.

Then we go to the rest of the region. The rest of the region could give a flying you-know-what about the Palestinians. What about the portion of the Palestinian lands that are now Jordan? Us becoming neutral in the region would do nothing but remove the thin excuse they happen to be using at the moment.

We are looking at a fundamental clash of culture. Theocracy that is intolerant of individual liberty runs the whole show over there. They hate us because we are us. What they call Westernization is liberty. The wars they wage are against liberty.

[Curt Warner]

Jason: Kim Jong Il may be crazy, but that doesn't make him any less of a threat. And just because a confrontation would be, as we view it, unwinnable for him, doesn't mean it wouldn't be devastating for a whole bunch of other people.

I just wonder about the whole notion of "sending a message" to all the other dictators out there by attacking Iraq. That message may not be received in the way we intended. Or hoped.

[matt]

"I think that the standard libertarian position that if we leave people alone, they won't hate us, is much more fantasy than reality."

So how do you explian countries like Canada or Switzerland? Last time I checked they pretty much minded their own business and so far no Arabs have crashed planes into their country.

"They hate us because we are us."

Gimme a break. The US used to be one of the most revered countries in the world precisely because of our liberty and unwillingness to meddle in foreign entanglements. Our govenrnment has squandered both our liberty and our good standing with much of the world

[Jason Ligon]

Curt,

Is the alternative to give Kim whatever he wants, just so long as he won't develop a nuclear weapon?

My point in saying that he was a nut is that he has played the nuclear card before. We are not in new territory there. The stuff he is spouting is just his most recent bout of delusions that we want to seize the bounty of North Korea.

[Jason Ligon]

Matt,

I don't agree. Switzerland and Canada are safe because they are less than insignificant on the world stage.

We are the target because we are the center of Western culture, and because we have the world's only projectable military power.

Revered by whom? When?

The inevitable litany of US international entanglements during the cold war somehow always leaves out that these were largely counter actions to KGB activity. That would be the War part of the cold war. We didn't just wake up one day and decide to meddle because we were bored.

There are many reasons for the rest of the world disliking us at the moment, but many of these have to do with their frustration that we aren't more 'engaged' in 'global governance'. Namely, they want to have veto power over US activity by way of the clown school they call the UN.

[Kevin Carson]

Jason Ligon,

I also remember a slogan along the lines of "Zionists need to spend less time learning Hebrew and more time killing Arabs" (Jabotinski). I think the way this model democracy (aka apartheid state for its occupied peoples) just happened to come about in the Middle East might have something to do with Palestinian terrorism.

If the Germans had won WWII, I imagine the French resistance today would be strapping dynamite to their chests and blowing up biergartens in German colonies on the Seine.

And if, say, my state of Arkansas were occupied by a foreign enemy, I bet a lot of good ol' boys here would be doing the same thing.

It is misleading to treat the Israeli-Palestinian situation as a symmetrical conflict. One side is a settler regime that was established on other people's land, against their will, within living memory. The other side is an occupied people with tens of thousands who have grown up in refugee camps and don't have a standing army. So this is not a match between equals where Israel can appeal to the Queensbury rules. Not to justify terrorism, but it's a fact of life that asymmetrical warfare is resorted to by peoples who can't win a conventional war.

And South Africa was a "democracy" for Afrikaners--BFD.

[Gene Berkman]

At the risk of stating the obvious, Iraq has not attacked the United States. Therefore, a pre-emptive attack on Iraq constitutes aggression, in both the international law sense, and the libertarian sense.
To justify killing many innocent civilians who may have only supported their government under duress is clearly a moral crime from a libertarian point of view.
And if you object to a prescription drug benefit or public education, as I do, because they are government programs funded by taxes, it is clear that aggressive war is also a government program funded by taxes, with less benefit to the taxpayers.

[Jason Ligon]

Kevin,

Which part of occupation are you talking about? The entire state of Israel? The Golan Heights where the mortars get set up to shell Israeli houses every time the IDF withdraws?

There is a whole lot of he said, she said about whose lands those are by virtue of being there first. It all depends on when your calendar starts. Do we go back to David?

One thing is certain, there were designated Palestinian lands when the nation of Israel was created. We mostly call those Jordan now.

What about the massive immigration of "Palestinians" to the area that Arabic people promoted as a way to prevent a majoritarian Jewish state from arising in the first place.

If we can't agree to fight war 'fairly', then surely both sides should be able to engage in similar tactics. Palestinian militants get to try to kill as many civilians as they can, and the IDF gets to kill as many Palestinian civilians as it can. THAT would be symmetric.

I don't like the settlements, nor the second class citizenship of the palestinians. I recognize that the right wing of the Israeli government is a bunch of loons. That said, there is no moral equivalence between an occupying force that has attempted on several occasions to withdrawal only to be shelled anew, and a bunch of murderers who target civilians who have done nothing to them. I see a different asymmetry. I see one side trying to get help to identify ONLY those who are attacking him and the other making every conscious effort to murder people who don't have anything to do with the occupation. I see the same group of people who cry for the loss of a child who runs into the middle of a fire fight intentionally target school busses. There is definitely some asymmetry going on.

At the end of the day, I have no choice but to take the situation as it is now, and call on Israelis to destroy their settlements and allow a palestinian state to form. There is no justification for the palestinian behavior, though.

[thoreau]

Jason-

Yes, we are more significant on the world stage. That has a good aspect and a bad aspect.

The good aspect is that we are a wealthy nation that does a lot of buying and selling. Despite the leftist complaints about trade, and despite the differences between real free trade and our policies (Kevin can run with that one if you like), engaging in trade around the world is still a pretty good thing.

If it were just our economic significance that they resented, then guys named Tam Nguyen would be blowing up Nike factories, guys named Juan Valdez would be blowing up coffee processing plants, and Philipinos would be protesting in Silicon Valley. (3 groups that are supposedly exploited by the shoe, coffee, and semiconductor industries respectively.) But mostly it's spoiled white kids who protest our economic policies. I'm not here to defend every economic practice of the US gov't or US corporations, but I don't see too many Africans flying airplanes into pharmaceutical factories to protest patents on AIDS drugs. So our economic policies can't explain why it's mostly the Middle East that gets upset to the point of violence. Economically we're involved everywhere, not just the Middle East.

We're also a big player militarily. Now, let's be careful here. We're involved in Europe, but we haven't propped up too many tyrants in Europe lately. The Europeans are somewhat ungrateful for our protection, but we haven't exactly been heavy-handed. And compared to large parts of the world those governments are pretty liberal so they don't resent us for propping up dictators (in the sense of classic liberal, not leftist, although they often are leftist). Ditto in Japan.

On the other hand, in the Middle East our interventions have been much less savory. We've support some pretty brutal regimes. They resent our unconditional support of Israel.

Now, the big hole in my theory that unsavory military and diplomatic practices drive resentment is that we've fucked with Latin America like it was a drunken sorority girl at a frat initiation. Yet they haven't sponsored much terrorism against us.

Perhaps it's a combination of cultural factors and military interventions that drive Middle Eastern terrorism. It certainly isn't solely our economic prominence, or the whole world would be looking to take down the biggest player on the block.

[Jason Ligon]

Gene,

No question about it, any act of war will conflict with libertarian sensibilities to the extent it harms the innocent. Problem is, what if the other side doesn't care?

Also, if I witness a thug attack someone I don't know, am I morally justified in attacking him? We ain't talking about a boyscout here, and you have to look at when aggression begins. Kuwait, maybe?

[Jason Ligon]

Whoo, this one is lively ...

[Andrew Lynch]

Jason Ligon appears so excited about smacking down dictators that he forgets that that is not our job, nor should it be.

I don't particularly care for dictator hunters and consider them dangerous. Does that mean I get to smack them down just cuz?

[Jason Ligon]

Andrew,

Not smacking down dictators in general. I do have the sense that dictators are afforded too much leniency by my libertarian bretheren, but I have not yet reached the point where I'm ready to smack down every one I can find.

That said, if the smacking down of a dictator is done in such a way as to allow a local populace some degree of self determination whilst re-establishing the credibility of the U.S. defensive will, I'm not necessarily opposed.

To have an adequate comparison, how bad would you feel about smacking me down if you knew I were keeping slaves in my basement AND you thought that you could prevent harm to yourself by doing so AND you knew I was playing hanky panky with the conditions of my parole?

Is the enemy of liberty your enemy, or is it more libertarian to mind your own business? I struggle with that question, despite the hawkishness I am showing on this topic.

We can't pretend that dictators are real governments. They are just assholes with enough AK 47s to oppress everyone else.

[Gene Berkman]

Jason,

Saddam's aggression began before Kuwait. He invaded Iran in 1980. Of course, the US government was mad at Iran over the hostage crisis, and from 1983 to 1989 our government supplied military equipment and shared intelligence with Hussein's government.
We were still supplying military aid to Iraq when Hussein's forces gassed Halabja.
Kuwait & Saudi Arabia also funded Hussein at the time, so they did not seem to object to his aggressive behavior.
Rightly or wrongly, a US led international coalition pushed Hussein's forces out of Kuwait in 1991, and Iraq has not invaded other countries since then.
No libertarian can oppose the idea of Hussein & his Ba'ath Party being ejected from power, or Bush and his Republican Party being ejected from power. But war is a crude instrument, and thousands of those Iraqis we have supposedly liberated have died as a result of US military action.
And don't you think it is just a bit hypocritical for Bush to claim a threat from Iraq's arsenal of WMDs - not found yet - and deal with it by attacking that country with 20,000 precision guided weapons and 2000 tomahawk cruise missiles, and on several occasions to threaten the use of nuclear weapons?

[Andrew Lynch]

Jason,

Not smacking down dictators in general. I do have the sense that dictators are afforded too much leniency by my libertarian bretheren, but I have not yet reached the point where I'm ready to smack down every one I can find.

The libertarian brethren's leniency stems not from an isolationist softness or obtuseness (my words, not yours, just to be clear), but from an apparent absence of policy around the management, if you will, of dictatorships that pose a threat to U.S. national security. You say, "in general," but only your elected officials will decide which dictators are worth deposing, based on factors that may have nothing to do with projecting democracy on scorched peoples, empowering them like we're Dr. Phil. Almost to a man, the people of Iraq were in better shape than the people of N. Korea. I can read until I'm blue in the face about why we socked Iraq, but are speaking softly with N. Korea, and speculate about imminent threats, and the levels of poverty and oppression and torture, and the difference between the political theaters of these two countries, and the nuke-ular difference. And then turn to Syria, Iran, a few African nations, Cuba, et. al., and just not get what the plan is. Do you know what the plan is?

That said, if the smacking down of a dictator is done in such a way as to allow a local populace some degree of self determination whilst re-establishing the credibility of the U.S. defensive will, I'm not necessarily opposed.

I'm anti-interventionist, pro-retaliation, pro-Article 5, anti-pre-emption, and isolationist only so far as it relates to those pros and antis. All I think libertarians want -- at least this one -- is a policy that STARTS with our core zeal for individual liberties, not one that ENDS with it. Otherwise, we can strike out at ANYONE, at ANY time, in the name of democracy and liberty. OK, Andrew, but you can't convince crazy power whores to respect the rights of their people. Agreed. So, what's the plan? More important than the plan, what's the VISION? If you tell me that American is going to become a nation that seeks out and destroys the opponents of liberty, and you tell me why, and how it's going to be hard, take centuries, and kill a lot of people, I'll listen because that is a compelling difficult thing to think about. RE: Iraq, no one in Washington asked us (Americans, not libertarians) what we thought about the plan, and nobody articulated anything close to a vision.

To have an adequate comparison, how bad would you feel about smacking me down if you knew I were keeping slaves in my basement AND you thought that you could prevent harm to yourself by doing so AND you knew I was playing hanky panky with the conditions of my parole?

I would feel great about smacking you down. I'd feel great about kicking you a dozen times, too. But is that my job? My role? Do I have that authority? And when I learn days after you're smacked down that your neighbor is a child-smut peddler who shoots snuff films over weekends and beats his wife before a ticket-buying audience, then what? I have two choices. I can turn into Batman and elect to brook NO heinous crimes one human commits against the next, or I can be a selective superhero, pouncing on the Joker while the Penguin runs amok.

Is the enemy of liberty your enemy, or is it more libertarian to mind your own business? I struggle with that question, despite the hawkishness I am showing on this topic.

I struggle with it, too. The policies of my government do nothing to ease the pain.

[Jason Ligon]

What a kook.

This may be my hawkishness coming out, but I think that everyone in the press, including all of the screaming lefties out there, know exactly why we went to Iraq, and they also know why Bush can't say the real reason.

We went to Iraq to smack down one dictator among many so that the rest would take notice. We went to convince the jihadists and the tyrants that fund them that we do, in fact still have claws, and that they should consider our actions in WWII as more representative of what we do when attacked than our actions vis a vis the Khobar Towers.

This message can be effectively delivered to dictators, because they are in and of themselves, the entire government. If we convince that part of the world that you, Mr. Hussein, will be killed on sight, the others may learn as well.

It is perfectly obvious why we couldn't either go on national television or in front of the UN and make that case. We can now debate whether that was an effective or moral policy, but lets not pretend that we all thought this was about WMD.

[Phill]

I dont like the war at all, but if the government should spend any money at all on anything, it should be on the military. Defense is the first priority of government.

[joe]

He used on cheap, throwaway Goebells line to open the first 'graph and get the reader's attention, then never went back to the subject. Based on the headline, I expected to actually see comparisons between the administration and the people, policies, or beliefs of the NSDAP.

You're getting a might twitchy with the Goodwin's Law.

[will]

omg! he just might be right!

[Concerned Citizen]

To build on Jason's direct point, the relationships between rogue states and terror groups are Venn diagrams...it's unacceptable to let the circles overlap in the current world because cooperation means access to resources...remember the pre-war smart money didn't have Saddam building a weapon, but rather purchasing one sub rosa with French oil revenue from a N. Korea or an ex-USSR province.

Greeley holds out the possibility that the War on Terror may have been entirely caused by "The conflict in Palestine." Has he been reading a Palestinian Authority history textbook?

[Jason Ligon]

I understand all of those sentiments, Andrew, but my general feeling is that by smacking down the Joker, we may keep the Penguin in line. Even if not, better to have one villain than two.

[Lefty]

The Goebbels reference just reiterated a widely known quote about big lies that pundits here and elsewhere have used many times to describe this administration's ever shifting reasons for invading Iraq.

The only reference I saw in the article to "liberal, big government stuff" was one pass at the prescription drug bill (probably a dead duck now that the real cost of this adventure is sinking in). That reference was buried in a discussion of who's making any sacrifice for this supposedly vital strike to the heart of terrorism.

Jeff ignored the theme of the article; making war on a metaphor is not really war. I think he's a little twitchy, too.

[JAT]

Portly:

I count references to needing to pay for college and child care as obvious shoutouts to a European model of entitlements. Right? [starboard]

Out.

[Anonymous]

who is this "one" the jackass keeps referring to at the end? If there's one sign of bad writing, it's when the subject of your sentence is named "one"

[thoreau]

Jason-

I thought the invasion of Afghanistan was to show what happens when governments support terrorist attacks against the US. Seen in that context, the invasion of Iraq would be unnecessary since the message was already sent, and there is still no reason to believe that the Iraqi government had anything to do with 9/11.

[Anonymous]

called amplification

the proof is any behavioral change in the listener

syria is a good example

[CL]

iraq supported terrorism

the fallacy/fantasy that terrorism can change policy or bring utopia is responsible for 9-11, along with an enviroment that trains terrorists

destroying that fallacy (along with its believers and the training facilities) means destroying states that support it

iraq happend to be such a state

[joe]

Iraqi mothers didn't raise their children so their blood could be used to spell out a message to Osama.

[Russ]

"We went to Iraq to smack down one dictator among many so that the rest would take notice"
Only partly true.

You neglect to mention that the dictator happened to be in control of shitloads of oil.

Message to dictators who don't control shitloads of oil: "Go about your business, we don't care about you."

[CL]

russ -- it was also to those with shitloads of oil (our "buddies" the sauds). unless your car runs off the sun you know they had us by the balls.

joe -- i am sure they aslo didn't raise their children to be murdered by a genocidal maniac.

[kevrob]

Remember folks:

Smacking down the Joker may deter the Penguin, but jailing Cobblepot means NOTHING to The Clown Prince of Crime. He's nuts!

(Read Hussein=Penguin, Kim=Joker)

Much of this realpolitik is useless unless one assumes those holding the levers of state control are rational. That isn't always the case.

I just hope Osama doesn't have access to a Lazarus Pit.

Kevin

[Lefty]

I just saw a little article showing Clinton kissing babies amidst an admiring throng on Bill Clinton Boulevard in Kosovo. "There is a holiday in Kosovo today because Clinton is here," said local journalist Blerta Foniqi, 20, as she waited for him to arrive. "He?s one of Kosovo?s most loved people," said her colleague.

Daddy Bush gets the same treatment in Kuwait when he visits. Somehow, I can't quite envision a similar picture of W three years from now in Baghdad.

[Jaybird]

"I would feel great about smacking you down. I'd feel great about kicking you a dozen times, too. But is that my job? My role? Do I have that authority?"

Does this translate to "Let the government take care of it"?

[spezialk]

One of the common arguments on this post surrounding the legitimacy of attacking Iraq seems to be:

Saddam is bad, but...we don't attack N. Korea (Iran, Syria, etc.)
True. However, this is nothing more than an argument for inaction when faced with a government that is both a threat other countries as well as a threat to its own people. Yes, we can not catch all criminals, we may have to let Penguin go for now, but it is better to put one Joker away.

[Smith Gavin]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://photo.online-photo-print.com
DATE: 01/20/2004 12:26:02
The superior man loves his soul, the inferior man loves his property.