Doughy Pundits Will Take On All Comers

New at Reason: Richard Perle and David Frum want to go to war with all evildoers. Whoa, says Jeff Taylor.

Comments

[Jean Bart]

It seems strange that they would mock deterrance, given its successful record against the USSR. In the 1950s, many pundits argued that we "take out" the USSR first. In the long run, deterrance worked better as the cancer in the USSR worked its way through the system. BTW, P-F need to read some Sun Tzu. 🙂

[Les]

The title of the book makes me wonder if they're either completely out of touch with reality or merely snake-oil salesmen. Knowing Perle, it's probably the latter.

[joe]

"Further, Record notes that the Bush administration thus far has conflated threats from various sources into one great meta-threat, oblivious to opportunities and tactics which might cleave the whole jumble of bad actors in coherent, deterable, and defeatable chunks."

And as the Cold War demonstrated, such conflations can turn into self-fufilling prophecies, leaving us in greater danger.

[ed]

JP,

Deterrence did work, eventually, after 70-odd years. In the interim millions died, looking in vain to the West for some glimmer of hope that never came.

Does an adult have a moral obligation to stop a child-beating he witnesses, even if the child is being beaten by his own father? The same goes for a country tyrannized by a monstrous dictatorship. We have the moral right - not duty - to intercede.

[peacnik]

"I hereby propose that we refrain from declaring war on poverty, starvation, racism, injustice and air pollution."

here here -- the government only makes things worse in these areas -- we need private sector peace and freedom to solve these problems not government 'war'

[MB]

Tom from Texas apparently thinks he's on The New Republic website.

[Jean Bart]

ed,

(a) The Cold War did not take seventy years; if one is being generous it lasted from 1945-1990.

(b) And are you saying that an attack on China and Soviet Union would not have led to millions of deaths (billions?)? Especially after the USSR became a nuclear power?

(c) The fact is that a glimmer of hope did come; indeed, you will find that it was the constant presence of a prosperous West, along with internal factors, that gave hope to millions of people behind the "Iron Curtain."

[joe]

ed, at what point during the 70 years would the beginning of another world war have made the situation better? When we had our hands full occupying Germany, or after the Soviets had a nuclear arsenal?

[Jean Bart]

ed,

BTW, from whence does this "right" derive?

[Warren]

Is it still considered disingenuous hyperbole to throw the term Nazis around when speaking of these guys?

Actualy they seem to have more in common with the Ayatollah than Hitler.

[dragoon]

Calpundit had an interesting article on Richard Perle's faulty grasp on the reality of 80s' era Afghanistan. He had an excerpt from "Charlie Wilson's War" where Perle consistently ignored advice from CIA experts and refused to acknowledge the truth of the situation. So Les, he might just be that out of touch with the real world.

[Jason Ligon]

Defeating Evil Everwhere is obviously a flawed position, but I am not so certain about Defeating the Evil You Can in Public, Where all the Other Evil Can See You.

The point is that Saddam and Islamic terrorists have at least one thing in common. They hate us. Saddam's military can be deterred from overt action, true. He can be 'contained' in that sense. What would be really groovy is to be able to strike at the US through an agent that wears no national uniform. Does anyone really think that if a nuclear device exploded in the US that we would have any better links to where it came from? What would be the acceptable solution? Shrug and say, "Well these guys weren't wearing uniforms, so I guess we have to say they got what they deserved and call the case closed."

We aren't dealing with sovereign nations in any modern sense. We are dealing with dictators. Deterrence means making these guys believe that they personally will have bombs falling on their heads if we even suspect there is a connection. It means saying that "I don't have to tell you where my weapons are!" is not an acceptable answer. Mostly, it means making a grisly display for all of the dicatorial neighbors to see. Message: You had better think long and hard about funneling resources to agents who intend to harm US citizens. The UN won't save you. The political games played by Arafat won't save you.

Self defence means many things to many people. Sometimes it means waiting until the bully hits you, but if the bully is going after someone else, he is fair game as well. If it serves your purposes to make a statement, the bully's nose is a great place to do so.

[Hope]

REASON: Free minds, free markets, friends of oppression everywhere

[Davis]

Taylor is the truth and Cavanaugh is his prophet. Pardon me, but I'll take Perle and Frum over Cavanaugh logrolling Taylor any day.

[joe]

So what impressed you most about Perle, Davis, his flagrantly wrong, ideologically blinkered intelligence analysis in the 70s, or his flagrantly wrong, ideologically blinkered intelligence analysis in the 00s?

[Tom from Texas]

Interesting. S was my earlier post pulled because I used the "N" word? So much for free minds and free markets. What children.

[Andrew]

I can't say about all Libertarian Doves, but I believe it to be true of many of them, that it is not so much that they don't believe that the War on Terror could succeed, but that they believe that if it did succeed they would find the process somehow...distasteful.

It shocks their sensibilities, mostly because they inherit uncritically some rather mildewed notions of national sovreignty and self-determination that made more sense in 19th Century Western Europe than they do in the 21st Century non-Western world.

Italy got a King, instead of a republic (Greece too) but no one believed Italy to be less independent for all that. If Hungary had somehow detached itself from the Austrian Empire before WW I, and wound up with an unchecked monarchy, still everyone would have exclaimed "Hungary is free!". Same with Poland. Every state created by Versailles, save Finland and Czechoslovakia wound up under strongmen, but they were still considered nations.

Using that model, Iraq (or Haiti) is an independent country, because the gangster Hussein was born and raised in her dysfunctional culture. How about a survey.

A) Did Iraqis enjoy more self-determination in January 2003?

B) In December 2003?

C) No change?

[Citizen]

Tim, webmaster, whoever,

'Sup with deleting Tom from Texas' post?

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

I did not support the invasion because I am a "dove." A former marine, I have no problem with war when it is done for the proper reasons. BTW, your survey leaves out (D) Don't Know. Its deeply flawed in other words.

[D'uh]

DON'T KNOW? Jean Bart doesn't know if Iraqis are freer today than under Saddam Hussein? Better check the prescription on your glasses.

[Jean Bart]

D'uh,

Actually, I didn't say I didn't know; I said he left out that as an answer. Properly conducted surveys always include that answer.

[fyodor]

I'd say the answer is E) that's up to them to decide.

Joe, don't be defensive cause I'm on your side on this one, but I'm curious: to what specifically are you referring when you say, "And as the Cold War demonstrated, such conflations can turn into self-fufilling prophecies, leaving us in greater danger"?

[thoreau]

Well, at some point the discussion drifted to Iraqi self-determination. Somebody suggested that the Iraqis have more self-determination now than they did before. Then somebody else took issue.

It is true that tThe Iraqis are freer in their personal lives than they were before, but they haven't yet been allowed to take up the reins of representative government and decide the course of their nation for themselves. So by one crucial measure they have no more self-determination than before.

This isn't to suggest the fall of Saddam was a bad thing, but rather to point out that some people in this thread may be talking about different things. Personal freedom for individuals is not quite the same as self-determination for a group of people. This could be a case of people arguing different points.

[ed]

History is full of missed opportunities. Intervention does not necessarily mean world war or other apocalyptic scenarios noted above.

Nor does "libertarianism" denote pacifism or isolationism.

Much of the world looks to the West, especially the U.S., for moral leadership. That we fail them so often, and they so often bite the hand that feeds them, doesn't negate the greater priciples involved.

[Andrew]

JB

If you WANT to answer "Don't Know", you can! I rather expect anyone who cares to respond at all would wish to elaborate at length.

[joe]

fy, examples abound. Central American agricultural laborers (most of the population) who agitated against the feudal remnant of colonialism that was their nation's economic system. The Soviets were all over that action, linking their struggle to Marxist-Lenninist theory. Our democratic republican ideals and practices are just as appropriate a path of reform as what the Soviets were offering, but because the movement was about the poor masses vs. a rich oligarchy, we decided that it was primarily an expression of the Red Crusade, sided with the landowners, and let the Soviets explain convincingly that their way was the only path of revolution against oppression. The end result being, a movement which could have been about modernization and democracy became exactly the communist uprising we proclaimed it to be. Those people would have been looking to American as a model, if we weren't spending so much time and money having them hideously murdered.

[Jon H]

The scariest thing about Perle & Frum's book is what is suggested by the cover.

It looks like part of the Left Behind series.

Which suggests they're trying, in part, to reach that demographic, the people who've been reading 11 volumes (plus) in which the antichrist rises in Baghdad, and the UN is in league with him.

And who probably are inclined to believe that the Rapture is comin' soon, so it really doesn't matter what happens to the planet.

Some may even buy into the idea that increasing warfare and strife, especially in the Middle East, are a good thing, and likely to speed up the process.

[Jean Bart]

ed,

So you are a paternalist?

[Dan]

It seems strange that they would mock deterrance, given its successful record against the USSR.

We used deterrance because we had no survivable alternative to it at the time. That doesn't mean deterrance was "successful".

Under "deterrance", Communism spread to dozens of other countries; over a billion people remain under Communist rule today, hundreds of millions more are impoverished from previous Communist rule, and trillions of dollars of damage was done to the world's economy. Over a hundred million people died while we were "deterring" people like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao -- plus, of course, we got to live with the constant threat of global nuclear annihilation if the Mutually Assured Destruction balance broke down.

Oh, and then there's the fact that most of the problems and threats the United States faces today or has faced in the recent past -- North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Syria, and Saudi Arabia -- were either directly caused by Soviet actions, or caused by actions we took in deterring the USSR. So inasmuch as 9/11 cannot be called a "success", I'd have to say deterrance of the USSR was less than "successful".

On a more Eurocentric note, America's status as sole military "Hyperpower" -- considered a distinctly bad thing by the majority of the world's population -- is a direct result of the buildup we had to undertake as part of our campaign of anti-Soviet deterrance. Had there been no Communist threat, the United States would have demilitarized again and reverted to isolationism after World War II.

I'm not sure if we should take military action against nations like Saudi Arabia and Syria or not. But I do know that, had the USSR of the 1920s been as easy to defeat as Saudi Arabia would be today, we most definitely should have destroyed it, then and there, with military force.

[Steve in CO]

John H,

My in-laws by that apocolyptic tripe hook, line, and sinker. They even send me one of the Left Behind books. I read it over a weekend, and it felt like I was prying into the personal diary of a mad man. Then I did the good Nazi thing and tossed it into my fireplace; it burned rather nicely. I too worry about the nihlistic Christian cultists among us, and unfortunately, in the White House.

[Jean Bart]

Dan,

"Under "deterrance", Communism spread to dozens of other countries..."

Dozens? Ahh, what the hell? At most, there have around a dozen communist nations.

"...over a billion people remain under Communist rule today..."

Most of them live in one country; China. And China has been rejecting communism for nearly two decades. Indeed, it is probably incorrect to claim that China is a communist nation.

"...hundreds of millions more are impoverished from previous Communist rule, and trillions of dollars of damage was done to the world's economy."

In most of the countries where Communism took hold, impoverishment was the rule to begin with. There is no guarantee sans Communism that said impoverishment wouldn't have continued.

"Over a hundred million people died while we were 'deterring' people like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao -- plus, of course, we got to live with the constant threat of global nuclear annihilation if the Mutually Assured Destruction balance broke down."

Deterrance as a policy only really came into being after WWII; so Lenin was not involved in that for the most part. Indeed, prior to WWII the USSR was at best a regional power, and indeed not much of a threat to anyone very much beyond its borders. And there is no guarantee sans Communism that similar genocides wouldn't have occurred; both Rawanda and Indonesia committed genocidal acts, yet they were not communist states.

"Oh, and then there's the fact that most of the problems and threats the United States faces today or has faced in the recent past -- North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Syria, and Saudi Arabia -- were either directly caused by Soviet actions, or caused by actions we took in deterring the USSR. So inasmuch as 9/11 cannot be called a 'success,' I'd have to say deterrance of the USSR was less than 'successful.'"

The problems in the middle east are just as tied to French and British imperialism than they are to the Soviets and the U.S. clashing in those areas.

"Had there been no Communist threat, the United States would have demilitarized again and reverted to isolationism after World War II."

Sure. 🙂

"But I do know that, had the USSR of the 1920s been as easy to defeat as Saudi Arabia would be today, we most definitely should have destroyed it, then and there, with military force."

Hmm, the US, Britain and France did attack the USSR in the 1920s; indeed, it was treating the USSR with such a cold shoulder in the 1930s that ultimately screwed the UK and France.

Essentially your complaint is that containment came with a price; boo hoo.

[Jean Bart]

Dan,

BTW, I am not entirely convinced that the U.S. is a "hyperpower." The term suggests that there are no limits to what the U.S. can do; I think Iraq has demonstrated there are indeed limits and that the U.S. is far weaker than the hyperbole from right and left wish to acknowledge.

[Will]

Jean Bart, many of those limits on US power are self-imposed. Because we're not imperialist, we regularly pull our punches. What we attempted in Iraq was the downfall of a dictator while killing as few of his subjects as possible. There's no question the US, at present, is the world's only superpower--a fact anyone living in a free country should be grateful for.

Joe, we were right to oppose the communism of so-called workers movements in Central America. More people die because of far left ideas in Central America (and Cuba) than any other political cause.

[ed]

JB,

I don't know your definition of "paternalist."
I think a free people - either individually or with the resources of the state - has a right, but not a duty or obligation, to liquidate a bully or dictator or tyrant or mass murderer, so long as it is in their (and their benefactor's) best interests. And I will anticipate the inevitable comparisons to "Hitler's best interests" and "Stalin's best interests" by giving contributors to this space the benefit of the doubt that they understand the difference between Soviet Russia and the United States.

[Jean Bart]

Will,

"Jean Bart, many of those limits on US power are self-imposed. Because we're not imperialist, we regularly pull our punches. "

You keep telling yourself that.

"There's no question the US, at present, is the world's only superpower--a fact anyone living in a free country should be grateful for."

Why? My freedom as a Frenchman is not due to the U.S., even if we were to count WWII. Indeed, I owe far more to the Russians, if anyone, than the U.S. I owe my freedom to my fellow citizens and myself who have decided to maintain a viable and free Republic. And this to be frank true of any and all free nations. Your account is as arrogant as a Frenchmen saying that America owes its freedom to Lafayette and de Grasse's fleet. America has freedom because Americans desire this, and no amount of American military force could stop Iraq or any other country from remaining a despotic state if that is what was desired. Haiti is a perfect example of this - America has invaded that country and run it on several occassions for long periods of time and yet it remains a shithole.

ed,

You are definately a paternalist.

[Jean Bart]

ed,

BTW, you avoided my query - from whence does this so-called "right" derive?

And I wouldn't compare it to say the Soviets or Hitler, I would compare it to British and French imperialism, and all the nightmares that led to (the 19th century genocide as it were). Take for example British involvement in China; it led to a murderous cycle of violence that lasted until the today.

[Phil]

Essentially your complaint is that containment came with a price; boo hoo.

No price is too high for the one that does not have to bear it.

[sam]

"But I do know that, had the USSR of the 1920s been as easy to defeat as Saudi Arabia would be today, we most definitely should have destroyed it, then and there, with military force."

Not to stray to far from the topic, but the unintended consequence of this suggested action could be everyone speaking German right now while the decendents of a former business associate of Hitler, one Prescott Bush, controlling the US. Ooops! Did I just say that? 😉

In all seriousness, the allies won WWII, and a nuclear WWIII never took place. At least in that part, containment was successful.

[ed]

JB

I didn't avoid your question. My first responsibility is to my employer during those hours in which we voluntarily exchange his cash for my efficacy. Now that I'm home, and in a very condensed form:

By "rights" I mean those moral principles, derived from man's very nature, which protect his freedom of action and ensure protection of his property. By "property" I mean the tangible results of the free and uncoerced use of his mind. All "rights" derive from property rights as defined above. As defined, only man has "rights." Animals do not have rights, volition, property. As uniquely rational, volitional creatures, man must act according to his nature, or suffer the consequences.

I cannot adequately define "man's rights" in one paragraph or even twenty, but I suspect, from your previous posts, that you have a pretty good grasp of the concept.

[Dan]

Dozens? Ahh, what the hell? At most, there have around a dozen communist nations.

USSR
Poland
Czechoslovakia
Hungary
Yugoslavia
East Germany
China
Laos
Vietnam
North Korea
Afghanistan
Cambodia
Bulgaria
Nicaragua
Cuba
Albania
Romania
Mongolia
Ethiopia
Mozambique
Madagascar
Benin
Congo

That's twenty-three; I probably missed a few, too. In addition, Guatemala and Chile were briefly Communist nations prior to US-backed coups. However, this is all a moot point, since I said "spread to", not "successfully took over". For example, even though they never successfully conquered the nation, communists have been terrorizing Peru for decades. Turkey, Greece, and Bolivia also had very close calls. And, of course, Soviet-backed communist terrorist groups caused a lot of trouble in West Germany, Italy, Japan, and other nations; among their activities were the assassination of prominent politicians. Finally, it gained significant political power in prominent nations such as France (yes, I know it's waned recently) and India.

So it was a little bit more than "a dozen nations at most", thanks very much. 🙂

Most of them live in one country; China. And China has been rejecting communism for nearly two decades

What difference does it make how many nations they live in? This isn't the United Nations, this is the real world. What matters is the number of people. Certainly China has largely rejected many core Communist ideology, but it has retained the features of communism: totalitarianism, disregard for human rights, government-sanctioned mass murder, and complete state authority over all property, including the people themselves.

Bone cancer ravages a human body, leaving the host crippled and in pain. If the cancer withdraws, but the victim remains crippled and in pain, do we cease to blame the cancer, or worry about other potential cancer victims? Do we say "oh, he's not a cancer victim, he's just a cripple"?

In most of the countries where Communism took hold, impoverishment was the rule to begin with.

In most of the countries where Communism didn't take hold, impoverishment was also the rule to begin with. For example, Cuba was wealthier than Italy -- after fifty years of Communism, Cuba is crippled by poverty and Italy is one of the wealthier nations in the world. North and South Korea are perhaps the single best example -- North Korea used to be the rich, industrialized half of the country. Now it's starving, while South Korea is doing very well indeed.

And there is no guarantee sans Communism that similar genocides wouldn't have occurred

What kind of a stupid motherfucker defends genocide with the statement "well, people might have died anyway"? Yeah, I suppose it's *possible* that a bunch of non-Communist nations might have spontaneously decided to butcher a hundred million of their own citizens during the twentieth century. But if it's all the same to you, I'd like to blame the people who actually did the killing.

Can you imagine someone defending Hitler by saying "well if he hadn't killed the Jews, someone else might have just killed millions of people someplace else"? Insane.

"I do know that, had the USSR of the 1920s been as easy to defeat as Saudi Arabia would be today, we most definitely should have destroyed it, then and there, with military force."

Hmm, the US, Britain and France did attack the USSR in the 1920s

... which is why I said "if it had been as easy to defeat as Saudi Arabia would be". As history has repeatedly demonstrated, Russia has never been an easy country to conquer.

[Jason Ligon]

JB

I don't know about hyperpower either, except by comparison. The US has the only projectable military on the planet. I've often wondered how much the rest of the world would be spending on military goodies if we weren't covering it for them.

There is no containment without that kind of credible threat. Relations are at the most basic level about the power to harm. For good or ill, we are the only folks who have that kind of credibility at the moment.

[Dan]

My freedom as a Frenchman is not due to the U.S., even if we were to count WWII. Indeed, I owe far more to the Russians, if anyone, than the U.S.

You owe your freedom to both the USSR and the United States. Had *either* nation made peace with Germany prior to the liberation of France, you would have grown up in a totalitarian state. The only question would be whether it was a German totalitarian state or a Soviet totalitarian state. France is free because the USSR did NOT "liberate" it.

I mean, get serious. You can certainy *try* claiming that Joe Stalin would have single-handedly pimp-slapped Hitler and then set up a new, free and open democracy in the newly-liberated France. You just can't expect anyone who's ever cracked open a history book to take you seriously.

[Jason Ligon]

joe:

Methinks you gloss over the role of the KGB in making trouble. The acts the CIA took during the time were often reprehensible, but were not performed in a vacuum.

I don't know that I buy that well, golly if we had just remained at home, the KGB wouldn't have installed their people all over the South American continent. It seems a bit too simple of a story.

[Fungal Delight]

CRS has a theory that P-F are criticising Bush in Straussian plain-view, in effect, suggesting that Neocons may change their allegiance to Democrats, if Republicans do not get sufficiently tuff on terra.

[Dan]

Not to stray to far from the topic, but the unintended consequence of [conquering the USSR in the 1920s] could be everyone speaking German right now

Don't you think Russia might have put up MORE of a fight against the Nazis if Lenin and Stalin hadn't obliterated its economy and executed most of its competent military officers?

For that matter, would a non-Communist Russia have entered into the Nazi-Soviet pact that made it possible for Germany to invade Poland?

[Jack]

Where "P-F", and indeed pretty much all neocons and "national greatness" conservatives, fall down, is that they tend to assume Russia and China will just happily sit on their hands forever while the US rampages about. Russia still has a nuclear arsenal capable of turning the Lower 48 into a slab of molten glass, and while China's arsenal is smaller, from what I've read it is sufficient to render a good chunk of the US unihabitable. The US has only romped as far as it has because the leaderships of Russia and China have decided that it is advantageous for them at this time. At some point (I would predict if the US tries to attack North Korea), that calculation will change, then "Welcome back deterrence!".

[Jean Bart]

ed,

In other words, you are not going to answer my query.

Dan,

Nicaragua (Never Communist)

None of the Africa states you were claimed were Communist were ever Communist either; at best they were aligned with the USSR.

"In addition, Guatemala and Chile were briefly Communist nations prior to US-backed coups."

No they were not; Gautemala nor Chile were ever communist states. And to be frank, the nightmares for the people of those countries that ensued after those U.S. actions hardly bodes well for your argument.

"Finally, it gained significant political power in prominent nations such as France (yes, I know it's waned recently) and India."

The communist party never held a majority, much a large minority, of seats in the French Parliament, much less held the Presidency. This bit of a canard is oh so typical. And India was never a communist, nor did the communists ever control their Parliament, etc.

"What difference does it make how many nations they live in? This isn't the United Nations, this is the real world. What matters is the number of people. Certainly China has largely rejected many core Communist ideology, but it has retained the features of communism: totalitarianism, disregard for human rights, government-sanctioned mass murder, and complete state authority over all property, including the people themselves."

Those are features of any and all despotic or oligarchic states; they aren't particular to such a state, and indeed have been common to non-Communist states that the U.S., France, the U.K., etc., have backed, encouraged, dealth with, etc. since WWII.

"For example, Cuba was wealthier than Italy -- after fifty years of Communism, Cuba is crippled by poverty and Italy is one of the wealthier nations in the world."

Cuba was wealthier than Italy? Yes that explains the massive poverty under Batista that helped sink the man's regime. Castro didn't come to power because Cuba was a delightful place to live. Cuba was typical of the Latin America shitholes that America helped to encourage - a group of very wealthy people, acting like petty despots through a corrupt government, fucking over the rest of the population. There is a reason after all that Cuba was so attractive to organized crime after all.

"North and South Korea are perhaps the single best example -- North Korea used to be the rich, industrialized half of the country. Now it's starving, while South Korea is doing very well indeed."

North Korea was industrialized because that's where Japan had its slave labor camps, nto because it was "prosperous" prior to WWII.

"Yeah, I suppose it's *possible* that a bunch of non-Communist nations might have spontaneously decided to butcher a hundred million of their own citizens during the twentieth century. But if it's all the same to you, I'd like to blame the people who actually did the killing."

Its not just possible, it happened you nitwit; your own government gave the go ahead for the Indonesians to slaughter the Timorese en masse, and provided them with the weapons to do so. The transcript of the fucking meeting that Kissinger and Ford had with the Indonesian government proves this. Add to this Rawanda, Guatemala (where the it was the non-communist government killing innocent civilians), the atrocities committed by the decidedly non-communist Japanese in WWII, the human rights abuses of countries like South Africa under apartheid, the four million dead in the Congo over the past three years, the nightmare that is Zimbabwe, etc., and you get a very clear picture that communism is hardly a pre-requisite for genocide, human rights abuses, or any other barbarity.

"Can you imagine someone defending Hitler by saying 'well if he hadn't killed the Jews, someone else might have just killed millions of people someplace else?' Insane."

That's a red herring and you know it. I am not defending communism; I am defending containment of communism. The two are decidedly different.

[Jean Bart]

Jason Ligon,

"The US has the only projectable military on the planet."

France and the U.K. project military power all the time; against essentially the sort of petty thug regimes that the U.S. projects power against I might add.

And Spain is working on being able to do so the same; it has spent the last two decades arming itself to become a power equal to the U.K. and France, the latter being easily the most militarily capable countries in Europe.

[Jean Bart]

Dan,

You stupidly assume that I am claiming that the USSR would have not turned France into Poland; indeed I am not. I do know, however, that the Soviets were more indespensible in defeating the Nazis than the U.S. was, by the sheer weight of the burden of the war that they had to carry if nothing else. Indeed, a Soviet collapse would have likely made a Normandy invasion unthinkable.

The point is that Americans are rather arrogant when it comes to their actions in WWII, and tend to view themselves as the sole reason for the victory over the Nazis. Indeed, it took far more than American might to win that war, and America by herself could not have done it (imagine an attempted invasion of Europe without Britain as a jumping off point for example?). It also took sacrifices and courage by Europeans to win that war; I can point to the example my uncle, who was tortured death by the henchmen of Klaus Barbie but did not reveal his comrades in the resistance.

And France remains free because Frenchmen want to be free.

[Jean Bart]

Dan,

And given your theory, you *owe* your freedom to France first. Of course I view this as a silly and arrogant statement, as much as I view your theory.

[Jean Bart]

Dan,

"Don't you think Russia might have put up MORE of a fight against the Nazis if Lenin and Stalin hadn't obliterated its economy and executed most of its competent military officers?"

How much more could they have put up? They lost millions in that war. Indeed, the Soviet resistance in the war ended up being far more significant and powerful than was the case in WWI. During WWI the Germans repeatedly smacked down the Russians, with inferior forces.

"For that matter, would a non-Communist Russia have entered into the Nazi-Soviet pact that made it possible for Germany to invade Poland?"

Why not? The non-communist Hungarians entered into a pact; indeed, they entered into it willingly, sharpening their knives to take over what they considered "Hungary." I can easily see a non-communist Russia entering into that pact in order to take back what it had lost in WWI.

[Zithro]

JB,

Can I quote you on why France is free right after the The French Revolution II: the Muslim Years? Don't worry, I'm sure you can tell the American or British soldiers securing your village all about it.

However heroic your family was, if it were not for the US, you'd either be speaking German or finding another use for the blue and white in your flag (come to think of it, France has always found a use for the white part). Our protection of France during the wars and after, left you alone to drift into 35 hour work weeks and manufacturing ugly cars.

You may tout the contribution of the USSR in securing a WWII victory over Germany (and incorrectly, I believe), but you're missing the point: had those been the two main adversaries - would you really care who won?

[Rick Barton]

Some necessary background on Richard Perle: Perle seems to be at the nexus of Neo's many "pro democracy" groups. Some Paleos make the case that the real agenda of these organizations, which have a history of advocating an attack on Iraq even preceding 9/11, is supporting a hard line likudnik vision for Israel and most else is just window dressing.

Some items in Perle's history seem to corroborate the case. He was, of course, one of the authors of the famous 1996 paper: "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm", a security plan for Israel that advocated to: "focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq ? an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right ? as a means of foiling Syria?s regional ambitions."

and to: "contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights."

Also, on Iraq; the paper went on: "Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria."

Perle does seem to be putting Israel's interests(as he sees them) above US interests, as later the same paper states:

To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes.. which apply well to Israel.

From Jeff's piece:
...an heir to the Henry "Scoop" Jackson line of pro-defense Democrats, which at one time counted a young Richard Perle among them.

Richard Perle in fact worked for "Scoop" Jackson and in 1970 he was caught on a NSA wiretap giving classified information to the Israeli Embassy.

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/82may/hershwh2.htm

[joe]

...and I've heard the Hendrix joke enough to have a standard comeback. Ready? Here goes:

"Hey, joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?"

"I'm going to shoot a Mexican lady. Or something."

Tap tap tap. Hello, is this thing working?

[Rick Barton]

Not everything in Perle's 1996 paper is objectionable or disturbing. It does make some good advice, which I don't know if Perle still advocates today, but our government and the Israeli government have ignored it anyway:

From: "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm"

Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform.

Sharon has completely reversed Netanyahu's moves in that direction and asks for, and our government grants billions more in both economic aid and loan guarantees.

Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Israel can become self-reliant only by, in a bold stroke rather than in increments, liberalizing its economy, cutting taxes, relegislating a free-processing zone, and selling-off public lands and enterprises

Again, Sharon has reversed many of Netanyahu's moves toward a freer Israeli economy.

The paper suggests that: Israel may also want to better integrate its own Arabs.

But, Sharon incredibly supports a "Jews Only" housing law on government land in open discrimination against Israel's 15 to 20% Arab population.

http://www.eto.home.att.net/jewsonly.html

and:http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/article.php?sid=1779

[Rick Barton]

Terror is not an enemy, it's a tactic; one that is mostly employed by the weak (conventional definition of terror) as it was by proto Israelis against the Brits. And, also by Palestinians against the Israeli government's occupation of their land. The Chinese commies have used "fighting terror" as a pretext for cracking down on resistance to the ruthless occupation of Tibet: http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/1997/3/6_3.html

A war on a tactic is an open ended war and one with out cessation. Hamas and Hezbollah are clearly adversaries of the Israeli government but not the US. However, if fighting any terrorist group is permitted, the US can be sucked into all kinds of wars not in our interest.

Of course, not including government attacks on civilians as acts of terrorism also distorts the pursuit of justice. So, our operational definition of "terrorism" is both at once too narrow and too encompassing. (too encompassing, as is the case when the target of the act is military aggression rather than civilians. In this case the act shouldn't be considered "terrorism". The act should be considered an; "act of war".)

[Andrew]

Ah Joe

And dollar-imperialism?-- the staple of vulgar-Marxist comic-books.

Latin America is a resource-rich, populous continent with tremendous cultural advantages over most portions of the "non-developed" world.

A more meddlesome US foreign policy can be documented there, because they are near-neighbors. (Pancho Villa sacked a couple of Texas towns...were we not supposed to respond?)

It is also a good guess that we have spent near to a trillion dollars there in the last generation.

Lagging progress there is attributable to cultural and political failure...and this isn't our fault.

[joe]

Will sez: "More people die because of far left ideas in Central America (and Cuba) than any other political cause." And it's a damn shame that we allowed/compelled the inevitable uprisings against those miserable tyrannies to be coopted by the Soviets, who pulled the far left to the fore. How much better would it have been if their leadership had been looking towards Washington?

JL sez: "Methinks you gloss over the role of the KGB in making trouble. The acts the CIA took during the time were often reprehensible, but were not performed in a vacuum." Did you miss the part where I wrote "The Soviets were all over that action, linking their struggle to Marxist-Lenninist theory?" I'm not denying the reality of Soviet communist infiltration of those indigenous movements; that infiltration is central to my point.

"I don't know that I buy that well, golly if we had just remained at home, the KGB wouldn't have installed their people all over the South American continent." I don't believe we should have stayed home. I believe we should have sided with the freaking angels for a change. We should have worked hard to make sure those uprisings were modeled on our own revolution, not that of Lennint and Castro. But we didn't, we said "ick" at the sight of poor people demanding opportunity, justice, and freedom, and we left the door wide open to Soviet expansion in our hemisphere.

[dhex]

somewhere along the line jean bart became spokesperson for europe in general and france in particular. i give him credit for remaining largely rational in the face of nonsense like "And today, if it weren't for the US, the Islamofascists would take over, which they still might do."

the islamotards are many things to many people. did they not exist they would have to have been invented, simply because a coalition of drug users isn't enough to keep the game going.

but a threat able to topple the government of a western country with an infrastructure, however?

even mr. perle wouldn't make that assessment. at least, i hope.

[KJ]

he, joe!

(sorry, couldn't resist that - take it as a tribute to jimi hendrix)

"but we didn't, we said "ick" at the sight of poor people demanding opportunity etc, etc"

And who would be "we", in that context? Your ordinary Joe Six-pack and his friends, making their minds up on foreign policy by having a beer in their Elks' Lodge or trade union local? Truman, Eisenhower & Kennedy? The CFR? John Birch Society? George Meanie? All of the above?

Are you aware that it was Teddy Roosevelt, the Trust-buster and Champion of Reform, who kick-started the great American tradition of sending the Marines into each and every South-American or Asian country that happened to piss "us" off? You know, as in "Speak softly, but carry a big stick?"

Were there any communists around, then? I don't think so.

Or think of Woodrow Wilson. Not a single commie in sight, to say nothing of a KGB goon, when he told General Pershing to take his army south of the River Grande cooking Pancho Villa's goose.

Seems that intervention in "our backyard" had little to do with "containment of communism" but a lot with safeguarding vested interests - interests of people who used to have some clout with decision-making in foreign affairs.

[joe]

I agree, KJ, the eagerness of the political classes to squelch popular movements that threatened those nations' elites (who were aligned with our elites) dates back beyond the Cold War. The rise of international communism just gave them a hook to do what they wanted anyway.

But in demonstrating WHY those leaders were so determined to see populist uprisings as part of a monolithic Red Menace directed from Moscow, you prove me point. Those uprisings did not come from ideological communism.

[Ed]

Jean Bart, you don't get it. Forget WWII, that's ancient history. If it weren't for America, the Soviets would have rolled over you. And today, if it weren't for the US, the Islamofascists would take over, which they still might do. This has nothing to do with arrogance (except on your part) or paternalism (I don't even claim the US acts out of anything other than self-interest), it's just informing you of an unpleasant truth. No one expects any gratitude, but it would be nice if France would stop being in denial about a whole lot of things.

[joe]

Look Andrew, there are a lot of points that can be made about Latin America (that it's not a continent, for example). But I was making one: that popular uprisings there were drawn into the Soviet orbit because the Soviets were smart enough to coopt them, while we never even made an attempt to do so. Why did we not make that attempt? Primarily, but not exclusively, because of an erroneous belief that all political movements fighting economic oppression were expressions of a Soviet plot.

I'm sorry if the above indisputable fact has been noticed by people you dislike, but that's really irrelevant to its validity.