Worldview: US Foreign Policy 1
by A Concerned Citizen
back to the Worldview Menu
Table of Contents
LinksPhilosophy
Introduction
February 2007: First, please note the caveats stated here. My views have moved in an antiwar direction since 2006, based on the lessons of Iraq. I should probably rewrite this section. In particular, I have come to realize that demonizing Islam is being used by American (and Israeli) hawks to get us further mired in the Middle East; now the target is Iran. I continue to be appalled at the harshness of orthodox Islam, but one must be suspicious of the ulterior motives of those who are obsessed with this topic. It is up to Muslims to reform their societies. Pre-emptive invasion is a violation of international law, no matter how noble the stated purpose, except in the case of a truly imminent threat. The flimsy evidence that got us into Iraq did not qualify, and the 'evidence' for Iran is no better (see the Iran page).
April 2006: In my online political writings to date, I have been preoccupied with the cultural danger of Islam, since I believe that 'culture' is in some sense the root cause of the world's problems. To be sure, the term 'culture' is a bit vague, but it can be taken to mean the typical attitudes and values of a given society, the dominant mood so to speak, which often operates at a subconscious but all the more powerful level. Culture drives ideology, which is a more explicit expression of those basic values, and ideology in turn drives politics. That, at any rate, is my plausible working hypothesis. Of course, this causal sequence is not meant to be taken as absolute, yet it seems like the driving force to me. One reason is that so much of our opinion is really groupthink, even among presumably 'educated' people. (Just look at how many of our 'moderate' and even 'liberal' politicians and pundits were in favor of the present disastrous war in Iraq!) Furthermore, various other discontents, economic or otherwise, may provide opportunities for leaders and demagogues to exploit, but the resolution of those discontents tends to proceed according to basic beliefs.
Be that as it may, my concern with culture has led me to focus on the faults of 'medieval' Islam and to neglect the faults of 'modern' America. While America's foreign policy has often been flawed, and even immoral, I believe that our principles, as enshrined in the Constitution, are the right ones, which is why I am perhaps too forgiving of the actual policies of my own country. Yet even if our more enlightened principles make us better on average, the fact remains that through selfishness and sheer stupidity, we have contributed more than our fair share to the mess in the world. So now I intend to take a hard look at American foreign policy, in order to rectify any one-sided obsession with Islam, so characteristic of those hawkish conservatives that I do not wish to be taken for.
A recent article by the respected center-left pundit Michael Kinsley has reminded me of our meddling in the Middle East. We have also meddled in Latin America and Africa, and other regions of the world, but for now let us focus on the Middle East. As Kinsley outlines (though the words are mine):
Nonetheless, I place most of the blame for the Middle East mess on Islam. The US may have supported the Shah, but only Khomenei and the appeal of Islam are responsible for the nightmare in present day Iran. The Iraqis had a golden opportunity to establish a modern democratic state after Saddam was overthrown, but the sectarian fighting between Sunnis and Shiites draws much inspiration from Islam itself, with the cry of 'infidel' used against fellow Muslims as furiously as against non-Muslims. A similar story explains the tribal fighting in Afghanistan, and the return of the Taliban. In brief, and without too much hyperbole, one can say that Islam has spread brain damage throughout the entire Middle East. Or perhaps one should say that Islam is the religious codification of a tribal mentality endemic to the region, which has failed to progress with the rest of the world. The 'tribe' concept has been generalized to split the world into the good tribe of the faithful and the bad tribe of the infidel, but the spirit is the same, magnified and far more dangerous. This provides an excellent example of how an overall 'mentality' or 'culture' can handicap an entire region of the world, just as the 'culture' of liberal democracy has made us prosperous and relatively humane. Yes, culture and ideology matter, and yes, there is, in some sense, a clash of civilizations (but see here).
(NOTE: Since writing this, the debacle in Iraq has soured me on foreign interventions and even modified my view of America's basic virtue. I am willing to take a second look at Chomsky and his kind; see below.)
UPDATE: RE-EVALUATION OF CHOMSKY (21 Jan 07): Since witnessing the fiasco of the Iraq war, with the predictable sectarian horror, and the apparent outright deception regarding the WMD intelligence, as per the testimony of Col. Wilkerson, I had better make a confession about my understanding of Chomsky. I haven't really read any of his works, and I simply got sucked into the conventional wisdom that he is some kind of leftist radical who hates America. This may well be true, but I should not be so sure, until I have read him, which I don't intend to do anytime soon.
However, my hunch is that one can soberly and responsibly criticize America in all important respects without going as far as he does. In particular, I don't buy his apparent line that our leaders' intentions have been 'bad' in the same sense as those of notorious fascists or communists of our age. Our 'imperialism' has been based, not on plunder, but on mistaken notions of the threats and what to do about them. This is bad enough, when we create a worse mess out of sheer ignorance, as we have done in Iraq, and as we evidently did in Vietnam (which I have not yet thoroughly studied though I intend to). And the fact that important witnesses like Col. Wilkerson accuse the Bush administration of suppressing unwelcome intelligence is very disturbing (see here). It does not matter if it was done for a 'good cause'.
I will even be so bold as to wonder the following. If we can overreact and make a mess, due to a perverse combination of panic, justified outrage, and simplistic, erroneous analysis, then perhaps some of the other 'bad guys' of contemporary history are not as evil as we have supposed, at least if we hold them to the same standard as we hold ourselves. Do not the Iranians, for instance, have legitimate reasons to fear us and our enthusiasm for pre-emptive invasion? Perhaps the Russians and Chinese too. I mention this, because continuing in this vein can soon get one rather close to a view like Chomsky's. Such a bold inquiry should be pursued, but very, very carefully. I guess I still have much more thinking to do...
NOTE (31 Mar 07):I will continue the discussion of Chomsky here, on my new page on American Empire. Some updates which used to be here have been copied over.
Back to US Foreign Policy
Horror of War
Back to US Foreign Policy
Introduction (April 2006): Before plunging into an analytical discussion of foreign policy, I thought it would be a good idea to reflect upon the horror of war. Our political discourse revolves largely around war. Most of the news articles that I read every day seem to deal with it one way or the other. Nobody wants to suffer, and only saints are indifferent to death, yet somehow we are not so obsessed with the tens of thousands of traffic fatalities every year, or the many other ways to die an untimely death. (Much less do we care about massive misery in the third world, or even other looming domestic problems such as the gargantuan debt and retiring baby boomers.) Because war involves political feelings, it grabs our attention and arouses our passions. It is much more difficult to hate a devastating earthquake or tsunami than to hate another human being.
Yet in all this discourse, there is very little discussion of the actual horror of war. All the glib pundits, whether from the right or the left, pass over this disturbing and depressing topic, to focus instead on the blame game in Washington or abroad, and other sexier matters than human misery. All this momentous discussion of foreign policy proceeds from an artificial perspective of detached rationality, nurtured by the air-conditioned comfort of immaculate thinktanks.
So how should we react to the horror of war? Well, one might be a pacifist. The problem, of course, is that remaining a pacifist is no more 'pure' than fighting aggression. In either case, people suffer and die, either because you stop the aggressor or because you do not. Logic is cruel. Indeed, the righteous fighter would seem more ethical, since the innocent are more likely to survive.
Furthermore, the question of who is the aggressor is generally a matter of opinion, as we all know. But leaving aside this slight technical difficulty, one should not, for instance, look at a picture of a horrible war injury on the web and hate those who did it without examining the merits of the case. Failure to do so is dishonest, no matter how disturbed or outraged one may feel. So showing the innocent, suffering children of one side — a favorite tactic of leftists and peaceniks — is deceitful without showing the innocent, suffering children of the other side. Or the innocent, suffering adults, for that matter. Yet who cannot feel horrified at the sight of grotesque injuries and senseless death? Even when the most vicious enemy is destroyed, a decent victor will feel uneasy afterwards. He will at least feel uneasy, and in some cases he may be haunted for life, depending on how many he had to kill, and how many of them were innocents caught in the crossfire.
These statements are trivial, but a few points can be made. First, one should be as certain as possible that the fight is truly in self-defense. Second, one should go to war only as a last resort and with a reasonable hope of victory at an acceptable cost. And third, one should always remain fully cognizant of the horror, instead of becoming inured and complacent. The first two platitudes are correct in principle but often useless in practice. Knowledge of the present is limited, and the future is anybody's guess. The whole question of self-defense revolves around various possible scenarios, to which we may only assign vague probabilities. And how does one assign costs to suffering and lost lives? The third platitude seems like mere decency, but in real life it may simply not be possible to fight if one is too conscientious. Perhaps some animal nature is necessary to prevent worse animals from taking over.
These dreary considerations illustrate why a divisive ideology is such an unmitigated evil. Conflict will arise even among half-decent people, but splitting the world into faithful and infidel pours fuel on an already volatile situation. Such a pernicious discrimination has arisen with Fascism, Communism, medieval and colonial Christianity, and Islam until today. A presumptuous and militant ideology prevents an entire society from being honest or even rational. It nurtures a sense of grievance and of arrogance, masquerading as a 'good cause', sometimes even sanctified by God! It justifies deceit in peacetime and plunder in war. Democracy, for all its faults, is the only antidote I know of for this plague of the human spirit.
UPDATE (14 May 07): Re-reading the above seemingly decent, if not banal, article now makes me squirm a bit, given all that has transpired in Iraq. I am now acutely aware that we all repeat the pieties that war must be a last resort and that pacifism is irresponsible. Such verbiage is evidently worthless. The Christian piety of the GOP did absolutely nothing to prevent the disaster in Iraq, and the Democrats were willing and cowardly accomplices. Indeed, I now feel that all to often 'Christian piety' is used to justify war. We must get rid of the big bad dictator! Even though 600,000 Iraqis have died, according to the prestigious Lancet. (And we don't even give a damn.) We must fight evil and liberate the people of the world! Even though those suffering masses never asked us to stomp into their country and wreak mayhem, and they hate our guts when we do. How about this Christian piety: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. As for pacifism, the answer to terrorism is clear: (i) alter our imperialistic policies so that we don't generate so much hatred: and (ii) cooperate with other decent nations in police and intelligence work to defend against rogues, which will be greatly helped if we follow (i). Somehow, such a sane and modest prescription gets swept under the rug with all the blather about the virtue of fighting evil with grand crusades. We Americans could use less 'conscience' and more brains.
Back to Horror of War
Some Questions (9 Jul 06): Our discussion of the horror of war is hardly finished. There are so many difficult and agonizing questions. Here are a few of them for reference, followed by some articles that seem relevant. I guess the answers will come later. Of course, these few articles hardly do justice to the topic. Many of the articles throughout my website are equally relevant, but only a handful end up here, for one reason or another. By the way, I will not justify my many links to 'outcasts' like Justin Raimondo or Paul Craig Roberts! I don't buy everything they say, but their articles are full of ideas and facts not often voiced in the MSM. And as with any author, a 'fact' should always be taken as a 'lead', to be corroborated with other sources. (Raimondo and the like are excoriated primarily due to their criticism of Israel. I fully support Israel, but I also wish to listen to critical voices. Pat Buchanan is a favorite, even though I'm basically a 'liberal'!)
War has a degenerative effect on republican institutions, and fatally undermines the rule of law and constitutional government, for the simple reason that war is lawlessness. While we all pretend that there are 'rules of war', and every nation swears to abide by the Geneva Conventions, everybody knows that this is balderdash pure and simple. If you want to see the 'rules of war' in operation, take a look at that video of a U.S. Marine blasting the head off a wounded insurgent in a Fallujah mosque. That is the true face of war, which is why no American television station has dared show the full unedited footage.
War centralizes political authority and economic power, investing all power in the state — and assigning obedience, rather than freedom, to the top rank in the social hierarchy of values. This, for libertarians, is the crux of the matter. Clinton's policy led to the rise of the emerging gangster state of Kosovo, which is now pushing relentlessly for formal independence, further roiling a famously volatile region. A parallel disaster is now unfolding in the Middle East, where the Bushian invasion and occupation of Iraq is culminating in the creation of a 'democratic' theocracy modeled — in principle, if not in all details — on the Iranian system. In both cases, the result of American military intervention was to create a safe haven and training camp for al-Qaeda: in the Balkans, this amounted to outright collaboration with the local chapter of the Osama bin Laden Fan Club. In Iraq, our government's complicity with al-Qaeda is less direct, albeit no less effective. Back to Horror of War
A Look at the Bombs (9 Feb 07): Let's take a look at the bombs. Up close and personal. Robert Fisk may be about as anti-American as you can get, but his descriptions of the effects of bombs are vivid and probably accurate. Did you know that our bombing of Yugoslavia was so horrible to civilians? This was suppposed to be one of the 'happy' chapters in the recent history of NATO and the US. One wonders exactly where to draw the line between terrorism and justified military action.
Back to Horror of War
Hiroshima (8 Aug 07): The question of the morality of dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki deserves a section of its own.
Back to Horror of War
Other Articles
The 'global war on terror' is just a bad metaphor that doesn't have any connection to reality. How long are the American people going to allow liars to lull them into sacrificing the most precious treasure the country has — its youth — in a futile, lie-ridden, corruption-pocked war? Back to Horror of War
Use of Force
Back to US Foreign Policy
Introduction (3 May 06): Today, Sami Al-Arian, an ex-professor of engineering at the University of South Florida, was convicted of aiding terrorism by gathering funds for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Al-Arian argued that he was raising charity money for Palestinian widows and orphans, but the judge retorted that 'Your only connection to orphans and widows is that you create them.' This got me thinking about American foreign policy again. Our bombing in Iraq and elsewhere has also created orphans and widows — tens of thousands, if I can believe the news. What exactly is the difference? Now don't jump to the conclusion that I am a leftist critic of America, like Noam Chomsky. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, I do feel that decency requires that this question be honestly revisited and addressed. Here I go (again).
First consider Iraq. Originally, Bush went in to get Saddam's WMD, or so he claimed. That turned out to be an intelligence fiasco, but many allied intelligence agencies believed it at the time. Suppose it had been known with certainty that Saddam was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon. Would that have justified invasion? We did not invade Pakistan or North Korea, which also qualify as 'rogue states' (notwithstanding that Pakistan is our 'ally'). Perhaps we should have invaded all three, as well as others. Be that as it may, it seems at least reasonable to invade a 'rogue' nation that is about to acquire a nuclear weapon, if there is good reason to believe that nation may use it against you. The people killed must be weighed against the millions who would be incinerated or poisoned in New York or Washington. We now face that situation with Iran. (Whether we should in fact invade Iran is another question, as there are many factors to consider.) The other argument in favor of our invasion of Iraq, namely to 'drain the swamp' and build democracy in the Middle East, seems less plausible to me. I doubt that the culture of a nation, especially an Islamic nation, can be changed through force, and current events support my skepticism. Furthermore, America has shown an almost pathological ignorance of other societies, which makes us highly unqualified for such social engineering. (The Brits were better in this respect!)
Now let us compare the justification claimed by some American leaders, for pre-emption in the face of an imminent catastrophic danger, with the Palestinian justification for terrorism as part of their 'freedom struggle'. They claim that their bombs are no different from American bombs, and a double standard is being applied. But there is a major difference. The Palestinians intentionally target civilians, whereas the Americans try to avoid civilian casualties. The distinction may seem academic, since civilians are inevitably killed as 'collateral damage'. Even so, it is more ethical to minimize innocent casualties. More importantly, terrorism against civilians simply does not work, therefore the waste of life is inexcusable and atrocious. At least there is some kind of logic, however callous, to destroying a valid military target. Something might be achieved. Terrorism serves no purpose but to express hatred. Perhaps the terrorist believes he will soon have his virgins, but he also leaves behind victims among his own people, due to the inevitable retaliation, as well as among the enemy. Terrorism is simply evil.
Ultimately, it comes down to the justification for war. There is no point trying to argue that all killing is bad, since wars will happen anyway. The Palestinians are surely no pacifists. So the crux of the matter is whether Israel has a right to exist. I have argued on this page that Israel has as much claim to a homeland in Palestine as do the so-called 'Palestinians', and that the latter (and Arabs in general) have displayed a vicious intransigence towards Israel, a mere postage-stamp in the Muslim ocean, rejecting any reasonable attempts at a solution. Therefore, the Palestinian terrorists are criminals. They have accomplished nothing except useless death. When the Korean war reached a stalemate, we partioned Korea and got out. When the Vietnam war became futile, we declared victory and got out. We are now starting to retreat from Iraq. At least we know where to draw the line on useless death, but the Palestinians have displayed no such decency. They could have had a homeland by now, and a much better standard of living, but they chose endless death, because their hearts are utterly corrupted by hatred, which has its inner source in Islamic ideology and the murderous hatred the Prophet felt for the Jews after they rejected his teaching.
Where I will allow some blame for American 'collateral damage' is when the war becomes implausible and half-baked, as in the shift to nation-building in Iraq when WMD were not found. The idea of 'reforming' the Middle East sounds good in principle, but if there are serious reasons to doubt that we can really accomplish this, then the deaths we cause become much more problematic, to put it mildly. Furthermore, a good case can be made that national reform should always come from within, as a genuine popular movement, with at most assistance from the outside. We should be concerned that so much of the world distrusts our motives and thinks of us as 'imperialistic'. It is logically possible that we are the only virtuous nation on earth and the others are all corrupt, but this seems unlikely. The truth is surely a bit more nuanced than that. We reject the concerns of China and Russia with the self-righteous claim that we are virtuous and they are not, since their democracy is imperfect or non-existent. Our democracy is also imperfect, being heavily influenced and corrupted by the power of money, though we still have a better system than they do. Anyhow, all of these considerations lead me to think that pre-emptive war should only be as a last resort, when faced with the direst of imminent dangers, and not for any righteous crusade to reform the world. Unfortunately, the case of Iran may now present that direst of threats, and I am not sure what to do.
Back to Use of Force
Other Articles
Note: The first two authors seem a bit extreme in their conclusions, but they make some good points.
The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that 'bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians' are 'never justified', while 24 percent believe these attacks are 'often or sometimes justified'.
Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world's most-populous Muslim countries — Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are 'never justified'; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.
Do these findings mean that Americans are closet terrorist sympathizers? Back to Use of Force
My Foreign Policy
Back to US Foreign Policy
Preface: It is easy to criticize American foreign policy but more difficult to propose a responsible alternative. As an exercise in intellectual honesty, I constantly reevaluate my outline of an American foreign policy that tries to take all the important factors into account. I don't mind admitting that this changes over time. I used to be a bit more activist, in the traditional post-WWII Democratic internationalist mold, but the recent Iraq war has chastened me and made me reevaluate our usual pieties for meddling in other people's business. The first article to follow is an account of where I stand now. Older versions of my foreign policy will be retained in successive articles as a reference.
Back to My Foreign Policy
My Foreign Policy (as of January 2007)
NOTE: Check the updates following the article for changes of opinion in light of new facts!
I have been wrestling with the difficult issue of how to defend America against terrorism, and my opinion has been shifting. The war in Iraq has convinced me of the futility of trying to impose democracy on a society that is not psychologically and socially prepared for it. Indeed, the very idea of forcing democracy on others carries dubious imperialistic overtones. Most shocking of all was our utter ignorance of the culture we were invading. Utter incompetence! The war in Iraq has also demonstrated how flimsy intelligence can be misused for rash action. Moreover, there is no Islamic army we need to worry about. Leaving aside the Iranian nuke problem, Muslim terrorism seems more like a criminal activity that is most effectively countered with police and intelligence work, in cooperation with other democracies and friendly nations.
It seems to me that we have foolishly overreacted to 9/11. It is wrong to think that 'we must fight them there or we will have to fight them here'. No matter how much war we wage in the Middle East, all it takes is a few suicidal terrorists slipping into our country to wreak havoc. It's rather easy to do; they may already live here. The fact that there have been so few incidents since 9/11 indicates that there are not many such terrorists, which in turn bolsters the view that police work is the best defense. This is simply not a problem for an army. I even wonder if we need to worry about terrorist training camps, such as the ones we took out in Afghanistan, when the Taliban ruled. So what if a lot of angry Muslims are climbing on monkey bars? They could do that in Dearborn too, and what matters is the few who decide to blow themselves up.
Now, what about Iran and its nuclear program? I just wrote something here. Basically, I argue that it may not be wise to demonize Iran to the point where we scuttle any possibility of negotiations. The apocalyptic rhetoric notwithstanding, the Iranians do have good reasons to be angry with us. We installed the Shah in a bloody coup in 1953, and we backed Saddam in his genocidal war against Iran during the 1980s. Add to that our recent invasion of neighboring Iraq based on flimsy evidence, and the Iranians have a rational reason for wanting a nuclear weapon. Just imagine how we would react if any nation engaged in such provocative behavior in our backyard. Unfortunately, demonizing them prevents such decent reflection. Even their support of terrorists is not so different from our support over the years of violent proxies in the Middle East and around the world.
It seems unlikely that Iran would attack us directly with a nuclear weapon. We could most likely trace the source and annihilate them. Would Iran slip a nuke to suicidal terrorists? I used to consider this the most frightening possibility, but now it seems a bit farfetched. We could still probably trace the origin of the nuclear device and wreak an awesome vengeance. And what would Iran gain by losing control over its precious weapon? If this seems unpersuasive, then we could always implement an extreme form of deterrence, whereby we make it policy to annihilate Iran, Mecca and some other Muslim targets if any nuclear device goes off on American soil. After all, it would almost certainly be an Islamic bomb. This may seem extreme, but it is how we dealt with the USSR during the Cold War. Under such circumstances, I don't think the mullahs of Iran would be so insane as to pass the bomb to true psychopaths like Al Qaeda. It helps that the mullahs are plutocrats who love their wealth and hence their lives.
Suppose that we were determined to stop the Iranian nuclear program. What could we do? I would categorically rule out any attempt at a land invasion. The resulting super-debacle would make Iraq look like a picnic. It would be irresponsibly foolish to expect that much by way of an opposition would embrace us, as some diehard neocons who blew it in Iraq are again daring to suggest. The Iranians are as patriotic as anybody; it is their very patriotism that fills them with so much anger at our past meddling. That is also why I look dubiously on aerial bombing, although bombing at least has the virtue of avoiding a quagmire. That is, if we can resist a follow-up invasion — a pretty big 'if' given American habits. Aerial bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities might set the program back, and I suppose we could keep doing that every few years or so. Still, it would enrage the Middle East and probably be counter-productive in the long run. I am inclined against it, but it is an option that cannot be so easily dismissed as a ground invasion. (As for stupid comparisons to WWII, let us remember that the French and others wanted to be liberated from the Nazis, who otherwise had their hands full with the Russians.)
Note that I have not softened one iota my horror of radical Islam, which I consider pretty much the same in spirit as the orthodox Islam of the prophet Muhammad, namely, to impose the primitive religion of Islam on the world by force. But the Muslims are far from being able to do this militarily. They stand a much better chance via foolish Western immigration policies that omit ideological screening. As for Muslims (and others) suffering from Islam in the Middle East, the only solution is to hope that a change of heart sweeps the Muslim world. It is futile to try to impose democratic values on a society mired in medieval thinking. This would only incite intense hatred and resistance and probably help the radicals. On the other hand, a more hands-off policy towards the Middle East could lead to an easing of tensions and undermine the radical spirit.
Taking all this into account, I don't think we need to get quite so apocalyptic about Islamic terrorism. There is no massive military threat, as with Hitler or the USSR. Terrorism is carried out by isolated and suicidal individuals whose presence in our country is hardly thwarted by a US sledgehammer in the Middle East. Rather, the sledgehammer will only ignite hatred and passions and increase the likelihood of terrorist attempts on the homeland. The hundreds of billions wasted in Iraq — and the hundreds of billions more that would be wasted in a radical and ruinous policy of endless pre-emptive invasion — would all be put to much better use fortifying the homeland, with thorough inspections of all cargo, screening and profiling of visitors, and so on. Deterrence seems the best defense against Islamic nuclear weapons. Certainly, an invasion of Iran would lead to a colossal and bloody morass. Aerial bombing of the nuclear program seems a bit more rational but is probably counter-productive in the long run. It seems unlikely that Iran would pass a nuclear weapon onto crazies, unless the mullahs were crazy themselves. My impression of the mullahs so far is that they are not quite that crazy. Deterrence may not be such a bad option. It may be the only realistic option, our bluster notwithstanding.
And who knows? By talking to them, we may be able to address their legitimate concerns and work out a deal. I don't think this is impossible, even if they are religious fanatics. We might be called 'democratic fanatics', but we are still capable of rational behavior that knows its limits, at least some of the time. Iran has more reason to fear us, and maybe it does beneath the bombast. Cornered animals also spit and lash out. An expert named Flynt Leverett argues that Iran did help us against the Taliban, even though they had no strong motivation other than improving relations with us. This shows a calculation of rational self-interest that contradicts the worse stereotypes of religious fanaticism. If we spurn such overtures, then why shouldn't they turn to more desperate measures? There are many dangers, no matter what road we take, and our enemies are very tough, but I believe that we have been childishly dismissive of the complications caused by our own arrogance, stupidity and belligerence.
The implications of the previous discussion for the domestic politics of American foreign policy are clear. The Republicans stand for (and have always stood for) maximum belligerence, based on maximum demonization of the enemy. The Democrats, often derided as 'soft' on defense, are actually more pragmatic and hence more sane. They are willing to criticize past American behavior, up to and including the disastrous Iraq war, which is essential if we are ever to have a wise and realistic foreign policy, which treats the legitimate concerns of our adversaries. The Dems are also willing to place more faith in alliances, negotiations, and world opinion. The Republicans, on the other hand, have always made it their policy to appeal to the gut patriotism and fears of the American people, who are as human as anybody. This often leads to a self-righteous and irrational faith-based foreign policy, grounded in simplistic emotional slogans which willfully ignore the natural consequences of our bellicose behavior, while expecting others to agree with us ... or else! After all, if we presume that we are always the good and righteous ones, then any war we plunge into must be some kind of crusade.
This is not to deny the great danger posed to us by militant Muslims and other potential enemies, but a foolish and headstrong policy will most likely produce disaster, as has happened in Iraq. The world is complicated, and our hands are not entirely clean. Self-righteous patriots don't like to hear this, but reality has a way of teaching nasty lessons to fools. We have been protected by great power, but we must not allow ourselves to become drunk and arrogant. This can lead to a ruinous holy war divorced from reality! Unfortunately, many 'moderate' Democrats seem more worried about Republican skill at exploiting base political instincts than in doing the right thing with respect to foreign policy. Already, we are seeing waffling on troop reductions in Iraq, despite the clear verdict of the midterm elections. The Democrats are also guilty of uncritically accepting the hyped-up intelligence that got us bogged down in Iraq in the first place. Again, this was due to their cowardly fear of Republican propaganda. It is unconscionable for a politician to care more about his personal career than about avoiding reckless gambles and military disasters. Finally, many Democrats have drunk the superpower kool-aid, which bolsters the giant egos found in most important people. Hence, their arrogant disprespect for the public will and their cheap excuses. (Biden: We poor senators can't do anything!) They are more than a bit complicit in a policy of American Empire. Will we ever be able to teach them a lesson?
UPDATE (9 Jan 07): It is argued that we must win in Iraq at all costs, or the consequence would be an unacceptable conflagration in the Middle East, as Sunni nations defend their brothers in Iraq from Shia vengeance. That might be horrible for the Iraqis, but would it really be so bad for us? There was a horrible war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, but most Americans hardly noticed. A 'conflagration' in the Middle East would mostly kill a lot of Muslims but would not spread unless outside powers were so foolish as to intervene. Thanks goodness the Cold War days are over when the USSR would have been tempted! Moreover, an inter-Muslim conflict might not be so bad if it leads to the most militant Muslims killing each other off, while the more 'moderate' Muslims get out of the way. It might also drain Iran's resources, so that they have less to spend on developing nuclear weapons. And would there really be a dangerous new 'terrorist sanctuary' if we 'fail' in Iraq? The Shia part of Iraq may go to Iran, which would make Iran incrementally stronger (or weaker) but won't change the threat to us by much. The Sunni part would go to the Baathists, and I doubt they wish to take orders from Al Qaeda. In any event, I am dubious that 'terrorist sanctuaries' are that much of a threat to us. The Muslims have no army that could invade us, and terrorist acts are carried out by motivated individuals, who will not be stopped by any military action, but rather will be inflamed by it. The wildcard issue of an Iranian nuke has been addressed above.
No neocon concedes that the very idea itself of launching an unprovoked war against a country in the heart of the Arab world — one that had not attacked us, did not threaten us and did not want war with us — might not be wildly welcomed by the 'liberated'. No neocon has yet conceded that Bismarck may have been right when he warned, 'Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.' 'Huge mistakes were made', says Perle, 'and I want to be very clear on this: They were not made by neoconservatives. ... I'm getting damn tired of being described as an architect of the war.' Almost all the neoconservatives have now departed the seats of power in the Bush administration and retreated to their sinecures at Washington think tanks, to plot the next war — on Iran. Meanwhile, brave young Americans, the true idealists and the casualties of the neocons' war, come home in caskets, 20 a week, to Dover and, at Walter Reed, learn to walk again on steel legs.
UPDATE (9 Jan 07): Is Israel stampeding us into war against Iran? This is so amazing that I must link to it here. And while I'm at it, let me add this provocative article for your consideration.
UPDATE (10 Jan 07): What about the argument that leaving Iraq is condemning poor Iraqis to a horrible fate? This deserves a discussion here, because it is a special case of the more general question: What is our responsibility when stupid policies have produced disaster? In the case of Iraq, I would say that the Iraqis have three options: (i) agree on a common framework, (ii) agree on a partition, or (iii) fight it out. It is up to them. It is their country. We can help a partition go as smoothly as possible, but it is not our duty to be caught in the middle of a civil war, even if we started it. In fact, we didn't start it. Sunnis and Shias could have come together in a true democratic spirit. We didn't stop them. Moreover, we can't stay without taking sides, which is surely immoral. We are already effectively taking the Shia side, since they control a government that is shortchanging Sunnis. Training the 'Iraqi army' and 'Iraqi police force' is really training the Shias to fight Sunnis. Our policy is already immoral. Getting out would actually be more fair.
Notice how American hawks can always come up with a reason to keep fighting. First, they railroad and blunder our nation into an ill-conceived war of choice, then they blame the war critics for 'abandoning the poor Iraqis'. What self-serving hypocrisy! In general, I favor letting locals decide what to do with their future. And as I said, a civil war might be beneficial, in that the most militant Iraqis (and other participating Muslims) kill each other off, while the moderate ones get out of the way.
UPDATE (12 Jan 07): I would like to comment on this article by Paul Craig Roberts, since it gets to the heart of the matter. Was it ever right for us, even in principle, to try to 'democratize' the Middle East? Was this not a form of imperialism and neo-colonialism, as echoed even by a 'mainstream' voice such as Brzezinski? Of course I believe that liberal democracy is far preferable to orthodox Islam, but did we have the right to invade and to try to impose it by force? (Note that I say 'try', since the attempt has been a dismal failure so far.) How can we not expect them to consider us as invaders and enemies? Would we not feel the same, if anybody invaded us for any reason? Moreover, I don't think democracy can be imposed by force, as I have said many times. It must grow from within, from a change of heart and mentality. I have agreed with the conservatives on the aggressive nature of orthodox Islam, but I now see how this has been misused for a radical foreign policy. We have a right to defend our territory from enemies, but a pre-emptive strike into someone else's territory can hardly ever be justified. That is what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor. I do agree that the neocons are largely populated by pro-Israel hawks, who thought they would make Israel safer with some social engineering of Muslim countries. One is hardly 'anti-semitic' if one opposes them; indeed, most American Jews were against the Iraq war. And now Bush and the neocons appear to be trying to extend the war to Iran and Syria. They are reckless gamblers who know they can push some buttons, and once troops are dying in a new theater, Congress will feel obliged to go along, based on past experience. Congress is wimping out even as I write these words.
UPDATE (13 Jan 07): And I haven't even got around yet to how we are losing our place in the world! Our massive and reckless accumulation of debt is allowing the Asians to buy us up (it's called 'mortgaging our future'). A retiring baby boomer train wreck is immanent, and we are diverted by a stupid war. Our trade deficits are mammoth and ever growing. We have been losing our industry and are now starting to lose our 'brain sector' to up and coming nations, mostly Asian. We insist on policing the world, even though we are hated almost everywhere. Truly, our megalomania and blindness are leading us to ruin. It is curious how Pat Buchanan echoes so many of my feelings, even though we differ so much in philosophy: I am a fervent secular rationalist with an interest in Asian spiritual paths, and he is a Catholic who is nostalgic for the Middle Ages, or at least the old America of Norman Rockwell. Good! This means that diverse Americans can come together, provided they are thoughtful. The Republican establishment seems to be our mutual nemesis. That is because it represents nothing but corporate and private greed and faith-based sloganeering stupidity. (All right! I need to expand on that a bit!)
UPDATE (21 Jan 07): A certain piece of belatedly discovered testimony regarding prewar WMD intelligence has led to me to sharply revise my opinion regarding the honesty of the administration and even of the entire Washington elite, including the punditocracy. You can read more about that here. Of course, this plunge in trust has implications for my own personal foreign policy, but I feel too weary to elaborate right now.
UPDATE (23 Mar 07): My complimentary words toward Democrats were written during the post-midterm optimism. I have since come to realize that the Democrats are either spineless or dishonest. In particular, I was outraged when Pelosi scratched language from the Iraq bill requiring Bush to get Congressional approval before attacking Iran. It was precisely the post 9/11 blank check from Congress that led to the disaster in Iraq. I now realize that the problems with our foreign policy are of a fundamental and bipartisan nature.
Back to My Foreign Policy
My Foreign Policy (as of June 2006)
What would I propose for US foreign policy? It is easy to criticize, but not so easy to provide a practical alternative. I will attempt that here, though the following should be taken only as a sketch, based on my reading to date, and subject to revision at any time.
As first rule, I would not get bogged down in a guerilla war in a hostile country, unless absolutely necessary. We should have learned our lesson in Vietnam, just as the Russians learned theirs in Afghanistan. We are unlikely to win if the natives are not on our side, as they were, for example, in France in 1944. Without local support, including vital information, you never know who the enemy is. Any man, woman or child could be a deadly threat, unless we are prepared to behave like Huns and mow people down right and left. The situation is highly 'asymmetric', to use military lingo. We are on their turf, and our soldiers are greatly outnumbered by their population. Many low-tech homemade weapons are surprisingly effective against modern armies, e.g. the IEDs or mines now used in Iraq, or even the Vietcong pits with sharpened bamboo spikes. Searching homes and places of worship infuriates the people, and there is too much to search anyway. Deadly 'accidents' and 'collateral damage' are inevitable, which further turn the people against you. Basic patriotism leads to resentment of the occupation, especially in fiercely anti-American Muslim countries.
I can understand and forgive the prewar confusion over WMD, but I can neither understand nor forgive the mindless self-deluding optimism of so many conservative foreign-policy intellectuals regarding the democratization of Iraq, a country full of angry, vengeful Shiites who practice a particularly medieval form of Islam, self-flagellation included. According to Hugh Fitzgerald, even top Middle East expert Bernard Lewis was naive about this quixotic adventure, which helped to mislead the higher echelons of the US government. Aerial bombing is one thing, but we mustn't send boots into a hostile land except as a last resort and unless we are willing to declare war and send an overwhelming number of boots. Otherwise, we are asking for a debacle.
The administration keeps grasping at straws, such as the election in December, but now it is seven months later and the Iraqi government still can't agree on the two key ministries of defense and interior, and the country is spinning out of control, with daily massacres and kidnappings.
The conservatives and neocons were right that Saddam was evil, but it was irresponsible not to consider the likely consequences of our invasion. Getting rid of one evil sometimes produces a worse one. And I don't think that more troops in the beginning would have helped that much. The insurgents are really determined, as were the Vietcong.
As I just said, I can understand and forgive the prewar failure of intelligence over WMD in Iraq. Everyone thought Saddam had WMD, or so the mantra goes, and he refused to come clean with the UN. Does this mean that Bush was justified in invading but should have left as soon as WMD failed to appear? Would not an abrupt withdrawal have plunged the country into civil war? Would we not have been responsible? Frankly, I don't see why we can't assume that the Iraqis were responsible for their country, once we eliminated Saddam. Is it our fault that they have sectarian conflicts, fueled by the aggressive and intolerant mentality of Islam? And why not partition the country, if Sunnis and Shias just cannot get along? In general, I am in favor of separating people who hate each other.
All this assumes that our intelligence failure regarding WMD was indeed forgivable, and I am not entirely sure that it was, but I am willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt. Well ... allow me to equivocate on that. I've read a lot lately about how the UN inspectors were making a lot of progress prior to the invasion, that evidence was mounting that Saddam didn't have an advanced nuclear program after all, and that many reasonable and informed people thought we should have had a bit more patience. Who knows?! At any rate, the problem of dictators and terrorists with WMD is formidable and is not going away, which brings me to my next point.
It seems futile to police the world and suppose that we can forever keep WMD from proliferating. Therefore, a more rational strategy would be to secure our borders as much as possible. A fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in Iraq could have been used to inspect every cargo container coming into America (or to use other hi-tech methods such as electronic tagging). But if I can believe a 60 Minutes report, businesses have objected to the burden of having all the cargo inspected. The same is true for securing our chemical plants, many of which are practically open to the public. It's quite insane. The power of money over Washington is so strong that our government refuses to do the responsible thing and order all containers to be inspected and chemical plants secured. It is not even a major news item! Political corruption is no longer just costing the middle class a lot of money in corporate welfare; it may soon be costing them their lives.
Furthermore, our accursed political correctness has prevented us from fingering orthodox Islam as the problem, which should logically lead to strict ideological profiling of all Muslims entering the country. This would include detailed biographies at their expense, with the burden of proof on them. Instead, our border security is a joke. And I am not even anti-immigrant. (Notice that the business corruption of politics comes mostly from Republicans and the PC from Democrats, so between the two of them we are screwed!)
If we must fight in other countries, then we should do it with a serious coalition, not a fake one, which may require diplomacy and horse-trading. We should fight in other countries only as a last resort and with the clear support of most of the locals, at least if there are boots on the ground. Aerial bombardment of nuclear facilities is another matter. Such bombardment may or may not be effective, but at least we won't get bogged down.
However, I am more skeptical than Beinart about international organizations; the U.N. has been corrupt and anti-Semitic for a long time, and it is full of ignorant fools. A more restricted body of advanced and intelligent democracies, like a new NATO, seems like a better idea, provided its purpose is limited to dealing with terrorists and WMD rather than nation-building, and provided Washington isn't pulling all the strings. Having America throw its weight around antagonizes everybody. Whether fair or not, we are perceived as vulgar and arrogant. We have pride, so we must expect this of others too.
Furthermore, a coalition of advanced democracies would not only have more troops, and be less offensive to the local population, but it would also serve a subtle though valuable diplomatic purpose. All intelligent nations wish to be 'advanced', including the Russians and Chinese. If all the advanced and democratic nations stick together, then this would include most advanced nations of any kind, and the Russians and Chinese would not want to be left behind. If, on the other hand, it's just the US throwing its weight around, then the Russians and Chinese will cleverly play games with Europe and other countries who are also fearful or resentful of us, as they are doing now.
To repeat, military intervention should only be for a clear and present danger and not for social engineering. I don't believe that humans can be socially engineered, a view with which all true conservatives should concur (which is not to say that I am a 'conservative'). Imposing democracy is a totalitarian concept. Instead, we must accept that people are what they are, including in that cesspool of ignorance and fanaticism called the Middle East. It is they who must seek the truth and have a change of heart. It is they who must freely choose to espouse democratic and humanitarian ideals, rather then blindly follow the rantings of a seventh century fanatical prophet. We cannot do it for them.
We can, however, protect ourselves, and we can work respectfully with others who share our ideals. The Europeans and other friends may at times have shown arrogance and foolishness, but so have we. Many of their politicans may be corrupt, but so are many of ours. We really have no choice but to work with other civilized societies, which, as I have indicated, is not at all the same as submitting to the United Nations! The UN may be useful for dealing with poverty and epidemics, but I would not mind if it were sidelined as far as politics is concerned, except perhaps for purely symbolic debates. It was a mistake to include all nations, rather than limiting it to intelligent and democratic nations (yes, the two are roughly synonymous). Let us be candid about this.
Although the future is unpredictable, it seems to me that our chances of security would be 'optimized' if we concentrated on securing the homeland and forming purely defensive alliances, but otherwise minded our own business, instead of planting military bases everywhere we can, and interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. (Of course, we are NOT a colonial power in the classic sense, but still I am uneasy with our global footprint.) We could still discretely give money and weapons to Israel, Taiwan and other friends. The Arabs would still sell us their oil, since everybody likes a nice pile of cash. Al Qaeda and the Iranian regime seem most angered by our footprint in the Middle East. Removing that footprint should help to undermine their support among Muslims. This is not appeasement, since our presence is not a good idea in the first place. To be sure, Israel is also an irritant to Muslims, but the Israelis seems able to take care of themselves with enough aid. A more defensive posture would be less disturbing to Russia and China, not to mention Europe, and global politics should calm down. Everybody wants to benefit from trade, which would flourish with tranquil waters and lead to stronger bonds between nations, even adversarial ones.
Militant Muslims are indeed trying to 'invade' and populate Europe, but that is best handled with immigration measures. It seems unlikely that Iran would plant a nuke in NY or DC if they saw us withdrawing from their neighborhood. I do not think they are quite that insane. Let the Muslims stew in their own juice and sort their own problems out. Unlike Germany and Japan, which possessed considerable intelligence and discipline, the Muslims don't seem capable of being much more than pirates and terrorists. My horror over Islam has more to do with my sympathy for ordinary Muslims in the street, who are the chief victims of Islam, than with any preposterous notion that they are another Nazi Germany.
Am I underestimating the Iranian nuclear threat? Well, for one thing I don't rule out all military action, just ill-conceived and ruinous attempts at nation-building. For example, I believe that the US military is capable of grabbing coastal oil refineries or ports if necessary and holding them without bleeding to death. That would be a serious act of war that should not be undertaken except in the most extreme circumstances, but at least we wouldn't be getting bogged down in a nation-wide guerilla war with the entire population presenting a potential danger. I simply don't believe we can win the latter kind of war, or at least it is too improbable and expensive.
Further realistic, if not always effective, options include sanctions and bombing. I felt the sanctions against Iraq during the 1990's were immoral, once I learned about Iraqi children dying, though the real blame went to Saddam. Still, sanctions are better than a guerilla war. We don't need to stop food and medecine from getting in, just oil from getting out. That should be pretty effective, though unpleasant for us too, unless we are willing to tighten our belts, something Americans don't seem good at lately. Sanctions would require unity among democratic — or at least 'major' — nations, which is another reason not to antagonize Russia and China. Much doubt has been expressed about the effectiveness of bombing, but it might still set them back and buy us time.
Realistically, though, we cannot expect to prevent the eventual proliferation of WMD to rogue nations, so we should concentrate on a defensive strategy of detection, i.e. rigorous inspection of whatever crosses our borders, however difficult that may be. After all, a healthy immune system has to accomplish the same task, if that analogy might be entertained. No amount of 'proactive' military action will forever prevent nuclear material from making its way on the black market to terrorists. (Have we seriously tried to secure Russian nuclear material, by buying it up or helping them to protect it? Given the huge danger of this loose material, slapping Putin in the face seems utterly irresponsible.) The danger is not only from active nuclear weapons but also from dirty bombs, which could close down large urban chunks indefinitely and be hugely expensive. Our best bet seems to be a massive defensive program of detection, with a huge investment in sophisticated detectors, both for ports and airports, as well as for mobile patrol units. The hundreds of billions squandered in Iraq would have helped considerably. What a waste!
How about the people left behind in repressive countries? There are still many decent people who would suffer under the theocratic and dictatorial regimes that are endemic to the Middle East. Do we owe them any protection, if only out of decency? Perhaps I'm suffering from post-Iraq syndrome, but the complications, blowback and bitter nationalistic reactions to our intervention would be so extreme and predictable, that it just doesn't seem justified, except in a truly horrendous case like Rwanda (where we did nothing). Altruistic imperialism just won't work unless there is sincere sympathy and encouragement from the majority of the locals, not just a few who happen to have brains. Perhaps we could smuggle the enlightened few out and give them asylum.
Much of this discussion may be ultimately based on my feelings, but let us be honest that a lot of seemingly sophisticated political discussion does in fact boil down to gut feelings, prejudices, and assumptions. We can always spin scenarios about the future, but they are little more than guesses. Hence, it seems wisest to take a sober and realistic course and try to calm the international waters, rather than mould the world in our image.
One of my deeply felt 'prejudices', which seems to agree with the facts, is that repressive governments tend to occur where people are ignorant and/or spiritually underdeveloped. Neither God nor the USA can change that by fiat. People must first learn to think and to believe in truth and justice. Only then will their societies heal and prosper. The USSR, for example, broke down because of internal contradictions and the inherent intelligence of the Eastern European and Russian people, who could see through the charade, and not because of anything we did. Even party stalwarts like Gorbachev eventually saw the light. There was never any realistic prospect that we would 'invade' the USSR and fix things. Our job during the Cold War was to contain the USSR with NATO, and that we did. By the same token, the vast majority of Muslims in the Middle East show no sign whatsoever of second thoughts about the barbarism of Islam, and they are susceptible to the most insane propaganda, therefore 'reforming' them seems hopeless. They should be isolated and contained until their brains start working.
By the way, our wonderful democratic American society should not rest on its laurels. Backsliding is always a danger. We can lose our principles in a generation or less. One way to do this is by becoming an imperial power. It has happened before, e.g. with Rome. Another way is by allowing the power of money to strangle the democratic process, which is happening even as we speak, while our attention is absorbed and our treasure in squandered in futile adventures elsewhere. And as if that were not enough, our egocentric, materialistic, hedonistic, anti-spiritual, anti-intellectual and nihilistic culture might turn out to be our most subtle but most deadly enemy. Things unseen are more important than things seen!
Some More Points: This Appendix is so that I can easily record some further thoughts, without having to rewrite the previous essay:
So here we are fighting a war with a nation that was almost certainly not supporting terrorism against us, however cruel Saddam was to his own people, while we remain friends with whichever Muslim allies put on a good show of being on our 'side', while simultaneously stabbing us in the back. Furthermore, the likeliest outcome in Iraq, no matter what we do, is a Shiite government allied to Iran and more dangerous to us than was Iraq under Saddam. Finally, the fact that we are bogged down in Iraq means we cannot deal effectively with Iran. How stupid is all this! Maybe democracies destroy themselves through stupidity. Europe is allowing Muslims to flood in, and America is behaving like a brontosaurus — plenty of bulk but a walnut-sized brain. And I still see no sign that the administration or Congress is fully aware of all this. Everybody is hung up on the Iraq war, which may turn out to be a fatal distraction, as we fail once again to see the big picture.
Back to My Foreign Policy
Promoting Democracy
Back to US Foreign Policy
Introduction (12 Jul 06): Is it really in our interest to promote democracy in the Middle East? Will this not tend to put religious radicals and fanatics into power in many places? I think we should take a hard-headed look at this, even if it seems shocking to our principles. Mindlessly blabbering about democracy does not change the historical and cultural realities on the ground, as we have seen in Iraq, Palestine and elsewhere in the region. It may well be that democracy requires certain social and psychological preconditions before it can succeed. And it may simply be incompatible with orthodox Islam, leading to a one-time election of a repressive theocracy.
18 Jul 06: George Will is one of the handful of pundits who deserves an 'A', and Tom Friedman is not one of them!
Back to Promoting Democracy
More Doubts About Democratization (3 Aug 06): The Hezbollah expert in this article by Laura Rozen makes clear why we should view the democratization of Arabs (and Muslims) with extreme caution, and perhaps even abandon this goal altogether. If any UN solution for Lebanon should call for a representative vote in the Lebanese parliament, then Hezbollah would most likely predominate! We have had similar unpleasant experiences with 'democracy' in Iraq, in Algeria, with Hamas, etc. We Americans have a blind knee-jerk attitude towards the idea of democracy, based on our naivete about human nature. Democracy is not such a good thing if the majority of some country is hostile to you or to a close friend. There is no law of nature that most of the people in any large group are basically decent; some societies are imbued with a truly perverse ideology. So not only was the Iraq democratization adventure doomed to become a quagmire on purely military and political grounds, e.g. in its foolish failure to consider the sectarian rifts that pre-existed the invasion, but it was always in principle a dangerous idea in a part of the world fueled by Islamic fanaticism and overflowing with hatred for Israel and America.
Many argue that it is the very lack of democracy that promotes Islamic extremism. I think that the characteristic Islamic mentality — the common denominator of this mentality — doomed the Middle East to be a failure in the modern world, even if Israel had never existed. Wherever Islam prevails, civilization and prosperity suffer. The pattern is simply too widespread and obvious to explain away. Given this unfortunate reality, it seems that we should promote Ataturks and Shahs who wish to uproot Islam and drag their people kicking and screaming into the modern world. And I am someone who once took it for granted that our past support of the Shah of Iran was one of America's gravest sins. Above all, I try to be realistic, to the best of my ability.
Back to Promoting Democracy
George Shultz Speaks (10 Aug 06): Here is a new article by George P. Shultz, the respected Secretary of State under Reagan. If there is any mature, responsible and knowledgeable Republican statesman out there, I suppose it would be him. Unfortunately, the article comes across to me as a superficial pep-talk. Indeed, it exemplifies the lack of thoughtfulness and insight behind the entire neocon democratization project, which has governed our policy since 9/11, even if it has had its wings clipped lately. You wouldn't know it, listening to Shultz.
For one thing, he regurgitates the standard elite myth that militant Islam is only the deviant fringe of a 'noble' religion. Considering the enormous popularity of the terrorists in the Muslim world, and the intense hatred of the US and of Israel, any thoughtful person would at least qualify such an assertion. However, as far as I can tell, people like Shultz are part of the same crowd as the Bushes and the oil people. They do good business in the Middle East and speak mostly to the superficially Westernized elite, who play them like violins, while promoting terrorism on the side, like the Saudis.
When it comes to the disaster in Iraq, Shultz can only say that there are discouraging signs and hopeful signs, and we must stay the course. He says that sectarian bloodshed is fomented by 'Iraq's enemies', which is a convenient way of sidestepping the very real hatreds and divisions. And he simply swallows the lazy and self-righteous neocon thinking that democratizing the Muslim world is necessarily a good thing, despite clear warning signs in the victories of Hamas and the refusal of the new Iraqi prime minister to condemn Hezbollah. Shouldn't someone like Shultz be a little less blind? And why exactly should we babysit a civil war? To keep radical Iran from spreading its power? We have already helped them along nicely by deposing Saddam and allowing the Shiite majority to slowly work its will. How about ditching democracy and supporting the Sunnis against the Shiites in Iraq? Isn't that at least worth considering? The old balance of power game.
As for the hugely dangerous nuclear proliferation by A.Q Khan in Pakistan, which Musharraf must have known about, Shultz blandly claims that uncovering this network was 'an intelligence and diplomatic triumph and a demonstration of willpower to confront Pakistan authorities even as we depend on their help'. In other words, it's OK if our friends turn out to be terrorists, provided they get a good scolding and a fig leaf is placed over the situation. How obtusely self-serving can one's rhetoric be? And what a mockery of our democratic principles to be so close to 'major non-NATO ally' Pakistan! However, to be fair, and given Pakistan's nuclear weapons, it is probably better for Musharraf than for the religious nuts to be in control. Evidently, Musharraf just wants to torment India, but the fanatics want to get us. Still, Musharraf is the slenderest of reeds, and we have no idea what to do when he falls. The huge terror plot foiled today in the UK seems to have come out of Pakistan. That country is simply a cauldron of terrorism and a ticking time bomb. So even if it is to our marginal selfish advantage to have a chameleon like Musharraf in power, Shultz should at least point out these other tremendous dangers, instead of talking about Pakistan as though it were some sort of success in the war on terror.
He sees hope in Lebanon in the form of UN Resolution 1559, to demilitarize Hezbollah, which he conveniently interprets as a beneficial consequence of our zealous efforts in Iraq. Be that as it may, it is ironic that all hell broke loose over there as soon as he gave his speech, the reason being that UN 1559 was going nowhere. Oh well, we must clutch at any straws or life would be just too depressing! I've got a better idea. How about ignoring the perfidious UN, slashing aid to Egypt, and tripling aid to Israel? Now that would be bang for the buck! A few billion goes a lot further in the hands of Israelis that a few hundred billion does in the sands of Iraq. And how about a vigorous defense of Israel from the presidential bully pulpit to counter the left-oriented anti-Zionist propaganda from the MSM? Oh wait, I forgot! The President squandered his credibility in his ill-conceived adventure in Iraq. Too bad! As for the really bad news that Israel's relinquishing of Gaza has led to missile attacks from Gaza onto Israeli soil, a rather clear sign of intentions, Shultz simply wonders whether the Palestinians will rise to the challenge and do the right thing. Let's hope so!
He repeats the cliche that we must take the fight to the terrorists. How? By attacking the whole Muslim world? We can't even cope in Iraq. If there is any place to attack, it is Iran, and we are now bogged down and hostaged in Iraq, due to the unrealistic and open-ended 'vision' of people like Shultz. I'll admit Iran is a really tough nut, yet even the tough-talking Shultz just repeats the usual vague incantations about sanctions, which probably won't work, and then mentions 'force', which might include a 'sustained air campaign'. Big talk! Better than you'll get from a Democrat, right? Well, we've just seen what an air war accomplishes in Lebanon! How about a ground war? If Iraq was a quagmire, then Iran would be a super-quagmire. Perhaps we need an air war with nuclear-tipped bunker-busters? But do we even know where the targets are? If not, then a massive ground does begin to look necessary, if stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons be deemed essential. Shouldn't Schulz be discussing these terrible options in detail? Or do we hope that MAD works with religious fanatics as it did with the USSR? Please forgive my cynicism, but watching various high-level officials on TV, I often get the impression that the basic rule to success in the higher strata of government is to repeat the standard rhetoric of the moment, without going into too much detail. Just the big picture please! With lots of hopeful platitudes about freedom and democracy. I imagine that his distinguished colleagues at the Woodrow Wilson school will love it. They're so high-class they never need to roll up their sleeves and actually fix something. Leave that to the poor generals, and then grill them in Congress when they fail.
Anyhow, aside from the special case of Iran, why not let the Middle East stew in its own juices and concentrate on building our domestic defenses? All the billions wasted in the sands of Iraq could go a long way towards making the homeland more secure. Above all, our no-brainer top priority should be to find militant Muslims and kick them out of our country. Isn't that a bit more realistic than trying to impose our will on a continent-sized region which hates our guts? We may need to do some serious surgery on our civil liberties, including relabeling militant (i.e. orthodox) Islam a fascist ideology rather than a religion. Why not block all students and visitors from the hardcore Muslim countries, or at least have them thoroughly scrutinized? Why can we not muster the will for that? We should also rigorously and unashamedly scrutinize all domestic mosques where there is even a whiff of militancy. Instead, our homeland security people are going out of their way to be nice to all Muslims, including the notorious CAIR. Why not tell the American Muslims that only those who are truly helpful are above suspicion? Wouldn't the truly 'moderate' ones be going out of their way to be helpful in the first place? Instead, we have a ridiculous policy of frisking little old ladies in airports so that we don't seem 'prejudiced'. Shultz addresses none of this but just rather pompously lectures us that we must keep up the good (and blind) fight anywhere and everywhere. That is a prescription for endless failure and disaster. Even a superpower must pay attention to the constraints of reality.
Back to Promoting Democracy
Other Articles
2005 and earlier
2006
2007
Back to Promoting Democracy
Supporting Repressive Regimes
Back to US Foreign Policy
Introduction (2 Jun 06): I've been thinking some more about our past support for 'repressive regimes' in the third world, and I feel it's time to clear up some hypocrisy. I am no expert on history, which is rarely free from bias anyway, but my strong impression is that we have on occasion supported ruthless dictators who seemed more or less 'on our side'. There are (at least) two questions which must be asked:
(1) How much are we prepared to sacrifice our economic interests? Perhaps in the case of the United Fruit Company, our actions were totally reprehensible. Fruit is only fruit. But what about oil, our lifeblood? Can we really allow our economy to be destroyed? One could argue that it is not merely a question of discomfort, as the global violence that would result from a general economic breakdown could be tremendous. This leaves aside the question of whether we always acted wisely is securing our oil. I am only rejecting the hypocrisy that we might, or even should, put principle above fundamental economic interests. Let's be realistic. On the other hand, wasn't Japan's pre-WWII aggression in reaction to our oil embargo, which was in reaction to their invasion of China? (And they might argue that their imperialism in China was not fundamentally different from our conquest of the North American continent.)
(2) Before condemning dictators like Pinochet, we must be honest about alternatives. I am hazy on South American history, but I can easily imagine being a middle-class South American who fears gangs of poor people looting, raping and killing. I might be sorely tempted to put my trust in the military rather than in some gangsterish socialists or communists. Now Allende may not have been a gangster. I am not sure. But there is no doubt that in many cases of domestic turmoil in underdeveloped countries, the poor do indeed give their allegiance to gangs of thugs. This happens in Islamic countries too, where religion only adds fuel to the fire. I cannot blame the middle class for supporting what may seem like their best bet for security and civilization. I do not worship private property. Perhaps it is sometimes necessary to redistribute land from huge estates to the poor. However, I draw the line at plundering the middle class. Partly, that is because I am middle class myself, but also the middle class has been the backbone of modern democratic society. Sometimes the only force around to protect the middle class is the military. We must think of that before hypocritically issuing blanket condemnations of our past support for authoritarian regimes. Was the Shah not much better than Khomeini? The Muslim masses in general seem inclined to elect clerics like Khomeini, and we may regret our democratization project in the Middle East, especially if it is successful. Look at how elections bought Hamas to power in Palestine. Sometimes I think 'democracy' may be rather dangerous, unless enough of the population is educated and modern in their thinking (e.g. law-abiding and tolerant). Democracy is much more than just elections, which sometimes are the first and last elections.
NOTE: A continuation of this topic can be found in Dealing with Muslims.
Back to Supporting Repressive Regimes
Hackworth on Vietnam (02 Mar 07): The Vietnam War is a momentous event in recent American history, which I have yet to study in detail For now, let us note the following words from an interview with the late David Hackworth, who was the most decorated combat veteran of the war, as well as a controversial and legendary figure. I note that Hackworth rejects the common conservative revisionism that American firepower had nearly won the war, when the 'politicians' pulled the rug out from under the troops.
Hackworth: I think the major thing was how a poor man fights a rich man... how a war can be fought employing ancient rules first developed by Sansu — the need for patience, the need for political motivation, the need to fight a war of economy and how to employ all the rules of warfare.
Q: What lessons should the Americans have learned from the French defeat?
Hackworth: Well, I think the major lesson they should have learned was that that war didn't involve the security of France, and the security of the United States wasn't at issue either.
On a tactical level, they didn't have an objective. The Americans should have studied the lessons of the French very closely and taken something from them. A correspondent once asked General Westmoreland, the American commanding general and architect of the war, what he thought of how the French fought the war and was he studying the lessons of the French? He said, 'Why should I study the lessons of the French? They haven't won a war since Napoleon.' This was the American attitude of total arrogance.
We didn't learn from the past. We didn't learn from our own experience by going back to when we beat Britain in 1776. At that time the British had argued that we didn't fight in formations such as theirs, a big block formation; we didn't meet them in the open and we fought like the Indians, behind trees, using concealment and cover and so on. And a couple of hundred years later we had the British mentality towards fighting and we had forgotten the very lessons that we had taught the British.
Q: Don't you think that the United States' tremendous firepower could have won the war?
Hackworth: The war could have never been won in terms of the employment of firepower. The solution to winning the war was to cause reform in the government, to win the hearts and minds of the people, to make the cause justifiable so that the people of the country were willing to give up their lives.
This was not done. You could have used all of the firepower in the world, all the technical ability that the U.S. had to fight the enemy, and you'd have, maybe, won a temporary tactical respite. But we'd have never won the war strategically unless we had the people join our side.
The war was about the people and winning over their hearts and their minds and their allegiance to the host country. The host country in Vietnam was made up of gangsters.
Q: But you weren't there as a soldier to win hearts and minds, you were there for strictly military purposes.
Hackworth: If you were a student of warfare, as I was, you quickly realized that, tactically, we were not going to win the war and we had to win the people. This was a lesson from the French experience, and it was, as Mao said, 'The guerrilla is the fish and the people are the water.' If you want to kill the fish, you remove the water. If you want to kill the guerrilla, you remove the people, because they provide all kinds of assistance: medical help, agricultural help, they put out the booby-traps, they provide the intelligence, they provide the trailwatchers. They are the whole sea in which the guerrilla-fish swims.
Q: So were the efforts to resettle whole villages of Vietnamese a good way to fight this war?
Hackworth: No, because the Americans again tried to impose their values on the country of Vietnam, without understanding the culture and the religion of Vietnam. It was a country made up of Buddhists, who worshipped ancestors. Frequently people who had been moved from their homes would go through minefields to get back to worship at the graves of their ancestors. We didn't understand what the Vietnamese culture was all about.
Q: What do you think was so peculiarly good about the Vietcong's guerrilla fighters? What did you, as a military man, respect about them most?
Hackworth: I respected their [Viet Cong] dedication, the fire in their belly, their great, strong belief in freedom. Theirs was a mission, a complete dedication to winning independence for their country. So, I respected them for where they were coming from. Maybe it was empathy... my ancestors, two or three hundred years before, had fought the British.
Q: What about their strategy and tactics?
Hackworth: As fighters they were very fanatical, very dedicated. They were like my paratroopers, who were extraordinarily fine soldiers. A soldier tends to respect a counterpart that's a heavyweight, and they were indeed heavyweights because of their devotion to their cause.
[. . .]
Q: But, after the Tet Offensive, didn't the heavy bombing raids actually take a very heavy toll on the Vietcong?
Hackworth: Well, General LeMay said, 'If I had enough bombs, I could win this war, because I'd blast the Vietnamese back to the Stone Age.' What he didn't understand was that the Vietnamese were already living in the Stone Age and that firepower wouldn't work under those circumstances. I do think you're correct that at the end of Tet of '68, February 1968, we increased the amount of bomb tonnage out of frustration.
Vietnam is a country about the size of California in terms of area. We used three times the amount of bombs in the Vietnam War as we did in all of World War II, both the Allies and the Axis. We put enough steel on that California-sized target to sink it, and it did not cause the opponent to give in. Firepower was not the answer. The answer was to win the hearts and minds of the people.
Q: Why didn't firepower work?
Hackworth: Well, what firepower did — using pursuit aircraft, fighter aircraft, fighter bombers, artillery mortar and so on — what it did was it galvanized the opponent. It put steel in their back.
They could see themselves being struck by a giant and they had no way, no recourse, to strike back. It... as it did historically with the British during World War II... it put fire in their belly. It was absolutely the worst thing we could do in Vietnam. It gave them a tonic to fight harder.
Q: When you were active in the Mekong Delta, was it difficult to tell who was Vietcong and who was a civilian?
Hackworth: I was in the 9th Division and our Commander was General Julian Ewell, who was called the 'Butcher of the Delta.' The policy of the Division was that it didn't matter — if it moved, shoot it and then count it.
Theoretically, civilians were supposed to be away from the battle area. They would say this is a free-fire zone, but without realizing the tradition of the people to go back to their homestead. So regardless of the danger, they would go back to where their ancestors were and then they were considered Vietcong, and fair game.
There were an enormous number of casualties who were civilians but all the civilians, you have to understand, were sympathetic — certainly in my part of the Delta — to the Vietcong effort. Most of the people in the rural area of Vietnam were sympathetic to the Vietcong cause. They had won the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people. They felt that their cause was more just; it had more of a nationalistic purpose. COMMENT: David Hackworth is supposed to have been
SETTING IRAN STRAIGHT
Michael Kinsley, Slate, 14 Apr 06
Half a century ago, Iran was close to democracy, but the elected legislature, called the Majlis, voted in Mosaddeq as prime minister, who then wanted to nationalize the oil companies. To protect these companies, the CIA, under Eisenhower, engineered a coup in 1953, dissolving the Majlis and making the Shah the dictator, who later tortured and killed his opponents. Hatred of the Shah and the United States enabled the fanatical (i.e. orthodox) Muslim cleric Ayatollah Khomeini to come to power in 1979. A strict and radical Muslim state was established, which also practiced murder and torture, and which has persisted to this day. American diplomats were taken hostage for over a year, which infuriated America and made Jimmy Carter look impotent.
Next door in Iraq, an 'ambitious young dictator' named Saddam Hussein, sensing both danger and opportunity, invaded Iran and started a very bloody war, in which even children were sent to the battlefront. We helped him against our enemy and looked the other way when he used WMD against the Iranians and even on his own people. (Meanwhile, Reagan was also selling arms to Iran in order to release the hostages.)
The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, which turned into their 'Vietnam'. We spent hundreds of millions of dollars to help the 'guerillas', also called 'mujahideen', fight the Soviets. Many of these mujahideen were murderous thugs, who were becoming radicalized by Islam, but we failed to appreciate the power and danger of Islamic ideology, because we were so fixated on Communism. The war killed over a million people and turned half the population into refugees. The Soviets left in 1989, and in 1996 a particularly extreme Islamic group called the Taliban took over, setting up an Islamic state even more harsh than Iran, and providing a refuge for Osama bin Laden.
After 9/11, we invaded Afghanistan and destroyed the Taliban, and then we invaded Iraq and destroyed Saddam Hussein. Iraq is now (April 2006) a mess on the verge of civil war, and after a period of democratic progress under Karzai, the Taliban seem resurgent in Afghanistan. Even if Iraq avoids civil war, the 'democratic' constitution is heavily influenced by Islamic law, and the ascendant Shiites may unite or cooperate with our radical enemy Iran, who currently threatens us with a nuclear bomb program.
In brief, the United States has made many mistakes, some of them ignorant blunders and others evidently criminal, such as overthrowing Mossadeq. We were fixated on the USSR, which was crumbling from within, while we failed to comprehend the power and danger of a reviving Islamic ideology, despite centuries of an aggressive pattern that long predated Communism.
COMMENT: I consider myself somewhat left of center, but I don't doubt that most of the liberal PC crowd, including Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, would reject this 'racist' view of Islam out of hand. Such people don't even try to find out the truth but rather operate according to a politics of feeling, to try to make people love them. A more interesting critic is Daniel Pipes, an ardently pro-Israel conservative scholar of the Middle East, whose mantra is that Radical Islam is the problem, and moderate Islam is the solution. He has credibility on this point, since he did a Ph.D. on early Islamic history. However, I suspect he is yet another agnostic rationalist who cannot take religion seriously. He assumes that Muslims could easily become moderate while remaining faithful Muslims. In other words, the Muslims scriptures are malleable and can be reinterpreted to suit changing times, as happened in Judaism. I am skeptical of this view, as the Muslim scriptures are so explicit and aggressive and are taken as the direct word of God. That doesn't leave much wiggle-room. Another possibility is that Pipes is adopting this view as a mere strategy to divide the Muslim world, which would not be such a bad idea if it could work. I doubt it could, since Islam fosters a psychology of paranoia and conspiracy, so that any attempt to bolster moderates is likely to fail for this reason. The real solution is for Muslims to abandon Islam, but their conservatives will fight this tooth-and-nail, as it means their destruction. This is what happens when religion and politics are mixed, and the message of the Prophet is nothing if not a fusion of religion and politics.
By the way, my emphasis on values and culture explains why radical leftists like Noam Chomsky are so wrong. It is easy to play the game of focusing on the faults of America. Of course many people have been injured or killed due to American foreign policy, either directly or indirectly. This is inevitable with any major power, even one wiser and more saintly than our own. Less excusable are the outrages of Abu Ghraib, though my feelings about Guantanamo are more complex. What Chomsky's critique fails to address, insofar as it dwells on American violence, is the fundamental importance of ideology and basic principles, which is a rather disingenuous oversight coming from a leftist. At the end of the day, we have democracy, and the Communists and Muslims do not. We can correct our faults through a popular process. And if the people are not virtuous enough, what is the solution? The imposition of some totalitarian form of government, such as Communism or Islam? Is that progress? Leftists like Chomsky seem to hate America for petty personal reasons. They do not care about truth or democracy. Our universities are evidently full of such people.
So what are my points in this somewhat rambling introduction? I would list them as follows:
Principles and ideology matter. Liberal secular democracy must prevail, for all its faults. We must recognize fascist and totalitarian ideologies, even when they masquerade as religions, or when they mislead the masses with utopian dreams. Our liberal democratic culture is the foundation of our freedom and prosperity and of everything that makes our life good. These blessings are cultural and spiritual even more than physical. Likewise, the problems of the Middle East ultimately arise from the nearly opposite culture of Islam. (However, I am concerned that decadent aspects of our popular culture may eventually erode what we have achieved. Likewise, many of our elites are corrupt, both financially and intellectually. Money buys politicians, by financing their campaigns, and also sets the agenda. A democracy cannot survive without public and private virtue.)
We must not allow self-righteous patriotism to blind us to our real faults. We are at least partly responsible for the mess in the world. We have meddled with other governments, even democratically elected ones. However, this is a tricky issue, since, to be honest, and with 20/20 hindsight, I am sometimes inclined to think that we should have used force to keep the Shah in power! My instincts are to mind my own business, but I realize that this can be dangerous.
Callous as this may seem on the surface, we cannot blame America based on a superficial number count of death, as Noam Chomsky would have it. The US has indeed been instrumental, directly or indirectly, in many deaths throughout the world, as is inevitable with a great power. It does matter who is being fought, and thus we rapidly descend into the murky depths of politics. Only a careful, informed and conscientious analysis can sort it all out. (But as I said, see the following.)
Politics tends to devolve into a false choice between black and white. For example, the Iraq war has turned out to be a disaster, due to our failure to comprehend the social realities on the ground. Perhaps liberal secular democracy is the goal, but we must also accept that some societies are not yet ready for it, and trying to force it will only create an upheaval. Yet the hawks continue to argue that those who don't want to fight in Iraq are 'surrendering' to terrorists. This kind of idiocy must stop. It is worth repeating: Only a careful, informed and conscientious analysis can sort it all out. The pious believe that history is testing our virtue. I believe that it is also testing our intelligence, and I don't claim to have all the answers either.
Kahneman & Renshon: Why Hawks Win
Continetti vs. Yglesias: Should Hawks Win?
Introduction
Some Questions
A Look at the Bombs
Hiroshima
Other Articles
COMMENT: I'm ignoring the arcane possibility of a pacifist who truly puts his faith in God, which nobody really does, despite all the lip service. Even then, one might argue that the pacifist is unethical, since faith in God is merely his belief. (This comment produced a little conversation with SRK.)
Peaceful Societies: Alternatives to Violence and War
Sandmonkey: Congo War: 4 Million dead: US not involved: No one cares
Elan Journo: Our 'civilized' bombing policy lets al-Qaeda survive.
When to surrender?
When to apply extra brutality in order to shorten a war.
Applying force as a deterrent.
Terrorists/guerillas hiding behind human shields.
Mass civilian support for terrorists/guerillas.
Jonathan V. Last: Pre-WWII British dismay with war & empire
Jorg Friedrich: Dresden and Hiroshima were to teach Stalin a lesson
Niall Ferguson: 100 Years of butchery
Justin Raimondo: Who Are the War Criminals?
Justin Raimondo: Murder, Inc. [see links]
WHY WE FIGHT
Justin Raimondo, Antiwar, 19 Nov 04
American imperialism is bad for America. It undermines our republican (small-'r') institutions, it renders the effort to roll back Big Government futile, and it corrupts our character as a people. It also kills those it is supposed to be 'liberating' — a moral conundrum that none of the advocates of America's 'benevolent hegemony' acknowledge, let alone have an answer to.
OUR BIZARRE FOREIGN POLICY
Justin Raimondo, Anitwar, 18 Apr 05
What has made 'significant progress' in Kosovo and environs is the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs, who have been mercilessly hounded out of the former Yugoslav province by the narco-thugs of the Kosovo 'Liberation' Army. Again, it's no surprise that this administration is defending Clinton's policy: after all, he did exactly what the U.S. is now doing in Iraq — [Clinton] attacked a country that had never attacked us and represented no threat to our territory or legitimate interests. As is almost never noted by partisan critics of Bush's foreign policy, both bypassed the UN.
AAWE: Bomb types of the US military
Hezbollah's Dangerous Ball Bearings
The mechanics of evil: Inside a terrorist bomb
Senators introduce bill to restrict use of cluster munitions
Google Video: Trinity H-Bomb blast
Website: US Military Industrial Complex
Conn Hallinan: Death at a Distance: The US Air War
Jorg Friedrich: Dresden and Hiroshima were to teach Stalin a lesson
Ralph Raico: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
David R. Henderson: Remembering Hiroshima
Justin Raimondo: Hillary, Hiroshima, and Hubris
Oliver Kamm: Hiroshima, terrible but not a crime
David Cromwell: Racing Towards The Abyss
Wikipedia: World War II casualties
Tom Engelhardt: What Price Slaughter?
Lancet report on Iraqi civilian body count (PDF)
DYING FOR NOTHING
Charley Reese, Anitwar, 18 Apr 05
Missing was any threat to the safety and freedom of the United States, a threat no Iraqi ever made or ever had the capability of carrying out. So, if you don't want to say the kids are dying for nothing, you can say they are dying for Halliburton, for ExxonMobil, for the president's ego, for a cockamamie theory of a bunch of academics, for Israel, for money or for oil. What you cannot truthfully say is that they are dying for freedom.
Eric Foner: Battle Pieces
Introduction
Other Articles
Paul Craig Roberts (Antiwar): The Evil Is in Our Government
Justin Raimondo (Antiwar): Our Terrorism, and Theirs [more]
Justin Raimondo (Antiwar): Our Fascism, and Theirs
Bruce Ramsey (Seattle Times): America Should Mind its own Business
Veton Surroi (NPQ 2003): Only When Bombs Fall Do Tyrants Topple
Vladimir Lukin (NPQ 2003): America Is Not the World Government
Tom Engelhardt (Mother Jones): Bush's Faith in Force
David A. Hoekema: A Practical Christian Pacifism
Moshe Yaalon (WP): The Rules of War
Daniel Pipes: William Blum and Al-Qaeda's Leftist Brigade
BBC: Nagasaki bombing labelled a crime
Juan Cole (Antiwar): The Crock of Appeasement
Paul Craig Roberts: The Crime of the Century
THE MYTH OF MUSLIM TERROR
Kenneth Ballen, CSM, 23 Feb 07
Those who think that Muslim countries and pro-terrorist attitudes go hand-in-hand might be shocked by new polling research: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.
67 Japanese Cities Firebombed in World War II
Alan Dershowitz: Arbour Must Go
Preface
January 2007
June 2006
White House: National Security Strategy: March 2006
CAKEWALK CROWD ABANDONS BUSH
Pat Buchanan, 5 Jan 06
Conspicuous by its absence from disparagements of the president by these deserters from his camp and cause [i.e. the neocons] is any sense that they were themselves wrong. That they, who accuse everyone else of cutting and running, are themselves cutting and running. That they are themselves but a typical cluster of think-tank incompetents.
COMMENT: If a 'conservative' like Pat can remind us of Bismark's words, then perhaps I should come out against even aerial bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities!
Justin Raimondo: American Megalomania
Andrew Sullivan: The 'No Blood for Oil' Oversimplification
Pat Buchanan: End of a Year, End of an Era
Bjorn Staerk: What Went Wrong?
And it is not just our troops who suffer. Look at the present deadly chaos in Iraq. Life seems more dangerous for ordinary Iraqis than under Saddam! We really need to ask ourselves whether we made a terrible and shameful mistake. I am not a Michael Moore left-wing nut if I say this, because I do not hate America. I see it more as a tragic blunder with good intentions.
UPDATE (8 Jun 06): According to the BBC, the two ministries were just filled, and Zarqawi has been killed. Maybe things will now get better in Iraq, but I doubt it. Even if Iraq turns into something other than a catastrophe, I would argue that one should make foreign policy decisions based on likely outcomes and not on gambles. In practice, though, all's well that ends well, and the victors write history. I'll settle for a good ending, no matter who loses face.
17 Jun 06: Even Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democrat with solid hawk credentials, has recently said that we should start to think about withdrawing and turning Iraq over to the Iraqis. Democrats are divided over this, and Republicans are exploiting the inflammatory accusation of 'cut and run' to back them into a corner, as in the recent nonbinding resolution in the House. Furthermore, the frightened Iraqi government, holed up in its Green Zone bubble, is begging us to stay a bit longer, even though polls keep showing that the occupation is very unpopular with Iraqis in the street. (And let's not forget that this government wasted six months since the December elections wrangling over its ministers.) As usual, the debate descends into the stupidity of extremes: leave immediately or stay indefinitely. I agree that the future of Iraq is up to the Iraqis, and if their psychology dooms them to civil war, then there is little we can do and it is not our fault. But we don't have to leave precipitously. We could start to withdraw slowly but steadily, say, 10,000 troops a month. With an estimated 130,000 US troops now in Iraq, the Iraqis would know that they have about a year to get their act together. (A majority of Americans seems to agree.) The pressure would either bring about a quicker political resolution, hopefully a peaceful one, or else it would accelerate the inevitable civil war and spare useless US deaths. Otherwise, it's an endless succession of 'Oh please! Just 6 more months!', as in this revealing piece on NYT genius Tom Friedman.
22 Jun 06: This 2003 interview with former CIA officier Robert Baer seems like an uncanny echo of my own thoughts. It covers a lot of ground and seems factually-based and free of the curse of partisanship. We do have smart people in the CIA; it's just that nobody with power is listening to them. See here for a recent interview with Baer on Iran.
24 Jun 06: The Baer article reminds me that I forgot one of the most important aspects of US foreign policy: our relationship with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan! There have been plenty of good articles indicating that both countries have been supporting terrorism. Saudi Arabia does it through its worldwide financing of madrassahs or Islamic religious schools, which teach the most virulent Wahhabi form of Islam. Pakistan has supported the Taliban in the past, who supported Al Qaeda. It also allowed its top nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan to proliferate nuclear technology throughout the Muslim world (and beyond), and it has long supported terrorism in India related to the Kashmir issue. Yet we consider Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to be close allies! As Baer and others realize, the Saudi royal family has a 'Faustian' bargain with us so that they stay in power and we get our oil. Something similar is true of General Musharraf in Pakistan. Such unsavory and unprincipled alliances must always be shaky and duplicitous and hence unreliable. The possibility of our 'ally' going under, with resulting anti-US 'blowback', is great, as in the case of Iran. Meanwhile, we brush aside India's problems with Pakistani-sponsored terrorism in Kashmir and India proper, since that is 'not our problem'. How selfish and shortsighted! As the world's largest democracy, and an up-and-coming economic powerhouse, India should be a natural ally, not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Yet all we ever do is react to the moment in accordance with our short-term interests, and even those are misunderstood.
24 Jun 06: An important question not yet addressed is why there have been no more terror attacks on American soil since 9/11. The pro-war hawks say that this is because we are taking the fight to the enemy, but I find that explanation implausible, as discussed here.
27 Jun 06: We should indeed worry about the U.S. becoming overextended around the world, getting bogged down in useless missions on hostile turf that are unlikely to succeed. This seems part of Al Qaeda's game plan, according to an ABC report.
31 Jul 06: Lately, I am feeling both more aggressive and more isolationist. See my article Fighting With Hands Tied.
2 Aug 06: And I am feeling pessimistic about international organizations. See my article Doubts About Internationalism.
3 Aug 06: Not to mention democracy itself, in certain parts of the world. See my section on Promoting Democracy.
4 Aug 06: My growing pessimism has also tempted me to place my hope in unforeseen consequences.
14 Sep 06: This discussion has a natural continuation in my 9/11 retrospective.
Introduction
More Doubts About Democratization
George Shultz Speaks
Other Articles
George Will: Transformation's Toll
Michael Rubin (AEI): Fight for Mideast democracy faltering
David Horowitz (FPM): Moment of Truth
Max Boot: Bush's drive to remake the ME is taking a U-turn in Egypt
Dimitri K. Simes: No more Middle East crusades
Book review: Roland Stromberg: 'Democracy: A Short, Analytical History'
Michael Lind: A Tragedy of Errors
Tom Barry: Liberal Hawks: Flying in Neocon Circles
Francis Fukuyama: After The End of History
Pat Buchanan: What Is 'Democracy'?
Amartya Sen: Democracy Isn't 'Western'
Steven Warshawsky: Hard Thoughts about the War
Michael Scheuer: Is There a Role for Reality in US Foreign Policy?
Pat Buchanan: End of a Year, End of an Era
Mark Moyar (CSM): The Vietnam history you haven't heard
Jeff Taylor: Bipartisan Nature of U.S. Foreign Policy Establishment
Pat Buchanan: Ideological War Can't Be Justified
Fareed Zakaria: Preview of a Post-U.S. World
Dalder & Lindsay: Democracies of the World, Unite
Chalmers Johnson: 737 U.S. Military Bases = Global Empire
Tom Barry: America's Crusaders
Doug Bandow: Review of Savage Peace: Wilson's Failure
Condoleezza Rice: Power & Promise of American Realism
Justin Raimondo: Nihilism and Neoconservatism
Introduction
Hackworth on Vietnam
ABC News: Bin Laden Gets a Pass from Pakistan
Jonathan Chait: Story buried by all the major newspapers
Rajeev Srinivasan (Rediff): The fallout from 9/11 [more]
Christopher Hitchens: The Return of Henry Kissinger
Arvind Lavakare (Rediff): America's inhuman rights record
Third World Traveler: Friendly Dictators (1995)
INTERVIEW WITH DAVID HACKWORTH
PBS: People's Century
Q: What do you think the Vietcong learned from Mao Tse-tung?