Worldview: US Foreign Policy 2
by A Concerned Citizen
back to the Worldview Menu
Table of Contents
LinksDomestic Politics
US Democracy and War
Back to US Foreign Policy
Introduction (15 Jun 06): Lately I have been wondering if there is any real democratic control over the wars that America fights. This is not an unpatriotic left-wing diatribe but a sober attempt to examine some factual realities. My thinking was jogged when my Indian correspondent SRK pointed out that once the US placed its warships in the Gulf to pressure Saddam into inspections, we could not really leave without getting laughed at and losing our credibility. But did we really have a choice? Saddam had been defying the US over WMD for years. Was Bush not correct in asserting the authority of the UN? Can the world community thumb its nose at the UN as it can at the US? So how could we pressure Saddam without committing forces to the region? Who would want to deny the President the power to deploy forces, given the fast pace of modern events? But then, once Saddam called our bluff, did we really have a choice about war? Some may say that the weapons inspectors were indeed making progress, and that Bush jumped the gun. Even so, this shows how easily we are dragged into war, without any real democratic control over the process, and I find this to be very disquieting. An American President, in effect, has the power to get us into war, based on his own decision. Or perhaps, in some cases, even he does not really have any choice. This does not sound like democracy to me.
Article II of the Constitution has generally been interpreted as giving the President sweeping powers to respond quickly to threats to our national security, notwithstanding that Congress is supposed to 'declare' war. The following scenario should then be rather common, as long as we remain a 'superpower'. A hot spot requires the President to move forces to the region and try to exert American pressure on the situation. If we don't flex our muscles, then we lose credibility and power in the present and future conflicts. If we do flex our muscles, then we are committed to being tough and not backing off, or we also lose credibility and power. So basically, we have no choice, according to this logic. Now it so happens that many people in the so-called third world today are willing to fight and die in large numbers, unlike in the days of colonialism. The Iranians are a case in point, having proved themselves in the Iran-Iraq war. Thus the underdeveloped world is less and less afraid of American and Western power, especially since we place all kinds of 'human rights' restrictions on our warfighting tactics, which the leftist propaganda is all too eager to exploit. So the 'rogues' defy us, and soon we find ourselves in a war, with no real participation from the American people. (Note, however, that Reagan, of all presidents, pulled out as soon as the Marines were blown up in Beirut.)
Once we are embroiled in a war with tough, low-tech, ready-to-die thugs, our national honor is at stake. Any attempt to back off brings cries of treason and betrayal of our troops, especially from the Republican politicians, who have promoted this tactic to a staple of their domestic politics, made all the easier by an all-volunteer army to which the rich do not send their sons. Due to our military hardware, we soon insert ourselves into some backward country, and then we discover (again and again) how useless this hardware is against a guerilla insurgency in a country where our presence is hated. Even when our presence is tolerated, we never seem quite able to leave, as our troops are relied on for police actions or stability. Eventually, we are spread and tied down all over the world, like Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians. We are even still in Germany!
How can we not become an empire under these circumstances? But is not 'paleoconservative' Pat Buchanan correct that being an empire inevitably corrupts our democratic principles and leads to overextension and ruin? Sun Tzu is smiling, as are his descendants in Beijing. We have to get out of this quandary, and my recommendation is that we work harder on alliances with intelligent, democratic nations, rather than with the corrupt and not so intelligent UN. (After all, it's full of leftists and Muslims.) I also wonder if we shouldn't place some constitutional restrictions on the power of the Presidency, notwithstanding the risks that this might entail. Moreover, we need to argue publicly against gung-ho hawks who never met a war they didn't like and who consider anything less that complete victory to be treason and betrayal of the troops. I'll bet most of them never saw any real combat. One is hardly 'liberal' or 'left-wing' if one wishes for a more mature and sober approach than this.
NOTE: See my page on the Politics of War, where I keep track of daily news related to this topic.
Back to US Democracy and War
A Libertarian Perspective (25 Nov 06): If you thought it was only the 'left' which accuses the US of being an aggressive and imperialistic power, guess again. There is a minority on the 'right', known as 'libertarians', who tend to say something similar. They prefer a realistic and isolationist foreign policy, in which the US only goes to war when threatened directly, not as part of some global power play or democratic crusade. However, unlike the left, they do not want the government to intervene in the economy. Indeed, they fear war for a similar reason that they fear social programs: both tend to amplify the power of the state over the individual. The Republicans have bought into this on domestic matters but not on foreign policy. Some libertarians go rather far, such as accusing the US of actually provoking most of the wars of the last century or so, for imperialistic and commercial reasons. Here is an example.
[. . .]
The ideals upon which America was founded were the exact opposite of those expressed by Mussolini and other collectivists on the Left. Why then was America, in the twentieth century, not a bulwark for freedom to oppose all of these leftist ideas? Why didn't the ideas of the American Founders dominate the twentieth century and make it the 'American Century of Peace and Prosperity' instead of the ideas of the Left dominating and making it the 'War and Welfare Century'? The failure of the ideas of the Founders of America to be dominant in the twentieth century was certainly not because America had been conquered by the force of arms of some foreign leftist enemy.
[. . .]
Abraham Lincoln himself became the principal instigator of America's suicide. It was not a foreign foe, but it was a war, even a 'victorious' war, that ended the Founders' dreams in America. However, leftist intellectuals have never revealed to the American people the real cause and effect of the American Civil War, and instead have proclaimed it a 'noble war' to free the slaves, and therefore, worth all of its costs. In fact, it was a war to repudiate the ideas of a limited central government and it moved America towards a domestic empire, which led inevitably to a foreign empire several decades later.
We can see photographs of Lincoln near the end of the war that show signs of strain. However, I think the strain was due mainly to the fact that at the end of this long and costly war, he understood that it had been unnecessary and that he had acted initially and primarily only to secure the economic and political domination of the North over the South. At the end of the war, President Lincoln finally understood the real costs as revealed by this statement:
[. . .]
Consolidation of power into the central government is the basic premise of collectivism, and it was the basic idea the Constitution attempted to avoid. After the creation of the domestic American empire as a result of the Civil War, and then after the next three decades, America specifically repudiated its one-hundred-year old foreign policy and initiated the Spanish-American War, allegedly to free Cuba. We now know, however, that the original and ultimate purpose of the war was to take the Philippine Islands away from Spain in order to provide coaling stations for the trade with China that was considered by many American economic interests to be essential to America's expansion. McKinley ordered the American warships sent to the Philippines at approximately the same time he sent the battleship Maine to Cuba and instructed the American Navy to support the Philippine rebels against their Spanish rulers. McKinley asked Congress to declare war because of the sinking of the battleship Maine, but we know today that the explosion occurred within the ship and, therefore, could not have been done by the Spanish.
[. . .]
America's entry into World War I was a result of the so-called Progressive Movement which worshiped the idea of democracy per se, and wished to spread it throughout the world, by force if necessary. It was this movement that in one year, 1913, caused monumental changes in America, all in the name of attacking the rich for the benefit of the poor. The first change was the creation of the Federal Reserve System allegedly to control the banks, but instead it concentrated power into the hands of an elite few unelected manipulators. The Sixteenth Amendment allowed for the income tax and it was alleged that the Amendment only attacked the rich. However, in World War I, the tax was raised and expanded and has become the most oppressive feature of American life in this century. Today it causes middle-class Americans to work approximately five months of every year just for the government before they earn anything for themselves. The third drastic change was the Seventeenth Amendment, which gave 'power' to the people by letting them elect US Senators rather than the state legislatures. The Founding Fathers had devised a system of state legislatures electing US Senators in order to give the states the ability to restrain and limit the power of the federal government.
[. . .]
Wilson, like Polk, Lincoln, and McKinley before him, deceitfully made it appear that the alleged enemy started the war by firing the first shot. The German embassy warned Secretary of State Bryan that the British passenger ship, the Lusitania, was carrying illegal weapons and munitions, and was therefore a proper and perfectly legal target for submarines. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan tried to get Wilson to warn Americans not to sail on this ship but he refused to do so, seeing that the opportunity for the loss of American lives would present him with an apparent reason for entering the war. Wilson failed to give the warning and Bryan later resigned. Over one hundred Americans were killed when a German submarine sank the Lusitania.
After World War I ended, and much like the regret expressed by Lincoln at the end of the Civil War, President Wilson looked back to the harm he had brought on America and saw part of the true nature of World War I. In an address at St. Louis, Missouri on September 5, 1919, President Wilson stated:
It is sad to contemplate the loss of liberty caused to Americans by the 'victorious' wars we have fought when you look back and see that almost all of them were unnecessary to defend Americans or their freedom, and were largely economically instigated. In so many instances, the president provoked the other side into firing the first shot so it was made to appear that the war was started by America's alleged enemy. Not only did Polk, Lincoln, McKinley, and Wilson do this, but also later, Roosevelt would do it with Pearl Harbor and Johnson would do it at the Gulf of Tonkin for the Vietnam War.
It is not truly a study of history to speculate on what might have happened if America had not entered World War I, but here are some very reasonable, even probable, consequences if America had followed the advice of its Founders:
The Treaty of Versailles excluded Germany and Russia from the negotiations and declared Germany alone guilty of causing the war. It saddled her with tremendous payments for war damages and took away much of her territory. The Treaty of Versailles paved the way for Hitler whose support came democratically from the German people who wanted to throw off the unfair Treaty. Without the rise of communism in Russia and Nazism in Germany, World War II probably would not have occurred. On the other hand, does anybody really think that the Federal Reserve was a bad idea? Perhaps we take it for granted, because we unquestionably accept that the inadequacies of the unfettered banking system helped bring about the Great Depression. I am no economist and will not venture here. Nevertheless, I will agree that there is something a bit disquieting about the unelected Federal Reserve Chairman wielding so much power. As for the income tax, I am glad when it is used well, e.g. for roads and schools. I see nothing terribly wrong in a moderately progressive tax, where the rate tops out at about 30-35%, with no loopholes. Maybe I am just used to it, but I really would like to know what we must sacrifice were the income tax to be eliminated. I wouldn't want the DC area to resemble Alabama. That's not my idea of progress.
The claim that so many US presidents deceitfully started a war is provocative and interesting. Again, this could easily have been for a 'good cause'. For example, prior to WWII, Japan was trampling China, in an act of naked imperialistic aggression, accompanied by horrendous crimes against humanity, such as the 'Rape of Nanking'. As I understand it, we blockaded their oil supply. Now the purpose may have been worthy — to help the Chinese — but could we not expect the Japanese to respond, perhaps with a Pearl Harbor? All I am saying is that we must be rational and expect even (or especially) bad animals to fight back for their self-preservation.
In a similar vein, the standard post-WWII homily that isolationism was the primary reason for Hitler's aggression ignores the very real grievances the Germans felt for the Versailles Treaty, as mentioned above. Perhaps two wrongs don't make a right, but we have certainly not hesitated to use massive military power when we felt aggrieved. In fact, we went all the way to Vietnam and Iraq, while Hitler only went next door. Of course, our motives were better than his, however misguided, but there is also something to be said that the mantra of 'democracy' provides an all-too-easy excuse for engaging in behavior that can not unreasonably be described as 'imperialistic'. If nothing else, the danger of this seductive trap is all the more reason to work from within an international framework, one more resembling the Congress of Vienna than the Congress of Versailles.
Back to US Democracy and War
Other Articles
Back to US Democracy and War
Presidential War Powers
Back to US Foreign Policy
Introduction (19 May 06): The recent debate about the NSA wiretapping is but one aspect of the larger problem of presidential war powers. This has been a bone of political contention throughout our history. The hallowed Founding Fathers seem to have come short on this one when they drafted the Constitution. The specific details are woefully lacking. Or perhaps their far-seeing wisdom was so subtle that they realized that less is more, especially with issues of war and peace. Does it even matter? Congress has failed to obey the meager rules that are there — such as insisting on its obligation to declare war and to monitor the executive (cf. the massive 'black' military and intelligence budget). And if an empty slogan like 'support the troops' can cripple the Congressional power of the purse — the only sure tool Congress has to reverse a mistaken war — then perhaps we can see why no constitutional fine-print can overcome legislative corruption and public negligence.
NOTE: See my Domestic Security page for further discussion of related topics.
Back to Presidential War Powers
Panel Discussion at Brookings (19 May 06): We begin with the transcript of an expert debate hosted recently by Stuart Taylor, Jr. at the Brookings Institution:
That sounds pretty 'unnuanced' to me! Specifically, administration lawyers have argued for the following presidential war powers:
The NSA wiretapping and telephone database are also highly controversial. Congress has been largely docile, though it did recently adopt the McCain amendment banning 'brutal interrogation methods', as well as increased oversight for the NSA surveillance program. In 2004, the Supreme Court ordered access to counsel and hearings for American detainees, as well as access to federal courts for the foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Yet the full effect of these corrections has yet to be ascertained. For example, in signing the McCain amendment, the president let it be known that he may not always feel compelled to obey it. Such 'signing statements' frequently claim the right to interpret laws passed by Congress to curb presidential power.
Several panelists were invited to debate the issue. The first was Lou Fisher, a Specialist in the Law at the Library of Congress. Fisher claims that the assertion of sweeping presidential powers in times of emergency, exercised by previous presidents such as Truman, comes from the British royal prerogative, as advocated by John Locke and William Blackstone, and not from the Constitution. He argues that the framers of the Constitution were trying to avoid just such prerogatives. For example, he cites an essay by John Jay in Federalist Paper No. 4, in which Jay observes that such powers are often misused by foreign governments for partisan purposes other than national security. As have many scholars, Pilon refers to Article I of the Constitution, which states that 'The Congress shall have the power to declare war'. He cites other historical precedents to show that conduct of foreign policy should be shared by the president and Congress. For example, in defending the NSA wiretapping, the administration has cited a precedent in 1800 involving John Marshall, which Fisher says was taken out of context. Other precedents, involving Polk and Lincoln, have also been taken out of context. The oft-cited suspension of habeas corpus by Lincoln was an emergency measure, for which he later sought authorization from Congress. The common understanding that war should be declared by Congress changed significantly in 1950, when Truman went to war against Korea, without first seeking authorization from Congress. At the time, the nation was frightened by Communism, so Truman got away with it, and since then American presidents have made a habit of bypassing Congress when responding to emergencies with military force.
Next up was Roger Pilon, Vice President for Legal Affairs at the CATO Institute. Despite coming from a libertarian think tank, he defends the NSA surveillance program. He reminds the audience that the technology behind such a program is highly complex and secret, so that it is difficult to discuss the legal implications in detail. He argues for a balance between the executive's duty to defend the nation and the 4th amendment's guarantee of freedom from 'unreasonable search and seizure'. Wiretapping, in his opinion, is of trivial concern compared to the importance of preventing another 9/11. He claims that the argument for Congressional supremacy in foreign matters, as advocated by Lou Fisher, is really an innovation of the post-Vietnam era. He points to the 'vesting clauses' of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Constitution, which apportion duties to the three branches of government. In particular, Article 1 says that 'All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in the Congress.' He interprets this to mean that only those powers specifically granted to Congress may be claimed by Congress. Articles 2 and 3, by contrast, do not limit the powers assigned to the Executive and Judiciary, respectively. What are the duties of the Executive? The modern view, says Pilon, is that the Executive merely carries out the laws passed by Congress, but that is not the original view, in his opinion. He cites Madison who, in 1789, said that 'The executive power being, in general terms, vested in the president, all powers of an executive nature not particularly taken away, must belong to that department.' Jefferson and many others have expressed similar views, according to Pilon. Until modern times, he argues, the Executive's conduct of foreign policy was largely uncontrolled. Finally, he mentions a 2002 ruling of the FISA Court that the president has the authority 'to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information'. What powers does the Congress have? The power of the purse, which is its principal method of restraining the president. It does not have the power to 'micromanage' foreign policy. (What about its obligation to declare war? Pilon does not say.)
The following speaker was Bill Galston, a Brookings Senior Fellow in Political Theory. Like the first speaker, he is concerned with a repeated pattern of executive overreach during times of emergency. He cites Justice Jackson regarding the internment of American citizens of Japanese origin during WWII, who maintained that (in Galston's words) 'the greatest danger lies not in the specific excesses but in the possibility that courts will ratify them and thereby build distortions into the heart of our constitutional system'. He recalls the claim, frequently advertised by the administration, that the post-9/11 authorization from Congress to hunt Al Qaeda by 'all necessary and appropriate force' takes precedence over the 'plain language' of the FISA laws regarding domestic wiretapping. He disagrees and also believes that many Republicans in Congress would deny that that was their intention, when they voiced such sweeping language during the heat of the moment. The Framers of the Constitution were trying to achieve a balance between tyranny and a weak government. They were acutely aware of the paradox that weak government can open the door to tyranny. He quotes Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, who said 'energy in the executive' is 'essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks', but who also opined that
Following Montesquieu, the separation of powers, as well as checks and balances, were key devices to avoid tyranny. However, in Federalist 47, both Madison and Hamilton affirm that the three branches of government can have partial control over each other. Galston cites the FISA law as an example of this should operate in practice. Congress passed the law, and the FISA courts must approve Executive search warrants, for domestic wiretapping or other purposes in the war on Al Qaeda. Hence, all three branches work together to defend the nation while preserving liberty. This has always been the understanding of the court, according to Galston. Indeed, the court has always upheld any statute limiting the Commander in Chief's authority. Justice O'Conner, writing for the plrality in the Hamdi case, has reaffirmed that whatever the role of the Executive in fighting foreign enemies, all three branches must participate when individual liberties are at stake. Until now, presidents have understood this principle, says Galston. In the case of Lincoln and the suspension of habeas corpus, as well as of Truman and the steel mills, both presidents admitted that the emergency measures were temporary and subject to revision by Congress. The present administration may have been justified in a temporary resort to warrantless wiretaps during the crisis following 9/11, but to continue that practice indefinitely violates precedent. The 'prudent and constitutional' course of action would be for the president to work with Congress to craft a legal framework for fighting terrorism that also preserves the liberties of citizens.
The final speaker was Andrew McBride, a partner at Wiley, Rein & Fielding, one of Washington's major law firms, and a top Justice Department official during the first Bush administration. He begins by pointing out the unprecedented nature of 9/11, involving a massive attack on civilians on American soil. The presence of sleeper cells within the American population, who rely heavily on electronic communications, presents a novel and deadly challenge. He does not agree with everything that Bush has done, but he attributes part of the excesses to the rushed and patchwork nature of the administration's counterterrorism measures, that will sort itself out in the natural course. He criticizes Fisher for underemphasizing the lack of executive power in the Articles of Confederation, which was of concern to the drafters of the Constitution. In the Articles, the military power was all with the legislature or with state governors, which proved counterproductive in the execution of the war against the British. Hence they designated the president the 'Commander in Chief', which means more than a 'six star general'. In particular, it means that the president can call on military forces without a declaration of war from Congress, when the nation is suddenly attacked, as occurred during the Revolution, as well as during the French and Indian wars. (The same is true, incidentally, during an insurrection.) 9/11 was precisely that kind of attack. Turning to Bill Galston, he asserted that separation of powers and checks and balances makes a lot of sense for domestic matters but not during the heat of war. Meddling with the president during military operations could jeopardize troops and national security. The president must be able to react quickly during terrorist incidents, sometimes on a hunch. He does not have time to get a warrant if an unidentified plane is flying towards the Capitol or the White House. That awesome authority can be abused, but Congress' remedy is the power of the purse. As for military tribunals, McBride claims that they have historically been the custom during wartime, going back to the trial of Major Andre during the revolution. Military tribunals are 'instruments of war, the same as bunker busters', and the judiciary has no authority over them.
A question and answers period followed. Lou Fisher makes the point that much depends on public reaction. The late justice Rehnquist, a law clerk at the time, expected Truman to win against Judge Pine, but public opinion led to Truman's defeat. Questions were asked such as, 'If Truman can seize steel mills, can he seize newspapers and radio stations?', and Truman answered in the affirmative, provided it were an emergency. As for public opinion, Pilon notes that it is currently going in the president's favor on the NSA wiretapping, despite his plunge in the polls. Pilon then notes that two secret courts, the trial and appeal FISA courts, disagreed regarding the interpretation of the FISA laws. As for the power of Congress to declare war, Pilon asserts that this is not the same as the 'power to declare hostilities'. It is simply a 'juridical power' to move the country from a state of 'imperfect to perfect war by notifying citizens, enemies, and third parties that we are now in a state of formal war'. Hmmmm. He confirms McBride's contention that the Framers learned from their experience during the Revolution and gave the president sweeping powers during wartime. Bill Galston reaffirms that the execution of a war must be distinguished from the rights of citizens; these continue even during a war. McBride points out that Bush has voluntarily limited military tribunals to foreign captives and not Americans. Also, anyone brought before such a tribunal is supposed to have a careful screening for some connection to Al Qaeda. Mc Bride reminds the audience that the FISA court of appeals has on several occasions affirmed the president's authority to conduct wiretapping of suspect calls to other countries. McBride disagrees with Pilon that the Congressional power to declare war is a mere formality. The president does have the power to repel immediate invasion without such a declaration, but a long term war in another land, such as Iraq, is a different matter, which does require authority from Congress. The term 'Commander in Chief' simply means that the president cannot be second-guessed on the actual conduct of war. Pilon notes that America has been involved in some 200 uses of foreign force, but in only five of them did Congress declare war. That is because such a declaration is a serious act, in which many laws 'kick in' to limit our freedom. For example, the president can seize property or abrogate contracts. Hence, it should not be used unless necessary. The discussion goes on for many more pages...
Back to Presidential War Powers
Jeffrey Rosen's View (4 May 07): Jeffrey Rosen is a law professor at the George Washington University, who appears frequently in the media and has just written a book called The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America, as well as contributed to a companion documentary on PBS. This follows previous well-received works on the American legal system, such as The Most Democratic Branch: How the Courts Serve America. Therefore, his opinion on presidential war powers is of great interest, and he has just written an article on this topic for the New York Times. The first paragraph sets out the problem, followed by the conventional wisdom regarding the role of Congress during war:
[. . .]
Legal scholars — both critics and supporters of the Iraq war — say that if Congress tries to manage the deployment and withdrawal of troops without cutting funds, the president's powers as commander in chief would be encroached, perhaps leading to a constitutional confrontation of historic proportions.
[. . .]
So how, exactly, can Congress assert power over the war, beyond its ability simply to pull the plug on its financing? History suggests that Congress has found ways of checking the president in the past without encroaching on his power as commander in chief. And, history suggests, as well, that neither side is that eager for a constitutional showdown.
There is little dispute that Congress could, if it had the political will, end the war in Iraq tomorrow by using its power over appropriations to cut off funds to the troops. 'Congress could easily check the president', says W. Taylor Reveley III, the dean of William and Mary School of Law and author of War Powers of the President and Congress. Rosen then describes other 'cudgels' Congress has historically used to work its will on a wartime president. Some seem insignificant, such as forcing Madison's Secretary of War to resign during the War of 1812, or censuring Polk for unconstitutionally starting the war with Mexico. During the Civil War, Congressional Republicans tried to get Lincoln to fire General McClellan for not fighting aggressively enough, but they never tried to control troop movements. Instead, they tried to 'shame' the Union generals by hauling them before Congressional committees.
Congress is also 'perfectly competent' to examine civil liberties issues, such as the detention of inmates at Guantanamo Bay, or whether the Geneva Conventions are being followed.
What if Congress tried to reduce troops without cutting funds? Most likely, there would be a power struggle between the Executive and the Legislature, with the President delaying or simply ignoring Congress. The Supreme Court has traditionally been reluctant to get involved in such struggles over war powers. As Dean Reveley says, 'These disputes about the powers of the president and Congress in wartime are waged with almost theological passion and conviction and the Supreme Court rarely intervenes, which is why war powers are still so murky.' All our wars except the two World Wars have been unpopular (interesting!), which resulted in intense bickering between President and Congress, but not in a constitutional crisis, due to the diffidence of the courts. Such disputes tend to be resolved politically, with either President or Congress eventually backing down. Usually, though, the Congress just 'stood on the sidelines and complained'.
This is all rather alarming to me. It means that there is no quick democratic mechanism to get the country out of an unpopular war. Add to that the ease with which the president can get us into one, based on this or that fabricated or exaggerated threat, and we have the stage set for an increasingly militarized and imperial America encroaching on our Republic. It was nice while it lasted!
I don't quite buy the argument that slowly cutting funds exposes troops to danger. That would only be the case if the president sends them into battle without adequate equipment or support. Could he be so callous? Oh wait! They were sent into Iraq in the first place without adequate armor on their humvees, and that was before the war became unpopular. The real problem, I suspect, is that the country is always divided about every issue. Even now, the Republicans know that some good news on Iraq could put them back in the saddle again. Does this mean that troops are being used as political pawns? This whole situation is unacceptable, and I am disappointed that Rosen was not more bold in offering a solution.
UPDATE (4 Mar 07): The Iraq War is special in that the post-9/11 Congress got carried awat and gave the president, in effect, a blank check. Hopefully, it won't repeat that rash mistake any time soon. But did it really make that much difference?
Back to Presidential War Powers
Other Articles
Forrestal was also a zealot, the prototype for a whole line of national security ideologues stretching across six decades from Dean Acheson to Donald Rumsfeld, from Paul Nitze to Paul Wolfowitz. Geoffrey Perret's acerbic description of Acheson applies to them all: His 'mind turned to the apocalyptic as easily, if not as often, as other men's thoughts turn toward money or sex'.
[. . .]
Despite his no-nonsense, take-no-guff, buck-stops-here manner, Truman was as much a creature of the imperial presidency as its directing officer. The Most Powerful Man in the World exercised only limited control over the national security apparatus that provided the ostensible foundation of his authority. Others set the tune to which the man in the Oval Office danced. In Presidential Power, Matthew Crenson and Benjamin Ginsberg quote Clark Clifford, a key Truman aide, to explain how the process worked: Clifford and other members of the White House staff would arrive at 'some understanding among ourselves on what direction we would like to see the president take on any given issue'. Having reached their decision, Truman's nominal subordinates would 'quietly and unobtrusively...try to steer the president in that direction'. Back to Presidential War Powers
Political Rhetoric
Introduction (24 May 06): Here is a simple point Mickey Kaus made the other day on BloggingHeads.TV. President Bush is famous for saying that he 'doesn't do nuance'. That may be his real failing, rather than the demonic picture of him painted by some on the left. Right after 9/11, it was 'you are either with us or against us'. Appease Saddam or invade. Deport millions of illegals or back his plan. He plays the old political trick of presenting the options as black or white. Now to be fair, everybody does this. For example, the ACLU seems to view any restriction on our civil liberties as the beginning of a police state, despite the formidable new challenge of terrorists with WMD. Yet, I somehow associate this trick more with the Republicans. Maybe I am wrong.
The article by John Leo illustrates what is infuriating about the debate over national security. It is indeed a lack of nuance, or perhaps a lack of simple intelligence, or perhaps an intentionally duplicitous oversimplification of a difficult problem.
First, let me state what I appreciate about the 'conservatives', insofar as this label has any meaning. It is only on sites like FrontPageMag and Jihad Watch that I have been able to find certain kinds of important but politically incorrect information, particularly about the true nature of militant (i.e. orthodox) Islamic ideology. I despise political correctness, which does seem to be a disease of the 'Left'. As David Horowitz and others have pointed out, this is not new. During earlier decades, a significant portion of the 'Left', especially the intellectual left, whitewashed the crimes of Communism. Beinart discusses the battle between Truman and Wallace during the 1940's to capture the soul of the Democratic Party.
Now, what I dislike about many conservatives, as I have already said, is their dishonest tactic of shrill oversimplification, which is used to scare and stampede people into a false choice. To be sure, the ideological Left also uses this tactic, but the leftists who use it tend to be marginal freaks in irrelevant places like Harvard and Berkeley (haha!), whereas the conservatives who use it are people wielding enormous power, like Karl Rove. (It does seem that Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice do all the thinking in this administration.) Now John Leo looks like a normal decent guy, judging from his picture, and I'm sure he is, but his article contains a statement such as:
I am no fan of equivocating John Kerry, but notice how Leo deceptively phrases the issue as between those brave, patriotic lovers of freedom who want to 'fight the war on terror' and those who do not. Also, notice the outrageous insult that Democrats 'don't truly believe in America'. This kind of demagoguery has long been popular among Republicans, because it evidently works. The issue isn't just between war and no war but, more importantly, what kind of war. Of course we had to respond to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but does that mean we should have become bogged down in an apparently futile attempt to democratize Iraq? And even if Iraq acquires some kind of 'democracy', will it be to our advantage if Iraqi and Iranian Shias are thereby strengthened in the region? Do we really want a 'democracy' that puts theocrats in power? Leo disingenuously conflates all of Bush's policies into the 'war on terror', just as Bush did, and pretends that we must either accept or reject the entire package. Unfortunately, the democratic process tends to amplify this stupidity, since we are only given a binary choice between often mediocre candidates, at least in America. In the same breath, however, I will admit that the liberals and Democrats have done a terrible job of seeming to take terrorism seriously and coming up with more sophisticated alternatives. Their mental paralysis bewilders me. Perhaps the Republicans have occult powers.
Come to think of it, the Bush administration has oversimplified and conflated many issues in a truly deceptive way: Al Qaeda and Saddam, Zarqawi and Al Qaeda, Zarqawi and the Sunni insurgency, post-Saddam Iraq and the 'War on Terror', rejection of the wrong war with appeasement, 'staying the course' with virtue, etc. Then there was the despicable smearing of war veterans, including handicapped veterans like Max Cleland, which seems especially foolish or cynical for a 'pro-defense' party. As I said, this kind of rhetoric works up to a point, since many are the imbeciles, but I think that the Achilles' heal of the GOP may be its elitist assumption that most of the public is stupid. This kind of hubris can arise when you've had too much success at manipulating some portion of the public (namely your core).
UPDATE (17 Jun 06): Here is another example of the Republican strategy: the GOP-dominated House just voted 256-153 for a nonbinding resolution that 'praises U.S. troops, labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of troops is not in the national interest'. Notice how they lump together several disparate items, including the assertion that the war in Iraq is part of the global war on terror. Many Congressmen who would disagree with that particular point may still feel compelled to vote for the resolution, for fear of being branded 'weak on terror' or as not 'supporting the troops'. Thus do moderates get railroaded by rhetoric and parliamentary devices. (And this, despite the fact that half of Americans now want to withdraw from Iraq.) In particular, the favorite Republican expression 'cut and run' is a catchy phrase intended to stop thinking and to cut off debate. The worst example of demagoguery during this debate, as mentioned last night on Washington Week, was from Rep. Charlie Norwood of Georgia: 'Is it Al Qaeda or is it America?' Or perhaps it was Rep. Terry Everett of Alabama, who said that the war critics just want to 'kill Americans'. As also mentioned, that was the closest the house came to a real debate on the Iraq war in a year, or maybe four. Is this democracy? We are talking about a superpower here! The war on terror is very serious, which is precisely why we have to think of the most intelligent way of fighting it, rather than squandering blood and treasure on a dead end. If Napoleon or Hitler had 'cut and run' from Russia...
NOTE: I have a whole page on the Politics of War.
Back to US Foreign Policy
Democrats and Security
Introduction (14 May 06): The Democrats have been accused of not having a plan for national security, contenting themselves with opportunistic sniping at the Republicans. Well, over at the Senate Democrats website, I have found this page called Real Security - Protecting America and Restoring our Leadership. A PDF of 123 pages is also available for download. Let us see if the abbreviated webpage version says anything substantial. Some statements are rather silly, such as Catch Osama bin Laden and destroy Al Qaeda, but some points have a bit of meat:
(2) 'Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.'
(3) 'Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.'
(4) 'Secure by 2010 loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or 'dirty bombs'. Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.
(5) 'Screen 100% of containers and cargo bound for the U.S. in ships or airplanes at the point of origin and safeguard America's nuclear and chemical plants, and food and water supplies.'
(6) 'Prevent outsourcing of critical components of our national security infrastructure - such as ports, airports and mass transit - to foreign interests that put America at risk.'
(7) 'Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces. Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency...'
(8) 'Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor planning and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.' Here is my reaction to each of these points:
(1) It is well known that for a long time our troops in Iraq had vehicles with inadequate armor, or no armor, and that many unnecessary deaths resulted from IEDs or Improvised Explosive Devices (i.e. cheap homemade bombs). This was utterly reprehensible and inexcusable, given the magnitude of our military budget. It seems fair enough to blame Bush and the Republicans, though most of Congress (including Ted Kennedy) loves to throw money at gold-plated weapons systems, while neglecting the boring basics. As for tactical intelligence, I thought that was pretty good, given modern satellites and all. (The WMD fiasco was something entirely different.) As for a 'strategy for success', or its close relative the 'exit strategy', this is an easy charge to make, and war is always unpredictable. However, the failure to send enough troops, or to secure Baghdad after toppling Saddam, can be fairly blamed on the administration.
(2) We should indeed think of fighting terrorism in terms of covert operations (e.g. Special Forces) rather than in terms of blundering into hostile lands for the purpose of half-baked social engineering. We definitely need much improved human intelligence, but that is easier said than done. Isn't the administration trying to do that? We must be careful too, as much of the Iraq debacle is due to the misleading advice of our 'friends' such as Ahmed Chalabi. I'd say that we should begin with simply understanding the cultures and societies we are dealing with, which means listening to more reliable experts on Islam than John Esposito or CAIR or even Bernard Lewis. How come nobody in the Pentagon knew about the 'fringe' efforts of Ibn Warraq, Jihad Watch, etc.? As for political pressure, it seems that the administration did play some outrageous games, e.g. with Ambassador Wilson, but on the other hand, when your CIA chief tells you that the Iraq invasion will be a 'slam dunk', what are you to do? Was Tenet's arm twisted into saying that? If the CIA director is a flunky, then what hope is there?
(3) This typically liberal emphasis on the social conditions for militant Islam ignores the malignancy of the Islamic ideology itself. Furthermore, I would claim that the social conditions are the result of that ideology, as I have discussed elsewhere on these pages. And why can't the rich Arab oil states pay for welfare to fellow Muslims? Why should it be us? Many of the terrorists are affluent and educated, and I think that poverty is a red herring. Islam ideology simply breeds blind hatred of any non-Muslim presence in the Middle East, especially the reviled Jews. I do agree with cooperating with allies as much as possible. We simply cannot fight the terrorists alone, so we must compromise more than this stubborn administration has been willing to. We had to make compromises during WWII. That's life.
(4) We should be willing to spend billions to buy up as much poorly guarded Russian nuclear material as possible. Unfortunately, sexy gold-plated weapons systems, of marginal use in fighting terrorists, will always win out on Capitol Hill, on both sides of the aisle. As for the tough nuts of Iran and North Korea, it will take something more imaginative than simply 'redoubling our efforts'. There isn't even a mention of sanctions! To be fair, the enormity of the problem is mind-boggling. I can imagine the present psychos in Iran giving a nuke to Al Qaeda. Exhausting all diplomatic avenues does not mean taking any options off the table. Sanctions seem much preferable to war, but they can only work if the civilized world sticks together. It surely doesn't help that we have antagonized so many friends!
(5) Yes! We absolutely should be screening all cargo coming in from abroad, and spending however much it takes to do it. Unfortunately, vast resources have been squandered in a futile war. Furthermore, a 60 Minutes piece has shown how powerful businesses resist doing their share to make us safer. For example, long after 9/11, one of the 60 Minutes reporters was able to just walk onto the grounds of a chemical plant where bomb making materials were readily available. Our Congress is so corrupted by campaign contributions that it lacks the will to order the companies to pay immediately for adequate security. This is truly outrageous, but the media hasn't bothered to pick up on it. Scandals are evidently more fun and lucrative.
(6) I was also against the Dubai Ports deal. Dubai has been an ambiguous ally at best. The possibilities for infiltrating terrorists would have been there. The real problem is that Bush and the oil companies are so friendly with the Saudis and other oil-rich Arabs. This is the real oil company scandal, not the high prices, which are a blessing in disguise. (Of course, the Dems are opportunistic about that one.) At the same time, some of the security measures at our airports have been ridiculous, such as frisking old ladies. This is because of noxious PC which prevents us from focusing on the likely culprits: young male Muslims of Middle Eastern origin (and increasingly of domestic origin). The Republicans are as bad as the Democrats on this matter.
(7) Yes, Iraq is the Iraqis' problem now. Let's get out. It's up to them to choose between having a viable country or having a civil war. It's not our fault if they are brainwashed with Islamic and tribal barbarism. And threatening to leave will give them an incentive to get their act together. The terrorist breeding ground argument works both ways, as our presence now makes it a breeding ground. As for the memory of Afghanistan and the Al Qaeda training camps, that is where bombing and covert operations are useful, without getting bogged down with a futile land invasion (futile because barbarians cannot be democratized with good intentions or even a ton of money, at least not without ruthlessly crushing them first, as we did with Germany and Japan).
(8) I have long defended the Bush administration from the charge of outright deception with the prewar intelligence; the intelligence agencies of many allies also feared Saddam had WMD. However, it is also clear that the intelligence was cherry-picked and politicized. So to some extent, the accusations are true. What angered me was the blind left-wing hatred that assumes that Bush has the worst of intentions. I think his intentions were good, and reasonable given 9/11. However, the intelligence of his administration, in all senses of that word, has been sorely lacking.
All in all this little manifesto from the Dems makes some trivial points and some good points. Some vague generalities need to be fleshed out, but that is always the case with political speeches. They are not as lame on defense as the Rove machine would have you believe, but if they can't get their message out, then they have only themselves to blame. They seem to have a curious problem with speaking clearly and simply. This can be partly attributed to having a more sophisticated view of the world than the Republicans, full of nuance and other dirty French words, but also to the simple fact that ever since Vietnam, they have been uncomfortable talking about defense. They had better get over that, or the Republicans will continue to eat their lunch on this issue. Contrary to the myth, someone like Rove does not need to be a genius. Above average intelligence and brass knuckles are enough.
NOTE: This was just one snapshot in time. Much more discussion can be found on my Politics of War page, where I try to follow the daily news of Congressional cowardice and dereliction of duty.
Back to US Foreign Policy
Elite Bubble
Introduction (3 Jun 06): Regarding the Kristol article, let me say something about Kristol himself. He continues to have a sunny smile on TV, no matter how badly the war is going. A tragedy happens involving Iraqi civilians, and he immediately politicizes it. He dismisses Peter Beinart, who was merely trying to be decent. Is Kristol a political robot with a smile painted on his face? This is a different kind of conservatism from the thoughtful and realistic kind we used to have. Now it's just spin a message no matter what. No thinking required. What difference does it make anyway, if the rich and educated (like Kristol) are not asked to make any sacrifices, not even the forgoing of tax cuts?
Many so-called liberals are equally smug. It's a disease that is taking over our elites, due to their plush isolation from reality and their worship of career and success over principle. Bill Clinton could be like that too. Maybe it's a disease one acquires by going to a prestigious school, or simply by being rich (think Davos). We're in a gilded robber-barron age. It sometimes seems that everybody who is anybody is rich and fake and living in an elite bubble. Even John McCain blew it by groveling to Jerry Falwell. He didn't seem to realize how that would make him look. Another sign of isolation.
This bubble leads to intellectuals and quasi-intellectuals simply believing their own ideas - that we can socially engineer a backward nation and culture, that we must socially engineer a backward nation and culture, that the backward nation and culture wants us and welcomes us in our neo White Man's Burden. And thank goodness others are left to do the dirty work, while the intellectuals and quasi-intellectuals pat themselves on their backs for their excellent and virtuous ideas.
And if any tell-tale signs of reality should ever intrude upon this happy dream, under no circumstances admit anything. After all, virtue consists of being strong and staying the course, especially if others are bearing the burden. Meanwhile, the government becomes ever more subservient to powerful corporations, with the full compliance of both Republicans and Democrats. After all, it is good for their careers!
NOTE: This is of course an essential topic. Related material and insights can be found throughout my site, especially on the Political Games page.
Back to US Foreign Policy
Neoconservatives
Back to US Foreign Policy
Introduction (19 Jul 06): The term 'neocon' may already be a bit passe, what with the current debacle in Iraq. Nevertheless, no one can doubt the power of this intellectual movement, which was instrumental in getting us into Iraq in the first place, for better or worse. So I thought it might be a good idea to collect some relevant articles, if only for historical purposes, starting with Max Boot. Notice how he belittles Pat Buchanan as a 'paleoconservative', one step removed from Father Coughlin; this shows that elite politics are far more complex than 'right' vs. 'left'. I rather like Buchanan and consider him intelligent and thoughtful, notwithstanding his perceptible bias against Israel (which is modest compared to much of the world). I can appreciate Buchanan's sincerity, despite my being a rationalist who looks warily upon the Christian right. Another point in response to Boot: I too have the impression that many neocons are Jewish intellectuals. So what? That is their prerogative. Neither do I have any problem with a 'Jewish lobby', which surely does exist, as a vibrant expression of American democracy. The fatal flaw of the neocon agenda was its hubris and lack of realism, as George Will points out. I wonder if Will is considered a 'paleoconservative'.
Back to Neoconservatives
Neocon Esoterics (19 Jul 06): I wince a bit when I put an 'extreme' commentator like Justin Raimondo on my supposedly high-class webpage, but he raises an intriguing idea. He thinks that the Machiavellian neocons never intended democracy in Iraq in the first place; that was merely part of their 'exoteric' propaganda for public consumption. In reality, they were aiming for the disintegration of Iraq, with Sunnis and Shiites at each other's throats, which might ultimately spread to the entire Muslim world, to the benefit of Israel and the United States. The old British 'divide and conquer'. Hey! It worked for the Brits. A bit risky, though. Don't worry, dear reader (if there is one): I merely entertain this as interesting speculation. However, it does explain how people as smart as the neocons (those SATs must mean something!) failed to anticipate the civil war. They didn't! It was part of their inner 'esoteric' plan from the beginning. Hmmm. This is a MUCH more sophisticated level of conspiracy theorizing than Michael Moore's sophomoric Blood for Oil theme. And Raimondo at least knows a lot of names ... Leo Strauss and what not. (Actually, Justin, those 'Legions of Mordor' look more like jihadis to me. I would expect neocons to be clean-shaven and smelling of aftershave.) And maybe getting Muslims to fight each other is God's plan to save civilization. (I presume God is in favor of civilization.) A bit or irony: pro-neocon David Horowitz has propounded the thesis that an ocean of blood was shed in the 20th century by idealists, who became ideologues, who became totalitarian monsters. Raimondo says something similar about the neocons and their imperialistic adventures!
UPDATE (15 Jan 07): I'm not so sure that Raimondo is as 'extreme' and radioactive as I once thought. I was led to believe (by FrontPageMag!) that he was almost like a Raelian, or some such creature. After all, what's weirder than a San Francisco liberal? I suppose it would be a San Francisco conservative! However, given the mess in Iraq, his kind now seems more reality-based than the pro-war establishment of Republicans and Democrats who blundered us into this. And he and his fellow libertarians may have a point when they says that Big Government is dangerous under all circumstances. However, I remain in favor of some form of Universal Health Care or Single Payer system, which could, in principle, be done in an intelligent and non-political way that does not endanger our freedoms or our economy. Maybe. Read more about Raimondo here.
Back to Neoconservatives
Neo Culpa (3 Nov 06): In this Vanity Fair article [see also here], various neocons go out of their way to blame President Bush for the debacle in Iraq. Is this fair? Was it just that the execution was botched? Or did latent tensions in Iraqi society, primarily between Shiites and Sunnis, make this inevitable? Why wouldn't the Shiites have wanted vengeance? Why wouldn't Saddam's henchmen have turned into insurgents/terrorists, with the Shiites responding in kind? Isn't the entire Middle East a notoriously tough neighborhood? And isn't Islam a notoriously tough religion? Were suicide terrorists, human shields, weapons in mosques and all-around ruthlessness really such a surprise? Doesn't this add up to a pattern? Enough to make such a social experiment an awfully risky proposition? Putting all the blame on Bush and Rumsfeld seems rather cowardly and self-serving to me.
Back to Neoconservatives
Francis Fukuyama (12 Mar 07): Francis Fukuyama is famous for having once been a neocon who then saw the light. For this, he was excoriated by the fanatical colleagues he left behind, e.g. Kristol and Krauthammer. He is a scholar whose curious specialty seems to be predicting the future and knowing everything about politics throughout the world. That's an awful lot of reading! He wrote an influential book predicting the inevitability of democracy, or so it has been reported, though I am sure his actual message was a bit more qualified than that. I have seen him on Bloggingheads.TV, and also on Robert Wright's video series on spirituality, where he impressed me by denying that consciousness can be reduced to brain chemistry, as so many of our materialistic intellectuals simply assume. He's an interesting character, and he deserves a special section of articles related to his work. Sorry, Francis, but it's convenient to keep you under the 'neocon' label, if only as a contrast and a lesson.
Back to Neoconservatives
Other Articles
Neo-conservative columnists have tended to follow the trial lawyers' approach to expertise. First, decide what you want to argue then find an expert who agrees with you. Most academic specialists on the Middle East were adamantly opposed to the invasion of Iraq. But Bernard Lewis of Princeton University was in favour of toppling Saddam Hussein. So it was he who was routinely and reverentially cited by the neo-cons.
The same attitude to expertise has been applied in pressing for a new military 'surge' into Iraq. Most of the top brass of the US military were sceptical about sending more troops to Iraq. But Jack Keane, a retired army general, believes in it. So it is Gen. Keane who is quoted approvingly in a recent article by William Kristol, the editor of the neo-con bible, The Weekly Standard; as well as by editorials in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times. Without the support of the liberals, President George W. Bush's plan to invade and occupy Iraq may have foundered in Congress. The support of our closest allies and the United Nations wasn't as important as was the buy-in by Democratic Party leaders. In the lead-up to the war, President Bush also received critical support from well-known writers and analysts who hailed from the center-left.
Brandishing arguments that the invasion of Iraq would spark a democratic revolution in the greater Middle East, the neocons managed to forge a powerful political coalition that sidelined Republican realists like James Baker and Brent Scowcroft as well as anti-war Democrats like Robert Byrd and Paul Wellstone. As the invasion plans advanced, both the neocons and the liberal hawks dismissed the opponents of the war as being reflexively pacifist and hopelessly naive. Back to Neoconservatives
Antiwar Left
Back to US Foreign Policy
Noam Chomsky (31 May 06): Far-left intellectual icon Noam Chomsky discusses American and Israeli foreign policy on MEMRI; you can read the transcript or view the film clip. He is famous (or notorious) for blaming the US for most of the world's problems, and for accusing the US of wrongfully killing far more people than any other contemporary power.
Chomsky seems more reasonable on film than I expected; he is not the wild-eyed radical America-hater one might imagine. He does repeatedly reject all terrorism, at least verbally. The problem is that he assumes a moral equivalence between all violence, as do pacifists. This may seem idealistic on the surface, but amounts to mere posturing in the practical world of politics. The real question is: When is violence justified?
Chomsky points to the 1973 US sponsored coup against Allende in Chile as 'terrorism', which allegedly killed far more people than 9/11 on a per capita basis. I have not studied this period in our history, but I am willing to accept the conventional wisdom that the US helped to overthrow a democratically elected socialistic government. If so, that was indeed deplorable. (But note that part of the motivation for neoconservative interventionism in Iraq was precisely a rejection of our past support for tyrants. Does anyone give them credit for that?) Perhaps apologists will say that Allende was preparing to overthrow the Chilean constitution, or some such thing. I don't know, but it still seems to me that, despite our errors, we are more or less a functioning democracy, and we seem to get along pretty well with other democracies. Even our relations with France are not all that bad: our police are cooperating against terrorism.
It seems rather clear to me that most of the problems in the world stem from pernicious totalitarian ideologies, mostly of the Communist or radical Islamic varieties. Poor and ignorant people, in their desperation, support gangsters who take over and wield an iron fist. That is the real problem, notwithstanding our many mistakes, which, by the way, are also being corrected by the democratic process. Notice, for example, that there is a debate over Abu Ghraib or NSA wiretapping, which had no such counterpart under the USSR with respect to KGB activities, nor in any radical Islamic country like Iran, which publicly hangs political opponents and adulterers.
I will agree that democracies are highly vulnerable to political corruption, as well as to public ignorance and manipulation, but democracy still seems like our best hope. It provides a real if limited 'equality' between people, and it demands of them to be mature and responsible citizens. Chomsky ignores all of this when postulating his blanket moral equivalence between the use of deadly force by various nations and entities.
Also, he is not telling the truth about Israel and the Palestinians. Israel has been willing to negotiate in good faith, and Barak provided a generous and daring package at Camp David. It is the Palestinians who have never accepted Israel, and who have 'never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity'.
I did learn something useful from this video: People who are seriously wrong can seem serious and reasonable. Also, the question of when and how to use violence is very difficult, and facile moral relativism does not help at all. Neither do the histrionics of either Right or Left.
UPDATE (08 Oct 07): Once again, while not rejecting most of what I have written here, I must repeat that further study has brought me closer to Chomsky's views, at least regarding illegal and immoral violence, or support for violence, in foreign countries, on the part of the United States. Most Americans are indulging themselves in massive ignorance and/or hypocrisy on this subject, no doubt due to their patriotism.
Back to Antiwar Left
Other Articles
Back to Antiwar Left
Antiwar Right
Back to US Foreign Policy
Introduction (21 Jul 06): The public generally associates the left with peaceniks and the right with ... well ... I don't want to use the loaded word 'warmongers', but let us say a certain enthusiasm for settling international conflicts by military means. However, I am increasingly intrigued by a certain 'fringe' of the so-called conservative movement, which has been quite critical of the war in Iraq and also of the 'neocons' who led us into that war. Branded as 'paleoconservatives' by the neocons of the Weekly Standard and Front Page Magazine, they would include such visible online commentators as Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell, Paul Craig Roberts, Justin Raimondo and quite a few others ... maybe even the venerable George Will. I wonder just how many there are. Perhaps there are a great many of these silent critics, who seem less numerous than they are because they have not penetrated the establishment. They are worth taking a look at, and hence this new section.
Back to Antiwar Right
Pat Buchanan (21 Jul 06): On my Israel page, I have written in defense of Pat Buchanan, even though I am far more sympathetic to Israel than he is. For reference, I will post those paragraphs verbatim here, which were in response to the 'Protocols' article above:
In fact, Pat's points are well taken. Israel is indeed wreaking misery on Christians as well as Muslims in Lebanon. It is only responsible for Americans to consider the repercussions, both present and future, rather than displaying a knee-jerk support for Israel. There should be a full discussion with no taboos. The proof that this is healthy for the democratic process is that I, for one, am not willing to condemn Israel, even after reading Pat's article. All the countries that blame Israel for 'disproportionate force' do not have neighbors shooting missiles at them. Now the Russians do have the Chechnyans, and they have been using an iron fist lately. So Putin's advice can be disregarded, just as he disregarded the scolding from Khazakstan-loving Dick Cheney. I disagree with much of what Pat says, especially when it comes to religion, but the real shame is that we don't have more Pats in the press. Instead, most of our pundits are bland, derivative and useless.
At the same time, the FPM article points to some facts and reports that Buchanan does not, e.g. that Hezbollah uses the population as human shields by fighting in urban areas and is even preventing the Lebanese from evacuating Southern Lebanon. This is why I read Pat Buchanan, FrontPageMag, countless others, and even, heaven forbid, the Huffington Post and The Nation! Then I make up my own mind. Or I remain perplexed and undecided, which is sometimes the fair and reasonable thing to do. Back to Antiwar Right
Justin Raimondo (15 Jan 07): I should also mention antiwar libertarian Justin Raimondo, editor of the Antiwar website. I have posted quite a bit from him on this webpage, e.g. here and here. As I mention on that last link, I used to think he was 'beyond the pale', like Noam Chomsky and other characters supposedly too extreme for polite company. However, our ill-conceived and ignorant blunder in Iraq, intially supported by the elites of both parties, as well as their flunkies in the mainstream press, has shattered my confidence in all establishment pundits, so that the outcastes have gained a new respectability. Raimondo, in particular, does his homework, with plenty of detail and links. At the very least, his website makes a good read.
Frankly, I now share his skepticism regarding Wilsonian idealism (if you are so charitable as to call it 'idealism'). I diverge from him on social policy, as I favor some form of Universal Heath Care, perhaps like Governor Schwarzenneger's new initiative in California — if only to keep the poor from using the expensive emergency room. (Also, I have sympathy for hard-working people who lose their insurance when they lose their jobs, or are not offered any even if they have a job. To Raimondo's credit, he sticks to his anti-welfare libertarian principles, even though this article suggests he has few bucks in the bank.) The only real shadow in this picture is a certain hostility on his part regarding poor beleaguered Israel, now common on the left as well. Also, he seems to avoid the topic of Iranian nukes.
UPDATE (24 Feb 07): Uh oh! Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch clearly thinks that Justin Raimondo is a conspiracy-mongering anti-Semitic nutcase who is beyond the pale. This is in response to Robert Spencer posting on the website of iconoclast socialite Taki Theodoracopulos, who is treated similarly. (After a bit of an online row, the comments to this article on Jihad Watch were turned off!) Fitzgerald claims that those who even link to such anti-Semitic voices, which include Lew Rockwell and others, are abetting something sleazy and unethical. It is not even enough to say that you 'support' Israel, as Taki and I do. Maybe I'd better worry about my reputation!
(More likely, I come across as hopelessly naive and confused. I criticize militant Islam like a conservative, but worry about civil rights in the War on Terror just like a liberal. Gasp! I even warm to Universal Health Care, which may be the ultimate conservative crime! I fully support Israel, and have placed most of the blame for the Palestinian problem squarely on Arab intransigence and anti-Semitism. Is that enough, or do I just come across as incoherent?)
Anyway, I believe that a mature person will read all kinds of articles with discrimination. I don't agree with everything Raimondo or anyone else says, but I consider different ideas and record alleged facts in my mind (which are then cross-checked with other sources). I cannot be held accountable for every view held by everyone I link to. I'm sure quite a few people think Hugh Fitzgerald is a nutcase, but he's definitely another good read!
By the way, it may seem that I link to too many 'radical' sites, from both Right and Left, from Jihad Watch to The Nation. Establishment articles may be under-represented here. There is a good reason for that. The Establishment guys are in it for the money and often charge a subscription! Hence, no New Republic, and I am trying to avoid New York Times and LA Times links, which soon go dead (i.e. you gotta pay).
Back to Antiwar Right
Other Articles
Back to Antiwar Right
Religion and Foreign Policy
Introduction (28 Aug 06): I imagine it will be hard to fill this section with articles, but Mead's one is a good start. Like it or not, religion has always been a powerful force in American politics, and hence in American foreign policy. Hence, it seems appropriate to discuss it.
Notice that on my India page, I discuss Hindu annoyance with American support for missionaries, which in some cases presents a troubling breakdown of the wall between church and state — though admittedly we are talking about another state, so that the constitutional implications are murky! :-)
NOTE: Much more on the influence of conservative American Christians on foreign policy can be found on my page on Politics and Religion.
Back to US Foreign Policy
No 9/11s Since 9/11
Introduction (24 Jun 06): A very good question is, 'Why have there been no more 9/11s since 9/11?' That is, why has Al Qaeda not hit the American homeland again with a spectacular suicide terrorist attack? Pro-war hawks argue that this is because we are 'taking the fight to the terrorists' in Afghanistan and Iraq, and thus the war in Iraq is fully justified. This USA Today article discusses various reasons, but I would like to make one simple point. If Al Qaeda had enough willing suicide volunteers, say one to three dozen, then nothing could stop it, regardless of what we do elsewhere in the world. Even if it no longer has access to, say, jet pilot schools, it could carry out a much more devastating attack using the lowest technology and training. Just imagine if several dozen suicide bombers went off simultaneously in shopping centers across the USA on a busy weekend. The number of people killed would be comparable to 9/11, but the psychological impact would be much greater, due to the dispersion. Nobody would feel safe anymore.
I can only suppose that there are not that many Muslim fanatics willing to carry out the job, at least not yet. This has nothing to do with demolishing the camps in Afghanistan, or guerillas being tied down in Iraq and elsewhere, since we are only speaking of a small number of volunteers who need no training. I note that suicide bombings do not happen frequently in Israel, though of course they are horrible when they do happen. It must simply not be that easy to find volunteers. We should also give the Department of Homeland Security its due. It may be a lot more competent than we have been led to believe, but just think how much safer we would be if the billions spent in Iraq had gone into DHS as well as ports and other domestic targets. And of course, foreign policy is useless against homegrown terrorists.
Back to US Foreign Policy
Russia and China
Introduction (20 Apr 06): I have been highly critical of militant (i.e. orthodox) Islam, yet I don't feel nearly so antagonistic towards Russia and China, notwithstanding their human rights abuses and support for our adversaries, such as Iran and North Korea. Is this a double-standard? As I introspect, I detect a gut reaction to the medieval aspect of Islam, which I don't feel towards Russia and China. It seems to me that the latter are intelligent nations run by intelligent people, who may be ruthless in the pursuit of their national self-interest, as we sometimes are. We can at least reason with them and perhaps cut a deal with them. There is something about the irrationality of religious fanaticism which alarms me deeply and makes me feel that we are dealing with people who are not ... well ... rational. One could argue that Communism was a kind of fanaticism not unlike militant Islam, but Communism is dead in Russia, and the Chinese leaders are more nationalists than they are true believers. Furthermore, taking on Islam, Russia and China all at once seems like a prescription for suicide, a classic case of great power hubris. Besides, Russia and China do have some reason to be concerned with our recent belligerence, invading nations on flimsy pretexts, and so forth. (That is one good reason for a chaste foreign policy!)
Islam seems like the greater long-term threat, since it threatens to engulf Europe (truly!) and is utterly contrary to our values (truly!). My feeling, for what it is worth, is that there is a decent chance that Russia and China will evolve into societies like our own. After all, they both have a tradition of great and humane civilization, e.g. Confucius, Buddhism, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, countless Ph.D.s, and so on, whereas Islam was always parasitic on the people it conquered. This cultural aspect is of course eclipsed by actual government policy, but it does indicate a humane potential that is absent from the Sharia. And Russia and China seem likelier to become our friends if we don't antagonize them, as Bush has been doing recently. If we can't cooperate with these great nations on fighting terrorism, then the situation is truly desperate. Our mutual enemy should be barbarism, which is today exemplified by militant Islam.
Of course, you could point to the Russian and Chinese human rights abuses as examples of barbarism. Bad as these are, they are only directed against dissidents and do not involve mass murder in Western cities with Islamic weapons of mass destruction, a distinct possibility since the suicidal fanaticism of 9/11. It does not help that so much Sovier-era nuclear material is poorly guarded, which is a further reason to cooperate with Russia. And I wonder whether the Soviet and Chinese heavy-handedness against dissent might not ease if relations with America were better. This may seem like a foolish thought, but, as I said, Russia and China do have reason to feel threatenend by our recent belligerence or adventurism (choose the word you prefer). Anyhow, what can we really do about their internal policies? Isn't it up to their own people to change their society? Do we hear any plea for invasion or meddling from their poor, suffering masses? Did we in Iraq? Polls show Putin is quite popular, and few of the Chinese are in a revolutionary mood. Despite Putin's crackdown, all kinds of books are published in Russia, the public stills voices approval for democracy, and the standard of living has risen considerably in both Russia and China, which dampens unrest. In general, my instinct is to mind my own business, except when faced with a clear and present danger, or when actual atrocities occur, such as in Rwanda or Bosnia. International politics can get explosive very quickly. I guess that makes me a 'realist'. So be it. There are worse crimes.
You might argue that treating Russia and China with respect is morally equivalent to appeasing Islam, but there is a difference: fanaticism, intolerance and totalitarian thinking are intrinsic to orthodox Islam, whereas I suspect (or hope) that deep down the Russians and Chinese of today just want to get rich like us, even at the official level, now that the Communist dream is thoroughly discredited. Putin may be a strongman, who has a chaotic society to deal with, but does he display any kind of messianic or suicidal zeal? The Chinese even less. (Rather, we are the ones displaying messianic zeal lately. All for a good cause of course, but can we expect them to believe that?) Yes, Putin and the Chinese have been curtailing civil liberties, and this is deplorable. But what can we do? It seems wisest to me to quietly but firmly voice our disapproval in private, while treating them with respect in public, so that we can work out a realpolitik agreement in foreign policy. Neither of them is trying to expand its territory at the moment, and the idea of meddling in their internal affairs is preposterous. Iraq is enough of a fiasco, and that is a third-rate nation. We had better be careful. Blowing off a lot of rhetorical steam may feel good, but if it sours relations uselessly, then it is a foolish self-indulgence.
This may sound unprincipled, or even cynical, but we must carefully consider the consequences, not all of which we can foresee, of taking on major powers like Russia and China. I was annoyed a few years ago by all the triumphalist blather about the US being the sole superpower, or even the slightly more circumspect 'indispensable nation' from the Democratic Madeleine Albright. We have been chastened by our experience in Iraq, but anybody who has studied any history should have realized the huge difference between blasting tanks on a battlefield and waging a guerilla war on hostile territory. Napoleon and Hitler got bogged down in Russia; the French in Vietnam and Algeria, the US in Korea and Vietnam, and so on. (By contrast, France in 1944 was not hostile territory.) Do we never learn? The 'natives' tend to be fired by a fierce patriotism and will resist when you are trampling on their home turf, where they have a decided advantage, unless you are prepared to use the ruthless tactics of the Romans and crucify people along the side of the road. Even that does not always work. So if we are not really a 'superpower', even with third-rate nations, then let us be most careful about throwing our weight around with major nations. We Americans have a tendency to get carried away by our idealism and our rhetoric, and, let us be honest, much of that idealism is really just political rhetoric for domestic consumption. At the end of the day, we care primarily about our interests, just like everyone else. So let us at least be smart about these interests.
For all these reasons, I feel that we should try to work something out with the Russians and Chinese. (Do we even have a choice with the Chinese, considering that they are propping up our reckless debt?) I am not hostile to neocons and like-minded people, and I am willing to grant them a measure of sincere idealism, but sometimes I wonder if they are smoking something. Please allow me a caveat: I have not studied this in sufficient detail, and I may be overly naive. This is just a snapshot of my thinking at the moment. I could be dangerously wrong.
NOTE: The discussion and listing of articles will be continued on my Russia and China pages.
Back to US Foreign Policy
Introduction
A Libertarian Perspective
Other Articles
Tom Barry: Liberal Hawks: Flying in Neocon Circles
A CENTURY OF WAR
John V. Denson, Von Mises Institute, 25 Nov 06
The most accurate description of the twentieth century is 'The War and Welfare Century'. This century was the bloodiest in all history. More than 170 million people were killed by governments with ten million being killed in World War I and fifty million killed in World War II. In regard to the fifty million killed in World War II, it is significant that nearly 70 percent were innocent civilians, mainly as a result of the bombing of cities by Great Britain and America.
As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until wealth is aggregated into the hands of a few and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of the war.
Why, my fellow-citizens, is there any man here, or any woman — let me say, is there any child here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry? ... This war, in its inception, was a commercial and industrial war. It was not a political war.
Almost certainly there would not have been a successful Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, giving communism a homeland from which to spread throughout the world.
A negotiated treaty between Germany and France and Great Britain, when all were wounded but undefeated, would have prevented the debacle of the Treaty of Versailles, the greatest single tragedy of World War I. Without America's entry there would have been a treaty negotiated with co-equal partners, similar to the way the Congress of Vienna settled the Napoleonic Wars in 1815-16, with a defeated France still represented at the table by Tallyrand, and where a sincere effort was made to promote peace rather than cause a future war.
This article covers a lot of ground! I will make only a few preliminary remarks. For one, notice how democracy can make a nation warlike as well as peaceful, especially when the public is whipped up into a crusading mood for some good cause, such as democracy itself. Notice also how 'collectivism' can take over in the name of the public good, such as fighting (or at least taming) the rich. Finally, note that even though libertarians are in favor of free markets, this does not mean that they love large corporations. Indeed, there is nothing contradictory about this. Our Adam Smith fairytale is a smokescreen for the oligopoly that actually dominates our society, by buying up politicians with campaign contributions. A glaring recent case is how imports of cheaper drugs have been blocked by powerful drug companies and their subservient lackeys on Capitol Hill.
Karen Kwiatkowski: Troops Buried Alive
Patrick Foy: The Death of American Empire
Introduction
Panel Discussion at Brookings
Jeffrey Rosen's View
Other Articles
PANEL DISCUSSION ON PRESIDENTIAL WAR POWERS
at the Brookings Institution
hosted by Stuart Taylor Jr.
Let us recapitulate the discussion. Our founding fathers, often taken as the paragon of political wisdom, were actually rather sloppy when it came to defining the president's war powers, as we can tell from the extreme views taken by constitutional experts over the years. Consider this quote from Justice Department legal official John Yoo (a law professor at Berkeley) just weeks after 9/11, which Taylor calls the 'Bush Doctrine on War Powers':
'Congress may not place any limits on the president's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the president alone to make.'
Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger will compel even nations the most attached to liberty to resort to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To become more safe, they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being less free.'
IN WAR, WHO HAS THE POWER?
Jeffrey Rosen, NYT, 4 Mar 07
The Constitution seems relatively clear. The president is the commander in chief, and he has the power to deploy troops and to direct military strategy. Congress has the power to declare war and can use its control over the purse to end a war. But it has no say over how the war is actually prosecuted.
Even 'the most vigorous defenders of executive power', such as Berkeley Law School Professor John Yoo, agree that the president would have to back down. And contrary to conventional wisdom, he admits that this need not be a baseball bat but could also be a scalpel, say by reducing the money for troops steadily each month. The real problem is the political repercussions of failing to support troops in the field.
CATO Institute: Power Surge - The Constitutional Record of G.W. Bush
Reuters: U.S. Congress' Iraq struggle evokes Vietnam years
Sean Lengell: Constitution spurs war powers fights
THE SEMIWARRIORS
Andrew Bacevich, The Nation, 5 Apr 07
The imperial presidency is not the disease; it is a symptom. The real affliction is more insidious. For want of a better label, call it 'semiwar', a term coined after World War II by James Forrestal to promote permanent quasi mobilization as the essential response to permanent global crisis. A man who saw demons everywhere, Forrestal was convinced that he alone grasped the danger they posed to the United States.
Adam Cohen: Just What the Founders Feared
Jacob Heilbrunn: Neocons in the Democratic Party
Peter Beinart: Let Your Enemies Crumble [more]
Janet Daley: West must take pre-emptive action for its own security
Howard Zinn: America's Blinders
John Leo: Liberals Need a New Narrative on Terrorism
Caught between two constituencies, one that wanted to fight the war on terror and one that didn't, John Kerry babbled on Dukakis-like about effectiveness and competence. In 2004, as in 1988, Republicans effectively argued that Democrats can't be trusted to defend America because they don't truly believe in America.
Paul Waldman: On Alterman's book When Presidents Lie
(1) 'Guarantee that our troops have the protective gear, equipment, and training they need and are never sent to war without accurate intelligence and a strategy for success.'
Heather Hurlburt: Democrats are War Torn
George Packer: Can liberals take foreign policy back from GOP?
George Will: Lessons For Liberals
Will Marshall: A Winning Strategy
Tom Barry: Liberal Hawks: Flying in Neocon Circles
ANDREW SULLIVAN AND THE BOURBON MENTALITY
Justin Raimondo, Antiwar, 13 Mar 06
The shame and the sorrow of Andrew Sullivan is rooted in an overwhelming conceit, a sense of entitlement combined with a hubris that knows no earthly bounds — characteristics that are part of the shared values of our elites, in journalism as well as government. These people believe they are fated to rule the world, and that they have every right to decide the fate of entire peoples: they treat the world like a kind of global sandbox. As the young American giant plays at empire-building, the rest of the world must suffer through his mistakes, while it is the role of Sullivan and his fellow Deep Thinkers to solemnly list their regrets and shift the blame to others — without, of course, ever saying "sorry." They are incapable of a simple apology, and it would never occur to them that a tactful silence on matters of foreign policy might be in order for the immediate future. A big problem for people like Sullivan and his ilk is that they just don't know when to shut up: as they chatter away, they reveal too much, and, in doing so, lose whatever credibility they once had.
COMMENT: I don't mean to pick on Andrew Sullivan in particular. I post this for what it says about our foreign policy elites in general (or at least the more influential among them).
Tony Judt: Bush's Useful Idiots
Introduction
Neocon Esoterics
Neo Culpa
Francis Fukuyama
Other Articles
PNAC: 1998 Neocon Declaration to Clinton
Irving Kristol: The Neoconservative Persuasion
Max Boot: What the Heck Is a 'Neocon'?
Francis Fukuyama: After Neoconservatism [more]
Robert S. Boynton: The Neocon Who Isn't
Justin Raimondo: Neoconservative hawks are the real 'fifth column'
Justin Raimondo: Neoconservatism and the Cult of Empire
Justin Raimondo: Who Are the War Criminals?
John Mason: Leo Strauss and the Noble Lie: Neo-Cons at War
Jim Lobe: Attacking Neocons from the Right
Michael Lind: How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington
Bill King: Neoconservatives and Trotskyism
Justin Raimondo: Mad bomber McCain (2001)
Andrew Sullivan: Neocons caught in their very own civil war
Norman Podhoretz: Is the Bush Doctrine Dead?
Tom Piatak: The purest neocon: Christopher Hitchens
Harold Meyerson: Pundits share in blame for war
Francis Fukuyama: Bush's Error: Misjudging the Iraqis
Matthew Parris: Time for the neocons to admit failure
David Frum: Vanity Fair's Inventions
Pat Buchanan: Cakewalk Crowd Abandons Bush
Francis Fukuyama: The End of History
Francis Fukuyama: After The End of History
Francis Fukuyama: Beyond Our Shores
Francis Fukuyama: The Real Intelligence Failure
Francis Fukuyama: The neocons have learned nothing
Francis Fukuyama: After Neoconservatism [more]
Francis Fukuyama: Bush's Error: Misjudging the Iraqis
Chris Hitchens: The End of Fukuyama
Charles Krauthammer: Fukuyama's Fantasy
Jim Lobe: 'Leninists!' Cries Neocon Nabob, Suing for Divorce
William Kristol: Will we defeat the radical Islamists?
NEOCONS' PROBLEM: THEY ARE JOURNALISTS!
Gideon Rachman, Financial Times, 15 Jan 07
The comparison with Kennan is instructive but not in the way Mr Stelzer intends. The main difference is that Kennan had a profound knowledge of the part of the world he was writing about. When he wrote his 'long telegram' on the sources of Soviet conduct in 1946, he had many years' experience as a diplomat in Moscow. The mixed bag of journalists and policymakers in Mr Stelzer's book are intelligent people. But there is not an Arabist among them.
Francis Fukuyama: The neocons have learned nothing
Robert Scheer: Before the Invasion, There Was Feith
Justin Raimondo: Chutzpah! Richard Perle's got plenty of it
Pat Buchanan: Frum-Perle prescription for endless war
Max Boot: Nothing wrong with 'American Imperialism'
LIBERAL HAWKS: FLYING IN NEOCON CIRCLES
Tom Barry, Antiwar, 22 May 04
In the heat of Iraq the neoconservatives are seeing their visions of Pax Americana turn into nightmares and headaches. But they are not alone. Liberal hawks like Ivo Daalder, Robert Kerrey, and Will Marshall also find themselves discredited as the quagmire in Iraq swallows up all their arguments supporting the invasion and occupation.
Think Progress: AEI: The Root of Bush's Right-Wing Ideology
Taki Theodoracopulos: Our Very Own War Criminals
Justin Raimondo: Christopher Hitchens, Neocon
Justin Raimondo: Horowitz goes haywire
Paul Craig Roberts: Americans Have Lost Their Country
Bjorn Staerk: What Went Wrong?
John G. Mason: Leo Strauss and the Noble Lie:
Neocons at War
Website: Committee on the Present Danger
Raimondo: Being a neocon means never having to say you're sorry
Raimondo: The Cult of Power, from Trotsky to Wolfowitz
Jude Wanniski: Wolfowitz and the Axis of Evil
Pat Buchanan: Wolfie's Piggy Bank
Justin Raimondo: The Cabal Strikes Back
Frontpage: An Evening with Christopher Hitchens
Justin Raimondo: Nihilism and Neoconservatism
Eric Alterman: Death and denial, death and denial...
Guardian: Perle admits invasion was illegal
Michael Scheuer: Why Does Norman Podhoretz Hate America?
Phiip Giraldi: Neocons Acquire Another Front Group
Justin Raimondo: Christopher Hitchens and Genocide
Michiko Kakutani: Review of World War IV by Norman Podhoretz
Jacob Heilbrunn: The Case of Fouad Ajami
Michael Scheuer: George Weigel's Anti-American Jeremiad
Noam Chomsky
Other Articles
Katha Pollitt: Put Out No Flags
Jean-Francois Revel: Contradictions of Anti-Americanism
Richard Bradley: Sizing up Sontag (including Andrew Sullivan's attack)
Arundhati Roy: People vs. Empire
Cinnamon Stillwell: The Making of a 9/11 Republican
Howard Zinn: America's Blinders
Ben Johnson: Liberals and the Death of Zarqawi
Die Presse, Austria: The Simplistic World of the Bush-Haters
Agence France Presse: Poll: Britons Tire of Cruel, Vulgar US
FrontPageMag: Horowitz debates with Peter Beinart [more]
Steve Chapman: The Cost of Bush's Good Intentions
Boston Globe: Anatol Lieven on Noam Chomsky
Daily Kos: Cindy Sheehan's departing words
Introduction
Pat Buchanan
Justin Raimondo
Other Articles
Pat Buchanan (WND): No, this is not 'our war'
FrontPageMag: The Protocols of Pat Buchanan
Ben Johnson (FPM): Paul Craig Roberts and the Certifiable Right
Pat ain't no 'agrarian'. He grew up right here in Washington, D.C. and went to Georgetown University! And for better or worse, he's one of the smarter people on TV. Hardly a yokel. I support Israel, but I don't see that he has said anything terribly wrong. Even the reference to 'some bellicose city councilman from Brooklyn Heights' is the kind of blunt but not too crude ethnic humor that keeps political discourse down to earth, rather than hypocritical and limp-wristed. It's a lot healthier than PC! And the councilman is free to counter with a wisecrack of his own, as used to be common in this country, way back when men were men! (It is the FPM authors who are going too far, putting incendiary words like 'bloodthirsty Hebrews' into Pat's mind. That is too much! Pat admitted that Israel has a right to try to drag the US into its conflicts. That seems like healthy realpolitik to me and not vicious anti-Semitism.)
I favor a vigorous and thoughtful debate, without gross lies, and which explores all angles. The 'paleoconservatives' mentioned above seem, by and large, to provide this. As with most half-decent commentators, their failing is one of partiality and blind spots, rather than outright nastiness and deception. For that, you must visit MEMRI. The 'Protocols' article even claims that the fact that David Duke and some neo-nazis have linked to Buchanan and company indicates a close ideological kinship between these various groups. That is a smear! The reason for the links is that Buchanan criticizes Israel, which few prominent pundits dare to do.
Pat Buchanan: An Independent Republic Still?
Justin Raimondo: Buchanan Unbowed
Michelle Malkin: Conservatives Praise Oliver Stone?!?
Ilana Mercer: Bush's warfare state
Stephen Schwartz: What Raimondo Really Meant
Stephen Schwartz: Justin Raimondo: An American Neo-Fascist
Justin Raimondo: The Character Assassins
Justin Raimondo: The Perversion of History
Justin Raimondo: What is Left?
Justin Raimondo: Libertarianism and the War
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX): Opposing the Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Harry Browne: When Will We Learn?
Walter Russell Mead: Religion and U.S. Foreign Policy
DEBKA File: Why no repeat of 9/11? They're waiting
John Mueller (Foreign Affairs): Why al Qaeda Hasn't Hit the U.S. Again
Robert Dreyfuss (Tom Paine): There Is No War On Terror
Col. Douglas Macgregor: The Unlearned Lessons of 9/11