[zigzag]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2093620/entry/2093641/

Whether one agrees with these men or not, I hope it will demonstrate that the debate doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. One can criticize the administration where there is reason to, and credit the administration where there is reason to. The sky will not fall. Note that there's more than one page of entries, and I guess the discussion is supposed to continue all week.

[Nonsuch]

I thought this passage from Paul Berman was very insightful and interesting:

Foreign-policy-speak has been taken over by terms like these: WMD, rogue states, regime change, nation-building, humanitarianism, and individual Bad Guys with such names as Osama, Saddam, and Slobodan. These terms express a vision of the universe that might suit a big-city mayor—a universe in which every problem can be handled either by the police department or by the do-good agencies. WMD, rogue states, and Bad Guys are the foreign-policy equivalents of guns, gangs, and gangsters—matters for the police.

Regime change, nation-building, and humanitarianism are the equivalents of slum-clearance, housing development, schools, and soup kitchens—matters for the do-goods. In city politics, conservatives cheer on the police department, and liberals cheer on the do-goods. Thus, in foreign policy, conservatives cheer on the U.S. military, and liberals, the United Nations—the police and the do-goods.

Only this vision of life has the minor drawback of leaving out the single largest fact in the modern history of the world. That largest of facts is the rise of a certain kind of political movement—movements animated by paranoid hatreds, by apocalyptic fantasies, and by the fanatical desire to kill people en masse. These have been the big totalitarian movements, Nazism, Fascism, Stalinism, and a few others—movements whose greatest goal was to destroy liberal civilization.

The language of WMD, Bad Guys, humanitarianism, and all the rest cannot describe these movements and their doctrines and their fanaticism. We know how to speak about member states of the United Nations. But totalitarian movements have always been international, with and without state support. We have lost the ability to speak about mass international movements of that sort.

[zigzag]

Yes, Berman has an interesting take on things - he's a dedicated leftist who has gone against the grain. He thinks the administration has botched many aspects of the invasion, but on the underlying principles he's even more concerned with combatting evil than Bush himself. He sees this not as just another anti-terrorism operation, but as a fundamental, large-scale battle against totalitarianism, no different than WW II. Indeed, he feels that Islamism and Baathism derive from the same historical forces that gave rise to fascism in Europe, but just took longer to root, and that they need to be forcefully combatted.

Here's Berman's take from when it started - interesting reading whether one agrees or not: http://www.salon.com/books/int/2003/.../index_np.html

[thunderous_funker]

Every time some policy wonk starts in about using the US military to "combat evil", I start to break out in hives.

First, define "evil".

I respectfully suggest that far too often it is defined merely as "stuff we don't like", where "we" means the people presently empowered to command the military.

Secondly, are we talking about protecting our citizens from "evil" or are we actually advocating a policy which suggests that we can manufacture enough smart bombs and DU munitions to actually eliminate "evil" from the hearts and minds of human beings the world over?

I can certainly understand why people who make their house payments by manufacturing smart bombs and DU munitions would want to suggest that as a realistic policy goal, but that doesn't make it any less lunatic. Oh, the same goes for the people who make their house payments consulting with, lobbying for and investing in the manufacturers of smart bombs and DU munitions.

And I can certainly understand why people who aren't in the military and have no children in the military might wax romantic about such notions of Righteous Conquest, but that doesn't make it any less cowardly to boldy champion the the mass sacrifice of others.

When only one member of Congress has a child in the military, I suggest we take their jingoistic, militaristic uber-patriotism with a very very large grain of salt. Yep, one in 535. I wonder what the numbers are for people who simply write books about how great war is and why we should be doing a lot more of it.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Every time some policy wonk starts in about using the US military to "combat evil", I start to break out in hives.

First, define "evil".

I respectfully suggest that far too often it is defined merely as "stuff we don't like", where "we" means the people presently empowered to command the military.

Secondly, are we talking about protecting our citizens from "evil" or are we actually advocating a policy which suggests that we can manufacture enough smart bombs and DU munitions to actually eliminate "evil" from the hearts and minds of human beings the world over? . . .

I'm not sure if this is an open question or is directed at my reference to the word "evil," but I'll try to explain what I meant anyway. I simply meant that as different as Berman's politics are from Bush's, they seem to have one thing in common, and that is a belief that we're facing something far more serious than we've acknowledged, a political trend that (partly at our own hands) has caused the slaughter and oppression of millions and is now at our own door. I don't know if Berman has used the word "evil" to describe it - I just borrowed it from Bush to convey the idea that both men seem to regard this as on a Hitler-esque scale. Berman feels that the left in particular has failed to acknowledge this danger and has lost its moral bearings. I'm not prepared to endorse this - I'm just not smart enough to say - but it's food for thought. Berman is no lightweight.

That said, the questions you raise are valid ones. The reason I posted the link is to demonstrate that there are no easy answers.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by zigzag:
That said, the questions you raise are valid ones. The reason I posted the link is to demonstrate that there are no easy answers.

Seems to me that people like Perle and Frum think the answers really are easy. Incredibly easy. In fact, they are so easy that it it can be readily achieved by the US' military and economic power and issue forth in the form of executive orders.

Anyone who honestly argues that there can literally be "an end to evil" is guilty of offering mind-numbingly easy answers to complex problems.

Hitler is the easy analogy because who could ever question the need to combat Hitler? Not only that, but the answer to Hitler is pretty easy--roll out the tanks and drop lots of bombs.

The real threat to the world is not "Hitlers", but the infinitely complex cultural revolutions that give rise to "Hitlers". All the bombs and guns in the world won't solve that one.

[Nonsuch]

thunderous, have you read this report [PDF] from the Strategic Studies Institute yet? I'm not through it yet, but it's very powerful and interesting stuff. In particular, this portion seems to mirror the point you were making:

The administration has postulated a multiplicity of enemies, including rogue states; weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferators; terrorist organizations of global, regional, and national scope; and terrorism itself. It also seems to have conflated them into a monolithic threat, and in so doing has subordinated strategic clarity to the moral clarity it strives for in foreign policy and may have set the United States on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and nonstate entities that pose no serious threat to the United States. [my emphasis]

Of particular concern has been the conflation of al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat. This was a strategic error of the first order because it ignored critical differences between the two in character, threat level, and susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action. The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al-Qaeda. The war against Iraq was not integral to the GWOT, but rather a detour from it.

Additionally, most of the GWOT’s declared objectives, which include the destruction of al-Qaeda and other transnational terrorist organizations, the transformation of Iraq into a prosperous, stable democracy, the democratization of the rest of the autocratic Middle East, the eradication of terrorism as a means of irregular warfare, and the (forcible, if necessary) termination of WMD proliferation to real and potential enemies worldwide, are unrealistic and condemn the United States to a hopeless quest for absolute security. As such, the GWOT’s goals are also politically, fiscally, and militarily unsustainable.

Hard work, trying to wipe out an abstraction.

[thunderous_funker]

Oh yeah. I've been passing that around like drugs.

I especially like how the paper was concludes:

"The global war on terrorism as presently defined and conducted is strategically unfocused, promises much more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military and other resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security," Record wrote, concluding his 56-page monograph. "The United States may be able to defeat, even destroy, Al Qaeda, but it cannot rid the world of terrorism, much less evil."

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Hard work, trying to wipe out an abstraction.

precisely.

and thanks for some very good thought provoking posts (the last several in this thread)

To me, the most dangerous thing about the neocon agenda is (as has been pointed out), that it is hopelessly naive. It assumes that america's propagation of hegemony will occur in a vacuum, without redress from the rest of the global community. It also naively assumes that reshaping countries is easier and less complex than dealing with existing governmental structures. Nothing could be further from reality.

by introducing chaos and then assuming it will automatically rebuild itself in the proper order incorrectly presumes that the building blocks of the governmental structural will remain sound enough to be restructured, and ignores the ultimate reality that the chaos of military invasion introduces instability into the building blocks themselves that has to be repaired before the blocks can then be used to repair the infrastructure. It incorrectly presumes that the populace will assent to the process willingly and patiently. It incorrectly presumes that the resulting structure will be more stable than the preceding one, quickly enough to imprint the US will upon the structure.

Again, the reality is much more complex and unstable than the neocons seem capable of comprehending.

How naive is it to think that burning down a building makes a better building than repairing the existing structure? Of course, it CAN work that way, making a better building by tearing down the existing one, but ONLY if you are willing to expend the resources and engineering required AFTER the demolition to rebuild.

Thus far, I don't see evidence of that.

[thunderous_funker]

"You can knock down government ministries with precision-guided munitions; you can't pick up garbage with them."


And

Gong Show Imperialism

[vmpaul]

Bumping this thread.

Don't know if everybody knows this 'discussion' has continued throughout this week. Some interesting posts every day. Well worth the effort to read.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2093620/entry/2093931/

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Seems to me that people like Perle and Frum think the answers really are easy. Incredibly easy. In fact, they are so easy that it it can be readily achieved by the US' military and economic power and issue forth in the form of executive orders.

Anyone who honestly argues that there can literally be "an end to evil" is guilty of offering mind-numbingly easy answers to complex problems.

Hitler is the easy analogy because who could ever question the need to combat Hitler? Not only that, but the answer to Hitler is pretty easy--roll out the tanks and drop lots of bombs.

The real threat to the world is not "Hitlers", but the infinitely complex cultural revolutions that give rise to "Hitlers". All the bombs and guns in the world won't solve that one.

Perle sorta gives me the creeps - I prefer Wolfowitz among that group - but I'm sure he's more sophisticated than that. I doubt Perle would say the answers are easy - I would expect him to say that the answers aren't easy, but that there comes a time to be decisive, take sides, take risks and take action. I can't argue with that in principle, even if I disagree with certain aspects of the implementation.

Similarly, I doubt any sophisticated person would argue that "evil" can be eradicated, only that totalitarianism is evil and is worth combatting.

As for Hitler references, obviously some of that is just rhetoric, but Berman is quite serious about the idea that Saddam and Islamism grew out of related historical events and pose similar dangers. Whether or not one agrees, it's worth pondering.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Bumping this thread.

Don't know if everybody knows this 'discussion' has continued throughout this week. Some interesting posts every day. Well worth the effort to read.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2093620/entry/2093931/

Thanks, I was thinking of bumping it myself, for the same reason. Most points of view are presented in the link, and presented calmly and lucidly. We'll all continue to draw different conclusions but I think it's important to consider the various counterarguments.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Thanks, I was thinking of bumping it myself, for the same reason. Most points of view are presented in the link, and presented calmly and lucidly. We'll all continue to draw different conclusions but I think it's important to consider the various counterarguments.

Actually, I'm just waiting for the first person to say 'prong 2'. (just teasing, Lerk)

I was waiting for the Fareed Zakaria piece. I always enjoy his analysis.

If that we could have such civilized discussions here, huh?

[boots]

Nice discussion. Thanks a lot for the great links.

All of this kinda brings to mind what I said right after 9/11...that 9/11 was the first strike in the war of Globalization. It isn't about nationality, it's about social classes being left behind because the major globalization players (not just the US) are playing a non-zero-sum game by zero-sum rules.

That sets up the perfect breading ground for discontent and gives rise to what we see now as the loose affiliation of a variety of terror networks.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Perle sorta gives me the creeps - I prefer Wolfowitz among that group - but I'm sure he's more sophisticated than that. I doubt Perle would say the answers are easy - I would expect him to say that the answers aren't easy, but that there comes a time to be decisive, take sides, take risks and take action. I can't argue with that in principle, even if I disagree with certain aspects of the implementation.

Similarly, I doubt any sophisticated person would argue that "evil" can be eradicated, only that totalitarianism is evil and is worth combatting.

As for Hitler references, obviously some of that is just rhetoric, but Berman is quite serious about the idea that Saddam and Islamism grew out of related historical events and pose similar dangers. Whether or not one agrees, it's worth pondering.

My response to Perle would be: there's more than two sides to a circle.


BG

[zigzag]

Originally posted by boots:
Nice discussion. Thanks a lot for the great links.

All of this kinda brings to mind what I said right after 9/11...that 9/11 was the first strike in the war of Globalization. It isn't about nationality, it's about social classes being left behind because the major globalization players (not just the US) are playing a non-zero-sum game by zero-sum rules.

That sets up the perfect breading ground for discontent and gives rise to what we see now as the loose affiliation of a variety of terror networks.

That presents an interesting question: is this about poverty (which is something that anti-war folks feel can and should be addressed in a rational, non-military way), or is it about irrational ideology(i.e. "evil") that needs to be fought more forcefully? I think it's some of each, but I think it's useful to see the distinction. Liberals seem more likely to view 9/11 in terms of the former (overlooking the fact that bin Laden et al. were affluent, educated, privileged religious fanatics and ideologues who probably want to kill us no matter what), while conservatives seem more likely to view it as a Clash of Civilizations (overlooking the fact that our own policies have done much to foster this hatred and that poverty and oppression feed fanaticism). Berman is interesting because he's one of the few leftists who sees this as a major ideological battle as well as a sociopolitical/economic problem.

[boots]

Originally posted by zigzag:
That presents an interesting question: is this about poverty (which is something that anti-war folks feel can and should be addressed in a rational, non-military way), or is it about irrational ideology(i.e. "evil") that needs to be fought more forcefully? I think it's some of each, but I think it's useful to see the distinction. Liberals seem more likely to view 9/11 in terms of the former (overlooking the fact that bin Laden et al. were affluent, educated, privileged religious fanatics and ideologues who probably want to kill us no matter what), while conservatives seem more likely to view it as a Clash of Civilizations (overlooking the fact that our own policies have done much to foster this hatred and that poverty and oppression feed fanaticism). Berman is interesting because he's one of the few leftists who sees this as a major ideological battle as well as a sociopolitical/economic problem.

I agree that they are separate issues and that each is probably playing a role. I also think that Globalization is not necessarily just a monetary issue. I just think it sort of starts there. Here's kinda how I see it (not an academic description, so it may not be real clear, but it will at least start the dialogue...)

Country A exploits country B for monetary gain with the idea that if A gains, B must lose. Country B sees this and begins to associate the monetary policy with the culture of country A. As this continues, the two issues merge into one large clash of ideals.

For example, the developed countries are very concerned about the oil in the middle east (not meant as an indictment of the current military action in Iraq). So we manipulate to politics such that we have a good supply at a reasonable price. This is good for the ruling parties of the oil rich nations, but not necessarily for the entire population (this is where despotic rule factors in). Example: Saudi Arabia vs Kuwait. Which country has leadership that raised the standard of living (through oil revenue) of the majority of it's people?

An alternative approach is for developed country A to approach countries as trade partners...not necessarily through the governments...and help build up a thriving economy in country B. In the long run, this economically stabilizes country B and gives country A a stabile trading partner they would not otherwise have had. This is the non-zero sum approach.

I think that cultural clashes are minimized when the countries in question have stabile economies. I think it is also important to emphasize that we aren't talking about nationalistic ideologies. We're talking about Joe on the street.

[vmarks]

Trade happens when there is voluntary consent by each party to the bargain.

Country B isn't being exploited, they consented voluntarily. Exploitation isn't the problem, hypocrisy is.

Opening up to international trade has helped countries grow far faster than they otherwise would have. Trade drives economic development when a country's exports are what define it's economic growth. Export driven growth is what enriched much of Asia, and left millions of people there far better off.

Even when there are negatives to globalization, there are often benefits coupled to them. Opening up the Jamaican milk market to US imports in '92 meant that yes, local dairy farmers would suffer some, but that it also meant that poor children could get milk more cheaply.

The real problem is that the US has pushed smaller countries to eliminate trade barriers while upholding and erecting more of our own. Globalization and free trade have the power to eradicate poverty, but not when the current practice prevents countries dependent on an export economy from exporting, depriving them of income. - Such a practice not only hurts those countries, but hurts the American consumer, both in higher prices paid, and in taxes to pay subsidies in the billion dollar range.

[boots]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Even when there are negatives to globalization, there are often benefits coupled to them. Opening up the Jamaican milk market to US imports in '92 meant that yes, local dairy farmers would suffer some, but that it also meant that poor children could get milk more cheaply.

Yep. And currently, there are more people getting the shaft than getting the benefit.

The real problem is that the US has pushed smaller countries to eliminate trade barriers while upholding and erecting more of our own. Globalization and free trade have the power to eradicate poverty, but not when the current practice prevents countries dependent on an export economy from exporting, depriving them of income. - Such a practice not only hurts those countries, but hurts the American consumer, both in higher prices paid, and in taxes to pay subsidies in the billion dollar range.

Yep...and that's where I called it exploitation. Stripping resources (be it oil or human labor) without providing enough in return to compensate. Look at what has happened to the world coffee market because of misguided IMF policy...and who controls the IMF? Developed countries. Who's the big winner? Nestle is, because they can buy cheap from a saturated market and then sell it to us for $3.00/Grande. Whose the loser? All the countries that the IMF strong armed into making coffee their predominant export to satisfy the conditions of a loan/grant. But that's another thread.

I think we are saying the same things, just using different words to say it. That's fine as far as I'm concerned.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Country B isn't being exploited, they consented voluntarily. Exploitation isn't the problem, hypocrisy is.

Your view of developing world government's accountability to the general welfare of their population is either naive or calculated.

Just because some strongman in Africa gladly agreed to sell his nation's natural resources to multinationals for bargain basement prices that lined his own pockets, doesn't make that trade agreement "voluntary" for the people of that nation.

Trade that doesn't effectively create and stabilize a viable middle class in the developing world is self-defeating in the long run.

[boots]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Your view of developing world government's accountability to the general welfare of their population is either naive or calculated.

Just because some strongman in Africa gladly agreed to sell his nation's natural resources to multinationals for bargain basement prices that lined his own pockets, doesn't make that trade agreement "voluntary" for the people of that nation.

Trade that doesn't effectively create and stabilize a viable middle class in the developing world is self-defeating in the long run.

Thanks for adding that. It was inherent in my initial post on this. That's why I said trade not necessarily through the government.

This is also where breaking point between trade and exploitation lies. Hence the (maybo not best) comparison between Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

But I think he is on the same page, in essence.

[osiris]

speaking of nuances of the Iraq war, anyone see this clip of cold blooded murder?

http://www.thecia.net/users/stewarte/apachehit.mpg

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by osiris:
speaking of nuances of the Iraq war, anyone see this clip of cold blooded murder?

http://www.thecia.net/users/stewarte/apachehit.mpg

That's chilling. Where did that come from?

[osiris]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
That's chilling. Where did that come from?

WABC - http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/...eo_040109.html