A Level Gaze

A Level Gaze

"What effect must it have on a nation if it learns no foreign languages? Probably much the same as that which a total withdrawal from society has upon an individual."
--G.C. Lichtenberg

Thursday, October 31, 2002

Nut Control

Probably the most time and energy in the Bush administration's justification of a U.S. Iraq invasion has been put into the idea that Saddam is perilously close to developing a nuclear bomb and must be stopped at all costs. Now that North Korea has admitted to its own nuclear weapons program, Bush is pulling out all the stops in an attempt to derail it.

Although little has been said on the subject of the two most recently confirmed members of the nuclear club, India and Pakistan, I believe it would be fair to characterize the position of this administration as being strongly against nuclear proliferation. Given the administration is firmly in the anti-gun control camp, I propose to examine that position in the light of an allegory:

Individuals as sovereign nations, guns as nuclear weapons, clubs as conventional weapons, and the inverse of all three.

Individuals in this country, some great, some small, coerce, compete and cooperate, make judgements about one another and act accordingly. Sovereign nations, although their relative proximity to one another is fixed, do much the same. Guns can kill with great efficiency at a distance. Nukes can 'kill' a country with great efficiency at a distance. It is much more difficult to kill with a club, as one must gain proximity to the victim and use it repeatedly. One must also thwart the other's defenses. Proximity and vigorous, repeated application of conventional weapons are likewise required to 'kill' another nation, while penetrating its defenses.

The administration believes that gun control is bad, that all citizens should have the capability of resisting tyranny, and that law and order are strengthened by widespread possession of guns, because they deter unilateral aggression. The administration also believes that nuclear weapons control in the world is good. It's bad enough that some countries already have them (although we're keeping ours). As more countries gain nukes, the chance that one of them will decide to use them against other countries is unacceptable and justifies any actions deemed necessary to remove them.

At the level of individual citizens, guns are the ultimate deterrent to the violence and oppression of others. The gun lobby believes that an armed populace is the best defense against incipient tyranny; people with guns don't have to sit back and take it should an unjust government attempt to excercise its power over them. As the level of tyranny that would justify armed resistance is nowhere defined, presumably it's up to the individuals concerned to define it for themselves.

At the level of sovereign nations, nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent to the violence and oppression of other nations.

If nuclear weapons were guns and sovereign nations citizens, then, according to current Executive Branch thinking, only a few priviliged rich and/or powerful people should have guns. The rest should be prevented, forcibly if necessary, from acquiring guns, in the interest of maintaing societal stability and preventing killings. If guns were nuclear weapons and citizens sovereign nations, then every sovereign nation should be allowed to have nuclear weapons to protect itself against the potential tyranny of other countries. Any restriction upon the acquisition or deployment of nuclear weapons would be bad for the world community as a whole.

A rogue nation could decide to launch a nuclear attack against another country, just as a rogue individual could decide to start shooting his countrymen. The damage caused by either is awful and irreparable. Why accept one and not the other? It could be argued that the odd shooting is a reasonable price to pay for increased security in general, and the disincentive generated to governmental tyranny. It could be argued that the risk of a rogue nation using a nuclear weapon is too great for the rest of the world to countenance. We don't worry about individual lives in the US and we don't worry about the possibility of tyranny and unilateralism in the world.

Which 'principle' does the administration favor?

posted by David at 10/31/2002 02:24:00 PM ::

Wednesday, October 30, 2002

Come Together

In the interest of disentangling the argument against a U.S. military action against Iraq from other, unrelated political issues, I am joining with bloggers on both (all) sides of the political spectrum in participating in NoWarBlog. This blog is an attempt to increase the perceived legitimacy of the anti-war cause by taking away one of the most oft-used of the hawks' specious arguments against it. "Oh, you know those left-wing kooks..."

It's too bad we feel the need to resort to something like this; people should evaluate arguments on their merits, rather than the political leanings of the source, but whattaya gonna do? It's not as though the fact that, even leaving Muslims to one side, nearly every single person in the world outside of the U.S. thinks the idea of an Iraq invasion is illegitimate, short-sighted, and reckless has had much effect on the balance of opinion here. Hearing the same simple, obvious, irrefutable truths from people with profoundly different worldviews and politics may help convince a few more thinking people that war with Iraq is wrong. In the highly polarized arena that is American political discourse, unanimity is the only sure validity.

This is our credo.

posted by David at 10/30/2002 11:36:00 AM ::

Tuesday, October 29, 2002

Did Putin do wrong?

It's entirely possible that the Russian government took the best of the available options, given the circumstances and their knowledge of them. If:

1. The theater had been wired with explosives, which, presumably, could have been detonated at very short notice. (True)

2. There were too many terrorists for the police to have a reasonable shot (ptp) at getting them all in a raid before one or more of them detonated the explosives. (True)

3. The government fully believed that the terrorists were willing to and intended to a) blow up the building, or b) just kill the hostages if their demands were not met. (??)

4. The government was unwilling to meet the terrorists' demands. (True)

5. The gas used was the only method (or the least lethal one) available that would incapacitate the terrorists quickly enough to prevent them from blowing up the theater and (thereby) killing all of the hostages. (??)

If, and it's a big if, these five premises are true, then the use of an agent like the gas that was pumped into the theater makes sense.

It might have failed, but, with the alternative being the death of all the hostages, it was worth a try (so their thinking might have gone). It's quite possible that the only agent that would work quickly enough had a high propensity to kill. If the alternative to the best of the government's knowledge was the probable blowing of the building/death of the hostages, then gassing with this substance might have seemed the only choice.

I don't have all of the facts, either, so I'm not making any pronouncements on the issue, but there is a very plausible set of circumstances under which Putin did the right thing.

ADDENDUM: Putin did do wrong in having the terrorists summarily executed. I'm sure it played really well for the locals, but it just ain't right.

posted by David at 10/29/2002 01:51:00 PM ::

Hyde Urges Bush to Help Oust Venezuelan President

Warning of the formation of a potential "Axis of Evil" in the Americas, an influential lawmaker has called on President George W. Bush to support the ouster of left-wing Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.

Just days before Brazilians elected radical populist Lula da Silva as their president on Oct. 27, House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) sent President Bush a powerfully phrased letter warning that a triumvirate of political extremists leading economic powerhouse Brazil, oil giant Venezuela and the terrorist-sponsoring regime of Cuba constitute an emerging "Axis of Evil" that the United States must stop.

Again with the oil? So our avowed enemy North Korea, which in all likelihood already has nuclear weapons and missiles potent enough to deliver said weapons to our shores, just needs a good talking-to, but Venezuela, which has neither, requires forcible régime change. And this on the strength of a presumed tie between it and Brazil, the new leader of which has made some noises about pursuing nuclear weapons.

Hyde blusters on about how Venezuela's Chavez was elected with the help of "systematic violation of the Venezuelan Constitution," no instance of which he deigns to mention. He also fails to mention that Chavez was elected by a majority, against the vehement opposition of just about every monied interest in the country. And he gets in a jab or two at Bill Clinton.

According to Hyde, "all the pro-democracy elements of the society, including the genuinely democratic political parties, the labor unions, business associations and religious institutions, have been gathered for two days in coalition with a group of active duty military officers of flag rank demanding that President Hugo Chavez resign and that new, free and open elections be held."

I wonder if the timing and means of bringing about the elections Hyde proposes are in accord with the Venezuelan Constitution. Does it have provisions for the military forcing the resignation of the elected president?

This is about two things: oil, and a fit of brutal pique at having our accustomed lapdogs in Latin America attempt to peek their noses out from under US hegemony. To hell with self-determination. To hell with democracy. If any further proof had been needed that brutal pigs are running US foreign policy, this letter supplies it.

via Realpolitik

posted by David at 10/29/2002 10:09:00 AM ::

Monday, October 28, 2002

Drug war has hidden agendas, says report

The governments of struggling nations around the world prohibit the use of certain drugs not only to protect public health and safety, but also because launching and maintaining a war on drugs enables governments to expand their police powers, create enticing political rhetoric, and attract much-needed foreign aid, according to a recent report from an influential California think tank.

What the heck is going on with Bush buddy Sun Myung Moon's UPI? First they compare Dubya with Herbert Hoover, and now they dare question the sanctity of the War on Drugs? Am I missing something, or is Moon coming over to our side?

posted by David at 10/28/2002 01:06:00 PM ::

Friday, October 25, 2002

"Told you so!"

I've noticed a lot of right wingers rubbing their hands with glee (and, likely, relief) that the sniper turned out to be a black, Muslim al Qaeda sympathizer as opposed to an angry, white, Christian, gun nut fundamentalist.

I seem to recall that these were the guys who had let the issue of al Qaeda fall by the wayside in their frenzy to invade Iraq. Many of us on the left noted that al Qaeda had attacked us, not Iraq, and that many of its members were still at large and determined to attack us.

So, who told whom?

posted by David at 10/25/2002 10:43:00 AM ::

It's only nukes

We don't need to deal with them unless there's a political advantage to be gained by scaring the bejeezus out of the American people.

Despite its startling announcement a week ago, the Bush administration had detailed knowledge for more than a year about North Korea's program to covertly make uranium fuel for an atom bomb, the Mercury News has learned.

North Korea's admission that the country's secretive, authoritarian government was pursuing a new route to nuclear weapons sparked international alarm last week. But interviews with experts and former Clinton administration officials, and a review of little-noticed statements by Bush officials, raise questions about why the administration waited so long to deal with this threat, now the subject of intense diplomatic efforts.

In addition, the administration had strong evidence, dating back to the Clinton presidency, that North Korea got help from Pakistan's top nuclear weapons scientist.

The Pakistanis appear to have given nuclear technology to North Korea in exchange for long-range ballistic missiles that could reach deep into the territory of its traditional foe, India. Bush administration officials pointed a finger at this in early June 2001, at a time when they were courting India. But since Sept. 11, when Pakistan became a key ally in the war on terrorism, they turned mum on the Pakistan connection.

via Buzzflash

posted by David at 10/25/2002 08:21:00 AM ::

Tuesday, October 22, 2002

Who gets the loot?

We go to war with Iraq. We win. We get rid of Saddam and all of his cronies. We install a relatively inoffensive puppet régime. We begin to rebuild the country. We get control of the oil.

In his victory address, does Bush: Propose to use the oil money to pay down the defecit? Propose to use the oil money to try to stabilize the region? Propose to use the oil money to cut checks to Americans hurting from the recession? Propose to use the oil money to rejuvinate the public school system or expand the G.I. Bill?

No, no, no, and no.

He gives the oil concessions to American energy companies for pennies on the dollar. They conspire to keep prices high, Bush works to keep the taxes they pay to a minimum, and the rest of us don't see squat.

posted by David at 10/22/2002 08:15:00 AM ::

Monday, October 21, 2002

So, with the War on Terror, the assault on civil liberties, installation of a friendly regime in place of the Taliban, with all the flag-waving and chest-pounding that's gone on, "They're [still] coming after us?"

Gee, that's disappointing. After all the trouble we went to to pretend that the causes of terrorism weren't important, that we'd be better off attacking the symptoms (or, failing that, things that somewhat resemble symptoms), we've got more attacks to look forward to.

Translation: America doesn’t have the resources to take on the threats it’s hearing about, much less the ones it doesn’t yet know about. And that doesn’t include invading Iraq—which will require another level of attention, money and personnel. The CIA is already “stressed out,” says one agency officer. It’s not just a question of whether the United States may be biting off more than it can chew by taking on Iraq, says this source: “The fact is, we haven’t been able to chew what’s in our mouth for 10 years.”

So, instead of getting the Israelis and Palestinians to the bargaining table, instead of removing our troops from Saudi Arabia, instead of rethinking our unilateralist policies and actually listening to what other countries have to say, we'll just buckle down and muddle our way through endless terrorism and endless war, for which we're woefully underprepared.

Sounds about right.

posted by David at 10/21/2002 12:25:00 PM ::

Thursday, October 17, 2002

General Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command for U.S. forces in the Middle East, has a few things to say about the situation on the ground there and how the US has reacted to it, and what should be done in the future. Some highlights:

Anything we do in this region requires that regional coalition, support, and partnership to work. The number one ingredient that makes it work--I heard this term time and time again--is consult, consult, consult. Understand what is going on on the ground. Listen to your partners. We all have interests; some of those interests collide. How can we smooth out the rough edges? How can we work out solutions that don't destabilize?

***

...when I was the combatant commander in Central Command, the first thing I asked all my friends and counterparts was, "Why do you see the U.S. military presence here as important?" The answer I had was stability, stability, stability. You can, and you do, if it's done right, provide a tremendous amount of stability to a very volatile region.

But to maintain that stability, we need to consult when action is taken. You need to understand from our eyes and our viewpoint what happens when an action is taken. You have to day-in and day-out work that relationship and try to see those situations from those other eyes. You have to try and find a way to mutually fulfill our interests or obligations and take care of our threats.

Again, if we do something here, that particular partnership has to be involved and has to be maintained. If rifts or divisions come out and are magnified by this, who comes and who doesn't come, and problems are created for those relationships, then we're going to have trouble. We have a potential failure.

***

The next point I made was that the street had to remain quiet. A short war helps that, but the mood is not good. Anti-Americanism, doubt about this war, concern about the damage that may happen, political issues, economic issues, social issues have all caused the street to become extremely volatile. I'm amazed at people that say that there is no street and that it won't react. I'm not sure which planet they live on, because it isn't the one that I travel. I've been out in the Middle East, and it is explosive; it is the worst I've ever seen it in over a dozen years of working in this area in some concentrated way. Almost anything could touch it off.

What would the reaction be? We can see the events that are taking place now in Kuwait with our forces. Will we have security issues, embassies, military installations, American businessmen, or tourists there? Do we become vulnerable? Do others that are involved with us become vulnerable? Are the regimes of our friends and the governments that are friendly to us vulnerable? Do we need to see demonstrations and blood in the streets? Do we need to see friendly governments that operate economically, politically and pretty close to the edge being pushed by a street that is resisting support and cooperation in the conduct of the war? It is a great unknown, and it's easy to blow it off by comments that there is no street or that it won't react and nothing will happen.

The greatest moment on the street came after 9/11 when Osama bin Laden called for the Jihad. I told my friends to watch the result. I told them I could predict there would be no Jihad, that they might see some isolated demonstrations, but that we would see the true heart of the people in the region. We saw it in October, November and December. A year later now, we have lost that goodwill. We have lost that connection; we have lost that compassion. We have lost that moment when we could have corrected things, and now the language is getting hostile and bitter. We have the crazies that represent the ends of the religions and societies involved in this who are saying things that are inflammatory, inciting, and not helping. We need a lot of repair work on those relationships, culture to culture and society to society, let alone government to government.

***

. If we think there is a fast solution to changing the governance of Iraq, then we don't understand history, the nature of the country, the divisions, or the underneath-suppressed passions that could rise up. God help us if we think this transition will occur easily. We are going to need a period of order. We're going to need to have people come together. We're going to have to lower the passion, and we're going to have to control events in some way.

That's going to be extremely difficult. There were 98 opposition groups the last time I counted; I think now it has increased a little bit. If you believe that they're all going to rush to the palace, hold hands and sing Kum Ba Yah, I doubt it. (laughter) If you think that people won't see opportunity to do things that will cause concern in the region, whether to the Iranians, the Turks or others, and go against what we hope will happen and against agreements that will be made, then I think you could be sadly mistaken. If you think it's going to be easy to impose a government or install one from the outside, I think that you're further sadly mistaken and that you don't understand this region.

My next point was that the burden has to be shared. I don't only mean cost. I saw an estimate done by some of our financial analysts. They have predicted that the impact of a war would be an immediate 13 percent drop in the DOW and 14 percent in some of the tech stocks and NASDAQ. [emphasis mine] I'm sure the price of oil will spike; I doubt seriously that we could avoid that. The cost of this war can be great, especially if it becomes messy and long-term and if reconstruction becomes a significant issue.

***

The change has to be orderly. The change will not be immediate. There is no history of Jeffersonian democracy here. If we think that this is going to happen overnight, we're wrong. In my experience with any involvement I've had in nation building--and I've had some--you need a period of transition. You need an immediate sense of order; you need to assess what is happening on the ground. You need to correct some things that are not going in the right direction. You need to build confidence. You need to rebuild institutions. You need to create a system of governance that will last, that the people can understand, participate in and feel confident in. If you think you're going to do that in a month or two, or even a year or two, I think you're dreaming. I've never seen it done like that.

The attempts I've seen to install democracy in short periods of time where there is no history and no roots have failed. Take it back to Somalia and other places where we've tried. It's not an easy concept. It's not an easy form of governance to put in place and to be understood. Remember it happened well for us. We had a revolution of elites in this country, which is the exception. Every place else where this has happened, it's been bloody, difficult, and long-term with a lot of friction. We can ill afford that in this part of the region.

***

It's the onset of winter in Afghanistan. President Karzai faces a situation with massive refugee problems, major reconstruction problems, and tremendous political fragility in his ability to govern from Kabul. You'd better fix that one. The last time we went to help them, we left. We ended up with Mullah Omar and the Taliban. That is burned into the memories of the people in the region; they're going to be looking to us to see if we will stick this one out and stay with them until they get there. How many of these can you put on your plate? You can't have those fail where you want to see a turnaround.

***

My last point was that our other commitments have to be met. We have embarked on a global war on terrorism, GWOT as they call it in the Pentagon. If we are going to be involved in a global war on terrorism, we'd better understand that it goes beyond the tactical. The tactical means you go into the field, you go after the terrorists with your military, your law enforcement agencies cooperate to take down cells, your financial institutions work to peel away the resources needed, but you are treating the symptoms. Terrorism is a manifestation of something greater. There is extremism out there that is manifesting itself in the violent way of terrorism.

What are the root causes of this extremism? Why are young people flocking to these causes? Could the issues be political, economic and social? Could disenfranchisement or oppression be what drives them rather than the religious fanaticism that may be the core element to only a few? How do we cooperate to fix these problems? How do we help a part of the world that's trying to come to grips with modernity?

I would suggest that we ought to think in terms of a Marshall Plan, not a Marshall Plan in terms of a large dole necessarily but one that is international and cooperative, one that looks at what needs to be done on the economic, political and social fronts to help this important critical part of the world get through this rough patch. There are Ambassador Edward S. Walkers out there about a great religion in the process of transformation adjusting to modernity. There are Ambassador Edward S. Walkers out there about the forms of governance and whether they're going to evolve into something more responsive to the twenty-first century. There are Ambassador Edward S. Walkers out there about issues of human rights and different ways we see individual rights.

Do you best work those issues in confrontation or cooperation? I think you best work them in cooperation. Our other commitments require that as the leader of the world now and the last empire standing, not one of conquest but one of influence that has attempted to be the beacon for the world and not to conquer the world, how do we best exert that influence? How do we reach that hand out? How do we muster the resources of the world, of others who look to us for leadership to help in this region now? How do we cooperate with those in the region that want to see change and that want stability and reform? How do we do it in a way that minimizes friction instead of always resorting to what I spent thirty-nine years doing, which is resorting to the gun? When you unleash that kinetic energy on a part of the world, you never know what's going to come out of the other end. More often than not, it makes the conditions worse.

In a question-and-answer session following the speech, an audience member asked Zinni, "Do you think the war is unavoidable? Do you think that we are rushing into the war with Iraq without studying the consequences?"

He responded:

I'm not convinced we need to do this now. I am convinced that we need to deal with Saddam down the road, but I think that the time is difficult because of the conditions in the region and all the other events that are going on. I believe that he can be deterred and is containable at this moment. As a matter of fact, I think the containment can be ratcheted up in a way that is acceptable to everybody.

I do think eventually Saddam has to be dealt with. That could happen in many ways. It could happen that he just withers on the vine, he passes on to the afterlife, something happens within Iraq that changes things, he becomes less powerful, or the inspectors that go in actually accomplish something and eliminate potential weapons of mass destruction -- but I doubt this -- that might be there.

The question becomes how to sort out your priorities and deal with them in a smart way that you get things done that need to be done first before you move on to things that are second and third. If I were to give you my priority of things that can change for the better in this region, it is first and foremost the Middle East peace process and getting it back on track. Second, it is ensuring that Iran's reformation or moderation continues on track and trying to help and support the people who are trying to make that change in the best way we can. That's going to take a lot of intelligence and careful work.

The third is to make sure those countries to which we have now committed ourselves to change, like Afghanistan and those in Central Asia, we invest what we need to in the way of resources there to make that change happen. Fourth is to patch up these relationships that have become strained, and fifth is to reconnect to the people. We are talking past each other. The dialogue is heated. We have based this in things that are tough to compromise on, like religion and politics, and we need to reconnect in a different way. I would take those priorities before this one.

posted by David at 10/17/2002 12:38:00 PM ::

Back from vacation. I hope the bastards are as rested as I am.

posted by David at 10/17/2002 12:09:00 PM ::

Saturday, October 05, 2002

Hesiod notes a suggestion for the addition of a new member to the "Axis of Evil."

One of the main points in Murdock's argument is that Brazilian presidential candidate Ignacio da Silva "chillingly hinted on September 13 that Brazil should resume its quest for atomic weapons." Let me make it clear that I don't think the existence of more nuclear-armed countries is a good thing, but da Silva's position does make sense.

Latin American countries in particular have to be concerned with their relationship with the 800 lb. gorilla to the north. The US has tremendous economic and military dominance, and its diplomacy has been lately comprised wholly of threats, veiled and direct. With the exception of China and Russia, every other country in the world sees itself as nakedly exposed to our power. Without something like nuclear weapons to give us pause, they'll have to roll over whenever we feel like flexing. Past experience has shown the Brazilians (and Argentinians, Columbians, Bolivians, etc.) that we flex often, and rarely for their benefit. The rest of the world sees us demanding the right to use force wherever and whenever we see fit. Is it any wonder we make them nervous? So long as we continue tromping around the globe in our nuclear-tipped boots, every other country cannot help but see itself as acutely vulnerable.

posted by David at 10/05/2002 11:31:00 AM ::

Friday, October 04, 2002

Atrios beat me to it, but...

I don't get all this crap about people in this country "hating America."

With the exception of an infinitessimally small number of people on the extreme fringes of society, nobody here "hates America." How could we? Would we hate the land? The people? The constitutional system of government? Would anybody here be happier if the country were defeated in war or subjected to more terrorist atrocities? Is anyone here advocating the overthrow of the government and its replacement with a dictatorship, theocracy, or monarchy? No.

It's an insultingly simplistic overgeneralization. Many people here disagree with one or more governmental policies. It's their right to do so, and to be expected given that at least 40% of the voting population in most districts voted against their current elected officials. That percentage is significantly higher with regard to the president. Some people just cannot wrap their heads around the idea of constructive dissent. It's the same crowd who got "doesn't respond well to criticism" on their first-grade report cards.

Although I wouldn’t say that anyone outside of the aforementioned lunatic fringe hates America, but I will say that some people seem to like it more than others. Who is attempting to squelch the fine American tradition of free speech with shouts of “treason?” Who is in favor of curtailing more and more of our constitutionally guaranteed civil rights at every opportunity? Who is in favor of eliminating governmental initiatives to ensure equality of treatment for all under the law? Who is attempting to do away with the division between church and state upon which America was founded?

We get the “hate America” treatment for acting in the tradition and according to the laws of the land. They get to call themselves great patriots for undermining them. Do these people even know what America is?

posted by David at 10/04/2002 04:51:00 PM ::

A salesman was traveling between towns in California and got a flat tire In the middle of nowhere. Checking the spare, he found that it was flat too. His only option was to flag down a passing motorist and get a ride to the nearest town.

The first vehicle to stop was an old man in a van. He yelled out the window to the salesman, "Need a lift?"

"Yes, I do," replied the salesman.

"You a Democrat or Republican?" asked the old man.

"Democrat."

"Go to Hell!" yelled the old man as he sped off.

The next to stop rolled down the window and asked the same question, to which the salesman gave the same answer, "Democrat." The driver gave him the finger and drove off. The salesman thought it over, and decided that maybe he should change his approach, since there appeared to be few Democrats in this area.

The next car to stop was a red convertible driven by a beautiful blonde. She smiled seductively and asked him if he were a Democrat or Republican.

"Republican!" shouted the salesman.

"Hop in!" replied the blonde.

Driving down the road, he couldn't help but stare at the gorgeous woman In the seat next to him; the wind blowing through her hair. "A picture of perfection," he sighed, glancing at the short skirt that continued to ride higher and higher up her thighs.

Finally, he yelled, "STOP THE CAR! STOP THE CAR!"

She slammed on the brakes and, as soon as the car stopped, he jumped out. "What's the matter?" she asked.

"I can't take it!" he replied. "I've only been a Republican for five minutes and already I want to screw somebody!"

Thanks, Jim!

posted by David at 10/04/2002 02:14:00 PM ::

The Push For War

Anatol Lieven's comprehensive analysis of the Bush administration's drive toward invading Iraq is an absolute must-read.

Some highlights:

The most surprising thing about the push for war is that it is so profoundly reckless. If I had to put money on it, I'd say that the odds on quick success in destroying the Iraqi regime may be as high as 5/1 or more, given US military superiority, the vile nature of Saddam Hussein's rule, the unreliability of Baghdad's missiles, and the deep divisions in the Arab world. But at first sight, the longer-term gains for the US look pretty limited, whereas the consequences of failure would be catastrophic. A general Middle Eastern conflagration and the collapse of more pro-Western Arab states would lose us the war against terrorism, doom untold thousands of Western civilians to death in coming decades, and plunge the world economy into depression.

These risks are not only to American (and British) lives and interests, but to the political future of the Administration. If the war goes badly wrong, it will be more generally excoriated than any within living memory, and its members will be finished politically - finished for good. If no other fear moved these people, you'd have thought this one would.

***

It's far more probable, therefore, that most members of the Bush and Sharon Administrations hope that the crushing of Iraq will so demoralise the Palestinians, and so reduce wider Arab support for them, that it will be possible to force them to accept a Bantustan settlement bearing no resemblance to independent statehood and bringing with it no possibility of economic growth and prosperity.

How intelligent men can believe that this will work, given the history of the past fifty years, is astonishing. After all, the Israelis have defeated Arab states five times with no diminution of Palestinian nationalism or Arab sympathy for it. But the dominant groups in the present Administrations in both Washington and Jerusalem are 'realists' to the core, which, as so often, means that they take an extremely unreal view of the rest of the world, and are insensitive to the point of autism when it comes to the character and motivations of others. They are obsessed by power, by the division of the world into friends and enemies (and often, into their own country and the rest of the world) and by the belief that any demonstration of 'weakness' immediately leads to more radical approaches by the 'enemy'.

***

The planned war against Iraq is not after all intended only to remove Saddam Hussein, but to destroy the structure of the Sunni-dominated Arab nationalist Iraqi state as it has existed since that country's inception. The 'democracy' which replaces it will presumably resemble that of Afghanistan - a ramshackle coalition of ethnic groups and warlords, utterly dependent on US military power and utterly subservient to US (and Israeli) wishes.

Similarly, if after Saddam's regime is destroyed, Saudi Arabia fails to bow to US wishes and is attacked in its turn, then - to judge by the thoughts circulating in Washington think-tanks - the goal would be not just to remove the Saudi regime and eliminate Wahabism as a state ideology: it would be to destroy and partition the Saudi state. The Gulf oilfields would be put under US military occupation, and the region run by some client emir; Mecca and the Hejaz might well be returned to the Hashemite dynasty of Jordan, its rulers before the conquest by Ibn Saud in 1924; or, to put it differently, the British imperial programme of 1919 would be resurrected (though, if the Hashemites have any sense, they would reject what would without question be a long-term death sentence).

***

Under the guise of National Missile Defense, the Administration - or elements within it - even dreams of extending US military hegemony beyond the bounds of the Earth itself (an ambition clearly indicated in the official paper on Defense Planning Guidance for the 2004-09 Fiscal Years, issued this year by Rumsfeld's office). And while this web of ambition is megalomaniac, it is not simply fantasy. Given America's overwhelming superiority, it might well work for decades until a mixture of terrorism and the unbearable social, political and environmental costs of US economic domination put paid to the present order of the world.

***

To understand the radical nationalist Right in the US, and the dominant forces in the Bush Administration, it is necessary first of all to understand their absolute and absolutely sincere identification of themselves with the United States, to the point where the presence of any other group in government is seen as a usurpation, as profoundly and inherently illegitimate and 'un-American'. As far as the hardline elements of the US security establishment and military industrial complex are concerned, they are the product of the Cold War, and were shaped by that struggle and the paranoia and fanaticism it bred. In typical fashion for security elites, they also became conditioned over the decades to see themselves not just as tougher, braver, wiser and more knowledgeable than their ignorant, innocent compatriots, but as the only force standing between their country and destruction.

***

Twice now in the past decade, the overwhelming military and economic dominance of the US has given it the chance to lead the rest of the world by example and consensus. It could have adopted (and to a very limited degree under Clinton did adopt) a strategy in which this dominance would be softened and legitimised by economic and ecological generosity and responsibility, by geopolitical restraint, and by 'a decent respect to the opinion of mankind', as the US Declaration of Independence has it. The first occasion was the collapse of the Soviet superpower enemy and of Communism as an ideology. The second was the threat displayed by al-Qaida. Both chances have been lost - the first in part, the second it seems conclusively. What we see now is the tragedy of a great country, with noble impulses, successful institutions, magnificent historical achievements and immense energies, which has become a menace to itself and to mankind.

via Metafilter

posted by David at 10/04/2002 10:29:00 AM ::

Thursday, October 03, 2002

Osama Bin Laden hasn't been mentioned in a presidential speech in 7 months.

Does that mean we've won the War on Terror? Hey, Ashcroft, are you done with our civil rights? We'd like 'em back.
[Edit -- that's 7 months, not 8]

posted by David at 10/03/2002 12:22:00 PM ::

D-Squared Digest has a very good idea on how to avoid being mischaracterized when criticizing the policies of a certain Middle Eastern government:

Let's just stop using the words "Israeli" and "Zionist" and replace them with "Likudist".

It couldn't hurt.
[Edit: Link "fixed." Permalink n/a.]

posted by David at 10/03/2002 11:33:00 AM ::

Wednesday, October 02, 2002

I done seen about everything...

...when I see Al Gore winning points for Democrats by calling on W. to more closely emulate Ronald Reagan:

[Gore] said the president has "tried to create the impression that our economic problems are primarily due to the terrorist attacks." But he said no objective economist could come to the same conclusion, adding that current economic policies have played a major role.

The president is "like a lost driver who won't stop to ask for directions."

"The president clutches his old plan and continues racing in the wrong direction, farther and farther into the economic wilderness," Gore said, "with the fate of nearly 300 million Americans in tow."

Gore said, "If we turn a blind eye to our weak economy, it will eventually undermine everything else we're trying to accomplish -- from winning the war on terrorism to giving all families the economic opportunities they deserve."

He urged Bush to do what Ronald Reagan did at the same point in his presidency before the midterm elections of 1982 -- reassess economic policy "to examine what is working and what is not."

posted by David at 10/02/2002 12:35:00 PM ::

Newt Gingrich Signs 3-Year Deal with Fox News

Bye-bye pretense. It was nice having you around.

posted by David at 10/02/2002 11:40:00 AM ::

Regime Change for Everybody!

Does the Bush cabal have balls, or what? Richard Perle, über-hawk and über-administration insider, is on record in the German Handesblatt Daily suggesting that the best thing German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder can do to improve US-German relations is resign.

"It would be best if he (Schroeder) resigned. But he's obviously not going to do that," Pentagon adviser Richard Perle said in an interview with Wednesday's Handelsblatt daily, released ahead of publication.

***

Perle, a leading voice in U.S. efforts to oust Saddam Hussein, told Handelsblatt that Schroeder's stance on Iraq would set back Berlin's desire to win a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council "for a generation".

With innovative diplomatic initiatves like this, is it any wonder the whole world is lined up behind us to do our bidding?
via Buzzflash

posted by David at 10/02/2002 08:15:00 AM ::

HOME

Links