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, February 20, 2003

A serious question

If Iraq can be made a beacon of democracy, why can't Afghanistan?

No, really. We went in and changed the regime. What did we change it to?

Why didn't we make it democratic and enlightened? Are the people there too primitive? Is the history too complicated, the factions too long embittered? Are there irreconcilable religious or ethnic differences?

Why isn't Afghanistan suitable for improvement if we are so sure it's such an easy job in Iraq? I'd really like to know.

posted by David at 2/20/2003 12:22:00 AM ::

Sunday, February 16, 2003

US to punish German 'treachery'

It looks like Donald Rumsfeld has found a new blockbuster to add to the all-star cavalcade of monumental thickheadedness that has become U.S. foreign policy:

The US will withdraw all its troops and bases from there and end military and industrial co-operation between the two countries - moves that could cost the Germans billions of euros.

The plan - discussed by Pentagon officials and military chiefs last week on the orders of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - is designed 'to harm' the German economy to make an example of the country for what US hawks see as Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's 'treachery'.

While the rationale for having troops in Germany has dried up and blown away with the demise of the Iron Curtain, redeploying our forces, to say nothing of withdrawing our diplomatic affinity, as a public slap in the face is stupefying.

Say it with me: we're going to punish a country that refuses to go along with a war that we can't even convincingly justify. This is intelligent? This is sane?

Is this the dawn of a new doctrine? Are all of our initiatives to be constructed according to the 'all stick, no carrot' model?

The Bush administration stepped back from its initial unilateralist stance against Iraq and took the position that it would abide by (or at least consider) the decision of the UN Security Council. Since then, it has articulated a number of variously specious and disingenuous arguments to sway their position. Fair (if despicable) enough. Now we're attempting to fix the vote through intimidation? This from the world's beacon of democracy?

This brings to mind Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of stages of morality, in which he posits a sequence of successively more sophisticated levels of morality through which we advance as we get older and learn more about the world. While many people never reach the highest stage, nearly everyone manages to get past the first stage. Except for Rumsfeld:

Stage 1 -- Punishment and obedience orientation (Preconventional)
In this stage, rules of conduct derive their force from the power figures who back them. The primary focus is on avoiding punishment. Rules are looked at as concrete, prohibitory, and not universally applicable. There's also no sense that the rules are necessary for maintaining greater social order.

via Atrios

posted by David at 2/16/2003 03:04:00 PM ::

Saturday, February 15, 2003

Regime Change - What is it Good For?

The idea of “regime change:” exactly what, relative to the current state of affairs, do the warmongers expect to accomplish by it?

At the moment, Iraq is, de facto, in a state of surrender. We now have near-total military control over 2/3 of the country, and prohibitive air superiority over the rest. Upon very short notice, we’ll be able to bring to bear enough force to utterly preempt any Iraqi military initiatives. We have sanctions in place that severely restrict the flow of money and goods into the country. We have weapons inspectors on the ground, who have complete freedom of movement, and who override Iraqi sovereignty at whim.

Saddam is cooperating, however reluctantly, with the UN. Why? Because he doesn’t want war. Any untoward action on his part will immediately be used as justification to remove him. It is therefore unimaginable that he will undertake aggressive actions against anyone.

What changes will a war, and presumed regime change effect?

Aside from inevitable death and destruction, there is the prospect of liberation for many Iraqis. There is the prospect of suffering for many more, especially the Kurds. Given the lack of unanimity among opposition groups on the subject of invasion, there is only uncertainty as to whether the people will benefit.

The one sure result of regime change is U.S. control of Iraqi land and resources. That is the only thing that can be accomplished by means of war and nothing else. Let’s stop kidding ourselves by pretending otherwise.

posted by David at 2/15/2003 11:38:00 AM ::

Thursday, February 13, 2003

Robert Byrd gave an impassioned speech on the floor of the Senate yesterday. He may be an ex-klansman, but the speech could have been written by Joe Conason. Byrd could well be the last real statesman left in the USA.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Go read it now.

posted by David at 2/13/2003 01:22:00 PM ::

HOME

Links