Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

We can’t transform these societies, Jack. They must transform themselves. I strongly dislike this idea of viral democracy, in part because I’ve seen just how unspontaneous democracy is in history, in real life. Truth is, Democracy is taught, not innate. The drive to be free is innate, I believe, but to express that drive by limiting one’s freedom that that most of your neighbors will allow you is not, especially in countries with deep-seated, even ancient antagonisms. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try and convert countries to Democracies when we become responsible for them, but I am saying we should never leave that conversion to chance, or try to impose it without having prepared people for its consequences. This is part of why I am so insistent that we be on our best behavior overseas, because whether or not we wish them to be, such behaviors stand as lessons to those we would have become Democracies. Americans must act overseas as the best examples of what’s good about our country, not as representatives of our worst, most undemocratic impulses. Hypocrisy is a danger to our security and reputation.

Jack, the invasion of those two countries shouldn’t have been any suprise to any one. We are the biggest dog on the block.
I think that America should help the changing force, not be the changing force in countries that want to be democracies.

bout democracy nation building:

“The record shows that democratic nation-building is among the most ambitious and difficult of foreign policy undertakings for the United States. Of the 16 over the past century, democracy was sustained in only 4 countries ten years after the departure of American forces. Two of these followed total defeat and surrender (in World War II) and two were in tiny countries (Grenada and Panama). The record also reveals that unilateral nation-building by the United States has an even lower success rate perhaps because unilateralism has led to the creation of surrogate regimes and direct American administration during the interim post-conflict period.”

Talk about misinformation.

1. Everybody EXPECTED the US to invade Afghanistan. Bin Ladin was there after all. That’s why there was no UN Resolution blocking it.

2. It was the BRITISH who convinced Libya to come clean. The US likes to take the credit but any fool can see that British Diplomacy was responsible.

3. Al Sadr is NOT neutralized. He is just planning to run for Office. The Mahdi Army is still there.

4. Fallujah is a City. The bulk of the Insurgents left. Once the US leaves, I fully expect them to come back.

Aldous.

J. Anthony, the USSR had respect too, they acted consequentially toward their enemies and potential enemies. Look where it got them. This kind of policy has to incorporate some measure of balance between commanding respect and generating positive outcomes in international affairs for the world at large. To command respect and become viewed as a threat by large segments of the rest of the world is a recipe for disaster.

Aldous

1. Everybody did NOT expect us to invade Afghanistan. That is the current spin, but not the historical fact. I remember that from the time, but since you might like the opinion of others, I have included links that a perfunctory google search yielded.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/Polls.asp
http://www.urban75.com/Action/news144.html
http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/ic/humanities/september11/pages/Public_Opinion/United_States/

The fact that there was no UN resolution blocking the U.S. invasion means nothing. You may recall that there was no UN resolution blocking our invasion of Iraq. We had a lot less international support than we remember having. President Bush made a tough decision that I doubt a president Gore or Kerry would have made.

2. I don’t want to subtract anything from our British allies. It was an allied invasion of Iraq consisting of American, British, Polish and Australian forces. One reason the Libyans decided to give up then (and not anytime earlier) is that the invasions threw the fear of God into them.

3. If al Sadr is running for election instead of shooting at our troops, he is neutralized. To the extent he is now the Al Sharpton of Iraq I am satisfied.

4. Fallujah is a necessary, although not sufficient step. At least a thousand insurgents won’t be coming back to the fight and as those who got away have to make arrangement with new people in new areas the chance for infiltration and informants increases. As politically incorrect as this analogy might be, this is a lot like the U.S. Army’s campaign against the Sioux after the Little Bighorn. You may recall that within months those insurgents were dead, pacified or had fled the country.

David

The resilience of the Soviet Union always amazed me. They had a bankrupt system in every way, yet held on. I believed at the time and believe now that respect (in the sense you and I have both used the term) is all that held it together. What it “got them” was superpower status beyond its actual power for nearly three generations. I hated the Soviet Union and the Communism it espoused, but even I had to give them respect.

We used to say that the Soviet Union really couldn’t compete with the U.S. except on the one (military) dimension. Besides a strong military, the U.S. also enjoyed economic, political, scientific and cultural leadership. Nevertheless, the Soviets managed to maintain that intangible “respect.” The U.S. has a lot more going for it and we should demand the respect we deserve.

J. Anthony,

You are perfectly correct here, Kudos.

Stephen,

The real danger to our security and reputation would be for us to never take the actions that bring about the conditions for societies to be able to transform themselves. Liberation is not oppression. Soft power has it’s place, but without the use of force against some dictatorships soft power becomes appeasement, and appeasement never freed anyone from the oppression of dictatorship.

Re “Soft power”

We all love soft power, but the old saying is true, “trying to use soft power is like trying to nail jell-o to a wall.”

We will see if the US will stay the course or cut and run in Iraq. Febuary should be an interesting month indeed.

Aldous.

Aldous

I don’t believe President Bush will cut and run. The world better pray he doesn’t because if he does all hell will break loose in the Middle East and all those America hating fools will be the first to feel the heat.

Guy’s we’ve had this discussion before. I don’t have a problem supporting a countries fight to have democracy. I don’t have a problem with a pre-emptive strike as in Afganistan.
I do have a problem overthrowing a sitting Government regardless of how much of an asshole the dictator is.
Where do we draw the line?
When do we invade China for instance?
North Korea has been been threatening it’s neighbors and suppressing it’s citizens for years, and it has supported terrorism. When will we invade them?
If the people in a country rise up in revolution, it’s ok in my book to step in and wield some American might.
Did that happen in Iraq?

Rocky,
pre-emptive strike is the pretext Hitler gave to German people to invade Poland as Poland was supposed to become a threat to Germany.
As Chomsky underlined: “Preventive war is, very simply, the ‘supreme crime’ condemned at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals.”

AmigaPhil,

“pre-emptive strike is the pretext Hitler gave to German people to invade Poland as Poland was supposed to become a threat to Germany.
As Chomsky underlined: “Preventive war is, very simply, the ‘supreme crime’ condemned at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals.”

Yo, Phil, please tell that to GW.

“I don’t believe President Bush will cut and run. The world better pray he doesn’t because if he does all hell will break loose in the Middle East and all those America hating fools will be the first to feel the heat. “

somebody get this man some beef-jerky and a pornomag stat!

yeeeeehawchimchamchu!!!!!

Once again, in the midst of a reasonable and intelligent discussion of varying views, comes a dull, unintellectual, and mostly ignorant viewpoint.

Really, folks, if you have nothing to add to the comments, don’t feel the need to just write any old thing to make you feel as if you have contributed. You actually take away from the conversation by doing so.

By the way, the invasion of Afghanistan was NOT roundly supported, as people now want to think. While any president would have fought back after 9-11, the bigger question is this: Who would they have fought against? Bush chose to show world governments that they cannot support terrorists, and then claim no responsibility for the actions of terrorists. Bush combined the two into one.

Secondly, it was not widely assumed that we would have any level of success in Afghanistan. After all, the Soviet Union failed miserably in the Hindu Kush, and they had arguably one of the strongest militaries known to man at the time. The successes that our military has had there have never been accomplished before, and its easy for people to forget that.

jack, thank you for demonstrating the American arrogance so much of the world’s population dislikes and even hates. You said we should demand respect. Respect is earned and freely given. Fear can be forced, even submission can be demanded and coerced. But, respect, if the word has any positive connotation can only be earned and freely given.

By your definition, Hitler was respected. That is not the respect I want for America.

David:

Respect is not freely given nor earned when your opponents or allies see you as weak. For instance, Hitler did not respect Neville Chamberlain. Instead, he saw how he could use Chamberlain for his own purposes. I’m sure he liked Chamberlain because Chamberlain allowed Hitler to pursue his goals. But respect??? None whatsoever.

Conversely, Hitler might have respected Churchill, despite a personal dislike. It is common for opposing factions to respect the courage of their adversaries, to respect their will, and to respect their intensity even while disliking them.

As a more trivial example, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird began their careers intensely disliking each other. Yet they admired and respected each other’s talents. Through this admiration, they forged a true respect for the other person, not just for their abilities. Bird never would have respected Magic, had Magic bowed under Bird’s will and accepted defeat. Nor would Magic had Bird done so.

You are right that respect is earned. Sometimes it is earned in the heat of battle. Sometimes it is earned by standing up to others. But it is never earned by being afraid to take on the battle, nor by quietly and cowardly acceding to your opponents desires.

While you guys are beating up each other in the safety of your Homes. Please go to this site and read the Open Letter:

http://www.kevinsites.net/

It is the guy who witnessed the shooting of that unarmed Iraqi Prisoner. Before you all wax poetic in this little conflict of yours, always know that there are real people from both sides involved. I am sure the civilian casualties and the crippled US soldiers will all enjoy such abstract discussions.

Aldous.

David
Earning respect depends on consistent behavior. There is often an element of fear in respect and there is nothing wrong with that. Respect for the law, for example, includes fear of the consequences. For some people fear of the consequences is the only reason they respect the law.

And by the way, how has the country that has consistently been the biggest contributor to the UN, that produces the majority of Nobel prize winners in sciences and has most of the world’s top universities, provides the majority of the world’s food aid, is the largest supporter of UN peacekeeping, and takes in more than half of all the resettled refugees in the world, whose private philanthropists provide more foreign aid (The Gates Foundation alone has assets of about 22 billion) than most governments and whose government aid accounts for about a fifth of the total worldwide, the country with a very large free market, where the countries of the world are free to sell their goods (I could extend this list all day) how has this country not earned the respect of the world?

Re persuasion and respect

I think of persuasion in the same terms as negotiation. What if I am selling my car? I think it is worth $5000 and offer it at that price. You offer me half that price. If I just say yes without much argument, you not only don’t feel grateful, you also convince yourself that there must be something wrong with the car and that I have somehow cheated you. You also have no respect for me and you believe that I am simultaneously duplicitous and stupid. If I am smarter about this and negotiate a higher price, YOU will be more satisfied with the deal and go away with a higher opinion of me than if I caved early.

I have used this negotiation paradigm in group discussions with sometimes hostile foreign and American audiences. I usually cannot convince the real extremists, but I often manage to neutralize them and move the whole group in my direction. If nothing else, it switches the agenda and makes the opponents expend energy attacking my positions instead of extending theirs. I know this as a conservative who usually lives and works in liberal territory. Always smile and be pleasant, but never give up.

As for Chomsky, he is a brilliant linguist and a good example of the type of person Socrates criticized when he talked about people who know some specialty and then erroneously think their opinion is equally informed on everything else.

…how has this country not earned the respect of the world?

You’d have to ask them, Jack. The response I mostly get is that Bush is stupid. :)

And I don’t know anything about Chomsky, but Bush’s invasion of Iraq was definitely preventative, not preemptive. An important distinction. It’s the difference between Israel’s pre-emptive “Six Day War” and Japan’s preventative attack on Pearl Harbor.

Military strength alone cannot create democracy and free institutions, but democracy and free institutions cannot exist without military strength to defend them.

I agree. It’s unfortunate that Bush still hasn’t allocated the resources to secure Iraq while the Iraqi Army and police are being trained.

It’s unfortunate that Bush still hasn’t allocated the resources to secure Iraq while the Iraqi Army and police are being trained.

Did I say “unfortunate?” I meant tragic in terms of human life and suffering - not to mention the respect it’s costing us as a nation.

AP

You give a good example of the negotiation theory of persuasion. If they just say, “Bush is stupid” they are probably uniformed about most other aspects of the U.S. It provides a good opportunity to draw them into a further discussion. It works with most groups. I even had some success with a group of Arab journalists talking about U.S. Middle East policy. Minds were not changed, but I did create some cognitive dissonance. You may not support Bush, and you don’t have to, but as an American your country’s image is important. You might even concede the point about Bush personally, but you have to quickly follow with other points.

From the Sunday Herald:
Why pre-emptive invasions encourage soldiers to commit war crimes

jbod:

“Really, folks, if you have nothing to add to the comments, don’t feel the need to just write any old thing to make you feel as if you have contributed. You actually take away from the conversation by doing so.”

since this was clearly directed at me…let me defend myself…

i do enjoy contributing here on watchblog, however, i’m also prone to the “court jester” syndrome of having to deflate things sometimes….

detract from the conversation….yeah i’ll admit to that.
why? because when i read things like :

“I don’t believe President Bush will cut and run. The world better pray he doesn’t because if he does all hell will break loose in the Middle East and all those America hating fools will be the first to feel the heat. “

i don’t know how you expect me to take that seriously….not the message, the message is actually correct, we can’t cut and run from iraq, not at this point….it would be catasrophic. but the attitude…yeah…that needed to be laughed at.

i’m sorry if you feel my attempt to deflate rhetoric with my remarks is in some way taking away from the conversation….my hope was to jump the conversation back on track.

perhaps i could try a counter arguement using clear precise points and balanced fair logic, but where is the fun in that?

I find the article very annoying. It is typical of the impulse both to blame American and hold us to an angelic standard. Of all the killing that has gone in Fallujah, this is the one they focus on, something that happened in a split second on a battlefield where the “dead” and injured try to, and had succeeded in killing marines by pretending to surrender or pretending to be dead. The marine probably made a rational decision. How about the enemy? These are the guys who specifically hide behind civilians, who kill not and behead prisoners who are clearly not dangerous, who shoot women in the back of the head and dismember their bodies. A little perspective would be nice. The article itself give some perspective, without intending it. “Forget for a moment that the killing of Iraqis only breeds undying enmity and the thirst for revenge.” That is what the article asks. What does the killing of Americans do?

Jack, if we can’t provide the security nescessary all the good works and all the fighting in Fallujah, aren’t worth a hill of beans.
Respect is earned when you say you will do something and then do it. Trying to gain respect at the end of a gun barrel only results in fear. Fear if anything equates only to grudging respect. Fear causes animosity.
We can build all the schools, factories, power plants, pipelines we want to, but, until we can keep them from being blown up again it’s just money pissed down the drain.

Rocky

I agree. But you just said that same thing I have been saying. Until we can keep our schools etc being blown away it is money down the drain. And the only way we can protect them is through force of arms. So respect, in the end, is based on our ablity to defend our interests.

Jack, I just saw a story reported by the Associated Press that thet battle has moved back to Bhagdad.
Whoever is running things on the other side seems to know what they are doing.

Rocky

We shouldn’t underestimate our enemies, but we need not overestimate them either.

Jack,

Until we can keep our schools etc being blown away it is money down the drain. And the only way we can protect them is through force of arms. So respect, in the end, is based on our ablity to defend our interests.

Seizing the oil in Iraq and reshaping the Middle East won’t prevent another Colombine massacre. But wait a minute, are you still believing that Iraq has something to do with 9/11 ?
(“We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.” - G.W. Bush, Sept. 17, 2003)

Jack this is a quote from an editorial by Calvin Goldscheider from the Brown University News Service.
This is the link to the entire article:
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2001-02/01-067.html

“The way to understand terrorism and the terrorists is to put yourself in their place, to see the world through their eyes. In this case, we need to understand how the enemies of America and of Israel think about the world and how they view the values those two nations hold dear. If we are unable to do that, we shall end up with distorted targets for our own aggression and the greater likelihood of continued terrorism.”

This a quote from the book “Through Our Enemies Eyes”. Here is a link to the entire quote.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?pwb=1&ean=9781574885538

“To win the war against terrorism, the author argues, we must first stop dismissing militant Muslims as “extremists” or “religious fanatics.” Formulating a successful military strategy requires that we see the enemy as they perceive themselves-as highly trained and motivated soldiers who fervently believe their cause is righteous.”

I think that even after all this time we still don’t know who exactly we are fighting. They are shifting the battle to where they want to fight and when they want to fight it. If you can pick your fights you can run the war any way you want to.
I don’t claim to be a strategy expert. I have however studied some of the strategies of WW2 as a gamer. I know that doesn’t make me an expert by any means, but if I can see it so can they.

Jack:

I am a foriegner. Perhaps you can explain to me why the United States supported Saddam Hussien AFTER he gassed the Kurds? The United States blocked a UN Resolution that would have punished Saddam for gassing his own people.

Just Curious.

Aldous.

Aldous

I am unfamiliar with the UN resolution you refer to, although UN resolutions tended not to work with Saddam Hussein. He was ignoring 17 of them when the U.S. and its coalition allies finally invaded his country.

The U.S. was never the primary supporter of Saddam Hussein, and U.S. “support” was limited to allowing Arab allies to share U.S. provided intelligence and supplies with him. There is also the thorny problem of ordinary contacts, diplomatic and otherwise. You could argue that most European countries today “support” North Korea or that Russia is currently supporting Iran or that France Russia and China supported Iraq in 2003 by blocking UN resolutions (as per your example) Saddam’s big supporter during the 1980s was the Soviet Union and you will recall that we were not big supporters of the Soviet Union at that time.

The U.S., by virtue of his predominant size and power is never left out of any conflict. Even doing nothing means doing something. In the 1980s Saddam was fighting a long and bloody war with Iran. Literally millions of people were killed in this war. Henry Kissinger remarked that he wished both sides could lose, and the U.S. preferred that neither side win. So during the 1980s, U.S. policy “titled” toward Iraq. That is far from support. At the time, he seemed like the lesser of the two evils and since Iran did not succeed in overrunning Iraq at the time, we will never know whether he was or not. It was a really bad neighborhood.

I am not an expert on Iraq. I am only telling you what I remember from the time. I usually am suspicious when people say that the U.S. “supported” someone. I have heard Cuban Americans accuse the U.S. of supporting Castro, since we allowed expats to send dollars to their relatives that probably kept the island prison afloat. The definition is very loose. The U.S. was the biggest supporter of the Taliban, since American food aid literally kept the Afghans from starving during the terrible regime. What would be the alternative? Americans are often accused simultaneously of supporting both sides of a conflict. It is possible that the people of the countries involved are most responsible for what happens in their neighborhood. I am sometimes flattered that the people of the world evidently think that the U.S. is as omnipotent as the Lord God, but it doesn’t look so easy from the other side.

A woman is walking through a cemetary and sees a tombstone of a lawyer. His name is John Strange and the epitaph reads: “Strange, an honest lawyer.”

If they just say, “Bush is stupid” they are probably uniformed about most other aspects of the U.S. It provides a good opportunity to draw them into a further discussion.

Haha! Maybe I should try that instead of replying, “You’re damned right he is!” :)

Seriously, I do draw them into further discussions. They can’t understand why we don’t cane people and hang drug offenders. It works for them.

And for some reason, Singaporean politicians are uncorruptable… Maybe it’s the caning and hanging. :)