Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Chops, these are astute observations IMO. Russia is moving, in many ways, back toward the pre-Yeltsin, even pre-politburo, autocratic dictatorship of Stalin, under Putin’s continual pursuit of dismantling functional democratic structures. Russia, should very much be on our radar screens, and Rumsfeld should not be so quick to dismantle the conventional forces which functioned as preliminary option to our Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) policy.

Can we afford to maintain the cold war forces and the new light mobile technological advanced small forces of Rumsfeld’s vision of conflict in the 21st century? Not if we want to save Soc. Sec., increase educational standards and access, establish a true and effective border defense system, etc. etc. etc.

World cop never was a viable foreign policy because of the ‘cop’ half of it. Cops don’t prevent crime, they process criminals. We could easily see ourselves in this century facing a double or triple military front concurrent engagement, with Russia or China, ongoing policing of terrorists, and long term engagements in nation building. Can we sustain such military endeavors without impoverishing the tax payers and seriously dimiinishing the quality of life for working Americans? I don’t think so.

The Bush administration appears clueless about the basic principles of economics, managing infinite wants in the face of finite resources. Foreign policy is neither easy, nor cheap to turn around as we saw from the Viet Nam aspect of the war against communism. It concerns me greatly that the Bush foreign policy will overextend our reach and cause most of us to envy the pre-Bush years.

The U.S. is the most successful imperial country since the fall of the Roman Empire. Our ancestors conquered and occupied some of the best land on the face of the earth and they did it in only four score and eleven years – within the potential lifespan of a single man. Other successful empires currently extant include Brazil, Australia, Canada, China and Russia. The jury is still out on Indonesia. India is essentially a legacy empire. The British put the place together as a political unit and the “Indians” inherited and maintained it. When it works well for a long enough time we stop calling it an empire and start referring to it as a nation.

Until recently, nobody objected to the idea of empire as long as they could avoid becoming subjects. Empires were the gold standard of political organization in every epoch except our own. Every self-respecting nation aspired to conquer an empire. The question is not why the organizational imperatives of empire persist. The better question is why they are not more powerful.

One reason is that empires no longer pay. The Persians, Romans or Ottomans benefited from their empires. They carted off the riches and exploited the labor of their subjects by establishing their exclusive control. This has changed. Despite the gnashing of teeth of local populations and western professors modern, capitalistic countries undertake the creation of empire reluctantly. It costs them money.

Iraq will cost the U.S. billions of dollars. Iraq produces about $20 billion in oil revenues each year. That is REVENUE not profits. Twenty years of oil profits from Iraq would not pay back what the U.S. has invested. The Australian venture into PNG will be similarly unprofitable. What they are buying with their blood and treasure is greater stability in the region. If successful, these interventions make the world safe for trade and investment by others. The chief beneficiaries of a peaceful Iraq (besides people of the region) will be the Europeans. The Japanese and the Indonesians will reap the benefits of a successful Australian intervention in PNG. The problem is that somebody has to do it. Everyone else wants to ride free and complain about the journey.

There were reasons besides exploitation why empires were dominant for the first five millennium of human civilization. The synergy of diverse peoples under one government in one factor. The economic benefit of a large unified space is another. We paid for the fall of some empires with blood. Might not history been happier if we had managed to maintain the political structures of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires? The trick is to produce the political, social, economic and cultural benefits without the oppression.

As for the Australians in PNG, I offer my congratulations to our antipodean friends for undertaking such a noble but thankless task.

There is a funny thing about PNG that I just realized. PNG is a diplomatic abbreviation for the Latin “persona non grata.” It is an unwanted person. Counties are not allowed to arrest foreign diplomats, but are permitted to throw them out by declaring them PNG. It is ironic that the Australians are going to PNG and maybe will become PNG as a result.

Good article, Chops. I just finished Fukuyama’s book, “State Building”. He covers everything you did from the role of domineering NGO and state sponsored “assistance” in reducing a weak state’s institutional capacity, to looking back fondly on colonialism,

It is not clear, given the low to nonexistent level of stateness in many failed states, whether there is any real alternative to a quasi-permanent, quasi-colonial relationship between the “beneficiary” country and the international community. In a sense, the latter has recreated the earlier mandatory system of the League of Nations period in which certain colonial powers were given explicit charter to govern a territory on its behalf. The problem with our current system is that contemporary norms do not accept the legitimacy of anything other than self-government, which makes us then insist that whatever governance we do provide be temporary and rule transitional. Since we do not in fact know how to transfer institutional capacity in a hurry, we are setting ourselves and our supposed beneficiaries up for large disappointments.

I have to agree with Fukuyama on this one regarding Iraq. There are no shortcuts to a successful state. I’m disappointed that the Bush administration is in such a hurry to turn the place over to the Iraqi’s and get out.

I suspect I was in the minority writing my representatives asking them NOT to turn over the government to Iraq last July. :)

Well, when they finally admit the resistance is internal and that they need more troops, I’ll agree with you AP. If they wait until the civil war is already a forgone conclusion, all bets are off.

I always agreed that something needed to be done to reform and stabilize the oil fields, I just don’t think Rummy’s experiment is working. I also believe I was wrong in assuming the Neocon psoition of reverse domino effect. I don’t think stability in Iraq will stabilize Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Great posts. Thanks all!

Jack,
Papua Non Grata. Is there a ‘snort!’ button on this thing? Very amusing.

Empires no longer pay? Actually, they pay very well. In Iraq, the individual tax payer foots the bill. Halliburton, which is based abroad & thus pays no corporate tax to the US, receives a multi-billion, open-ended, no-bid contract in Iraq. Bad deal for US taxpayers, great deal for Halliburton. Before people become distracted, I’m not citing that example as a way to bash Bush or Cheney… well, maybe a little; but it’s an example we all recognize. The point is that multinational corporations drive empire and imperialism, perhaps in Australia, certainly in the US. The business of empire is business.

Public policy is increasingly driven by commercial interests. Eisenhower called it ‘the military-industrial complex,’ and it’s growing fast. I’m not sure about the degree to which business interests drive the notoriously right wing government of Australia to extend its dominance over PNG. However, the energy industry in particular exerts tremendous influence over US foreign policy. Domestically, it is no coincidence that the largest contributions from any industry to the Bush administration came from the Financial industry, and that a major initiative is to give the Financial industry access to the proverbial pot of gold, Social Security.

The flaw in conservative philosphy enters with the attitude towards government. The Federal government is the only entity large enough to consciously drive policy, and regulate industry. Business, whether multinational corporations, the military-industrial complex, whatever, is driven by a relatively short-term profit motive. When government becomes enslaved to business, or too weak to control it, foreign and domestic policy suffer.

Again, thanks for the thought provoking posts.

You forget the effect they have on Long Term Policies like Global Warming and Climate Change. The US should be funding research on Alternative Fuels NOW but these are projects that last beyond the 4-Year Terms of Politicians and contrary to the Companies involved.

Go Figure.

Aldous.

I don’t think stability in Iraq will stabilize Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Yeah, that’s one of those ivory tower ideas that looks good on paper. I’m more excited about the democracy promoting chances of trade agreements like the one between Egypt, Israel, and the US.

The US should be funding research on Alternative Fuels NOW

We’ve spent entirely way too much time researching. It’s time to start commercializing. I suspect that a hydrogen engine mass-produced in a factory, rather than hand-built by PhD’s, will be competitive. If people are willing to pay $50k for a Hummer, I suspect there’s a market for hydrogen powered cars and SUVs, too.

I think I’m also in the position of eating a bit of crow on Iraq.

While I had doubts regarding the stabilizing effects of the US occupation (or should we call it the US ‘experiment?’ How does the occupation compare in price to a super-collider, anyway?) in Iraq, my experiences in Afghanistan led me to believe a smaller occupation force would have greater effect than a large force.

Of course, that assumption went out the window when all forms of civil authority in the country were dismissed by the CPA.

On an aside, we’ll now never know what the DE-stabilizing effects of a peaceful transfer from Saddam to either of his (deeply troublesome) sons, a coup, a revolution, or general civil war in Iraq would have have been. Had we not acted and Iraqi instability generated by internal events tore the region apart, who would be stepping forward to take the blame?

Tim, don’t forget we could have had substantial UN and NATO forces to help with post-invasion stabilization. Even France and Germany offered troops, as long as they were under UN command. Bush turned ‘em down flat rather than put the UN in control.

According to pre-war polls, the majority of Americans didn’t support the war unless it was part of a UN operation, and getting the second Security Council resolution would have tipped EU popular support 30-40% in favor of the operation.

Saddam had to go at some point. Blame for the inadequate number of troops and lack of international support can only be laid at Bush’s feet.

Phx8 & others -
You make very good points regarding the commercialization of foreign policy, especially in Iraq. However, I brought up the PNG example (and Afghanistan is another one) as a place where the costs far outweigh the financial benefits. For Australia, it’s basically a security issue.

Commercial colonialism is neocolonialism. It’s relatively easy to “solve” - if you don’t like it, you just rein in your MNC’s. Post-neocolonialism, however, such as what’s happening in PNG and Afghanistan, is not profit-driven as much as security-driven. Our interconnectivity means that any government anywhere collapsing can release fallout onto the rest of the world. Those most affected feel a compulsion to get involved and eventually take over.

I think we’ll see the EU continue to spread and at the same time continue to centralize. What that will mean practically is that more and more policy for Slovakia, Poland, Portugal and all the others will be run out of Brussels by enlightened French and German bureaucrats. The US will find similar means to keep a controlling interest in countries that we rescue. Think of Iraq: after investing billions, are we really going to let a bunch of Iraqis control what we “bought”? This is the dark side of Powell’s “Pottery Barn rule”. We broke it, we bought it… now that means we own it, right?

To address many points

I didn’t say imperialism wasn’t profitable for some people and firms, just not for countries anymore. As we have all pointed out, the U.S. taxpayer is paying for the war and the reconstruction. The U.S. as a country will never make any money off Iraq and I really don’t believe Hariburton is both craven enough and powerful enough to provoke a war to sell some of their services. There is sufficient business elsewhere.

If our quarrel with Saddam had been based on business or oil, there would have been no quarrel. Saddam Hussein would have been only too happy to sell us his oil and buy our products in return if only we allowed him to do his will in the security field. The war, in the first and final analysis, was about security, not profits. We may quarrel with U.S. judgment, but it is old fashioned lefty think to believe this as a war provoked by greed.

All of us would have liked another UN resolution to go to war with Iraq. We already had 17 that had little effect and there was no chance for another on that would have been enforceable. The UN talks. That is what they are good at. Anyone who defies the UN gets away with it unless some power (usually the U.S.) decides not to let him. We knew this. Saddam knew this. We knew Saddam knew and Saddam knew we knew.

I love the idea of hydrogen vehicles, so does the Bush Administration, that is spending 1.7 billion (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-11.html) on the subject, so do most major auto firms. Chrysler, Ford etc all have hydrogen fuel prototypes. BP is talking about building a hydrogen infrastructure. A while ago I invested (and lost money) on Ballard, a fuel cell developer (http://www.ballard.com) The fuel cell will replace the internal combustion engine, but not for a while. We also have to build in the infrastructure to take care of all our fuel cell vehicles. Fighting the war in Iraq had no effect on these developments.

it is old fashioned lefty think to believe this as a war provoked by greed.

Of course, Jack. The spoils are just a bonus.

As for the hydrogen research, $1.7 billion over six years works out to about $280 million/year, IF it gets approved by Congress.

If our reliance on Islamic oil is a geopolitical and military liability, that kind of seems like chump change. And mistargeted, to boot. By now, it’s pretty clear how a hydrogen energy system would work. We should be focusing more on commercializing the technology and building infrastructures.

Thank God the states still have some autonomy. California and Hawaii are currently pioneering infrastructure projects. Some funding and support, rather than obstructionist litigation by the federal government would be a big help.

As for the UN, of course the US is the dominant player. We’re the only country with the resources to back most of the Security Council resolutions that we allow to pass.

You talk about 17 resolutions having no effect. They had no effect because, as you rightly point out, the US never enforced them.

The UN Security Council (and let’s be frank, the Security Council is the only UN construct that matters in this case) is a legitimizing body for US foreign policy. We can avail ourselves of it or ignore it, but that’s the way it works.

President Bush could have dealt with UN Security Council member nations to gain legitimacy for regime change in Iraq. For a bunch of different reasons, he chose not to do so.

Jack & Chops,
Doing a google on PNG shows some interesting stats. It’s a country rich in natural resources; gold, silver, lumber, even some natural gas and oil. Could it be business interests driving the Australian takeover? While it’s true smuggling occurs in PNG, the same could be same for most countries in that part of the world. It’s hard to imagine how a failed state in PNG would have much impact on its neighbors. One could argue the Australians are doing this out of concern for their fellow man. I’d like to think that. But is it realistic?

The business of empire is business. Does one business, such as Halliburton, drive a country’s policies? In the case of Halliburton, I think it was a factor, one among many. A number of commercial interests could be cited. Does anyone seriously believe we would have invaded and occupied Iraq were it not for the oil? No one demands we invade Liberia. No one demans we invade Myanmar, another failed dictatorial state which is unable to control its borders, and which possesses little attractive to the world’s commercial interests. No one agitates for overthrow of Mugabe, etc.

The problem comes when a country’s administration identifies commercial interests with national interests. An administration may truly believe this, that commercial interests are synonous with the national interest. However, this leads to fascism. Now, I’m not throwing the term ‘fascism’ out as a slur. In a fascist state, commercial interests and political interests work closely together, and this is combined with belligerent nationalism. I’d argue that this version of colonialsim is a form of veiled fascism.

Under the guise of national security, a country invades and occupies another. By encouraging a belligerent nationalism, politicians find cover. (Remember the famous quote by Goering?). Taxpayers foot the bill, while commercial interests profit.

Neither the US nor Australia should fall into this trap. Remember your Thucydides, and the Pelopennesian Wars? In one unforgettable chapter, Athenians conquer an island. The island’s inhabitants beg for mercy, and eloquently invoke the rule of law. The Athenians turn their backs to the rule of law, and slaughter the islanders.

The US must stand for the rule of law, for human rights, for the quality of mercy. That, and not commercial interests, are the primary ideals to be promoted by government. When we turn our backs upon these ideals, when the US condones torture & concentration camps & invasion, we fall further than any enemy could have ever hoped to push us.

phx8

In Thucydides Melian dialogue, the Melians never begged for mercy. On the contrary, they defied the Athenian delegates and then the Athenian armies.

Begging for mercy would have changed the story line considerably.

I read the Melian dialogue for the first time about thirty years ago and then studied it again only last year. Thirty years ago, it was a black and white case for me. Melians = good – Athenians = bad. I don’t see it that way anymore and I am convinced that Thucydides didn’t mean for it to be interpreted so simply either. It certainly shows the arrogance of the Athenians, who we all know will pay the price, although they paid no direct cost for Melos. But it also shows the necessity of certain actions and how the pressures of war change cultures. And it shows the heroic foolishness of the Melians. The Athenians offered them a fairly sweet deal. The Athenians spoke the language of real politics The Melians relied on superstition and wishful thinking about the Spartans. In the end, they both made bad choices that either party could have avoided at almost any time.

If you are looking for a lesson to apply here, don’t look at the Melian dialogue. Try the Syracuse campaign. Alcibiades, by the way, was the Bill Clinton of his time.

Jack,
I’m working from memory, my copy fell apart years ago. Almost added another post about the Syracuse campaign and the lure of oil, I mean, crops, and the overextension of the Athenians. Fun to compare- almost as fun as comparing Clinton to Alcibiades- but using the Syracuse situation as an analogy for the PNG & Australia, or the US and Iraq, would be a bit of a stretch.

phx8

I personally would not compare the Syracuse campaign to Iraq, but I can well see how one could draw the parallel. Athens, having more or less won the first phase of the war Peloponseian, goes to a far off place to preempt a threat that probably would not have materialized. Planning for the expedition is incomplete. Athens gets bogged down. This all sets off a chain of events leading to the defeat of Athens. I am sure that’s how many people see the current situation.

Alcibiades as Clinton is not meant as an insult to either. Both were the most able politicians of their day. Both were very charismatic. Both were “comeback kids.” And both got in trouble because of their sexual escapades. They are the classic brilliant, but flawed characters.

Here’s an intersting quote on the topic of empire, recently used by Molly Ivins in a column:

AUSTIN, Texas — “The aide (a senior adviser to President Bush) said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,’ which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That’s not the way the world really works anymore,’ he continued. ‘We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” — Ron Suskind, New York Times Magazine, Oct. 17, 2004.

Wow! That’s a really cool quote, don’t you think? Even if it almost defines insanity. Did Kurtz mumble such words in “Heart of Darkness”? Is that quote also found in the greek lexicon for classical tragedy, the definition of ‘hubris’?