"Our World-Historical Gamble"

Buck,

Just wanted to let you know that I enjoyed this article also. Although I haven't agreed with their opinions, you have brought some really excellent articles that are more academic in nature. It's a viewpoint we don't always get alot of here.

 

That was an interesting take. Almost no one in public office can use this argument since it points out Muslim fundamentalists running oil rich nations are idiots. (The Republicans relied heavily on Muslim voters to offset the Democratic Jewish vote, they called off a lot of domestic surveillance of Muslims pre 9/11 as a political payback). Also, a large part of the rise of the United States is due to the vast and varied natural resources for the picking already here, at the right time for the Industrial Revolution...

 

Thanks for sharing this article Buck. Very thought provoking.

But perhaps our greatest challenge will be to our own thinking. We must take a hard look at every idea we hold dear and ask, Does this idea even fit any more? And does it any longer make sense to speak of conservatives in a world in which a catastrophic change of some kind looms, or liberals when it is the core liberal values of all of us - even the most conservative - that are being threatened?

 

TCS always has good stuff.

 

This is scary stuff, scary because the author is way WAY off base and is promoting some very dangerous and self-destructive ideas. While the writing is above the level of the adolescent rants we typically see from the likes of Steyn and Krauthammer, the logic and coherence of the argument are still fatally flawed, and he has simply either misunderstood, or misrepresents history dramatically in many instances.

Strangely he has a confusing take of the term "liberal." Without defining is it becomes a confusing distraction. What he isn't talking about are the 20th century concepts of political liberalism and conservatism. What he does mean by the term is quite unclear. Perhaps the term used the way it is in this piece is intended to reflect badly on current liberals, but that's only a guess.

It's a long article, so I won't really dig into it unless someone else wants to raise a particular point. Generally, although he does raise some interesting issues, he almost universally misapplies the point, and misunderstands how history speaks to the point. One of the most glaring is his suggestion that leaders in the ME had not "earned" their position and that they are not living in "reality." His unspoken assumption is that American leaders have earned their position and are living in reality. I'm certainly not going to defend the leaders in the ME, but if I had to pick the single most problematic issue in this whole Iraq situation it would be the weakness in the American leadership, particularly the fact that the American leaders have not earned their positions in any significant way, and as a result don't understand the situation or dynamics involved. This can be clearly seen buy watching them stumble from one blunder to the next to the next to the next … They don't seem to understand the importance of broad based support, and they certainly don't know how to create it. They don't even know who is on their side and who isn't. The problem is that the silver spoon and chickenhawk crowds aren’t living in reality. They may never have lived in reality in their whole lives. They don't seem to understand some of the most basic elements of human nature or the most basic rules of team building. The leaders in the ME are no saints, but I think they all have out smarted Bush in the set-up to this war. Everything is lining up against Bush and co., not because of bad luck, but purely because of ignorance and bad management. If this war ends quickly, there may be minimal repercussions, but if it drags on this is setting up to be a disaster for the US and probably the west in general. This is getting to be a VERY frustrating situation.

 

This sounds dangerously like an excuse for ignoring history. And avoiding partisan politics in this situation definitely desirable, but this also sounds a bit like an attempt to stifle debate, which is definitely NOT desirable.

This is not a time for reaction, a time for "teaching somebody a lesson." That simply doesn't work. History shows clearly that the "might is right approach" just doesn't work. If it did work the Palestinians would have given up long ago. Instead, they display the determination of a bulldog, and they just find different ways fight. This guy's whole thesis about the need to teach the leaders in the ME "reality" smacks of arrogance and gross ignorance. Show me one instance where that has worked in the long run, and I'll show you 10 where it has backfired. This is a lazy and irresponsible position.

 

I disagree with your Palestinian position. They simply have no choice but to continue their struggle. And they do have an endgame as a goal that IS possible without destroying the West. Radical Islamicists do not. That is his whole point. Your mode of thinking is outdated when considering this threat.

As far as 'teaching them a lesson,' we can look straight at Al Queda to understand the thinking of our enemies, specifically in relation to radical Islamicists. Osama himself, and this is fact so its not really up for dispute, said the reason he decided to take the battle to the US was their weakness in Somalia. By reversing that policy, and smacking down potential threats, those enemies will have no choice but to reevaluate their equation. It is one thing to act out against a foe you believe is on its last legs. Quite another to tackle a formidable and determined one. It is not arrogance to respond in kind to a potential threat, nor is it arrogance to say those in the ME have miscalculated, and need to be shown so.

 

Besides TCS, anyone here read other "blog"'s?

 

I think Harris overplayed his point about the radical Islamists too. Al Queda is the lunatic fringe. They are not typical of the enemies of America in the region, and even they were born of, and are significantly fuelled by, a hatred of American influence and presence in the ME. Osama's thing initially was to get the US out of Saudi Arabia. If he said that he was inspired by what happened in Somalia, then he is either completely delusional or was just opportunistically using that as propaganda. The US is the greatest conventional military powerhouse the world has ever known. Nobody in their right mind disputes this. The only way it is vulnerable is through terrorist attacks, or in being drawn into situations where it bungles the diplomacy aspect and damages its international relations. (I guess there is also the Vietnam example of being drawn into battle in a foreign, hostile environment the they don't understand well enough. Let's hope that Iraq isn't a repeat of that lesson.)

Back to my main points. Most of America's enemies in the region resent America's interference in the region, and the Palestinian situation is a focal point for that resentment. There is an end game for most of them too, and they also see the fight as bing for the control of their land and living conditions and culture. It's the lunatic fringe like Al Queda which sees the only way to bring about the expulsion of the Americans as the toppling of the American empire, but they have no country. They are spread out around the globe. Surely they're not being taught any lessons by the impending attack on Iraq. On the contrary, they can probably use it to fuel more anti-American sentiment and fuel their cause even more. (If the Americans had taken the time, and used the proper approach, they could have buily a coalition like they did for the Gulf War, and then it wouldn't have been "evil America" interfering in the ME again, it would have been Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, France, Germany.… It's a lot harder to legitimately pick the US out of that crowd for vilification. The Allied countries couldn't point fingers after the fact either, because they would be a party to what happened. The way it is now, the US has set itself up to take all the blame for anything that happens. Bad, BAD, politics.)

So, who exactly is being taught a lesson here? Who is going to be re-evaluating their position because of this war? I'm having trouble thinking of anybody. Saddam, by most accounts, wasn't doing anything outside his country. (Inside Iraq we get into the sanctions, vs. Saddam's brutality, vs. the number of civilians who will be killed in this war vs. the number that will be killed in the ensuing instability, so it becomes a difficult equation.) Osama is probably rubbing his hands with glee. This is a propaganda windfall for him. It seems to have derailed the war on terrorism, and at least some of the support for that war too. As far as I can see, he's the biggest winner. And are there any groups who will be taught negative lessons from this war, and become more radicalised anti-Americans by this action? I think this is quite possible. So what will be the real net learning from this war?

If you think about this in terms of human nature, I can't think of a single occasion where force has taught a person a lesson. You may have to control a person with force, but that's not how people learn to change their thinking. It is, however, how deep resentments can be built up.

 

I disagree. We've covered a lot of this previously, but there is a fundamental conflict between Islam, as practiced throughout the middle east, and modernity. There is no room for compromise in that conflict, and as such is a zero sum game.

The point is that recent conflicts emerging from the region were inspired by the image of the US as a weak actor that would not go the distance. Saddam invaded Kuwait because he anticipated the US staying out of it. Osama attacked the US because he felt we were weak and would not respond. The idea that we should continue peace at all costs diplomacy is simply going to increase the perception that we are weak. That will only increase the wolf pack mentality of violence targeting us.

You are simply wrong. Most of our enemies in the region use the Palestinian situation as a red herring to distract their own populations (regimes) or to marshal support (religious and terrorist groups). Their endgame has nothing to do with the Palestinians welfare. If theat situation was resolved tomorrow are you really silly enough to believe anti-americanism would stop? As you pointed out, American 'influence' is one reason we are villified. Why? What about our 'influence' makes us dangerous? Well, modernity is a threat to Islam, so that is why the religious leaders rail our influence. Democratic thought is a danger both to the regimes and the religious leaders. Would that go away if Palestine was created? NO. So you've just made the mistake of buying into their first line, just like many middle easterners.

OK, wake up from dreamland. That is exactly what we did in Gulf War 1 and who was villified? Uh, try the US. Your example is flat out WRONG. We build a coalition, and yet it is still regarded as 'evil America' interfering in the middle east. You fundamentally misunderstand the dynamics within these countries, where the anti-americanism is used as a valve to release internal pressure on the regimes, whether or not we've done anything. The Palestinian situation only further proves this point. The Arabs didn't give a crap about the Palestinians before it became a convenient excuse to redirect inward focus on their regimes outward. Check the history. No Arab countries wanted them, nor championed their cause.

Well, I'd rather act than try and cover my ass in anticipation of the blame game. Let's talk Bosnia for an example. We sat around while the French and the Germans et al argued and refused to act for 10 years. Certainly we can say its their fault because it was in their backyard, and so we only wanted to follow their lead, but does that make it any better for the Bosnians who were having genocide committed upon them? No. Does that make our non-intervention during that period right? No. But you would center your equation on the possibility of getting blamed if things go wrong. Not sure why we'd want to base policy or even personal action on that equation.

Yeah, well by all accounts he is waiting for his programs to come on line in respect to WMD. Even he has reportedly said his main mistake was invading Kuwait BEFORE he had nukes. So, first off, third world despots who have a nuclear inclination will warned. Second, you leave out of the equation all the potential deaths from a nuclear armed Iraq, and also all those who would be caught in Saddam and his scions genocidal policies.

Well, the facts tell a different story. As I said before, Osama was emboldened to attack the US when he perceived weakness, not strength. So your position is simply wrong. And replacing Saddam in Iraq should dispell many of the myths those anti-americans currently spread, namely that we are looking to colonize the region. Absent Saddam, for example, there will be no need to US troops in Saudi Arabia. So the number one reason for Al Queda's proclaimed fight will be removed. Might there be a short term increase in anti-americanism, probably. Will that impact us with more terrorism, possibly. Should that deter us from removing Saddam? No.

That's just silly. Especially when we're talking about nation-states. Most often those on an expansionist path are not deterred by softline policies. In fact they are most often deterred (deterrence inherently implying violent response) by force. Deterrence is never effective without the perception that force will be used.

 

Yes, the radicals have a fundamental conflict with western culture, but their concern is in how it affects the ME. They are not planning to take over the US. 9/11 was a symbolic attack, not a beachhead. The radicals want to eliminate western influence and culture from the ME. But let us not forget that there is a broad spectrum of "anti-Americanism." Many (Egyptians, ½ the Lebanese, and many other moderate states) would be very happy to make a compromise with respect to the Palestinian question. They are not all Osama type radicals, or even close to it. Suggesting that they all fit the Osama stereotype incorrect and very dangerous.

I don't believe your first sentence at all, and as I recall, the US told him, or at least he understood that they had told him that they wouldn't interfere if he invaded Iraq, and was surprised when they did. Even if he did think that, the outcome of that war was decisive. As GB Sr. pointed out in a recent speech, that victory, including the decision not to go into Baghdad after Saddam, put the US in such a strong position that it was able to parlay it into the Oslo talks, a powerful peace initiative. The idea that terrorists are responding to America's perceived weakness just doesn't hold water. Even if the lunatic fringe talked themselves into believing this, the US should certainly not base its actions on the delusions of madmen. That's lunacy in itself. For the record, I'm not in the peace at all cost camp. "Wolf pack mentality"?! I'm not even sure that applies to the extremists, but it certainly doesn't apply to the vast majority of the people who are anti-American.

While the leaders seem to be far more interested in the politics of the situation than they are in actually helping the Palestinians, for most of the ordinary people it is a very real issue. We've seen that sentiment brought up again and again on this board from people with roots in the region too. It's no red herring for them. Resolving the Palestinian situation would go a long, long way to eliminating the anti-American sentiment. Of course, that is not an easy problem to solve. The other issues you raise are related to the American presence in the ME, (again, the most prominent of which is the Palestinian situation). This strengthens the point that this is a regional issue, not a general attack on the US.

Again you are making the mistake of lumping everybody together with the extremists. If you are expecting that the US will take any action that everybody agrees with you are sadly mistaken. Yes there were and are people who criticised the US for the Gulf War, but their number is relatively small. The nations who were part of the coalition can't complain, because they were party to the action. Again, as GB Sr. pointed out, the diplomatic success of the operation was parlayed into to a powerful round of peace talks, something he specifically said wouldn't have happened if action had been taken without UN approval. Yes some Arab states use anti-Americanism for domestic political purposes, but that is just cheap politics (see "freedom fries") not at all the same motivation as the radicals. These leaders have no real interest in taking on the US. They only want to save their own necks.

Because in large part that is the definition of success, not avoiding blame as such, but in creating an environment that will foster lasting change. And this requires exiting the situation in a position of significant respect. If no one respects you at the end of the operation, what you were trying to do will very likely not take hold, and there won't be many people around to help you make it work either. Bosnia was a different situation, and I agree that American intervention there was generally very successful, and that the Europeans dropped the ball to a significant extent, but there are many differences between the two situations. In this situation the US seems not to understand the real goal of the mission. The goal is not to remove Saddam. The goal is to facilitate lasting positive change in the region. Removing Saddam is a relatively small step in that process, and if the US hasn't prepared for much more than simply removing him, the result will likely be civil war, war with neighbouring countries, and/or Saddam II taking control after the dust has settled. I surely hope I'm wrong, but I don't see attention being paid to measures that will be needed to achieve long term success.

Allowing Saddam to have nuclear weapons would not be an option, IMO. When I thought that he might have some, I was in favour of taking them out and neutralising him, but as it became clear that he doesn't have them I started wondering just what this intervention was really about. It is true, however, that we can't allow leaders like him to have such weapons. To address that we need an effective UN sanctioned policy disallowing them and identifying conditions where first strike measures would be legitimised, but where will the UN be if the US dismisses it in this instance? If it ceases to be a potential vehicle for achieving world consent (and yes I admit it has many problems, but I suggest that it should be reformed not discarded), then the role of world policeman will likely be taken on by the US, thus making you twice the target for all the crack pot terrorist groups. Is that what you really want? The UN has in fact often been a screen for the US, legitimising action and deflecting blame.

Again, Osama is a fanatic. I dearly hope that the US is not basing its policies around the fantasies of a fanatic. That would make me MUCH more concerned. You can't deter the fanatics. These people believe they will go to heaven if they die for their cause. Trying to "teach them a lesson" is nonsense. The people whose minds need to be changed are the moderates who are sympathetic to the fanatics and either support or turn a blind eye to them.

I agree that "replacing Saddam" is the key to this mission, but I have heard very little about how this is to be done. If this isn't done right, your next sentences won't happen, and the situation could easily end up being worse. Much worse.

I don't see any expansionists in this equation. I guess Saddam was expansionist in his attempt to take Kuwait. And the Turks are eyeing northern Iraq. The issue for the anti-American extremists and the moderates alike, however, is much more about the right to self-determination. They believe they are fighting to regain sovereignty over their countries and region. This makes it a very personal issue for a lot of them, and this is a very different dynamic than dealing with opportunistic expansionists. Saddam is an opportunist, and can be deterred by force, which is why inspections under threat of repercussions worked with him. He's not really the issue though. What follows him is, and I guess time will tell us how well the real end goal of this operation has been understood and planned for.

 

I think this is only a slightly different argument from the other neo conservative arguments.

 

Are you saying my argument is neo-conservative?! Wow, that wouldn't be my opinion.

 

1. Regional or WorldWide. I couldn't disagree more. Redical Islam is not just interested in a pan-Arabic nation-state, but in the destruction of the West. Modernity is inherently in conflict with Islam as they envision it. It is a zero-sum game. And do not think that Osama is the only radical in the region. In EVERY SINGLE country the regimes in power, specifically and especially those that are moderate GOVERNMENTS, they have had to crack down on populist radical Islamic movements. Including Egypt and every other country in the region you could point to. These moderate governments would have no reason to crack down on moderate Muslims, so I believe you are just incorrectly assuming the proportion of radicals to moderates.

2. Basing policy on the lunatic fringe. Since that is the enemy in this case, the main threat, it would be lunacy to base policy on some pie in the sky mentality about regional ambitions. Lunatics like Osama are few in number, maybe. But they draw people into their movement with the propaganda about how weak the US is, and how they can use terrorism (which is by definition not strategic annihilation, but rather terror - hence terrorism) to destroy us. That is again a FACT you ignore. It is insane to suggest you can combat that propaganda with more softline policy.

3. Coalition building as it relates to anti-americanism. First, these are two arguments mixing into one. As far as Europe, the impact of anti-americanism over ME policy is relatively low, if not non-existent. It really doesn't matter what they think. As far as what ME'erners think, they blame the US no matter what kind of coalition is built. This is clearly in evidence from Gulf War One, where a large ME AND WORLDWIDE consensus was built and still anti-americanism rose as a result of the US being blamed for imperialism. Again I point out that France gave Israel the bomb. Is there anti-frogism in the ME? No. France was part of the GW1. Is there anti-frogism as a result of that? No. Your theory that coalition building alters the strength or breadth of anti-americanism is flat out wrong.

4. The UN. Again I disagree on several points. First the UN NEVER acted as a buffer to anti-americanism. Almost all reference to UN actions in Somalia and the Gulf War, to name two relevant examples, are to US power and hegemonic ambitions. Is there a lot of anti-UNism in the ME? No. There is not. Next the argument about the UN's continued viability: There are plenty of examples of action without UN consensus in the past, and yet the UN continues to be viable as an actor on many fronts. It is not yet, mainly because of individual interests, capable of handling every situation. Couldn't in Kosovo. Couldn't in Bosnia (where Russians threatened vetos). Can't apparently in Iraq. That is not the end of the world. And this whole idea of 'unilateral' action is misleading anyway, since there is a coalition in place favoring immediate action in Iraq. Why is Spain's opinion less legitimate than France's? Or UK's than Germany's? Or the US's than Russia's? Especially when you take into account which of those sets are traditionally called upon BY the very same UN to act in situations such as this.

5. Post Saddam Iraq. I cannot disprove your conjecture on what would constitue 'proper preparation' or enumeration of what that will look like. You have no reason why there is greater propensity for civil war than I do for a stable democratic regime to emerge. More likely you have less so considering the composition of the Iraqi population vis-a-vis education, and their relative accessable wealth in natural resources which will make rebuilding the country much easier than in Afghanistan for example. In addition there is a good possibility that intervention now will enable the withdraw of US troops from Saudi Arabia, a MAJOR point of contention with radical Islamicists. Containment does not allow such an option, nor does increased inspections nor more coalition building. Overall the odds are in our favor that acting NOW will conclude with a more desirable outcome than waiting.