Grizzled, What do you suggest we do about Iraq? Because as 9-11 proved, we can no longer just sit back with a giant target on our back and allow terrorists to take pot shots. You do realize that people said that Japan would never accept a US led leadership and rebuilding after WW2, don't you? This is a very similiar situation, and my guess, and truthfully, that is all any of us can do, is that once the living conditions for Joe Q Iraqi are improved dramatically, they will become much more benign. If you liberate them, establish a democratic government that has self rule, and have a military presensce in the country ala Germany, it should all work. The bottom line is to improve the average guy on the streets quality of life, so that it minimizes the impact of radical thinking. DD
1) The Japanese weren't immune to social or cultural advancement like the middle east seems to be. 2) Our foreign policy mirrors are domestic policy somewhat in the fact that the wealthy minority dictate the course of action to the majority. Kind of how a corporate CEO doesn't ask, or care, for the opinion of the assembly line worker at the manufacturing plant. The boss takes chances and gambles with the careers(lives) of his employees because there's virtually no negative repercussions for doing so. If the company tanks under his watch then he's given a massive severance to step down while the careers of his subordinates are ruined. That is my view of our current administration.
Iraq didn't send suicide squads to fly planes into our buildings, and there is no evidence they have eyed attacks on our soil. IMO this war will increase the number of people eyeing attacks on our soil. 9-11 also showed a few supremely committed suicide bombers with box cutters are more dangerous to us than a nation with biological weapons and a reasonably large conventional army like Iraq's. Thus we need to focus on rooting out this fanatical segment--not all the other brutal dictators throughout the world who act in ways they think serve their local self-interests. I agree if we could could help the average Iraq that would improve things drammatically. I am not sure this war is the best way to do this--between our bombs and Saddam's weapons that hits his own people either in attempted defense or on purpose-- how many Joe Iraqes are going to be left. There are other major differences too. Japan attacked us for resources--it wasn't so much ideological nor based on religious fanaticism. Both are present in the ME, it is a much more complicated hisortical situation IMO and their will be no grand unambigious defeat like that occurred in WW2. My major concern is this war will increase fanaticism--and I'd rather have 1000 loyal Saddam generals running around in the ME than 1 Al Queda running around here. As for what we do when regimes like Saddam try to develop nukes or other WMD--we just take them out those facillites like Isreal did without engaging their citizenry in a full scale war.
Pssst Desert Scar, That is really what the war is all about, lowering the radical base by showing the rest of the Middle East that democracy is king. DD
This is gonna have to be chopped up, so bear with me... There simply is no consensus opinion within every relevant ‘expert’ on the issues of international relations, politics, philosophy etc. There is, in fact, NO definitive answer when considering these questions, which is the first incorrect assumption you make. YOU may consider your base assumption to be self-evident, but you are basing that on your own worldview, not indisputable fact, nor on consensus opinion. Really it is somewhat suprising to even see you paint with such a wide brush. You list examples of wars you felt were just, which contradicts the totality of your assessment. This first passage is really just you ‘tooting your own horn.’ As for the three assumptions you list of these ‘experts’ I would point out that the base assumption inherent in THEIR conclusions, if they do in fact read as you represent (of which no doubt there are different opinions within the ‘history of warfare, international relations’ etc), is the assumption that counterfactual analysis itself has unerring validity. Of that I am afraid to say there is much debate. To look at a past conflict and assume that in ‘another world’ had ‘alternate decisions’ been made, that a particular outcome (in your case a better one) could be predicted with any certainty is not only laughable but damn near close to gypsy fortune telling. As to the specific claims: “Unnecessary”: Assumes relevant parties have all relevant information at the time of decision. I would point out that even analysts at a later date do not reliably have ‘all the relevant information, only pieces collected and pieced together afterwards. To assume that they get a true valid picture of the MILLIONS of variables that make a conflict happen, and could CONTROL those variables is preposterous. It also assumes the reaction that ‘might’ have occurred had different action been taken. This is where the crystal ball effect comes into play. There is no way you could predict such outcomes. “Fought improperly”: You really don’t explain what this means. I will assume you are generically relaying a feeling that strategic and/or tactical decisions could have been different within those conflicts. Don’t really see the significance of this point. Wars are not precise and static. They are fluid. By their nature there will be unintended and unanticipated action and counteraction. If Sun Tzu et al actually say they could fight the perfect war, which I seriously doubt and feel is more than gross overexaggeration on your part, then I suggest they engaged in the worst form of armchair quarterbacking. In addition it would not have ANY relevance to the question of whether this particular war is ‘right or wrong.’ It would, so to speak, beg the question. “Universally at the cost of the many to benefit the few”: Interesting. Were the examples you raised as valid ‘wars’ such as WWII and Gulf War 1 in this mold? I think not. Was the intervention in Bosnia or Kosovo of this mold? I think not. In fact, your own conclusion in relation to Kosovo was that a large powerful nation intervened simply for the benefit of the few. It must be hard to have your own conclusions so deftly turned aside by the apparent consensus from those you study. Also, the cynicism within the statement contradicts directly most of the political theorists positions which you simultaneously advocate. Did our forefathers, whom you quote and refer to endlessly, believe that conflict with Great Britain fit this declaration? I think not. Consistency is a label I think you’ve been afforded without merit. The problem is that this sort of stance is infinitely regressive. You could, for example, ALWAYS contend there is one more peace initiative to make, one more overture to send, one more concession to give, one more delegation to dispatch. To say that war should have a high standard for justification is one thing, to almost remove it completely as a course of action is another. In addition, your view assumes there is no impact to avoiding conflict, also not true. In the first of the two examples you give, WWII, earlier action would have precluded the severity of the carnage to come later. No going to war with Serbia cost untold millions their lives. There is often just as severe a cost for inaction as for action. THAT is why there is a burden on those who oppose war just as there is a burden on those who propose it. Not really. Your Rule of Law analogies really have no parallel in this discussion. There is NO overall authority that evenly distributes justice within the world as there is in our society. As such, the comparisons fail. In addition your claimed totality is again bordering on the absurd. As I said above you assume there is no penalty for inaction, and that is false. Unfortunately you just have the equation backwards. Being right + having might = we should act in those situations that present themselves in which we can use our might to do right. You call those who believe in our moral right ‘jingoist’ and ‘sophomoric’ and then quote Jefferson! Interesting. The basis of our independence, the very fabric of the country, is that all people have ‘inalienable rights.’ Those words come from the theory that there are UNIVERSAL rights that should be enjoyed by all human beings. We derive our moral justification to pursue actions consistent with that from the very fact that we believe these rights are universal. Whether or not we have the might to project that belief is not relevant to this first most basic assumption. If we do believe this, and most of our history and subsequent evolution as a nation is based on it, then how could we possibly NOT use our might to enforce this belief against would be despots who would deny people these rights? Ridiculous. You assert that Europe colonized Africa out of pure motives? That goes beyond revisionist history and moves into the realm of fantasy. Europe ‘colonized’ for resources, not to remove the yoke of tyranny from a subjugated people. And that also doesn’t address the completely fallacious nature of the analogy, since the US in NOT invading Iraq to colonize it, nor to occupy it in perpetuity, as the Europeans did in Africa. I don’t think a link to 9/11 has either been proven, nor is necessary for the current course of action in Iraq. I do have a couple of things to say, however. McVeigh as an example is just silly. He was not SPONSERED by Oklahoma nor given material aid in his terrorist actions. Had the STATE of Oklahoma done so, you damn well would have seen action against the state government. There is plenty of confirmed evidence, however, that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism. There is no dispute that this is true. There is no link, so far (although that may well change once evidence is released from the extremist camp recently rolled over in northern Iraq), between Iraq and Al Queda/9-11. Regardless, intervention with Iraq could be justified from the sponorship of terrorism that IS not in dispute. I don’t think the issue needs even be addressed, as there is no shortage of justifications to remove Saddam, but if it is used, I think it is reasonable enough.
This is not a war of annexation. Therein lies a conclusive difference than renders your analogy false. You could also apply this ‘chicken little-ism’ to Bosnia and Kosovo. Yet the people there hardly seem to believe they have become the ’39 Polish or the ’56 Hungarians or the ’79 Afghanis. Do they? Interesting, since Europe is precisely the geography one would point to when speaking of NOT understanding the dangers of allowing potential dangers to become real ones. Appeasement as a pejorative refers to, as you know, Europeans allowing such a danger to manifest itself without action. Your assumptio that they of all people would not make that mistake it simply wrong. WWII is a good example of this. Bosnia and Kosovo are good examples of this. Conflicts within their sphere and on their borders, allowed to spiral out of control unchecked. If your assumption was correct then France and Germany would have acted in these cases. They did not. This is not, what does my wife the lawyer say, ‘dispositive’? This is also that ‘card’ (to use your words) used by every country that has ever fought a ‘justified war.’ It was used in WWII and in the Gulf War 1, examples I’ll use since you’ve named them as ‘justified.’ To say that the war is not justified because this is used as a justification makes no sense. This being used as a justification no more negates the claim that it is true than the use negated the claim that it was true in either of the above conflicts. Such an arrogant dismissive attitude is neither conducive to real debate on the issues, nor enhancing to your own credibility when you decry those who slander you, your profession, your patriotism etc. Assuming that those who do not agree with you are ‘jingoistic,’ ‘knee-jerk’ing, ‘misconceiving,’ and all the other little barbs you throw out makes you just as guilty of tunnel vision as those you castigate. There are plenty of differences between the US, as composed, and your above examples. For one there is no absolute power structure in the US, as in the Rome (the Triumverate/later Caesar and those that followed) or Nazi Germany (Hitler) or the USSR (Lenin/Stalin). It is precisely that diffused leadership that protects us from following similar paths. There also is no homogenized population. In each of your examples there was an easy path to subjugating alternate people’s because the main population in control was homogenous, both in beliefs and race. In the US this is not the case. As a nation of immigrants we are far more impervious, even more so now than in the past, to such an authoritarian structure or aggression. It is selective reading of history to suggest that the US actions in the past were completely in self-interest, or to suggest that we have not acted more our of general interest than any other comparable nation in history. For you, there is exact parallel between the US and USSR. For me it is, to use your words, self evident that this is laughable. You have to look no farther than Europe to dispell this notion. One glance at Eastern vs Western Europe during the Cold War should tell any interested reader all they need to know about your conclusions. In addition I think it is unacceptable for you to cry foul when someone is offended at your parallels. If you love this country simply because you CAN be negative about almost every aspect of its actions EXCEPT for your right to be negative, then what is the point? Wouldn’t you be happier just staying in Toronto? That is not love it or leave it, as I think dissent is good when its balanced. But your criticisms are not balanced, they are prolific and pronounced and continuous in their size and scope. Just as it could indeed be argued that we are intervening because we really do see an intersection between our values and our security and the fate of Iraqis. You are just reeling off assertion after assertion. Yes, it COULD be true, but why should we believe it IS TRUE. Because Rome and the Nazis did it? Concluding that their doing it makes us doing it inevitable is not a logical leap. Why because while some history repeats itself, some doesn’t. Otherwise all history would be the same and continuous, not fluid and changing. And really your claim in this section is just illogical. ‘Oh, well yeah I know this is not the same as Rome or Germany because we are not annexing them, but it COULD be the same in some new way, and it might not be the same but it is.’ Hardly convincing. Another bad parallel: First, Iraqis are not Spartans. They did not decide to have his boot on their throat. In fact, it is most apparent that they do not want it. Remember the Shia uprising at the end of GW1? The Kurds in the North? These are not people we are intruding upon. Second, the Athenian aggression was based on economic necessity. Their primary motivation was to open new markets (using your assumption). There may be debate on the US motivation, but you certainly have no definitive proof that this is the case. There IS definitive proof that these people are oppressed, and want to be free. And again, Athens sought to conquer, while the US does not. First, this really is just a repeat of what is above, which I’ve already answered. But I will point out (I know there are points on this below) that the dangers inherent in Iraq are most unlike the dangers posed by, say Poland when Germany claimed they were invaded by Polish troops, or say the USSR when they claimed the needed a buffer zone when the invaded Afghanistan. First, the nature of our government prevents interventions which cannot be justified. While you may think this war is not justified, to claim there has been no discussion about it before we acted is simply false. Second, I am not sure what the point is here. That we will get in an engagement that what? Certainly it is unreasonable to think that the ‘Bush Doctrine’ will lead to an attempt to invade the USSR or China. Short of that I don’t see a problem, purely from an impact level. To assume that this doctrine could lead to non-justifiable interventions is really just a retread of #2 stated a different way. Third, and I really think this is another important inconsistency, you give no credence to ‘potential threats’ in this passage, but scream bloody murder about a POTENTIAL ‘slippery slope’ where we could become so accustomed to unilateral action that we start invading Canada and Monaco and all these nations that are not really threats to us. There is no way that some countries we would consider potential threats are actually threats, but there is a big precipice we are going to fall over and suddenly wake up and find ourselves Nazi Germany. Please. All that evil needs to prosper is for good men to do nothing. (Eburke). This next paragraph is really rambling thought jumbled together so bear with me while is separate it out. It really is not a matter of ‘being better than everyone else.’ It is a matter of everyone having universal rights. The way you portray that is really a fine example of what you refer to as ‘jingoism.’ With a belief in universal rights as a base, there is no relevance to world perception of the justification of such intervention. Your main problem is that you assume that there is a common morality across the globe when there clearly is not. In this case the intervention is the only way the US sees to enable those universal rights to be realized by Iraqi, be they Kurds or Shia or whatever else. Clearly world opinion does not care for the normal Iraqis. I will point out that your self appointed arbiter of all such issues, the UN, has not advocated action on the basis that Saddam is a murderous tyrant. However, in a strange twist of fate, the UN DOES SUPPORT the principle of intervention to stop genocide. Strange isn’t it? And despite your championing of the UN as the sole actor capable of being downtrodded people’s savior, it was the US that saved peoples in Bosnia and Kosovo using that principle given credence by the UN court of world opinion. There are multiple justifications for intervention in Iraq. The existence of one does not make the existence of, or affirmation of, another ‘moot.’ Another assertion with no warrant for your claim. You don’t leave it aside, you throw it out as if it were ‘self-evident.’ Never mind that sheer irony in your use of the phrase to abandon helpless peoples across the globe to be murdered and tortured under a despots boot, wherever they may be. Too many assumptions are not enough warrants. First, if we are right, then it is irrelevant what the court of public opinion thinks. If people do have universal rights, then the right thing to do it to act to enforce those rights. If other countries or other people protest those interventions, it is of no consequence to the justness of the action. The number of people who hold an opinion does not make it right or wrong. And certainly according to you the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo were most unlike the analogies you make. And much more recently and relevant. Those who would follow MacBeth must say they think stopping genocide of Bosnian Muslims was the same as the crusades. I think most people will start to realize MacBeth’s world of absolutes is not the world they want to live in. I don’t think you have ANY ROOM AT ALL to talk about insulting the dead or the dying. Your base stance is that we must abandon action help those being tortured and killed by despots unless the court of world public opinion says we should intervene. You insult those who were tortured, maimed, put in rape camps, and killed in Bosnia and Kosovo with your calculus. You straight up say they simply must be left because you fear the POTENTIAL consequence of unilateralism and because you fear a moral quandary that may emerge from moving to save them. Hardly. First, you misconstrue the vision of what the UN should be. That vision is NOT of an organization that allows despots to rule and kill and destroy. Second, you conveniently argue both sides of the same coin in two different places. In one place you argue who much the US has acted in its interests despite world opinion and in another argue that we should not act in our interests because it would make us hypocritical. If we are already doing it, and have been doing it, aren’t we already hypocritical? And what possible relevance does this have on this section of your book, which is that Saddam is a despot and should be removed? Whether or not it is in our interests to do so is not relevant to this point. You are mixing just as you asked others not to. The question is should we remove someone who is a genocidal dictator? The answer is yes. Those who follow MacBeth: You turn your backs on the rape camps, the dead and the tortured. You do nothing while this continues. Can you sleep with that? OK, some important ground covered here. First, MacBeth says there was a better way to deal with Saddam as shown by the GW1. Of course, he neglects to point out that the option was ‘war,’ lol. Second, what followed it, was the UN sanctions, which did not work. And pretty much universally are seen as killing the Iraqi people, not the regime, nor the regimes potential for aggression in the future. Second, to intervene to stop Saddam’s (admittedly) murderous regime (MacBeth’s words) is, he says, jingoism. I say that it is proof that world opinion is WRONG. MacBeth says the UN sets out what is, and is not permissible or justified. He cannot deny that intervention to stop ‘murderous regimes’ is now recognized as justified. He cannot deny that there is a ‘murderous regime’ in Iraq. He cannot deny that the UN was NOT going to intervene in Iraq to remove that ‘murderous regime.’ So how can we deny that it is the RIGHT thing to do to intervene and remove the (his words) ‘murderous regime’ in Iraq? It seems ‘self evident’ that world opinion is not consistent in this case, nor is it correct is determining that Saddam should be left in power. The UN has determined that he has weapons in violation of the post GW1 agreement. That is indisputable. To assume he has other weapons is not a stretch. Not in light of the large body of direct testimony that has come directly from participants in these programs, nor in light of the obvious and blatant steps taken by the regime to keep testimony from current weapons scientists and personnel under strict guidance. It is indisputable that the regime unchecked would already have WMD of every caliber: Chemical, biological, and nuclear. It is indisputable that Saddam considers his biggest mistake as invading Kuwait BEFORE he had the bomb. It is most unreasonable and pie in the sky to assume that the regime will not restart nuclear programs at the earliest possible point.
Really I think his possible use of WMD goes more to the overall (Saddam has a murderous regime) justification except where nuclear weapons are concerned. The power gained from the addition of nuclear weapons to his arsenal is too great a risk to allow to happen. He simply has no check in the Middle East. For example, the arguments MacBeth makes now about his propensity to use them if his regime is threatened becomes that much more debilitating if he acquires nukes. He could invade Kuwait and/or Saudi Arabia and always have the nuke trump card if ‘coalition’ forces drove him out and/or back into Iraq. He would never need fear coalition forces trying to remove him no matter how aggressive he is in the region because in the end who doesn’t believe he would use it on his way out. Every substantial psychological profile of the man concludes that in the end he would use them to go down in history. Better to risk that now with chem./bio WMD than later with nuclear WMD. It is very clear that no authority, not the UN or any other authority, believes Saddam should have the right to acquire nuclear weapons. NO ONE. Who is authorized to stop him we argue elsewhere. #3 is clearly ‘who decided Iraq can’t have nuclear weapons’ and the answer is EVERYONE BUT MACBETH. Macbeth philosophically opposed our stance. It is hypocritical since we used it, he says. Doesn’t that seem a little silly? We did support slavery, right? So who are we to protest child slavery in the Far East? Who are we to protest and intervene in Bosnia? We did commit genocide on the Indians, right? We are such hypocritical bastards. The logic behind his assumption is just too shallow. There are plenty of reasons why horizontal proliferation is undesirable: handling accidents, miscalculation, terrorism, accidental launch, internal instability (such as warlordism resulting from breakups) and so on. NO ONE. Let me repeat, NO ONE advocates Saddam’s right to get the bomb. This is simply MacBeth liking his ‘we did it first’ line a little too much. Blah blah blah. As I said in the beginning. We are not right because we have the might. We are right because we are right. Having the might to do something about it only makes it that much better. The question is simply: SHOULD we intervene? If we SHOULD intervene then it is not might is right. Just as it is our duty to check the power of government to protect our mutual inalienable universal rights. MacBeth thinks only Americans should have protection from government infringement on those rights. The Bosnians, Kosovo Albanians, Rwandans, and Iraqis are just **** outta luck. I don’t think so. If you believe in our inalienable universal rights, then you damn well ought to be willing to act for all people’s rights. Otherwise you are just a puppet of MacBeth’s head in the sand I’m ok you’re ok doublespeak. Admirable sentiment and I won’t poke fun at you because I think you believe it. You’re just misguided. For those who have actually read all this crap let’s recap so you understand what you would be buying into if you follow MacBeth’s lead: 1. Intervention outside the UN auspices is a war crime. Tony Blair and Bill Clinton should be tried by the Hague Tribunal for stopping genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo. MacBeth says that even though intervention in Kosovo was the right thing to do, and that the US did it only in the interests of justice, we should be condemned for doing it. Makes sense, huh? 2. If the UN will not intervene to stop genocide, those victims are out of luck. There is no help for you. You are condemned to suffer and die at the hands of whatever despot rules your country. But don’t worry, the UN has a great record of intervening to stop genocide (which it does recognize as a justification for intervention). They have done it in many places like…..uh……well none, but we are sure they will in the future. But if you look at the bright side, the UN does occasionally prosecute people for genocide after they have killed millions of people maybe including you and your family. 3. Anyone should be able to have nuclear weapons. Sovereignty, as the cornerstone of the UN, gives anyone including people like Kim Jr, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein the right to own nuclear weapons. The US can never protest because we used them against Japan. Nor an we protest the use of them, since we used them against Japan. Accept when talking about US use, then we should condemn our possession and potential use because we possess and use them. 4. Although the US was built on the idea that governments should not kill and maim and torture their own citizens, we do not believe any other people’s have these rights (except Canadians). It is our duty to protect ourselves from our government, but we should never help other people’s against their government (despite the …. Ugh……French helping us against our government). We do so because we have inalienable rights although others do not. But we should avoid saying out loud that we are special since we have these rights, but neither want others to ask us for help nor want them to think we are arrogant for thinking we have these rights when they obviously don’t.
That is really what the war is all about, lowering the radical base by showing the rest of the Middle East that democracy is king. I don't think there are many examples of conquering people and therebye lowering the radical level by conquering people. I guess if we stay there for a generation or two perhaps. Normally this is done by perpetual occupation. Germany and Japan have been mentioned. The big difference I believe is that these countires knew that they had been the aggressors, had started the wars and been defeated. I guess you could say that they felt guilty. Iraq is not going to feel this way. They have never attacked the US. You can't deny this. They did attack Kuwait, who was provoking them sorely and almost with a wink from us. Though I'm not convinced this is only about oil, the Iraqis, all the Muslims in the world and a majority of the rest of the world feel like this is an oil grab and not self defense. When you are trying to create sentiments for democracy you do have to take into account perceptions.
Germany and Japan felt guilty? Come on, the common man or women had no GUILTY feelings about the war, what they found out was that they were BETTER off after the war with the new system. This is exactly what we are tyring to do in the Middle East. Will it work, Who knows, but NOT doing anything, or just putting an occasional hand in every now and then has not worked. Seems like as good a chance at working as any. DD
HayesSteet, it really seems to me you are equally dismissive of more distant as well as more recent foreign policy actions where we did support brutal dictators and/or in hindsight obviously engaged in adjust wars or warlike behaviors. ....The Mexican War ....Vietnam War ....Countless examples in South and Central America (e.g., Panama, Chile, Nicaragua). There also have been times our government trumped up false attacks to manipulate public opinion to support wars it wanted to wage. There are times our government got into wars, or at least engage in unauthorized war-like and terrorist activities, without public support. Thus I don't see how you think we are universally protected from getting into an unjust war because we are a diverse republic. Unless you really think we did the Vietnamese and Chileans favors in the ways we intervened.
MacBeth: I read your thread starting post late last drunken eve and thought it was excellent. Planned to respond today when I got time and never got time. And now there are four pages to slog through before I'd feel right responding. Scanned though and saw you'd asked for responses (including mine) and didn't want you to think I wasn't reading. I'm unusually busy these days so it may be a while, but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for the most thoughtful piece I've yet read on this war. So thank you. Looking forward also to each of the replies, maybe especially HayesStreet's. More later.
It's economic annexation. Borders will never change significantly and you'll have some american friendly iraqi's governing the populace but an Iraqi economy run by American companies is what the endgame objective of this war is.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. No one claims that US actions is always full of sinister self-interest as some might claim. Compared to other nations, it might even be argued that US has proven to be more benevolent, on the whole than most other nations. US hegemony has been more benevolent than, say, UK hegemony and obviously Nazi or Soviet hegemony if they had achieved such hegemony. But it is equally ludicrous to suggest the opposite which is to say that the US is nation full of altruism, righteous and noble and pure motives in all situations and at all times. I won't give all the examples but there are many both past and present and I am sure future in which US conduct has been less than benevolent. Therefore the question is whether the US is noble enough, righteous enough, impartial enough, to be able to exercise hegemony and impose its views and policies, impose a Pax Americana under US domination without regard to other nations and other people's viewpoints and inputs. To many Americans, the answer seems yes but to many, especially those who have suffered from US hegemony (I know, I know, a lot less have suffered than would have suffered from some other hegemony) the answer is a resounding NO.
First, I never said the US never made mistakes, nor that we we never aggressors. I point to facets of our society than inhibit the rise of a state similar to Nazi Germany or Rome. We are not universally protected, but the likelihood is greatly lessened because we are a 'diverse republic.' We do not all see the world the same, and are unlikely to follow a leader that essentially becomes the only authority as in Rome or Germany. Because of our democratic process and diversified power base, even short term spikes in power are relatively quickly disseminated. MacBeth is not claiming we might redo the Gulf of Tonkin, he is claiming that we will become full on imperialist in the Nazi Germany/Rome mold (those are his examples, not mine). Re: your examples. Given the context of the examples you give, ie during the Cold War, there was simply a choice of two evils, not a choice of democracy or totalitarianism in those places as evidenced by the fact that Castro was no better than Batista, Ortega no better than Somoza, Khomeni nor better than the Shah, Menguistu no better than his predecessor, Ho no better than his. Given that assessment, the greater conflict between the US/Western democracy and the USSR/totalitarianism hung in the balance. Overall it was not self interest alone that drove those policies but the concern for the outcome of the worldwide ideological struggle at the time. In the end, yes, it was better for those countries than not. Case in point would be that, for example in Latin America, all those dictatorial regimes supported by the US transitioned to democracies while those supported by the USSR did not. (Of course, we were not in a war with Nicaragua or Chile at all, so your parallel is pretty off, but I know what you mean). In addition, you point out cases where we supported dictators as a blemish on our record, which feeds my argument that the US action in Iraq is NOT like those you criticize. It is, in effect, the opposite. Now, in the post Cold War world, we are no longer faced with choosing what we think is the lesser of two evils. We can choose to combat and remove evil, allowing democracy to naturally take its place.
I really don't have to much to disagree with what you're writing. As I said to DS, I am not claiming there have never been negative effects to US foreign policy. However, I do disagree with your conclusions. For several reasons: if US power is used to support the removal of despots, to stop genocide, to prevent the spread of WMD, those are laudable goals. Pax Americana DOES have limits. Probably more so than Rome or Greece in their day since in this world there ARE other significant powers that could band together to confront the US. In the end, we are not taking out legitimate governments nor are we attacking countries that are not a threat, so neither China or Russia will forcefully oppose us. While spreading democracy might be a threat to China in the near term, they themselves are transitioning, so the end game is the same. The time of the despot is over. Those that will transition will. Those that continue to massacre their own populations and present threats to the outside world will be removed. You talk about those that have been at the end of US hegemony, but lets talk turkey: are the Bosnians or Kosovo Albanians those of whom you speak? Are the Iraqis I see finally coming out of their houses to cheer US troops today? Nope. Do you think the North Korean people would be if we could remove Kim Jr? Are the Afghans? Nope. So who, in the post Cold War world are you talking about?
What about that whole 'trying to foment a coup in Venezuela' thing? Didn't that happen last year? How is that pro-natural-democracy? By your rationale, the US would never do that in a post Cold War world. Why did it, in that case?
"I hope I have answered your questions." You have, and thanks for your response. Not to say that you've persuaded me to change my opinion, as my feelings seem to parallel your feelings towards the first Gulf War. Can you recommend a couple of books to read that discuss the wars that you referenced in your response to my post--and how they've led you to your conclusions? The extent of my knowledge in this field is limited to The Art of War, and my purpose of reading this was to apply strategic thinking to business. I'm not looking, or don't have time, to write a disseratation, but am interested in military strategy on more of a "macro" scale. You're historical references seem valid, and at the very least support your justification for not supporting the war. Its too bad that you dont have the platform to convey these facts to the idiots who lie down in the middle of 5th Avenue in order to support a "Cause". My "business" way of thinking has led me to measure things in terms of numbers, and in this case the cost/benefit analysis portion of your original post is something I can relate to(Although cost in this case is measured by number of lives rather than $). In this war, bottom-line is that we have more to gain than we have to lose, risk-reward premium if you will. I'm fairly confident that this is Bush and Cheney's thinking as well, both having business backgrounds. Not to say that this thinking is right, but with the information overload of the 90's accompanied with emphasis on financial/economic success, this mentality is what a majority of Americans can relate to. Bottom line from a "micro" standpoint in my opinion(directly related to this discussion) is as follows, be it infantile, jingoistic, etc: In America, I can drink a beer and logon to a BBS that supports my favorite basketball team. I can discuss political issues with people whom I don't necessarily agree with, yet I don't fear any repercussions when stating my opinion. I can further my education, career, family well-being, according to how I choose. I can shave my beard(subtle Islamic reference), read the Bible, or lie down in the middle of 5th Avenue(not that I ever would). Over the years under Hussein's regime, the people of Iraq haven't had any of these opportunities. Call me an idealist for believing that they deserve this, fair enough. Call me a sheep, for letting Rumsfeld dictate this message, fair enough. In my heart, I think we as a nation founded under democratic principles, will do the right thing. Last point(intended for other posts, not necessarily MacBeth's): Comparing different administration's responses to dictatorial regimes isn't valid. Former President Reagan, former President Clinton, and President Bush have totally different agendas/priorities. The US doesn't have a static foreign policy agenda,. Times change, people change, and goals change. To compare this issue to Reagan's Iran-Contra situation or to Clinton's Kosovo situation isn't practical in a multi-party system.
DD, I agree that being proactive to deal with these new threats is important, and that improving the life of Joe Q will go a long way to addressing the problem, but I would approach the problem quite a bit differently than the way it’s currently being approached. If, for the sake of this discussion, we set aside the rather large questions I have about whether Saddam was really a threat to anyone outside of the ME, and whether this was the best place to allocate the limited resources of time, capital and good will available in the war against terrorism, and we start with the premise that, “There is going to be a war. How should it happen?” then I would approach it like this. The first question is, what is the objective? If it is in fact the liberation of Iraq then that needs to be clearly stated and consistently stated, in both words and actions. Liberations requires buy in. You can lead a horse to water… etc. At the end of the day this war is really one for the hearts and minds of the people of the area. This goes to the very root of the discontent that feeds/supports/conceals and otherwise enables the extremists. If this is the objective then there should be no general objection to using means like the UN and/or a broad based coalition to pursue it. In fact they are perhaps essential to the war for hearts and minds. They broaden the sense of agreement, enhance the legitimacy, and reduce later dissent. This is especially important because the US has big credibility problems in the area. These arise from the fact that it has often opportunistically pursued its own perceived interests at the expense of its stated principles. The US was, after all, allied with Saddam at the time when he used the gassed his own people. It also supports a non-democratic regime in Saudi Arabia and Israel, occupier of the occupied territories of the Palestinians. People are hesitant to trust the US, and are hesitant to buy into what it is offering. To over come this, steps need to be taken to address the doubt, and those messages need to be clearly and consistently communicated. This need for consistency is not unique to the US or this situation. It is a basic project management principle. You mentioned in a previous thread that I didn’t get a chance to get back to the a coalition was important for cosmetic reasons. It really needs to be more than that because if it’s just lip service your other actions will betray your true intent and you will end up right back where you started, or even worse off. If you are doing work for a client in a contractual relationship, for example, and they talk up a storm about entering into a trust relationship, open an honest communication, working towards each other’s best interests, win win scenarios, etc. and then they ask you to sign a contract that is loaded with disclaimer clauses that make you responsible for every delay, no matter who is responsible, for every bit of rework, no matter who whose fault, etc. what kind of relationship are you really going to have with them? They will probably say, “It’s just the lawyers, there isn’t anything we can do about them,” and in some cases where relationships are very strong you can work out of that trust level and effectively set the contract aside, but for the most part if the actions (i.e. a genuinely fair contract) are not consistent with the words the relationship won’t rise past the lowest common denominator. Often suspicion and mistrust will characterise the relationship, and the result will more likely be a lose lose situation, or at least a much less successful project than it could have been. (I’m guessing that you have some history in the IT world and have likely been involved in some such relationships.) In this war the US has said, “trust us,” and yet refused to cooperate with the UN, told it’s friends “you are either with us or against us” essentially denying them input, made highly suspect claims about WMD and Iraq’s association with terrorists, tried to buy Turkey’s support with $15 billion … . Put yourself in the shoes of Joe Q. How does this look to you? Are you buying the “trust us” line? Not likely, even without considering the anti-American filters they currently see the world through that arose out other ME issues (Israel, Iran/Iraq war, anti-American propaganda, etc.) So this segues into the risk analysis and mitigation component. The perception of the US in the area and the likely interference of neighbouring countries in response to US greatly increases the complications and risks of the project not only during the war phase but even more so afterwards during the transitions phase. A good solution would be to deemphasise the involvement of the US. Note: deemphasise and reduce are not synonymous terms. No one else in the world has the military power of the US, but the optics of having other ME countries supporting this action and troops form other ME counties actually on the ground would be huge. Many of the potential problem countries in the region actually have an interest in getting rid of Saddam themselves. There was significant potential for bringing them onboard at the beginning, thus limiting their ability and inclination to cause problems later on. This could even have been used as a platform to address other ME problems, like entering into another round of talks on the Palestinian/Israeli problem. There was even a precedent for this, established in the first Gulf War. A problem could have been turned into an opportunity, but I don’t think this was even attempted. Rumsfeld and co.’s brilliant statesmanship amounted to “you are either with us or against us.” The likelyhood is that they just had their own agenda, one that they haven’t been completely up front about, and they didn’t want to let anybody interfere with it. The consequence is that they put themselves in the position of being essentially alone in this action. How much legitimacy can you have when you are a lone voice against most of the world? How do you think this will affect the chances of, and the extent to which, the Iraqi’s buy in, and the rest of the ME butts out? This is not rocket science, but it seems to me that some selfish agendas and failure to thoroughly think through the problem have resulted in some very poor decisions. The final point for now is a comment on the definition of success. Traditionally contractors have judged success by the quality of the end product, as judged by themselves, and they have continually been confused by the fact that clients continue to not understand what they’ve done and consider many projects failures. IT projects have been rife with this problem and attitude. “We know what you need and we’re going to give it to you whether you like it or not.” Recent wisdom has realised that the most important success parameter is client satisfaction. Not all people/organisations are the same and not all do things the same way. You need to work with the client and give them what works best for them, as judged by them. This not only includes the end product, but the process of producing it. Has the communication level been good, as judged by the client? Does the client feel that they have been listened to, that their problems have been addressed, that they have been respected? These are the things that define success even ahead of the end quality of the product. If these have been taken care of the client will most likely feel the project was a success, and will likely be motivated to make the end product work. Otoh, if the client hates you, or comes to hate you during the project, it’s quite likely that nothing you do will be good enough. Sound familiar? W.r.t this war, the question becomes, have the project managers made every attempt to understand the context, needs and issues of the clients, or at they just trying to impose their own solutions into someone else’s context? Will the government that follows be an Iraqi democracy or and attempt to impost American democracy inappropriately into the Iraqi context? I don’t really know enough about Japan after WWII to comment knowledgeably, but it seems to me that the number of stakeholders involved and the other complicating factors were significantly different. I will also note that they developed their own distinct society and forms of government and business traditions. It will be essential to let Iraq find its own way as well. I can only hope that these rumours of the next Iraqi government having an American installed at the head of each ministry are wildly untrue. The one general vitally important principle that needs to be understood in any project is the need to understand as best as possible the context the other party is working out of. You do the project for them, not for yourself. Failure to understand this results in fatal disconnects that lead to disasters. This war isn’t over yet, and yes everything I have said is merely my opinion based on a context that I don’t fully understand by any means, but based on what I see happening, as explained above, I’m very worried about the outcome.
1. I think 'forment a coup' is a vast overstatement. 2. It was not a military intervention. 3. If you asked the millions trying to remove the current President they would say his removal is pro-democratic. 4. I did not say we never would make a mistake, I said we are unlikely to become a vast imperialist/expansionist empire in the Germany/Rome mold.
