Think back to before the war, remember the polls that indicated overwhelming public support before, during, and immediately after the war? I'm not going to bother with a link because I think we can take it as a given that public opinion, whether it was because of WMD's, human rights, or whatever,was in favor of the Iraq war. But now look at the latest polls: It looks like we support the war, but we don't support the price tag. What gives, how do a Majority of Americans support the war, but don't support paying for it? A few possible answers: 1. They were misled by the Bush admin to thinking it was cheap. There is some evidence of this, because of the following statements: However, I don't really buy this. You'd have to be a bit gullible to take these contentions without a grain of salt. Finally, I don't think Jimmy the average war supporter is sitting around listening to wolfowitz of arabia blather on either. Not to mention that the anti-war folks, such as myself, were screaming and whining about how expensive and long term this would be. (of course, the fact remains that the admin shouldn't have run around making those claims about how affordable it would be, but that's another matter) 2. Americans are fundamentally inconsistent, they want to have their cake and eat it too This is more likely. See my post in the Gray Davis Recall thread. In general, this is the way we seem to act. A muscular activist foreign policy, government jobs and programs, but ever lower taxes. The problem is that this scenario does not exist in reality. We need to get real and stop blaming politicians and start blaming ourselves for beiing dumb/uninformed/disingenuous enough to elect them. The angry white male has somebody to be angry at: himself. Last time I checked, white males were running this country.
This surprises you? Come on, most people don't mind sacrifices as long as it is not directly out of their pocket. However, I don't mind, as I think it is a bigger play for a more stable middle east. So.....rebuild Iraq....sure...but then they pay us back for the rebuilding with a percentage of oil proceeds. DD
By the time they get their Oil industry up and running, they'll barely be able to cover the interest on the 100b that we''ll have paid out to them by then. from a march cnn article Any other ideas? a bake sale?
I think the displeasure with the $87 billion request reflects that Americans are unhappy with the slow pace of the rebuilding project and the continued death of soldiers. Are they supposed to wholeheartedly support everything just because they supported the war? It does not mean that Americans believe we should leave now, or that we should let Iraq rebuild itself.
This is not an argument that we should leave. I don't think we should, I think we're obligated to stay, whether out of morality, foreign policy, human decency, or whatever, and I was against the war. I think they are supposed to wholeheartedly support it. You want to have a war, fine, but you have to be willing to pay the piper at the end of the day. Some people apparently were not. (apparently, a majority of americans). They should have said so before the fact, and reevaluated their decision.
Sam, this is a tough question. Though the poll was done on the cost I don't think it is that simple. Before the last few weeks before the war started, there was a consistent 40% against it. I think support went up to 70% when it actually started as a show of support for the troops. At this time I think a lot of the 30% swing "vote" probably is starting to think that we can support the troops by bringing them home. Of course the fact that it looks like the danger to the US due to Iraq was exaggerated, will make some people jump ship. For a lot of these people the cost is not the reason why they are changing their mind. As far as the cost (and it appears the $87 billion will grow according to Cheeny on Meet the Press yesterday) of course that is a concern to those who really don't like foreign aid. If they don't like to develop foreign countries that are friendly why Iraq?It is also beginning to be a concern to those who dont want to screw up the budget of the US witn the combination of tax cuts and massive military expenditures. Doing this to tank social security,medicare and medicaid as planned by the anti-taxers is running into resistance. The cost issue is also impossible to parse out from the idea that we did this to liberate the Iraqis who would be grateful. As the Iraqis resist our occupation and plans it not only costs more, but puts to rest another of the lies or mistakes of the neocons.
Excellent point. If the $87 billion price tag (which is only the beginning) had been discussed before the war, there would have been more reservations about it. With the 2004 deficit screaming toward $500 *billion* (next year alone), that additional $87 billion suddenly seems all the more important. And don't forget the $50 billion we're *already* spent there. (The tax "cuts" don't help, either -- $1.4 *trillion* over the next ten years.) If you had told Americans that there would be 300 dead American soldiers -- 100 since the "end" of the war -- people would have scoffed, too. It was dishonest and misleading of the administration not to address these *major* issues.
Oh, but it was discussed before and during the war, just in different terms (a.k.a. lies or incredibly bad stupid guesses): "Most of the Iraqi bureaucracy, and most of the Iraqi infrastructure, will be left intact," a State Department official assured a NEWSWEEK reporter just before the war. An occupation might not have to last more than "30 to 60 days." "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told the Senate a week after the invasion started in March. "There's just no reason that this can't be an affordable endeavor," said White House budget director Mitch Daniels. "I don't know that there is much reconstruction to do," Rumsfeld told reporters
It's probably a little of all three. Bush intentionally waited to put the cost of this war into a supplemental so that people really wouldn't know the cost beforehand. Apparently nobody had any earthly idea this would cost a hundred billion dollars until we were actually there, yeah right. Also, a majority of Americans believe Iraqis were on the planes that struck on 9/11 so stupidity and ignorance certainly has to play a role in this cost issue. Finally, of course Americans are inconsistent. This whole war is inconsistent. We want nation buiding we don't nation building, screw the UN we'll do it ourselves oh please UN we need your troops, yadda yadda.
I really don't like the idea of having them pay for rebuilding. After all - we did invade. Yes, perhaps we were justified. Yes, Saddam was a bad, bad man. But I still don't think it's fair to invade and then force the conquered nation to rebuild as you dictate. Any privilege we had to attack (if any) certainly, imo, doesn't include co-opting Iraqi resources, no matter how we want to allocate them. Secondly, I think that the Marshall Plan was one of the most successful diplomatic strokes in modern history. It proved we were magnanimous, wealthy (and therefore to be emulated), and more friendly than the USSR (who's help came with the price of sovereignty). Let's emulate that now, and see if it can help sway opinion. The Marshall Plan, when adjusted into modern dollars... was a huge unprecedented aid package. But it paid off.
I doubt any one answer explains all of us. Some of us are stupid, some of us were misled, and some of us are inconsistent. I don't think that the " Wanting to have our cake and eat it too.' is unique to Americans, I'd say it's pretty endemic in economically developed nations. What is important to note about this is just the opposite; that we're not different. We're not better. We don't know better. We aren't wiser, smarter, or morally superior. We are merely richer and stronger. People who think that we must be better because we're richer and stronger miss the point, and maybe this war will show that. We were incredibly arrogant pre-war, and now are realizing what others we deemed less smart than us knew before hand. We were offended that people didn't take us at our word re: WMDs and Al Queda connections, and now it seems more and more apparent that they were right to do so. And there are still those who are arrogant enough to demand that other nations send in their troops and help pay the bill while simultaneously insisting that we maintain military control. I actually saw the WH representative on Crossfire advocating that position with some stunningly arrogant comments. He said that other nations should send in troops and help pay the bill because 'it's the right thing to do." But then he literally laughed at the suggestion that the US should compromise with regards to military leadership, saying that it was ludicrous to even suggest that US troops should be put under the authority of " some African Red Helmet." When it was pointed out that the US was asking other nations to do the exact same thing...and asking them to do so to solve a problem we started, and a problem we told them to stay out of when they said not to...he merely repeated that it was ridiculous to suggest that US troops should be under the authority of another power, be it the UN, or whatever. The only reasonable position, it would seem, was for all the other nations to simply ackowledge our superiority and do what we want when we want it, even if it's with their own money and troops. THAT is wanting to have your cake and eat it, and THAT is the kind of jingoistic arrogance we have to overcome if we're going to get out of this mess. When we realize that our power isn't an indication that we're better, than maybe we'll be more responsible with it. Otherwise acting under the assumption that we are will get us into more messes like this one.
While I agree with most of your post, I would contend that America has mostly been different. I think America's been perhaps the most benevolent hegemon... ever. I think studying the Cold War does really highlight this. Yes, the US behaved rather badly at times. Yes, if you examine many individual actions, you're going to find flaws. But at the same time, if you examine Soviet and American behavior over the entire period... we were more humane. I just think it's important to maintain those standards.
I think (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong) that what MacB is saying here is not so much that we're no better than Pol Pot or Chinggis Khan in a moral sense, or in the sense of benevolence. Rather, I think he is trying to dispel the concept of American exceptionalism, which is more of a sense that the "rules" whatever they may be, don't apply to us. Example: we should be able to make a mess in Iraq, and expect others to help us clean it up. EDIT: what he said.
Two seperate points here: Were we more humane than the Soviets, and were we the most benevolent ever. On the first, it's arguable, certainly. On one respect we clearly didn't treat our cirtizens as callously as Satlin treated his, for example. On the other hand it could easily be argued that we were worse externally. We were much more guilty than the Soviets of undermining and/or completely ousting popular governments to replace them with murderous dictators, who we would then fund and support irrespective of their actions so long as they leaned to the right rather than the left. So I would say that we were better within our own borders, but arguably much worse when meddling in other people's backyards, which is the basis for much of the anti-US sentiment in those regions to this day. If you look at where the most ardent anti-US sentiments exist, they almost perfectly reflect the regions where Dulles-like actions were mosr prevelent; Central and South America, the Middle East, and South East Asia. And it's easy to dismiss those kinds of actions because we can ignore the millions of real life deaths which resulted, while simultaneously looking at the millions the Soviets killed within their borders with selfrighteous horror. It's a little worse than 'behaving badly' at times it was a consistent and pre-meditated decision making process which effectively said that what happened to them over there mattered little if it made things better for us over here. But when discussing the most benevloent hegemons ever, I'd argue. I actually wrote supporting your position at one point, but after years of more research I have altered my opinion. You have to consider a couple of points; how does the hegemon act in correlation to the morals of it's time, and the fact that almost all hegemons have to be reviewed in their entirety, and we have only been a hegemon for the blink of an eye, historically speaking. Several other hegemons in history have been probably more benevolent as acting powers; Britain, Egypt, the Arabs, and others for a few examples, relative to their times. I would possibly agree that our private citizenry, with acts like Band Aid, charitiable contributions, etc. have quite possibly been the most benevolent, although the Brits were huge into that kind of thing too... Another thing to consider is that benevolence itself is subjective. For example, almost all hegemons have operated under the assumption that their way was the best way, and then from their assumed that bringing their way to other regions was 'benevolent'. As we now know it often wasn't, or in even more cases the cost of doing so far outweighed the benefit, but at the time the people of the hegemons in question believed themselves to be benevolent. If you ever see a film called Topsy-Turvy, their is a scene in their when, in the midst of the British Empire days some Brits are sitting around a tea house discussing the shocking developments of an uprising in Africa, and were completely stupefied that the Africans were killing Brits for bringing them 'civilization.' This would have been a typical view, completely overlooking all the atrocities we now know the Brits were guilty of, or how much of the process of bringing others British civilization was merely for the benefit if the British pocket books. So, for example, consider the possibility for a second that to an Iraqi or an Iranian religion is their priority. Don't look at that priority from a Western perspective, with the superior assumption that they must be delluded to think that, but for the sake of argument consider that this is an accurate and valid reflection of their culture. And then consider that we have told them that religion can have no role in their government, not because they don't want it, but because we don't want them to have it. We are assuming that our way is the best way, like every other hegemon has in history, and we are calling forcing it on them 'benevolence'. Is it? Maybe, maybe not. Certainly we think so, but the Spanish thought bringing Christianity to the Americas was benevolent, even if it was at sword point. ANd we should also be careful to not confuse how we benefit from our actions with benevolence. That we have not had a pattern, since taking over the land of the Natives and trying to conquer Canada, of taking territory with our military might some consider that benevolent, but that is to miss the real one: Hegemons seek benefits to themselves concurrent with their needs and priorities. We do not ned terrain, in fact it would often be a burden to us. We need only so much land as to house troops in regions around the world to exert our strength, and we have that. Beyond that we want economic benefits, access to certain resources, and control of certain strategic regions...and look at what we have repeatedly done in Panama if you want an example of what we do when those priorities are threatened. Many powers have gone about exerting their strength in differing ways; not all have conquered and kept land...there are precedents for taking over other regions merely to impose reflective governments and impose friendly economic relationships...and they were called tyrants too. It's important to remember that, virtually without exception, the residents of almost every hegemon in history would have said and meant almost exactly the same thing about themselves as you said about the US. Nobody is the bad guy in their own movie. Just some thoughts...
Lol! Yeah, history was raised, so I got off onto another area, but in terms of what I was saying in the original post is almost exactly what Sam is saying here.
MacBeth: How much have you specifically studied the Cold War? You're simply wrong here. Soviet suppression of satellite republics (and even some allies) was absolutely brutal. The US was been cynical, anti-democratic, and ideologically hypocritical... yet it just didn't have the same iron hand. I'm something of a sympathizer with global socialism... and I'm hardly one to wax on Reaganesque rhetoric about the "Evil Empire..." but comparing the two in terms of repression and humanitariasm is an insupportable assertion. Maybe if Henry Kissinger had been Supreme Dictator... you'd be right .
No, we're not actually in disagreement on history here, we are merely differing in titles; I included the Soviet treatment of 'satellite' states as being within it's borders;ie not Russian but Soviet. But their actions in external nations...by that I mean outside the sphere of the Union...was nowhere near as destructive as that of the US. I think it's dangerous to say that comparing the two is insupportable. Certainly treatment of it's own citizens was incomparable, but in other lands we were at least as far from benevolent as the Soviets, and often more so. WHy do you think that we are the ones who are hated in Central and South America, in South East Asia, and in the Middle East, not the Soviets, if as you contend the Soviets were so much worse than us it's not comparable?
