They Got It Right: (6) Shibley Telhami
Can anybody head off a new war that we know will end badly? This is Shibley Telhami’s question at the end of our conversation about the Iran sequel to the misery in Iraq. His answer seems to be: No — we’re in the trap already, headed for the grinder.
Shibley Telhami: on the slippery slope
Professor Telhami at the University of Maryland is the only scholar we’ve interviewed in this series who briefed Karl Rove five years ago on the fallout of war on Iraq. Telhami proceeded to sign the prophetic New York Times ad in September, 2002 that spelled out the disaster unfolding then. Rove seemed to be listening for political damage to his boss, and heard nothing of what Telhami was warning about: damage to American standing in the Middle East , in the mirror, everywhere.
Shibley Telhami has a straight-talking individual voice in think-tank circles around Washington. He speaks from a fascinating personal history. He was born into a family of peacemakers and conciliators in an Arab Christian minority in a village near Haifa in 1951, when Israel was 3 years old. In Israeli and private schools, his first degrees were in mathematics and then philosophy before he took up international relations with Kenneth Waltz at Berkeley and more recently: polling in the Mideast.
So he is a social-science theorist with a flood of facts and factoids at his fingertips. Arab opinion, he says, is the flip of what the Bush White House wants to believe. That is: Arab Muslims, in fact, love Americans for our democratic values, (who we are), and hate us for our imperial policies, (what we do). We’re still the land of freedom and opportunity and the place for the ambitious to study and grow; but next to nobody believes the US is about “spreading democracy” or even a “war on terror” in the Middle East. There’s a “pervasive anger with the United States” in the Middle East today, Telhami says, and a 80- to 90-percent consensus that American policy is to “control oil, help Israel, and weaken the Muslim world.”
The US choice on attacking Iraq sounds spookily beyond rational or even political control:
We’re right on a slippery slope toward that war. We’re on a course for war. The objective has already been stated, and our political mainstream has accepted it. It’s not just that the Bush administration has stated it. No one has challenged the basic concept that ‘I will never allow Iran to acquire the knowledge’ — not even to acquire the weapons, but ‘to acquire the knowledge and the capacity to put the weapon together.’ Once you acquiesce in that you’re on the slippery slope toward war — even the Democrats who are saying: ‘let’s try diplomacy first…’ …It’s fascinating about our political system. The most important thing is the assumption at the beginning. If you’re assuming that this is something that has to be done — something you cannot live without doing, that all your strategies are intended to prevent them from having nuclear weapons, that you have to prevent them from having them, at all costs — then in the end you’re going to have war. We don’t pay attention to that assumption at the beginning. It kind of sneaks in. The President could make it in a speech, and no one takes it on. And then it becomes Conventional Wisdom. And then we’re entangled talking about the tactics, and not paying attention to the slippery slope that was begun by the very declaration of the statement of how our interests are defined… My worry is that, if you go to war with Iran and we don’t have an end to the Iraq war, we have structural conditions that are setting in motion a process that — no matter who the President is — they cannot stop. That’s my worry, and that’s how I see Iran in this case.”
Shibley Telhami, in conversation with Chris Lydon, October 26, 2007
Click to listen to Chris’s conversation with Shibley Telhami (10 MB MP3)
Is the takeaway message that our war machine is out of all control?
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
November 1st, 2007 at 7:53 am
The reason why United States policy is what it is in the Middle East is because we defend our access to the natural resources of the region. This is the raison d’être of the American Military presence there. If one owns a collection of jewelry one does not leave it in a park out in the open, trusting that people won’t come and take it. One must be able to protect ones investment. Having faith in human nature is a good thing – but the “hating the sin†and “loving the sinner†schism-thing doesn’t work in that part of the world. It’s actually a weakness i.e. one that is exploited by communists and atheists.
Shibley Telhami’s comment that “…Structural conditions that are setting in motion a process that — no matter who the President is — they cannot stopâ€, is absolutely correct. It is this way by design. It is an insurance policy to prevent the Dragon and the Mechanic from controlling the entire planet and its resources; to ensure the FACT that the lives of American Soldiers will be protected, and that the ones who fall in battle will be remembered, forever! The future belongs to them now. We understand that some people simply do not understand the Middle East and what in turn must be done to protect our interests there and ourselves at home. We understand that the Jew as Cosmic Enemy motif prevents otherwise rational people from surfacing from the weight of their blindness. We understand that the far left can shoot itself in the foot and blame someone else for pulling the trigger; that this kind of naiveté is both charming, and scandalous. But through the danger that they pose we keep in mind that their freedom to pose it must be protected. It is not actually a distraction. It is a sort of ‘discreet temperance’ – a reminder of the boundaries and limitations of *altruism*, and the delivery of the enemy right on the doorstep. (Luckily they haven’t figured out how to return the favor … otherwise we’d all be doomed), LOL.
For the record, I am against a war with Iran. I am in favor of those aspects of the “Just War†theory which indicate a minimal use of force. I think we should let Israel do Iran, but not until we tell them to. If it wasn’t for the United States and Great Britain Israel would not exist. They are standing by as a military ally and friend, but they are not calling the shots. Israel understands that food on the plate is more important than friendship, and they are working towards a solution from that angle.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:13 am
Thanks- Telhami is a frequent guest on the Newshour and he is always interesting and informative.
So more evidence ( as if we needed it) that the GWB administration had no lack of information from the other side of things. This is their betrayal of this country in it’s rawest form. They dismissed what they could not use to sell ( not inform) their own agenda. To be unecessarily kinder, they had the information-they lacked judgement and wisdom. All Rove was interested in was how Bush came off. But the real blame goes to Bush for making his political advisor primary. Telhamis poll results of the Arab street, the source of exploding discontent, meant nothing. What was really important was how to war, war which would give him, Bush, him Cheney, meaning. We can’t be harsh enough about this.
I think it was Desch here who makes the point, when speaking of realism versus idealism in our foreign policy, that the the public falls for this (Neocon) notion of transforming the world. And when we see and pay the consequences of our adventures, as we are now, we are chastened for awhile. But then we fall in love again….and swing back to this arrogant notion.
The most recent Zogby poll that shows 52% of likely voters, a majority, support a strike on Iran to prevent them from building a nuclear weapon. Considering what we have been through that is amazing. It also shows that there is little conception of how things escalate, and STILL too much belief that we can antiseptically take care of things this way.
Regarding Israel- too much is made of the US’s ability to control Israel especially regarding matters Israeli’s perceive existential. They will go it alone in those cases even given the strongest threats from the US. Absolutely. In the case of Iran, there are too many in Israel who really believe Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric. We can only make it worse for Israel with a strike.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:17 am
The reason why United States policy is what it is in the Middle East is because we defend our access to the natural resources of the region. This is the raison d’être of the American Military presence there.
We are not doing it very intelligently or wisely through “Shock and Awe” bombing, invasion, and occupation, humiliating and angering millions.
Telhami said that 90 percent of those polled by Zogby in the region felt that we were there to 1) CONTROL the oil (i.e not merely protect access), 2) help Israel, 3) WEAKEN THE MUSLIM WORLD.
(Talk about shooting oneself in the foot!!)
I f one owns a collection of jewelry one does not leave it in a park out in the open, trusting that people won’t come and take it. One must be able to protect ones investment.
Who owns the jewelry?
November 1st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Potter,
You said “We are not doing it very intelligently or wisely through “Shock and Awe†bombing, invasion, and occupation, humiliating and angering millionsâ€.
Did you ever crash a party?
You said “Telhami said that 90 percent of those polled by Zogby in the region felt that we were there to 1) CONTROL the oil (i.e not merely protect access), 2) help Israel, 3) WEAKEN THE MUSLIM WORLDâ€.
I’m not sure what ‘weaken the Muslim world means’. I for one am rooting for them to pull through what many scholars have referred to as a [Muslim] Reformation – you know – the one that took a wrong turn in 1979. Part of the problem, Potter, is that they cannot control their own trouble makers. So they need our help. If one day they could get their act together and centralize their leadership they wouldn’t need us hanging around.
“Protect accessâ€, “controlâ€, it is all semantics. I don’t have to give you a history lesson on America’s synergistic relationship with the Saudis. Saudi Arabia is right below Kuwait. Do you think the Saudis were militarily capable to stop Saddam Hussein if he had chosen to keep on going into their country? Do you have any idea who was supplying Saddam with certain [advanced] military technology? Did you know that Saddam owed Vladimir Putin billions of dollars? And so who do you think was next in line to sign prime oil contracts with Saddam? Spiderman? Daffy Duck? Or was it the little green men from Mars?
As for “helping Israel†I don’t see why democracies shouldn’t help each other, no matter where they are. However, I do maintain that at the end of the day our relationship with Saudi Arabia is more important than our relationship with Israel. On the other hand it is to our advantage to keep our friends from fighting one another as we have done since the end of WW ll in Europe. Jews are hard to like, but they are not the “root cause†of our problems. On September 11th 2001 some people upset the balance, and THAT is why we are where we are.
You asked “Who owns the jewelry� Answer: anyone who is willing to play by the rules. And don’t ask me who makes the rules. The rules impose themselves i.e. the distribution of the planets resources indicate an even amount for everyone. But once in a while someone makes a bid for more than they need, and it has to be rectified.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I hope to weigh-in on this fascinating conversation soon, but in the meantime I wonder if GodzillaVsBambi might clarify this statement, the better to know where I am:
“Jews are hard to like,”
November 1st, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Thanks again Chris. Great series. I hope you can go through a few more of these. I find Mr. Telhami’s view on the slippery slope, or absorbing assertions and assumptions as conventional factoids, very interesting and I agreeable. One should make sure that the base assertion is correct before iterating through more general assertion(s).
Another person who got it right: Mohamed ElBaradei
November 1st, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Yeh, ditto to hurley! Wtf GvB?
November 1st, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Hurley,
You said “I wonder if GodzillaVsBambi might clarify this statement, the better to know where I am: “Jews are hard to likeâ€.
Take it at face value and please don’t patronize me. Going into detail with this would be completely redundant.
November 1st, 2007 at 7:41 pm
It’s terribly sorrowful that the word “democracy” ( and it’s cousin “freedom”) being used as a war cry has been so abused that you have to wonder if many understand deeply ( or care) what democracy really means and how it has been undermined.
It’s ironic that as we try to democratise others for primarily selfish reasons, we lose more of our own democracy at home and more of the power we had at one time, as an example, even an imperfect one. That seems to have evaporated. The world, looking this way, sees mainly arrogance.
November 2nd, 2007 at 6:34 am
I think Godzilla is Jewish, if I remember correctly, and I took his “Jews are hard to like” as self-deprecating. Otherwise it could be misunderstood. I don’t see any need to be circumspect about the explanation, Godzilla, if I am correct. I don’t agree that Jews are harder to like than anyone else and I don’t see the point in making a statement that refutes Jews being the root cause of our problems unless what was meant was that Israel, Israeli’s, Jewish support for Israel is not the root cause of our problems. In that case I agree. But then you would have to add that Christian evangelical support for Israel is not the root cause of our problems either.
Then we would be tempted to go on to discuss the real root cause of our problems.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:31 am
Godzilla: I was hardly patronizing you. I was being polite, perhaps too much so given the tone of your reply. Your statement so egregious that I hoped it was a mistake. It’s an ugly sentiment, anyway you look at it, particularly at “face-value.” I could go into detail as to why, but as you say, that would be redundant. A rascist is a rascist, a cad a cad, It’s rare that either can be persuaded to be otherwise.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:33 am
P.S. Happy to be proved wrong.
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Hurley,
I do not believe the sentiment is as you say, “uglyâ€. I believe it to be true, and as a matter of course. I am sorry you misunderstood what I said. What is exquisitely prejudiced is when people hold opinions that have no basis in fact. When I said ‘Jews are hard to like’, I never thought someone would take it out of context, but yet you did.
It was mentioned within the overall context of Shibley Telhami’s comment that: “…80- to 90-percent consensus that American policy is to “control oil, help Israel, and weaken the Muslim world.†Which is to say that when one follows the media for a period of time one inevitably encounters allusions, and sometimes direct statements that if we could just somehow solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem, all our troubles would disappear. In reality [while trying hard to convey the continuum of the ‘context’] I was reminding people to use better judgment; to see past their prejudices and preconceived notions when attempting to analyze political situations of international proportion.
It is ‘also’ true that, as a Jew, my personal experience with other Jews has yielded this (hard to like) result. However, I would not for one moment allow my personal sentiments of other Jews to cloud my ability to analyze something.
My statement ‘Jews are hard to like’ stands inside, and outside of the context of this thread from both a personal and an academic perspective.
To suggest that someone’s personal experience counts for nothing is rude. As far as the word “racist†goes, that depends on what you mean since it has ‘two’ primary shades of meaning. Just like James Watson, I do not believe that correlative data and the recitation of facts and statistics in any way points to “racismâ€. It is often the case however that those who hurl the accusation of “racist†live in a fantasy world where facts and supposition trade places. One can argue the application of certain data or even its interpretation, but not the data itself.
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Godzilla,
Your irony maybe has the pitch of a dog whistle, so likely passing me by. My fault, no doubt.
I don’t understand what it means to be “exquisitely prejudiced,” or who you’re referring to.
The phrase “Jews are hard to like” yours of course. I wasn’t taking it out of context, but trying to situate it. That’s why I asked you to clarify it. It is, I trust you’ll admit, open to various interpretations. I know nothing of you, your past, but at first glance I had the depressing sensation there was an anti-Semite about.
Moving along, I never suggested that your personal experience counts for nothing, knowing nothing of it, so the charge of rudeness a mystery to me. Explain how I’ve been rude to you and I’ll count it a lesson, thanking you into the bargain.
James Watson a brave reference these days…
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Oy!
Hurley thanks for that- and that is what I thought you were thinking which is why I tried to clarify things with my interpretation. That interpretation of mine was in spite of the feelings that I had on the Edwidge Danticot exchange that there was racism about. I extricated myself from that after stating so.
But this business about “Jews are hard to like” confounds me because they are no harder to like than anyone else. To put it better, they are as easy to love as anyone else. I hope that cancels this out. I can state something as a truth as easily as the next person.
That Godzilla finds some of his fellow Jews hard to like I can understand too, particularly if he is at odds with them about certain things they hold dear, which I think is the case if I remember past postings. So “Jews are hard to like” is, as Godzilla says about personal feelings and NOT a fact. Left unqualified at first until we nudged it out of Godzilla, Hurley and Samgr’s intial responses were entirely appropriate in my view.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Potter,
Your comment: “I think Godzilla is Jewish, if I remember correctlyâ€, is very funny. So much so that I find it distracting when I try to think now! Thanks. To clarify … Godzilla is Japanese, but I am Jewish. On the other hand, anyone who can cause as much destruction as Godzilla must have some Jewish in them. I don’t remember any genitalia on Godzilla, so he must have been a female. Come to think of it, I don’t remember any genitalia on King Kong, either. Perhaps they should do another sequel.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Hurley,
You said “I don’t understand what it means to be “exquisitely prejudiced,†or who you’re referring toâ€. You must be kidding! The reason why I said it is BECAUSE of when you said “A rascist is a rascist, a cad a cad, it’s rare that either can be persuaded to be otherwiseâ€. THAT is exquisitely prejudiced. I come with empirical data and personal experience. You call me a “racist†attempting to circumvent my personal experience, out rightly denying it. Is that not prejudiced? Or are you just calling me a liar?
Is it politically incorrect to say that ‘Jews are hard to like’? Too bad. I try not to filter anything between my brain and the keyboard. You can sugarcoat it if you’d like, but it is more than generally true (approximately 85%), and also has a basis in historical fact that can be easily illustrated. If I say Black people score lower on SAT & GED than their White counterparts, are you going to deny that too and then call me a “racistâ€? If I point out that Black people have a more symmetrical musculoskeletal structure than White people, and as a result are better at sports, are you going to call me a “racistâ€? If I said that the average Jewish IQ is 15 – 18 points higher than the average White IQ, are you going to call me a “racistâ€? Let’s not forget: Jews are not “Caucasianâ€, they are Semitic. If I said that Germans are the best physicists in the world (in the grand Alchemical Tradition; then there is always the Russians, but they are not as accurate as we are, but that’s another story), would you call me a “racistâ€?! Hurley, your agenda is very thick! You are prejudiced, you have much to learn, and you are afraid to think for yourself!!
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Hurley,
This would be the part where I breathe fire to finish roasting the carcass of my prey.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:21 pm
I’ll answer for myself, Gozilla. I think you are racist. That is you see people in terms of their race and then you go ahead and generalize about it. Totally unenlightened and uninformed- not about being politically correct.
It is very important what conclusions and explanations you draw from stats such as you give.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:16 pm
I don’t know about you Godzizzle, but I’m Jewish and I consider myself to have almost godlike powers of personal magnetism. Chris knows what I’m talking about.
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:38 am
Christopher: Thanks for continuing your thoughtful programming. This is a great topic and it’s nice to have the insights of those who got it right - especially now that other media are focused again on those who got it wrong.
A comment of Godzilla vs. Bambi:
“The reason why United States policy is what it is in the Middle East is because we defend our access to the natural resources of the region.”
There’s a foundational assumption expressed here; and it is intriguing in a number of ways:
1. This is a common belief among US citizens; that supply of these Middle East resources is threatened; that US military occupation is needed to ensure that oil will flow; that when it flows, the military will ensure that it goes to US consumers; that despite all the cover stories of WMD, freedom, war on terror, etc., the war is about securing oil for the US.
2. Even though this is a common belief it is rarely spoken. It is especially rare that someone will express it as openly as Godzilla has here. The reason: the idea of controlling the resources of another country is inimical to common notions of freedom and justice. Yet it is also painfully apparent how much the resource is craved. And given recent expressions of Middle-Eastern animosity toward US imperialism, it is easy to generate fear that the resource may become unavailable. So the belief incorporates a dilemma. Lacking a comfortable resolution, the belief has been relegated to the public subconscious - it is not openly acknowledged (except by a critical minority).
3. While referencing the belief with euphemisms like “regional strategic assets”, the political and intellectual Leadership encourages and builds the common belief – and uses it to gather support for policies that favor particular economic interests. The fact that the belief is unspoken lends it a special aura of importance in the public mind and conveniently allows the Leadership to avoid discussing the issue openly and rationally – in a way which might reveal policy implications which are not in the interest of the US public.
4. If it were more freely thought of and discussed, a major flaw in the belief would become obvious: despite the fact that the US public pays for the war and sends it’s people to fight it, the oil will not necessarily come to the US. A result of a “success†in the war would be that Leadership-favored oil companies (Shell and BP?) will be given rights to pump and sell the oil. Though their method of securing the oil supply would hardly be considered to be based on principles of “free-enterpriseâ€, their process of distribution will be: they will ship the oil to the highest bidder. Maybe to the US; maybe to China; or Europe – wherever price is best. It would be naive to believe these companies will have a special agreement to ensure a supply to the US.
Suppose the US did not have an imperialist approach to the Middle East and the resulting animosity did not exist - you might be tempted to ask: “wouldn’t an indigenous Iraq oil industry also want to sell to the highest bidder?†So do the people of the US benefit from the imperialist approach; from their personal sacrifice? Not unless they are stockholders in BP and Shell.
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:46 am
Forton Twelve- As to your number 1, “the foundational assumption”:
that supply of these Middle East resources is threatened; that US military occupation is needed to ensure that oil will flow; that when it flows, the military will ensure that it goes to US consumers; that despite all the cover stories of WMD, freedom, war on terror, etc., the war is about securing oil for the US
That is several separate assumptions based on a “primordial” ( my word) assumption that we have some right to it. This is a philosophical discussion I would like to have. That was why I responded “who owns the jewelry?” to Godzilla’s analogy that we own the oil or access to it or the investments we have in place to get it from the ground out to market.
Just what do we own here or have a right to? And is this, in the end, as it always has been, might making right? Or are we talking about natural rights that all people have to share in the resources of the world?
What about the folks who live on top of those resources? What rights do they have?; what ownership do they have? And if we have rights to ME oil and therefore rights to go invade to assure their flow, what rights do others have as well to do the same? And what rights to other’s have to our natural resources for that matter?
And what rights to others have to object to how self indulgent we are with limited resources that belong to everybody if they do belong to everybody ( which I think they do)?
What is at the root of the problem in my view ( since Godzilla inadvertantly begs the question is lack of awareness that we are all on a a rather small ship with limited resources and the old goals in place to keep on growing population and raising living standards.
I would love to here an interview with Robert Reich on “supercapitalism”.
The horror is how we here are losing our democracy in the process.
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:51 am
Sorry about my spelling: inadvertently, hear/here—
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:01 am
Puff the Magic Dragon,
Da capo: I don’t take your meaning, or your mien. You wrote a blatantly racist statement, which I politely asked you to clarify, an invitation you rather unpleasantly declined, and the tone was set. I wasn’t calliing you a racist — at the time. Your remark admitted of three conclusions: that you are a racist; a cad; both. I was offering you another chance, if not to redeem yourself, at least to reconsider your remarks for this informal record. In response? An unhinged recitation of your racial theories, none of them germane to the theme of this program. And then a ridiculous and belligerent statement of vainglorious delusion. Get a grip, and stop playing with matches. The only person you’ve burned is yourself. Furthermore, if you’ve any interest in Open Source finding a sponsor and getting back on the air, there’s no point in soiling the nest. I can’t imagine any potential backer short of Charles Murray reading your remarks and ponying up. For my part, this tedious discussion is closed.
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Potter,
You said “It is very important what conclusions and explanations you draw from stats such as you giveâ€. I agree, but what about the following? Forget about “conclusions and explanations†just for a moment. How about the idea that these things simply exist? If you can get past this without being too concerned about what other people might think, or if it is politically correct, then we can have a real debate.
I don’t mean to be coy here, but what EXACTLY do you mean by “racistâ€? On Dictionary.com they give: “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule othersâ€. Read the definition again because this is of the utmost importance. Do I believe that “inherent differences†are “determining factors†in individual and (by extension) cultural achievements? Yes, absolutely. Do I believe that because of these differences in IQ, aptitude, physical ability, and aesthetics that “THEREFORE, one race has the right to rule over othersâ€? No, absolutely not! But I am positive that most people are afraid to discuss the subject, not to mention maintaining composure. I believe there are hereditary differences between people, but – now this is key – that these differences in NO WAY point to, or even allude to, the idea that one man is ‘morally’ superior or inferior to the other!!
If you can’t get that right in your head Potter, it’s not my problem. You don’t have the right to call me a “racist†until you understand the issue.
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Forton Twelve, (Part One).
In your first mistake you said “This is a common belief among US citizens; that supply of these Middle East resources is threatenedâ€.
That depends on what you mean. It was in fact being threatened, but not in the way that you suggest. It was being threatened directly by the Russians and the Chinese causing trouble in the Middle East – a whole story that I trust the reader not take my word for it, but do his or her own research. Here is a strong lead. It’s no big secret that the Soviet-Afghan War was CIA funded. It is also no secret that many scholars suggest that the cost of that war is what led to the economic collapse of the Soviet Union. And plus the fact that there were no laws there to prevent insider trading during the reign of the oligarchs. So what does all this mean? It means that enough people in Russia were convinced that the hardships they have endured since then is America’s fault. That they have been working with Al Qaeda and the Chinese in seeking revenge immediately after 1989, beginning by teaming up with Saddam, turning him against us, and by supplying him with advanced weaponry. That’s why we went into Iraq. So don’t believe what you hear. Just because you don’t understand your own propaganda, that doesn’t mean that you should embrace the enemies!
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Forton Twelve, (Part Two).
In your second mistake you said “…The war is about securing oil for the USâ€. This is incorrect. The oil was already secure. It was a question of degree. The correct way formulate the question is as follows. To what [proportional] extent did the oil now (1990) need to be secured, since the environment in the region was changing?
In your third mistake you said “…The idea of controlling the resources of another country is inimical to common notions of freedom and justiceâ€. True enough. However, if the leader of that country is on the payroll of another country, as Saddam was once on our payroll, and he wakes up one morning and decides to ‘go it alone’, sounds to me like a serious breach of contract. Hence, if a revolution, assassination, or coup d’état is not possible – while the despotic leader remains in power with a Mafia-like hold over the population and does whatever he wants – then more serious, more obvious measures need to be taken.
Furthermore, constitutional democracy and the rule of law takes time, lots of time. The word democracy is loaded with propaganda. But it is nevertheless ‘our’ propaganda, as opposed to say communist propaganda. To think that we would march into Iraq and convert all the sand monkeys to Christianity while turning them in to constitutional scholars and law experts is of course a joke. But if this is isolated and understood only in a vacuum, then all the other reasons I sited today fall on deaf ears.
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Forton Twelve, (Part Three).
In your next mistake you became critically delusional. You said “Yet it is also painfully apparent how much the resource is craved. And given recent expressions of Middle-Eastern animosity toward US imperialism, it is easy to generate fear that the resource may become unavailable. So the belief incorporates a dilemma. Lacking a comfortable resolution, the belief has been relegated to the public subconscious - it is not openly acknowledged (except by a critical minority)â€.
How amateurish is that? If Freud were alive he’d slap your face. How could you possibly even think of analyzing geopolitics and Conflict Resolution in these terms? You remind me of James Baldwin who used to apply red, black, and green poetry to everything around him – pointing his unenlightened finger at those who dragged him out of the jungle in an ungrateful and unsuccessful attempt to chastise the hand that lifted him up from his vestigial and primitive existence.
You said “If it were more freely thought of and discussed, a major flaw in the belief would become obvious: despite the fact that the US public pays for the war and sends it’s people to fight it, the oil will not necessarily come to the USâ€.
This is one reason why it should be apparent that oil is not the “only reason†why we set up shop in the Middle East. Take notice on how I don’t have a problem discussing oil as a primary reason. There are other reasons which we may or may not cover on this thread.
You said “A result of a “success†in the war would be that Leadership-favored oil companies (Shell and BP?) will be given rights to pump and sell the oilâ€.
You mean kind of like we have now? Or do you mean like how the Russians have been jealous of American and British oil contracts since WW l, and how they made a bid for what they were unable to secure in the ‘80’s? I guess we can leave this to the self loathers, the losers and the neurotics, whose poetic metaphor doesn’t stretch beyond the boundaries of fiction and creative typing.
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Forton Twelve, (Part Four).
You said “So do the people of the US benefit from the imperialist approach; from their personal sacrifice? Not unless they are stockholders in BP and Shellâ€.
That is unnecessarily cynical, and ridiculous. On the face of it do we not benefit by LIVING INSIDE the very country that secures our freedom? The country where the stockholders reinvest their capitol with their own country in mind? Indeed, who ‘should’ they keep in mind? Oh, I forgot … it is morally ambiguous to have money ‘and’ be patriotic at the same time. Now I understand. Only poor people have the right and the ability to be patriotic. How Manichaean and passé is that?
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Hurley,
I meant to give you credit for something, but then I forgot. When you asked if I would admit that my ‘Jews are hard to like’ comment is “Open to various interpretationsâ€, the answer is yes, of course.
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:34 pm
GvsV ; Hang in there your doing quite well. This is like watching a discussion group on any MSM network. 3 or 4 liberal journalists vs one who represents a clear thinking rational approach to todays important issues.
I think it’s called a fair fight.
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:09 pm
I don’t want to get involved in Godzilla’s “fair fight,” but I would like to zero in on Potter’s philosophical discussion about “who owns the jewelry.” I think the reasoning that the US invaded Iraq for the control of its oil reserves is a drastic oversimplification. Indeed, oil is a huge factor, but I think the bigger picture shows that it’s only one jewel in a very elaborate crown. The US brand of imperialism has a much more complex formula than the older models, which were simply one nation seeking to subjugate another for the spoils of war. To be sure, the US government is not, despite its rhetoric, acting in order to protect its citizens from any threat.
The invasion of Iraq was, even from a conservative viewpoint, part of an effort to restructure the Middle East (side note - how come I’ve yet to hear George HW Bush’s famous “new world order” phrase in any discourse on the war?). There was never any indication that the nation of Iraq had any ability to attack the US, its “brutal dictator” had only very loose control over a very small portion of his country, which was in shambles from more than a decade of nonstop bombing and harsh sanctions. If the US was solely interested in controlling the oil coming out of Iraq, would the full scale invasion really be necessary? Would it have been more sensible to dominate and control the resources without having to worry about things like setting up a viable government and preventing sectarian violence among the population?
It seems to me that the really valuable jewels are more abstract. What is the difference between the Iraq of 2002 and the Iraq of 2007, in terms of the economy and outside business prospects? Prior to the invasion, business prospects were thin, it was a closed market. Now, with the government of Iraq so weak it cannot even oversee basic matters of infrastructure, the market is open not only to military and government contracts, but to private industry. How long did it take Motorola to start building cell phone towers in Iraq? Surely, oil is the biggest jewel, but the impetus for restructuring the Middle East is rooted in the fact that Iraq was already an asset, having been under US domination for over a decade. But it was a “low performing” asset, and now it is a “booming market” (forgive the horrible pun, it’s really nothing to laugh about).
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Thanks ghostofdali- Interesting response. In the old model, the spoils of war were the accumulation of power ( glory) which meant conquering land for it resources (gold) subugating it’s people under the banner of civilizing primitive cultures and bringing them religion (gospel). I was thinking that the invasion of iraq is not much different from the old colonialism. Also we should be way past this considering what we know.. or should know by now.
Going forward are we doomed, still unable to emerge from the old model? What about international law?
The UN Charter forbids what we have done doesn’t it? Shouldn’t we be censured or kicked out of the UN. This especially if we in the US can’t bring ourselves to impeachment hearings to show we as a people do not approve. Or do we collectively approve? 52% are okay about invading Iran to prevent that country building a nuclear weapon. That means now.
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Potter,
I think there are some big differences between the old model of colonialism and current US imperial motives. Your points of glory, gold, and gospel are right on, but the distinction I was trying to make is more a matter of methodology than ideology. The old world empires built power by conquering lands and gaining subjects, exploiting their labor and natural resources to directly support the empire, which maintained direct control over the conquered lands. I don’t think Iraq will become the 51st state, or even a “territory” like Puerto Rico or the Philippines, and it doesn’t seem like Washington wants to be bothered governing the land any longer than it absolutely has to. The intention is to create a sovereign nation that will play ball with the US, not to absorb it by direct rule.
I don’t know if the UN charter forbids what the US has done in Iraq, but I think if it were a clear violation of the “letter of the law,” then it would have been challenged by now. The groundwork for this invasion was very carefully laid, and I doubt there is any legal basis for meaningful censure either internationally or internally. The government cannot be expected to censure itself for its own actions, and most elected officials seem to be fully behind the actions in Iraq. The people, however, have been largely against it from the get go, let’s not forget the massive protests that took place even before the invasion began and they continue to the present. As far as I know, that was the first time large scale protests hit the street before the military even deployed.
I don’t know how much the 52% being okay with invading Iran really amounts to, it’s a sure thing that those 52% won’t sign up to join the military when and if that prospect matures. For me personally, I find the president’s talk of “World War Three” the be most frightening primarily because it’s a war we cannot possibly win. The US has no ground to stand on with the Iranian issue, as it insists that Iran must not even have the knowledge to create nuclear weapons, while at the same time the US government is developing new generations of those same weapons. And while ignorant right-wingers can spew bravado about such an invasion, those who can truly conceptualize the reality of what a military conflict with Iran would cost in lives and in dollars will tell you it is not a viable option. 52% may be willing to approve the invasion in a poll, but they approach it with the same mindset as if they were voting for American Idol - it is not informed consent, it is manufactured consent.
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:42 pm
also, re: my last post about opening markets. NY Times, Feb 17, 2003
hopefully this URL will work.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE2DA113AF934A25751C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Potter news flash. We invaded Iraq to free the country from a brutal dictator who practiced genocide,murder and systematic rape of it’s own people. Something the UN in it’s formation was designed to stop.It was also feared that S.H. possesed WMD’s, this later proved to be incorrect.There was a strong belief that S.H. would use (or more probable) allow terrorist groups to have access to these weapons in an attempt to inflict more damage on the USA. The majority of Dems who also had access to intelligence agreed. No need to print all the quotes and speeches from Clinton to Kerry etc.. We have all read them although most liberals have decided to forget this little fact.
We can argue the shortcomings of intelligence reports,or the cherry picking of information that supported the administrations case for invading Iraq. On this many mistakes were made. We can also debate wheather the administration had any clue as to what might happen after major combat ended. They apparently had no clue.
As to the UN, you must be joking. This is the most corrupt, ineffectual,say everything,but do nothing organization that is currently in existence. If they had done their job in the first place we would not be dealing with this problem today.
Kofi and his gang at the UN were to busy with their oil for money scam they were running with S.H. to actually care about his crimes against humanity. Hell why kill the goose that laid the golden egg. No the USA should not be kicked out of the UN, We should withdraw in protest.
This war is actually far different than any other war. We have no designs on taking over Iraq, or changing their religon. We also have no plans of subugating them as you state. We actually want to leave Iraq as a free democracy. This is totally different than most wars. Factually we are trying to help the people of Iraq not hurt them. Unfortunately many Iraquis prefer violence and murder.
I think Bushes biggest mistake was thinking these people wanted a better life. On that count he seems to be quite wrong.
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:53 pm
For the sake of continuity and thoroughness I would like to insert something on this thread that I posted on a different thread on ROS back in July.
>>
Unlike the empires of old our “empire†does not require us to occupy the territories of countries that have willingly become a part of it. We provide military protection to those regimes who gain wealth through the rule of law and democratic reform not because we say so, but because history proves that it works. In this context Iraq, which is a military issue, is an exception. Our “empire†is economic in nature and therefore does not necessarily require the presence of troops to hold on to territory. It is therefore a mistake to equate American military hegemony with resurgent “imperialism†or with what is happening in Iraq – unlike the empires of old that primarily used occupation and force to achieve their goals.
November 4th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Potter,
You present deep questions in an admirable attempt to get at the heart of the matter. I admire your curiosity. On my Nov 1, 12:25 PM post I said, to answer your “Who owns the jewelry†question: ‘anyone who is willing to play by the rules’. I can think of two rather luminous contemporary circumstances that answer your question in more detail.
First, the Chinese are pouring cheaply made goods, people, and money over the Kazakhstan border at an alarming pace. So much so in fact that it has led the Kazakhstan president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, to publically lament his concern speculating that all these Mainland Chinese goods may, sometime in the not too distant future, destabilize his country’s economy, and consequently there is now a lot of resentment in the region. There was a whole big legal battle in 2005 in which a Canadian court dismissed a lawsuit against the CNPC, China National Petroleum Company, for significantly overpaying for Petrokaz: a firm that owns ‘most’ of the oil fields in Kazakhstan. How does this fit in to your “philosophical” inquiry? Before I answer that let me just add that what is going on in Burma may also be a question ‘Southern’ Chinese expansion. I’ve only looked at that topically, so I’m not so sure about it. And finally, spying activity in America by the Chinese and Russians is currently approaching cold war levels. “Who owns the jewelry?” My answer: ‘anyone who is willing to play by the rules’. But not everyone believes in playing by the rules. So our policies, political and military, must never be static – they must be dynamic, and adjusted in direct proportion to what is happening on the ground. Chinese expansionism is a serious issue, and our military outpost in Afghanistan is deterring expansion in that direction, etc.
Second, (speaking of “Who owns the Jewelry?â€) a cursory investigation into how Russia threatens to hold the rest of Europe hostage using Gazprom, Russia’s largest oil and Gas Company, by coming to the table with its own Mafia-like rules. It has already cut gas to the Ukraine, and threatened Belarus that it would triple prices. When you take into consideration the Russian leaderships’ (Vladimir Putin and the Russian Military, but not necessarily its citizenry) thug mentality, its ideology, oil and nuclear weapons, we are left with a very powerful entity who is also exhibiting or at least feigning expansionist intentions. Why did we go into Iraq? Because we had to!
“Who owns the jewelry?†In theory we all do. But in practice it is more a matter of how different ideologies converge on the same piece of geography, and who is threatening to take food off of whose plate, or not.
November 4th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Ther is a remedy for the Bush/Cheny policies problem: IMPEACHMENT! GET RID OF THOSE CRIMINALS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND SAVE THIS COUNTRY! PLEASE DO PROGRAMS ON IMPEACHMENT!
Kucinich Will Impeach Cheney
Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced H.Res. 333 in April to impeach Vice President Cheney for his pre-war lies about Iraq and for threatening an invasion of Iran. And thanks to your heroic grassroots efforts, there are 21 co-sponsors.
Speaker Pelosi blocked Judiciary Committee hearings on the bill, but Rep. Kucinich will force a floor vote on Tuesday using his right of personal privilege.
Kucinich’s courageous act will put members of the House on record. Are they going to fulfill their oath of office to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”? Or will they support a Vice President whose lies about Iraq cost the lives of nearly 4,000 Americans and possibly $2.4 trillion in our tax dollars - and whose lies about Iran threaten to start World War III?
Call your Representative (not Senators) and tell them to support Kucinich’s resolution to impeach Dick Cheney, H.Res. 333:
800-828-0498, 800-862-5530, 800-833-6354
More actions to support Kucinich’s impeachment resolution:
http://impeachcheney.org
Kucinich explains this week’s vote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSbGUOOQCpU
Brave New Films Video about Cheney’s impeachable offenses:
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/4987-impeach-dick-cheney
_____________________
Who Will Filibuster Mukasey?
Michael Mukasey refuses to say that waterboarding is torture because Dick Cheney won’t let him - otherwise he would have to prosecute Cheney and Bush as war criminals. Mukasey also believes the President can ignore FISA and the Constitution and wiretap American citizens without a warrant, which maks the President a Dictator.
Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) betrayed the Constitution and embraced waterboarding and dictatorship by announcing their support for Mukasey. But Mukasey’s nomination can be defeated if 40 Democrats support a filibuster - and it takes just one Senator to start one.
So we’re petitioning every Senator who claims to be a progressive leader: Joe Biden at JoeBiden.com … Barbara Boxer at Pac for a Change … Hillary Clinton at HillaryClinton.com … Chris Dodd at ChrisDodd.com … Russ Feingold at the Progressive Patriots Fund … Ted Kennedy at the Committee for a Democratic Majority … John Kerry at JohnKerry.com … Barack Obama at BarackObama.com … Harry Reid at Searchlight Leadership Fund … Bernie Sanders at Bernie.org
http://www.democrats.com/filibuster-mukasey
Also tell your Senators to oppose Mukasey:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/122
Call the undecided Senators and report their responses:
http://www.democrats.com/mukasey-judiciary-whip
Join the Democratic Donor Strike against Chuck Schumer’s DSCC:
http://www.democrats.com/donor-strike-2007
Tell your Senators to support Chris Dodd’s filibuster of warrantless wiretapping:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/114
November 4th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Amy Harlib,
How black and white. How crude and unsophisticated. How narrow in scope. How scandalous and unbalanced. Yet it is entertaining; an excellent example of the far left neo-Marxism that the enemy is attracted to. This is what I meant by ‘…right on the doorstep’, etc. Keep up the good work … now at least we know where to hunt!
November 4th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Amy, while your at it why don’t you also try and get all the senators who voted for going to war thrown out of office.
I would also like to know why you want to deny Mukasey his chance to serve. I watched some of the hearings. He never embraced waterboarding he just doesn’t know all the facts. It would be irresponsible to come too any type of conclusion on a subject that he does not have all the information on. His actual words were that he found it repugnent.
Why should the house have a problem with this issue. They had a chance to catergorize waterboarding as torture and they decided not to.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
BTW- I have had a hard time getting this page to load for three days and have not been able to read this thread.
Ghost of Dali thank you.
I think you make a good point about the difference between the US’s form of imperialism ( maybe it’s not “colonialism” ) arrogance and that of empires of the last centuries. But the difference is not great enough. The real world has advanced so far beyond toleratingf this kind of behavior that it can only lead to more 9/11 type wake-up calls. Susan Sontag had it right though I will be the first to say that she spoke so soon that no one who was in shock could hear her or wanted to hear her, including myself. I only wish I could hear what she would say today. We fool ourselves perhaps into thinking we are a “mature” democracy. Our democracy is apparently quite vulnerable.
November 5th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Potter,
You’re welcome, glad you could make it back on. I didn’t mean to say that US foreign policy doesn’t have any relationship to colonialism or imperialism, I was just making the distinction for my own use of the terms at the time. You’re certainly right that they are strongly related, and I’m sure that it’s part of one expansionist imperative that has guided the United States throughout the past century. Chalk it up to “manifest destiny.”
What you have to say about our “mature” democracy (who called it THAT, anyway?) is also very interesting. Funny thing about how people think about democracy always as something positive. If a group of people were to democratically decide to do something terrible or immoral, it wouldn’t be thought of as being positive simply because it was a democratic decision. Israel, as a democracy, has consistently chosen to brutally oppress the Palestinians for generations, now going so far as to even deny them access to electricity and running water. The US government democratically chose (and continues to choose) an “assimilate or die” policy with the indiginous populations in its conquered territories, sometimes choosing outright genocide instead of even offering that choice. Democracy has no inherent virtues, and there is no need to support governments solely because they proclaim themselves (often erroneously) to be democratic.
What’s interesting about the rebuilding of Iraq is that the rhetoric is always centered around “giving them” democracy. Hidden in that prospect is the less appealing discourse about “winning hearts and minds,” which is a terribly Orwellian prospect. Giving a population access to a ballot is one thing, but controlling how they will use that right is much more suspicious. The successes of the US government to systematically marginalize the popular vote and control its own democratic process are not assumptions that can be relied on in “less mature” nations. The truth is that people will choose democratic processes whenever and however they can, unless they are prevented from doing so. The results of those processes can vary widely, however.
November 5th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
RC21- News Flash! You’ve been demagogued! But little reality crept in: at least you can admit some mistakes though you excuse them by saying Democrats made the same mistake by approving. No they did not. Not the same crime, though they did enable. Not so for leader in chief who was salivating for war.
As far as I know, the US invaded without UN approval under weak guise of self-defense through preemption using this trumped up cherry-picked evidence (a special thanks goes to Colin Powell). That is in violation the Un Charter which we have signed- never mind the other international laws we have broken nevermind the US Constitution which dies not allow a president to go to war without approval from Congress. Congress cannot give that decision to the President as it did. Correct me anybody who knows better.
We should at least suffer a resolution against us at the UN- that is if the UN was working properly. Can you imagine one? You are right that it isn’t. But it needs to happen. However imperfect the UN though, it’s all we have in terms of an international body. We are sorely in need of one that works and this episode proves.
Are you one of the 52% of likely voters that want to invade Iran?
November 5th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Regarding the UN Charter and the [legality of] Use of Force Sgainst Iraq,
http://www.lcnp.org/global/iraqstatement3.htm
November 6th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Sorry for my typos- typing in the dark without my specs is not a good idea.
Ghost of Dali the “mature democracy” phrase comes from Sontag linked above. Read the whole quote above (not long), very sober:
The unanimity of the sanctimonious, reality-concealing rhetoric spouted by American officials and media commentators in recent days seems, well, unworthy of a mature democracy.
Are we a “mature democracy”? What would a healthy mature democracy be like? Does it go through periods such as this? This is the experiment. It’s corrupted. Sometimes I think Israel is a better one. At Israeli’s seem more involved and informed. This may be a function of size and collective feelings of vulnerability .
Here, unharnessed capitalism and it’s interference in the electoral process has diminished our democracy brought us immature leaders like Bush even as we have grown fat (literally), powerful. Our shamefully partisan Supreme Court in a one-off decision after a close tainted election literally put a gun in the hands of a kid, so unprepared Bush was to lead us. And his guardian( Cheney) was a gross disappointment- a man we thought we knew but did not.
A mature democracy to my mind assumes a much more informed and involved citizenry and a shared vision of who we are. We don’t share that most basic vision. And we have been vulnerable ( especially since 9/11) to demagoguery like “the war on terrorism” and “war†against “islamofascism”. “Getting and spending weâ€, here in the workaday world, “lay waste our powersâ€. We don’t revolt anymore. We post. Some of us.
In Israel, the majority were in favor of a land deal with the Palestinians in exchange for peace long ago. Also on the Palestinian side. Those opposed were very loud and active. After Rabin’s murder, the failures of Oslo, the second more violent intifada uprising at the end of Barak’s term, the election of Sharon- most lost heart. The vocal energized minority on both sides felt a right to every bit of the land and would fight for it. But put to a referendum majorities on both sides would have agreed to fair peaceful settlement that included concessions– long ago. Or so the polls would have us believe. Even today, if Olmert and Abbas could come up with something, I think you would find a majority of the people voting for it. And Hamas would follow suit; they would have to or lose power.
I don’t know to what degree Israel is cutting off water and power but to be fair, I read by only a fraction- for short periods. Not that I am in favor of this method of squeezing Hamas to control terrorists groups within Gaza firing rockets into Israel.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:24 am
On September 11th, 2001, the world changed. A group of people attacked the United States in a way similar to that of the attack on Pearl Harbor. I wonder if the same people when discoursing on the tragedy of 911, who opportunistically avoid mentioning that we were in fact attacked, would have also suggested that the United States do nothing in response to the Japanese attack in 1941. Could the agenda ridden rhetoric of the far left be twisted to such an extent to blame America for 1941 as it blames America for 911? The two tragedies are similar. But one major difference is the quality of the ‘people’ who interpret these events.
There is more information available to us now in 2007 than there was in 1941, but some people do not know how to interpret it. They gather up a few facts, a few loosely connected correlations, and then they think they know more than the people who are directly involved, who do it for a living. What a joke. One thing people here on ROS do not understand is the difference between defending an individual, or a country. The rules that apply to personal sentiment and ideology DO NOT APPLY with countries as a whole. One person’s privacy is not more important than an entire country’s safety! The NSA eavesdrops on us because they sift for certain data which may indicate an attack on the country AS A WHOLE, not on some self loathing far left loser working for the Pope and taking it up the ass in his mommy’s basement.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Potter, No I’m not in favor of invading Iran. I would have to look at all the intell when it comes to a decision on a surgical strike to take out nuclear sites.
GvB; At work several people were discussing the war a documentry about WW2,by Ken Burns, and the overiding consensus was this. If todays media was covering WW2 we most assuredlly would have been defeated. I’m not sure when or why so many liberals actually turned into anti Americans and I’m sure many are not anti American, but they seem to own the media as well as academia.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Rc21,
I am not in favor of a war or strike on Iran either. I think it’s all hype on both sides. However, one cannot rule out the possibility of a “suicide nation†i.e. if enough crazy people in Iran have just enough power to pull something off – say a nuke strike on Israel – then a response would be forced. But I do know this. The best way to get Iran to continue uranium enrichment is to browbeat them and tell them not to do it. What is the first thing a teenager does when you tell him not to do something? And so it is the same with nations who look to become major players. What is more important than the leadership in Iran at the moment is our relationship with the Russians. The Russians have billions of dollars invested in Iran (as do the Chinese) and they are helping them with nuclear technology. Iran is not going to start a war with Israel without Russian approval, in the same way that Israel will not do anything to Iran without our approval. So there is a sort of stalemate in the region in which Iraq is the playground that the boys can fight and get it out of their system, while not wiping each other out. It will just take them a while to admit that they’re losing.
You said “I’m not sure when or why so many liberals actually turned into anti Americans and I’m sure many are not anti American, but they seem to own the media as well as academiaâ€.
That is a really big question which can be approached in many different ways. In the most general terms it is because liberalism is given to selfishness. I am talking about the selfishness of ‘ideas’. Just a little bit of logic and you can convince some people of almost anything. But when it comes to politics logic does not necessarily indicate truth. It is the same thing with religion and philosophy. Then it becomes more complicated when other people and nations are involved because they each interpret reality in different ways. This liberal ‘selfishness’ is also illustrated when liberals condescend that they know better because of a masters degree, or two or three years at some collage. (I call Liberal Arts witchcraft).
I have had many conversations with liberals in person, in which they inevitably hit below the belt, questioning ones intelligence or morality, level of education, etc. It soon becomes obvious that they think everyone else should think the way they do. They judge other’s not by relating to and respecting their experience, but by attempting to replace it with their own perceptions, to tear it down and break it because the ego wishes to retain the original construct. It is easier to destroy than it is too build or preserve, and if a liberal can destroy someone else’s ‘idea’, it makes them feel better, probably a mammalian reflex of some kind. And that’s selfish. It is of course much more structured that I have just presented, but it serves as workable outline.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
What baloney. We were attacked by little more than an aspiring criminal gang hoping to expand further. They had friends that gave them a great place to hide and train ( Taliban/Afghanistan). We have gone and made it much worse for ourselves by invading Iraq, killing untolled 10’s of thousands, hundreds of thousands, causing the continuing displacement millions. Our own numbers lost are about 1000 more than we lost on 9/11. We have gone into tremendous debt that our children and granddhildren will be paying for. So as you cheer each other, answer what have we got? Made any progress? Are we in better shape at home? More secure? Is the US considered a force for good in the world? Are we more secure because of warrantless eavesddropping? Are we gaining any valuable information we need through torture and rendition? Is all this worth breaking international law never mind our own law?
9/11 as horrible as it was, was no Pearl Harbor except it was another wake up call. There was no war in progress on 9/11. Osama Bin laden was no country equipped with a large army and all the machinery of war at his disposal. OBL had no powerful allies in the West as Japan was in concert with Germany and Italy.
Instead of carefully considering our course of action, our president acted like a cowboy. He and his sidekick, the VP, were cowards that evaded service themselves. But they were quick to take our guns and our boys girls women and men and start shooting in all directions .
The world changed as much as it did after 9/11 largely because of our ill-considered responses which were more than OBL could have wished for. Comfortable somewhere OBL’s program is alive and well.
RC21. When you get the “intell” on Iran, it please share it with us.
November 6th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
You don’t get it Potter. You have the ability to think deeply, but you just don’t get it. You have to think horizontally as well as vertically. Here is how the game is played. They broke the rules by flying planes into buildings killing almost 3000 people. Potters solution? Do nothing! You’ve GOT to be kidding bro!! Just lay down and die because we deserved it. And if they do it again, no problem, it must be the Israeli-Palestinian thing … yeah, that’s it, they want to kill us because we support Israel. Get a life my sorry son. Get a life! We invaded Iraq because no one was in the mood to hand the people over to us. So we had to go and get them. And here’s the part that your gonna hate the most. It makes NO DIFFERENCE who we kill in process, just like it MADE NO DIFFERENCE to them who they killed on 911. This is how the game is played. It doesn’t matter what you think!!
You asked “Are we in better shape at home? More secure� So far there is NO DIFFERENCE to the average citizen. NOTHING has changed except the invisible methods that our government now uses to protect us. Potters solution? Change nothing. While the world changes around Potter, while the Geneva Convention is a joke to the enemy, nothing changes for Potter because HE can’t accept it. Potter knows MORE than all of the intelligence agencies in the West PUT TOGETHER because he has some kind of light, some kind of SOLUTION that he is going to bestow on mankind to create peace, worldwide. Potter the Messiah!! The people need your wisdom Potter. Speak now … or crawl back under your rock and continue stroking your own ego. Yeah, that’s what I thought.
You asked “Is the US considered a force for good in the world� Your moral relativism is boring. If you can’t tell the difference, move to China. There everything is relative, even the people.
You asked “Are we more secure because of warrantless eavesdropping� Yes we Potter, but you can’t see how. It is mostly technological. What has changed for the average citizen? NOTHING! Would you rather live in Venezuela where the police walk around with military assault rifles? Or would you prefer a place like Russia where the human spirit is crushed by the communist mechanism, and by thugs who assassinate their opponents? Yeah, something tells me you would fit right in over there.
You said “9/11 as horrible as it was, was no Pearl Harbor except it was another wake up call. There was no war in progress on 9/11â€. Actually there was Potter. You just weren’t aware of it. Did you think it was a “spontaneous eventâ€? Get real son. You live in a dream world Potter. You haven’t a clue (although I provided many on this thread) about what makes the world tick. But yet you think you know more than those directly involved. How ridiculous is that?
You know what I just noticed about you? You make these little negative statements to tear things down and criticize. You antagonize by asking certain key questions. And then you run away. You NEVER offer any solutions, just these short played out little questions – designed to stroke your own ego.
November 6th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Jeez I didn’t know Sean Hannity posted on this site! I wouldn’t even know where to start replying to this ignorant vitriol so I’ll stick with Potter’s question of “are we a mature democracy?”
I can’t see how anyone could think the United States is mature in its democratic system. There are still people who are alive and well who can remember a time when neither African Americans nor women could even vote! Even the most recent elections show very low turnout rates among eligible voters, never mind the high percentages of people who have lost the right. The government of the United States can really only be called “democratic,” I don’t know if it qualifies as even being called “a democracy” in the sense of political or social equality. Even discounting the inequities of instruments like the electoral college, there is undoubtably a certain class of people who are eligible to be elected officials. They are a small minority, their interests are heavily influenced by their funders who are often corporate entities and not real live “citizens.”
Democracy did not start with the US, it has been around for a very long time. The US was the first to implement it as a matter of nationwide governance, but even then it was designed to be a fair and equal balance of power within a very small minority of powerful people. The majority of people living in this country did not have any say whatsoever in the actions of its government, and were often subject to harsh policies that were disigned to keep them powerless. Not very democratic, if you ask me. We’ve made a lot of progress, but I think the nation has barely hit puberty in respect to its democratic values.
November 6th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Thanks ghostofdali- that was good. I think sontag was obviously wrong assessing this as a mature democracy. Obviously we are not. We are a troubled one now too.
I ran across this excerpt from a Rolling Stone ( current isssue) interview of Al Gore:
RS: If you were a historian, how would you describe the Bush administration from that point of view?
Gore: They have done so much damage to the spirit of America, to the worldwide reputation of America, to the morale of our people, to the core belief that we’re capable of managing our fears without sacrificing our freedom. But nobody’s going to be surprised to hear me give a thumbs-down rating to Bush and Cheney.
RS: What’s the worst damage they’ve done, other than the climate crisis?
Gore: They have promoted the idea that freedom and security are mutually exclusive, that you can have one only to the extent that you’ve sacrificed the other. That is an un-American idea. When our founders framed the Constitution, they understood the reality of war. When the Declaration of Independence was written, it was written by Americans who were in danger of being hung. They had reason to fear for their very lives, every single one of them, but they insisted on the protection of habeas corpus and freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom of assembly and freedom of religion, and the separation of self-government from the establishment of a religious dogma as an official set of beliefs. They had real courage that bridged their devotion to freedom and their need for security.
But instead of courage, this administration has used fear to undermine the system of checks and balances and the carefully balanced relationship between separate branches of government and the principle that all of the operations of our self-government should be accountable to the people. The arrogance and unaccountability of absolute power is corrupting, and our founders knew that so well. They embodied in our nation a universal principle derived from a millennium and a half of history, from Athens to Rome through the Enlightenment to the American Revolution. But all of that has been blithely ignored by this administration because of their lust for power.
November 6th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Maybe Sontag was wrong, but after reading the quote again I think there’s room for multiple interpretations. Perhaps she was saying that the rhetoric is unworthy of a mature democracy, therefore it’s support for the idea that the US is NOT currently a mature democracy. Could be, or it could have been idealism. No one wants to admit that a nation such as ours, built on so many people’s backs and the outcome of such a passionate struggle, could be immature. We like to think of our elected officials as wise and responsible, that the systems and processes they develop for the governance of our nation is just and equitable. But sometimes we’re faced with flaws beyond the facade, and there’s no denying that there are serious institutional and systemic problems that undermine the structural integrity of our government.
It’s appropriate to blame the Bush administration and the ravenous neo-cons in Washington for the recent damage, but we’ve been on a slippery downhill slope since at least 1980. I enjoyed Al Gore’s recent book, “The Assault on Reason,” and I’m glad to hear mainstream political figures addressing these important issues. But let’s not forget that Gore was in office when the Extraordinary Rendition program was started, while Iraq was sanctioned into oblivion and bombed relentlessly, and while corporate greed reached its zenith. I’m not saying we shouldn’t support him when he’s right, as he is on climate change and the current state of affairs in Washington, but he’s got some mighty dirty hands himself.
November 6th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Well don’t you wonder if as VP to Clinton Gore did not have much of a final say even though he was invited to advise? It may be unfair to blame him for Clinton’s decisions and what happened on that watch. Even if Gore was responsiblet for those decisions we must, I believe, allow people to evolve and so they should be given that chance. Gore has evolved- very much so- and he’s not only a guru on climate change ( which he was for many years and during his term in office). I have saved his speeches. He screamed about not going into Iraq. He is screaming again about how far we have departed, during this administration especially, from the original spirit of this country, how divided we have become.
To be sure the stucture that the founders built in the form of the constitution and the bill of rights however thoughtful and brilliant after all could not suffice if the spirit did not hold. There was a lot unspoken and taken for granted in those documents and one cannot expect a law or laws to cover and take care of everything. But at the very least we should know and follow and amend where necessary that good original spirit upon which we were founded. That more than anything is missing now. We are split about what that founding spiirit means and how that translates in the modfern world. We are very split about how to carry it forward, about how to evolve it into a more global world with exploding communications and knowledge about ourselves and the planet. There is so much that the founders could not imagine and a lot that they just took for granted.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Describing Al Queda and by extension Radical islam as just an aspiriring crimminal gang pretty much sums it up.
Yup your right. These guys are really no worse than Bonny and Clyde, or the James gang, nothing much to really worry about. Sorry for the concern.
November 7th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Radical Islam is a fraction of a fraction of Islam. Radical Islam is not only al Qaeda and their jihads are not all about blowing us up here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism
Police work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Six
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_Most_Wanted_Terrorists
We made ourselves weak both militarily and diplomatically by invading and occupying Iraq. We fell into a deep hole that our commander-in-chief would have us believe was about fighting an advancing well equipped world-conquering foe like kind of adversaries the Allies faced in WW2. It’s hard to believe this line of argument is alive and well here on this thread.
We were encouraged on the home front by this administration to fight this world conquering enemy by great sacrifice: to mobilize by shopping and driving our SUV’s, not complain too loudly about higher gas prices, just like we did during WW2. A draft was not necessary so great was this challenge. And don’t even notice that your rights ( see the first and the fourth amendments to the Constitution) are being shaved. Don’t notice the broken vets, don’t ask where the coffins are on the news. Don’t even think about the Iraqi’s dead or displaced. Don’t you really feel you are part of the war effort?
See how the country was really mobilized in that Ken Burns WW2 documentary.
Fearing Fear Itself
November 7th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Foreign Policy after George W. Bush: The Case for Restraint The Barry Posen call and response sessions
I think of this as the paradox and confusion of failure due to the fact that I’m not hitting your hammer hard enough with my head yet strategy for I thought I was engaged upon the exercise of hitting my hammer with my adversaries head with really, really forceful repetitious gusto:
The activist U.S. grand strategy currently preferred by the national security establishment in both parties thus has a classically tragic quality about it. Enabled by its great power, and fearful of the negative energies and possibilities engendered by globalization, the United States has tried to get its arms around the problem: It has essentially sought more control. But the very act of seeking more control injects negative energy into global politics as quickly as it finds enemies to vanquish. It prompts states to balance against U.S. power however they can, and it prompts peoples to imagine that the United States is the source of all their troubles.
Iraq should therefore be seen not as a singular debacle, but as a harbinger of costs to come. There is enough capacity and motivation out in the world to increase significantly the costs of any U.S. effort to manage global politics directly. Public support for this policy may wane before profligacy so diminishes U.S. power that it becomes unsustainable. But it would be unwise to count on it.
Avoid the four horse in the third race … no matter what the CW suggests, the house takes all pushes …
November 7th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Post script to http://www.radioopensource.org/they-got-it-right-6-shibley-telhami/#comment-89054
I find myself having some disagreement with both Prof. Posen and the responses of his peers. Granted Prof. Posen’s document is not a lengthy treatise nor a comprehensive statement of the problems and ills of the current foreign policy issues, but I do find the absence of some thought cycles poured over the urbanization of the globe and the ramifications on energy markets and capacity/delivery one of several shortcomings in his position.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Thank you so much for this series, Chris. It’s not just an interview series; it’s an important historical document. I listened to all of the interviews twice, and I especially liked Michael Desch’s “party of war†take. You’ve managed to coalesce the disparate crying voices of objective reason – something the mainstream media has neglected to do because as one gentleman in this series says, “they are intimidated.”
When the media presents a discussion of this farce, they revert to the bullsh*t global warming dynamic: one person for (resolutely stay the course), one person against (reluctantly stay the course). And the “anti-war” talking head was most likely on board in the beginning; consequently he/she has inherent empathy for the complicit media that was embedded (in-bed-with) in the march to war.
And Chris, your stock market analogy was great. You said if this was Wall Street they would be calling on the scholars from this series to run the big funds – they got it right! And your Joe Torre reflection was spot on as well - he was held accountable! Isn’t that what these conservatives spout about the victims of the mortgage crisis – if they signed up for a bad loan they need to bite the bullet and be accountable, right?
So where does this leave us? Well, It leaves me with faint pains of despair.
I have a new burgeoning fear, a fear that’s been kindled by the overwhelmingly underappreciated common sense displayed in your series. My fear is the gross mistakes this administration made post invasion, are beside the point. There was only one decision necessary to employ their only important idea - the initial occupation!
Sure the neocons would have preferred the fallout to go their way, but that’s what’s called collateral damage. The bottom line is, these guys have established a new reservoir of fuel for our war economy.
Most of us have been waiting out the game, their incompetence/hubris will surely seep through and our country will recalibrate, right? Well, not only is the game being lost, the rules have changed to boot. When the democratic candidates refused to pledge to get out of Iraq by the end of their first term they were (begrudgingly?) agreeing to play with the new rules. How convenient.
We desperately need a game-changer or Cheney is gonna take us full-tilt.
Thank you Chris, for keeping your beacon blaz’n.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
So where does this leave us? Well, It leaves me with faint pains of despair.
To despair or not? The courage of one can be of much more consequence than the considered complacency of the many. On the other hand, that lifestyle trajectory can set one up to become a lone wolf patsy in some sort of conspiracy plot orchestrated by those who feed plausible deniability to the groove tube.
No one said this would be easy… well, some have said some that things that weren’t cakewalks would be cakewalks. I guess only cakewalks are likely to be cakewalks? A reasonable conclusion, but one must consider: what other ill-conceived rhetoric awaits from the realm of the metaphoric? All non-cakewalk endeavors can force wobbly consideration of the spectacle which is where complacency, fanaticism, and despair dine like Homer at an all-you-can-eat seafood restaurant.
We desperately need a game-changer or Cheney is gonna take us full-tilt. One cure for empire is simply to become one. This muse is rarely satisfied by anything less. Some cures require much pain, and much suffering directed at those who have little to no stake in these matters. On the other hand, perhaps we will collectively take the pill that makes us smaller. At times, the looking glass confounds reason. The gyre continues to widen.
November 7th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
The cakewalk does not sound like a cakewalk actually. But fascinating.
Just post 9/11 there were articles, many, about being a good empire, the responsiblity involved. We were not up to it but the idea of a cure for empire being to become one is close to those ideas which assumed we were already one but needed to be more conscious enlightened generous and responsible about it.
November 7th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Potter, that sounds a lot like “compassionate conservatism” - It’s an oxymoron.
The fact is, you cannot have absolute power - and be more “conscious enlightened generous,” it never holds.
Does being a good empire entail being above the UN? Is that the paradigm in play, us as the empire on top, then the UN, then everyone else?
Howabout I give you the empire term, and you give me a check and balance to our power.
That is a great irony, our country is founded on the principle of checks and balances, and that principle is suspended in foreign affairs.
For our country to flourish (or even survive) in globalization, at some point we have to start practicing what we preach. We must bolster the UN and let that be a check on us.
November 7th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
btw, that wasn’t all directed to you Potter, I’m just a preach’n in general.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Hello Nother!
November 9th, 2007 at 2:34 am
GodzillaVsBambi says:
“I have had many conversations with liberals in person, in which they inevitably hit below the belt, questioning ones intelligence or morality, level of education, etc. It soon becomes obvious that they think everyone else should think the way they do.â€
And whose way should they think? Yours, GodzillaVsBambi? Also, what does one’s intelligence, morality, level of education, etc. serve if not to develop ideas of his/her own, or to evaluate the ideas of others?
“They judge other’s not by relating to and respecting their experience, but by attempting to replace it with their own perceptions, to tear it down and break it because the ego wishes to retain the original construct.â€
Here’s my own experience:
Spent the first 18 years of my life living on Air Force bases all over the world, raised by a liberal/democratic father who proudly served in the both the Vietnam and first Gulf War. Our evening news reported the number of missions flown by each squadron instead of the football score; the National Anthem preceded every movie; and it wasn’t uncommon to wake-up at 4 AM to the sound of sirens blaring across the neighborhood followed by a recorded message stating that a drill was in progress and all personal should report to duty. And when my school bus wasn’t being pulled over to allow President Regan and his entourage to make their way to Air Force One (parked a few blocks from our house at Andrews A.F.B.) it was being boarded each morning by a soldier with a sidearm and machinegun, who verified that each kid was carrying his two military I.D. cards. Have you been to the beaches of Normandy, GodzillaVsBambi? I have. I was with my liberal/democratic grandfather as he recounted that impressive, horrific, yet inspiring day back in June of 1944. And you know what scarred him more than coming face-to-face with a German soldier? It was serving alongside city kids who loved to talk tough, the same kids who, no doubt, occupied the role of the school bully. But hand them a rifle and place them on the battle field, and they turned into sniveling cowards. Grandfather swore there were days when he saw more American soldiers die or wounded from friendly fire because of those fools. “They’d shoot anything that moved!†Kind of like hunting with the vice-president, huh? And when the war was over, Grandfather became an engineer (that requires an education) and helped designed some of the very bombers that are flying over Iraq as I write this. Does April 12, 1985 hold any significance for you, GodzillaVsBambi? It does for me? My family was living in Spain at the time when a restaurant frequented my American families – mine included – was blown to Kingdom Come by terrorists. Eighteen people died that day, all Spaniards. But guess what, GodzillaVsBambi? Our very own State Department reports a different story. Not only do they claim 18 American soldiers died -which is a lie - they also got the damn date wrong. They said the bombing occurred April 12, 1984, instead of April 12, 1985. Don’t believe me? See for yourself. So much for accurate intelligence! And then there was September 11, 2001. The first words out of this bleeding heart liberal’s mouth when the second tower swallowed that airliner was, “Where’s the nearest recruitment center?†Because what those monsters did that day made me sick. HOWEVER, I also think to myself, “You’ve got to be !@#$ kidding me!†when my fellow Americans continue to play the innocent card, or belittle those who have the courage to suggest that these great United States might do well to air out her own dirty laundry once in a while. I empathize for those military families who will spend this Thanksgiving with an empty place at the table; I grieve for those same families whose loved one will return in a pine box, and I curse the Bush administration who claims that taking pictures of the coffins is somehow disrespectful. Hmmm? Where might we show those pictures in order to guarantee the greatest amount of exposure? Hey! I know! How about the!@#$ mall! My point is, GodzillaVsBambi, I’m damn proud to be an American – perhaps more than you could ever hope to know. It’s in my family, my DNA. And though it may boil your blood to hear it, I am a liberal – just like my father and his father – and I am convinced that our current administration is headed by a man who is genetically incapable of having an original thought, let alone reading it off a teleprompter if he tried. So, that’s my experience. Judge away!
“You know what I just noticed about you? You make these little negative statements to tear things down and criticize. You antagonize by asking certain key questions. And then you run away. You NEVER offer any solutions, just these short played out little questions – designed to stroke your own ego.â€
Be careful, GodzillaVsBambi. I do believe you just insulted most of the law professors in this country. Besides, what’s wrong with the Socratic Method? It’s a great for feeding someone’s grand theory back to them piece by shredded piece.
“One thing people here on ROS do not understand is the difference between defending an individual, or a country.â€
Whenever you’re ready to enlighten us, GodzillaVsBambi, you let us know.
“The rules that apply to personal sentiment and ideology DO NOT APPLY with countries as a whole. One person’s privacy is not more important than an entire country’s safety! The NSA eavesdrops on us because they sift for certain data which may indicate an attack on the country AS A WHOLE, not on some self loathing far left loser working for the Pope and taking it up the ass in his mommy’s basement.â€
And exactly what are the rules that apply to personal sentiment and ideology? And how do they different from the rules that apply to countries? I just finished going through the Constitution and I’ll be damned if I could find them.
November 9th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Bobby my father was a tough city kid who landed at Normandy I’m sure if he was alive today he would have been happy to hear that he was a probably a coward. Perhaps thats why he rarely spoke of his war experiences. Talk about asinine statements. Your f–cking clueless. Sorry for the bad language. I just find your comments not only disrespectfull but also totally false. I’ve also heard the same things said about black soldiers.
On another note. I constantly hear this why don’t we see the coffins cry from people. The truth of the matter is this. During the first gulf war the networks one in particular kept showing a split screen of flag draped coffins,and on the split they showed G Bush laughing and telling jokes. What they purposely failed to do was inform the public that Bush was at a totally different event that had nothing to do with the coffins.
The media did a great job of making Bush look like an uncaring cad.
I don’t blame Bush for refusing to allow himself to be ambushed by a biased media,who it seems will go to any lengths to distort the truth.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Rc21
I obviously don’t know your father, but I’m willing to bet he was anything but a coward. Insofar as my grandfather’s comment regarding “tough city kids†is concerned, I, too, question the number of deaths by friendly fire. After all, he was telling me the story some 50 + years after the fact. However, the point he was making – and why I put it in the post – is that often those who speak with such puffed-up bravado tend to be the weakest! And like your father, the only time I ever heard my grandfather talk of the war, was that one week he, my father, and I spent in France following the journal he kept during that time. Truth is, I’ve spent my entire life around the military, and one thing I do know is soldiers seldom, if ever, talk about war. About the split-screen showing G. Bush laughing alongside the coffins, I think that’s despicable. But then again, while all that was happening, I was just hoping my father wasn’t IN one of those coffin