Liberals are or should be aligned with progressive politics and values. So in light of political progressives who eschew President Bush's war against Saddam, a few questions:
- What would have been the best, most legitimate way for Iraq to achieve democratic elections? Can it be applied to Burma, North Korea, Iran, and other dictatorships?
- If your answer to this question involves the UN, address the UN's corruption with the Oil-for-Food scandal, sex slaves in the Congo, and the inability to prevent the Rwandan genocide. If the top dogs of the UN are profiteers for the containment of dictators like Saddam, and their representatives trafficking sex in the countries they purport to peace-keep, how can the UN be a legitimate force for democracy?
- Are tyrants defeated with soft power, or merely contained until they fade away? Is contained fascism simply the unstated and accepted cost of soft power? If it is, should Hitler have been opposed?
- What can corrupt soft power?
- Are there any circumstances where hard power is warranted?
- If the UN is too corrupt and impotent, and the US is too sovereign to represent the world, what organization would you propose instead?
- Would a 'UN-D' -- a variation or branch of the United Nations, except the members are all democracies -- be a better legitimizing force for democracy than either the United States or the current United Nations?
- If you had to wear a uniform and be put in harm's way, but could choose the flag you fought for, which flag would it be: Your family crest; your town's flag; your state's flag; your country's flag; your religion's flag; the UN, NATO or EU flag; or an NGO flag. Why?
Well said, Cicero.
To your second point, may I add the UN's mysterious reluctance to call genocide genocide in Darfur (this gem brought to us by Kofi's temporarily famous undersec himself--who's stingy now Jan?).
I might also add, especially for the sake of the historically challenged Americans in our midst, the question of whether our Civil War was, strictly speaking, "necessary" or not? How about the Revolution (a bloody mess for its own day) or the French Revolution for that matter.
As a recent transplant to Illinois I am frankly mystified when I see license plates that superimpose an image of a dove upon Abe Lincoln's face. What act of historical misremembering is this? Lincoln wielded a mighty sword of justice, and he wasn't particularly squeamish about the copious amount of blood spilled in the process of rebirthing a flawed country. Guess he's a modern Republican after all.
Historically speaking, for every "velvet revolution" there are two or three nailed fisted ones, and even the former are usually only granted after enormous suffering (think Ukraine and Czechoslavakia).
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's comment from the Cold War years can be easily adapted to this present era of the jihad:
Interesting questions.
I am putting together some links for the blog I write sometimes for. I may use this as a link for tomorrow's post.
Great questions..I posted similarly on my blog this morning, asking the Left "When WOULD You Support a War?".
I used to consider this a rhetorical question, intended only to tease or mock the Left. But now it is a vital question that must be answered...can we ever trust the Left with the keys to the car?
Great questions, thanks for blogging them. Please link any responses.
Given the state of rational discourse on the Left today, I don't know how many responses you'll get. These are serious questions that can't be answered with "Bush lied!" But a serious response would be both enlightening and would serve well the cause of inter-ideological dialog.
Another question--
Which is more antithetical to Liberalism, American Conservatism or Sharia?
Anyone who even has to think for 2 seconds is a blind, raving partisan.
Powerful set of questions. I'm afraid I couldn't trackback. Wanted to let you know.
http://teachersramblings.blogspot.com/2005/02/winds-of-change-confronts-opposition.html
Mine:
If the war on Iraq was illegal under international law, as many on the Left believe, was the toppling of the Taliban government in Afghanistan also illegal? If the principle of self-defense is the standard of "legal war," was the invasion of Afghanistan valid given that the Taliban was not directly involved in 9-11, but merely harboring al-Qaeda? If harboring terrorists who strike at the USA is enough to legitimately act, what is your opinion of Iraq's harboring of Abdul Rahman Yasin (1993 WTC bombing suspect) and Abu Abbas (Achille Lauro hijacking, killing of Leon Klinghoffer), as well as Abu Nidal?
The "best, most legitimate way for Iraq to achieve democratic elections" would have been for the Iraqis to demand them as did the Romanians, etc. did after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The same would apply to North Korea, etc. And, as a matter of fact to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and numerous other dictatorships supported by the USA.
I would support a war when the United States has been attacked by another state, e.g. WWII, or when a non-state attacker's base of operations can be determined, e.g. Afghanistan. Also, when an imminent attack can be prevented.
I would not support a war against someone whose government we don't like.
I served my nation's flag for 27 years and that is where my allegiance lies and always will.
Mike, I served for 25 years. I'm glad you're out, because you are not allowed to pick the wars you fight in.
As for the questions listed above. Superb job. I'm going to send the link to my daughter in college and ask her to query her professors.
Where I live in blue Oregon, I see alot of bumper stickers saying "Another American for non-violent solutions" with a waving flag next to it. I have approached these people in parking lots and asked them, "Can you give me an example of a non-violent solution?" They never have an answer. Put that one on the list!
I would support a war when the United States has been attacked by another state, e.g. WWII, or when a non-state attacker's base of operations can be determined, e.g. Afghanistan. Also, when an imminent attack can be prevented.
I would not support a war against someone whose government we don't like.
Then I guess you consider all U.S. warfare against Nazi Germany to have been illegitimate, Mike. Because Germany never attacked us. We attacked them first, merely because we "didn't like" their government. I suppose you believe that we should have simply stood by and allowed them to conquer Europe and exterminate all of the non-Aryan peoples.
The "best, most legitimate way for Iraq to achieve democratic elections" would have been for the Iraqis to demand them as did the Romanians, etc. did after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Oh, sure, Mike, that makes perfect sense. It makes no difference whatsoever that they lived in a brutally repressive dictatorship in which any dissent would get them killed -- and probably raped and tortured first. That doesn't matter at all. They should still have spoken out, demanding free elections. And if they didn't, well, they must have been perfectly happy with the repressive dictatorship, right? I mean, what other explanation could there possibly be for their silence?
Let me ask you a question, Mike. Why do you oppose the use of force to eliminate a brutal, murdering, torturing dictatorship? Please cite the moral principle that requires us to leave such a regime in place when we have the power to remove it.
The answer to each of these questions, from the liberal/progressive point of view, is "Bush is a liar." Full stop.
I am confident Mike considers the wara against Nazi Germany legitimate becasue Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941. Had it not done so, it is very possible the U. S. would not have declared war on Germany.
Pat, please idnetify countries we should declare war on tomorrow so that they adopt a way of governing that is more acceptable to us. If we cannot attack them all at once, do you have a prioritization?
So Saddams mafia was going to collapse....when did you say?
What with the UN as accomplice the situation could only get worse.
Mike has a point: The best possible way to go from tyranny to democracy is through internal reform. But that's kind of like saying the best way to save a drowning man is for him to learn to swim.
If you're walking by a river and you see a drowning man, do you not have a moral obligation to help him, even if it means inconveniencing yourself, even if it means putting your own safety at risk? I don't know many people who would deny that that's the case.
Seeing a country struggling under tyranny — the worst kind of tyranny, the kind that sponsors terrorism both within and without its own borders — is like watching someone drown. Yes, the best possible outcome is for the drowning man to save himself. But we still have a moral obligation to jump in and try to save him.
It's instructive to see that Mike was the only one who had the guts to make an attempt at answering any of the questions (though it was a rather feeble one at that).
This shows that the left has no answers to these questions. They're guided by their anger of George Bush and republicans, and anything that questions their worldviews must be ignored or repudiated.
And the left still wonders why they didn't win in November. Their continued lurch leftward (Dean for DNC chair) shows they STILL haven't learned any lessons.
TV (Harry)
Yes, these are interesting questions. First off, one election does not make a democracy.
Secondly, it’s a very dangerous assumption to make that all democracies are pro-US. What if new Iraq government floats a referendum asking its population “should Iraq attempt to acquire a nuclear weapon?” What if the newly freed Burmese vote for a communist government? What if free elections in North Korea put Kim Jung Il back in power? Would the US invalidate those results because they are unfavorable to our interests? Wouldn’t that be undemocratic?
In all the best-case scenarios I’ve seen, we’re going to have troops there for many years to come. Let’s say it ends up costing us $300 billion + the lives of 2000 US soldiers (I must say, these are very generous figures). Does the US have another $900 billion lying around to cover the invasions of Burma, Iran and North Korea? What about Syria, Zimbabwe, Republic of Congo, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan? That would come to a grand total of $2.7 trillion + the lives 18,000 soldiers. Where would this money and manpower come from? The UN? Will we have any money and manpower left to take on Russian and China too? They aren’t really democratic either.
Now to answer the question directly, currently Iran has a healthy democratic movement that is developing on it’s own. North Korea is just South Korea’s crazy uncle. As long as King Jung Il has enough platform shoes, good Scotch and American porn, he ain’t moving too far from his big screen TV. Let South Korea run that show. There are some very weird cultural issues there that they are much better equipped to deal with. As for Burma. I bought a shirt made there from Target. Yes it’s bad but have we become the world’s policeman? How much do you really know about the situation in Burma? I personally know didly.
Unfortunately, one lesson the world has taken from our Iraq/North Korea/ Pakistan policy is the we only invade countries who are thinking about acquiring nuclear weapons. If they already have them, we’ll negotiate. We’ve made nuclear weapons a point of national pride and the must have gadget for every tyrant around the world. Any idea who to get out of that pickle?
please idnetify countries we should declare war on tomorrow so that they adopt a way of governing that is more acceptable to us. If we cannot attack them all at once, do you have a prioritization?
Richard,
Not to speak for Pat, but if we don't have a prioritization list, does that mean we can't help any country? Just because we can't help them all, does it mean we isolate ourselves from the world stage completely?
Read Jeff Harrell's post. It brings the point home.
TV (Harry)
We didn't attack Germany merely because we disliked their government. Germany declared war on the United States. We responded. As we should have.
Huge numbers of Americans up to that time opposed any war against Germany--mainly conservative Republicans like Lindbergh, Father Coughlin, the whole America First movement led by Robert E. Wood, John T. Flynn and Charles A. Lindbergh. "Supporters of the organization included Burton K. Wheeler, Hugh Johnson, Robert LaFollette Jr., Hamilton Fish and Gerald Nye." [Except for LaFollette, Republicans all.]
I oppose using force to remove brutal dictatorships at our whim because nothing that I know of gives us the right to rule the world or to tell the world how to rule itself. Nor do we have the power to do so. If we can't change them all, the policy becomes one of we'll get rid of the ones who don't support us and leave the ones who do. Where is the morality in that?
Let me ask you a question, Pat. Did you call for the use of force to eliminate the brutal, murdering, torturing regime in South Africa under apartheid? or in Chile under Pinochet? or in Greece under the colonels?
Damn good post. How long is this thread kept open for comment? Can it be responded to on Cicero's blog? Is there the possiblity the questions can be responded to individually?
Mike, unfortunately, contrary to your claims, the US was conducting active military operations against Germany long before Germany declared war upon the U.S.
Secondly, the other groups opposing war with Germany from August of 1939 to just before June of 1941 were Soviet-controlled communist groups.
Did you call for the use of force to eliminate the brutal, murdering, torturing regime in South Africa under apartheid? or in Chile under Pinochet? or in Greece under the colonels?
Mike,
Let's say that the U.S. COULD use force for all of these examples. Would you then support such force? Would you then support force in Iraq?
To answer your question (although I'm not Pat), yes, I would support force under the above circumstances. The questionable validity of your examples is a discussion for another day, however.
TV
Pat, please idnetify countries we should declare war on tomorrow so that they adopt a way of governing that is more acceptable to us. If we cannot attack them all at once, do you have a prioritization?
Nice try, Richard. But we were discussing Mike's assertion that it is never legitimate to use force against a country that has not attacked us first. Your attempt to change the subject to other topics (namely, "Whom should we attack tomorrow?" and "If we can't attack all our enemies at once, in what order should we attack them?") is a typical response from the Left when faced with questions they cannot answer.
You were also trying to change the subject when you cited Germany's declaration of war on the U.S. in December 1941. Another nice try, Richard, but Mike was very specific: he stated that another country must attack us before we can use force against them. A declaration is not an attack.
I repeat my question: was the U.S. action against Nazi Germany in World War II legitimate, even though Germany had not attacked us? If so, how was the action against Iraq different?
Robin, Are you telling me that Lindbergh, Wheeler, Nye, Burton, Lodge, were communist dupes? They were by far the largest voice against American help for Britain and resistance to Naziism, and they were mainstream politicians and leaders. That there were also communist groups on the periphery is irrelevant.
Roosevelt did everything he could short of war to protect and prepare America for the war he knew would come. He did not unilaterally start one.
Those are all good questions, and it would be interesting to see if any anti-war types can answer them.
However, I notice that some of them are having some luck here in hijacking the thread into other issues. Please, don't let them. Agree to disagree on WW2 and move on to the questions asked.
DG wrote:
"North Korea is just South Korea’s crazy uncle. As long as King Jung Il has enough platform shoes, good Scotch and American porn, he ain’t moving too far from his big screen TV. "
Apparently he was able to take enough time off from his jollies to sell nuclear material to Libya & who knows whom else:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55947-2005Feb2.html
So, while I agree that this is more SK's problem to solve than ours...when the problem child starts helping others get nukes, it stops becoming just a regional problem than can be safely ignored.
I write this as an opponent of the Iraq war and someone who hates the UN.
What would have been the best, most legitimate way for Iraq to achieve democratic elections? Can it be applied to Burma, North Korea, Iran, and other dictatorships?
I do not accept the premise of this question. Democracy is a worthy goal but is not always the best immediate solution. Every undemocratic country should be turned democratic using a different approach, some immediately using war and some in several years using non-violent means. Most important of all, the message should be consistent and clear. Our country (USA) should not coddle dictators when it is convenient (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) and use dictators as an excuse to wage war when it is convenient (Iraq).
This is my suggestion to turn some countries democratic. Every year, the US should identify a country based on the immediate suffering of its people (Sudan, Zimbabwe) and NOT based on our internal lobbying groups. Then we build a coalition that includes only democratic countries including some of the target country’s neighbors. If the UN joins us, very well, otherwise, they can go f**k themselves. We give the country an ultimatum to satisfy certain requirements and then wage war to bring down and kill its leadership. We rule and stabilize the country for about six months then hand over the day-to-day administration to its democratic neighbors. The coalition identifies leaders of groups/tribes, gives them power and money to campaign, and holds elections within the year of toppling. The coalition’s military is present in the country for another year to make sure no coups are attempted and to eliminate all violent factions. After four of five years of consistently applying this methodology, I suspect the leadership in undemocratic countries will be clamoring to either get out or to get on the US’ good side.
Richard Heddleson (#15) wrote:
Mr. Heddleson is consistent. He apparently opposed the war against Saddam, and would also have opposed a war against Hitler if Hitler had been willing to leave the U.S. alone. This consistency sets him apart from many on the left, whose moral confusion I've often complained about. However, given the choice between moral confusion and the consistency that comes from a lack of any moral sense whatever, I think I'd prefer the confusion.
We didn't attack Germany merely because we disliked their government. Germany declared war on the United States. We responded. As we should have.
No, Mike, you can't move the goalposts. You specifically stated that an attack is required before we can use force. A declaration is not an attack. So either the U.S. was wrong in WWII, or your position on the use of armed force is not what you claimed.
Did you call for the use of force to eliminate the brutal, murdering, torturing regime in South Africa under apartheid? or in Chile under Pinochet? or in Greece under the colonels?
No, Mike, I didn't. Because in those days, I was young and ignorant and politically clueless (i.e., liberal). I will tell you now, though, that the use of force to remove those regimes would have been entirely legitimate.
Pat,
Don't put words in my mouth. The absence of a statement does not mean that therefore one doesn't support it. I was answering the general question of when I think a war is justified. A declaration of war against the United States is obviously a valid reason; as I said in my original post an "imminent threat" is a valid reason. Now, I'm not going to write a dissertation here on every conceiveable situation, but the gist ought to be discernible to anyone reading carefully.
As to Iraq, it did not attack us, it did not have the capability to harm us, it did not have weapons of mass destruction, it was not an imminent threat to us, it did not shelter or train those who attacked us; there is no valid comparison whatsoever. Now the reason given for the war in Iraq is that we want to bring democracy to the people. That was not the reason presented to Congress or to the American people before the war. And that is not the reason we went to war against Germany.
We went to war against Germany because they threatened free people everywhere and they threatend us specifically on Dec. 11, 1941.
People who studied history wouldn't actually stop at asking questions that Must be Asked, simply when the fact comes up about how Germany declared war on us first. That does not come close to explaining everything.
No, you see, the argument that if Germany had not declared war against us, thereby causing us not to go to war over them, is mistaken in the truth. As the US focused on the European theater first and foremost, ignoring for the most part, the Pacific Theater for invasion. With Japan having destroyed most of our Pacific FLeet, and with Japan on the doorsteps of the US, FDR chose to focus on taking out Hitler first.
Is that the actions of a nation that would not have declared war on Germany, if Germany had not declared it on us first?
It was clear cut back then, because Japan and Germany had an Alliance. They hang together. And they divide the spoils together. Like Russian and the US did with Germany.
In WWIV, the War on Terror, there is no clearcut alliance. But mutual interest, the foundation of any alliance, is still present and noticeable. So therefore when Afghanistan decided to put their interests with Al-Qaeda and Osama, by defending them, they became defacto hostiles. When Saddam Hussein allied himself with the UN, France, and terroists, he became our defacto enemy.
The same question in WWII, must be asked today. Even though we know who our enemies are, how do we deal with them?
France isn't worth invading or nuking, their wine is worse than Californian vintages. The UN is fangless, but like all bureacracies are annoying money launderies for robber barons, and couldn't kill their way out of a restricted zonage.
So like in WWII, we decided that the worst threat was Hitler and his taking over Britain. Without Britain, it would be harder to expunge Hitler. Without Iraq as an ally, it would be harder to expunge Wahhabism from the Middle East.
War is an Art, it is not an ideology or a religion like environmentalism, pacifism, or any other such nonsense.
#20:
"Where is the morality in that?"
Progress built atop pragmatism. Let me (mis?)quote a Democrat on that one: "Do what you can with what you have whenever you can do it."
I see greater morality in that than I do handing the stage to the thugs and murderers that make up much if not most of the U.N.
The reality is that world politics are complicated. That doesn't mean we can't find our way through it, but it does mean that we have to wait for opportunities to do so. So what is the order of operations? Somewhere between when we have the chance and when we must.
Should we first eliminate those governments that aren't most conducive to us? Hell, yes. Would you prefer the Chinese did it on their terms, the mullahs on theirs or the French on its? You can pretend that the actors in the rest of the world aren't trying to reshape the world in its own vision. But they are. You can pretend that you don't have to make a choice in how the world is going to be. But that in itself is a choice. It's a choice to leave the field for people who WILL make the world worse.
You can pretend that the ensuing blood will not be on your hands. That's your right. It's a juvenile's worldview, but that's your right.
We and the rest of the world are connected by far more than CO2 emissions.
Germany declared war on us, that's true. But essentially, so did the Islamofascists. (Iran essentially did long ago as well, and Saddam made no bones about wanting revenge.) Hiding behind the "non-state" problem is only going to get us all killed. If corporations can become multinational, so can the enemy.
The left says we should sit down for counseling with the Islamists. So again, could we not have done so with Germany?
And yes, the left also supported the Nazis. The philosophical links to National SOCIALISM via Heidegger, et al. are much closer to Rousseau and the left than they are to the right. That explains why other philosophers of the Left, such as Sartre, are derivative of the social philosophers of Nazi Germany, whereas the philosophers on the right are more derivative of economic philosophers like Hayek (who opposed the Nazis) down through others like Smith and Ricardo. Hitler did lord over the Fascists in Italy, but he also partnered with Uncle Joe Stalin - back when the left thought he was the cat's meow.
It was only his betrayal of Stalin that moved the left away from Hitler.
Mike,
You might recall that the U.S., et al, have been engaged in war with Iraq since 1991. There was no peace treaty nor normalization of relations. Since the conditional ceasefire, the U.S. and Iraq maintained a state of war involving numerous attempts at shooting our aircraft down and our responding by destroying their military infrastructure, as well as assissination attempts and active disruption of UN disarmament activities. Also recall that our nation's Iraq policy was that of regime change (authorized in 1998). If you take, but five minutes on Google, you will also learn that regime change and democratization were included in the congressional authorization to Prez Bush to use force to implement the other actions you mentioned. It is not untrue to say that the Bush administration successfully disarmed Saddam, deposed Saddam and is on its way to breaking the hold of tyranny over that part of the world. Yup, things didn't quite turn out the way it was envisioned before the invasion, but really, the easiest and cheapest thing to do is to play Monday morning quarterback and to cherry pick blame. To compare the Iraq situation with Apartheid South Africa is ridiculous, we were not at war with that country and yes, at the time there were plenty of people in this country that opposed majority rule in that part of the world... just as there seems to be plenty of people now, who oppose majority rule by democratic means in Iraq.
Sunny wrote, "Democracy is a worthy goal but is not always the best immediate solution."
If I can be forgiven for running my own simile into the ground, isn't that kind of like arguing that we shouldn't pull the drowning man from the river because we're afraid that he might catch cold in his wet clothes?
Heh.
To put it another way, what is best in the short run may no longer be viable as a real course of action. Surgery damages tissues in the body, but there are some surgeries that are needed to save lives and restore function.
"As to Iraq, it did not attack us, it did not have the capability to harm us, it did not have weapons of mass destruction, it was not an imminent threat to us, it did not shelter or train those who attacked us; there is no valid comparison whatsoever."
You may want to qualify these sweeping generalizations before you repeat them, Mike.
For instance, when you state that Iraq "did not have weapons of mass destruction", do you mean that Iraq never had WMDs? Because that's not the case. Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980s and against the Kurds in 1998. In the early 1990s, UNSCOM uncovered a massive program in Iraq to develop biological and nuclear weapons. The head of the al-Hakam germ warfare center admitted to UN inspectors that she had worked with botulism, anthrax, ricin, cholera, salmonella, and foot and mouth disease, among other agents. The Iraqi government informent the UN in 1995 that it had produced at least 30,000 liters of biological agents. UNSCOM also documented 600 tons of chemical agents, as well as 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells loaded with chemical agents, that Iraq produced and that are still unaccounted for.
Perhaps you meant that Iraq used to have WMDs but has since destroyed them. Well, that's possible, but how can you know? Certainly Saddam's regime did everything in its power to prevent USCOM and the outside world from knowing whether the WMDs had been destroyed. Iraq lied to, manipulated, and obstructed the inspectors and finally expelled them in 1997.
All that we do know is that there appear to be no WMDs in Iraq today. Perhaps they were destroyed, but if so, why didn't Iraq declare them all to UNSCOM and then provide proof of their destruction? (That's the procedure South Africa employed when it divested itself of WMDs.) If the WMDs were not destroyed, then either they were hidden in Iraq or they were moved outside the country. But we know beyond question that these weapons existed, and we cannot assume that without evidence that they no longer exist.
As for your claim that Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. and did not shelter or train those who attacked us, you may want to modify it as well. Abdul Rahman Yasin, a member of the Al Qaeda cell that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, went to Iraq afterward. After he arrived, Saddam's government gave him a house and paid him a salary. Saddam's government also provided payments to the families of Hamas and Islamis Jihad suicide bombers, and build and funded the terrorist training facility at Salman Pak. You may be willing to state that these activities posed no threat to the U.S., but I doubt that you will convince many people.
That was not the reason presented to Congress or to the American people before the war.
The reason? The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq did not present just one reason for the invasion. In addition to the threat of Iraq's WMD program, it also cited Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population", Iraq's hostility towards the United States (as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of George Bush Sr, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones), and Iraq's connection to terrorist groups.
If we were invading Iraq ONLY for the purpose of bringing democratic elections and NO other reason, then the way America should have done it was:
1) Unambiguously state this goal up front:
"If you don't hold free and fair elections, we will invade, occupy, and create a new democracy."
2) Declare a timetable for the elections (census, registration, party organization, public debate...) and hold Iraq accountable for each stage of the process under clear military threat.
3) During the countdown to election/invasion:
Build up and train our forces specifically for their nation-building mission: teach them Arabic, local and Islamic customs, community-level organization skills. The core of the entire mission will be teams of reconstruction engineers who will work under the cover of the initial invasion security force to repair infrastructure, and teams of instructors who will teach community leaders the knowledge and skills they'll need to run their own government and begin the process.
4a) Saddam Hussein holds free and fair democratic elections under close international scrutiny... not likely.
or:
4b) With the support of our allies, the US forms a coalition to gather the quarter-trillion dollars and half-million highly-trained soldiers necessary to bring security and democracy to a vast and disparate nation... not likely.
or:
4c) The US comes up with the necessary manpower and money on it's own, with only the most token assistance from a few allies, since most of the world sees invading a nation only to bring them democracy as somewhat insane. To pay for the cost of this massive project without passing on the cost to our unborn children, Americans gladly agree to a significant tax increase. To cover the necessary manpower, Americans joyfully agree to a 1-2 year period of mandatory public service for every citizen under age 40. Should the situation demand, the able-bodied are subject to call-up in the fledgling democracy... also, not likely.
But for the sake of democracy, its the only honest choice we have.
5) As we invade and occupy, the American people are clearly informed from the start that this will be a long, hard, expensive task, requiring sacrifice in both lives and treasure, but reminded that the goal of democracy is in and of itself worth any cost.
I'll let you answer that one....
If the world were black-and-white then we probably would have disarmed the nuclear dictatorships of North Korea and Pakistan first. Or we would have left Iraq alone.
Maybe in Uzbekistan....
Hitler should have been opposed.
And all of the financiers and industrialists who supported him should have died lonely deaths in windowless cells. Their names should only be spoken as a curse, symbols of the depths to wich some are willing do crawl for the sake of money and power.
Blind ideological self-justification and deafness to dissent.
Clear cases of self-defense and the defense of the helpless. And if immediate defense is the justification, it cannot be retroactive and it cannot be later dropped for convenience sake.
Apparently we invaded Iraq ONLY to bring the joys of representative democracy. In Iraq, there are suicidal Shiite theocrats, bomb-throwing Sunni insurgents, Kurdish separatist guerrillas... dangerous people. But we invaded just to give all Iraqis a voice in their government.
The UN is comprised of the countries that make up the world. It's not really a representative democracy, since the Security Council is the only real power and it represents a fraction of the world's population. But still, the UN is the only world-wide organization that comes close to a kind of democracy. The goal of bringing imperfect democracy to one country, even if many of it's people hate us, was worth thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of American dollars...
So why is a democractic organization an unworthy goal for the world?
Maybe...
But would "UN-D" exclude our allies like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan? Would it include authoritarian democracies like Russia? Would it give equal voice to democracies that strongly disagree with US policy like Germany, France, Spain? Would this "UN-D" itself be, democratic, giving greater voice to democracies with more people, thereby making India the dominant power? Would "UN-D" include countries where the American government doesn't like the result of a democratic election, like Venezuela? Most sub-Saharan African countries have held elections, so would "UN-D" include all of them? Would "UN-D" support the rights of people who want a representative form of self-government in places like Kurdistan or Aceh? Or would "UN-D" support the brutal crackdown of democracies like Turkey and Indonesia?
This "UN-D" of yours might need a little work...
I believe I heard somewhere that we face a new kind of war....
In a war that is supposed to be about ideologies rather than nations, maybe battlefield tactics and insignia are growing obsolete. In a world where swarthy beards are as good as insignia and nail clippers are equal to bayonets, could it be that going into harm's way with flags and uniforms is no longer the most effective strategy against our real foes?
tagryn #27 wrote:
So, while I agree that this is more SK's problem to solve than ours...when the problem child starts helping others get nukes, it stops becoming just a regional problem than can be safely ignored
True. What this does bring into question is the Bush administration's confusing relationship with Pakistan. It really is amazing how Saddam Hussein is tried for crimes against humanity while A. Q. Khan gives a simple apology and gets to keep his fancy homes, money and viewed in his country as a national hero. And he represents a country that Bush considers a vital ally in our war on terror. If North Korea offered to help us find Osama bin Laden, would they be considered a valuable ally in the war on terror?
Mike, amusing that you object to putting words in your mouth but feel free to put them in mine.
The participation of the Soviet-backed communist groups in agitating against war with Germany was not irrelevant at all. It was quite extensive and supplied a core of organization and focus that the other groups you mention lacked. It is a shame that that fact is so inconvenient to your proposition but then so many facts are inconvenient to your proposition. And evidently gets in the way of your knee-jerk "conservative" bashing.
Roosevelt did in fact do everything he could get away with to try to start war with Germany. You need to refresh yourself on US actions in 1940 and 1941. US Navy pilots participated in the hunt for the Bismarck ( the patrol aircraft that found the Bismarck after it broke contact from sinking the Hood was US Navy ). The US Navy was committing acts of war against German submarines long before December 11th, 1941. Your belief that he did not "unilaterally" start one is correct only because Hitler chose not to respond with more than temper-tantrums to Roosevelt's actions until the Japanese came into action.
And regardless, Germany was never a threat to the United States in any form. Germany was however a threat to our friends, neighbors in the world and even some of our enemies.
The bottom line is that your thesis fails utterly.
The phrase:
"( the patrol aircraft that found the Bismarck after it broke contact from sinking the Hood was US Navy )."
should have read:
"( the patrol aircraft that found the Bismarck after it broke contact from sinking the Hood was being flown by a US Navy pilot at the time)."
My apologies.
Mike, don't lump anti-war progressives in with republicans. Many people then and now were opposed to the war on the grounds that we had no cause to get involved in someone else's fight. Especially not in the Pacific. What did we get? lengthening a war that would have been over long before, and starting a cold war and the atomic bomb. Hooray, let's celebrate!
I forgot to add: and, making America look like the big great perfect savior, who should ever after be immune from criticism.
What would have been the best, most legitimate way for Iraq to achieve democratic elections?
[before the American Occupation]: there was no mechanism in the pan-Arabian world. No Arabic country had yet had a free and unopposed election. To this day Iraq's recent electoral vote is unique in the Arab World.
[post American Occupation]: Legitimacy in establishing a government of the people, by the people and for the people is always difficult in a militarily occupied country, under conservatorship by the foreign power. The Occupier is viewed -- regardless of what they do -- as influencing, tarnishing, corrupting the nascant ideological process. Having the Iraqi's set their 30th-of-January election date, having them put up over 7,700 candidates in all their communities and regions, having the bulk of that enormous caucus being off the MainStream Media's radar is possibly the most effective way: legitimacy is in the hands of the Iraqis themselves. Their counts-of-ballots, their listing winners, their engaging, protecting, haranguing, scoffing and eventually re-electing their representation is about the only road-to-legitimacy that I can imagine in such a backward nation.
________
Can it be applied to Burma, North Korea, Iran, and other dictatorships?
Not so. We have lost the cause celebré, due to being unable to produce credible quantities of WMD's in Iraq by any stretch of the imagination. It is widely felt (and to me wrongly, but that's a different matter) that it would not have been cause-enough to have invaded Iraq to bag the bastard in charge of genocide and worse. Maybe so.
It would be hard to get even the British to side with us to preemptively attack Myaramar (Burma), North Korea, Iran, or (today) Togo. Yet, interestingly, the gauntlet has been thrown ideologically: The Bipedal Prez has stated in terms that are particularly difficult to misinterpret: "the threat to freedom is tyrrany, and cultivating freedom is our own path to safety and security, worldwide." [heavily paraphrased]
I therefore submit that we are setting the world up for an ideological 'test' of nations that this and future Americans [and probably the rest of the Free World] are going to have to abide: letting international 'leadership sovereignty' trump human freedom and right to existence, is a sure formula for letting hornets overwhelm your dinner party if left to nest under the next door neighbor's eves.
Will it work in Myamar, North Korea? I think the international pressure will. I think an invasion [short of them threatening people with nukes or military aggression] is out.
______________
If your answer to this question involves the UN, address the UN's corruption with the Oil-for-Food scandal, sex slaves in the Congo, and the inability to prevent the Rwandan genocide.
The U.N. doesn't figure into it. In so far as I can determine, the U.N. is a Humanitarian Organization that wields a profound amount of legal power, yet has a pop-gun toting army-of-none, and is really most suited to be 'caretakers of the impoverished'. They are the ultimate in internationally funded charities, at this point. Credibility, power, if they wield them at all, are derivative off of whether The Great Powers heed the resolutions and restrictions. They are the 'bear trainers', and we are the bears. So long as we lumber around murmuring "oh sure, master, yep... we're sorry, we'll do that right off, sure!", then the U.N. has power. When we up and say, "heeeeyyy... we're thinkin', us bears, that you look mightly like tastey vittles!", well then the U.N. has lost it, and might as well become an international bakery or political catering company.
______________
If the top dogs of the UN are profiteers for the containment of dictators like Saddam, and their representatives trafficking sex in the countries they purport to peace-keep, how can the UN be a legitimate force for democracy?
It isn't. Plain and simple.
The United Nations is the arbitor of things international, and in fact has never put its stamp of approval or abhorance on any Constitution or other form of governance to rise following its inception. Not one. It just isn't their power to be saying to the nascant countries of the world: "well, boyz ... lets take a look-see at that constitution, eh?" They're interested in whether people are being eductated, whether there are relief kiosks for the impoverished, and whether their petit fours are fresh, and all. That's their gig. period.
_________________
Are tyrants defeated with soft power, or merely contained until they fade away?
Castro is 'contained until he evaporates', though it has been a mighty long drying cycle. The United States was forced into a soft-power solution to the Cuban Crises due to the impending "preemptive counterstrike" by the Cold War Soviets. But -- true to form -- we have held to our end of the Bargain, keeping Cuban goods out of America, and generally keepin an eye on her. In turn, Cuba's people for awhile suffered precipitously, but since the embargo wasn't total, found other markets for their goods and services. The "stoic Uncle Sam" looked the other way, and decided there are battles worth fighting, principles worth defending, and others that are not.
Soft power is virtually guaranteed though of 'beating the tyrant', at the expense of the people. The longer the tyrant is in power, the longer his scions [Uday, Quessay] have to get their tendrils of corruption and vile retribution and intrigue out into the populus, sowing the seeds for a phoenix-tyrrany. Sometimes, it is necessary to get rid of the pathogen with "big guns" rather than let the disease "run its course".
_______________
Is contained fascism simply the unstated and accepted cost of soft power?
Usually. Hard to find an example of it not being so. Ultimately [and ironically that we're held to this standard], moral relativism as practiced in Europe (hell, everywhere but the USA, England and possibly Australia) allows the fascist to be canned, and end-runs economically around his grip on power. This may well spell his ultimate doom at a pace at least as fast as a nice clear military invasion, decapitation and victor's parade.
_____________
If it is, should Hitler have been opposed?
He was opposed. Just not effectively. The countries of Europe all -- to the one -- tried to use diplomacy to secure treaties with the Nazis to sidestep actual invasion and overthrow. Some fought gallantly, brilliantly. Others capitulated before the souffle fell. In the end, the Nazi machine was never fought with enough vigor to kill it unambiguously. It sounds self-serving, but it took the likes of America to even think about D-Day, amassing the kind of troop and carrier strength necessary to over-run the French coast with such predictably high losses, and also such profound ground gained. That is the only lesson I have gotten from WW2- that it is a damned mistake to underestimate the power of a surreptitious, inveigling snake of an advisary. As soon as the ink is dry, to the snake, the treaty is then admission of defeat, an invitation to test rhetoric with lead and gunpowder.
____________________
What can corrupt soft power?
Time. Commerce. Philosophical discourse. Oil-for-Food programs. Containment -- with sanctions -- is an invitation for insider dealing, for corruption, profiteering, for actually making things worse than better. Yet -- and this is a big yet -- it may well be the case that corruption-on-the-one-hand and consternation-on-the-other is the ultimate formula for seeding "rot" into the sanctioned authority. Consider it: when ultimately a 'under-the-table' economy arises between the sanctioned and the corrupt outsiders, eventually it will be possible to exert "interesting" control over the despot or maligned province through the corrupt network itself.
_________________
Are there any circumstances where hard power is warranted?
Obviously, the 'clear cut cases' [per Mike, and Pat, and others] is in defense of a material attack on ones sovereignty. 9/11 was a material and significant attack. Germany's attack of England, Poland, Russia... same deal. For Iraq, Iran's attack was equal, 'way back in the 1980's.
Less obviously, the authority to exercise "hard power" or military, embargo, collective strength against an entity arise when all measure of diplomacy through concerted international effort fail to achieve the gains and goals set to the pen. Iraq in fact failed to meet the UN obligations to open its borders to internation atomic inspection and so on. Given the seriousness of that ... it gave a defensible [but not clear] right to use "hard power" to achieve the end.
Least obviously, hard power may also be authorizable, defensible when a 'creeping disease' has progressed too far, and needs surgical removal. The problem here is that "the patient" hardly recognizes or admits that the pathogen is threatening, is out of control, and needs excision. You know, like a slow growing cancer: "I've been living with this for the last 10 years, doc, and now you tell me i've got a 50:50 chance of making it through the operation to get rid of it? Gimme a break! If I lived 10 years, I'm sure I can do another without your lovely scapels and clamps!!!"
The problem is see, like an ordinary human patient that doesn't understand the first thing about the seriousness of their condition, the 'political mind' of a country, or of the countries around a festering wound, simply fail to recognize the seriousness of the pathogen building in their midst. Hell, for all that, the Germans didn't even figure out how nasty Nazism was until it had them over the barrel. Just sayin... sometimes you have to strap the patient down, knock him out, then get in there and cut away. Hopefully he'll come back when its all sewn up and the knock-out-drops wear off.
___________
If the UN is too corrupt and impotent, and the US is too sovereign to represent the world, what organization would you propose instead?
Based on your concept in the next question, I support the idea of a 'League of Democracies', in addition to the UN Security Council [which seems to have all the real UN 'hard power']. Yet it may well be that the halls of the international police station would become the Tower of Babel itself were it to be an international effort. The [^%$#] Europeans cannot even collectively get the business-end of their guns, money, soldiery, cavalry, navy and air force pointing in the right direction when humanitarian atrocities directly counter to all they loudly profess to believe in are being committed over there in say Bosnia. No, one does not write symphonies by committee, and one does not police the world's commerce, free peoples and economies by committee either.
__________________
Would a 'UN-D' -- a variation or branch of the United Nations, except the members are all democracies -- be a better legitimizing force for democracy than either the United States or the current United Nations?
Perhaps. But I think in the end it is per my analogy: one does not compose symphonies by committee. The only thing missing here from our whole-earth authority, is a whole-earth tax to support it.
If you had to wear a uniform and be put in harm's way, but could choose the flag you fought for, which flag would it be: Your family crest; your town's flag; your state's flag; your country's flag; your religion's flag; the UN, NATO or EU flag; or an NGO flag. Why?
I would first and foremost, fight for whatever flag-of-convenience was demanding freedom, accountability, equitable treatment of all peoples, and the right to believe whatever the hell I wished without state or institutional involvement. Libertarian? Perhaps. But in the end, I hate corruption, I despise insider dealing, clubs, axes of power, bigotry and theocratic fundamentalism. It matters to me that the flag I would fight under is held high by a power that actually has the likelihood to attain ends, via means soft and hard in nature.
So, would it be my family crest? Certainly not.
The town flag? not a chance. no army, no power.
The State flag? nope. no army, no power.
The Country flag? yes, especially the US flag.
The Religious flag? no, lots of power, but too likely to butt heads with other theological groups.
The UN flag? would have 40 to 30 years ago, maybe. Not today -- too corrupt, no teeth, no backbone, and certainly no underlying ideology that stands the test of their own constitution!
The NGO flag of the Relieved Etruscans? [etc.]
GoatGuy
I'll bite.
Cicero's questions may be more difficult for liberals than for conservative/libertarians, or for progressive/radicals.
Both would question the premise of the question, that it is the responsibility of the U.S. to liberate subject peoples from dictatorship. A real conservative would doubt whether such interventionism was in the U.S. national interest, as one G. Bush did while campaigning in 2000. And a real radical would ask whether U.S. intervention was likely to be carried out in a humane, disinterested manner; in other words, without regard to national interest.
This is not as inconsistent as it might look. A radical might say the U.S. is a better country when it doesn't invade other countries, and a conservative might say the U.S. is a better country when it minds its own business. Either might allow for exceptions in extreme cases, such as Hitler or Rwanda. (Even Noam Chomsky said the U.S. should have intervened in East Timor.)
If we try hard to form a liberal synthesis of these two flanking positions, we might say the example of thriving, free societies, along with non-violent sanctions and pressures applied to others, combined with maximum cultural interchange and encouragement, is the best offense against absolutism. In my view, this was the decisive factor undermining the Soviet Union, not the orgy of 1980s defense spending. So the rule should be soft power, except in exceptional circumstances, of which Iraq (nor Syria, Iran, or North Korea) was not one.
It is possible that the U.N. could play a useful role. To this end, I would limit resources from democratic nations flowing to international institutions (within the U.N., which is not monolithic, or others) prey to the influence of dictatorships, and increase resources to institutions dominated by democratic governments. I like the idea of some kind of UN-D configuration. It's idiotic to have absolutist governments sitting on human rights commissions and whatnot. These sorts of things should be abolished, or recast with membership by invitation only (like the EU).
Any charges directed at the U.N. itself are properly directed to the major powers, not least the U.S. Without them, there is no U.N. To suggest otherwise parallels the mistaken focus on Washington "bureaucrats," instead of the politicians and corporate interests who run the show. Whether it's sex slavery or Rwanda, the major powers are in charge. Any failure is theirs, not a bunch of bureaucrats in NYC. The better question is, how can the major democratic powers be a better force for democracy?
I would acknowledge exceptions to the use of soft power. Hitler was one. Rwanda was another. I've been doubting the wisdom of the Kosovo intervention (which I supported). In general, tyrannies can be ended with soft power and are hard to end with hard power. For instance tiny Haiti, a military pushover, is still a mess. Both hard and soft power can be corrupted.
Without following your exact question format, you can see that to some extent I agree with the thrust of your questions. I don't think any of them debunk the likelihood that the Iraq invasion has been a debacle. I should say that the post-election statements of some Sunni leaders suggest some potential progress there, but it's way too early to tell.
To me the worst think about the Iraqi venture, besides its fraudulent political background, is that it foments more Islamic fundamentalism, not less, and it sacrifices resources better directed through other means (not excluding the use of force) against the people that really want to kill us, like OBL, rather than people who would just as soon we were dead, like Saddam.
The flag I chose would depend on the cause for which I was fighting. Defense against a genuine threat to the U.S., naturally the Stars and Stripes. A humane intervention to prevent genocide, as in Rwanda, the U.N., assuming the intervention was a serious one. Otherwise one would be foolish to fight for the U.N.
No matter your ideology, war should be a last resort, confined to responses to extreme circumstances. Like the song almost goes, war what is it good for, usually nothing.
A footnote in today's SF Chronicle, concerning the UN's Darfur report. FWIW.
Max:
I feel your argument, I do. Yet I also feel that it is overly apologetic about "doing the surgery", per my #44 above. [Pardonnez for the length, I was on a roll.]
My counter would be this: the Test authorizing hard power is this:
[1] That the entity is actively fomenting discord and undermining rational diplomacy elsewhere.
[2] That the entity is unabashedly taunting the 'police-entity', failing to meet conditions, failing the test of Good Will
[3] That the entity is highly suspected of surreptitiously engaging in some other activity which could make the entity's current underhanded dealings look like child's play [sorry, but subjective]
[4] That the body of world powers are at least 'reasonably in agreement' that [1-3] are factual to whatever degree of test they wish to employ.
[5] That the World Arbitration Body has passed unanswered resolutions and sanction -- which in toto are becoming odious both to the entity's people, and to nominal world business interests.
[6] That the protagonist has issued an edict to conform to international resolution and sanction, or to suffer the consequences.
[7] That the protagonist is committed to relief of the entity's people, its commerce, its ideological freedoms, and to re-establish its sovereignty.
I dare say that there may well be more tests, but I know this: the invasion of Iraq was preceded clearly and punctilliously by ratcheting through each of these 7 tests. Iraq failed, America promised not to install another dictator, not to oppress the people, not to be flagrant opportunists in Iraq. And so Iraq was taken. We've not crushed the chess piece, Max. We've knocked it to the side, and are now resuscitating it, to put it back into play.
Europe's just miffed that they couldn't get past their internecine "issues" long enough to join with the Coalition of the Willing to get the job on, the war won, the rebuilding underway, and all the juicy contracts secured.
GoatGuy
What would have been the best, most legitimate way for Iraq to achieve democratic elections? Can it be applied to Burma, North Korea, Iran, and other dictatorships?
Do you mean before or after Hussein's removal?
Before his removal, it would have been best were his own people able to overthrow him. After his removal, Bush's efforts were pretty good. (I say pretty good because the Bush administration had to be pushed by Iraqis to hold elections.)
Are tyrants defeated with soft power, or merely contained until they fade away? Is contained fascism simply the unstated and accepted cost of soft power? If it is, should Hitler have been opposed?
Depends. Tyrants are beaten in any number of ways, which can include containment and outright war, power both soft and hard. Roosevelt was right to forcibly oppose Hirohito, Mussolini and Hitler. (The first of these leaders lived until 1989.) Truman should have forcibly opposed Stalin. Instead he contained him, and the USSR finally fell apart under Reagan. It seems any number of means can win the peace. And democracy.
If you had to wear a uniform and be put in harm's way, but could choose the flag you fought for, which flag would it be: Your family crest; your town's flag; your state's flag; your country's flag; your religion's flag; the UN, NATO or EU flag; or an NGO flag. Why?
Are these all the options I am allowed? If there were an earth flag, I would wear it. Barring that, the Americans flag does very well, because it best represents the many ideals I and other liberals aspire to. There is still work to be done, but I cannot think of any place better than the US.
Have any more hardballs for liberals?
Regards from a liberal,
stephen
#38 zota
Is the United Nations a democracy or not? You've said:
You have to pick one and stick with it.
As for your comparison, democratic government is (or should be) government with the consent of the people. Democracy is a form of government in the sense you applied it. I'm not side-stepping your question by asking another one, but... why do you want world government?
The United Nations does not conduct policy based on the opinions of the world. Its opinions (as expressed in the General Assembly) are based on the bigotries of despots and the interests of bought-and-paid-for bureaucrats who happen to run countries. Despots do not represent their people, so a forum composed mostly by despots cannot be considered a world democracy - even an imperfect one.
China and Russia have permanent seats - that's over a billion people unrepresented before we even count the other 13 countries on the council. Nearly all of the time, the greatest proportion of people 'represented' on the UNSC will have little or no say in their country's foreign policy.
The UN will never be democratic because the world will never be composed of 100% democratic regimes. For the UN to be democratic, 6 billion people have to be willing and able to hold their government accountable. For Iraq to be democratic, the number is 25 million.
Whoops. Wrong line quoted:
Plus the use of 'represented', the implication is quite clear that the UN is a democracy of sorts.
I know you didn't really expect a liberal to answer these questions, but I will anyway. (And I expect you to edit or censor them before they are posted, because deep down inside I think you're gutless.)
What would have been the best, most legitimate way for Iraq to achieve democratic elections?
For a start, we shouldn't have provided Saddam Hussein with chemical and conventional weapons for decades while he entrenched himself as a cancer in the heart of his nation. As a follow-up, it was probably not wise to install Allawi as his successor, given that our own nickname for him is "Little Saddam".
The huge number of Kurds and Iranis that were killed by Saddam were killed while he was our close friend and ally. Donald Rumsfeld gave Saddam a pair of golden spurs and shook his filthy hand with a smile in the 80s. What a pal! What a leader! The real crime Saddam committed wasn't genocide or despotism, it was the invasion of Kuwait. It took us only days to respond to the invasion of Kuwait, because Kuwait has oil. We restored Kuwait (not a democracy) to its monarch (not a president), who we propped up because we wanted their oil (not freedom).
We propped Saddam up because we hated Khomeini, and we hated Khomeini because he overthrew the Shah, and we propped the Shah up because we hated Mossadeq, and we hated Mossadeq because he nationalized Iran's foreign oil industry. Historically we don't change governments for noble reasons.
We need to be a just and righteous nation ourselves, and only then people in the rest of the world believe in democracy.
address the UN's corruption with the Oil-for-Food scandal
Easy: while Oil-for-Food was a UN program, it was administered by the US, which turned a blind eye (according to recent reports) to the illegal trade in oil that was going on.
If you had to wear a uniform and be put in harm's way, but could choose the flag you fought for, which flag would it be: Your family crest; your town's flag; your state's flag; your country's flag; your religion's flag; the UN, NATO or EU flag; or an NGO flag. Why?
I'd love to see this question answered by our current Republican leadership. Aside from the mediocre service done Bush Jr. and Rumsfeld, vets are few and far between in the executive branch. Cheney had "better things to do", as I recall, but poor Powell has been run out on a rail for having integrity and speaking a little too much truth. I'd also love to see it answered by Limbaugh, Savage, O'Neill and pretty much every other gutless wonder that has a conservative radio or TV show and never ever served in our armed forces.
As for me, I will fight under my country's flag, and I will fight to make my country right.
Is there a catch? Because you answered precisely one of his questions, with one sentence tacked on to the end of a diatribe about something irrelevant.
Incidentally, if you can name three conventional weapons systems we provided to Saddam, I'd be grateful.
Just addressing one of your points:
Easy: while Oil-for-Food was a UN program, it was administered by the US, which turned a blind eye (according to recent reports) to the illegal trade in oil that was going on.
The man in charge of the program was Benon Sevan, who, the last time I checked, was NOT from the U.S.
This country did NOT "administer" the program, the UN did.
If that answer is an example of your intellectual truthfulness, I'm not impressed.
It's easy when you can make things up.
LOL! I think your post proves Cicero's point perfectly.
For instance, a serious person would answer this question ("What would have been the best, most legitimate way for Iraq to achieve democratic elections?") with, you know, an idea about how Iraq might achieve democratic elections, rather than a rant riddled with historical errors. This is because serious people look at problems and come up with solutions.
Gentlemen, please. You're not supposed to discuss things with "Tired" you're supposed to have the blog admins censor him so he can go galloping back to his pals and moan at how oppressed he is and what an evil rightwing deathbeast of a blog this is, how brave he is to enter the lion's den and avoid the Winds of Change sweeper teams, etc., etc.
;)
(Then again, "Tired" picked Superbowl Sunday to make his screeds. Probably knows how hard it is to get the sweeper teams mobilized on that day. So he might be smarter than he seems right now.)
Funny story. The UN report in to the Oil-for-Food program raised concerns about $160,000 that found its way in to Sevan's bank account. He claimed it was from his aunt. His aunt lived in a two-bedroom flat in Cyprus, bought for her by... Benon Sevan.
Intriguing, no?
I very much like Zota's "armed democracy corps" thoughts/strawman (1-5) (and the rest of zota's comments as well). Our (US) military is very (very) good at using hard force, but we really haven't tried alternatives to hard force significantly, as in spending real money (compared with what we spend on our military: 400 billion plus expenses (for wars) annually) on them. (Marshall plan might be an exception; it was fairly expensive.)
Re the Cuba thread, I've always believed (without evidence) that we should have started "Corrupting Them With Commerce" (and the ideas and people that flow along with commerce) in the 60s, and that the Cuban totalitarian regime wouldn't have lasted through the 80s if we had done so. Central America might (or not) have ended up with a few more socialist regimes, but we could have corrupted them with commerce as well.
I also wouldn't give up on the UN. The purge at the UN that is starting to happen (Volcker et al are doing good work) will probably do the organization a great deal of good. Since there is no alternative (UN-D is not achievable IMO) reform from within is necessary.
Re "What can corrupt soft power?", war advocates need to ask themselves "What can corrupt hard power?" (E.g. start with Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex speech in 1961)
If the purge leaves any bureaucrats with jobs, the purge won't have gone far enough.
Sorry to come late to the thread; I've been cutting down on blogging.
Before I start, I have only one return question of Cicero: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" I ask, because so many of the questions you pose for anti-war liberals are (doubtless on purpose) phrased with all the defects of this old chestnut: assuming "facts" not true, with the intention of scoring rhetorical points irrespective of the answer.
* What would have been the best, most legitimate way for Iraq to achieve democratic elections? Can it be applied to Burma, North Korea, Iran, and other dictatorships?
Probably by encouraging democratic elections in Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Palestine (this last we in fact did), with an eye towards creating momentum for democracy that doesn't, as Mao would have said, come from the barrel of a gun. (OK, Egypt is a stretch, but the others have governments interested in democratization.) I am, indeed, quite skeptical of whether democracy and the rule of law are taking hold in Iraq, but that's for another thread. And no one has ever explained to me why we have not extended this easy, Gordian-knot-slashing approach to creating democracy to Zimbabwe, whose military is probably as weak as Iraq's. It would seem to me that it is on your head to explain why Iraq came first.
* Are tyrants defeated with soft power, or merely contained until they fade away? Is contained fascism simply the unstated and accepted cost of soft power? If it is, should Hitler have been opposed?
Well, no offense, but we didn't invade Poland and Romania, did we? So "containment" can have some tremendous successes. We are playing the game (introduced here by a poster named Mark) where you try to construct a universe where invasion of Iraq becomes a moral imperative—but not the invasion of Zimbabwe or Communist Poland. I don't think this is possible.
We should apply in Iraq, and in the other benighted countries of the region, some of the same programs that worked well in Europe: support for alternative civil structures, economic penalization (of course, that involves energy conservation), political tilt towards democracies like India over dictatorships like Pakistan even when this is against realpolitik.
Are you asking when we should have attacked Hitler? It's almost impossible to answer this alternate-history question under the historical truth of the decrepit state of the American military in 1933-41 and widespread opposition to another European war. AFAICT, you're all playing gotcha with Mike's quite-accurate observation that our declaration of war on Germany wasn't even a done deal (although I think it was more likely than not) until Hitler blundered and declared war on us. To attempt to refute this by reference to our taking the fight to Hitler first conflates the political question with the military question that arose only after the political matters were resolved. In 20/20 hindsight it would have been nice if the USA could have smashed Hitler when he rolled into Poland, but arguing about that seems, frankly, silly. We had no army for any such task.
* Are there any circumstances where hard power is warranted?
Yes. I supported the Afghan War, precisely because I saw the removal of the Taliban as an extended police action (yes, shades of Korean euphemism). The Taliban harbored Al Qaeda and needed to be removed from power. Given the fact no attacks on the USA were being planned from Iraq (aren't you embarrassed to keep mentioning Abu Abbas whom the Israelis allowed into the Gaza Strip under amnesty as some sort of justification for the Iraq War?), our invasion there was more the classical use of armed force as the extension of politics.
* If you had to wear a uniform and be put in harm's way, but could choose the flag you fought for, which flag would it be: Your family crest; your town's flag; your state's flag; your country's flag; your religion's flag; the UN, NATO or EU flag; or an NGO flag. Why?
I had a hard time answering this one. I think, in order, I would want the UN flag, not because I wish to fight with the UN as an organization, but because in theory it's a flag that represents the world. If there were a flag for the Earth (I suppose I could sew my own with the recognized astronomer's symbol), I'd take that as first choice. In the real world I think I would pick the USA second, but for a moment I had a fantasy of using the Berkeley flag, just for what Berkeley has come to symbolize. (And when I lived in Israel, after the intifada started I thought seriously of painting the University of California seal on our car, as that's why we were in the country.)
It would seem to me that it is on your head to explain why Iraq came first.
As has been pointed out over and over again, we were already in a state of war with Iraq. They were in material breach of the cease fire they signed at the end of the 91 Gulf War and had been constantly firing on our planes patroling the no-fly zone (any single instance of which violated the cease fire). This wasn't so much a matter of starting a war as finishing it.
I'd like to address the comments by #18 Dr. Gigantis; since I think they fail to take into account several lessons of history:
1. Unlike earlier eras; technology closes the distance the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans gave us from other threats. Hitler and Hirohito were no threat to the mainland US in 1941; even after War began. Had they been unopposed until they actually were; we would not be having this discussion; America would cease to exist under a division of the Thousand Year Reich and the Emperor.
Liberals fundamentally underestimate how close Hitler came to winning: a. knocking out the RAF and launching an invasion of England in September 1940. b. reaching only miles from Moscow in October 1941. c. nearly winning the battle of the Atlantic in 1942 and knocking England out of the War. d. nearly getting to the Suez Canal under Rommel in May 1943 and controlling the Middle East's oil. f. nearly knocking out the Soviet Union in 1942 before being suckered into Stalingrad.
Without early intervention of American forces items c-f might well have turned Hitler's way. Relying on good luck is not defending the nation.
THE central lesson of WWII is that is much easier to kill threats in their infancy (Hitler re-arming the Rhineland in 1936) than losing nearly 10,000 men at D-Day alone. The US, for example, lost half a million men in WWII. Lack of force, and the willingness to use it wisely (deterrence) has real costs. The US essentially had no military prior to WWII, and paid the price in blood.
The next lesson is Afghanistan. Who in August 2001 would have thought a real menace from that far away, misbegotten country could kill thousands of our citizens? Law enforcement was tried, and failed. Utterly. Modest, minor strikes by Clinton were tried, and failed. Utterly. JUST like in WWII, our lack of deterrence guaranteed a price heavy in blood.
Unfortunately, not all tyrants or brutal oligarchies are amenable to threats of force and must be removed. Libya, to a degree Pakistan, and even Saudi Arabia have moderated their behavior.
Mullah Omar did not, he certainly could have handed over bin Laden and avoided War but chose not to. Saddam could have avoided war by choosing to let inspectors in and handing over terrorists, but chose not to. Iran will likely pursue the same route.
Other nations may or may not warrant regime removal, when they pose a direct national security threat to the US; based on the situation. To pretend otherwise is merely to invite or beg for another 9/11. There is no such thing as "International Law" save the customary adherence by many nations. Should say Iran violate international law by holding our embassy and people hostage, there is no court with enforcement powers to make Iran comply with international law. If a nation is determined to be a threat to the US, ONLY force will make them stop.
Soft power is useful when their exists no threat to the US; and the nation has no appetite for war (which is most of the time). The US has no desire to be the world's policemen, but after 9/11 an active sorting out of threats was inevitable.
Doesn't everyone just hate the French?
Our propaganda regarding the French seems to have worked real good. Sure, Freedom Fries are more or less a joke, but what about that "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys" bit? That worked real good.
It seems we could have threatened to pull out all stops with the anti-UN propaganda if they didn't give up Oil for Food. And, we could have cut them in on the take. A little bit of something with reputation intact is better than nothing with a damaged reputation.
But, then again, that's probably too complicated.
Colt, there is no contradiction.
Structurally, the UN is a kind of representative democracy in that each country is represented and gets some kind of vote. But the UN is not an accurate democratic representation of the people of the world's countries. Something similar could be said of many "democratic" nations.
Now, would you like to discuss my grammar, or do you have any substantive comments about my response?
You know, I actually saw this as an opportunity (!?) for anti-war liberals to respond to a deeply biased set of questions. I believe this kind of communication across political divides is important to a small-d "democracy", so I did my best to answer these questions honestly and sincerely.
However if this thread is just an attempt to rustle up some liberals so they can be bravely nit-picked, this should probably be stated more clearly. I would have joined the fun by responding in kind.
Dr. Gigantis (#18) wrote,
"North Korea is just South Korea’s crazy uncle...
The state-sanctioned starvation and execution of hundreds of thousands and then millions of people wasn't a joke when it was brought about by the Ottomans (Armenia), the Boseviks, the Nazis, the Maoists, the Khmer Rouge... the list continues...
But somehow the ongoing North Korean disaster is a fit subject for snippy analogies about crazy uncles. The janjaweed probably provide some comic openings too. As Bernard Shaw said about the fate of Germany's Jews ... well, Gigantis, you can Google that one yourself.
Cicero asked some pretty straightforward questions. Lots of WW2 history, but not much serious effort by anti-war folks to offer responses. Not that anyone has to... So extra thanks to Zota #38, Max #45, Stephen #48, Tired #57, and above all Andrew J. Lazarus #59 for putting thoughts to paper (keyboard).
"Soft Power" ?
Just what is that exactly ...
No im making a point, without the united states behind it, without in the end, knowing that American bombers can always be relied upon as the last resort, just how much power is contained in "Soft Power" ?
The only reason the inspectors was allowed back into Iraq was 100,000 troops, plenty of tanks, and ready positioned warplanes.
In other words, i assert that "Soft Power" is a joke, its soft alright, but there is no power.
Structurally, the UN is a kind of representative democracy
Except for all that inconvenience about voting. By definition, a democratic form of governance — whether you're talking about the neighborhood PTA or a hypothetical world state — only exists when the people are given the regular and fair opportunity to participate in it. That might be through direct decision making or it might be through electing representatives. The UN offers neither opportunity.
Calling the UN "a kind of representative democracy" does a disservice to the term.
Tired,
Please detail the chemical and conventional weapons that the U.S. provided to Saddam? The Swedes, who have been documenting arms trades by nation have shown that about 1% of all of Saddam's weapons came from the U.S. and that about 90% came from Russia, China and France. The Rumsfeld visit and handshake you refered to (1988) can be researched at DoD's website. The memo documenting that meeting was declassified a couple of years ago and is available for you to read. It is quite clear that the primary purpose of this mission was to admonish Saddam about the recent gassing of the Kurds. Of course we should have done more than chastise him. But really, this Michael Moore type fantasy that "we armed Saddam and made him what he is" is pure fiction.
Jeff, in the UN, every nation is represented and gets a vote. This does not mean the UN employs a useful or functional system, but it does mean that it employs a form of "representational democracy."
Aren't pointless semantics fun? Hey, did you catch this part of my comment?
I answered every question asked, but I guess you figured out your angle... Fight the good fight.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a clearer example of 20/20 hindsight than #61. Supposing it's correct that we underestimated the threat of the Taliban (or more specifically their honored guest Osama bin Laden)—and remember that hair-raising PDB?—we can't really use that model to justify Iraq. Because where would you stop with the "better safe than sorry"? After Iran? Syria? Uzbekistan? France?? What the new criterion? Presidential say-so? If it's lack of democracy, then we need big tax increases and a draft to implement White Man's New Burden, unless you wish to admit that democracy is an afterthought and various political considerations come to the fore.
What would have been the best, most legitimate way for Iraq to achieve democratic elections?
A democratic revolution. The US should support democratic revolutions when they have a real chance of taking power with assistance from outside the country. I juxtapose this situation to one in which outside support would trigger a nationalist backlash or where there is little native support for the specific movement, rather than the concept of democracy itself.
Can it be applied to Burma, North Korea, Iran, and other dictatorships?
Yes.
If your answer to this question involves the UN, address the UN's corruption with the Oil-for-Food scandal, sex slaves in the Congo, and the inability to prevent the Rwandan genocide. If the top dogs of the UN are profiteers for the containment of dictators like Saddam, and their representatives trafficking sex in the countries they purport to peace-keep, how can the UN be a legitimate force for democracy?
In the words of Winston Churchill, “I don’t see any way of realizing our hopes for a World Organization in six days. Even the Almighty took seven.” The UN is a work in process. These scandals are just that: scandals. They should be vigorously investigated and prosecuted; and they will be. Pointing out these flaws avoids the central challenge addressed by FDR and Churchill when they built the UN: human nature intersecting with weapons of mass destruction.
Every human heart knows fairness. We may argue around the edges, but we all know the sting of injustice. The real challenge for the Right is not to refine and lengthen their list of grievances against the UN, but rather to justify nationalism in a nuclear world. Nuclear weapons can be constructed using 1940’s technology. At this late date, some 60 years removed from their invention, every knowledgeable person understands that it is unfair for some people to have them and others not. This state of affairs is permanent: the technology is old and the human heart knows fairness.
If you have a 100 year solution to this problem, lay it out. The Right that helped fight and win WWII understood that powerful international institutions and norms of behavior were the only durable answer. Being human institutions, they will suffer corruption and errors of judgment, and require internal processes to root them out, deplore them, and set things right again.
The young Right, having lived with the peace and power that creating these institutions provided the United States, is now awash in naive nostalgia for nationalism. Let us rework the world for democracy using our unmatched national power! America is so powerful we can do these things, and more. The problem is that nationalism ends in catastrophe. Throughout history, multi-nation coalitions of interest are the hallmark of nationalistic foreign policy. “Coalitions of the willing” are nothing more than coalitions of national convenience.
The challenge of relatively new scientific knowledge intersecting our intrinsic political fallibility cannot be met by nationalist philosophy. Extraordinary national power provided a short term solution, which is why the NPT worked for the last two generations, but it has reached the end of its useful life. Pakistan, India, North Korea, and probably Iran. The Right’s populist and nationalistic urges threaten the reemergence of national power as the foundation of the international order, and this will reprise the pre-WWII situation, but this time with email and nuclear weapons. The remarkable thing is that we know better, but with the emotional fires of the Right stoked with self-righteousness, and the terrorists obliging with matches for their tinder, we will quite likely do it anyway.
Imagine that the true world powers decide that the American Right is correct: it is all about national power. It is easy to pontificate about Iran and North Korea. What if the other great powers decide that the UN doesn’t suit them? Are you prepared to go toe-to-toe with China? Is that the war you want? Or do you believe that the other great powers will simply sit back when the US decides that international institutions are either useless or only for governments they like? The word for this, to repeat myself, is naïve.
Are tyrants defeated with soft power, or merely contained until they fade away?
Depends on the tyrant. Hitler, for example, could not be contained until he faded away. The Soviet Union could be and was. In the first case Chamberlain appeased and was wrong. In the second, General LeMay and a sizable portion of the American Right urged war and were wrong.
Is contained fascism simply the unstated and accepted cost of soft power?
You assume your conclusion. Fascism is an ugly but pervasive part of human nature. Soft power or hard power solutions frame the debate away from the core question: How should democracies respond to fascism?
The answer depends on two fundamental issues. Does the fascist movement pose an existential threat (or is it manageable on a case-by-case basis)? Second, is there a viable democratic political constituency prepared to revolt against the government? A ‘yes’ to either question should trigger intervention if the means are available. Addressing this reality is a core problem for the UN as it stands now.
If it is, should Hitler have been opposed?
Of course. Hitler, like the USSR and unlike Iraq, Iran and North Korea, posed an existential threat.
What can corrupt soft power?
This is a non-sequitor. Corruption is part of the human condition. It pervades soft power, hard power and softball leagues.
Are there any circumstances where hard power is warranted?
Of course.
If the UN is too corrupt and impotent, and the US is too sovereign to represent the world, what organization would you propose instead?
A stronger and more accountable UN.
Would a 'UN-D' -- a variation or branch of the United Nations, except the members are all democracies -- be a better legitimizing force for democracy than either the United States or the current United Nations?
This was considered when the UN was formed. In fact, it started out that way. The core challenge is how to engage the entire population of the earth in those issues that affect all of us. Nuclear weapons are an example. Pollution is another. Engaging with equanimity is critical, even if some regimes are beyond redemption.
If you had to wear a uniform and be put in harm's way, but could choose the flag you fought for, which flag would it be: Your family crest; your town's flag; your state's flag; your country's flag; your religion's flag; the UN, NATO or EU flag; or an NGO flag. Why?
My people came to this continent in 1652. 125 years later, we fought in the War of Independence. Down through the generations to my own parents, both of whom served. My uncle and my grandfather both died in service.
I’ll take Old Glory.
"Well, no offense, but we didn't invade Poland and Romania, did we? So "containment" can have some tremendous successes."
Mass murder of 62 million people = success ?
Let them kill and kill untill the makers of the largest pile of skulls grow weary of killing ?
I dont debate that we finally saw progress, I dont assert that we could have prevented all of it, (if the left didnt excuse mass murder, proving they are equally as evil, that would have helped)
But you call that success ? with no mention of the river of blood behind it ?
Yje moral answer is that we should do something when we can, to save those people that we can, to look for opertunity, and to use military force. preemptive force, when cost benift opertunity capability and political will come together.
Already ive seen above what boils down to: we cant help everyone everywhere, therefore we should not help anyone anywhere.
Totally bankrupt thing to say.
I am pro-Bush on foreign policy.
But I think we of the right-wing are doing a disservice to our country if we don't acknowledge that US foreign policy for the last quarter century has been pretty screwed up.
We have made a muddle of supporting corrupt regimes. Consider the Iran-Contra affair. I think it can be said that we supported and abetted Saddam when we thought that it was in our best interests. I think it can be said that we didn't take a sufficiently long-term view in our foreign policy.
I think we need to be less partisian, and a little more reflective in our analysis of what we did wrong in our past foreign policy initiatives.
"We propped Saddam up because we hated Khomeini, and we hated Khomeini because he overthrew the Shah, and we propped the Shah up because we hated Mossadeq, and we hated Mossadeq because he nationalized Iran's foreign oil industry. Historically we don't change governments for noble reasons." -- quote another commentor.
I see a lot that is correct in this analysis. To dismiss it because it is from a "lefty" dishonors our founding fathers and is detrimental to our future well-being. To ignore it because of the source is craven.
We don't owe allegiance to an administration or a party. We owe allegiance to the truth. No one is perfect, and admiting to past mistakes isn't a sign of weakness. Acknowledging the correctness of an opponent's argument is ethical, and allows us to engage them in discussion -- who knows, we might just learn something; at the same time resolving some of the polarization in the US. And it allows us to move forward from a smarter position.
It's too easy to take out the strawmen. Let's address the legitimate arguments and engage in worthwhile debate. Our country, our children and the future deserve nothing less from us.
And worse, sometimes we have leftist in charge of america,
And that was wrong in what way? because it undermined the leftist support for mass murdering communist thugs ?
How much blood stained mass murder excusing leftist evil should we be willing to accept ?
I think we saw Bush mention that in two speaches, the left reacted ... well, like the left always reacts.
Nothing to do with any real danger ? it was all an emotional thing ?
And if it was freedom instaed of tyranny and islamic terror, would we have reacted the same?
So we hate Saudi Arabia even more by that logic, bigger reserves and all...
Bzzzt ...
Says who ? a friggin blood stained leftist moonbat ? they are ONLY unhappy at the setbacks to international communist utopian dreams, thats all they care about.
No, not craven, prudent, the blood stained religion of 174 Million skulls is in no moral position to advise us.
Those in love with Castro and Kim Jong Il pretend to offer us advice ?
They have nothing in common with us .. Nothing, except the word "human" you find in the word inhumanity, as in the greatest of all inhumanities of man their bloody religion has wrought.
Case in point:
Then they wouldn't be democracies then, would they.
Zota, this has nothing to do with grammar. This is about the definitions of words. Democracies represent their people. The UN does not.
Do I have any substantive comments? I answered your question about why it is worth pursuing democracy in Iraq, but not in the UN - repeated here because you apparently missed it:
I was also questioning the democratic credentials of the United Nations. The question over whether there is a respectable UN is part of the discussion between libs and us warmongers, but if that's nit-picking too...
Raymond, could you take a moment to tell us What would have happened if we invaded Eastern Europe in the 1950s?"
I'd like you to pay particular attention to how many people would have been murdered in a nuclear war.
Some day I expect you will grow up and understand that even American power is not unlimited, and that the victims of Stalin and Gomolka were pretty much beyond our ability to rescue. Unless, of course, you are suggesting we should have helped the Germans defeat Communism, but in that case there's a parallel argument from the other side.
You don't even deserve my answers.
Just a quick note re: stated reasons for war vs. current rationale. A brief comparison with the American Civil War might be in order. Lincoln was strongly supported in his candidacy by abolitionists, and when he attained the the office of POTUS, the southern states decided that he must, therefore, immediately listen to the abolitionists and threaten their way of life; so they seceded. However, Lincoln was always first and foremost concerned with preservation of the Union, and had tried to backpedal on abolitionist aims. With the Confederate siege of Fort Sumter, however, he had no choice but to respond, as it was a direct attack on Federal property. The first few years of the war were hard going, not helped by the fact that abolitionists refused to support him. Thus the Emancipation Proclamation. In his letter to Horace Greeley on 1862.08.22, he wrote:
Similiarly, the Bush Administration might've had some more supporters had they initially taken the liberal view that democracy must be spread in Iraq. After all, addressing a deficit of political freedom in the Middle East has been a long-running project of true liberals, and it is likewise in this vein that some liberals had said that America had had it coming on 9/11, because of the previous American support for dictatorships there, a support which Bush was to denounce in a 2003 speech to the National Endowment for Democracy<?a>:
"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export."
But, because he wanted UN support, and because the UN is a body dedicated to the status quo rather than liberal democracy, he had to make the pitch based on weapons of mass destruction. Too, the American voters were not yet ready for the idea of America spreading democracy everywhere, as the Afghan elections hadn't yet taken place. In the winter of 2002-2003, therefore, WMD was what the Bush Administration perceived as the correct way to sell the war.
Just trying to think strategically here, folks.
I'm not sure if the trackback worked... but I've posted my answers on my blog.
http://www.murkyview.com
Feel free to come read and comment.
Colt, if deeply interested in the definitions of words like election and representation, maybe you could re-read my answer to the "UN-D" question? I raised several issues there about fair representation....
Really? Hell, I've been completely misinformed. I guess I didn't get the memo or something, because I've missed every single UN referendum. Where's my polling place? What's on the ballot? How often do they hold elections?
What's that? The people don't actually get to vote? Only the ambassadors get to vote? Oh, well, that's okay then, because back in November I specifically remember marking my ballot for … hey. Wait a minute. You mean we don't get to vote for the representatives to the UN, either?
Democratic, my ass. They're all a bunch of unelected career diplomats, most of whom come from countries where the people don't even get to elect legislators much less ambassadors.
Cicero, are you seriously implying that the degree of threat that Iraq posed to the world was comparable to that of Nazi Germany? I don't think even North Korea is comparable.
Um, Jeff? It's called the "United Nations." A representative of every nation gets a vote. As far as I know, you're not a nation-state. (although maybe you are the designated representative of the Nation of Jeff, and this comment thread is part of your campaign for recognition?).
Also, isn't it supposed to be a bad thing that that every single nation gets a vote? Wasn't the whole point of the "UN-D" argument that the current UN is too "democratic" an organization (one nation = one vote) and some nation-states do not deserve a vote?
Since I played along and answered every question, I'd also like to know -- why are you and Colt ignoring everything I wrote just to split semantic hairs about what a "vote" "is" ?
Kinda like the Electoral College, come to think of it. Guess we're not very democratic.
Readers,
I was surprised at the sheer volume of responses, especially on a Sunday. I formulated the questions on Saturday, and posted them Sunday morning before I left with my family for a long day of eating chili, drinking beer and pretending I appreciated watching the Super Bowl. Quite a discussion took place during that time.
Andrew J. Lazarus's comment #59 "Have you stopped beating your wife?" was a fair question to ask of me. The short answer is: Yes, I have a wife.
Admittedly, my questions were not entirely neutral. However, I didn't post the questions to 'score rhetorical points,' a conclusion that Mr. Lazarus or anyone else could only draw if they knew me personally. Which he doesn't. The intention of my questions can only be relayed by me, since I was the one who formulated them: I asked them, defects and all, because I am hoping to get a sense of cogency from liberals -- from where I once full-heartedly hailed -- with respect to their positions on the war, and foreign policy. I find little cogency overall with the positions taken by the Democrats. And I would like that cogency to be explained without Bush hatred, or conspiracy theories. For the most part, I was obliged. I also plan a similar list of questions for Conservatives, which is how I planned to balance out the bias of the questions. Perhaps next Sunday.
Of course, hindsight always provides a retrospective, and in this case, there were other questions I should've asked alongside the ones posted. One question would be: If you are a liberal, do you support a war against Saddam? On this point, I couldn't get a clear image.
I don't want to ramble here -- there is too much to respond to. But the comments to this question will be the inspiration for my next essay. I thank you for all your thoughts. This blog is excellent because it attracts such a wide variance of readers. You all have proven that.
LMAO!
I really don't see the point in this. Few people would look at Cicero's opinions and conclude that he thinks it is too democratic. Democracy means "rule by the people", as in individuals voting on measures taken by their government. The UN does not incorporate that in the slightest. This is not about semantics, this is about you bending a perfectly good word out of shape to fit it to something that it cannot reasonably be applied to.
I keep seeing the argument posted in various fora that "We propped up Saddam, we're bad people, we shouldn't have attacked Iraq!" Okay, so suppose we did prop up Saddam. Doesn't that give us a responsibility to remove him now? It's like Frankenstein: Victor made the monster, so he has to kill it. I think it's also worth keeping in mind that yes, we propped up dictators, but this must be seen in context. I envision the Cold War as in many ways like a giant game of Risk. The US and the Free World can be seen as "blue" nations, while the Soviets and other communists as "red" nations. The various dictators and undemocratic regimes allied with neither side are "grey"--neutral. Sometimes, in order to win the war, it was impossible to turn a country "blue," and thus became necessary for us to keep a country "grey," rather than letting it become "red." After forty years of conflict, the Cold War is over, and now it is time to turn the grey nations blue.
Okay, last time:
American is not a "pure" democracy -- we do not directly vote on measures taken by our government. We directly vote for representatives for our district and our state. We also directly vote for a slate of electors , and those electors vote for a President, and that president makes executive policy. You, Colt, do not vote for executive order this or house bill that. Unless you happen to be a lobbyist, you don't get any direct say in the matter.
Which means that according to your bizarre little word game, since you and Jeff don't directly vote on every matter before the Federal government, America is not really a democracy.
But that would be a foolish assertion, wouldn't it? To suggest that any organization that does not have a pure 1:1 democratic vote for every single issue is not in fact democratic?
Yes, it would be a completely foolish.
You hate the UN. Great. Happy for you. The UN has lots of flaws. But it also has representatives for each nation and those representatives all vote. This is one of it's major problems -- Sudan and China get a vote on human rights issues for example. So one solution, suggested by Cicero, is making a UN-D comprised only of some nations. This would potentially make a UN-D more fair and just, but also a less "pure" democratic organization.
Get it?
Cicero,
The intention of my questions can only be relayed by me, since I was the one who formulated them: I asked them, defects and all, because I am hoping to get a sense of cogency from liberals -- from where I once full-heartedly hailed -- with respect to their positions on the war, and foreign policy. I find little cogency overall with the positions taken by the Democrats.
I am unsure to which liberal you refer (the ones labeled "moonbats", perhaps?), but what kind of cogency do you expect? And if a liberal does give you a straightforward, cogent answer, then what? More demonization of the kind we've come to expect from Raymond and Co.? Forgive this liberal for declining the offer.
And I would like that cogency to be explained without Bush hatred, or conspiracy theories.
I don't hate Bush, nor do I think he's part of any conspiracy. (I apologize to all you Bush lovers, but I don't think he's smart enough to pull off a conspiracy. ;-) Actually, if I have any feeling for the man beyond a wry joviality, it's disappointment at the opportunist he is. I expected better of Mr. God-and-Country, but he turns out to be yet another run-of-the-mill politician.
Of course, hindsight always provides a retrospective, and in this case, there were other questions I should've asked alongside the ones posted. One question would be: If you are a liberal, do you support a war against Saddam? On this point, I couldn't get a clear image.
Alright, I'll bite. Yes, I do support a war against Saddam - in 1991. I supported the first Bush and was among those who thought he should have gone all the way. He had his foot on the throat of the dictator; one twist and it would have been finished. But he backed off.
It's now 2003, and Bush the Second wants to wage war against Iraq. Supposedly because of the potential imminent threat he posed to us. Were liberals supposed to take him seriously? Afterall, prior to 9/11, the President had given no indication he was preparing an assault on the tyrant. And up to that time, well, let's just say he looked the other way when it came to tyranny, even when it was about to bite him in the ass. Were liberals really supposed to take him seriously?
I backed him when he sent troops to kill bin Laden and wipe out the Taliban. I supported him when he imposed certain new restrictions to help flush out potential, immediate threats to our homeland. I balked, however, when he suggested, no, demanded we go after Hussein. Yes, Hussein was a thorn, and yes, he was in violation of the resolutions he agreed to, and yes, he needed to be removed. But rather than make the case for removing Hussein, rather than let the UN inspectors do their job, rather than bring the EU and 50+% of the world into agreement with him, our Marshal-in-Chief decided to brush aside concerns, shoot first, and bury all subsequent problems later.
Thing is, despite all the bellyaching to the contrary, Bush the First and Clinton after him forgave the dictator (the first drew back, the second drew a plan, but never acted on it.) Even if it only seemed as if they forgave the man, that appearance, combined with years of thumb twiddling, let memories of the Big Bad Dictator fade out of world consciousness. Oh yeah, Bush the Second is hero to the masses in this nation, but he's proven America is now the Big Bad Policeman to the world. I hope the new image works out for this nation, I really do.
So, gentlemen, for whom do we prepare our batons this time? Havana, Dafur, Tehran, Pyongyang, Mecca or Moscow? So many dictators, so little time...
stephen
Marcus,
re "If you are a liberal, do you support a war against Saddam?"
As a [social libertarian fiscal liberal] pacifist (i.e. an important axiom of my beliefs is that war is evil, one of the most evil things humans do in an organized way, right up there with genocide) I did not support our invasion of Iraq. If asked, I couldn't have explained at the time why we were invading, heck, I still can't form a coherent argument for invasion. Overall, it's probably been positive for the people of Iraq (Saddam was very bad, emerging democracy is good) and perhaps for the region. It's been negative in many ways for the US; Iraq is a terrorist training camp, anti-Americanism has gained considerable new political expediency throughout the world, the war/occupation/reconstruction was/is expensive (look at the tiny but painful cuts in the newly released budget proposal and compare with the approximately $100 billion a year for war/occupation/reconstruction), the new government will align more than we like with Iran, you all know the rest of the negative arguments and can fill them in yourselves.
I supported the removal of the Taliban in Afganistan. Al Qaeda was a serial mass murder organization, basically paying rent to the Taliban running the place; we had no real choice. Would have preferred a lighter hand in some respects, more reconstruction aid afterwards, and a fully maintained focus on rounding up/getting rid of the remnants of Al Qaeda.
The premise of this question is premature: let's wait to make conclusions on that until we see the ultimate result of the elections they have had. I have high hopes, but we do not know. If the result of the elections is a stable and secure democracy, great. If it is a civil war or a shiite theocracy, then perhaps this question is moot.
Assuming the outcome is good, my general answer is military containment, trade, and time; it worked against the USSR, and is (slowly) working against China and (very slowly, but inevitably) North Korea.
If your answer involves the U.S., then address Watergate, Iran-Contra, Whitewater, Valerie Plame, the no-Lobbyist-left-behind bill, sex slaves in America, revolving-door politics w.r.t. Halliburton, and the unwillingness to send troops to stabilize Liberia when the people of said nation were outright asking for it.
Your question presumes a false dichotomy. That a system is flawed is no reason to reject it entirely: all systems are flawed. Work to repair the system, instead.
Tyrants are defeated primarily from inside. Go research Slobodan Milosevic vs. Otpor, and the British Emprire vs. Ghandi, for starters. To the extent that this process can be assisted from without, then if they can be contained militarily, we assist by trading with their populace, providing an influx of money, culture, and ideas. No tyrant can keep 100% of the money to themselves in the face of widespread cashflow. Economic empowerment and a rising middle class inevitably bring liberalization and the decrease of a tyrant's power. Compare the China of today to the China of 1969. Yes, this can take an awful lot of time.
The primary reason Castro has not fallen is that we are isolating Cuba from an inflow of US money and culture.
Of course Hitler should have been opposed. He could not be contained, and the democratic nations were facing a true existential threat.
A snarky question which assumes more than it says. The answer is "many things", as with any form of power. I'll counter with an equally snarky question: what can corrupt military adventurism?
Many: C.F. Hitler/WWII, S. Korea, Gulf War I, Afghanistan. Also: hard power is also often required to create the military containment necessary to isolate a regime. Intervention when order has broken down entirely and people are dying by the thousand: force should have been used in Rwanda.
I am not opposed to the use of force when it is appropriate, nor do I believe such circumstances to be rare.
A repaired and empowered U.N.-like organization, presumably.
An organization that could do this would need to have force empowerment (i.e. an effectively sovereign military) and the authorization to use it from the vast majority of nations on the planet.
I think we are 30 years from such an organization, because not enough nations are willing to let it happen, and sadly that includes the USA. (But consider - how much better would it be for us and our troops if we didn't have to invade two-bit dictators, because the UN really could handle them for us?). But it's easier to create this future organization by working to repair the UN than by throwing out the proverbial baby.
At the upper end of the scale is a world government to which today's nations relate similarly to the way US states or EU states relate to their unions. This is 100 years off at least.
Quite possibly, I hadn't considered that particular variation. It's an interesting one, I'll give it more thought.
It's worth noting that I support democracy because it is the best known form of government for protecting the freedom, security, and welfare of a population. It may be possible that an even better form of government for defending those goals. It is those goals I support; the particular form of government is merely a means to that end.
It would depend on what I was fighting for, though consider that being "in harm's way" could include other activities than fighting.
If I was fighting for the defense of my country, I would prefer to wear my country's flag. If I was fighting for human rights or the installment of democracy in another nation, I would prefer to represent an international organization that stood for those goals. Despite its flaws, that is the UN for the moment.
If I wasn't fighting -- say providing medical services via Doctors without Borders, or aid services with the Red Cross -- I would prefer to wear that organization's flag and my nation's flag.
Let me conclude with two counterquestions:
Which is worse, Oil-for-food types of corruption, or twenty thousand people bleeding to death on the battlefield?
Which is worse, 12 billion in mismanaged oil money, or 100 billion of nonrecoverable costs in ordnance, fuel, and materiel?
* What would have been the best, most legitimate way for Iraq to achieve democratic elections? Can it be applied to Burma, North Korea, Iran, and other dictatorships?
To quote George Will "There are three things that Iraq doesn't have that prevent their democracy: Hamilton, Jefferson and Madision." (actually, that is a paraphrase).
Democracy is the natural political development from the economic development of a propertied class -- also called the middle class. As merchants obtained property, they wanted to protect their rights in property. Slowly, they develop, over decades. Simply attempting to create a system has numerous problems.
Therefore, the best way to develop a lastiing democracy is to develop ever-increasing trade relations with countries.
* If your answer to this question involves the UN, address the UN's corruption with the Oil-for-Food scandal, sex slaves in the Congo, and the inability to prevent the Rwandan genocide. If the top dogs of the UN are profiteers for the containment of dictators like Saddam, and their representatives trafficking sex in the countries they purport to peace-keep, how can the UN be a legitimate force for democracy?
First, the US was aware of various efforts to get around the sanctions (search the Financial Times and CNN websites for more). In addition, the US and the British had representatives on the oversight council of the Oil-for-Food program, indicating we were not very vigilant on our watch. Third, I find it incredibly difficult to believe no US company benefitted from this arrangement. Some of the largest oil companied in the world are based in the US.
That being said, the argument against the UN is "they are corrupt and therefore unable to take on a peacekeeping mission." If corruption is the sole reason why a government or organization cannot participate, then no government has the right to perform a regeim change. For example, 9 billion dollars of reconstruction money is unaccounted for. Does this mean possible US corruption makes our efforts to rebuild Iraq moot?
* Are tyrants defeated with soft power, or merely contained until they fade away? Is contained fascism simply the unstated and accepted cost of soft power? If it is, should Hitler have been opposed?
Hitler invaded most of continental Europe. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, the world responded, beat him back and then disengaged. Saddam did not invade any other country after that.
* What can corrupt soft power?
Time. As the Duelfer report clearly indicated, the sanctions worked. Saddam did not have WMD. In fact, pre-war intelligence indicates his suppposed attempts were highly suspect. The Bush administration shut-down the search in December. Yet, we grew impatient. In addition, 9/11 created a war mentality in the US.
* Are there any circumstances where hard power is warranted?
Actual invasion of another sovereign nation.
* If the UN is too corrupt and impotent, and the US is too sovereign to represent the world, what organization would you propose instead?
I disagree with this argument. Although the UN has problems, it already exists and most other countries accept and use it as a tool of diplomacy. Again, all governments have corruption. One could easily argue that the US form of election financing is nothing more then legalilzed bribery.
* Would a 'UN-D' -- a variation or branch of the United Nations, except the members are all democracies -- be a better legitimizing force for democracy than either the United States or the current United Nations?
This is an interesting idea. I haven't had time to consider it, but will think on it.
* If you had to wear a uniform and be put in harm's way, but could choose the flag you fought for, which flag would it be: Your family crest; your town's flag; your state's flag; your country's flag; your religion's flag; the UN, NATO or EU flag; or an NGO flag. Why?
The only war I would have volunteered for is WWII. Korea is a possibility, although I am not sure I would have bought into the domino theory back then. Vietnam was a losing war from the very beginning (read the Pentagon Papers, especially the CIA's early assessment of the conflict).
UN-D = UN - China
China is to big not to include and every other big state (more than 100 million or otherwise important) is a (faulty) democracy. In the medium sized states (between 30 and 100 million) you have dictatorships which can be kicked out by elections (countries like Iran, Egypte etc) so should you include those states? And states below that can speak but in reality don't count
bondad,
Too bad 9/11 didn't create a peace mentality, eh?
Well, as a liberal I favor Democratizing the whole ME.
Hey I bet the war against Germany 1939-45 was bad. And wrong.
And just because the Baathists were the political heirs of Hitler/Stalin by their own admission. Well so what? War is bad.
We have a new liberal doctrine. - So he's a son of a bitch - at least he's not our son of a bitch. Or if he was it is all our fault and should do nothing about it. Because war is bad.
Had we just left the Germans alone in 1939- 1945 they would have brought order to Europe.
Um, war is bad. Fighting is always wrong. And it costs too much. America should stay out of all wars.
Which is worse, Oil-for-food types of corruption, or twenty thousand people bleeding to death on the battlefield?
Do I get to count the 500,000 Iraqi children that starved to death?
As the Duelfer report clearly indicated, the sanctions worked.
Starvation Works!
To the folks on the left side of the aisle still reading this thread -
I will no longer be posting comments to sites like this. I've come to the conclusion, after immersing myself in blogs for the past four weeks, there is no discussing topics with people more interested in one-upping their opponents.
tip of the hat,
stephen