Bill Kristol rattled the sabres on Fox News Sunday:
“We cannot let whatever bad results were in Iraq deter us from doing what is necessary here. We can’t ask Israel to do it; it’s our responsibility if we care about the future of the Middle East. I think we could do much more to stimulate dissent and to help the democratic opposition, in Iran, but look, the fact that the military action would be hard, doesn’t mean you couldn’t have a four day Desert Fox-like operation like in Iraq in 1998, which probably did damage Saddam’s ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Ezra Klein interpteted this as an endorsement of an INVASION of Iran. Lawyers, Guns, and Money responds:
Ah yes, so Bill Kristol has come out explicitly in favor of invading Iran. As the Republican Party’s most beloved Democratic Lester Maddox protege once asked, “with what–spitballs?” Perhaps it’s my lack of Straussian training, but I’m rather at a loss to reconcile the simultaneous positions that 1)we need to invade Iran, 2)we cannot “cut-and-run” from Iraq, and 3)it was grotesquely irresponsible to suggest that there was even the slightest possibility of a draft if Bush was re-elected. Where exactly are we getting these troops? Are they growing a group of super-warrior clones at the offices of The Weekly Standard or something?
And Peter Beinhart will call critics of this plan unserious…
In Kristol’s latest column Do not appease Tehran, he praises the Washington Post:
The Washington Post’s editorial page, for one, endorses political and economic steps of real consequence, warns against letting diplomacy degenerate into appeasement, proposes to test the seriousness of our allies and nations such as Russia and China, and refuses to rule out the threat of military action.
and he warns:
Doves profess concern about Iran’s nuclear program and endorse various diplomatic responses to it. But they don’t want even to contemplate the threat of military action. Perhaps military action won’t ultimately be necessary. But the only way diplomatic, political and economic pressure has a chance to work in the coming months is if the military option — or various military options — are kept on the table.
Meanwhile, some hawks, defenders of the Iraq war, would prefer to deal with one challenge at a time. They hope we can kick the can down the road a while longer, or that a deus ex machina — a Jewish one — will appear to do our job for us. But great powers don’t get to avoid their urgent responsibilities because they’d prefer to deal with only one problem at a time, or to slough those responsibilities on to others.
We’ve seen this movie before, and we all panned the ending. If there is a lesson Kristol should have learned from Iraq II, it is not to beat your wardrums so loudly that you look like a wimp if you DON”T invade. Keep your options open.
And the lesson we should all have learned from Iraq I is that we shouldn’t bomb enemies we are in no position to defeat. Don’t get yourself into an open-ended round of economic sanctions. Don’t make messes that you are not prepared to clean up.
But PNAC lives for and off messes.
Update [2006-1-16 14:33:30 by BooMan]:
From the AP:
Powerful members of the U.N. Security Council agreed Monday that Iran must fully suspend its nuclear program, Britain’s Foreign Office said following a meeting aimed at forging a common response to Tehran’s decision to resume uranium enrichment activities.
Diplomats also announced plans to call for an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency board of directors on Feb. 2-3 to discuss what action to take against Tehran for removing some U.N. seals from its main uranium enrichment facility in Natanz last week.
What’s new. Israel and Ameicia are the Military/Industrial Complex.
First rule: consider the source. Second rule: consider the audience. I think the American people (who actually remember the saying) fully understand “fool me once”. To the extent any media organization starts banging their drums of war – no matter how slowly – they will crushed under the onslaught of laughter and rage by that vast “silent majority”.
We read, we learn, we act to apply pressure to ensure accuracy in the media. And we have gained political “capital” in a Congress in no mood to authorize yet another ridiculous excursion into hell.
No matter how much fear-mongering these idiots put forth, they will never be able to get beyond the facts of the matter, that:
That PNAC has put forth the arguments is a shame on them. That we continue to believe they have the power to push this country to war is shame on us.
They have more power now than they had then. If Bush says we are bombing Iran, we are bombing Iran… and France, Britian and Germany will probably stand beside Bush while he does it.
More likely, this will be prededed by economic sanctions that will be unlikely to work, and if they are successful, we will be asking Condi Rice if the death of x amount of maltrutioned babies ‘is worth it’.
We ignore PNAC at out peril.
They still own the Pentagon.
They will ask us “Do you want Iran to have the bomb?”
And when we say no, they will say “Alright then, follow us.”
I doubt they can get it through the Security Council — China will veto it.
Bombing Iran will unleash a worldwide jihadist uprising among Muslims everywhere … not that such a fact seems to hit these idiots between the ears
P.S. I’m with Sam Harris that the Muslim religion advocates jihadist uprisings … and that the religion is dangerous in that regard and that “moderates” mustn’t ignore that fact.
That is why deft diplomacy is so incredibly important here. Frankly, I’m glad that Condi is Secretary of State because at least she has the drive and gumption to try to do something …. Colin Powell was a fucking waste of time.
Yes, they control the Pentagon but might this finally get those generals who whisper to Murtha but out loud praise the president finally have had enough, and stand up to him?
I’m all for a military coup of the Bush residency.
Be careful what you wish for. That may be what it takes…given the prospect of 3 more years of this malaise…it might even be less of a threat…scary thought, huh?
Peace
It was wishful thinking 🙂 — a moment of letting my imagination go wild.
see the update.
Bombing Iran will unleash a worldwide jihadist uprising among Muslims everywhere … not that such a fact seems to hit these idiots between the ears
This has been the plan all along. These folks want the uprising to validate all of the crazy shit they’ve been doing.
This is a very scary time. It looks more and more like we’re going to get this “4-day war” crap within the next 6 months, but it’s going to explode Iran retaliates and escalates this into a real war, which probably will include more suicide attacks in the US. Scare the populace enough and maybe they accept that we can’t change leadership in a time of emergency. I hope people aren’t that stupid, but the past 5+ years has been a serious blow to my faith in the general public’s interest in their own welfare. I think there’s a real possibility that we never elect another President.
Yeah, I think that just about says it all. Nobody is able to hold those responsible to any measure of accountability. I’ll bet if/when they reactivate the draft that not very many show up to participate.
is that people who are not attacking you, occupying you, stealing your homes and your stuff, etc. should be left in peace.
While this belief may not be unique to Muslims, it is in direct conflict with the popular American belief that the earth and all it contains are the property of the US, and any objection to this constitutes a “jihadist uprising.”
It is the same school of thought that considers people who defend their home from a brutal horde of invaders to be “insurgents.”
Unfortunately, tragically, this is an unreconcilable disconnect, not unlike the disconnect that would occur should I decide that your home and all it contains are my property, and any action that you might take to prevent me from seizing it would be a horrific crime.
The American public is already duped into believing otherwise and general ignorance will prevent them from considering anything they don’t already believe. Authors such as Bodansky have seen to it that history is fiction but accepted as law.
“great powers don’t get to avoid their urgent responsibilities”
non-proliferation is one of those responsibilities, and the selective use of non-proliferation is the main problem.
Yet, we cannot go to the American public and deny that the U.S. has a responsibility to deny nukes to a man that wants to wipe Israel off the map.
Whatever the merits, that is a good way to lose 50 states and dozens of seats, which only empowers the Emperors.
urgent responsibility, and demonstrate leadership in the area of non-proliferation and disarmament.
The rest of the world, Iran included, cannot go to its public and deny that they have a responsibility to disarm a nation that wants to wipe most of the people of the world off the map.
I regret that the US did not make different choices.
What about the deliberate misinterperatation or bad translations to inflame the situation? How do we know that the words and phrases are translated correctly by those in a position to have hidden agendas?
The problem with govt/media deception is that it casts doubt on everything else they do.
that is not an idle point:
The president, talking to more than 200 domestic and foreign reporters, said Iran had the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy which it cannot be denied of.
CNN, in its website Sunday evening, said that due to a translation error, CNN incorrectly quoted Iranian Presisent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying in his speech on Saturday that “the use of nuclear weapons is Iran’s right.”
In fact, what the Iranian president said was that “Iran has the right to nuclear energy, CNN clarified.
It said that the TV channel “takes this matter very seriously and apologizes for the error.”
It may be said here that CNN aired its wrong translation of the president’s remarks a number of times and that among the many news agencies that were represented in the news conference, including those of the West, it was the only one which made the error.
Its chief correspondent, Iranian-born Christian Amanpour, who knows the Persian-language well, was present at the press conference.
Ahmadinejad, in the conference, remarkably defended Iran’s position by saying Iran is a nation “rich in culture, civilization and history” and would have no need for nuclear weapons.
However:
“They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech to thousands of people in the Iranian city of Zahedan, according to a report on Wednesday from Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.
“The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets,” he said. “(It) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet.”
“If you have burned the Jews, why don’t you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel,” Ahmadinejad said.
And this is from al-Jazeera:
“The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land,” he said.
“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,” said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran’s revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
I don’t think any country’s political rhetoric should be either ignored or taken as fact. There are many instances of unrealistic talk and all of it should be given the weight it deserves. This applies to all sides.
Still, none of this is productive if the basis for what’s claimed to be the Islamic threat is misrepresented by our scholars, authors and politicians.
think like a politician for a moment.
Here you have a man that is running Iran, a country that most voting age Americans remember for holding American hostages for 444 days, which killed 241 marines in Beirut, which has real links to al-qaeda, which has been labeled a member of the axis-of-evil, and which the Security Council has just demanded to stop their nuclear research.
And this man is denying the holocaust ever happened, saying that Israel should be destroyed, and talking about a final showdown in Palestine.
Now, a savvy Iranian President would not say these provocative things if he wanted to remain unmolested to build a bomb. This guy is a little but loony. That is another point against him.
Now, once again, you are a politician. Are you going to say that it is your policy to let this guy ignore the will of the Security Council and do his research (even though it is legal for them to research)?
No, you are not going to say that because most American voters will be susceptible to both valid and demagogic rhetoric that will make that position untenable.
And the fact is that the Security Council is supposed to be in charge of preventing countries like Iran, with these types of leaders, from attaining nuclear weapons.
It is an impossible argument that Iran should be allowed to attain a bomb. Politically.
So, how to handle this rhetorical landscape?
The best way to proceed is to work with the Security Council to provide a united front and force Iran to put the seals back on their reactors, and broker a deal with Russia where Russia will enrich their uranium and its use can be monitored.
If this effort is successful, the pretext for war will be defused.
If we try to oppose the effort, we will lose more seats and be subjected to even more unilateralism, and more warmongering, and more looting of the treasury, and more executive power.
This goes to the heart of decades of manipulation, deception and misinformation. The honest thing to do would be to bring the history of the covert operations and politics out into the open for an honest revisiting. We could learn and educate the public on errors that have been made instead of compounding lies with more lies.
Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were just getting started on this back then and look what they’ve been able to accomplish.
The Jews were not the only people lost in the Holocaust. Besides that often omitted detail it needs to be said that Iran’s rhetoric was also directed at the importance of Holocaust commitment above all else even religion. There are great penalties to anyone who differs even slightly or any potentially perceived negative way.
That is not an option right now.
That is a recipe for total rejection by the populace.
Believe me, I write about these things (covert ops), as you know. But you gain less than nothing if your rhetoric is easily swatted aside and your reps are thrown out of office.
We cannot say, for example, that our problems with Iran are all our fault and therefore they should be able to build a bomb.
First of all, our problems with Iran are not all our fault. A lot of it is their fault. Secondly, we are not the one’s saying that we want to blow Israel off the map or denying the Holocaust, or claiming that we are engaged in a war to end all wars in Palestine. He is saying those things.
We are saying other things that are of major concern to the world, no doubt. But we have to act with consideration of our interests first, if for no other reason than that is what Americans expect, and to a large degree, what they deserve.
So, you cannot go to the American people and say that what Iran is saying is just fine, and that we have no moral authority to tell them not to build a bomb. It won’t work politically and will instead completely turn off the electorate to any idea that we might know how to run a foreign policy.
If you are in power, you can pursue more rational policies, but you cannot win power by bashing America and excusing Iran.
The neo-cons know this, and they rely on this. But that doesn’t make it any less effective.
Now, all of this is different from opposing airstrikes or an invasion. We have plenty of grounds, and actually the upper hand, when it comes to opposing that. But we have to accept that when Bush puts Iran on the radar, and Iran is acting in a threatening, irrational, and beligerrant way, that we will make no headway making excuses for their rhetoric, or their behavior, or in saying we should just ignore the problem.
I understand what you’re saying but my point is that you can’t get the support of thinking Americans if it appears to be more deception for opportunism. When the rhetoric is inflamed, the ‘president as former hostage-taker’ dubious and the VP’s company having a history of secretly working with Iran to speed their proliferation then the argument to consider Iran’s threat is doubted. If more truth that fabrication was found in the accounts of Mid-East politics then it might be more believable. If there wasn’t a direct link between spying for Israel, Chalabi and Curveball and Iran and…..then it wouldn’t be automatically doubted.
You’re asking us to believe the very people we’ve caught lying to get us into a war in Iraq.
about any of that? I don’t think so. I think Cheney could go on CNN and tell all about not only his dealings with Iran, but detail every covert interference back before Mossadeq was even born, and the culture is such now that if they are Muslims, and one of their warlords says they should be bombed, Americans will gladly send their sons off to bomb them.
Now I don’t agree with BooMan that that is what Americans “deserve.”
I don’t think that Americans, or people of any country, deserve to be taught that they are the lords of the universe and all other people must bow down to them as slaves to their masters.
But whether that’s what they deserve or not, that is “how girls like Lynndie was raised,” and that is what they, and the rest of the world, has got.
And with the exception of the European territories, the rest of the world is increasingly disinclined to even attempt to appease the US.
Sadly, I understand this as well. It’s instilled in the Evangelical parts of the Christian religion quite strongly and is part of what drives the dynamics of Biblical prophecy being fullfilled. I was pretty well tossed from the church and lost a decent marriage because I spoke out against the wavering morality this is all based on.
What I think doesn’t make a difference and will effect no change in US policy. I can’t support the actions though that will ultimately inflict more senseless suffering on innocent people.
so, you have to thread the needle.
Actually, blogs can a service by relentless truth-telling. Such activities are not best left to actual politicians, however, if the truth is not popular with the people.
For example, a sensible politican does not profess agnosticism on the divinity of Christ, or at least, the holiness of the Book. It isn’t prudent.
Likewise, a sensible politician doesn’t question a world order that puts the Security Council nations at the top of the food chain, and immunized from double standards.
Those types of arguments are best left to insurgents, like yourself.
First let me acknowledge that the term “sensible politician” is something of an oxymoron.
But if there was one in the US, he or she would have enough common sense to look around and notice that in the view of most of the world’s people, the UN Security Council is not at the top of anything but the trash heap, enjoying there an honored place in the lap of the US.
S/he would also recognize that the US has not positioned itself well for making a credible argument that any nation should not have any weapon it chooses to have, any more than it can make any credible argument on the subject of human rights, unless it wishes to argue that no such thing exists.
In my opinion, it is not in the interest of the people of any nation to be taught from birth that they are some kind of exceptional master race, and thus exempt from any sort of rules on their behavior, that the world belongs to them, and anyone who disagrees is a criminal of the most heinous sort.
What Americans deserve is health care and a Living Wage, to start with, instead of programs to eliminate the poor and infirm, and an educational system that does not turn out millions of people whose knowledge of the world beyond their kitchen window is, to try to say it politely, somewhat less reality-based than one would hope.
What Americans do not deserve, what is NOT in their interests, is more politicians, regardless of furkial afflilation, delivering more warm steaming scoops of war poo to a populace from whose blood they intend to make more money.
under sand on top of which stood Hindu feet, it would be all about the Hindu threat, and the Maharabata would be much more helpful than the Koran for pulling out bits of warlike rhetoric. It beats even the Old Testament for pure smiting action.
And nowhere does it say, if they’re not attacking you, leave them in peace, or at least not to the best of my recollection, it is one of the thickest, if not the thickest, religious text on the shelf.
Read back a bit about his “surprise” election. The US has engaged in any number of “covert” operations for decades.
Now to address what he says, I do not have the original Farsi text to pick apart, nor would I admit to the ability to do so if I did, but even in the western press, it has been acknowledged that the “wipe Israel off the map” was not to actually wipe it off the map, but that it should be part of Palestine.
He engages in some clever half-truths, which are not recognized in the west, for example, the Holocaust was a western invention. Germany is a western country.
While the west tends to believe the dewy-eyed music swells “Exodus” story of the “creation” of Israel, it was not in fact created to benefit Jews, but to benefit rich men who want more money.
And Ahmadinejad very shrewdly points out something that I myself have often said: At that time in history, neither the UK nor the US were very anxious to have large numbers of Jewish refugees from the Holocaust come and live next door.
The US is not now, and has never been Israel’s friend. Is the crack-dealing pimp the friend of the girl in whose bosom he stashes his drugs and his drug money?
Hitler did not have an exclusive patent on anti-Semitism, just a particularly ugly way of expressing it.
You, and many here may be too young to remember this, but in the United States in 1948 Jews were not even allowed to join private clubs so that their kids could swim in the pool.
Western children are taught about the Holocaust in great detail, but sadly they are not taught enough about just how it came to be possible.
It did not happen overnight, you know, and in my opinion, had the children of the baby boom, for instance, been taught enough about the events that led up to it, the US might be a different place today.
And western children are taught nothing about the Naqba. (Sometimes spelled Nakba for those reading this who may need to google)
So while some of the things Ahmadinejad says may resonate with his audience, what they are hearing is quite different from the little bytes which are dutifully presented to the west by the “exile opposition,” the Iranian version of the Chalabis and Alawis and Karzais et al, both out of context rhetorically and culturally.
Ahmadinejad has a purpose, and that purpose is not to incite the wrath of the Iranian people against the west. That has already been taken care of very thoroughly by decades of US policy. It would be a waste of resources to deploy anyone for that purpose.
Ahmadinejad’s purpose is insurance, probably typical overcaution, but to ensure that the American public, whose zeal for the crusades, some analysts have suggested, may be softening, rallies in support of any and all invasions and occupations that Washington may desire in order to deliver revenues to the intended beneficiaries, regardless of the cost to themselves, their children, or their children’s children, should any of their children survive to reproduce.
specialized area of religious studies, whether we are discussing the Bible (either “Testament,” the Koran, or the Maharabata. Even people who have spent their lives studying languages, historical linguistics, the literary traditions, culture, etc. of the time and place in which the text originated will spend hours on end arguing about the different possible interpretations of one phrase, even one word. If you should happen to come across old men doing this, flee immediately, and tremble as you go!
That said, it is reasonable to extract an essential message, which is pretty common to all. In the Abrahamic texts specifically, this message is essentially love God, love each other.
While many people who are followers of the different versions of Abraham’s triple whammy do make a sincere effort to live this message in their lives, there are many who do not, and who as you say, enjoy becoming self-proclaimed theology experts and interpreting this or that to suit their own notions.
One of the most popular forms of this often deadly sport involves very selective “literal” interpretations of the translation of the text that the individual has read. For example, it is not unusual to hear Christians who are death penalty fans quote a Bible verse about “an eye for an eye,” however it is seldom if ever that they continue on down the page a half inch or so where the rules are laid out for selling one’s daughter into slavery.
The Koranic injunction against what would today be called “military aggression” is ironically used by individuals who are admirers of military aggression against nations under whose sand they believe God has placed America’s oil in order to say, look, their own holy book says they will fight back if attacked!
And few of their hearers, being products of their own culture will nod to each other, yes, we must attack them, for they will fight back.
It does not occur to them that were any country, whether the population were Muslim or Methodist, to invade the US, that although they consider themselves Christians, they too, might fight back.
Of course, the fact that Americans, Armenians, or anyone else will fight back when invaded has nothing to do with sacred texts or any religion, but for millennia, religion has been proved to be an effective population-stirring device when warlords desire a war.
To fight back when attacked by the United States is seen by many Americans as an unthinkable crime, and by many as an act of defiance against God himself.
Unfortunately, tragically
Amen.
I actually think PNAC is weaker now than they were previously. They’re going to have a much harder time intimidating congressmembers into supporting an Iran attack and allocating money for a new assault.
Similarly, I think the “other gang of thugs”, (i.e., the Carlyle/Hudson/big international business gang who were running the show in the US before the Cheney/Neocon coup; (think Baker, Scowcroft, Kissinger, Carlucci, Odom, etc.); I think these guys are starting to be able to exert more influence. Not influence on the imbecillic mind of Bush directly, but internationally and through the major oil/energy resources community. In the end I think big oil will work very hard through these characters to limit Bush/Neocon aggression vis a vis Iran.
This group has been battling the neocons for control of the White House ever since Bush stole the presidency. Many of their stalwarts were removed from the Bush regime, (Powell being the most prominent), but now I believe they’re starting to have more weight as the neocon agenda collapses under it’s own weight.
This is why Kristol and his neocon cronies are so blunt with their message now. Their biggest fear is that if they can’t bring about war with Iran they’ll lose their control of the whole US government, and this is the absolute worst thing they can imagine.
Obviously I could be wrong, but I sure hope I’m not.
Here’s a good example of the support the PNAC has. It’s covert political action with the ambitions and blessings of the inerrant Biblical word. This is the same force that drove the invasion of Iraq.
Iraqi Freedom, and for that matter, a 3 hour tour.
It’d literally pay for itself.
Bill Kristol: Do Not Appease Iran
I sniff a choregraphed plan to attack Iran is underway. No pulling back.
Funny thing this guy Niall Ferguson, a Laurence Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, wrote a piece yesterday, the day before the 5 Powers meet, in of all papers The London Telegraph. Ferguson also uses the ‘do not appease’ meme and lays the case for a preemptive war. Title “The Origins of the Great War 2007 and how it could have been prevented” Catch it here (hat tip to Laura Rozen, warandpiece)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/15/do1502.xml&sSheet=/opinion
/2006/01/15/ixopinion.html
Is this a coincidence or what? I’m saying I’m anxious, Very. Worse than the Cuban missile crisis and very convenient for some.
You are not the only one!
Here’s what makes the issue a tragic comedy. Our VP’s company is profitting on their proliferation. How can that be allowed and then turn around and claim the danger as justification to attack them?
This is just one instance of trying to play the American public as complete idiots.
If Iran posed a serious threat then the actions above would not have been allowed.
Halliburton is exempted from rules, sanctions and the outrage is ignored.
And before the attack on Iran, Halliburton will be awarded the no bid contract to reconstruct.
Kristol has been flogging this “attack Iran” meme for over a month now, as has that other odious but not quite so clever neocon academic hack Reuel Marc Gerecht.
These two creatures are, for me, the most reliable sources for discovering the exact direction of the neocon agenda. More than Brooks, more than all the other FoxNews blowhards and the “Townhall” wingnuts, these two creeps are the best barometer of neocon planning.
So, there is no room for truth in the world of politics because a subgroup can decide what’s best for the greater good of all? The CIA is either totally incompetent or complicit and there seems to be little ground in between. The American public is expected to put all of our trust in this and similar agencies when logic shows numerous contradictions? We are then asked to trust the politicians who silently nod their approval because they too know what’s best for everyone and then vote for these folks in the face of disasters?
At what point is the average American opinion valid?
don’t let your laudable idealism cloud your judgment.
Can an avowed atheist win the Presidency? No.
Do you think every President was a Christian? Actually Andrew Jackson was the first really Christian president. But, today, politicians will profess religious belief even if they don’t truly believe in it, because there is no alternative.
If you could change that by just repeating articles out of Scientific American until the public ‘got it’ that would be wonderful. But there are some things you just have to make your peace with when you decide to run for office. And one of those things is the fact that Americans have a high opinion of themselves and do not like to dwell on their shortcomings.
The opinions of Americans are what decide elections. In that sense, their opinions always have some validity. But, you can only tell them uncomfortable truths up to a point before they decide you are not on their side.
Again, this is why demagogues are so effective. And even Ductape will admit to being a very effective demagogue. They have their place. They are persuasive. But you cannot always counter a demagogue by telling the truth. Ask McCarthy’s enemies, or ask John Kerry (about the swift-boaters).
I think we may be discussing different elements involved in the process. I understand what you’re saying about the need to compromise in order to be realistic in the political realm. I’m all for compromise but that’s not what I see as the main problem.
This long standing deception or misrepresentation of the Islamic threat has been embraced by both parties. The majority of resources I can find on the subject lack credible sourcing when it comes to backing up the claims of the credible threat. It’s been more empty rhetoric and covert projects than anything else all the way back to the early days of those currently in power.
Now, playing along with that game for political aspirations is one thing but look at what the same long deception has resulted in with Iraq. What about the countless wrongful prosecutions based on manufactured evidence of connections to a threat that was originally an agency creation? Where the fuck does the lying and killing and suffering stop?
This gets into something that makes progressives very uncomfortable.
You have to go back and look at the world as it existed in 1945.
We had just been through a depression and two world wars, and Europe was in ashes.
The United States wanted to rebuild the Western world and prevent any more major economic or military dislocations. We also wanted to prevent the spread of the remaining totalitarian regime that the war had not eliminated, Soviet Russia.
In that context, whatever the Islamic world thought was of little interest to us. We wanted to make use of their oil, they didn’t know how on their own, and it required a lot of investment.
That is why we were big-footing around the Middle East, and it brought us a lot of prosperity and denied a lot of prosperity to the Russians.
There are huge ethical problems with this, but at the end of the war, the victors set up the UN, decided it would be best to deny the rest of the world nuclear weapons, and that was that.
Now, if the world has changed, and the Islamic world is beginning to exert its rights, that comes into conflict with the old order, and that means that we have to give up our former position, or we have to beat back their demands.
Like it or not, the current consensus is still that the American system is a force for good, and it brings us prosperity, and that no other power is as benevolent. and the other powers will fill any vacuum we leave. Bush is doing his darnedest to undermine any argument that we are benevolent and that we are a force for good, and that concept was always exaggerated.
But, you have to take these things a step at a time. These are complicated issues.
Islam is a threat in the sense that any movement toward self-determination is a threat, particularly one that is hostile to our assets, and one that involves people willing to engage in large-scale terrorist attacks.
That’s reality.
To change things peacefully, and move to are more equitable system, without disrupting the world economy is a very difficult task, and one that there is no consensus on as to strategy.
In this atmosphere, demogogues have an advantage. And it is foolish to play into their hands by ignoring the strenghs and resonance of their arguments.
What makes me uncomfortable is accepting less than a whole story or hearing only select parts of it. I appreciate this conversation but I think there were far more insidious forces at work as well.
I can’t accept the we are the ultimate benevolant force you describe us to be. I think we have good intentions but the truth behind many of the ‘end justifies the means’ would deny goodness for humanity.
To be clear, I’m not attacking America in any of this. I just want to sort out the deception from the truth be it good or bad.
I think the exploitation of an Islamic threat goes back even further but post WWII it was very much in the interests of Israel to demonize Islam. What about the horrific medical/psychiatric experimentation done to people in the name of America’s interest of humanity? How then do we deny the actions of the massive profitmakers that became the pharmaceutical companies that exploited the poor and racially diverse in the name of protecting America’s interest? What about the covert finnancing that carried Nazi’;s safely out of WWII and replanted them to continues their work elsewhere?
I don’t think the ME problems were simply for oil and even if they were it wasn’t for America but for profits to be taken by a handfull of families…
…it’s about power and having that control/power over other people.
Again, if Iran posed a credible threat would Halliburton have been allowed to profit and deal with them as much as they have recently? There was a time when the 3 Stooges (C-R-W) were in office that a nuclear Iran wasn’t a bad thing,…or a chemical Saddam.
point.
To many Americans, torture, kidnapping, invasions, occupations, bombing, maiming, etc. of men, women, elders and children, beating back those who would seek self-determination, are seen as “good.”
But people in the rest of the world tend to view these things differently, frankly, they are not viewed as “good” at all.
The US could, I think, be seen as a force for good by simply discontinuing the practices mentioned above, and using the money saved to care for its own people.
Too many groups of influence are getting what they want. The Christian Fundamentalists are following Biblical prophecy by promoting the Islamic threat and portraying Israel as a perpetual victim. The PNACrs are getting their global hegemony, sans Pax and the sparkling fruits of perpetual war. The MSM has their talking point-counterpoint set.
The military/industrial/congressional complex has a covert war to grease wheels for as long as they’re around. The authors have history to record in whatever version they see fit. The security industry drools over the frightened public. The politicians of both parties are secure in knowing their control is unchallengeable in the future with the precedents BushCo is setting now. They’re just waiting for their turn at the wheel. The intel and DoJ agencies are secure in knowing that no matter what they do it’s protected and any contradiction will be acceptable incompetence.
…and the bioterror pseudowar hasn’t even begun yet.
Nothing will change until the middle class crashes and finds itself in worse shape than those they pity now. Of course, it won’t matter then becuase the middle class will be effectively neutered.
will come from within or without. The underclass is a ticking time bomb, and it may tick a bit louder as more of those who live more than 3 checks from the street are downshifted out of housing, thanks to the medicare donut death wave, home heating costs, and the inevitable maxxing out of credit cards.
On the other hand, I cannot predict the world reaction to the invasion of Iran. The European territories will of course do as they are told, and the Middle Eastern client states, well, Cheney is over there now writing checks and dispensing Astro-Glide to the native overseers.
But will the checks be big enough? One of the reasons that outright military aggression is so popular now, aside from the newly discovered profit to be made in disaster capitalism, is that the traditional client state model has become increasingly fragile, expensive and unsustainable.
At some point, all the Dyncorp in the world may not be able to maintain crackdown on the Arabians, the Egyptians, but I think that sometimes we focus so much on Middle Eastern reaction to American atrocities that we forget that there are many other nations in other regions, who do not wish to be bombed, and who do wish their children to have a future.
Being the number one threat to the life and limb of every human being on the planet has its risks, and while many Americans are more than willing to accept those risks, especially those who hope against hope that someday they too might receive a benefit the next time a family of small children are torn limb from limb, the rest of the world, as usual, tends to see things differently.
…and for people like me? The American who speaks out against the senseless killing of innocent people that’s done in my name, without my permission? By taking this stand and speaking out I make myself a target of the hatred and fear of my government and a majority of my country’s population. I am dedicated to peace but will be portrayed as dangerous for my search for answers that are true. I will be a target by those you described as the outside force simply because it’s done in my name, without my permission. My reasons for pursuing this is to influence someone else that might doubt the sincerity of our foreign policy and nudge them into condemning the killing. Only when the suffering of others is lessened will there be a dividend returned for the price that I pay in being the target. Nothing for me, thanks.
And he could be right, and the key to either furk’s being chosen by the Diebold people and their sponsor’s might well be to offer Americans some sort of atrocity dividend, that would be a job for the accounting people, family dead in Pakistan, you get a toaster, Khalid Mohammed’s little boys taken off for “interrogation,” maybe an iPod, for every town destroyed, a new microwave!
As for you, and for any American who actually opposes US policies, you are indeed in a most unfortunate position. To begin with, like any other person on earth, you are subject to seizure and/or extermination at any time, and as a self-declared Enemy of the State (you are with us or with the terrorists) your chances are greater than they would be if you could only be a loyal American like Britney Spears or Arlen Specter.
You may find yourself unwilling to forego medical treatment for the honor of defending Halliburton’s freedom to enjoy really remarkable quarterly numbers, and yes, at the same time, it is your money who buys the bullets, and the dog leashes.
And yes, US policies, whether you oppose them or not, are every bit as dangerous to your safety and security as they are to Britney’s. (Mr. Specter, of course, has bunker access).
And yet, while I am somewhat protected by the right to remain silent, I don’t seem to have the ability.
applied to you by the operative assigned to render you to a “facility” as penalty for having violated a secret provision of the Patriot Act which prohibits anti-Halliburton sentiment, whether expressed or not.
you misrepresented my views on a couple points.
It is not my contention that it is okay to torture people as long as it brings a profit, but it is my contention that it is especially egregious to engage in such actions if they bring enourmous financial (as well as moral) deficits.
It is also not accurate to say that the UK and US had no business craving up the Ottoman Empire. It was precisely their business that compelled them to do it. And that business was totally legitimate in the context of the day. They just did a lousy job of it.
You act as though they were carving up independent lands. But they were carving up an Empire.
We have attempted to the same thing to the USSR, but this time we were wise enough to maintain the boundaries of the existing colonies.
I am not trying make an excuse for American policy in the Middle East. But I am trying to balance the view you and Rumi have of this period of history, and also to point out that some of the legitimate critiques are not ripe for open debate in this election season. Not yet.
One cannot do a “good” or a “lousy” job of some things. Among them, at least on my list, would be child abuse, rape, slavery and imperialism.
Now on to your other contention. I did not say that you think it is OK to torture, I merely agreed with a point that you have made at least on one other occasion,* that support for US policies would be greater, and chance of zeal-softening decreased, if the US voters received a benefit.
On the question of whether torture and other crimes against humanity are “better” or “worse” depending on who receives the benefit, we will have to agree to disagree.
Because my opposition to these activities is not either politics nor economics related, I am equally opposed regardless of who receives how much of what.
However, again, I agree with you that in terms of increasing the popularity of these already popular behaviors, offering an atrocity dividend would more than compensate for any perceived waning of enthusiasm on the part of the American electorate.
I regret, though, that I do not really see any signs of such a waning, but I know Washington’s penchant for overcaution.
*The other occasion was some time ago, when you expressed the view, which I do not contest, that some Americans were disappointed because they had believed that the occupation of Iraq would provide a benefit to them in the form of lower gasoline prices.
to be clear, I meant ‘egregious’ in a strictly political sense.
And we will have to disagree on imperislism. In 1945 there were options as to what kind of Empire the Ottoman became, but there wasn’t any prospect of leaving that oil alone.
And therefore, we will differ over whether America is to blame for the fact that they extracted that oil, or whether they deserve blame for how they made their arrangements for extracting that oil.
should I decide that there is no prospect of me leaving alone your home and possessions, on whether I am to blame for breaking in and taking them or whether your roomate (if you had one) would be to blame for selling them to me, and whether you would be to blame should you take any action against us both.
Dick Cheney as his Wyoming buddies claim to own all the mineral and timber wealth of this country. I don’t call it imperialism. I call it “they were there first”.
And when I say “they were there first” I don’t mean that they were there before the Native Americans.
I mean they figured out that there was zinc in them thar hills and they raised the money to extract it.
Call it what you want, but that is how the world economy works.
The timber owned by Idaho businessmen is not my property, and the oil in Saudi Arabia is not the property of every Saudi Arabian. That is not imperialism, that’s business.
cannot claim the “there first” argument. Nor would such an arument work with the Arabian oil, as some reports indicate that the Arabian people were in Arabia long before there was either a UK or a US.
I think the principle you are citing is the “law of the jungle,” or the “me big you small, me hit you on head, take wife, take food,” which I will concede is what many people, and not just Americans, consider as the fundamental theory and practice of “business.”
However, throughout history, there have been here and there, a few brave souls who have suggested that human beings have the capacity to do better than that, and as someone who frequently uses the terms “United States” and “force for good” in the same sentence, and as someone in whom I detect a sincere desire to see the US become a force for good, I will recommend to you some contemplation of the thoughts of those brave souls, some of whom, (at least the western ones) you may have read about in your philosophy studies. 🙂
I do not mean ‘the law of the jungle’. I mean that the people that had the initiative and capital and know-how to buy up the mineral wealth of the world , own it. And you can go buy a piece of it for market price tomorrow morning.
With ownership comes certain responsibilities to your fellow citizens, like you won’t foul their air and water. But it is simply no more true that Mohammed Atta owns the timber in Oregon than it is that I own it. And neither of us ever had a claim to a Saudi oil well either.
You may be uncomfortable with the fact that the people that got a jump start on buying Saudi concessions happened to be Americans, but you a Saudi has little more right to complain about it than I have to complain about most of Manhattan being owned by the Japanese.
And that is why your argument breaks down. Now, if Joe Saudi want a piece of the pie I advise him buy some stock, to marry well, or to take it up with his own rulers. Those are the same options I have concerning America’s material wealth.
Despite your re-wording of the Law of the Jungle, it still remains just that.
However I still suspect that you have, despite your best efforts, the lurking seeds of higher expectations.
believe it or not Ductape, I am a believing capitalist.
I also believe that any country has the right to renege on prior contracts and other arrangements, and to do as they please with their national resources. I do not believe it is a valid exercise of American power to promote coups against foreign leaders that disrespect prominent American’s property.
However, this is also a form of stealing. And one that you totally dismiss. If I buy a beachhouse in Acupulco and the government comes along and confiscates it because I am not a Mexican, that is a form of theft. I don’t think the marines should go take my house back for me, but I don’t think my house should have been stolen from me.
In your view, it is impossible for me to truly own a house in a foreign country. Or any other property, or resources, or rights to make money off of those assets.
This comes down to a difference of opinion over what belongs to the body collective, and what belongs to the person who pays for something, or invests in something.
It’s an interesting debate. It not only touches on corporate ownership and imperialism, but also on important issues of environmentalism, socialism and capitalism.
just keeps coming back to haunt you. Yes, it does come down to a difference in beliefs regarding what “belongs to the body collective,” as well questions of socialism vs. capitalism.
So here comes the woodie:
Economies are like a four year old and his dinner. If you give him only cake to eat, he will fail to thrive, and sicken because cake does not provide him nutrients he needs.
However, if you give him only cabbage, he will soon become bored, cease to eat the cabbage, fail to thrive and sicken, without the incentive of cake.
An economy, like the child’s diet, requires more than one single “ism” which is given a higher priority than the child’s well-being.
Just as the child requires a combination of different foods for good health, so does an economy require a combination of different “isms” and always with the well-being of the people being the first priority.
So once your people are all fed, and housed, and doctored, even those who are unable to provide these things for themselves, then you can have a big dish of capitalism with whipped free market on top!
As to the question of a private citizen buying property in another country, I would advise the buyer to do a lot of homework, on the laws regarding foreign ownership, as well as whether the seller has any potential problems in terms of his right to sell the property. And I would advise a “pre-nup” that would specify just what compensation the buyer shall receive if for whatever reason, the government at some point wishes to rescind the sale, etc.
And I would make sure that the seller’s country and the buyer’s country have pre-existing arrangements to allow for legal recourse, blah blah.
The question is not what I think should or should not be allowed. The question has to do with a lot of the larger questions you mentioned, as seen from the policies of both governments involved, and in the case of countries other than the US, it is possible that those policies might change. So I would advise “buyer beware.”
The question of corporate purchases would require (and deserve) a whole diary to address. I am opposed to corporations as supreme rulers of countries, and I am unconditionally, unashamedly, intractably, inflexibly and unabashedly anti-imperialist, so yes, my views would be somewhat biased.
And I don’t think you make a very good imperialist, either, though I know you try hard. 🙂
it’s a mixed bag. You are taking a very glass half empty view of things.
Imagine that you had $100 million dollars to invest. And you looked around and decided that you wanted to buy a bunch of real estate in Guatemala and grow fruit.
There is nothing wrong with that. You employ locals to farm the land, and you bring America inexpensive fruit, like bananas, that we can’t grow here.
Then someone confiscates your farmland.
You go to Allen Dulles (who has invested in your enterprise) and complain about the disrespect to your investment, an he sets things right.
Now. We all know the problems involved in this scenario, not least of which is the measely pay the Guatemalans were being paid. But, it wasn’t just the people of the United Fruit Complany that benefitted. All Americans enjoyed the cheap and quality and diverse foodstuffs they were providing.
Likewise, with oil from the middle east. Without western oil investment, Saudi Arabia would still be an economic backwater. Instead, it enjoys fabulous wealth, better health care and education than ever before, etc. The fact that the princes gobble up most of the gold is their decision, not ours. And we got to drive around on wonderful automobiles and drink milkshakes and eat burgers.
Therefore, all this economic activity (exploitation, if you will) tends to benefit a few families, but also to benefit a great deal of other people.
The drug companies save and extend lives.
It is too easy to condemn all of it because of the excesses, or harmful side effects.
My goal is to take the good, and to ameliorate the bad. That means, worker safety, labor laws, environmental regulations, fair trade practices, human rights.
The problem with the Bushes is that they give us the worst of both worlds. And they don’t make money (for us) while they are doing it. The are not only ignoring the workers, and the countries we do business with and in, and the environment, and human rights, but they are bankrupting us while they do it.
That is no way to run an empire.
Now, this is a more reasonable expression of events but it also brings up a few more very important principles.
The good that America can do is the prospect and sum of all of our efforts combined. If not for the labor, investment and patronage of Acme Banana company then it’s unlikely expansion into dangerous, low wage areas is possible. By this partnership between citizen, corporation and government we all should benefit and/or have some say as to how decisions are made. For the citizen’s voice, the elected officials should work to enforce accountability in moral, humanitarian and financial situations. When those responsibilities are corrupted by a few small groups or agencies then the citizens are deprived of their voice in the process.
When those actions are justified by deception to manipulate the public opinion or to the point of defrauding the public then all accountability is lost.
How did Saudi Arabia get so much benefit from our technological advancements without any strings attatched as to how they treated their people? We do that in other areas. We could do a dozen diaries on the abuses of oil companies in other countries with our support.
For instance, the Iraq war was to be paid for by Iraqi oil profits but the profits were swindled away by a few groups. The manipulation of oil markets was done to squeeze the public for profits and the same thing is being done to the Iraqis. The main beneficiary is the Carlyle Group due to Baker’s debt negotiation so the public got screwed all the way around.
The drug companies get massive breaks all the way around for development and then gouge the public for profits.
Nobody (elected) is standing up for what is supposed to be the right thing to do.
well Saudi Arabia is case in point. Ductape would have you believe that America thinks that oil belongs to us and that it doesn’t. But, to a large degree it does belong to us, in the sense that a few of us have invested in getting that oil to market, and it would be rude to steal our investment.
There are also a few Saudis that have conquered that land and call it their own, and reserve the right to lease that land to anyone who can make a profit from it. At this point, they know how to do it themselves or who to pay to do it on their terms.
Since they are not good at sharing the wealth, there is no consensus among rival tribes that the arrangements that have been made should be respected.
And that means they have to repress the people to maintain the arrangements. We then have to support this or we lose the investment, or at least the favorable terms of the investment.
What responsibility do we have for making the princes run their country equitably?
Ductape says we should mind our own business in such matters.
His talking points are compelling, but ultimately no less deceptive than George Tenet’s talking points. The truth lies inbetween.
And I love Ductape. His arguments are always good and also highly amusing.
the subject of self-determination.
I don’t believe that Americans are an exceptional master race who have a responsibility to beat back attempts at it.
And Saudi Arabia is a case in point.
I believe the Arabian people have the right to self-determination, and I say this with the confidence that were fair and open elections held in that nation today, that the Princes would find themselves out on their not-so-royal asses, an outcome which I would applaud.
The truth is that the US nor the UK ever had any business down there carving up little imperial colonies to suit imperial Anglo-American business interests, and sniffing out the lowest dollahos they could find to sell their grandmas for a Rolex.
However, I will have to acknowledge that many if not most Americans would heartily agree with your suggestion that what matters is not whether the US tortures, kidnaps, maims or kills so much as whether they will also receive a benefit when it occurs.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on one’s point of view, this is not a view shared by the victims, nor their survivors, another truth, one doubtless taken into account in the current Pentagon plans to increase the slaughter of Iraqis, not to mention Pakistanis, and coming soon – Iranians.
Even at that, you’ve fallen to the illusion that a corporate name that’s American is actually American. It isn’t. It’s registered offshore to avoid paying back to the society that helped it develop.
There are also a few Saudis that have conquered that land and call it their own, and reserve the right to lease that land to anyone who can make a profit from it. At this point, they know how to do it themselves or who to pay to do it on their terms.
Look at ICG and the entrepeneur that figured he could scarf part of the nation’s natural resources for his own profit. He has done this with the blessing of our courts and shady deals that benefit only a few. He’s selling it on the global market with no concern for the lives given to help develop the technology to mine it. He’s exploited the system, with politicians compliance to avoid health care and pensions for career folks that were dedicated to developing those resources. How can he be allowed to take so much and return so little?
It comes back to the basic principle that only a chosen few are worthy of the benefits and decisionmaking that everyone else pays for with their lives. I’m supposed to trust and support these people?
I’m not even debating the merits of it that far back. What I’m saying is that the manipulation of any Islamic threat potential, especially by the same forces 3-4 decades ago that are in power now, is the basis for nearly all problems we try addressing today. Remove all of the covert exploitations and we have a different political world and a small fraction of our current problems.
Al Gore gave a tremendous speech today but his points are lost if we keep promoting the false GWoT. The violation of civil liberties is removed if the curtain is pulled back to show the forces behind the Islamic threat.
Wiretapping, habeus corpus, torture, rendition….are all a product of the history by the agencies and administrations that promoted the organizations. How can any of that be sincerely addressed without acknowledging the forces behind it?
How can due process be a cause for an election campaign if the accused’s crime is one manufactured by the government?
Kristol sounds a lot like those Charleston, Memphis and Mobile newspaper editors in 1859.
Those who always raise the loudest cheers for war are always the biggest cowards.