by Patrick Lang (bio below)
————————————
“..And Thou Beside Me In the Wilderness.” Omar Khayyam was always an odd Persian but I think he would have serious problems living with many of his present countrymen. He was a scientist and mathematician as well as a poet, but his skepticism would not have been appreciated in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
What are we to make of Iran’s nuclear intentions and capabilities? Courtesy of my Alexandria neighbor, John E. Pike and the “Daily Telegraph” we have the materials shown above.
Shahab-6? 10,000 kilometers in range? “Two to three years” to weaponization?” If this is true, then Iran would hold English cities at risk. When? No one really knows how long that would take. Three years? Five years” Ten years? Nobody knows really? The Mullahs probably do not know.
Would they use the weapons? This is actually rather unimportant. As a consequence of Iranian nuclear weapons, the playing field would be leveled to a remarkable degree. T. Friedman would begin to be right about something in his vision of the future. Could we still crush Iran? … continued below …
Certainly, but it would probably not come to that. Rather, we would experience a marked diminution of US influence and leverage in the region, and an upsurge in the general willingness of crazies around the world to believe that we are weaker. A perception of weakness on the part of one’s enemies is a dangerous thing. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other “emerging” countries would feel encouraged or threatened (choose your term) into taking similar paths. Would this danger drive these countries further into our arms? It is impossible to say, but with my usual pessimism I fear the worst.
Obviously, diplomacy and persuasion should be played out to the end, but the reactions of the Iranian government thus far are not encouraging.
People will say that this is all “cooked up” by the neocons and Bushies. I do not think that is true.
Pat Lang
Col. Patrick W. Lang (Ret.), a highly decorated retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence and U.S. Army Special Forces, served as “Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, South Asia and Terrorism” for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and was later the first Director of the Defense Humint Service. Col. Lang was the first Professor of the Arabic Language at the United States Military Academy at West Point. For his service in the DIA, he was awarded the “Presidential Rank of Distinguished Executive.” He is a frequent commentator on television and radio, including MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann (interview), CNN and Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room (interview), PBS’s Newshour, NPR’s “All Things Considered,” (interview), and more .
Personal Blog: Sic Semper Tyrannis 2005 || Bio || CV
Recommended Books || More BooTrib Posts
Novel: The Butcher’s Cleaver (download free by chapter, PDF format)
“Drinking the Kool-Aid,” Middle East Policy Council Journal, Vol. XI, Summer 2004, No. 2
Excuse me, but isn’t the last part of the quoted text exactly what we’ve always achieved? Isn’t the pacification of crazies and avoiding the perception of weakness the goal of A democrat administration? In order to achieve this, we must push to the brink of nuclear war?
Maybe Friedman and others are right. I heard some points made in a news interview that said we must be ready to finish whatever Israel starts. The concept is that we don’t have to escalate or strike first, Israel can choose to do that and we’ll be ready to bomb everything that dares move afterward.
eh,…I figured I may as well finally get with the program here….bring ’em on…shock ‘n awe…’n all that stuff.
This “appearance of weakness” excuse is what Bush has been running with for the last five years. I don’t notice that it’s made a hell of a lot of difference.
“Talking tough” only leads to the other side (no matter who it is) feeling that they need to talk tough in return, so as not to appear weak themselves… This is a circular escalation that gets nowhere.
Even during the cold war (at least, to the best of my recollection, given I wasn’t old enough to be paying much attention to international politics at the time… 🙂 ) the “talking tough” was usually carefully phrased so as to be about things the other side might do, or might be planning to do… it left a back door open as an “out”, so that saying “No we aren’t going to do that unless you do THAT…” was a viable option. It didn’t put either party in a position of having to publically back down in front of other nations or their own people. It left room for the other side’s nationalistic pride, which is important if you actually want a diplomatic solution. To draw a line but just out of reach of where their foot was most likely to go.
This was particularly important back then, because the Soviet Union was quite capable of posing a real threat to the US. This was a detente between military equals, or near enough.
Whereas Bush is making it sound like past tense, therefore upping the stakes for both sides. He has no respect for any government in the middle east that isn’t in his circle, his position is that they must publically back down or he will MAKE them do so. He’s not interested in drawing a reasonable line, he’s trying to pick a bloody fight by drawing the line behind them, or right where their foot’s about to go.
This is playground politicking, not international diplomacy. (This also ties into why Bush will never admit he’s wrong…) There’s no need to worry about “appearing weak” when you’re patently NOT the weaker party in the first place. That argument is for those who must stand their ground against a clearly stronger adversary. The US is not in that position; we are the superpower, we don’t NEED to prove anything. Whereas Iran, which is hardly insignificant, but not a serious threat to us, is the one standing up to the bully here.
That’s all very accurate. One of the problems now though is that the Democrats feel forced to avoid the perception of weakness and the playgrounding in DC escalates. Instead of talking about it sensibly, the dems have resorted to being as tough and quick to shock and awe. Look at the dem candidates that have to be hawks.
Besides, none of your explanation considers the concensus that whatever Israel does is fine and we are committed to continue any fight they start.
In politics, ambition leaves little or no room for principle. the Dems, for the most part, will be no help in averting further disaster on the war front. The Bush/Cheney lunatics have set a scheme in motion that will continue to spread it’s violent malignancy long after they themselves are out of power.
If the Dems could get the majority of the American public to accept the fact that their denial of reality, their selfishness and delusionsof exceptionalism, their idea that they deserve to live thelifestyles they live because they can; that all of these comfortable fictions need to be jettisoned, then there mightbe a chance to change the course of things.
Sadly, I don’t see anyone, Dem or otherwise, being able to convey such a message effectively and to then win an election based on the truth of such a message. Too many people still conflate life-threatening with lifestyle-threatening, and are not likely to easily accept that theirlifestyles are going to have to change dramatically inorder for real progress to be madein addressing and solving the gigantic problems confronting civilization on earth.
This is not an indictment of America and Americans per se. It’s an indictment of denial, an indictment of selfishness which so often requires the suffering of others to satisfy. every nation, every culture has it’s rubric of denial, it’s structure of imagined superiority on one form or another and it usually prevents those people from accessing enough of reality to actually be able to not only acknowledge the consequences of their own behavior as it affects others but to also resolve the broader problems that confront them.
But just so there’s no mistake, just so those here who routinely and predictably bash “Americans” as a monolithic demon might be able to differentiate between different Americans rather than demonizing them all, I do indict the Bush regime in it’s entirety for virtually every single thing they’ve done in the world.
Up until a few hours ago I argued the same. or variations of everything you just said, with the exception that I differentiate between bipartisan accomplishment and BushCo achievements. It’s not about bashing all Americans, if I’m one you’re referring to, but a matter of both parties taking responsibility for their actions. If the Democrats align themselves by enabling the GOP and/or BushCo policies, refusing to take responsibility for the errors, then this must be embraced in order to support the Democrats. As I said earlier, I’ve tried alternatives to encourage cooperation in diversity but it didn’t seem to be acceptable.
My remarks about those who routinely chose to discriminate against Americans en masse in their commentary was not referring to you. I don’t think I’ve seen that particular propensity in your writing here at all. If anything, I sense that you are far more responsible in your behavior as far as not broadly discriminating against people based on some group identity based on nationality, race, ethnicity or class, and I applaud you for that.
If everyone could eliminate that nasty habit, the world would certainly be a better and less violent place overnight.
Thank you for that observation. I sincerely appreciate it because I respect your opinions and comments, even when we disagree.
exceptionalism, and there is nothing wrong with that. Ask a Frenchman, and he will confide that the French are actually the bestest. You can perform the same experiment from China to the Canary Islands.
There is nothing wrong with that – unless it is weaponized and the weapons deployed against other countries.
When this happens, it puts not only people in other countries in danger, but the country that is deploying the weapons, and by extension, the whole world!
And of course not every American shares this view, there are some on which the conditioning, thankfully, does not take. Those people are in special danger, because they will be considered enemies of their own state, and because they live in the rogue aggressor state, they share the natural consequences of that aggression even though they may oppose it.
Nor does the US apply this conditioning exactly evenly. Or, rather, it is not perceived evenly by all Americans. For instance, schools whose students come primarily from low income, ethnic minority families may be given the same textbooks, and see the same speeches and whatnot on television, but they are less likely than their more affluent counterparts to process the message in the same way.
For example, ask an affluent matron in an upper middle class suburb what she thinks of the Marri brothers and other kidnap victims, and she is likely to tell you she thinks it is a good idea, and thank goodness the government is protecting her, and the rest of the nation, from terror. Even if she does not find the persona of Bush especially appealing, even if she rolls her eyes and says something to the effect of it is good to see the government get something right for a change, her view of US policies is probably not going to include a high measure of concern for declarations of human rights or the Geneva conventions, or express shock that the US, who has more weapons than any country in the world, should attempt to dictate to other nations what weapons they may possess. That will seem to her a given, of course. The US is the world’s leader! Who would want to change that? No, America must do whatever it takes to maintain that position and win the war on terror.
Her neighbor may be something of an outcast in the neighborhood, subject to whispered accusations of radicalism, or being called a “hippie” because her political views are diametrically opposed to those of the matron. Her conditioning was somewhat flawed, or maybe she is the flawed one. She is extremely upset with the policies of her country, considers them criminal, fears for the future of her nation, spends at least a couple of hours a week writing letters to editors and to politicians to express her displeasure and outrage at the egregious human rights violations being committed in her name, both at home and abroad, and is convinced that if only the politician she favors were in office, all this would stop, and anything in any of his public pronouncements that might make a skeptic question this, she will hotly defend and explain that he has to say these things to get elected but in his heart he agrees with her views and she will hold his feet to the fire. She send him money regularly, amounts that for her, are quite a lot.
However, her sister working two or three minimum wage jobs and living in the ghetto is likely to have a completely different view. Obviously, she will have less time for watching news or anything else on TV, but to her the news that US policy is to kidnap people and haul them off to torture camps will not be news. In her world, there have always been “disappearances,” torture and beatings of those who have crossed “the Man” have always been commonplace, and common knowledge. It is not probable that she has a strong faith in the official version of the 911 events, or considers the war on terror to be anything more than another slogan. She is likely to believe that sure, it is wrong, of course it is wrong, and it should be changed, but not see any change as a realistic possibility. She has no illusions that the government has an interest in protecting her from anything except earning enough money to live on.
Another sister, an immigrant, may shrug her shoulders and acknowledge that these things are what governments do, and since US is the biggest, of course it does more of it, but she can earn six dollars an hour in the US as opposed to six dollars a week in her home country, and agree with her sister in the ghetto that there is little likelihood that the police in her home country or in the US will cease beating up and killing poor people, and is likely to have a much more sophisticated understanding than the affluent matron that war makes rich men richer.
And they will probably have very different views about political activity. The matron and her neighbor will have an active interest in working hard to make sure that politicians of whom they are devotees are elected, and both will appreciate their speeches, one will especially like the promises to keep her safe from terror, and in the case of local politicians, lower property taxes, while the neighbor will like it when her favorite indicates that the country seems to be moving in the direction of universal health care, and believes that military action against the next invasion target should be a last resort, and hopes that the target will do the smart thing and obey the US so that all can avoid more suffering and loss of life.
Neither the native born nor the immigrant underclass ladies are likely to see it like that, but think of politics as a sort of polo without horses, another pasttime of the rich, understanding that no politician has anything to offer them beyond a big toothy smile and possibly a ride to the polls, especially if there are TV cameras around. They understand that any changes that might result from one or the other being in office will not affect their lives, unless it is to make them worse, and all of them are more likely to do that as not. A television drama, if they have time to watch it, will contain more relevance, reality, and be of greater interest and perceived as being of greater importance than political hijinks.
So while all may agree, each in their own way, that the US is an exception, they see the nature of the exception through different lenses, colored by their own experiences and cultures.
The likelihood that either will significantly change either their views regarding US policies, or their beliefs regarding their power, or lack thereof to effect any changes, are not likely themselves to change.
It is not probable that the matron will have an ephiphany while sipping her chablis, enjoying the view from her picture window, and her neighbor has no choice but to hang on to her faith that sending more letters and more money to her favorite politician will result in kidnap victims being released, gunmen being repatriated, and a health care system to rival Cuba’s. That is her hope, that is her emotional life jacket.
Nor is it probable that either of the poor ladies will suddenly realize that that their plight, and that of America’s foreign victims, might be alleviated, would be if they, and all others who share their plight, were to rise up and storm the capitol. Frankly, neither has either time or energy for this type of musing, the resources to get to the capitol, their focus is pretty solidly on finding enough change in their purses for bus fare to make it to their second job.
So while Americans should in no way be considered a cultural monolith, as far as the Marri brothers, and their fellow victims are concerned, the distinctions are irrelevant.
But, the point is, the democrats have promoted this overpowering hyped fear of the terrorist threat. It is real to a degree but so little of what is sold to the public in a bipartisan manner is true. If this can’t change then maybe I’m wrong and this fear should be embraced. Clearly, if such a gap exists between a progressive independent willing to support democrats and the candidate the dems offer, then something has to compromise to work. I can’t get progressive dem candidates so I guess I have to compromise and embrace what they offer. One thing they offer is overpowering fear of terrorists and foreign countries.
What I need is a candidate to say “Hey, this threat is manageable in a reasonable way for security and we can still have money for social programs”. I don’t see that happening.
for long. He might as well go for the brass ring and say, this whole thing is a crock of warm poo designed to stuff already bulging pockets and empty yours.
So be it.
Here are the options.
I change to embrace the overpowering fear that stories like this diary are intended to maintain. This lets me vote for the dem candidates who elbow each other for air time to claim they can kill more terrorists than anyone else. This understands that the fear still throws billions at an industry to spy on us and leaves no money for social programs.
or,
I don’t vote.
Big Brother? ;->
Never. I was made to be an only child or the oldest, at least. This technology has so much potential to be used to benefit people. It’s a shame it’s being perverted.
I made my peace with BB many years ago. Of course, I’m screwed when they keep changing the rules.
What you describe exists in virtually every society where there are “haves” and “have nots”. “Have nots” are so busy surviving they have little time to evaluate and become knowledgeable about the forces that restrain them, and the “haves”, because they are the “dominant” ones, have less inclination to even notice the problems of the “have nots”, let alone seek to remedy them with a more inclusive and empowering attitude. They rationalize that comfort and power comes to those who “earn it”, and in their own denial, their own ignorance, they absolutely refuse to acknowledge that their own comfort is most often due in large part to the fact that there are so many “have nots” doing the grunt work that allows them their dominant lifestyles.
It is certainly true that this dysfunctional dichotomy is quite pervasive in the US society. Personally, in my own experience in varous places around the world, I have found the intensity of this same phenomenon, this “cognitive gap”, this class differentiation, far more pronounced in various Central and South American societies where I have some familiarity. These societies, of course, do not have the capacity for destruction on a global scale that the US does, so in one sense they’re less dangerous. But they’re no less afflicted with the blight of denial and ignorance, and in my own personal experience, the arrogance I encountered amongst the ruling classes in several South American countries rivals and even exceeds that which I’ve found in the US, except amongst the most rabid and selfish of ideologues.
And whether it’s the denial and willful ignorance of the “haves”, or the denial and ignorance of the “have nots”, both are easily exploitable and both ultimately generate a lot of destruction in the world.
The state of “denial” that exists in the US about lifestyle, exceptionalism, and entitlement is going to be shattered completely very soon. BushCo has already insured that the US will never regain any real respect in the world on any meaningful level; not in time to happen before the entire edifice of so-called “super-power” status is blown to bits on the shores of the reality-based world.
In the meantime, I still think it’s important to get the Bush gang out, and I still believe that if we can get a Democratic majority of some sort, that even though the Democrats are by and large now a functional extension of the current regime, that still, if there were a Dem president and/or a Dem majority in congress that there might be a chance to avert nuclear war. If the current gang of extremists get their way, whoever their successors are, if elected, will continue to promote the perpetual war these lunatics have started, and will inevitably launch nuclear attacks.
I doubt the US will be able to elect a Dem to the White House in ’08. I figure the imbecile George Allen will probably be the next President and that he will be used to further the neocon insanity upon the world. I worry that either a Prez Allen or the now completely insane Prez McCain would, in extremis, launch a nuclear attack. If the even more maniacal Netanyahu takes over Israel, he will almost certainly initiate attacks that will result in nuclear weapons being used. I am hopeful that somehow a collapsing economy and the utter failures of the current regime to govern here in the US will delay the ability of any new GOP regime to start nuclear war in 2008, and that by 2012 the internal destruction of my own country’s democratic forms and basic social structures will be sufficient to arouse enough of the public to throw these lunatics out and repudiate their ideological insanity for generations.
But meanwhile, there are plenty of other people all across the planet weaponizing many other peoples’ ignorance on a continuing basis, and in the end, even shutting down the US aggression completely will not stop the murderous insanity. The fear is everywhere, and nothing compels people to act against their fellow man as much as fear.
destruction, US is more dangerous, not your exact words, but the sense.
And while yes, I began my post by saying that thinking one’s country is bestest is not unique to the US, I do sense that it is of a greater intensity in the US, and there is a greater trust and admiration for the government itself.
While someone in Honduras will staunchly defend just about everything there as bestest, the government is not included. There is just not that North Korea style devotion to it, or to any leader or leaders, and I have yet to meet a Mexican who believes that God speaks through Fox.
For those Americans who are opposed to US policies, I would caution against believing too ardently that the kidnap victims in Gitmo and its sister facilities around the globe, or the victims in Afghanistan, Iraq, and shortly, Iran, will share the same comfort in knowing that the crimes against humanity are being directed by a politician from a different political party.
I do not mean to trivialize or begrudge the comfort that this would afford many Americans, just pointing out that the perspective outside the US would be different, and the threat to the safety and security of ordinary Americans would remain unchanged.
I would venture to say that to the extent a population in any given country enjoys a certain level of comfort or perceived comfort in their lifestyle, this is the primary determinant as to how favorably or unfavorably they tend to view their own government.
I would say this is basically just as true in Iran or Honduras as it might be in the US or Bhutan or Gaza. And, in light of this perspective, I disagree with your all too predictable assumption that this propensity is significantly more elevated in the US based on any sort of qualitative judgment as to the rightness of the government’s behavior with respect to it’s behavior towards others in the foreign policy sphere or domestically towards non-dominant groups that are withing the population. In short, when more people are more comfortable, there’s less enthusiastic opposition to governmental behavior.
You make this remark;
inferring that this sort of pattern of thinking on the part of “Americans” with respect to how they regard the point of view of detainees and the partisan affiliation of those abusing them is somehow a developed and common perspective, but of course even amongst the craziest of wingnut warmongers or wildly ignorant extreme leftists no such meme is in evidence, and for you to, (again, predictaby), suggest such a meme is present seems either disingenuity, grandiosity, or plain old fashioned gratuitousness on your part. and your preachy tone and phrasing does you a further disservice.
You seem to feel the need to lecture people who you seem so obsessive about discriminating against, and to do so in a way that just as often as not attributes characterisitics to “them” which many of “them” in fact do not have. In short, you seem to be practising the same sort of judgmentalism and discrimination based on group affiliation that you simultaneously deplore in others. If someone were applying this sort of snide and pompous rhetoric against Muslims (as a group)or Jews (as a group) or Blacks (as a group) or any other group I imagine you’d be crying foul on that, and as I would also. And that it what I’m doing now with your patronizing and sophistic commentary.
if their government were doing anything that the majority of the voting classes felt was culturally or morally unacceptable, that they are intelligent and assertive enough and in touch with their own values enough, so that we would not see the practice continue for years. In fact, I do not think we would see it continue even for weeks.
Nor do I see it as a question of discrimination. The US is one country on a planet of over 200.
I do not agree with those who would sacrifice not only the 200, but the Americans themselves, simply not to offend the doctrine of American exceptionalism, or hurt the feelings of those who cherish the belief.
As with other cultural practices that are harmful, what is needed is education, to help people preserve the culture, and the tradition, without doing harm to others.
I do not object to Americans who believe that they are an exceptional master race, and the divinely mandated, or weaponry-mandated, owners of the earth and all it contains.
I would, however, like to see the American custom of crimes against humanity, bombing, torturing, kidnapping, mass slaughter and maiming, changed to an expression that did not harm other human beings.
In fact, I did a whole blogrant on this subject some time ago:
Perhaps you should start a cult and set yourself up as the supreme dispenser of wisdom and perfect judgment. You already have a target opponent upon which you can cleverly attach responsibility for all the nasty things going on in the world, and you’ve already managed to attribute to this demonic enemy an entire host of generic yet malevolent attributes that, while in reality are exhibited by a certain percentage of those who are a part of this demon society, are also exhibited around the world in virtually every other society, all of which you seem to ignore, content to let the sole responsibility and sole repository of these terrible traits to rest upon your pre-chosen target. The fact that at least half of those within this target group have nothing to do with these nasty things doesn’tconcern you in the slightest. The fact that it is the case more often than not that the citizens in a society even when they want to, have a very difficult time overthrowing a minority of lunatics who’ve gained control of the government and who’ve first scared and then duped enough of the population into supporting them, or facing the consequences. You have probably stood up without fear in every instance to the maximum of your own ability to oppose the forces of darkness wherever you may call home, and because you seem to assume a majority can always overthrow an armed and crazy mimority who holds all the reins of power, you have probably always been successful in your virtuous campaigns.
Start a cult, weaponize the ignorance of your followers. Give them a target, offer them some nifty solution for difficulty that only requires they agree with you. This is what all cult leaders and tyrants do. Sadly, I think you’d be good at it. You are quite adept at employing out of context rhetoric in a way that seems to be substantive but in fact is often a tactic for diverting attention away from a point you can’t address head on. Like many cultic folks I’ve known and studied, it’s possible you’re not even aware of this, but rest assured you do this with almost metronomic regularity, if your postings here on this site are any indication.
I’m an American and support none of these things you reference here. I have been actively opposed to the government here in the US since I first became politically aware in the early ’60s. These things you refer to are not “American” customs anymore that blowing up non-combatants is an “Islamic” custom. But I’m sure if you start a cult you’ll find plenty of acolytes who will buy into your dogma.
I think it’s a real shame that you are, in my opinion, “stuck in this rut” of always seeming to need to bash “Americans” or “America” to make whatever point you’re making. Sure, the US is the “big bad wolf”, (and I mean bad, truly malevolent) on the planet and has been so for a long time, but it is not the sole repository of all that’s bad in the world and for you to continue to argue as though that is so will only undermine the relevance of your perspective over time. I had hoped when I first arrived here and became acquainted with your writing and your insights that this predilection of yours was an occassional thing; that your enmity for “America” didn’t dominate the landscape of your world view so completely. Sadly, for me at least, it seems my hopefulness about that was misplaced, and I find it increasingly difficult to credit your views with as much validity as I once did, not because I’m defending “America” against your constant onslaught, (I’m even more hard on certain aspects of and subgroups within the broader American societal landscape than you are), but becuase you seem so focused on attacking “America” that the rest of your argument gets contaminated, derailed, by this apparent obsession.
I think I read something by you yesterday or the day before where you said you would remain here at the site no longer as someone for whom it was a home, but condescendingly, as an occupier. I regard this as a tragedy.
a very extreme and to say the least, stressful situation, for which nothing could have prepared you, unless you happened to be alive during the 1930s.
I have repeatedly praised the courage of Americans who oppose the policies of the warlords. Even though many may not realize the danger in which their defiance puts them, there is a quality that some people possess, an innate sense of right and wrong that transcends both culture and national loyalty. The reason this quality is so worthy of praise, and these individuals such assets to the human species, is because of their rarity. It is not that it is so hard for them to stand up. They do stand up, this is how we know they are there to praise their bravery and moral conscience! But there are simply not enough of them to effect a correction. No one should blame them for this, and I do not.
Most Americans, however, do not share the views of that precious minority. In fact, as I am sure you are aware, they vilify them and call them names. Someone posted a link to a website just the other day calling the Code Pink group terrorists. I do not think that it is realistic to believe that this majority, including the authors of that website, harbor a secret longing to storm their capital, and refrain only because the state holds them in such tight control that this is impossible, so out of frustration they dissimulate their true opinions and call Code Pink terrorists and traitors. The facts is that this majority supports their government in all it does. It is not even a question of my country right or wrong. According to their beliefs, if their country does it, by definition it cannot be wrong.
Nor do I “blame America” for everything that is bad in the world. I am not sure that “blame” is even the accurate word to describe my views or the views of others, Americans included, who oppose the policies.
Suppose there is an old man, who has an ulcer on his foot. He leaves it untreated until it festers, becomes gangrenous and the foot cannot be saved and his very life is in danger. Should the old man blame the ulcer? Curse the foot?
Do you think I do not recognize the grave error that the world has made? It is not Americans only who should have paid closer heed to the late US President Eisenhower.
The US may be powerful, but it is not so powerful that it could have come to present such an extreme and urgent danger without the enabling and cooperation of the rest of the world. Greed has a way of making people turn a blind eye to even the largest anvil hanging over their heads, even as the rope frays.
The situation now is of the most extreme urgency. It did not get that way overnight, and as the saying goes, “there is plenty of blame to go around.”
It is my opinion that it would be better for ordinary Americans if the correction is effected from within, which may occur, but as you refer to the difficulties of doing such a thing, I think that is very applicable when we are speaking of the underclass. Some say that domestically, things have just not gotten bad enough yet, even for the poor. Maybe that is the case.
But whether we are waiting for the plight of the poor to worsen or the affluent to “wake up,” the danger continues to increase, and people continue to die in most unpleasant ways, meanwhile, not all the eyes looking up at that anvil twisting on that frayed rope are getting dollars…
What you say about the dynamics of foreign policy diplomacy iduring the cold war era is a vgery important point. The dialog was structured to allow for face saving while still backing down from confrontation and at the same time working out functional compromises that led away from war rather than led to war.
The utterly catastrophic, totally counterproductive “Doctrine of Pre-emption” iplemented by the Bush regime has effectively destroyed the basic underpinnings of diplomacy across the board. This doctrine has made the kind of diplomacy you spoke about in that previous era impossible to implement. And this is why such a policy of aggression, a “shoot first and ask questions later”, (or never), always results in tragedy, always accomplishes exactly the opposite of what it’s ardent proponents claim.
No one has more weakened the US or diminshed it’s stature in world affairs that the Cheney/Bush gang. If there were any doubts about the longevity of the putative “American Empire”, it’s most zealous advocates have now guaranteed that the demise of the very empire they crave will come sooner rather than later.
At the same time, it has to be recognized that a war by proxy was also being conducted during the ‘Cold War’ period. It wasn’t just talk. Mercenaries employed by all interested parties also had an impact.
Who are the mercenaries you’re referring to?
The ones who were fighting the wars.
Yes! But who are they? Mercenaries are guns for hire, surrogates in the employ of a larger entity, so who specifically are you referring to? Fighters in Angola? in various places in Central and South America? In China?
Certainly there was plenty of violence going on during the “Cold War” era. There were plenty of instances where the “West” didn’t intervene against Soviet aggression, (I remember Hungary, 1956, Czechoslovakia,, 1968), and there were plenty of instances where the Soviets didn’t intervene.
I think, however, it was only over the Cuban missile scenario that a real risk of all out war was present. In all other instances where there were face offs between west and east, there were diplomatic mechanisms that allowed for defusing the tensions in those situations in order to keep them short of the kind of unequivocal, all or nothing type of showdown, (nuclear or otherwise), that would be impossible now under the insane pre-emption policy of the Bush regime.
There are many instances where their use has been a standard. I’m not at all implying this is strictly a US action. To the contrary, too many countries have employed this method through history.
Is the discussion here going to be denying, proving, justifying and condemning that use or can we just accept the wide use of it as common knowledge? It’s important to recognize that use of force by both Dems and Reps and it’s acceptance in general by the American public.
There is no question in my mind that the “use of force” against perceived threats, (whether those threats are authentic or contrived), is deemed acceptable by Dems and Repubs alike, and is also accepted in virtually every other country on the planet to one degree or the other. Certainly the US is the major aggressor nation on the planet, and has been so for quite a while. Similarly, even though a majority of Americans now pretty much oppose the Bush regime’s machinations in Iraq, it is still unquestionably true that there is a vast reservoir of selfishness that is pervasive in American society and which, enabled by a self-serving and complicit media, is continually re-weaponized.
If we’re discussing the fact that there are millions of Americans who have bought into the absurd and destructive notion of “American exceptionalism”, then I would say that whether we have Dems or Repubs running the government will not make much of a difference on this attitude. Only the harsh realities that will ensue from the necessary diminshment in comfort level of lifestyle will be likely to affect this “I’m special” delusion. If we’re talking about the absolute detsructive nature of the doctrine of pre-emption and how it prevents meaningful diplomacy on any level, then clearly I think a Democratic majority would be helpful in repudiating that policy and getting rid of it altogether.
I don’t think there is enough evidence to believe this might be true. I can’t see much difference at all between the dems, reps, or any variation of their defections. This is why I’ve been forced to compromise my principles to consider supporting a democrat for any election. I have to identify and embrace as much of those beliefs as possible.
Strictly in relation to pre-emptive attack or invasion of another country, I think neither Dems nor even authentic “conservatives” would have engaged in such aggression on the grounds of “pre-emption”. Had the extremists like Cheney and his cabal of lunatic neocon not already gained control of the government, I don’t think the US would have invaded Iraq. Even accounting for the attacks of 9/11 which these maniacs used shamelessly to advance their insane agenda, even the Bush Sr., Carlyle Group crowd who used to run US foreign policy would not have invaded Iraq. IMHO.
No, but any democrat president would run right in if Israel struck first. The paranoia propaganda that’s being used to elect democrats is all the same.
I am not convinced that that would be true in all instances.
What is this sickness in even the most well intentioned Americans to kill people? What the hell is wrong with us? Why do we think EVERYONE in the world wants to kill us?
I just don’t know, and I’m getting to the point, Reason help me, where I don’t care any more!
If it weren’t for the little ones (my own and everyone else’s) I’d let the so called adults destroy themselves.
Enough already!
What is this sickness?
I’ve tried every other method of reasoning against going along with the ‘program’ but nothing ever gained any support. I finally decided life would be easier if just went along with it like everybody else. I don’t think it’s right but nothing else has a chance of working so far.
From birth, they are taught that they are an exceptional master race, that is always in the right, whatever they do.
Without this conditioning, it is unlikely that soj would have The Story of the Al-Marri Brothers to tell, it is unlikely that US would currently be kidnapping and torturing people all over the world, and it is unlikely that Americans would be willing to forego the health, and even lives, of their own children so that US could occupy and invade countries.
The other day a Zogby poll indicated that two thirds of Americans favor attacking Iran. It’s probably higher now.
According to some of the latest news articles, the Russian meeting scheduled for the 16th is being “reviewed” by the Iranians. Their offer to enrich uranium for power production is still in play, irrespective of the inflammatory rhetoric coming out of Iran.
Also note that the EU countries may simply walk away from any contact with Iran. Shunning by any other term, which falls well short of a UNSC sanction regime. Still a few diplomatic options open, so I wouldn’t start hiding under a desk just yet.
I disagree with Pat Lang where he says this.
I firmly believe this whole supposed “crisis” is the culmination of efforts by the neocons and their various likeminded cohorts to inflame relations in the Middle East as part of a larger scheme to destabilize the entire region. And with destabilization comes weaponization, (real or imagined), and by demonizing the regimes in the reason, the pretext for war is created.
The invasion of Iraq sent the unambiguous signal to every thinking person, (friend or foe), in the Middle East that the US will do whatever it wants without the least regard to facts, without the least regard to whether innocents are unfairly targeted an killed, and without the least regard to whether the broader international community supports their aggressive agenda or not. By operating on the absolutely destructive principle of “pre-emption”, (actually a misnomer since pre-emption at least implies action to thwart an immediate proven threat, which, in the case of US action against Iraq and other places including Iran, are nowhere evident), BushCo has signaled that no one is safe from their arbitrary and completly self-serving impulses, and that no one can trust their word on anything.
In short, this posture of relentless, reckless aggression without regard to the consequences has guaranteed that those against whom they seek to act will seek to arm themselves more in an attempt to thwart the aggressive insanity that is the Bush/Cheney agenda. Combine this with the now 5 year long program by which the regime has used the lunatic John Bolton to singlehandedly undermine the very foundations and efficacy of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty,(while simultaneously trashing the efectiveness of the UN at every turn), the illegitimate use of that damaged treaty to single out Iran and base false accusations of unlawful behavior by them, (when it is in fact the US government that is violating almost every tenent of the NPT now, by funding research and development of bunker-buster, tactical nukes, and by providing India, illegally, with nuclear technology and materiel); with all of this I would say that such activities certainly created a climate within the broader Middle East where a loud mouth extremist like Ahmadinejad would be more likely than not to ascend to power in Iran.
So, in this sense alone, I see clearly a deliberate pattern of provocation from the US specifically designed to usher into power more vigorous opponents to US policy in the region; in short, to create more vigorous “enemies” so the ability to “demonize” them and then “attack” them is more easily accomplished.
There are what I refer to as the “5 deliberate failures” of the Bush regime’s catastrophic policy in the Middle East; the elevation in stature of the Muslim Brotherhod in Egypt, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Shiite theocrats in Iraq, Ahmadinejad in Iran, and Hamas in Palestine. Many see these development’s as failures of BushCo diplomacy, failures of their so-called “spreading democracy” meme. I see these events as completely successful implementations of the real Bush agenda which is to keep the violence going, to establish a state of perpetual war that engulfs the entire region for the forseeable future.
I have no doubt that Cheney and his band of crazies are celebrating these developments daily, just as I believe they would have been toasting each other with champagne when the attacks of 9/11 took place.
It was not long ago that Iran was the one country in the Middle-East touted as most likely to self establish a pro-West democratic government. If fact, this was almost a given. What knocked this off course?
America. Or rather Bush’s version of America.
You’re with us or against us? Axis of terror? Pre-emptive war? These are not phrases that dropped out of some f&*king idiot’s mouth after drinking a six pack at a neighborhood barbeque. These are the stated foreign policy of the POTUS in major speeches. Do you think the rest of the world ignores this stuff?
Actions speak EVEN louder than words.
But of course talk is cheap and war is expensive and risky so even when a leader of a country says something totally idiotic, the rest of the world will judge more based on perceived threats due to actions rather than just talk. So we invade two weaker neighbor countries and back off from any serious action with North Korea, Indeed, we even reverse course a bit and open talks after it’s obvious that we cannot bully them. Why did all this happen? Because NK had nukes and Iraq and Afghanistan did not.
Mice will play when the cat is away.
Indeed, the talk is not that the cat is away, the talk is that the cat is gonna get taken to the woodshed soon by the new dog in the neighborhood – China. Bush’s actions not only provided considerable incentive to get nukes, but provided the best opportunity. Containment of WMD is accomplished by multinational work to make the acquisition of the required materials, equipment and knowledge difficult and expensive. Especially materials and equipment. But Bush’s actions (ignoring international treaties, breaking international cooperation, bogging down in Iraq, exposing weakness, wrecking worldwide reputation, and now we find out outing CIA agents doing the WMD containment work) had provided the best opportunity to go forward, in fact made it imperative from their view that they go forward. Iran is now preparing to acquire Iraq just as surely as they will acquire nukes. Nuke nationalism is now rampant in Iraq. (Yes, it’s true, nutjobs at home breed more nutjobs abroad, duh!) China (and others) are sensing shifts in the world power structure and are moving to enhance their position.
Paying The Price Of Failure
Everyone realizes that the Iraq war is failing and based on a failed strategy for the control of oil resources in the Mid-East. Everyone knows there is a cost in blood and money we have paid and will pay for this craziness, but we are only seeing the small tip of a rather large iceberg on which the ship of state has been rammed. Iran is just one part of America’s largest foriegn policy failure ever to happen. We have not yet seen or paid the full price.
Have We Fixed the Problem?
On 9/11 our country was attacked by terrorists in the worst attack ever to strike our shores. This attack happened when Bush let down our guard against what we knew was the most serious threat facing our country. But this is not an attack which could ever possibly have threatened it’s existence. We have been threatened much worse and survived. We have fought much more terrible wars and won. It was an attacked calculated to make America over react and it has succeeded beyond OBL’s wildest expectations. It was only the sheer avarice and incompetence actions by our leaders since 9/11 which have placed our country in a rather grave situation. At present the same incompetents are in charge. It’s up to us to get our country back on course in 2006 by electing a Congress which will do it’s job rather than the Republican Congress currently doing nothing but running our country into the ground.