Love the bass line, and really love that the gunshots were taken out of the track. Really never liked the gunshots in the album version anyway.
|
Blogroll
Friends
CT Politics Politics
Technology
West Hartford Blogs Hartford Blogs |
Active Posts
|
|
Track & Validate
|
An editorial at Boston.com, called The World Pushes Back provides an interesting argument for why world opinion was so against us in this war. It also argues that the U.S. invasion of Iraq will end up costing us for some time to come, as the rest of the world considers their options and the threat posed by a newly imperialistic U.S.
March 25th, 2003 at 12:32 PM
OK, guilty as charged. I misread your synecdoche as a judgement on Bush the individual. I can only plead that so much anti-war criticism is directed at Bush himself.
You are also absolutely right in the difference between doing the right thing and doing it the right way. Unfortunately, I think that in this case it was impossible to remove Saddam without alienating a significant fraction of the world community. Take France as an example, which made it absolutely clear that it would never agree to any military action against Iraq, and that it would actively work to reduce any support for it. I don’t know enough to decide to what degree this policy was dictacted by an honest believe that sanctions and containment was a workable and/or humane policy (I deny that it was either); by a desire to protect a business relationship, which in part included sanctioned trade; and by a desire to stick a thumb in the eye of the US. Russia and China were equally unpersuadable, though without the unique panache the French can bring to obnoxious behavior.
So, the choice was necessarily between doing the right thing, or declining because there was not consensus. For my money, doing the right thing is the appropriate choice. Could the diplomatic process been worked better? Probably–few things are susceptable of no improvement. Would the outcome have changed materially? I doubt it, for the reasons adduced above. Consequently, I cannot agree that it was done in the absolute worst way. But I don’t expect that you will agree.
Finally, I do agree that the definition of imperialism that you cite can be read to include our plans for Iraq. Would you agree that the same definition would cover Germany and Japan after WW II? Germany was tolerably friendly up until last year, and Japan has yet to break with us quite that dramatically.
But if we call our reshaping of Germany and Japan imperialism, I think we misrepresent commmon perceptions, regardless of how we can construe the dictionary. It is my hope that the reshaping of Iraq will proceed to the same ends; it is my fear that this will be too hard–but I still think the attempt worth making.
Yes, some oil companies will enter into profitable contracts with Iraq, and Halliburton may be one of these. So will many others, and there will be profitable trade in other commodities. Forgive me if I don’t see a conspiracy behind this particular tree.
And as always, I end with an olive branch. We can continue to exchange different views without accrimony.
March 25th, 2003 at 4:01 PM
I think you’re about 80% of the way toward seeing my point (which is, of course, independent of agreeing with it ;)). The core of the screw up is that the Bush administration never even tried to find an alternate solution. Troops began moving before any resolutions were even floated at the Security Council. From the beginning, diplomacy appeared as an afterthought. The tone of public comments from Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush contained an edge and a public disdain for the need for diplomacy. Only Powell had any public comments that allowed for a peaceful solution, a fact I still find absolutely funny considering he’s the only member of the senior administration (outside the Head of the Joint Chiefs, of course) with any combat experience.
Now, you might argue that the Bush administration had extra data and “knew more” than other countries or the intelligentsia. I’ve been even more specific in my comments in the past on this particular point… if they knew more, they demonstrated an extraordinary naivete about the nature of foreign relations. To oversimplify, it was extraordinarily poor PR management.
All of this has grown into the current mess we find ourselves in… This has been a fundamental and significant flaw that has affected everything from North Korea openly flaunting the U.S. and international mandates to international disappointment and anger over U.S. foreign policies with regard to Iraq, the Internation Criminal Court, Kyoto, and a trade policy (remember those “Democratic” steel subsidies?).
As for the debate about imperialism, clearly the word has connotations. The issue here is intent of action. The critical clause of the definition is “policy … of extending the power and dominion of a nation.” American action in World War II wasn’t driven out of a desire to extend our reach. We were in an isolationist mode for the most part at that time. If you remember your history, American involvement was prompted most directly by Pearl Harbor.
More importantly, while the government was grateful in most European countries, we didn’t begin fighting unilaterally with the intention of removing the government in place. It’s about intent.
March 25th, 2003 at 6:04 PM
Arrgh! Here I am spoiling for a really nasty fight, and I can’t even rely on misunderstanding you. Oh, the shame of it!
We can differ on reading the tone of public statements, but the early troop buildups and similar preparations are entirely consistent with Bush’s position from the beginning. Having decided that military action (or the credible threat of it) was necessary, he prepared for that. All pronouncements were very clear on this point. He was seeking allies and UN support, but if that did not occur, he would go with such allies as he already had. Perhaps some found this offensive (you see it as bad PR and distain), but I urge that it is only good sense. Saddam has had a decade of delay; the time for action had come, with whomever would join in.
Your mention of US isolationism pretty much proves my point: we have little intrinsic interest in expanding our reach, except for defensive purposes. Likewise for intent. It is doubtful that at the start of WW II there was much thought given to regime change in Germany and Japan–it was not entirely clear who would win the war. But as soon as the outcome was clear (and perhaps earlier–I was not privy to Roosevelt’s inner circle, being a trifle young), no one was arguing that the regimes in those countries should be allowed to continue with no substantive change: they were just too dangerous.
Likewise with Iraq. The new government there will need considerable shepherding, and there is likely to be a transitional period of martial rule–but we have been clear that the goal is a democracy. The effort may even fail, but the goal is that we can leave Iraqis to rule Iraq. If we hope that such a regime is less agressive, and less hostile to Western values, does that make us imperialists? Perhaps by the letter of the dictionary, but as you truly say, the question is intent.
As for the peripheral issues, time, space and patience do not permit a full discussion. I will simply state that Kyoto is truly rotten science, demanding economically ruinous changes for results only speculated to improve a global warming that is itself conjectural. For just one example, it focusses on certain sources of greenhouse gases, while ignoring others already known to be much larger. I am not aware of any European implementation of it–but perhaps, with your much wider reading, you can enlighten me there.
I sure wish I knew how to compute my understanding quotient. Did I go up or down?
March 26th, 2003 at 12:04 AM
We have little intrinsic interest in extending our global reach? Do you know any history? Seriously?
For example, read the histories of U.S. involvement in Iran, the Philippines, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iraq, Pakistan, Chile (sing with me now: there once was a man named Pinochet, who was best friends with the CIA), Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Mexico.
That still ignores a laundry list of countries where the U.S. has exerted economic pressure only.
That’s just basic U.S. history in the 19th and 20th century. Isolationism in the U.S. only extended as far as the affairs of Europe. I would suggest as a highlight Does the United States Start Wars? and a WBUR feature story on isolationism.
I’d also point out this excerpt of a speech by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
As for Kyoto and the other issues, I would point out that there is extraordinary hubris when you assume that every other country is stupid and only the U.S. is right on those various issues… or, maybe I should say that only this administration is smart, since several of the items I mentioned were agreed upon in principle under Clinton. That has to sound as silly to you as it sounds to me, yet that is exactly what you are arguing… that you and the Bush administration know better than every government that signed the various treaties.
Ugh.
March 26th, 2003 at 8:04 AM
It’s probably my fault that the tone of this discussion has become harsh. I worried some about it at the time of writing, but obvously not enough. It seems clear that this is not a medium suited to exchanges of views–at least to this exchange of views. Perhaps we are just talking past each other.
March 26th, 2003 at 11:17 AM
it’s not a question of being harsh… it’s a question of being at least somewhat objective. I didn’t read your previous message as harsh, I read it as flag waving, “I got an A in my civics class,” America is unfallible nonsense.
I love my country too… but to say that we’ve never done anything self-serving is pretty naive. I provided ample evidence of my point… the U.S. has a spotty track record, especially in the western hemisphere. Our imperialism was defined with the creation of the Monroe doctrine.
It’s important to acknowledge these actions, and to come to terms with them because the rest of the world remembers, understands, and has incorporated them into their view of the U.S..
If anyone has made the tone harsh, by the way, it is me. Not because of the forum but because of what you said. Specifically:
That’s just so wrong it’s amazing to me. And, it raised hackles because I think it’s a common misperception of United States history. I’m reminded of the Hank Hill character from King of the Hill… “if the government says it’s OK, it must be.”
Read some of the articles I linked to above. If you really don’t trust their “spin,” you can find all the primary sources (declassified CIA/State Department docs uncovered under FOIA) at the National Security Archives at Georgetown.
I’m not skeptical because I’m a liberal (in your view). That is the tone of your message. I’m skeptical because a reading of history indicates that people can be corrupted and that many people often consider their own interests first over those of others. It also shows that nationalism can be destructive because it creates a dehumanized “they” that can make an easy target. There was an excellent exhibit at the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam about this… I wish I could find a link or an online version.
The United States and its government are no different that the other 5 billion humans on the planet in that regard, and especially considering the track record of the people in power.
What are 10,000 lives worth? That ought to be worth critical, public discussion… not hidden behind simplistic comments like “a high cost, however regrettable, might be necessary.”
What has the U.S. role been in the past 12 years? In your view, we’ve just been trying to get inspectors to “do their job.” Maybe… but there are other accounts.
Look, I like you as a person, but these discussion may not be helpful. You are someone that will avoid even attempting to filter works by Michael Moore because they disagree with your view of the world (and because you can’t separate tactics and information). I’m someone that goes out of my way to read Mother Jones and the National Review even though both make me ill sometimes with their (opposite) extreme views. That’s the disconnect, in my opinion.
Another interesting and relevant interview from the former head of the UN oil-for-food program: Denis Halliday, Former UN Official, in Iraq