I haven't been buying in to the immigration excitment, but I'm cracking.
I was readings something lastnight by someone who is supposedly something close to THE expert on suicide terrorism (Name escapes me; the book is DYING TO WIN) and what we need to do to end terrorism. He said that whatwe are doing in Iraq is about the stupidest thing we could do to stop terror and we need to do one of two things: go back to the our old policy of "off shore" influence on the middle east, (i.e. noboots on the ground in the Middle East but troops ready rearby for rapid deployement to protect our oil interests) which we had until 1991 when we left troops in Saudi after Desert Storm.
The second option, is more difficult but better he claimed: Get away from dependence on foreign oil byd eveloping alternative energy sources such that we no longer give a crap about the Middle East. The former would make terrorism almost go away, the latter he claims, would "suck the oxygen out of the air terrorists breath."
But either plan, he argued, depended on securing our borders.
I'm pondering all of this.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
PICKING THE NEXT BOOK
All,
Anyone who would like to read one of the four foreign policy books proposed previously, please voice your preference. I'm going to call my die-hard companions (Confero and Qualitas) this weekend and try to decide something so we can order through Amazon/interlibrary loan. I propose we shoot for beginning in the last week in July (i.e. spend the next three weeks on THE CUBE), unless we finish early. I don't want the reading of THE CUBE to be rushed for anyone; The less pressure we have, the more likely we can continue to educate ourselves in spite of busy lives.
I have previously described BLOWBACK. I think we all know about the 911 Commission Report (and I don't think anybody is interested plus its long--though thumbing through it, it does look like it might be good).
I've made the case for BLOWBACK, now let me make the case for IMPERIAL HUBRIS:
Like BLOWBACK, it is realtively short (263 pages). This time the author is not a foreign policy expert, but a CIA Agent, the former head of the CIA's "Bin Ladin" unit. It was orginally published anonymously ( and my copy says "anonymous") but the author has revealed himself as Michael Scheuer.
ADVANTAGES: book by someone with first hand knowledge, directly on topic for what we are discussing and what is a burning topic that needs to be decided one way or the other and should inform our decision in the upcoming election.
Anyone who would like to read one of the four foreign policy books proposed previously, please voice your preference. I'm going to call my die-hard companions (Confero and Qualitas) this weekend and try to decide something so we can order through Amazon/interlibrary loan. I propose we shoot for beginning in the last week in July (i.e. spend the next three weeks on THE CUBE), unless we finish early. I don't want the reading of THE CUBE to be rushed for anyone; The less pressure we have, the more likely we can continue to educate ourselves in spite of busy lives.
I have previously described BLOWBACK. I think we all know about the 911 Commission Report (and I don't think anybody is interested plus its long--though thumbing through it, it does look like it might be good).
I've made the case for BLOWBACK, now let me make the case for IMPERIAL HUBRIS:
Like BLOWBACK, it is realtively short (263 pages). This time the author is not a foreign policy expert, but a CIA Agent, the former head of the CIA's "Bin Ladin" unit. It was orginally published anonymously ( and my copy says "anonymous") but the author has revealed himself as Michael Scheuer.
ADVANTAGES: book by someone with first hand knowledge, directly on topic for what we are discussing and what is a burning topic that needs to be decided one way or the other and should inform our decision in the upcoming election.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Do you believe in Santa Clause? Response to Confero
Made a new post because this is long, but pertains to your response to my last post.
Well, Confero, I like the spiritedness of your reply. I have to say this is stimulating.
Do you believe in Santa Clause? What if I said to someone that in deed Santa Clause is a jolly fellow; he just doesn't exist?
RE question of whether we want stability, see my discussion previously regarding our disbanding of the Iraqi army. This is too stupid to be a mistake. Even in his “March to the Sea” in which he intended to “make Georgia howl” Sherman kept the Confederate leadership in place; see also quote from Michael Ledeen/Jonah Goldberg above. Would you like further support? Let me know. It’s a question of how much time I need to spend to find the proper references, before you believe me. This is not, by the way, a moral argument. It is a suggestion that people are asking the wrong questions. I told you the answer to your moral question is “yes.”
If you doubt point three, you don’t understand the Middle East, but I’ll find support. I will admit also that Israel wants us there, obviously, and that people we put in power will want to keep the power if they can, obviously.
As for point two, it has everything to do with us leaving the region. If you believe, and apparently you do (I have my doubts), that we are trying to set up an independent government, what kind of government are we supposedly setting up? If you run over someone out in the middle of nowhere, what good does it do to give them a bicycle if they don’t know how to ride and have a broken leg?
Trust me, my sympathies lie with Iraq on this. My point, and this is a moral point, I think we have done enough damage over there. Its an old joke, but you know what the most dreaded words in the English language are? “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” I think this whole bit about how we are doing this for the good of the Iraqi people is a sham and an insult. If anybody thinks the Bush Administration gives one hoot in hell about the people of Iraq going in or now, I’m got some solar powered flashlights to sell them.
We have an obligation to see to it that the Iraqis don’t slaughter each other? Have you been watching the news? What do you think they have been doing? We have to stay there to prevent something that we can’t prevent right now?
I’m telling you, it’s going to get worse before it gets better. You didn’t comment on my exit strategy. Do you think we need to stay for the rest of time? At some point the Iraqi people have to decide what they want to do.
Really, I’m not sure I made any moral arguments in my previous post. What I’m saying is you are defending a hypothetical situation; I think we should solve the problems of the real situation. You are defending King Arthur. I don’t doubt that what you have in mind is good and right and just. I’m trying to tell you that Camelot doesn’t exist.
You have asked me to establish a few things. As a matter of fact, I don’t think there is much of anything that I haven’t backed up with hard data. Thus far I have not asked you to support anything you have said. I think there are a lot of contingencies and assumptions in what you have been saying, a bunch of “ifs” if you will. To convince me, change each “if” to an “is it true that”:
If our presence in Iraq is helping us win the war on terror.......; or
If our departure from Iraq will help Al Queda.......
If we are physically capable of carrying out he task that you suggest.....
If other middle eastern countries will be destabilized....
If we are helping the Iraqi people (long and short term).....
If we are not merely setting up puppet regime........
If democracy can take root in Iraq.....
If other countries in the middle east will accept a government we set up........; or
If a democracy that takes root can defend itself against the Arab nations.......
Why are my arguments on shaky grounds?
Well, Confero, I like the spiritedness of your reply. I have to say this is stimulating.
Do you believe in Santa Clause? What if I said to someone that in deed Santa Clause is a jolly fellow; he just doesn't exist?
RE question of whether we want stability, see my discussion previously regarding our disbanding of the Iraqi army. This is too stupid to be a mistake. Even in his “March to the Sea” in which he intended to “make Georgia howl” Sherman kept the Confederate leadership in place; see also quote from Michael Ledeen/Jonah Goldberg above. Would you like further support? Let me know. It’s a question of how much time I need to spend to find the proper references, before you believe me. This is not, by the way, a moral argument. It is a suggestion that people are asking the wrong questions. I told you the answer to your moral question is “yes.”
If you doubt point three, you don’t understand the Middle East, but I’ll find support. I will admit also that Israel wants us there, obviously, and that people we put in power will want to keep the power if they can, obviously.
As for point two, it has everything to do with us leaving the region. If you believe, and apparently you do (I have my doubts), that we are trying to set up an independent government, what kind of government are we supposedly setting up? If you run over someone out in the middle of nowhere, what good does it do to give them a bicycle if they don’t know how to ride and have a broken leg?
Trust me, my sympathies lie with Iraq on this. My point, and this is a moral point, I think we have done enough damage over there. Its an old joke, but you know what the most dreaded words in the English language are? “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” I think this whole bit about how we are doing this for the good of the Iraqi people is a sham and an insult. If anybody thinks the Bush Administration gives one hoot in hell about the people of Iraq going in or now, I’m got some solar powered flashlights to sell them.
We have an obligation to see to it that the Iraqis don’t slaughter each other? Have you been watching the news? What do you think they have been doing? We have to stay there to prevent something that we can’t prevent right now?
I’m telling you, it’s going to get worse before it gets better. You didn’t comment on my exit strategy. Do you think we need to stay for the rest of time? At some point the Iraqi people have to decide what they want to do.
Really, I’m not sure I made any moral arguments in my previous post. What I’m saying is you are defending a hypothetical situation; I think we should solve the problems of the real situation. You are defending King Arthur. I don’t doubt that what you have in mind is good and right and just. I’m trying to tell you that Camelot doesn’t exist.
You have asked me to establish a few things. As a matter of fact, I don’t think there is much of anything that I haven’t backed up with hard data. Thus far I have not asked you to support anything you have said. I think there are a lot of contingencies and assumptions in what you have been saying, a bunch of “ifs” if you will. To convince me, change each “if” to an “is it true that”:
If our presence in Iraq is helping us win the war on terror.......; or
If our departure from Iraq will help Al Queda.......
If we are physically capable of carrying out he task that you suggest.....
If other middle eastern countries will be destabilized....
If we are helping the Iraqi people (long and short term).....
If we are not merely setting up puppet regime........
If democracy can take root in Iraq.....
If other countries in the middle east will accept a government we set up........; or
If a democracy that takes root can defend itself against the Arab nations.......
Why are my arguments on shaky grounds?
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
The Cube (Chapter Three)
I don't disagree that Europe is secularized.
The third chapter of Weigel's book is a summary of Robert Kagan's Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. To summarize his summary, "on major strategic and and International questions today, Americans are from MArs and Europeans are from Venus". Kagan p. 3. WE have different understandings of how the world works, of the "nature" and "utility" of power and this is before we get to diffrences on the Middle East. Due to its expereince of devistation from war, prominent Europeans are of the mind conviction that "secuirity threats can and should be met, in the main not by traditional applications of military 'hard power' but by the further refinement of international legal and political instruments of conflict resolution...the rule of law had replaced the crude interplay of power...power politics have lost thEIr influence." But Europe think this way only becasue the U.S. keeps the world safe.
COMMENTS:
1) The Middle East Again? Three references to Iraq in five pages. Mighty fishy.
2) That we want peace in the Middle East is questionable [see previous discussion]
3) I wonder if he counts among these "prominent Europeans" men such as Karol Wojtyła and Joseph Ratzinger who, last time I checked, are closely identified with the "culture that built the cathedral." What about Thomas More?
4) If this is the European undersatnding of power, what is America's? Peace through hegemony?
5) Is he implying we have traded the rule of law for the crude interplay of power? I'm not arguing with him--inside the U.S. or in the rest of the world--I'm just asking.
6) Does he forget we won the cold war through not going to war?
7) I see no indication that GW disagrees.
The third chapter of Weigel's book is a summary of Robert Kagan's Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. To summarize his summary, "on major strategic and and International questions today, Americans are from MArs and Europeans are from Venus". Kagan p. 3. WE have different understandings of how the world works, of the "nature" and "utility" of power and this is before we get to diffrences on the Middle East. Due to its expereince of devistation from war, prominent Europeans are of the mind conviction that "secuirity threats can and should be met, in the main not by traditional applications of military 'hard power' but by the further refinement of international legal and political instruments of conflict resolution...the rule of law had replaced the crude interplay of power...power politics have lost thEIr influence." But Europe think this way only becasue the U.S. keeps the world safe.
COMMENTS:
1) The Middle East Again? Three references to Iraq in five pages. Mighty fishy.
2) That we want peace in the Middle East is questionable [see previous discussion]
3) I wonder if he counts among these "prominent Europeans" men such as Karol Wojtyła and Joseph Ratzinger who, last time I checked, are closely identified with the "culture that built the cathedral." What about Thomas More?
4) If this is the European undersatnding of power, what is America's? Peace through hegemony?
5) Is he implying we have traded the rule of law for the crude interplay of power? I'm not arguing with him--inside the U.S. or in the rest of the world--I'm just asking.
6) Does he forget we won the cold war through not going to war?
7) I see no indication that GW disagrees.
Confero's Questions
If we assume that The Invasion of Iraq was a mistake, Confero has two questions:
"ONE- Are we morally obligated to help the Iraqis establish a government since WE removed Saddam Hussein?"
Yes, however I think this is the wrong question for a couple reasons and a few comments are called for:
1) We may not be trying to establish a government. For reasons stated previously in this discussion, it appears that we have purposefully tried to ensure that Iraq remains unstable. Further, certain policy makers have indicated our aim should be instability.
2) Iraq is not prepared for our kind of government. See Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France for discussion of the preparation required for a people to govern themselves. See Plato, The Republic for discussion of how tyranny follows from collapsed democracy.
3) No country in the region nor any power within Iraq will allow any government Americans sets up to continue once we leave.
4) No independent government is being set up in Iraq, the only “government” we are setting up is one we control directly.
"TWO- If it is morally permissible to leave, how do we do this without:
A) Letting Iran set up a puppet government, such as Lebannon?
B) Guarantee that other Middle East countries will not be destabilized, since Al-Queda will view this as a victory?
C) How do you contain the Al-Queda threat, since they are growing in numbers?"
Generally: There is a 99.9% chance that there will be a bloodbath when we leave, which is part of why I am livid with the Bush Administration. When you topple a government, you create a power vacuum. We did not only this, but also disbanded their army (criminal for reasons discussed previously in this discussion). But staying does not help either: it increases recruitment for Al Queda and there iff never be peace in Iraq as long as we are there. The question could also be posed, can we stay there morally?
A: defend the border between Iraq and Iran and/or supply and back Iraq (the latter is what we did in the past). Meanwhile divide Iraq in half between Sunni and Shia. Guard the border between them for a time. Then leave and hope for the best.
B: As I mentioned above it appears we want instability over there. Second, our presence is the source of instability. Third, Our presence is a victory for Al Queda; it’s exactly what they want. They and the Neocons want a fight.
C: basically the same comments as B. We are their best recruiters. The best way to prevent the growth of Al Queda? Follow our founders’ advice and stay out of foreign wars.
"ONE- Are we morally obligated to help the Iraqis establish a government since WE removed Saddam Hussein?"
Yes, however I think this is the wrong question for a couple reasons and a few comments are called for:
1) We may not be trying to establish a government. For reasons stated previously in this discussion, it appears that we have purposefully tried to ensure that Iraq remains unstable. Further, certain policy makers have indicated our aim should be instability.
2) Iraq is not prepared for our kind of government. See Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France for discussion of the preparation required for a people to govern themselves. See Plato, The Republic for discussion of how tyranny follows from collapsed democracy.
3) No country in the region nor any power within Iraq will allow any government Americans sets up to continue once we leave.
4) No independent government is being set up in Iraq, the only “government” we are setting up is one we control directly.
"TWO- If it is morally permissible to leave, how do we do this without:
A) Letting Iran set up a puppet government, such as Lebannon?
B) Guarantee that other Middle East countries will not be destabilized, since Al-Queda will view this as a victory?
C) How do you contain the Al-Queda threat, since they are growing in numbers?"
Generally: There is a 99.9% chance that there will be a bloodbath when we leave, which is part of why I am livid with the Bush Administration. When you topple a government, you create a power vacuum. We did not only this, but also disbanded their army (criminal for reasons discussed previously in this discussion). But staying does not help either: it increases recruitment for Al Queda and there iff never be peace in Iraq as long as we are there. The question could also be posed, can we stay there morally?
A: defend the border between Iraq and Iran and/or supply and back Iraq (the latter is what we did in the past). Meanwhile divide Iraq in half between Sunni and Shia. Guard the border between them for a time. Then leave and hope for the best.
B: As I mentioned above it appears we want instability over there. Second, our presence is the source of instability. Third, Our presence is a victory for Al Queda; it’s exactly what they want. They and the Neocons want a fight.
C: basically the same comments as B. We are their best recruiters. The best way to prevent the growth of Al Queda? Follow our founders’ advice and stay out of foreign wars.
Chapter Three: Martians and Venusians?
Weigel devouts an entire chapter to Robert Kagan's examination of the differences between Europe and the U.S. in terms of the use of "Hard Power" and "Soft Power." His premise is that Europe has been devasted by two wold wars thus causing them to have "a different set of perceptions about the threats to peace and freedom..." He underscores Europe's soft power, which is the "further refinement of international legal and political instruments of conflict resolution" approach by suggesting that it can only be soft under the umbrella of the United State's "hard power" protection.
Weigel, in my opinion, fails to clarify Europe's approach to terrorism. In other words, why do they have military stationed at airports in various parts of Europe? Why do they even have a military if they are so focused on "soft power"? Also, he does not clarify the U.S. approach to terrorism such as our negotiations with other countries in trying to deal with North Korea and our current relationship with European countries in the fight against terrorism. He bases everything on our use of force against Iraq, a one time event which is debatable.
A couple questions arise from this chapter:
1) What is the balance between hard and soft power?
2) Does Europe appreciate or even understand that our military provided their protection against the Soviets which ultimately laxed their views on international affairs?
3) Is it safe to suggest that Europe is approaching terrorism as Chamberlain approached the Nazis?
Weigel, in my opinion, fails to clarify Europe's approach to terrorism. In other words, why do they have military stationed at airports in various parts of Europe? Why do they even have a military if they are so focused on "soft power"? Also, he does not clarify the U.S. approach to terrorism such as our negotiations with other countries in trying to deal with North Korea and our current relationship with European countries in the fight against terrorism. He bases everything on our use of force against Iraq, a one time event which is debatable.
A couple questions arise from this chapter:
1) What is the balance between hard and soft power?
2) Does Europe appreciate or even understand that our military provided their protection against the Soviets which ultimately laxed their views on international affairs?
3) Is it safe to suggest that Europe is approaching terrorism as Chamberlain approached the Nazis?
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Second chapter ("More Questions")
AMERICANS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT
George Weigel (GW) says that his questions about the difference between the U.S. and Europe were intensified when "after an initial period of European solidarity" with the U.S. after 9/11 until "fundamental differences arose between the U.S. and its allies on the question of how best to respond."
Later in this short chapter he bemoans "the protrait in the European press of Americans (and especially an American President) as religious fanatics intent on shooting up the world."
On neither count does GW stop to question whether possibly Europe is right on this one, er these two. On the first count, the "initial period of European solidarity" ended because the world recognized that we were attacking someone who did not attack us. The Europeans saw what was going on because they watched the news which reported the facts. In the U.S., although the president proclaimed they hate us for our liberties, the only commentator in our "free press" that saw through the story the administration was feeding and told the truth was an anchor on a cable access, comedy channel show airing late night, : The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. [See Tom Fenton, Bad News: The Decline of Reporting, the Business of News, and the Danger to us all; Frank Rich, The Greatest Story Every Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina].
On the second count, consider that Bush indicated be wanted to invade not only Iraq, but also Syria and Iran and the Administartion repeatedly tested the waters to see what Americans would think if they made either or both moves. He has also indicated the possibility of action against Venezuela, and is currently fanning the flames of the cold war we all thought was over. He established "The Bush Doctrine": it is now U.S. policy to launch pre-emptive war on any rogue regime that seeks weapons of mass destruction, and to go to war to prevent any other nation from acquiring the power to challenge US hegemony anywhere in the world. How dare they call him a religious fanatic!
NON SEQUITUR
After describing Europeans as "cranky" he begins talking about Europe's low birth rate: "western Europe is sommitting a form of demographic suicide." What does this have to do with having a different view of "how best to respond to international terrorism". Smells an awful lot like an argumentum ad hominem.
WHAT LIES AHEAD
GW says the "European problem," which we may ourselves be developing is best understood in moral and cultural terms. What is this "European problem"? I'll have to tune in tommorow for the next chapter. If the "European problem" means we might start thinking it's a bad idea to invade, bomb or threaten everyone in the world, I'd like to see what I can do to exacerbate the problem.
George Weigel (GW) says that his questions about the difference between the U.S. and Europe were intensified when "after an initial period of European solidarity" with the U.S. after 9/11 until "fundamental differences arose between the U.S. and its allies on the question of how best to respond."
Later in this short chapter he bemoans "the protrait in the European press of Americans (and especially an American President) as religious fanatics intent on shooting up the world."
On neither count does GW stop to question whether possibly Europe is right on this one, er these two. On the first count, the "initial period of European solidarity" ended because the world recognized that we were attacking someone who did not attack us. The Europeans saw what was going on because they watched the news which reported the facts. In the U.S., although the president proclaimed they hate us for our liberties, the only commentator in our "free press" that saw through the story the administration was feeding and told the truth was an anchor on a cable access, comedy channel show airing late night, : The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. [See Tom Fenton, Bad News: The Decline of Reporting, the Business of News, and the Danger to us all; Frank Rich, The Greatest Story Every Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina].
On the second count, consider that Bush indicated be wanted to invade not only Iraq, but also Syria and Iran and the Administartion repeatedly tested the waters to see what Americans would think if they made either or both moves. He has also indicated the possibility of action against Venezuela, and is currently fanning the flames of the cold war we all thought was over. He established "The Bush Doctrine": it is now U.S. policy to launch pre-emptive war on any rogue regime that seeks weapons of mass destruction, and to go to war to prevent any other nation from acquiring the power to challenge US hegemony anywhere in the world. How dare they call him a religious fanatic!
NON SEQUITUR
After describing Europeans as "cranky" he begins talking about Europe's low birth rate: "western Europe is sommitting a form of demographic suicide." What does this have to do with having a different view of "how best to respond to international terrorism". Smells an awful lot like an argumentum ad hominem.
WHAT LIES AHEAD
GW says the "European problem," which we may ourselves be developing is best understood in moral and cultural terms. What is this "European problem"? I'll have to tune in tommorow for the next chapter. If the "European problem" means we might start thinking it's a bad idea to invade, bomb or threaten everyone in the world, I'd like to see what I can do to exacerbate the problem.
Christians united for Israel (Link sent by Qualitas Loquor)
Civis,
If you want, let’s talk about this, briefly.
http://www.cufi.org/WA2007_information.aspx
Watch the video at the site.
Qualitas
If you want, let’s talk about this, briefly.
http://www.cufi.org/WA2007_information.aspx
Watch the video at the site.
Qualitas
Quote of the Day
"Debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open, and that...may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government public officials."
New York Times vs. Sullivan (1964)
New York Times vs. Sullivan (1964)
Monday, June 25, 2007
The Cube: dust jacket and "Questions Atop the Cube
The question this book proposes to answer is , or the first chapter leads me to understand it to be, between the culture that built the cathedral of Notre Dame and the culture that built the Cube, "Which culture, I wondered, would better protect human rights? ...would more firmly secure the moral foundations of democracy?" Although I already have an opinion on that subject, thus far the book sounds interesting.
Nevertheless, from the just jacket, I gather that this is book about how Europeans and Americans see the world differently. Is America supposed to have some connection to the culture that built the cathedral? French and American "culture" are both grown from the Enlightenment and political liberalism. I'm suspicious.
As for democracy, that's a concept foreign to the culture that built the cathedral and is in fact at the foundation of the one that built the Cube.
I get the sinking feeling this is going to be another attempt, common amoung contributors to First Things, to link the Vatican with "The American Way." I'm firmly Amrican and firmly Catholic, but I don't think America and the Vatican are hand in glove.
Nevertheless, from the just jacket, I gather that this is book about how Europeans and Americans see the world differently. Is America supposed to have some connection to the culture that built the cathedral? French and American "culture" are both grown from the Enlightenment and political liberalism. I'm suspicious.
As for democracy, that's a concept foreign to the culture that built the cathedral and is in fact at the foundation of the one that built the Cube.
I get the sinking feeling this is going to be another attempt, common amoung contributors to First Things, to link the Vatican with "The American Way." I'm firmly Amrican and firmly Catholic, but I don't think America and the Vatican are hand in glove.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Politics, Sex and Religion
Jason and I decided to start discussing on a blog rather than e-mail, since a blog is set in a way that better serves our purposes. He came up with the title: the three most taboo topics. Jason wants to talk about something positive and suggested we discuss The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America and Politics without God. by George Weigel. I called him up and agreed to read it with him (and another book of his choosing since The Cube is short) if he would read one of the foreign policy books I suggest. We agreed to read and discuss The Cube then the foreign policy book then Without Roots. So if anyone who wants to read along or comment, please do so. I'll let Jason tell you more about Without Roots.
I would suggest we read Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire . It's short (229 pages), the first chapter is about relations with the middle east and the rest appears to be more about the far east. This would be good, methinks, because it it less controversial and must of us know next to nothing about the far east let alone our foreign policy with that part of the world. One reviewer says "[I]t's probably the best critical introduction to US foreign policy in Asia....he explains America's military and economic policies toward Asia without getting stuck in the stultifying prose of security experts or the bewildering technical jargon of economists."
The other books are:
The 9/11 Commission Report
Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror by Michael Scheuer (the former Chief of the CIA’s bin Laden Unit, Alec Station)
Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Professor Robert A. Pape of the University of Chicago
Anyone who wants to read along and/or discuss please express your preference(s).
I would suggest we read Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire . It's short (229 pages), the first chapter is about relations with the middle east and the rest appears to be more about the far east. This would be good, methinks, because it it less controversial and must of us know next to nothing about the far east let alone our foreign policy with that part of the world. One reviewer says "[I]t's probably the best critical introduction to US foreign policy in Asia....he explains America's military and economic policies toward Asia without getting stuck in the stultifying prose of security experts or the bewildering technical jargon of economists."
The other books are:
The 9/11 Commission Report
Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror by Michael Scheuer (the former Chief of the CIA’s bin Laden Unit, Alec Station)
Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Professor Robert A. Pape of the University of Chicago
Anyone who wants to read along and/or discuss please express your preference(s).
More on the Middle East
Jason,
This discussion has given me motivation to learn more about the issues. I hope it continues. If you are getting bored with it, I may have to find some die-hard Sean Hannity fan. Ha! You know there is nothing like a dialog to stimulate thinking. Books on foreign policy will put you to sleep, but I find a discussion like this stimulating. I see now why St. Thomas More and Plato liked dialogs. What’s scarry is that, if you watch the Republican debates, the candidates seem to know less about this stuff than we do. And they want to run the country? That’s real scary. Well, back to the discussion:
I recently made an interesting discovery. If you recall, I was talking about how getting ourselves engaged in a war in Iraq weakened us militarily. Here is an example from recent history of what I am talking about. As it turns out, we have done (and are continuing to do and our leaders want to do more) voluntarily to ourselves what the CIA apparently lured The Soviets into doing in the late 70’s.
Former CIA director Robert Gates in a 1996 interview admitted that America began aiding the mujahideen guerillas in Afganistan six months before the Soviet invasion knowing that the American involvement would provoke the Soviets to invade. When asked in 1998 if he regretted doing this, Carter’s former National Security Adviser said “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afgan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: ‘We now have the opportunity of giving the USSR its Vietnam War.”
We suckered them into a middle east quagmire to speed their demise. The Soviets could beat the mujahedeen on the battle field, but the mujahdeen we trained (and the tactics are now being used on us—talk about blowback, it’s like teaching somebody how to fight and then they kick your butt) fought more like William Wallace (The “highland way” of hit and run) than William of Normandy. Now we are doing the same thing and speeding our demise. Who suckered us?
After the Soviets withdrew and bombed them into the stone age, Osama Bin Ladin didn’t want to be our friend anymore. I guess nobody likes to be a pawn. By the way, in this whole “war on terror” they can’t even find this one guy who is six feet tall and sticks out like a sore thumb. What does that tell you? Either this is a hopeless cause (I mean if they can’t track this guy whose face is known and is easy to spot, how are they going to find people who are terrorists but look like gas station attendants or tourists or exchange students) or they don’t want to catch him because they want to keep up this phony war on terror. “War is peace.”
THE WIDER WAR ON TERROR
I have a bit of a problem with the whole “War on Terror”. First of all, the government declares a lot of “wars”. There is the war on terror, on poverty, on drugs (even a “Drug Czar”). It’s ridiculous. Then in actual fact congress refused to declare war on Iraq—so much for the Constitution, and oh by the way, the president takes an oath to defend the Constitution. And speaking of the Constitution, this “War on Terror” is used as an excuse to trample all over the bill of rights. Tell me if either of these trigger any memories of recent events:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.”
Further, the Botox candidate finds these ideas funny.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=px11095pT6I&mode=related&search=
Watch this video and tell me honestly the American People are not being manipulated:http://youtube.com/watch?v=RMqN0g-cAOU&mode=related&search=
Second, and you are not going to like this, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. How do we define a terrorist? Someone who attacks innocent civilians in order to instill fear and get the civilians to conform to their will out of fear? Please recall that we fire bombed the city of Dresden in Germany during World War II. Dresden was filled with hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing the cruelty of our allies, the Soviets. Dresden had not one single anti-aircraft gun, and was undefended. Fire bombing is a type of attack where you start a chain reaction, and turn a city into a huge torch. I’m not entirely sure how it works, but it creates temperatures over 1,000 degrees which sucks air through the city (actually picking up crowds of people and hurling them through the streets) and makes it one big inferno. Dresden had no military significance whatsoever. 135,000 people were killed. We did the same thing to Tokyo. We also dropped nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki—also non strategic targets. In fact I think it was Nagasaki—but maybe it was Hiroshima—actually had the highest concentration of Christians in Japan and the greatest center of resistance to the Emperor. I need to verify this, but I am told that since the classified documents have been released, we now know that the Emperor of Japan actually surrendered before we dropped the Bombs.
We made numerous other attacks on civilian populations in Japan and Europe. Why did we do this? According to the official Air Force history, “...to produce a stupefying effect on morale.” Robert H. McNamara, in a recent interview/documentary that you can rent from the movie store entitled FOG OF WAR: 10 LESSONS FROM THE LIFE OF ROBERT H. McNAMARA, describes his memories as an officer in the pacific theatre. At one point his next in command turned to him and said “I sure hope we win this war because if we don’t we are going to tried for war crimes.” McNamara reflected in the interview, “And he was right. We would have been.”
We don’t call these men terrorists do we? We call them “The Greatest Generation” we call them heroes. I’m not trying to cast aspersions on WWII veterans. Many of them were heroes, but we did some bad things.
Third, we need to consider why these people hate us. You have to know your enemy. Before General Patton met the forces of Rommel in the deserts of North Africa, he read Rommel’s memoir from World War I, INFANTRY ATTACKS. Before Clarence Darrow defended Thomas Scopes, he studied William Jennings Bryant, learned his weaknesses, but also learned how he thought. Before any game, Bear Bryant would study the other coach and watch footage of his team in action (Sorry, shameless attempt to win brownie points with my father-in-law). The point is, you have to get inside the “enemy’s” head.
Bill Maher had a good point. He said after 911 we asked, “Why do they hate us? What did we do?” but after about three days we said “Oh, they’re just evil.” They are not evil any more than we were “evil” for bombing civilian targets in WWII. We took a utilitarian view: the end justifies the means. We were not right. It was not right to do what we did, but we did what we thought would bring about the result we wanted. The “terrorists” are doing the same thing. They are wrong to use the tactics they use, but that is what they have, “the weapon of the weak,” terror. “Before you take the speck out of your brother’s eye, take the log out of your own eye so you can see better.”
There is nothing I would like more than to stop them from committing these acts. My point is that bombing countries into the stone age, sanctions, invasions and all of that is not going to stop terrorists: It makes them multiply. Further, there is no way, regardless of how diligent and brave we are, that we can track these people down who are scattered throughout the world.
Further, this “we all need to be united against the terrorist” thing will not work if the plan we are all behind is making things worse. We have to have some self-criticism. This is what I mean by the Bush administration sounding like 1984. “Ignorance is strength” is the Bush Administration’s message. I say we need to learn about these issues. As the saying goes, “look before you leap.”
You asked for support of the facts I listed. There is a lot of support for these facts. Here is a start:
1. BACKGROUND: Michael Ledeen, a former onetime consultant and special adviser for the U.S. State Department and the National Security Council and former adviser to Karl Rove wrote in THE WAR AGAINST THE TERROR MASTERS: “Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we wants things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize [governments in the middle east]” Maybe this explains why we disbanded the Iraqi army and destroyed all infrastructure. Jonah Goldberg adds “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business.”
2. ADGENDA: In ALL ENEMIES: INSIDE AMERICA’S WAR ON TERROR, Richard Clarke, former member of the Senior Executive Service and advisor to Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush Jr. describes a meeting in the White House on September 12th: “I expected to go back to another round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be …Instead I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq [Clarke had told Wolfowitz in April that it was clear that Al Queda was not backed by Iraq: “We’ve investigated that five ways from Friday and nobody believes that (Iraq was backing Al Queda).”]. I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting Al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq.
3. REAL REASON: Colin Powell, also said it was a mistake to be talking about Iraq rather than Al Qaeda. To which, “Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which at first I thought he was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq.” [Again, this is Richard Clarke].
4. REAL REASON: “Paul Wolfowitz put forth military arguments to justify an attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan….attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain…[but] Iraq was a brittle oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable.” Bob Woodward, BUSH AT WAR
5. “THE INTELLECTUALS”: General Anthony Zinni, former CENTCOM commander said “The more I saw the more I thought this [war] was the product of the neocons who didn’t understand the region and were going to create havoc there. These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks who never had an idea that worked on the ground.”
6. “THE INTELLECTUALS”: Chalmers Johnson, President of the Japan Policy Research Institute, refers to the neo conservatives as the “chicken hawk’ war lovers (that is the soi-disant [self-styled] military strategists with no experience of either the armed forces or war) who seized on the national sense of bewilderment after 911 to push the Bush Administration into conflicts that were neither relevant to nor successful in destroying al-Queda.”
To be continued…..
JASON:
I would like to know how much [of Muslim’s increasingly siding with radical Islam] is due to us confronting problems with their culture. For example, when the U.S. govt tried to address problems with Social Security and Immigration everyone was highly upset. Could this be the same as what is going on over there? I'm not sure but it is something to think about. Change angers many people.
ERIK:
Well, like I said, these people are not ready for democracy. You can’t impose a form of government on people. That’s what the French did under Napoleon et al. and it didn’t work. That’s what the Soviets did, and it didn’t work. Our crusade to spread democracy will end up just like all the other movements to spread a form of government, we and our ideas will be on the ash heap of history. Personally, I like the American way, but to continue it requires that we mind our own business and not try to force the American way on everybody else. When Reagan used Jonathan Winthrop’s “City on a Hill” reference to America, he was talking about attracting people to the American way, not impose it on them at the point of a Howitzer. I forget which American President it was that took a Soviet Premier on a tour of our weapons systems. He was unimpressed and said “We have these.” Reagan, took Gorbachev to a shopping mall. Gorbachev said “I want this for my people.”
But the bottom line is not whether we have the best plan for these people or if somebody needs to write a different plan. The bottom line is that we are over there and we are not welcome. Put yourself in their position, imagine China or Russia comes over and invades us and topples our government, or not even us, maybe Canada or a South American country. We would be angry, and not because they didn’t use supply side economics. We’d be mad because they are on our turf.
In actual fact, withdrawing from Iraq might (if it is not already too late) help the war on terror in yet another sense (besides getting out of these people’s country). Other countries were behind our “war on terror” until be invaded Iraq. They helped us in our invasion of Afghanistan, and from what I understand no one but the Taliban had a problem with that invasion. But when we went into Iraq, everybody turned on us. Afghanistan had something to do with 911. Iraq did not. The world saw we were up to something else.
This discussion has given me motivation to learn more about the issues. I hope it continues. If you are getting bored with it, I may have to find some die-hard Sean Hannity fan. Ha! You know there is nothing like a dialog to stimulate thinking. Books on foreign policy will put you to sleep, but I find a discussion like this stimulating. I see now why St. Thomas More and Plato liked dialogs. What’s scarry is that, if you watch the Republican debates, the candidates seem to know less about this stuff than we do. And they want to run the country? That’s real scary. Well, back to the discussion:
I recently made an interesting discovery. If you recall, I was talking about how getting ourselves engaged in a war in Iraq weakened us militarily. Here is an example from recent history of what I am talking about. As it turns out, we have done (and are continuing to do and our leaders want to do more) voluntarily to ourselves what the CIA apparently lured The Soviets into doing in the late 70’s.
Former CIA director Robert Gates in a 1996 interview admitted that America began aiding the mujahideen guerillas in Afganistan six months before the Soviet invasion knowing that the American involvement would provoke the Soviets to invade. When asked in 1998 if he regretted doing this, Carter’s former National Security Adviser said “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afgan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: ‘We now have the opportunity of giving the USSR its Vietnam War.”
We suckered them into a middle east quagmire to speed their demise. The Soviets could beat the mujahedeen on the battle field, but the mujahdeen we trained (and the tactics are now being used on us—talk about blowback, it’s like teaching somebody how to fight and then they kick your butt) fought more like William Wallace (The “highland way” of hit and run) than William of Normandy. Now we are doing the same thing and speeding our demise. Who suckered us?
After the Soviets withdrew and bombed them into the stone age, Osama Bin Ladin didn’t want to be our friend anymore. I guess nobody likes to be a pawn. By the way, in this whole “war on terror” they can’t even find this one guy who is six feet tall and sticks out like a sore thumb. What does that tell you? Either this is a hopeless cause (I mean if they can’t track this guy whose face is known and is easy to spot, how are they going to find people who are terrorists but look like gas station attendants or tourists or exchange students) or they don’t want to catch him because they want to keep up this phony war on terror. “War is peace.”
THE WIDER WAR ON TERROR
I have a bit of a problem with the whole “War on Terror”. First of all, the government declares a lot of “wars”. There is the war on terror, on poverty, on drugs (even a “Drug Czar”). It’s ridiculous. Then in actual fact congress refused to declare war on Iraq—so much for the Constitution, and oh by the way, the president takes an oath to defend the Constitution. And speaking of the Constitution, this “War on Terror” is used as an excuse to trample all over the bill of rights. Tell me if either of these trigger any memories of recent events:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.”
Further, the Botox candidate finds these ideas funny.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=px11095pT6I&mode=related&search=
Watch this video and tell me honestly the American People are not being manipulated:http://youtube.com/watch?v=RMqN0g-cAOU&mode=related&search=
Second, and you are not going to like this, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. How do we define a terrorist? Someone who attacks innocent civilians in order to instill fear and get the civilians to conform to their will out of fear? Please recall that we fire bombed the city of Dresden in Germany during World War II. Dresden was filled with hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing the cruelty of our allies, the Soviets. Dresden had not one single anti-aircraft gun, and was undefended. Fire bombing is a type of attack where you start a chain reaction, and turn a city into a huge torch. I’m not entirely sure how it works, but it creates temperatures over 1,000 degrees which sucks air through the city (actually picking up crowds of people and hurling them through the streets) and makes it one big inferno. Dresden had no military significance whatsoever. 135,000 people were killed. We did the same thing to Tokyo. We also dropped nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki—also non strategic targets. In fact I think it was Nagasaki—but maybe it was Hiroshima—actually had the highest concentration of Christians in Japan and the greatest center of resistance to the Emperor. I need to verify this, but I am told that since the classified documents have been released, we now know that the Emperor of Japan actually surrendered before we dropped the Bombs.
We made numerous other attacks on civilian populations in Japan and Europe. Why did we do this? According to the official Air Force history, “...to produce a stupefying effect on morale.” Robert H. McNamara, in a recent interview/documentary that you can rent from the movie store entitled FOG OF WAR: 10 LESSONS FROM THE LIFE OF ROBERT H. McNAMARA, describes his memories as an officer in the pacific theatre. At one point his next in command turned to him and said “I sure hope we win this war because if we don’t we are going to tried for war crimes.” McNamara reflected in the interview, “And he was right. We would have been.”
We don’t call these men terrorists do we? We call them “The Greatest Generation” we call them heroes. I’m not trying to cast aspersions on WWII veterans. Many of them were heroes, but we did some bad things.
Third, we need to consider why these people hate us. You have to know your enemy. Before General Patton met the forces of Rommel in the deserts of North Africa, he read Rommel’s memoir from World War I, INFANTRY ATTACKS. Before Clarence Darrow defended Thomas Scopes, he studied William Jennings Bryant, learned his weaknesses, but also learned how he thought. Before any game, Bear Bryant would study the other coach and watch footage of his team in action (Sorry, shameless attempt to win brownie points with my father-in-law). The point is, you have to get inside the “enemy’s” head.
Bill Maher had a good point. He said after 911 we asked, “Why do they hate us? What did we do?” but after about three days we said “Oh, they’re just evil.” They are not evil any more than we were “evil” for bombing civilian targets in WWII. We took a utilitarian view: the end justifies the means. We were not right. It was not right to do what we did, but we did what we thought would bring about the result we wanted. The “terrorists” are doing the same thing. They are wrong to use the tactics they use, but that is what they have, “the weapon of the weak,” terror. “Before you take the speck out of your brother’s eye, take the log out of your own eye so you can see better.”
There is nothing I would like more than to stop them from committing these acts. My point is that bombing countries into the stone age, sanctions, invasions and all of that is not going to stop terrorists: It makes them multiply. Further, there is no way, regardless of how diligent and brave we are, that we can track these people down who are scattered throughout the world.
Further, this “we all need to be united against the terrorist” thing will not work if the plan we are all behind is making things worse. We have to have some self-criticism. This is what I mean by the Bush administration sounding like 1984. “Ignorance is strength” is the Bush Administration’s message. I say we need to learn about these issues. As the saying goes, “look before you leap.”
You asked for support of the facts I listed. There is a lot of support for these facts. Here is a start:
1. BACKGROUND: Michael Ledeen, a former onetime consultant and special adviser for the U.S. State Department and the National Security Council and former adviser to Karl Rove wrote in THE WAR AGAINST THE TERROR MASTERS: “Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we wants things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize [governments in the middle east]” Maybe this explains why we disbanded the Iraqi army and destroyed all infrastructure. Jonah Goldberg adds “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business.”
2. ADGENDA: In ALL ENEMIES: INSIDE AMERICA’S WAR ON TERROR, Richard Clarke, former member of the Senior Executive Service and advisor to Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush Jr. describes a meeting in the White House on September 12th: “I expected to go back to another round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be …Instead I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq [Clarke had told Wolfowitz in April that it was clear that Al Queda was not backed by Iraq: “We’ve investigated that five ways from Friday and nobody believes that (Iraq was backing Al Queda).”]. I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting Al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq.
3. REAL REASON: Colin Powell, also said it was a mistake to be talking about Iraq rather than Al Qaeda. To which, “Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which at first I thought he was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq.” [Again, this is Richard Clarke].
4. REAL REASON: “Paul Wolfowitz put forth military arguments to justify an attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan….attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain…[but] Iraq was a brittle oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable.” Bob Woodward, BUSH AT WAR
5. “THE INTELLECTUALS”: General Anthony Zinni, former CENTCOM commander said “The more I saw the more I thought this [war] was the product of the neocons who didn’t understand the region and were going to create havoc there. These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks who never had an idea that worked on the ground.”
6. “THE INTELLECTUALS”: Chalmers Johnson, President of the Japan Policy Research Institute, refers to the neo conservatives as the “chicken hawk’ war lovers (that is the soi-disant [self-styled] military strategists with no experience of either the armed forces or war) who seized on the national sense of bewilderment after 911 to push the Bush Administration into conflicts that were neither relevant to nor successful in destroying al-Queda.”
To be continued…..
JASON:
I would like to know how much [of Muslim’s increasingly siding with radical Islam] is due to us confronting problems with their culture. For example, when the U.S. govt tried to address problems with Social Security and Immigration everyone was highly upset. Could this be the same as what is going on over there? I'm not sure but it is something to think about. Change angers many people.
ERIK:
Well, like I said, these people are not ready for democracy. You can’t impose a form of government on people. That’s what the French did under Napoleon et al. and it didn’t work. That’s what the Soviets did, and it didn’t work. Our crusade to spread democracy will end up just like all the other movements to spread a form of government, we and our ideas will be on the ash heap of history. Personally, I like the American way, but to continue it requires that we mind our own business and not try to force the American way on everybody else. When Reagan used Jonathan Winthrop’s “City on a Hill” reference to America, he was talking about attracting people to the American way, not impose it on them at the point of a Howitzer. I forget which American President it was that took a Soviet Premier on a tour of our weapons systems. He was unimpressed and said “We have these.” Reagan, took Gorbachev to a shopping mall. Gorbachev said “I want this for my people.”
But the bottom line is not whether we have the best plan for these people or if somebody needs to write a different plan. The bottom line is that we are over there and we are not welcome. Put yourself in their position, imagine China or Russia comes over and invades us and topples our government, or not even us, maybe Canada or a South American country. We would be angry, and not because they didn’t use supply side economics. We’d be mad because they are on our turf.
In actual fact, withdrawing from Iraq might (if it is not already too late) help the war on terror in yet another sense (besides getting out of these people’s country). Other countries were behind our “war on terror” until be invaded Iraq. They helped us in our invasion of Afghanistan, and from what I understand no one but the Taliban had a problem with that invasion. But when we went into Iraq, everybody turned on us. Afghanistan had something to do with 911. Iraq did not. The world saw we were up to something else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
