Why wait?” asked William Kristol in a July 24 Weekly Standard op-ed calling for a preemptive military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later.” By August, the usual array of neoconservative pundits were chanting… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (31)Page 1 of 1 pagesChaudrey burns a lot of electrons, but does he have a point? If so, what is it? Surely this is not the point of his article:
The Bush administration’s pragmatic policy toward Pakistan suggests its foreign policy is less ideological than imperial.
Imperial is when you sail half way round the world to establish a colony. Imperial is not when you attack someone who has attacked you. Imperial is not when you establish a democracy to replace an Islamofascist terror regime. Imperial is not when you require terrorist supporters to quit being terrorist supporters.
The world is not an ideal place. Making the world and ideal place will require that democracy and free markets be established everywhere. This cannot be done overnight, but George Bush has made a magnificent start on a long process. And all the left can do is quibble and prevaricate.
Posted by scorp on Sep 23, 2006 at 2:51 PM Whethe ror not you believe Bush is motivated by a genuine desire to foster democracy; whether or not you believe establishing a military presence in a former slaughterhouse that sits between Iran and Afghanistan and abuts much of the rest of the Arab middle east, you have to be predisposed to believing the US is acting out of imperial motivations to skip over the possible explanation that “to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil” is not so much an imperial goal as a defensive one. If China became the predominant outside power in the region, how secure would the US, Europe, and Japan be? The author bloviates, but never comes close to making a case.
Posted by Mitch on Sep 23, 2006 at 7:19 PM Critics of the Bush administration’s confrontation with Iran have often pointed to Pakistan as an example of its double standard. As Bill Maher told Larry King, “And could we at least have a debate on whether this is an impossibility, that Iran be allowed the nuclear weapon before we invade them? I mean, Pakistan is a Muslim country full of people who want to kill us. And they have a nuclear bomb. Somehow that’s OK.”
Actually Pakistan is a modern Islamic nation with strong Western ties in culture and trade. Pakistan has served as a diplomatic go between to China and Iran on many ocassions. The US-Pakistan alliance is difficult and requires a gentle touch. The issue of atomic weapons on the Indian-sub continent is a left over from the Democratic 90’s. The US has remained on friendly terms with India and Pakistan despite 4 wars and a simmering border dispute. At least give the State Department a pat on the back for walking a difficult diplomatic tightrope.
Posted by texasindependent on Sep 24, 2006 at 3:39 PM It seems to me that the Bush administration is just seeking out countries in the Middle East that aren’t outspoken U.S. supporters and looking for/inventing reasons their governments should be lumped in with the Evil Iraq and Iran governments. Syria comes to mind.
The problem with this administration is that it operates in terms of black-and-white absolutes (except in certain circumstances where the U.S. government would benefit more from turning a blind eye to an offender.) The series of events of the last three years in Iraq, Iran should provide enough context that this tension with Syria is not a surprise.
This piece does a very good job at looking below the surface of the situation (i.e. the frame in which the Bush administration has presented this global nuclear issue and Syria’s threat) and dissecting other circumstances which are in play. The world doesn’t operate in black-and-white, in fact it’s mostly gray. We’d have a better-adjusted world view if we could keep this in mind. And these numb-nuts running our country wouldn’t look like such hypocrites.
Posted by everyman on Sep 24, 2006 at 8:48 PM everyman, it seems to me that recognizing gray is exactly what the Bush administration has done in the case of Pakistan and it is that grayness that the author is criticizing. Seeing the gray means you recognize that some countries that don’t meet your every criterion for good guy still are better allies, with regard to certain high-priority issues, that other countries. It doesn’t mean you ignore meaningful differences in the strategies, histories, and personalities involved in different countries. Syria is not just not an “outspoken U..S. supporter...”; it was the colonial conqueror of Lebanon for a couple of decades, the assassinator of a popular Lebanese politician within the last several years, and Iran’s ally in funneling guns and arms to Hezbollah. It is actively and unabashedly trying to destroy Israel. I’m not sure how gray that is, really.
Posted by Mitch on Sep 25, 2006 at 5:51 AM Incredible! The very same people who argue against an “idealistic” foreign policy vis a vis Iran, Syria, Iraq (under Saddam) and North Korea, argue against a “realistic” foreign policy against Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, India.
The only thread that seems to be continually consistent, in these times of hyperbolic stupidity, is these people seem to be taking a stand that supports a dogmatic opposition to anything resembling an American interest
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 25, 2006 at 9:13 AM My goodness. Where to begin? Scorp, I’ll begin by correcting you:
First off, Lakshmi is a woman. I would have thought her first name made that clear, but perhaps you’ve led a sheltered life. I won’t hold it against you. Let’s move to substance:
Your definition of “imperial” only encompasses establishing a colony in another nation. That’s pretty narrow. Leaving aside Iraq, which meets your definition of colony**, don’t you think that it is possible for imperialism to exist without a colony? For example, couldn’t country A use its economic power to persuade country B to enact a certain polices that are favorable to business interests in country A. If you’re confused about this, read some Kissinger. The US exerts imperial economic interests across the globe. Even the post from “Mitch” realizes that. Bottom line, your definition of imperialism ignores how powerful nations like the US exert control over poorer, weaker nations using economic means and institutions.
** (Please don’t say that all the Iraqi “elections” make it a democracy because anyone who reads the news knows that we’re the ones calling the shots over there. If the Iraqi people had any say in their future, the Kurds would have seceded long ago…and the same probably goes for the Shites. There’s “democracy” for you.)
Next you say, “Imperial is not when you establish a democracy to replace an Islamofascist terror regime.” What regime are you talking about? I hope you’re not referring to Iraq, which even our dear President has finally admitted had no ties to al-Qaida. Did you not get the memo about that? As much as clowns like Stephen Haynes of the Weekly Standard might try to conjure otherwise, there was simply no connection between al-Qaida and Iraq. Do you not read the newspaper?
Moreover, there is no way that Iraq could ever be characterized as “Islamofacist,” whatever that means. Brutal as Hussein was, his regime very little to do with Islam. bin Laden and other fundamentalists hated Hussein. Oh, and just in case you weren’t aware, the US helped put him in power and supported him back in the 80s, which is also true of bin Laden. Damn how that realist foreign policy comes back to bite us in the ass.
You wrap up your piece with grandiose statements about the “world not being an ideal place” and that “free markets will make it ideal.” As for the first statement, thanks for stating the obvious. As for your second, don’t you get it that by trying to impose a free market economy on societies doesn’t work? And that it is also a form of imperialism? I’m all for letting people of any society choose a free market system…but it has to be their choice, not the choice of a not so intelligent President who can’t even admit that his main foreign policy initiative has been a complete failure. Don’t believe me? Then go read this:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/24/iraq.main/index.html
But why am I even bothering. You think it’s all been a “magnificent” start. Time to come back to reality my friend.
Posted by Heath on Sep 25, 2006 at 10:58 PM Sorry Mitch, but what’s the difference between a “defensive” goal and an “imperial"Âť one if they both have the same end goal, here being control of Middle East oil? Does the difference have to do with the state of mind, with “imperial” intentions being evil and nasty and “defensive” ones being more goodhearted because they’re done out of necessity? If that’s the only distinction, it’s not a very useful one outside of U.S. debate. I don’t think the people who live in the Middle East care what our intentions are, especially when they are the ones who have to deal with the on-the-ground consequences of our ill-advised adventures abroad. You’re splitting hairs, and to be honest, I don’t think those hairs matter very much. But if it makes ya feel better, yeah, all of us war critics are predisposed to seeing things from an “imperial"Âť perspective. Whatever you say.
A quick aside: You referred to Iraq as a former slaughterhouse. I agree. Saddam Hussein is guilty of genocide and human rights violations to last 100 lifetimes. But consider recent news reports that tell of Iraqi civilians saying that torture and terror are worse now than they ever were under Saddam: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1651789,00.html
You also talk about the danger of China. Now, from your comments, I’m guessing you’re a conservative. And I’m also guessing that you support capitalism and free markets. (I may be wrong about this, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that I’m not) Fair enough. The market it is. But if your conservative and presumably support the almighty market, why should the US be worried about “controlling"Âť anything? Shouldn’t the market just take care of things? And if it turns out that China has the most power in the market, shouldn’t we just accept that as the will of the market? Something tells me you might not be so libertarian on that one; perhaps a little more statist. But that’s just my guess.
Either way, that’s sort of beside the point. My real question is what you think would happen if China’s power surpassed that of the US? Would life in the US just suddenly stop? Would we somehow become controlled by China? Would all the oil producing nations of the world simply stop selling oil to the (in this hypothetical case) second largest consumer in the world? What is it that your so afraid of? Your fears are unfounded. If China becomes the world economic superpower, life in the US will probably go on unimpeded for the most part, much like it does in Europe. (The only thing I fear is that war-mongering politicians will use the “threat of China” rhetoricÂť to goad the US in yet another war that benefits only those who don’t have to fight it.)
So maybe we should stop thinking about the debate in terms of who controls the resources and start thinking about ways to share resources and power in order to cooperate peacefully and perhaps improve the lives of the billions of people in this world living in poverty.
As for the comment that the author “bloviates,"Âť my advice is to skip the fancy vocabulary and actually read the article. If you’d read the article, you’d realize that the point is that our foreign policy, despite Bush Administration rhetoric to the contrary, is imperial, not about spreading democracy. And often this contradiction (or hypocrisy if you will) is lost in the national debate about foreign policy. So you’re wrong: she does in fact make a point; you just don’t agree with it.
Posted by Heath on Sep 25, 2006 at 11:17 PM Mitch, one last thing: are you kidding about Pakistan being a “better ally” that others? Seriously, did you read the article? Here’s a quote from page 2:
“More important, as Abbas argues, the Bush administration is investing heavily in a dictator who is increasingly unable to rein in the very extremists he needs to secure his political future. Not only have groups like the JUI and the jihadis in Kashmir become increasingly independent, but the regime no longer has control over critical regions such as Waziristan and Baluchistan. “This is a very dangerous strategy,” Abbas says. “There is no doubt there is going to be blowback.”
That analysis seems dead on to me. Some ally we got there. Another dictator who’s regime is fertile ground for extremist thinking, which in the end will come back to haunt us.
Posted by Heath on Sep 26, 2006 at 9:20 AM To characterize Pakistan’s governance as “Another dictator who’s regime is fertile ground for extremist thinking, which in the end will come back to haunt us” misses the point. The extremist thinking, and the fertile ground for it, was around, and vibrant, long before Musharref took over. That Musharref has been fighting that political element of religious extremism in Pakistani politics is why he should be receiving our support.
Musharref did not create Pakistani religious extremism. That happened 60 years ago.
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 26, 2006 at 9:36 AM Actually, Heath, she thinks she makes a point, she just doesn’tr convincingly establish it, except for those who already agree with her. And there is a meaningful distinction between defensive and imperial motivations, even for the people of the middle east, although they are not obvious in the short-term.
Imperial ambitions are pretty much never-ending, either geographically or temporally; defensive ones tend to be limited by the needs of the time and are usually redefined by changing conditions, such as the ability of the people of the country itself to govern and defend themselves.
And if you would stop being so arrogant and assuming that people who disagree with you must be simple-minded, you would realize that there are many things short of “life in the US just suddenly stop[ping]” that might be of genuine concern and that could be summarized a long-term, slow decline in the standard of living in the US and the subsequent hardships that would visit on the poor most of all. And the notion that life would “go on unimpeded for the most part, much as it has in Europe” fails to account for the high-unemployment rate, the increasing disintegration of the social contract, and the inability to meanninfully assimilate immigrant populations currently going on in Europe and, if a trend, not one I’d like to see cross the Atlantic.
And since we have already established your inability to make meaningful distinctions and that your condescension toward opposing opinions suggests an arrogance that probably is unable to entertain any premises or facts in contradiction to your own prejudices, I’ll make one last stab at what I meant by some countries being better allies with regard to certain high-priority issues: we allied with the Soviet Union against Germany in WWII, even though it was already a totalitarian dictatorship that had attempted to starve to death a colonized country and was killing its own people left and right. Beating Germany was the priority. As soon as the war was over that priority changed, and the USSR became a foe. The nature of the country hadn’t changed, only the circumstances within which alliances were formed. Since Pakistan is apparently providing some useful intelligence against terrorists and for prevening attacks, for the time being the plusses outweigh the minuses, at least in the estimation of those responsible for making those decisions. They could be wrong, but I’m not inclined to take your estimation over theirs.
Posted by Mitch on Sep 26, 2006 at 3:41 PM Thanks for responding Mitch. I don’t ever recall saying that you were simple-minded. I did say that it seemed like you hadn’t read the article, based on some of the assertions you were making. But maybe that’s just me hair-splitting.
Anyway, you begin your response by saying this:
“Imperial ambitions are pretty much never-ending, either geographically or temporally; defensive ones tend to be limited by the needs of the time and are usually redefined by changing conditions, such as the ability of the people of the country itself to govern and defend themselves.”
First of all, that doesn’t respond to my original critique, which said that the distinction between imperial and defensive is meaningless to the people that have to deal with the consequences of our foreign policy, imperial, defensive, or otherwise. Perhaps you could respond to that.
Second, you say one of the big differences between imperial and defensive ambitions is temporal. I don’t know what you’re basing that on. Policy that you cited as defensive can in fact be very long term (such as our Cold War policy towards the former Soviet Union or our policy towards Cuba). Likewise, imperial foreign policy can be very short term (see our involvement in helping to overthrow Lumumba in the Congo during the early 1960s...after we toppled him and held install Mobutu, we sat back and enjoyed the fruits of our very quick labor).
To summarize, I still don’t see any useful difference between what you descibe as defensive policy as opposed to imperial policy. What’s on the mind of our leaders doesn’t make the outcome on the ground feel any less imperial.
Next you say:
“And if you would stop being so arrogant and assuming that people who disagree with you must be simple-minded, you would realize that there are many things short of “life in the US just suddenly stop[ping]” that might be of genuine concern and that could be summarized a long-term, slow decline in the standard of living in the US and the subsequent hardships that would visit on the poor most of all.”
I never assumed that you’re simple minded. I assumed you were conservative; nothing more. I also don’t care one way or the other if you think I’m arrogant. What’s important is that I am unable “to realize” what things “might be of genuine concern” to the US should China become the world’s leading economic power. Please provide some evidence to back up your claim that our standard of living would decline. I don’t think it will. If your fear is that we won’t get enough oil, I already explained why I don’t think that is a realistic fear to have in a market economy world. People will still sell us oil, even if China is the world’s economic hegemon.
I’ll respond to the rest of your post later.
Posted by Heath on Sep 26, 2006 at 4:03 PM No, Heath, you never did call me simple-minded. And I wasn’t concerned about your attitude toward me as your general tone in disparaging the comments of your e-post-ilary opponents: “ but perhaps you’ve led a sheltered life”; “thanks for stating the obvious”; “don’t you get it”; “But why am I even bothering.... Time to come back to reality my friend”; “Did you not get the memo about that?....Do you not read the newspaper?"--these did not strike me as the comments of someone who believes he has anything to learn from those whose opinions and perspective differ from his own, who has anything approaching respect for or curiosity about the opinions of others. Thus, to me, arrogance on your part: you think you are right, and that is all there is to it, as though what you read in the newspaper, for heavens sake, has some natural relationship to the truth.
My assumption that you saw those of us who disagreed with as simple-minded sprung, I think, from the rather simple-minded strawman you concocted as your perception of what I was defining as the difference between defensive and imperial military action: “Would life in the US just suddenly stop? Would we somehow become controlled by China? Would all the oil producing nations of the world simply stop selling oil to the (in this hypothetical case) second largest consumer in the world? What is it that your so afraid of? Your fears are unfounded.” How simple would I have to be to think that! I can gather from the less condescending tone of your most recent post that you may have simply been tripped up by the momentum of your earlier “slashing” sarcasm, but positing that I was making the argument as you state it did not suggest you perceived some sophistication in what I was saying. Combined with the other very condescending examples I quoted, above, which I suppose you might have thought of as witty, I saw a tendency to see conservatives as simple-minded. But I may have misjudged you.
I think you and I will never come to agreement on a distinction between defensive and imperial national effort because you define “imperialism” more broadly than I do. I reread your response to Scorp at 10:58 yesterday, and you seem to support the usual left-wing definition of imperialism as largely economic without a necessarily military or even coercive component. Fair enough, but I think that definition elides some important distinctions, which granted, might not be obvious to those on the ground, so to speak, especially in the near term, but in the long run, as I said above, can make all the difference (won’t necessarily, but could).
In the examples you give regarding your point about time, you sort of slip out of the discussion about the nature of imperialism. The our cold-war relationship toward Russia was not really imperialistic; the Soviet Union, after all, allowed Russia to exist as the last great European empire and our job was to roll it back or at least contain it. I don’t think anyone argued that we were seeking to control Latvia and the Ukraine. Cuba is a more complicated issue, but we aren’t occupying (except for Gitmo, an abberant item if ever there was one) or controlling Cuba, just punishing it for behaving badly, according to our lights. Unless you want to argue that every time any country attempts to influence other countries to behave in certain ways that benefit the first countries national interests in imperialism (which I suppose can be argued), Cuba is not really what I have in mind as an “imperialist” policy--not necessarily a wise or effective one, and the imperialist dimension of it is certainly arguable, but the parallels to the middle east seem to me pretty weak.
Posted by Mitch on Sep 26, 2006 at 8:31 PM Heath:
Regarding China, fine: you don’t think there is a problem, you don’t see them not selling us oil, you want to hoist me on the petard of the free market, even as (I bet) you don’t really believe the market is truly free. And I don’t either: the oil market is certainly not free, either globally or domestically; nor are the natural gas, or wheat, or many other markets. China’s potential ability to do the US economic harm is enhanced by any increase in its economic, political, or military power and influence, each of which supports the others. This doesn’t strike me as a controversial premise for a concern that the less we control, the more vulnerable we are.
Let me say, by the way, that I find it ironic that the same left-wing crowd that bemoaned (and continues to bemoan) the economic imperialism, the materialism, the untoward influence of America in the world should also bemoan globalization, which has done more to more equitably distribute the world’s wealth than Marx or Keynes or the UN every has. Granted, not all the effects of globalization are benign, certainly in the transition. But the upside of outsourcing is the raising of the standards of living in India, China, Singapore, etc. Could the same leveling of the playing field be done more fairly, with more planning? I suspect only theoretically: in the real world (if one is to come back to reality) planned economies do not do so well: they are (temporarily) better at more even distribution, but not so good at producing things to distribute.
Posted by Mitch on Sep 26, 2006 at 8:32 PM “Incredible! The very same people who argue against an “idealistic” foreign policy vis a vis Iran, Syria, Iraq (under Saddam) and North Korea, argue against a “realistic” foreign policy against Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, India.”
There’s no inconsistency here. Nobody on the left is calling for the United States to impose economic sanctions, bomb, or invade Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, as we have done and/or may do with Iraq, Iran, and Syria Placing diploamatic pressure on our allies to hold democratic elections is not the same as forcibly overthrowing them.
Posted by Peter H on Sep 27, 2006 at 11:36 AM Peter H,
You really should read the associated article before making such comments,
In stark contrast to its Middle East policy, the Bush administration’s strategy with Pakistan has prioritized pragmatism over ideology, preferred diplomatic persuasion to military aggression and, most strikingly, displayed a willingness to tolerate Islamic extremism that does not directly challenge its interests. Pakistan hints at both a different, realpolitik side to the Bush foreign policy and a disconnect between the administration’s moral and ideological rhetoric and its underlying goals.
So, which is it? Is the Bush Adminstrations foreign policy strategy wrong because it has priotized pragmatism (in Pakistan) or because it has prioritized ideology (in Iraq)?
Seems to me if Lakshmi Chaudhry’s criticism is valid, it is just as strong of an indictment of the criticism, demonstrating a disconnect between Lakshmi Chaudhry’s moral and ideological rhetoric and its underlying goals.
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 27, 2006 at 1:51 PM Mitch,
Sorry for the delay in responding. With regards to the condescension, your points are valid. I understand where you’re coming from. My apologies for being an asshole.
That being said, I still think you’re wrong about China. Even if we become more vulnerable by not being in control of oil (and I’m not at all convinced that things in the world are such that only one country has to be in “control” of oil or any other resource), I don’t think losing control of a resource can ever justify invading a county and costing thousands of people’s lives. The money and bloodshed in Iraq would have been much better spent investing in alternative energy and fuel sources, both or which are feasible. I don’t know if you agree or disagree with that, but my main point in starting this debate is that I don’t think we have any business having a military presence in the Middle East, regardless of our intentions. Perhaps we’ll never come to an agreement on that issue.
With regards to the former USSR and Cuba, I believe I referred to our policies towards both nations as “defensive” for lack of a better term. I don’t think our policies toward either were imperialistic, though I don’t think our policies are wise either. I think you’re right about sometimes having to form alliances with folks you’d rather not form alliances with. My problem is that over the past 50 years we’ve been butting our nose into the affairs of other nations unnecessarily, and with no good reason. Under the guise of fighting communism, we allied ourselves with the Shah in Iran, Mobutu, bin Laden, all sorts of bloodthirsty monsters in Latin America...and for what? To fight communism in Iran, Afghanistan, the Congo, and Nicaraugua? It wasn’t worth it.
Let me quote something to you that gets at part of the reason I have such a problem with this:
“In an important, but sadly little-noted volume Secrecy, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan concluded that the Soviet Union was on the point of economic, social, and political collapse since at least the mid-1970s, thus making unnecessary the cost and dangers of the continuing Cold War U.S. military buildup. Moynihan further concluded that knowledge of the true state of Soviet affairs was well known within the U.S. Intelligence community for years before that, but its “culture of secrecy” kept even the Presidents of the United States uninformed about these facts.”
Much in the way the threat of the Soviet Union was exaggerated, I think the same could be said of al-Qaeda. As much as conservative tout the continuing threat of al-Qaeda and terrorism, they are not much of a threat to us. Yes, terrorism will continue to happen, but I honestly don’t think there is a way to completely end it...it has always existed and always will. Sure we need to continue to fight terrorism, but we the level of the threat is not such that we need to be living in a state of perpetual fear.
Regarding your comments on Europe: sure, they have an unemployment problem, but many of their nations (especially the socialist ones) are considered very competitive:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5381428.stm
And French workers are more productive than their US counterparts (scroll down):
http://www.forbes.com/2005/03/22/cx_da_0322topnews_print.html
Last point on Europe is an anecdotal: I have family in Germany and Holland and I’ve lived and traveled quite a bit in Europe. I’m not saying they don’t have problems over there, but in comparison with the US, standard of living over there is pretty much the same (or better, depending on your values). They certainly have less crime and not as much of a bloated prison system. And we probably have more poverty over here.
Posted by Heath on Sep 27, 2006 at 7:26 PM Moving on: you’re right that the global market isn’t free and there is certainly a danger of China using its market power as a leverage against us to damage our economy. But if China surpasses us in economic power, we’ll still have economic power of our own to secure resources. But in the long run, it might be better to, again, invest in alternative sources that are more environmentally sustainable.
Lastly, I completely disagree with your comment that globalization has helped reduce poverty. For one, you yourself acknowledge that the market isn’t truly free. And because it’s not truly free, the poor in the Global South get screwed. As I’m sure you know, US subsidized farmers can dump their products on the developing world and bankrupt farmers in those countries (who, of course, are not eligible for subsidies under IMF and World Bank structural adjustment).
Anyway, this post is long enough, but suffice it to say that I think the jury is still out on how much globalization has done for the world’s poor. And I think many economists (Joe Stieglitz, Jeffrey Sachs, Amartya Sen, etc.) would tend to agree with that point. Not saying that we need worldwide communism as a solution, but a little global wide New Deal wouldn’t hurt (it helped us!)
Apologies again for being a prick when I first posted.
Posted by Heath on Sep 27, 2006 at 7:26 PM By the way, the Moynihan-infused quote comes from Haynes Johnson’s Age of Anxiety.
Posted by Heath on Sep 27, 2006 at 7:44 PM Heath,
I appreciate your apology. The fundamental problem with blogs like this is that, given the tenor and temper of the times, it is much too easy to slip into the sort of political argument that, as Orwell puts it, seeks only to score debating points, rather than ascertain the truth. I’ve fallen into the same trap.
I could certainly be completely wrong about China, as both of our positions are rather in the nature of faith-based speculation. My point in raising it was to make the point that viewing the US actions in Iraq as inescapably imperialistic is also faith-based, as a defensive concern about the future was not an irrational position.
You are right, it was me who slipped the track with regard to the USSR and Cuba in our attempt to define imperialism and defensiveness. What I should have said was that since our relationship to neither side involved an invasion or occupation, the length of our defensive stance toward them was not perhaps the best comparison for exploring the issue of time and imperialism. But I may have gotten to the level of meaningless extraction.
Regarding your Moynihan quote, I always find it ruefully amusing when members of the left quote opinions from the CIA and others in the American intelligence community as somehow definitive (I find it simply misguided when the right does so). After all, the left has for decades derided American intelligence as politically motivated and an evil instrument of Amerian imperialistic intentions. Why should the opinion of such an organization be taken as gospel? The historical truth is that American intelligence has been fairly inept at penetrating and analyzing the conditions, both short and long term, of America’s enemies (or opponents, if one prefers). From the missle gap through Vietnam through to 9/11, I see little that suggests a CIA, NSA, DIA or NSC analysis should be taken with anything other than swimming pools of salt.
Moynihan I view as a creditable source and the fact that the CIA posits an opinion doesn’t make that opinion ipso facto wrong, but still…
By the way, what I said about globalization was that it more equitably distributed wealth, not that it eliminated poverty, which are not the same thing. It may be that all that has happened is that the lower classes (if not the poor) in developing countries have begun to move up the scale, but it may be a start, although, as you say, the jury is still out.
Posted by Mitch on Sep 27, 2006 at 11:24 PM Mitch, thanks for responding.
You’re right about internet debate. It was late and I was cranky when I first started posting, which is never a good thing. I try to always be respectful when debating and I certainly wasn’t when I started.
You bring up a good point when you say that the CIA and other intelligence agencies should not be taken too seriously considering their long history of mistakes. For me, the quote had relevance because of Moynihan, not because of intelligence officials. But the main problem, in my view, is not that our intelligence departments don’t have good information. The problems arise when we try to act and “do something” about the threats (real or imagined) about which we have knowledge.
The only thing I would add is this: if we can’t trust our government agencies to provide us with solid credible information on which to act abroad and engage threats, maybe we should take a more cautious approach and keep to ourselves for the most part. Since I don’t think we can trust Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld or Richard Perle to be better sources of info and advice than our intelligence officials, maybe the best solution is to do less.
That doesn’t mean I’m advocating isolationism; I think we should definitely be engaged with the world at large. But since we have a long history of blundering abroad, I think the US and the world would benefit if we substantially retracted our military (I stress that word) presence across the globe and instead worried more about dealing with problems within our own borders, including stopping terrorism.
Anyway, we’re sort of discussing things all over the map here. I have a question related to the article: do you think we should stay in Iraq?
To clarify my position: I was against the war before it started, but in the year or so after we got there, I believed that since we invaded, it was our responsibilty to help fix things and help Iraqis acheive autonomy. I now think that was mistaken. I think we need to withdraw as soon as possible. In addition to the recent intelligence report about Iraq being a breeding ground for terrorists (which we can agree may have flaws), a recent poll of Iraqis found that six of ten Iraqi support attacks on US troops:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_opinion
To me, the occupation is a disaster with no end in sight.
Posted by Heath on Sep 28, 2006 at 9:13 AM Jay Cline,
“So, which is it? Is the Bush Adminstrations foreign policy strategy wrong because it has priotized pragmatism (in Pakistan) or because it has prioritized ideology (in Iraq)?
Seems to me if Lakshmi Chaudhry’s criticism is valid, it is just as strong of an indictment of the criticism, demonstrating a disconnect between Lakshmi Chaudhry’s moral and ideological rhetoric and its underlying goals. “
I think you are misreading the article. Lakshsmi Chaudhry’s point is not that Bush has a double standard on Pakistan, when in fact she says that criticism misses the point. Rather, her argument is that the example of Pakistan shows that the Bush Administration is motivated by imperial concerns (i.e securing and expanding American hegemony) rather than ideological ones. I can’t speak for Lakshmi, but my guess is that she would oppose both neoconservatism and traditional Kissingerian realism.
Posted by Peter H on Sep 28, 2006 at 10:47 AM Heath,
I am afraid Iraq is now a lose-lose situation and whether we stay or go, people will die. I am somewhat persuaded that keeping the military in the middle east will keep terrorism away from North America, that the best defense is a good offense. I frankly don’t think it is possible to defend this particular homeland without an agressive presence overseas: we have two many ports, two much border, two many vulnerable facilities, and are too open to effectively prevent jihadists who are not being kept busy in their “homeland” from successfully blowing up a chemical plant of sneaking in a dirty bomb. My guess is if that we withdrew from Iraq, we would see an erosion of our freedoms and civil liberties that would make the Bush administration seem positively libertarian, and a level of fear we have not in my lifetime known.
On the other hand, it is hard to have faith that the Bush administration and the current configuration of American armed forces can hold out in Iraq long enough for the Iraqis to establish some homegrown stability. The confluence of American public impatience, American media tendentiousness, and Bush administration ineptitude (if not outright incompetence) suggests that we haven’t the skill, stamina, commitment or long-term vision to break the current downward spiral. But I have little faith Bush or anyone else likely to become national leader will have any idea how to keep us safe when the battlefield shifts to the homefront. If the world were ideal, I would say, yes, stay in Iraq until it can govern itself or until it can be split into 3 entities. In this world, I incline in that direction, but have little faith the outcome will be positive.
Posted by Mitch on Sep 28, 2006 at 9:38 PM To all supporters of war-mongering:
Let’s increase taxes to pay for war.
Let’s institute a draft to insure adequate troops.
Let’s see to it that you are the first ones to go.
Let’s make sure all soldiers are paid at least what Wal-Mart workers make.
Let’s try to remember when our leaders made such remarks as “We have nothing to fear but fear itself” and “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”
instead of “GO TO THE MALL.”
Posted by PoBoy on Oct 15, 2006 at 9:26 PM PoBoy,
Yes.Yes.Been there, done that.They are making at least that much:
My monthly pay in Basic and Tech School 20 years ago was $600. Room and Board and Transportation and Healthcare provided. $600 a month and nothing to spend it on.
Before the end of my first year, my monthly pay was $900. Room and Board and Transportation and Healthcare provided. $900 a month with nothing to spend it on, ‘cept beer and women and vacation expenses.
At my one year mark, I moved off-base. The supplemental BAQ/BAS that was for paying the additional costs of living and eating off-base actually exceeded my “Room and Board” expense. So, add about $50 to that $900 in the previous paragraph. With nothing to spend it on.
Just before I got out four years later, I was making $1,200 every month. The only expense that had increased was my car loan. Because I could afford a much better car with that $1,200 every month with nothing to spend it on except, well, you get the picture.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 16, 2006 at 12:33 AM (Let us not even start with the per diem bonanza every time we went TDY - temporary duty - generally $70-100 to pay for hotel and food expenses, even though the hotel was already paid for and there is always the chow hall).
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 16, 2006 at 12:38 AM Po Boy -
The reason you are po, and the reason you will always be po, is that you are as dumb as a turnip.
Bill Clinton deliberately avoided taking responsible steps when the Islamists made increasingly destructive attacks on the United States. OBL quite naturally concluded that the USA was weak and unwilling to fight. OBL fully expected that the USA would suffer financial and social collapse as a result of Islamist attacks, and that a world-wide Islamist Caliphate would be the result. OBL did not realize that Clinton was a Dimocrat, and that there are people in this country that are willing to defend the nation and to defend democracy. So, yes, we have long known that refusing to defend ourselves leads to attack by others, so, yes, Bill Clinton is a war monger, in addition to being a convicted perjurer, and the author of the Clinton tax increases, the Bubba Bubble, and the Clinton Recession.
Let’s increase taxes to pay for war.
Ummm, no. President Bush took exactly the right steps, tax cuts and economic reforms, to put the United States economy on a firm footing after Clinton loused it up. Employment is at record highs, tax receipts are at record highs, inflation has been at record lows, and the federal deficit is falling like a rock. But you are not aware of that, because you are as dumb as a turnip. The entire cost of Afghanistan and Iraq is substantially less than the increase of USA GDP this year. Afghanistan and Iraq together are by far the least expensive war the USA has ever fought, by an order of magnitude.
Let’s institute a draft to insure adequate troops.
Why, shore. And after we double the size of the military, we will find that we have doubled the defense budget. And doubling the defense budget will starve the economy for investment capital, which is how Clinton invented the Clinton Recession.
President Bush has a finely crafted plan to serially defeat the Islamists without jeopardizing the economy. The size of the military is consistent with the strategic goals. For an ambitious undertaking, this war has by far the least casualties and least cost of any war ever fought. You understand nothing, so I do not expect you to understand simple points of economics or military strategy. Turnip.
Posted by scorp on Oct 16, 2006 at 5:15 AM I would like to ask Chaudry, what about India. Why India Gets a Nuclear Pass.
To Americans who point fingers on Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, Pakistan and many many others may be look at your own human rights records:
1. First nation on planet earth to Nuclear Bomb innocents. Don’t forget that Japanese already were defeated when they were Nuclear Bombed to scare Russians.
2. Killed more than 700 000 innocent civilians in Iraq in the name of terror ideology of Democracy. Democracy which provides pass to its practisers kill innocents snatch other’s resources and dignity in name of its people.
3. Hundreds of thousands killed in Vietnam, Afganistan, Korean war, list is long (google for you knowledge)
Case against American nation is growing each day. Americans are worst in the history of humainty worse than Mongols and other barbaric nations world has ever seen.
Why worst because Western Civilisation is Englightend (with Dark Ideas and Values)
Sorry if I have different perspective than yours. May be you wanna label me as Terrorist, Evil, some other dirty title!!!
Posted by Sonu75 on Nov 13, 2006 at 3:50 AM Come on, Sonu75, the US deserves criticism for many things, but you only weaken the case when your facts are so far off the mark. Japan was not already defeated; in fact, it took a second bomb to get them to come to the table. “Already defeated” is a conclusion of hindsight, not an inescapable fact of the moment. The 700,000 Iraqi civilian deaths statistics is simply not believable: the sampling method that arrived at that statistic was seriously flawed and the number represents something like 750-800 civilian deaths a day, day in and day out, since American forces entered the country; that has simply not happened. And if are going to make equivalent the causes and morality of Vietnam, Afganistan, and Korea, you are just not making a serious argument. Don’t flatter yourself that I consider you evil or a terrorist: I consider you ill-informed and knee-jerk.
Posted by Mitch on Nov 13, 2006 at 5:37 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Lakshmi Chaudhry
- The Godless Fundamentalist
In The Root of All Evil, biologist Richard Dawkins reveals his own lust for certainty - The Power of Mean
Fuller argues that the moral power of Rankism = that everyone experiences being a somebody and a nobody - can overcome the innate force of bullying? - Why Pakistan Gets A Nuclear Pass
The Bush administration's pragmatic policy toward Pakistan suggests its foreign policy is less ideological than imperial - The True Temptations of the West
Temptations of the West: How to be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet and Beyond is a travelogue by Pankaj Mishra about the shadow of poverty in South Asia. - Why Hemingway Is Chick-Lit
Women read more fiction than men. - What Not to Watch
Makeover shows like "What Not to Wear" teach women to listen to their inner demons
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
