The Democracy Fetish
posted at 9:18 pm on August 14, 2006 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Here’s a dark thought swirling around my mind today. Israel and Hezbollah, via the US, France and the UN, have entered into a cease-fire. Hezbollah capo Hassan Nasrallah promptly claimed victory, and there have even been firework celebrations in Lebanon on the news that Hezbollah has “defeated” Israel. On the battlefield it did no such thing. Hezbollah merely survived, and Nasrallah was unfortunately not on the receiving end of a package of high explosives during the contest. The world is so much worse for that.
This having been a post-modern summertime war, Hezbollah’s survival was enough for it to claim victory; Israel is “defeated” because it didn’t destroy every last Hezbollah man and missile. This is how assymmetrical warfare works. Hezbollah’s popularity in Lebanon is probably at its peak; Israeli PM Olmert is weakened. Lebanon is nominally a democracy. Democracies tend to put popular politicians and parties into office, and turn out unpopular or ineffective ones. The good side of that is that Olmert may soon be replaced by Netanyahu or a stronger, more vigorous presence. But there’s a big down side north of the blue line. Out with that Syrian stooge and in with…Nasrallah’s stooge?
We have made a lot of the effort to democratize the Middle East. It’s the centerpiece of our war effort there, so much so that we play democratization up and our own national survival down. President Bush made a lot out of the power of democracy to stop terrorism during his presser today (never mind that the UK airline terrorists mostly grew up in democracy’s embrace). Pretty soon, we’re probably going to see what a mistake all of that democracy talk has been.
The Palestinians have already elected Hamas to run their government. Hamas is a junior terror partner to Hezbollah. It’s not at all inconceivable that Lebanon will elect Hezbollah either into power in its own right or into a governing coalition when (or if) they get the chance (I say “if” because Hezbollah could take over by force, which would actually be the convenient option for us at this point). Hezbollah is already part of the government, even before “defeating” Israel. Over in Iraq, our democratization project has put an Iran-leaning fellow into the prime seat and thug cleric Muqtada al-Sadr remains a popular figure there as well. He’s another who should have played catch with a daisy cutter, but we stayed our hand.
Our rationale for opposing these regimes, if the one in Lebanon comes about the one in Iraq chooses its path poorly, and if both are democratically elected, is going to take a massive hit. As will the notion that democracies don’t engage in terrorism, and the notion that democracies don’t fight one another. We’ll have a handful of terrorist democracies fighting Israel, a democracy, and the rest of of the West–a democracy bang-up derby.
Having played down our own national interests for years and having played up democracy as the centerpiece of our war strategy (a strategy I’ve supported, fwiw), we’ll have to do a national pirouette if the time comes when we’re facing off against a handful of democratically elected terrorist states. Such a moment will at least be clarifying, since we won’t have to pretend that we’re fighting a small minority of that region anymore. We’ll be fighting against the majority and that majority’s chosen governments. The gloves might at last come off, if we still have the will to throw a real punch.
But we’ll be fighting against true majorities with, until President Bush leaves office anyway, an administration that has a very hard time getting past 40% approval. What then of our democracy fetish?
More: I’m getting some email on this, so I probably need to clarify a point or two. First, I supported and continue to support the attempt to bring democracy to the Middle East. That part of the world has had every form of government, from theocracy to the secular strongman to whatever you’d want to call the House of Saud’s symbiotic relationship with Wahhabism, and they all produce terrorists. The one model that hasn’t been tried within America’s protection is democracy. So it’s worth a shot.
But we should be clear about something. We’re not dealing with pre-1787 America in Iraq. We’re dealing with a completely different culture with an entirely different worldview from ours. As I just wrote to someone who has emailed me about this post, it turns out that values and bedrock beliefs do matter to whether democracy can take root and what it may become. In the colonies, most Americans were either Christians or at least accepted the basics of the Judeo-Christian worldview. In that worldview, the individual has inalienable rights given by God (not the king or government), and the individual life is worth something. Our entire system is based on that premise, with the additional wisdom that man is imperfect and therefore needs the power of government run by men hemmed in with checks and balances, and the built-in possibility of amending the system to correct grave injustices like slavery (and it still took a horrific war to correct that one). In the Islamic teachings, there are no inalienable rights and the individual’s life is worth a great deal less; an individual outside Islam is either an enemy or a subject until he converts. In the radicalized or post-reformation Islam that’s been on the rise for decades now, the individual in this life is worth nothing compared to the rewards that await him after martyrdom. Creating democracy in that soil has proven difficult, because as it turns out the worldview we’re dealing with isn’t the same one George Washington and the American founders believed in. We need to come to grips with that reality, imho. Until we do, and probably for a long time after, we’re going to be disappointed with the progress of democracy in the Middle East.
We would, in the end and in my humble opinion, be better off taking a more nationalistic view of the war. We were attacked, and the war that has followed is our attempt to make sure no one dares attack us like that ever again. Are we succeeding in sending that message? I don’t think so, and in the end getting that message across is the way we win the war. Democracy where our enemies once reigned is a side-benefit, not the objective.
To put it another way, we didn’t set out on December 8, 1941 to democratize Japan. We set out to defeat it first, because it had attacked us. The democracy that flourishes there today is the fruit of America’s victory, not the cause of it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Don’t fall into the trap of thinking Democracy is “Absolute”. It’s not.
It’s just better.
Odds are human rights are better under a Democracy. Odds are the economy is better in a Democracy. Odds are less that two Democracies will go to war with each other than will two dictatorships, or even a Democracy and a dictatorship.
A liberal will argue that Democracy is useless if a dictatorship can do it better.
Is anything possible? Sure!
But what are the odds?
venmax on August 14, 2006 at 9:27 PM
See… the crux of the matter is that liberals can’t see 5 feet past the front of their own nose. They can’t see the forest for the trees. They can’t see the big picture.
This is the fundamental weakness in their ideological and philosophical outlook on life. They will see the most immediately gratifying outcome and think of themselves as “Smart” when they do so. They will confront danger only when it is at their own throat and think themselves “Brave” when they do so.
They are neither.
They see poverty and their first instinct is to throw money at the problem (not to address the fundamental behavioral problems a lot of people in poverty engage in).
They see crime and their first instinct is to take everyone’s guns away (not to prosecute and imprison those who are perpetrating the crimes).
They see polution and their first instinct is to shut Industry down (not to find a long term transitional solution to better forms of energy).
They see predjudice and racism and their first instinct is to impose speech restrictions and various forms of reparations (not to actually take down cultural barriers and let people interact fully and learn from one another).
They see foreign aggresors and their first instinct is to appease them (not to address and confront the fundamental danger they face to us).
All their ideas work fine in the short run - and fail miserably in the long run. This is why their movement has been failing since the middle of the 20th century. Time is not kind to it.
The same principle applies to our foreign wars. They say “Democracy can’t work in that part of the world” - and they turn a blind eye (willingly or unwillingly) to the consequence of a world run by dictators 10, 20, or 50 years on.
There’s no point in fighting for anything but that which is best.
Is Democracy perfect? No. But it is better in the long run - for everybody - than tyranny.
venmax on August 14, 2006 at 9:58 PM
Can a democracy really exist in a country where one or more groups are willing to kill an opponent who beats them in an election? I think that the problem is not with democracy itself but rather our definition of it.
What form of democracy might be the better question. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had to trot out the old “Two wolves and a sheep on an island” story in a discussion of eliminating the electoral college or some other “direct democracy” plan.
We in the US are fortunate to have a system that considered the potential dangers of various “forms” of democracy at our founding.
Tim
TBinSTL on August 14, 2006 at 10:08 PM
Venmax-
You just distilled down something I have been mulling over for some time. Instant versus delayed gratification. That’s a book or at least an article right there.
Thanks
Tim
TBinSTL on August 14, 2006 at 10:13 PM
I tell people when ever posible our error is thinking that Arabs can actually form a democracy. When possible they elect terrorists who soon become oppresive via killing any oppposition. The article earlier today of the man killed for collaboration; Would a democracy allow that?
The only forms of governmewnt they know are oligarchies, dictatorships, and terrorists. America needs to realize that terrorim is the politics of the middle east. Violoence is still inherent to their culture.
Theworldisnotenough on August 14, 2006 at 10:19 PM
So…the solution is perhaps…genocide? Let me know how that works out for you. Maybe conquest and colonization, that’s been a huge success too. I just don’t see you offering an alternative. Isolationism isn’t gonna cut it, they have things that we need. Perhaps we could create a giant space ship and take all the worthy people to our “New Earth”. Nah, we would have to fight over who was worthy. Come on, you can’t just drop a statement like that without giving us your solution. At least a hint.
Tim
TBinSTL on August 14, 2006 at 10:28 PM
Well, I’m grappling with what the solution is. Holding elections without taking into account the values of the people who will cast the votes doesn’t seem to be working very well yet. We got Hamas in the PA, sharia in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we’re likely to get Hezbollah in Lebanon. As Hezbollah is Iran’s puppet, Iran gains a piece of empire and ports on the Med. The new Middle East looks a lot like the old Middle East, complete with a growing Persian Empire. This is winning the war?
I’m not of the mind that there is a short-term solution. There isn’t. I don’t see what we can do other than slogging through the next bloody century or so on the way to their twilight or ours. But by putting democracy at the front and national survival behind that, we’re in danger of losing the top rationale for the war just five short years in. That will peel off more support for a war that’s already misunderstood and unpopular. Can we afford that?
It would be better for our own sakes if we at least made this war less about democratization and more about winning. John Derbyshire is wrong in his prescription here, that rubble makes no trouble. Afghanistan prior to 2001 and Somalia today are powerful evidence that with jihad in the wind, rubble incubates a lot of trouble. So smashing and leaving is no better path to winning than smashing and democratizing without taking into account the values of those being democratized.
In a purely nationalistic sense, winning in the context of this war means making the penalty for sponsoring attacks on us and our friends too stiff for anyone to take the risk. It means giving the Islamic world the message that terrorism is unacceptable and endangers anyone who employs it. If you think that message is currently being sent, show your evidence. I don’t see it.
We did send that message out for the first couple of years of the war, but now…? We just let the UN treat Hezbollah as a co-equal with a democracy while making Hezbollah’s tyrannical masters pay no price for attacking an ally of ours. This is winning the war?
Bryan on August 14, 2006 at 10:53 PM
But remember too Bryan that the fight for freedom sometimes takes the long hard road.
Who here would argue that when it comes down to it - really - that Germany is not our ally today?
Nobody with any genuine common sense I’m sure.
BUT - we did have to fight them twice. Once in 1917, and again in 1941.
We may very well have to do the same in the Muslim World.
Let’s not lose heart however.
Let’s just whip some ass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz0rGvM2X9w
venmax on August 14, 2006 at 11:07 PM
On a related note…
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=234
venmax on August 14, 2006 at 11:10 PM
Well, ok. Germany went from a monarchy to democracy between the wars, elected Hitler and became far more dangerous than it was before. It nursed grievances, re-armed while the world pretended it didn’t, threatened to exterminate the Jews while the world pretended not to hear, and eventually started off a war that killed millions and ended with atomic weapon strikes.
Democracy wasn’t the cure then and it won’t be now. Victory was the cure. German democracy today is a fruit of that victory, not its cause.
But in any case, we’re not talking about Germany, which had a Western worldview underneath its temporary insanity. We’re talking about the Middle East, much of which is currently under the sway or threat of a death cult. That changes the rules a bit, dontcha think?
Bryan on August 14, 2006 at 11:15 PM
I am all for nationalism. The left has attempted to downplay it in favor of the ‘global’ solution which is really a government you did not choose, with borders erased to better redistribute your land, and no accountability.
I am grateful we have a republic instead of a democracy. I believe the electroal college settles the ‘winner take all’ problem at the state level. It localizes the arguments about the fairness of a national election. Without this we have the spector of Soros types buying votes in the lax population areas like L.A. and New York and taking over the national elections. Without ‘winner-take-all’ it takes only one illegal vote to win an election. Proportional electoral voting also gives more value to crooked votes. We have the Senate to give balance.
That said Iraq and Afghanistan got parlimentary sysems, the U.N. favorite. Unlike winner take all, coalition governments must be formed. Governments are unstable, and it is hard to accomplish big jobs. Our strength is the Senate, balanced with the House and a winner take all strong president. So Iraq can continue to be a weak model favored by the U.N where all have voice and nothing gets done.
On top of that, many muslims believe that islam is the state. Now there is the real problem. Christians render under Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Many muslims believe Caesar is Islam.
entagor on August 14, 2006 at 11:17 PM
Nope.
Freedom is freedom.
If it’s not Democracy it’s Theocracy.
If it’s not Democracy it’s Nazism.
If it’s not Democracy it’s Communism.
If it’s not Democracy it’s Imperialism.
If it’s not Democracy it’s Tyranny.
There’s only two forms of government in this world. Democracy and everything else.
Are temporary solutions part of the cure? Sure they are! Take the Marshall plan for example. However don’t expect the roots of freedom to always take hold immediately. Sometimes it takes a second pass at digging out the weeds. We may win the war against islamic fascism in our lifetime only to see it rear it’s ugly head in our children’s age, as did our grandfathers, and great-grandfather’s saw imperial fascism do so in their time.
But they won in the long run. And so will we.
venmax on August 14, 2006 at 11:23 PM
More ass-whoopage…
If it’s not Democracy it’s Theocracy.
venmax on August 14, 2006 at 11:25 PM
“To put it another way, we didn’t set out on December 8, 1941 to democratize Japan. We set out to defeat it first, because it had attacked us. The democracy that flourishes there today is the fruit of America’s victory, not the cause of it.”
Allah touched on something that has also been troubling me - the incapacity of the islamist culture to even grasp the basic concepts of freedom that are inherent in our culture. These people don’t even seem human - how can they embrace freedom? Force, violence, subjugation, sharia law, tyranny, etc. are the only experience the islamist culture has ever had. They have NEVER tasted the utter destruction and defeat experienced by Japan and Germany that would give them pause.
However, the islamists are just as hell-bent on destroying the US as Hitler and Hirohito ever were, probably moreso. They have a koran-driven apocalyptic view that renders human life unimportant and glorifies and rewards any kind of atrocity perpetrated against us infidels. To them, this IS the end of times and they are understandably glad of it, considering life in an islamists’ world. Much like facing a mad dog, any weakness or fear on our part in facing them simply goads their blood lust, sensing a kill.
Unfortunately, I think we are being backed into a corner by delusional religious zealots soon to have nuclear bombs that will allow no alternative than a VERY “disproportionate” response on our part, if WE are to survive.
Labeling the complete defeat of our enemies “genocide” is not helpful.
Benthoven on August 14, 2006 at 11:25 PM
Woops - forked up with the cut and paste!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U1n9TNBgJU
venmax on August 14, 2006 at 11:25 PM
Don’t base the future potential of people on their past experience. We are all human. When Rome was running civilization America’s anglo ancestors were running around sacrificing people to the earth god.
Freedom is freedom. It is part of humainty’s destiny to be free. Either you believe that, and have faith in that, or you don’t.
In which case the muslims (and all fascists everywhere) win.
Not a future I wish to be a part of. For my own sake I’ll believe!!
Night Gents!! Off to bed…. ZZZZzzzzz
venmax on August 14, 2006 at 11:31 PM
Er, Bryan wrote this post, Ben.
Allahpundit on August 14, 2006 at 11:32 PM
I have to say it’s flattering to be confused for a deity. Must be that new workout regime. Er, if I had one.
Bryan on August 14, 2006 at 11:34 PM
Germany and Japan were cogent nations before we defeated and remade them in and after WWII. That is, whatever the system of government, they were a united people. The Muslim world is mostly tribes.
Alex K on August 15, 2006 at 12:30 AM
Supporting “stability” over reform in the Middle East has proved a disaster long-term. It simply leads to autocracies that radicalize their populations, and use outsiders as scapgoats. Look at South America - every source of trouble are places were democracy is absent or threatened.
Clark1 on August 15, 2006 at 12:36 AM
How do you think the majority of Latin Americans feel about the U.S., pro or anti? Chavez may be increasinly dictatorial having taken power, but he was given that power by popular support.
Alex K on August 15, 2006 at 1:16 AM
That’s bullcrap Alex. If most of Latin America really hated us they wouldn’t be storming across the mexican border.
Not to mention the fact that popular support is never a justification for fascism. Democracy is a tool by which as many people as possible are empowered with freedom (note not all just as many as possible).
You’re falling into what I warned Bryan not to - don’t fal into the trap of assuming that anything is “Absolute”. Democracy isn’t a moral justification for leadership, it’s simply a form of government. A better form of government than dictatorship.
Is it perfect? No. That doesn’t mean it’s just the same as dictatorship.
Does everyone in Latin America like us? No. That doesn’t mean that Hugo Chavez is right.
This is why liberals fail. They can’t see the big picture. They can’t see the long term. They just see the one pothole in front of them and assume the whole road is shot to shit.
Nothing in life is permanent or guaranteed. Everything comes down to common sense and a value judgement. What are the odds of something happening?
If we fight to replace one dictator with another, or worse, do like the liberals and appease the ones who exist, what are the odds that the situation will be better in the long run? Not very good I’m afraid.
Is it a sure bet if we replace a dictator with Democracy? No. It wasn’t in Germany in 1918. But in most cases it’s a better bet.
Don’t get painted into a corner by a bunch of pessimistic, navel-gazing, half-assed liberal half-think.
venmax on August 15, 2006 at 5:52 AM
The ignorance here is unreal. America is not a democracy. Democracy is one of the worst forms of government. Only someone as stupid as Bush wants a democracy. America is a
REPUBLIC! Majority rule is just another form of tyranny.
God, people……get educated..
Finish high school.
LZVandy on August 15, 2006 at 6:22 AM
Jeez LZV take the corncob outta your arse. I don’t think anyone here means “Mob Rule” when they say Democracy. In fact I don’t think I know anyone who uses the word Democracy means “Mob Rule” when they say it…
…except for you of course…
venmax on August 15, 2006 at 7:35 AM
I agree. There are certain cultural attitudes and knowledge that are prerequisite for democracy and prosperity. You can’t simply establish democracy without the cultural changes. Look at the Palestinians.
I was a little suspicious of Natan Sharansky’s The Case for Democracy, but President Bush seems to have based his 2nd term foreign policy on it.
I can’t think of any non-Western society that has gone from poverty to wealth, starting off with a Western-style democracy. Japan, Korea, Singapore, etc. all needed to curb leftists by curbing certain freedoms of leftists in order to prosper.
januarius on August 15, 2006 at 8:03 AM
But we should be clear about something. We’re not dealing with pre-1787 America in Iraq. We’re dealing with a completely different culture with an entirely different worldview from ours.
Bryan, these are dark thoughts you are having. I confess to having them as well. They dont seem to grasp the concept of freedom, they dont seem to APPRECIATE what they have and still…and STILL..I cant help but remember all the women I saw voting in Afghanistan who walked for MILES and waited for HOURS. The people of Iraq who were warned not to vote or tbe killed and they walked and they came and hey VOTED. And there is HOPE. Sometimes it is a small flame threatening to flicker out at any moment but as long as that small flame of HOPE is there, good will win out. Not easily, not quickly, but finally. In the end, it will prevail. I have to believe this.
labwrs on August 15, 2006 at 8:51 AM
Don’t fall into the trap of thinking Democracy is “Absolute”. It’s not.
It’s just better.
Odds are human rights are better under a Democracy. Odds are the economy is better in a Democracy. Odds are less that two Democracies will go to war with each other than will two dictatorships, or even a Democracy and a dictatorship.
A liberal will argue that Democracy is useless if a dictatorship can do it better.Is anything possible? Sure!
But what are the odds?
venmax on August 14, 2006 at 9:27 PM
honora on August 15, 2006 at 9:06 AM
Really? You mean like all the liberals who supported Pinochet and Marcos and the Shah and the House of Saud, and Saddam back in the day??
honora on August 15, 2006 at 9:08 AM
Well I suppose I will get kicked about for this: but all this insight about the naivete of the Bush policy (democracy cures all) is about a day late and a dollar short. I read this blog fairly frequently and know there are a lot of smart people who post here. But honestly, this bit about democracy not being one size fits all, this is NEWS???
Yikes.
honora on August 15, 2006 at 9:12 AM
Honora - you miss the point. Nothing is absolute. Take a step back and look at the big picture.
Have we as Americans (all of us) supported dictators in the past? Sure! But have we ever had anything but the spread of Democracy and Freedom as being our long term goal? Never!
The world can’t change overnight - although liberals will throw their hands up at actually having to deal with difficult issues and “call it” instant change.
Where is the sin in playing one bad guy off the other? When does it ever make sense to abandon a clear set of priorities? You’d rather persue Democracy and Freedom in the Congo right now? You think the fight for freedom is just as important in Malaysia is just as important as the fight for freedom in Iraq right now? I’d say you have your priorities screwed up if you do - either that or you’re not bothering to set any at all for yourself.
Your sitting across the table from two evil men - one is empty handed, the other has a suitcase full of money. Who do you take out first? Don’t tell me it doesn’t matter because they are both just as evil as the other.
Think Long Term. The man with the money represents the greatest long term threat.
And if you’re digging for a diamond in a ditch full of shit which end do you start at? You can’t take trial and error along with human judgement out of the equation. But what are you digging for in the first place?
You’re digging for a diamond.
You may feel comfortable in your short-term mindset, thinking that “It’s just not right” to expect everyone can be free. That “One size doesn’t fit all”. Personally for my own sake, and for the sake of future generations of my family (and all humanity) I will never believe that.
Have fun staring at that tree. There’s a whole f*ckin’ forest on the other side of it.
venmax on August 15, 2006 at 9:27 AM
1. Venmax, your first entry on liberals is right on.
2. The Mid East world view is a disaster in my book.
3. People get the government they deserve.
4. Islam is in it’s dark ages right now. It could take a long long time for them to outgrow their current intellectual blinders/bondage. They don’t seem to me to be up to the job of taking responsibility for themselves.
5. Your assessment that we may have to kick some serious ass is unfortunately the only viable path to speeding up history .
6. Once we move past oil, the Mid East is back to being a useless wasteland like it has been for centuries.
Shmo on August 15, 2006 at 12:08 PM
Wow, Chicken Little’ running everywhere! (This post is full of them)
“The Bush Doctrine is failing, Democracy will not work in the ME…freedow…” whaaaa whaaa whaaa all the way home.
Sound like a bunch of liberals.
Who said this would be over by now, in a couple of week, in a couple of months, years? Who? No one that I know of.
Guezz, reading this post is like watching 4 year olds. No concept of perspective, can’t remember 10 mins. of history and cries when things don’t go exactly their way.
Brian on August 15, 2006 at 12:47 PM
One thing is for sure, we can’t ignore the problems in that part of the world. We can’t just say, well we tried, good luck. The islamo-fascists declared an all-out war against us some time ago (this is not a recent thing). It took 9/11 for us to finally take them seriously. Their goal is to kill us.
It’s going to take time. Unfortunately, we have gotten so used to “quick fixes” and instant gratification for everything, that something of this magnitude - that will require an enormous amount of work, sacrifice and time - is outside the norm.
Critics are jumping on this because it’s taken so long. Well, let’s see - it’s been 5 years since 9/11 and 3 years since we invaded Iraq. How long was the Cold War again?? Were we wrong then too? Imagine if we had just said “screw it”.
Rick on August 15, 2006 at 1:02 PM
Out-freakin’-standing post.
When people bring up the fact that Germany and Japan became functioning and peaceful democracies in the wake of WWII, one needs to consider what was done to them. Both countries were thoroughly and utterly crushed, culturally traumatized to the point that any will to fight or resist was gone. They feared us and our response (whose ferocity had been amply demonstrated) far more than anything else.
When those with whom we are at war fear of us and our response to their aggression against us, they too will come around.
We can debate what this means in terms of how to go about invoking that fear in them, and what level of response is appropriate.
However, it is much harder to debate the demonstrated fact that our half-measure responses to our enemies have thus far been an abject failure and have not deterred them from attempting further attacks. It’s also harder to debate that a more drastic level of response by us is necessary.
thirteen28 on August 15, 2006 at 2:58 PM
Who do you crush in the war on terror. Where do we drop the nuke? Stalin believed that if you had 100 people of which 1 was a murderer, you should kill all 100 to make sure you got the one murderer. In the US, if you have 100 people in which 99 are murderers, you should let all 100 go to protect the one innocent. In Japan and Germany, the public was in lock step with the government. It was easy blasting their guilty asses. In Iraq the thugs are a minority. I think Iran is the same way. The country was hijacked by the clerics and they are dug in like ticks. Too many closet American fans in Iran. Yankee go home, but take us with you. Asymmetrical warfare against rogue bands is a real stinker.
We did not bomb the sh*t out of Italy. Don’t get me wrong, I like the big iron and would be happy to use it, but in the current world I don’t think it would be effective. Asymmetrical warfare requires a different approach. Maybe Syria could be a target along with the Iranian nuke sites but we really can’t kill em all and let God sort em out like in WWII. Too bad we can’t get all the Jihadists to commit mass suicide.
Shmo on August 15, 2006 at 3:40 PM
Total agreement here - but I also agree that the same result can be reached over a long period of time - take the cold war for example.
Now are Russia and Eastern Europe shining examples of Democracy and Freedom? No - but they are a helluva lot better than they used to be and it was done without killing millions of people (as was done in WWII).
Right now I think we’re in a long, long conflict against the unholy alliance of China and Islam. And I think Bush was right when he said that this conflict will take several different forms. Some of it will be law enforcement, some of it will be long-term low-intensity stuff like we see against Hezbollah, and some of it will involve mucho ass-poundage like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now - where are we at now in all of this? Not a freaking clue. What to do next? Not a freaking clue. Personally I’d say Nuke Iran but I don’t know what our President and our Military know and I’d rather trust their Judgement.
And honestly that’s what is causing most of the “despair” we see nowadays - not the idea that we’re losing or that it’s hopeless - just that people don’t know what to expect at this point.
We’re winning for sure - but what our next move is who knows…
venmax on August 15, 2006 at 3:45 PM
If we could invent a substitute for oil, things would change fast. Islamic facists with tons of oil money are far more dangerous than broke ones.
Maybe we should roll out Salmon Rushdie and make a big production movie about the “Satanic Verses” and the reality of Islam and how it cripples its servents. And you thought the Dutch cartoons stoked them up. What fun that would be.
Shmo on August 15, 2006 at 4:00 PM
Total agreement here - but I also agree that the same result can be reached over a long period of time - take the cold war for example.
The cold war was about who had the most money once Reagan got involved. Mid East oil money makes that approach harder.
Shmo on August 15, 2006 at 4:03 PM
venmax, your points, generally are valid - just one clarification - there were millions of Cold War casualties, depending how we classify them. It’s just that we like the sound of “without firing a single shot”.
It’s all erroneous, though, and the History Channel has entire series of tapes on “The Cold War Casualties”. Just in the category of spies there were hundreds lost. Thousands of people died among North and South Korean conflicts - looong list of what fits into this category…
Shmo, finding an alternate source of energy and granting the Palestinians a state would take away 2 big albatrosses. However, afer being exposed naked, they’d find another excuse really soon. In the end they simply want us in submission or dead, oil or no oil. They are stuck in the 7th century at best. Our nitwits, in their ignorance and lack of realization of what would happen to them under such a regime, are aiding them on the march to regression. But they are “progressive”.
Democracy is not perfect, though nothing is better. I agree - first submission into fear and then democracy, given that enlightenment is not in their cards. So much wasted energy on all sides, all for fighting stupidity and darkness…
Entelechy on August 15, 2006 at 4:19 PM
That just takes you right back to the original argument. What were the odds that Communism was going to make the USSR prosper? What are the odds that Islamic Fascism is going to lead to thriving middle-eastern economies?
The odds aren’t good. Not when faced when competing with a Free Market Democracy.
Freedom is better. Freedom works.
venmax on August 15, 2006 at 4:20 PM
Yes I agree - millions starved in the USSR, millions slaughtered under the Khmer Rouge etc… I concede that point.
venmax on August 15, 2006 at 4:22 PM
The real question is what happens if we ignore all of this, pull out of Iraq, stop supporting Israel, lax our security at home, open the borders….are we going to wake up the next morning and everything will be fine???
Rick on August 15, 2006 at 4:48 PM
Exactly. It’s just like Rush Limbaugh says - Pessemisim is useless, because even if you’re right… then what?
venmax on August 15, 2006 at 4:59 PM
Gppd arguments.
Benthoven
We forced democracy upon the Axis. In Japan the Emperor surrendered formally and led by example. In Deutschland, Hitler was dead, but there were years of resistance not publicized due to censorship including blowing up bridges and buildings. In Italy, people turned on Mussolini as soon as the tide went out. Italy was a minor military threat and a survivor nation.
Alex K
.
I agrees but many hornets nests can hurt like one big hive
labwrs
Something to ponder. Will it outweigh islam?
shimo
oil is the grease on the wheels
entelechy
wasnt it over 60 million? 1 million in the Ukraine famine. Cold wars are not free.
Rick
Good point. I say, any democracy gives peopke a taste of the other side
entagor on August 15, 2006 at 5:09 PM
Ask a liberal what they suggest we do, and all they say is “I don’t know, but what we are doing is wrong” - it’s always easy to criticize when you’re sitting in the sidelines watching.
Rick on August 15, 2006 at 5:10 PM
If you are an optimist, you are often disappointed. If you are a pessimist, you are often pleasantly surprised. I just hope the Bush advisers are realistic in their assessments. Rose colored glasses can be very expensive.
Shmo on August 15, 2006 at 5:14 PM
I must admit, after watching all the crap on TV about Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Etc., I’m ready to do some serious crushing. I have been keeping up with these people since 1967 and another 6 day war that whacks them all sure would make me feel a whole lot better.
Shmo on August 15, 2006 at 5:22 PM
There are some good arguments against the efficacy of a democracy. I don’t doubt that every Islamic state would overwhelmingly vote for Osama Bin-Laden, given the opportunity but I believe this has occurred since Bush surrendered his foreign policy to the State Department. Ever since Bush failed to find WMD (or at least not in sufficient quantities to satisfy the NY Times (”all the news that fits we print”) or Ted Kennedy), Bush has been ducking his head rather than standing up. The cumulative effect is that we have John Kerry-by-proxy as President.
Stand up against Illegal Aliens? Bush won’t even give moral support to the Border Guards.
Stand up against Iran & Syria? Bush runs to the UN to get watered down, ineffective and untimely resolutions.
Stand up in Israel’s admittedly incompetently waged war against Hezbollah?Bush again runs to the UN to get a dumb peace that gives total moral victory to the enemy and gives them time to rearm.
Stand up to North Korea? Bush comes out to the left of Wesley Clark and Hillary Clinton.
No wonder we’re losing. If I were a Middle Easterner I’d be buying Hezbollah war bonds. I just pray Bush wakes up before he takes all conservatives down with him.
MaiDee on August 15, 2006 at 5:45 PM
I don’t think we’re losing or that Bush lacks resolve - I think he sees the big picture and (thankfully) is avoiding some of the classic mistakes major military powers have made in the past.
Ask yourself this question - what would Europe look like today if Napoleon had had the humility and the wisdom not to invade Russia?
It would be a lot more French let me tell you that.
You can’t win a war like this in 4 years of massive, intensive warfare like WWII. You have to have the patience and wisdom to choose your battles IMO. You can eat an entire elephant if you cut it up into small enough pieces.
And besides - NOBODY likes the Muslims. If you were to travel the entire circumference of the Muslim world you would see that they are in conflict with… well… everybody. Start at Israel and go clockwise…
Israel
France & Western Europe
Russia
The Caucases
Northwest China
India
Malaysia & the Philipines
Austrailia
Eastern Africa
Northern Africa
Spain
Not to mention the U.S and the U.K.
There may be 1 billion Muslims… but there are 5 billion of everybody else…
venmax on August 15, 2006 at 6:11 PM
Question: How would the 6 day war be received today?
Whenever I get depressed about the large number of turtles and ostriches in our country I have to remind myself only about a third of the colonials supported the American Revolution. Another large percent supported England. The numbers probably match the those today of turtles and hawks.
The good news: it only took a minority to win the the war against the British. The bad news: our enemies only need a minority to win also other factors prevailing.
There are too many variables. I personally believe China encouraged al Quaeda to weaken us; on the other hand, China currently needs us to prop up their economy. Do they have a plan or are they being sucked in by the currents?
As a Christian I ultimately give it to the Greater Power. I believe my religion is the reason and the guiding logic behnd this nation. We are being attacked by a monolithic system that means to snuff me so the odds and setbacks do not matter.
I don’t have to understand it all. I just have to win or breathing air may not be an option.
Man, I am sick of these islamo-nuts
entagor on August 15, 2006 at 6:51 PM
Going forward, it’s not yet obvious where, but I there are situations we’ve face in the war in the past where we should have used a big stick, and it didn’t exactly take genius level foresight to figure it out.
One such instance was Fallujah. After the contractors were killed and mutilated for the death porn media, we should have absolutely flattened the city, Dresden like, with absolutely no mercy whatsoever. We knew Fallujah was a Sunni/insurgent stronghold. These ‘insurgents’ (more properly known as ‘terrorists’) can’t move around and operate in a place like that without significant support of the wider population. And believe me, a majority of people in Fallujah supported the insurgents. As such, they are every bit as guilty as those who carry out the violent acts themselves, for they enable them to do so in the first place.
Another example was that roly poly Shiite icehole al-Sadr, who (along with his militia) should have been turned into worm-food via daisy cutters and MOAB’s a long time ago. And no, I don’t give a flying fornication if he was using a mosque to hide out in - if he does, we should destroy the mosque itself (and under the Geneva convention, this would be permissible).
Instead, in both cases we used restraint, and look where it got us. With respect to Fallujah, we were in the process of taking it by ground assualt in April 2004, but pulled back. Does it take a genius to see, in foresight (as many did), that this was a disasterously stupid move? It resulted in the insurgents fearing us less, knowing that we didn’t have the stomach to follow through with extreme measures, while allowing Fallujah to provide an excellent base of operations for them for many more months on end. When we finally did go into Fallujah in November 2004, we did so at the cost of many American lives. Had we turned Fallujah into rubble, as we should have in April 2004, we would have killed a lot more Iraqis, but would have saved American lives. So basically, we traded our soldiers lives for “innocent” Iraqis, many of who’s innocence was highly debatable. Was restraint worth it in Fallujah?
With al-Sadr, we’ve left him around and all he’s done (and this was easily predictable going forward) is cause trouble and act as a conduit for Iranian influence to affect Iraq - and thus the U.S. Was it worth it to be restrained an allow al-Sadr the chance to live to fight another day?
Some will say such harsh and overwhelming retaliation would only make them more mad at us. Horse dung, I say, to any such response. The reason so many muslims feel they can be so open about their anger and hatred towards us is that they don’t fear us, and don’t fear harsh retaliation - and given how we’ve conducted this war, we’ve certainly not given them any reason to re-evaluate that position. Had we flattened Fallujah the moment they had their uprising in April 2004, it would have sent a powerful message to others in (and out of) Iraq that we mean business and were willing to back it up. And those so call ‘innocent’ civilians who offer aid, comfort and cover to the insurgents (but are afraid themselves to fight) would have likely have been far less likely to do so knowing that they had orders of magnitude more to fear from our retaliation than any by the insurgents.
As such, we’ve lost two golden opportunities to make a difference in the thinking of our enemy, and in doing so, we’ve only encouraged more aggression from them. We will have more opportunities, but since we are so afraid of not being nice or of being disproportionate in our response, we will probably let those pass too, at least until one of our own cities or somewhere in Israel is leveled by a massive attack.
Until we stop worrying about trivial stuff such as whether others like us and stop prioritizing the saving of muslim lives over that of our own citizens (and particularly, our own soldiers on the front lines) we will continue to lose this war. Until they fear us more than their own leaders (as the Japanese and Germans did in the wake of WWII), we will end up with nothing but more discouraging news on our side and more aggression from theirs.
This is war, and the ONLY thing that matters is winning. Any effective means is justified.
I’ll close my long-winded rant with a couple of quotes from two people who would know how to win this war, and would have done so long ago:
“In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.” - Sun Tzu
” … and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.” - Machiavelli
thirteen28 on August 15, 2006 at 6:57 PM
Last night I read many comments on this post and thought “how very deep and interesting; I’m dying to comment but the ‘boys’ are having too much fun”.
Hoping that it wasn’t ruined by a few ‘girs’ chiming in today, I must say this is one of the most thought-provoking threads. Thank you Bryan!
venmax, I enjoyed your post, from which this excerpt:
The same can be asked “…if Hitler…not to invade Russia?” - we’d be eating a lot of Sauerkraut. Well, I could take some of that, but never his dictatorship. Thus, what a glorious thing that history turned out differently.
Friends, stay allert, stay realistic (not pessimistic and not overly optimistic), stay focused, keep our good convictions and support our troops, our country and our values. In the long run we’ll win this one too, with a few setbbacks in between. Our survival is at stake and we have no other choice.
Entelechy on August 15, 2006 at 7:28 PM
Democracy has certain rules.
Can you imagine armed wings of the democratic party??!!!
Reality Check on August 15, 2006 at 9:56 PM
Venmax:
That is the point. Democracy is mob rule. It is majority rule.
It is this very simplistic view that is not working. Our founding fathers were terrified of democracy. Where everyone votes themselves a raise……….which we have now with our socialistic welfare state. We have no business building nations. Words mean things Venmax……….don’t use the word
democracy if you don’t mean it. Iraq is a joke and will always be a joke at the cost of so many good Americans. Except, now this lame brain leadership has created a mess and made Iraq an
arm of Iran!
LZVandy on August 16, 2006 at 6:51 AM
Venmax:
That is the very point, democracy is mob rule. It is nothing more than majority rule. If we had this here in America, Gore would be president right now. Words have meaning, don’t use democracy as a word for freedom, liberty or justice. It isn’t.
These simpleton ideas have given us an Iraq that will be a total failure………and an arm of a greater Iran, to our detriment. America has no business building nations when there are no foundations to build on. God bless America, the only right government on earth and it is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic!
LZVandy on August 16, 2006 at 7:25 AM
Excuse me if I’m a little late to the game everyone, but I must say, Bryan, that you’re right on. History shows that we’ve had the greatest success in war, politically as well as militarily (since militarily we’ve never really been matched), when we have fought for our own national interest and survival. Example Korea and Vietnam.
Right on about the chances for real democracy in the middle-east. People should realize that that is the toughest battle. Our founders believed, as you say, that their rights and liberties came from God, and that government is instituted among men (and women, for you PC folks) to protect those rights. Do the democratically elected leaders in Iraq really believe this? I wonder. The Islamic world-view does not seem to support it, otherwise there would not be such insistence on Sharia law, while at the same time claiming to protect other faiths’ freedom.
Let me add also, in response to LZV: You tending to aregue semantics a little. I don’t think there is anyone here who doesn’t realize that when we say “democracy” we mean “representative democracy.” Pure democracy has never existed, not even in ancient Greece. I might also say that you’re right in one respect - these are simple ideas. Simple enough that they helped a frontier country of tiny colonies throw off the despotism of the largest power in the world.
Jezla on August 16, 2006 at 8:01 AM
Really? How do you figure?
Democracy isn’t going to erase the problems that Islam has inflicted upon these societies, but it may still prove to be the antidote. Palis may love voting for Hamas, but will they continue to love having Hamas for a government when they start bearing the consequences of electing Hamas?
We don’t know yet. We won’t know for quite some time. We probably won’t know for another generation or two.
Pablo on August 16, 2006 at 9:18 AM
What obfuscation. Or bullshit if you prefer.
The fact is the invasion of Iraq was premised on deeply flawed logic and plain old ignorance. Talking about digging for diamonds and sweeping statements about the Congo and two evil men–yada, yada, yada.
We were targeted by Islamic terrorists. We invaded a country that was first, not part of that action against us and secondly, invaded with this Disney notion of planting the seeds of democracy, totally ignoring the specific history and culture of that country. And here’s the part that bugs the hell out of me: there were plenty of people who were pointing out the folly of this action at the time. How were these arguments treated? They were ridiculed and often greeted with the old unpatriotic bromide. Had there been a meaningful discussion, that would have been one thing, but there wasn’t.
All this philosophizing is great, just several years too late. Where were you when Bush was wrapping himself and his half-baked ideas in the flag?
What a colossal waste.
honora on August 16, 2006 at 10:53 AM
What to do now:
-fire Rumsfeld
-give the Iraqi “govt” an ultimatum: tell us what you want, and need us to do to stabilize this govt. Implement that plan within a closed end time period. No more than 3 years.
-stop buying Iranian oil. Blockade Iran to prevent them from selling oli to anyone. If Russia and China don’t like it, tough.
-put serious money into fossil fuel independence.
-lean hard on the big money Arab countries to start sharing the oil wealth. Young men with economic prospects are less likely to become terrorists.
-rediscover the art of diplomacy.
-pour more $$$ into the type of activities that the Brits have used so successfully: human intelligence, sharing intelligence with allies, sealing our borders, protecting our ports.
And for the love of God, encourage dialogue and discussion across the political spectrum. We have seen the folly of doing otherwise.
honora on August 16, 2006 at 11:04 AM
honora, do you see any contradiction there? Or is there some kind of logic that can reconcile these two statements?
(there is a good answer to the question, but I’m going to see if you or anyone else gets it on their own).
thirteen28 on August 16, 2006 at 11:12 AM
LZVandy, you’re right, though I agree with Jezla that it’s a matter of semantics and many of us use the term “democracy” too loosely. Hallelujah that we don’t have a populist government. The supermajorities are generally wrong. Look at the malaise of the world and the anti-Americanism right now. They are dead wrong and will pay for it soon enough. It was the same before Pearl Harbour. LZV, incontestably and what a stroke of genius:
The rest of the World (roW) would love for us to become a parliamentarian government. Fly a kite roW!
Note to Bush Admin. - fire cabinet and nominate our very own honora to most strategic positions.
Honora, I don’t disagree with all your suggestions and, above all, I really give you credit for suggesting ideas, aside from just harping, and for wishing to continue dialogue across the isles. Unfortunately you are an exception. Both parties are poisoned and America and the world suffer.
For 5 years I’ve heard nothing but criticism of Mr. Bush, no matter what gets decided, even if it’s 180 degrees different to accommodate your side. The ads now on security are the most bizarre b.s. I’ve ever seen/heard. If this is the ’stroke of genius’ on the Left, I’m content. Until I hear more concrete suggestions on how to make this country better, I ignore your side. You, it seems, are genuinely determined to help your party see this light.
Entelechy on August 16, 2006 at 11:57 AM
The ‘R’ Bomb (a song)
I went outside, the sky was grey
Fire Rumsfeld Hey, Hey, Hey
I came inside, the room was cold
Fire Rumsfeld like you’re told
His Ugly Face it makes me sick
Fire Rumsfeld you right wing Tick
Rumsfeld you have power over me
Beat old Rumsfeld in-to Jellie
If we could wipe his Ugly Face
We could save the human race
Chorus
He’s eeeee-vil, He’s eeee-vil
He ruins all known life on earth
Mother Cindy help our cause
Bite old Runsfeld with your Jaws
(repeat)
entagor on August 16, 2006 at 12:03 PM
I’m sorry, I couldnt resist. I may have to ban myself, but I absolutely love, and respect Donald Rumsfeld. When I heard the ‘R’ bomb (fire ‘R’) drop, this song sprang from my wizened heart.
Rumsfeld is the reason I have faith in our military. I believe he would not stand for abuse of our soldiers, or improper use of the military.
I wish I could get a CD of all his post 9-11 press conferences. He made absolute monkies out of the MSM, to the extent that his press conferences are rarely allowed on tv. If you worry about modern day America, remember it can still produce guys like Rumsfeld.
entagor on August 16, 2006 at 12:15 PM
entagor, please don’t ban yourself.
Mr. Rumsfeld could have easily stayed retired on his beautiful ranch in New Mexico. Instead he worries 24 hrs a day on how to not only fight this war, but plan for 20-30 years ahead. He is one of the smartest people in this country and doesn’t suffer fools lightly. That’s why he gets maligned by those inferior to his intellect.
Good thing he’s not bothered by fleas and ticks!
Entelechy on August 16, 2006 at 12:27 PM
I disagree. Yes, we were and continue to be targeted by Islamic terrorists (no question), but we didn’t just jump into Iraq because of WMDs (and flawed intelligence). The administration, after 9/11, and stated who the “axis of evil” was (Iraq, Iran and N. Korea) - more importantly, the most blatant and obvious state sponsors of terrorism.
Iraq was first on the list (and the easy choice) because we knew the lay of the land (continued no-fly zones, Gulf War, etc.), and not to mention they continued to play the cat and mouse game regarding WMDs. By the way, Al-Qaeda did have camps up in northern Iraq, and Zarqawi was already there.
We had to send a message and continue to take the fight to them. At that time, Afghanistan was cleaned out of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. We had to keep the momentum going and keep these guys on their heels and, more importantly, focused on fighting us there instead of here. Despite what anyone says, it has worked (and has continued to do so).
People tend to forget that they are fighting our military right now, and not our civilians - I don’t know about you, but I’ll take that any day. This is not something that needs to be treated as a law enforcement problem.
The message has been sent to the rest of the world, you f*ck with us and we’ll get you. It’s plain and simple. I’ll take the present day policies over the ignore it and it will go away policies of the ’90s. If people don’t like us because we are trying to protect ourselves, such is life. You can’t please everybody all the time - better safe than sorry.
Rick on August 16, 2006 at 12:30 PM
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” - Benjamin Franklin
I think it’s just sloppy to use the term democracy to mean a free, liberal society. Hong Kong under the Brits was never a democracy, but it was (and pretty much is) a free society. Here’s a nice piece on the subject. Wouldn’t a temporary constitutional dictatorship of some kind with a clear path to a more representative government later have been a more effective way to deal with Iraq? Too many cooks are spoiling the soup over there.
kmcguire on August 16, 2006 at 12:42 PM
Why is it the only government that is never recommended to a new nation is one like ours. Anything but the USA.
What I like about our system which derives from the British system of two houses, is the way it averages participation. We have a Senate to give equal voice to regions, and a House, to give weight to the higher population areas. The two are forced to hammer out each law. The British system resolved the power of the Lords vs the masses. We balance region, vs population. It makes our Seantors powerful, which is very fair to small states, which would have no say in a democracy.
Secondly, we have a strong leader. The electoral college creates a population weighted winner take all basket of votes at the state level. When its over, its over. The President gets it all for 4 years.
Every new nation is being massaged by the U.N. and the globalists into parlimentary systems which have surface appeal (no ‘winner-take-all) so the smallest mite can be a key player everytime they need a new coalition government. You get a government of the lowest common denominator, where a mainstream leader has to coalition with the deadliest antithesis of his philosphy to hold his power. A ‘McCain’ style of governing.
Iraq’s system was voted on enthusistically. Now the leader has to jockey and jump to hold his leadership.
It takes maturity to accept ‘winner-take-all’. You have to bite it for four years. In return you end up with a powerful nation that gets things done.
IMHO - parlimentary systems are for weenies and create weenie nations.
entagor on August 16, 2006 at 1:51 PM
Not at all. Practicing diplomacy is not the same as bending over. You would have to be willing to go down a path of trying to negotiate with Iran (regardless of how futile you think this is) but move steadily down the road of taking this sort of action based on a timetable. At the same time you need to take real action to reduce the US consumption of oil–tax it to $5/gallon, immediately legislate minimum fuel mileage standards.
Ok 13/28, now don’t keep us in suspense, what is your answer? (Open to any and all!!!)
honora on August 16, 2006 at 4:24 PM
Sorry, you don’t get off that easy honora - next question (which leads to where I am going):
What is necessary to make diplomacy effective?
thirteen28 on August 16, 2006 at 4:32 PM
Rick, I appreciate your thinking and your courtesy. I have to say I find some of your statements astonishing: the Taliban are back in Afghanistan, big time, we are not by any stretch of the imagination “winning” in Iraq–and we are fighting whom there? Seems to me the violence is now sectarian, even genocidal, and we are in the cross fire. And as for “don’t f+++ with us or else”, jeepers, how about bin Laden? How about Iran and North Korea? The very definition of F***ing with us!!
I guess my point (I get a bit wordy!!) is that your strategy simply isn’t working, and at the end of the day, isn’t the measure of a strategy?
honora on August 16, 2006 at 4:36 PM
In a word, credibility. Gotta run 13/28, catch you tomorrow.
honora on August 16, 2006 at 4:37 PM
The answer I was looking for was “force”. Credibility in negotiations derives therefrom, but I’ll give you credit for at least being on the right track.
You are suggesting some big time force in blockading Iran. That’s definitely a use of force, and we had better mean it if we are ever going to do something that bold. Such an action could lead to the necessity to use even more force if we were to be able to maintain the blockade.
Diplomacy isn’t worth the paper the word is written on if its not back by the ability to use force and a credible threat to do so.
Your response to Rick sort of demonstrates my point, tangentially anyway. The “dont f— with us” message is not resonating with our enemies because they don’t see any threat from us as credible. Given all the half-measures we have used in fighting this war (where we have sometimes even given priority to saving their civilian lives over our own soldiers lives, as in Fallujah) feeds right into that.
The first step to us gaining credibility is accepting that showing that we mean what we say will require us to do some pretty nasty things. Until then, we’ll just keep twiddling our thumbs, while the problems in Iraq and Lebanon and elsewhere continue to simmer until they erupt again.
thirteen28 on August 16, 2006 at 4:55 PM