Via Matt Yglesias, an awesome article by George Packer in the New Yorker (I may actually have to subscribe…) about the struggle for a Democratic foreign policy. Go read the whole thing, but if the Republicans want to know one of the basic reasons I haven’t pulled the lever for Bush, given my obvious and loudly-stated discomfort with Democratic candidate’s positions, here it is, brilliantly expressed:
But there is a problem with the language of Bush the son: his actions rarely measure up to his rhetoric. A case in point was the President’s November speech at the National Endowment for Democracy’s twentieth-anniversary celebrations. After the fall of Baghdad, an institute funded by the endowment sent a team to Iraq to organize a series of focus groups so that Iraqis could talk about their collective future. The institute wanted to follow up with workshops that would train Iraqis in forming moderate civic groups and political parties, but its money soon ran out. Despite repeated requests, the funding wasn’t replenished until last month.
It happens often enough to form a pattern: the President talks of a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan at the Virginia Military Institute in April, 2002, and then he fails to include any dollars for Afghanistan in his 2004 budget proposal; the President gives a landmark speech at the American Enterprise Institute in February, 2003, proposing a democratic Iraq as a model for the transformation of the entire Middle East, and within two months the Pentagon’s minimalist planning for postwar Iraq has that country in chaos, its state institutions gutted, its people demoralized; the State Department sets out to improve public diplomacy in the Islamic world, then puts the campaign in the hands of Charlotte Beers, a Madison Avenue executive, who produces a slick video about Muslims in the United States that is widely ridiculed; the Administration vows to get tough on Saudi sources that finance terrorism and the spread of extremist ideology, then suppresses the section of a congressional report on September 11th having to do with Saudi Arabia; after the Iraq war the President vows to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only to stand aside a few months later.
I don’t think this is a uniquely Republican failing; we’re the culture that puts “No Blood For Oil” bumper stickers on SUV’s, and believes in liposuction over exercise. There’s some frightening American adverse response to actually bearing the costs of our decisions.
We can’t afford that here. Listen to Packer some more:
…Biden went to Kabul, where he toured a new school…one that was bitterly cold, with plastic sheeting over the windows and a naked bulb hanging from the ceiling. When the visit was over and Biden started to leave, a young girl stood ramrod straight at her desk and said, “You cannot leave. You cannot leave.”
“I promise I’ll come back,” Biden told her.
“You cannot leave,” the girl insisted. “They will not deny me learning to read. I will read, and I will be a doctor like my mother. I will. America must stay.”
As Biden put it in a recent interview, the Afghan girl was telling him, “Don’t fuck with me, Jack. You got me in here. You said you were going to help me. You better not leave me now.”
His wrapup nails it for me completely.
It has been much remarked that President Bush did nothing to tap this palpable desire among ordinary people to join a larger effort. Americans were told to go shopping and watch out for suspicious activity. Nothing would ever be the same, and everything was just the same. “How urgent can this be if I tell you this is a great crisis and, at the time we’re marching to war, I give the single largest tax cut in the history of the United States of America?” Biden said. The tax cuts haven’t just left the country fiscally unsound during wartime; their inequity has been terrible for morale. But the President’s failure to call for shared, equal sacrifice followed directly on the governing spirit of the modern Republican Party. After years of a sustained assault on the idea of collective action, there was no ideological foundation left on which Bush could stand up and ask what Americans can do for their country. We haven’t been asked to study Arabic, to join the foreign service or international aid groups, to form a national civil reserve for emergencies..or even to pay off the cost of the war in our own time. The war’s burdens are borne solely by a few hundred thousand volunteer soldiers.
Perhaps this was a shrewd political intuition on Bush’s part..a recognition that Americans, for all their passion after September 11th, would inevitably slouch back to their sofas. It’s fair to ask, though, how a body politic as out of shape as ours is likely to make it over the long, hard slog of wartime; how convincingly we can export liberal democratic values when our own version shows so many signs of atrophy; how much solidarity we can expect to muster for Afghanis and Iraqis when we’re asked to feel so little for one another.
“Why does not democracy believe in itself with passion?” Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., asked in
‘The Vital Center,’ his 1949 book about totalitarianism and America’s anxious postwar mood. “Why is freedom not a fighting faith?” The only hope (Schlesinger turned to Walt Whitman for the words…who else?) lay in “the exercise of Democracy.” The process of struggling for freedom, accepting conflict, tolerating uncertainty, joining community…this would allow democracy to survive and not die. What if we now find ourselves, at this stage of thickening maturity, in the middle of a new crisis that requires us to act like citizens of a democracy? It’s impossible to know how the public would respond to a political party that spoke about these things…because, so far, no party has.
Great article; Packer’s a rising star. He also edited a volume called The Fight Is for Democracy : Winning the War of Ideas in America and the World. Sooner or later I’ll get around to reading it. Anyone have thoughts about it?
Slightly OT: AL, you might be interested in this article relating soil erosion to Baluchistan and other failed areas of the world:
A comprehensive strategy ought to include some serious environmental restoration, in my view.
ok, he lost me at tax cuts. and not because of politics, but because of broken logic. even if for some weird psychological reason one refuses to accept scientific fact that tax cuts pulled us from recession, one must admit that this is valid point of view and give it some credit. and therefore, it is safe to assume that if not tax cuts, we’d be facing stagnation, deflation and overwhelming pessimism – much worse conditions to wage the war than we have now.
i would say it is safe to assume that this was the motive of current administration, and not some psychological deficiency like short attention span or stupidity.
on a meta note, i noticed that it is very characteristics of left wing thinkers to look for psychological explanations instead of rational economic ones.
scientific fact, huh?
What this article tells me is that the democrats are in far greater denial about the threat of islamofascists than I had thought. I am far less likely to vote for a democrat from having read this article.
A.L.,
Note the similarity between these comments by Packer above, and what I said yesterday in another thread:
Packer: “But there is a problem with the language of Bush the son: his actions rarely measure up to his rhetoric … It happens often enough to form a pattern …”
Me: “1) Bush is not paying much attention. His administration is rife with lack of supervision from the top. He sets general policy, makes the big decisions and doesn’t follow up with details like supervision.
… 3) Power and influence within the Bush Administration is far more important to everyone there than anything pertaining to the outside world, given [the] President’s failings in supervision and follow-up.”
Note, however, that the Reagan Administration was even more infamous for such behavior and was still wildly successful in achieving Reagan’s top goals. I read somewhere that Reagan tolerated an astonishing amount of backbiting and disorganization, relative to other Presidents, due to his Hollywood experience in dealing with truly difficult and creative people. He realized that the movies still got done and were successful, and generalized from that to Presidential office. His success as President indicates he may have been on to something.
So I see some of the same things Packer does, but maybe we’ll both end up wrong on how it affects the outcome.
Bush is a president, not a dictator. It’s a miracle he’s accomplished as much as he has.
Dear A. L.:
I, for one, would welcome a coherent, credible alternative policy to the policies that are now in place. Frankly, I don’t see how the Democratic party gets there from here.
To be credible such a policy needs, minimally, unambiguous support for the nation’s defense using military force. To be coherent a Democratic foreign policy either needs to reconcile statements like “how can we build police stations in Iraq when we won’t build police stations in L. A.?” with demands for increased foreign aid or to abandon one or the other of the propositions.
I don’t hear either the Democratic presidential candidates or the Democratic party leadership making much progress either in the direction of coherence or credibility. They seem focussed on regaining the White House without giving us any real notion of what they would do once they were there. I doubt that that’s a winning formula.
I don’t envy the next president, whether it’s Bush or Kerry or someone else. Given the way President Bush has told us all to go shopping, and given the shoddy way the reconstruction has been conducted — giving us nothing but body bags — it’s unlikely the American public is going to go for a sustained campaign for democracy promotion in the Middle East that involves the military or any sacrifices on the part of the public. If Bush were re-elected, he might be able to force the issue through, seeing as he doesn’t have to worry about 2008, but we’ll also probably see more tax cuts, more space directives, awful domestic policy with awful consequences for those who do not need it, and the installation of right-leaning judges. If Bush is serious about pulling out this summer, then the whole point is moot. Iraq policy will be a whole different ballgame, and we can judge then. But if democracy in Iraq or the Middle East is your “voting issue”, I don’t think a Democratic president would be worse — in fact, once in office, Kerry might realize that it is indeed central to our long-term national security (not to mention the health of our nation), and he’ll be a lot smarter going about it. We’ll need the allies in on this. We’re going to need a positive, not just negative agenda. Bush can’t deliver on this. I hate to say it, but the person who came to office in 2000 did not show the dedication to democracy necessary for the success of this ideology. And September 11 doesn’t matter on this issue.
I’m new to your site, so I don’t know if you have addressed this issue elsewhere, but it seems to me that you fail to mention one crucial point in concerning Packer’s criticism concerning G. W. Bush’s foreign policy, and that is the strategic decision to cast this was since 9/11/01 as a military struggle. This, he notes, is reflected in the name “War on Terror” (as well as elsewhere), and I would add the variations “Iraq War”, “War in Iraq”, etc. to it. Properly speaking, and Packer debuts this, what we are fighting is a War on Islamist Totalitarianism. It is an ideology we are fighting, not a method (terror), not fascism (of the last century), not poverty (as some Democrats insist), not Islam (as Muslims can and are peaceful), etc. This is why the Iraq War was wrong, and tangentially, why the War on Terror was/is wrong. How have we helped ourselves if we root out terror in Afghanistan only to have Islamist Totalitarianism come back in some shape or form? We have not. The same primitive understanding of Islam that drives some Muslims to the mosque feeds anti-Americanism. How have we helped ourselves if we overthrow Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime, only to put an Islamic republic in its place? We have not! Hasn’t anyone noticed that religious rhetoric infuses, indeed drives, the disciples of Osama bin Laden? Ideological wars need to be fought with ideology — all else are proxies. The greatest weapon we have against Islamic Totalitarianism is Democracy. The greatest gift we can give humankind is responsible and responsive government; at home, this means shoring up our democracy (a war we are losing); abroad, this means being supportive of Responsible and Responsive Government! This is a win-win strategy that all Americans, given explanation and leadership, can rally around.
And this is where G. W. Bush has mislead us, and where Kerry has a chance to go forward. I thought and I still think that there is no doubt we can win this War on Islamist Totalitarianism, but if we continue fighting blindly (what we’re doing now under the stewardship of G. W. Bush), we just might lose it. This is not necessary nor desireable, and Kerry, who appears to have much sense in his head though he has been relatively silent on the subject so far, presents us with a chance to stear this boat in the right direction, in a direction good for all of America, and good for the world too.
High taxes may be driving the the rich from the country. They are taking their capital with them.
Tax cuts for the rich may be a way of staunching the flow.
*We can’t eat the rich if they leave the table.*
Every action creates a reaction. Especially where humans are concerned.
Sure we can tax the rich. Suppose they don’t like it. Do you suppose they might do something about it?
Sugar Plum,
I suppose Saddam was not a fascist?
The Baath ideology can trace it’s roots to Nazi Germany. So please explain how Saddam was not a variant of the fascist movement we are suposed to be fighting.
Will the Iraqi people be our friends or enemies with respect to taking out Saddam?
Do you believe the Zaquari letter? If you believe it then it is evident that we are fighting Al Q in Iraq. Is this better or worse than fighting them some place else?
Many Democrats on the War:
US out of Iraq. Surrender now. Kerry knows how.
“I’m new to your site, so I don’t know if you have addressed this issue elsewhere, but it seems to me that you fail to mention one crucial point in concerning Packer’s criticism concerning G. W. Bush’s foreign policy, and that is the strategic decision to cast this was since 9/11/01 as a military struggle. This, he notes, is reflected in the name “War on Terror” (as well as elsewhere), and I would add the variations “Iraq War”, “War in Iraq”, etc. to it. Properly speaking, and Packer debuts this, what we are fighting is a War on Islamist Totalitarianism. It is an ideology we are fighting, not a method (terror), not fascism (of the last century), not poverty (as some Democrats insist), not Islam (as Muslims can and are peaceful), etc.”
Packer’s words on this topic are the one thing in the article I really take issue with. He’s wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
The current problems are larger than just Islamist totalitarianism. The proliferation of nuclear weapons + any terrorist group (Muslim terrorists are not the only ones, just some of the most productive, and many of them cooperate. They all seem to have a mutual enemy– the Jews!). Given globalization and the complete failure of containment as a policy (our oceans won’t protect us now!), it’s the method, it’s the ideology, the role Islam pays in perpetuating said fascist ideology, it’s the Wahabbis, (how is Islamist totalitarianism not fascism?), the ideology and demogogues gain credence because the people are so uneducated and poor they don’t know better, etc etc etc. It’s the whole shebang.
Also, for pc as well as strategic reasons, Bush couldn’t say “this is a war on Islamist totalitarianism”. That would just unite the whole ME while the Left accuses him of racism and Orientalism.
“The tax cuts haven’t just left the country fiscally unsound during wartime; their inequity has been terrible for morale.”
Huh? If they’re terrible for morale it’s probably because of the class warrriors in your damn party, Biden. What we need to succeed in the war is a roaring economy, hence the tax cuts. The cuts are fine. It’s the ridiculous spending that is unconscionable.
But the President’s failure to call for shared, equal sacrifice followed directly on the governing spirit of the modern Republican Party. After years of a sustained assault on the idea of collective action, there was no ideological foundation left on which Bush could stand up and ask what Americans can do for their country. We haven’t been asked to study Arabic, to join the foreign service or international aid groups, to form a national civil reserve for emergencies..or even to pay off the cost of the war in our own time. The war’s burdens are borne solely by a few hundred thousand volunteer soldiers.”
I agree that this is wrong. Bush missed a golden opportunity to cement the bringing together of Americans through such actions. But I’m not sure I buy the whole ‘sustained assault against collective action’ bs. This sounds like ideological claptrap on Packer’s part.
SBF wrote:” …if democracy in Iraq or the Middle East is your “voting issue”, I don’t think a Democratic president would be worse — in fact, once in office, Kerry might realize that it is indeed central to our long-term national security (not to mention the health of our nation), and he’ll be a lot smarter going about it. …”
Unfortunately, I don’t think we can afford to gamble that Kerry will somehow come to his senses once he enters office. Despite Packer’s complementary words, there’s at least as many signs that Kerry still “worship(s) at the shrine of multilateral institutions”, as Biden puts it. Furthermore, rhetoric like “John Kerry believes we shouldn’t be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in Brooklyn.” (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/homeland/) comes dangerously close to advocating isolationism, which is exactly what I don’t want to be hearing from a potential POTUS in these times.
We haven’t been asked to study Arabic, to join the foreign service or international aid groups, to form a national civil reserve for emergencies..or even to pay off the cost of the war in our own time.
This sounds like a liberal’s wet dream. Study Arabic? This is the worst thing we could have our people do – have them indoctrinated in the Islamofascist train of thought. Join the foreign service? So we can generate more people to appease Arab extremists? Join international aid groups? You mean they’re not generating enough anti-Americanism already? Form a national civil reserve for emergencies? Do you have any idea how much this is going to cost? And to what end? The casualties from New York and DC had nothing to do with civil defense issues – the problem was 100% fatality rates among the casualties.
Pay off the cost of the war in our own time? Get a grip. The cost of the war is 1% of GDP. In WWII, war-related spending consumed 50% of GDP annually for four years.
There is a pragmatic reason for tax cuts for the rich.
To keep them from leaving the country and taking their money with them:
*You can’t eat the rich if they leave the table*
This is The New Yorker’s New Reason (version #34578) for voting Democrat. They’re just shills (yes, Packer too) who happen to have the talent of stringing a few sentences together. Go back a couple of years. They were against the operation in Afghanistan. Then after that, they found reasons to carp and complain. They were against the liberation of Iraq and every week, as their predictions were proved ridiculously wrong (Arab world up in arms, quagmire, 40,000 casualties, etc.), they subtly shifted over their reasoning. This is the New Yorker’s theory of the week, but if you go back, you’ll see that they had theory after theory, and then when events went well (for America and for the world) they simply shifted over, forget their previous predictions, acted like they knew it all along. The New Yorker and, to a lesser degee the NYTimes have that pedantic writing style that I would call The New Reasonableness. They work hard to not reveal their essentially far left instincts and world views. They write well and portray themselves as sensible and reasonable. But they are not. They are leftists. They would have left the Taliban in Afghanistan. They would have left Saddam in Iraq, killing and torturing. They would hand over American security to the UN (remember the “Oil For Food” program) and the French (Saddam’s biggest allies). The Iraq liberation was an extraordinary good; for the Iraqis, for America, for the war on Islamofascism, and for the world as a whole. History will show that, I believe. The Iraq liberation showed the Arab world that Bush is for real, that the United States is not to be fucked with. Sorry to put it in such simplistic and juvenile terms, but I’m afraid that’s just how people in that part of the world see things. You needn’t be well read in Sun Tzu to understand these things (although it would help), you just need to not be a Democrat. The de-nuke-ification of Gaddafi, the democratic tumult in Iran, the sudden rise of reasonable voices in Syria, the shining of at least one bright light on Pakistan’s nuke program, none of these things would have happened but for the Iraq liberation. As any soldier will tell you (if you read the military blogs) it was, without question, The Right Thing To Do. The American people understand this. So does George Bush. The New Yorker does not. Neither does Kerry. And it’s back to Dukakisville for him in November.
M. Simon
I’m no historian, but I would bet that Saddam Hussein’s Baathist Party and the pan-Arab ideology he espoused has enough differences with the fascism espoused by Benito Mussolini 80+ years ago that it wouldn’t qualify for any practical purposes other than propaganda. The world has changed to much for it to be functionally so, in my humble opinion. If someone with adequate credentials on the matter wants to contradict me, I welcome it. This doesn’t count: “The Baath ideology can trace its roots to Nazi Germany” — that’s such loose talk it could apply to the “soup nazi” on Seinfeld who has a great Mulligatawny Soup recipe .
I don’t know what to believe about the “Zarqawi letter”. Just today “Bill” (wmk@mit.edu) on Matt Yglesias’ site pointed me to a post by Juan Cole on the matter (http://www.juancole.com/2004_02_01_juancole_archive.html#107674625917964057). Bill said:
The key points:
First, he’s somewhat dubious Zarqawi is the author given:
a) the use of an Iragi/Gulf dialect of Arabic rather than a Levantine one that should be Zarqawi’s native tongue
b) a seeming underemphasis on the Islamist fight against secular parties in Kurdistan, of which Zarqawi is supposedly a key organizer
c) the generally highly literate style of the letter despite the fact Zarqawi is supposedly a high-school dropout
However, Cole says the language is quite consistent with Sunni Islamist miltants, and thus has no reason to doubt that it’s not a genuine polemic from some miltant (possibly even Zarqawi, assuming that some of what we know about him is wrong).
This question of yours is non-sensical: Is it better or worse than fighting [Al Q] some place else? Can you be more specific? Like Iraq vs. the beaches of Tahiti, or what? Sorry for the sarcasm, but even in such a short post, your aggressivity is clear. Can’t say I would much enjoy conversing with you.
Linden
You sound paranoid! Foreign policy — indeed the world — has never been without problems. A certain pragmatism is behind the idea of packaging policies (i.e. War on Terror, Iraq, Islamist Totalitarianism, etc.) — I would say that it’s necessary. The question is, how may it be done to best reflect the reality of the problems we face?
This is about the only thing I semi-agree on with you:
Also, for pc as well as strategic reasons, Bush couldn’t say “this is a war on Islamist totalitarianism”. That would just unite the whole ME while the Left accuses him of racism and Orientalism.
I think he could have said it, while refering to 9/11/01 and all this implies as back-up. He could have said very clearly to the world (with Americans, and the entire ME listening): “The criminals who did this, and did that and that and that in the past espouse an ideology of Islamist totalitarianism. It is a perversion of Islam. To the folks in ME: They are using your religion as an excuse to kill innocent men, women and children; to choke off reasoned debate; as a weapon against responsive and responsible government; to dominate and suppress women, minorities, and others who disagree with them; to choke off freedom wherever it may arise and ‘threaten’ to grow; to prop up illegitimate, brutal regimes; to take away your jobs by taking away your security; to use violence in your name.” etc. etc. etc. It would have been very clear from the get go that this is Freedom vs. Totalitarianism. “Islamist” is added in there to distinguish those who fight in the name of that faith (compared to other “terrorists” who use similar tactics, with a different ideology), to distinguish this particular brand of ideological thinking that is suffocating the Middle East, and threatening democratic lands.
If you want to hear more about this, visit Friedman at the NYT. Unlike Bush, he’s actually in it for the long haul.
In my opinion, if Bush or a hypothetical president had been clear enough on what “Islamic totalitarianism” meant, it would have induced some navel gazing on the parts of Muslims everywhere, which is just what that religion needs. Change from the inside!
Actually, Sugar Plum Fairy, I think that Bush to his great credit did try to distinguish between radical and moderate Islam. I also thought he did a good job in denouncing any acts of violence against Muslims in the United States. He has been rather inept at speaking to the Arab world, however. They don’t much cotton to the cadences of Michael Gerson over in the Gulf.
Moreover, I’m eager to see him replaced with someone who truly understands how a democracy is built and is willing to do take a more comprehensive long-term approach.
I think it’s a legitimate question how well Bush has executed all aspects of promoting Democracy in the ME. But the tax cut carping is nonsense. The tax cuts are a significant reason why our economy is up and running again as well as it is. But this has nothing to do with the war per se, Dems would be decrying the cuts virtually no matter what the situation was. Raising taxes would hurt the recovery under the guise of “sacrifice”… and would conveniently boost the Dems’ argument that Bush has mismanaged the economy.
SPF –
Fan of Vonnegut are you? That’s hands down my favorite, and probably the least-known of his books. (“Mother Night,” for those who aren’t fans).
Actually, historically, the B’aath party was set up in the late 30’s in Jordan as an Arab Nazi party. I’ll go dig for some references, but please understand that there were direct connections there.
A.L.
Perhaps one should think of the situation like this:
Islamic fascists, following a fantasy-based ideology, are trying to set off a war. This war is part internecine (within Islam), part jihad.
We are trying to prevent that from happening.
The biggest reason is nukes. Recent events and revelations — Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Libya, North Korea, China — show, contra Phil Carter that the various non-proliferation regimes have failed. Nuclear proliferation, failed states, oil money, and an irrational enemy that cannot be detered is a bad combination.
At this point, it seems that it is only a question of time before terrorists detonate a nuke in a city. A US city seems most likely, but it might as well be an Israeli or Western European one.
What happens then? How does the US respond to a nuclear detonation in Baltimore or Chicago? And what happens if there are simultaneous detonations in multiple US cities?
Wretchard has discussed this in his thought-provoking Three Conjectures, and I fear that he is right: the only rational US response would be massive retaliation.
Thus the “war on terror”. Yes, it is a war on bad ideology and on islamic fascism, but above all, it is a war for Islam; we are trying to save Islam from itself. (Yes, we’re obviously acting in our self-interest too).
As for the criticism of Bush and his prosecution of the war, I suspect that many battles of great significance take place in secret. Were they known, it would probably make more people understand the scope of the war and gain newfound respect for Bush’s leadership. Unfortunately, making them known would also make it far harder to win the war.
For example, Bush has been widely criticized for giving Pakistan a pass despite recent revelations of how Pakistan has spread technology and knowledge left and right. That looks bad, and shows how Bush’s actions do not live up to his rhetoric.
But, via Instapundit, the Telegraph reports that “America has mounted a covert operation to safeguard Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and prevent warheads from falling under the control of rogue commanders or Islamist terrorists”.
Now, I have no idea if the Telegraph’s report is accurate or not, but if it is, it certainly explains why the Administration has given Pakistan a pass; the good of securing Pakistan’s nukes far outweighs the bad of appearing soft on Pakistan. (And yes, he did say that the nukes are “secure”).
“I would bet that Saddam Hussein’s Baathist Party and the pan-Arab ideology he espoused has enough differences with the fascism espoused by Benito Mussolini 80+ years ago that it wouldn’t qualify for any practical purposes other than propaganda.”
The Baathist party ideology – and bin Laden’s movement – is very similar to European fascism. Then there is the direct link between the Nazis and Arafat’s mentor Amin Al Husseini, and later Saddam’s support of Arafat. The correspondences between the “Islamofasicsts” and the previous generation’s European fascists are greater than just lazy rhetoric.
“if Bush or a hypothetical president had been clear enough on what “Islamic totalitarianism” meant, it would have induced some navel gazing on the parts of Muslims everywhere, which is just what that religion needs.”
Well, I’m not going to go digging through Bush’s old speeches for quotes, but the Bush admin has repeatedly called for moderate Muslims to reject the extremists. I do remember him saying specifically what we are fighting against, although I don’t remember him labelling it “Islamofacism.”
Dr. Khan might soon become the late Dr. Khan. He appears to have suffered a heart attack while attempting to escape.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/498572.cms
praktike
Sure, Bush tried to distinguish between radical and moderate Islam. Judging by the results, I don’t think he did a good job. I think he could have spoken more directly to the forces of peace and freedom in the Muslim world. I think this would have been a part of a long-term approach if the War had been defined as against Islamist totalitarianism, instead of against Iraq or “terror”. It would have erased all the doubt about who are enemies are (i.e. why Iraq and not …? and we all know the answer to that one) which would have meant staying in Afghanistan and getting the job done and staying in Iraq and getting the job done and promoting responsible government (a more palatable, conceptual alternative to American-style democracy) all over the world. It would have been had transformational outlook, suited for these transformational times. It would have embraced the change we want to inflict/engender outside of our borders, rather than pursuing it haphazardly and satisfying only the most ‘special’ of interests. It would have gotten our allies on board, or left them in a moral gulch to fact their own demons (as it is now, they’re moving away from us and proud of it).
As the Cold War has shown us, wars are not necessarily ‘large battles’ to be won over territory and control of said territory. They can be ideological as well, with proxy military conflicts. But its a conflict of the mind — it’s a conflict between mature adults and immature adults, between peace-lovers and hate-sowers, between law-abiding citizens and those who would take the law into their own hands, between the forces of freedom and the forces of fear.
Islam is not the culprit; every religion goes through its ups and downs. But if it begins to affect us (and it has), then we can do something about it — no, we can do something intelligent about it. You want an airhead to fight this war of ideas? I don’t. That’s how it’s been done, and with a lot of crony capitalism in the mix. Ugh.
others
If the Baath Party was fascist, fine, I concede, but that just makes my point that we are fighting an ideology, an idea, a way of governing (or fighting for it when you’re not governing). Plus, it’s incumbant on Mr. Bush to let us know that fascism is indeed what we are fighting if it is so. Don’t you think that would have gotten a few heads turned among the Europeans? 🙂 He has not, for lack of knowledge of history, for whatever. You all might want to check your support for him if you feel so strongly about it.
Let’s see how *this* goes.
SPF:
Our allies are already with us.
Why do you think that other countries would have joined if we’d been nicer to them? It just seems pretty far-fetched to think that countries base their foreign policy, especially overseas military engagements, on sweet talk rather than their own interests.
France and Germany found it in their own interests not only to decline to participate in Iraq, but to actively obstruct the war. That’s not the way allies behave.
Someday — hopefully soon — we’ll probably find out why those countries chose to stand with Saddam rather than with the US. I doubt the reasons were honorable.
Let’s see. My father-in-law became eventually rose through the ranks to an officer’s commission because of his knowledge of German. (He analyzed German battlefield propaganda.) My B.A. thesis advisor learned Japanese with the OSS; they figured since he was Hungarian, and Hungarian and Japanese share the same unusual grammar, he had a head start.
Meanwhile, we didn’t have enough Arabic-speakers to translate intercepted messages in real time.
It sure isn’t a surprise that “Zhang Fei” has an email address with a non-Chinese name. I thank him for defending the Bush tax cuts (hint: it isn’t saving money when you go deeper into debt), because if someone as stupid as Zhang Fei supports them, more people will turn away.
Fredrik Nyman
For some reason I don’t think you read my posts, as I didn’t advocate such silly things as “let’s me nicer to our allies” or “we should have given them more sweet talk” — if anything, as it concerns the latter, I was advocating that we really call them on what principles we and they stand for. They were and are our allies, if we consider them so. Luckily people such as you aren’t completely in charge of American foreign policy — have you no good sense?
Ah, Lazarus outs himself as a racist.
I don’t necessarily agree with everything SPF is saying, but the following is hopeless:
First of all, taking their election-season rhetoric on Iraq aside, Germany is doing a lot. They’re rolling up Al Qaeda cells, they’re helping in Afghanistan, and they’re giving us a base to which we take our dead and wounded, etc.
You say that countries behave in their own interest. Fine. But then you suggest that allies should do whatever we want, even if it’s not in their own interests.
So which is it? Are allies somehow different from countries?
My understanding of diplomacy is that the goal is to convince other nations that aligning themselves with you is in their interest.
praktike –
Yes, but…
…sometimes you can’t align interets, because they just aren’t parallel. The sad fact is that without French, german, and Russian accord, we weren’t going to get a UN mandate, and there were a number of reasons why the French, Germans, and Russians were not unhappy with the status quo. Some of these reasons are legitimate policy differences (the vision of a legalistic, ordered world), and some of them are less so (the list of folks who got oil contracts, including the French Ambassador to the UN – note that this document is not definitely proven yet, but it is clear that there was a vast and profitable web of corruption around both oil-for-food and the smuggled oil).
At that point we have a decision to make about whether we align our interests with theirs or not.
A.L.
Sugar Plum Fairy,
You’re right–you are no historian. Hitler burned in his bunker and Mussolini was lynched by angry partisans less than sixty years ago (not “80+”).
Similarly, I find it ironic that Bush is berated for not calling on the citizenry to bear greater sacrifices for the greater good of the collective whole. Had he done so the left might have been fully justified in drawing parallels between him and the fascists of yesterday’s Europe and today’s ME. For that, my historically challenged friends, is the essence of the fascist state. Recommending that people go about their private business, doing and giving what they AS INDIVIDUALS wish to promote the greater good (remember, Bush has urged more volunteerism, charitable gifts, etc.–it wasn’t all about shopping) may not stir the soul, but it’s honorable and in keeping with the indefinite nature of the struggle in which we find ourselves.
Linden, M. Simon–you go!!
Someone, I don’t think anyone who really has a non-English name is likely to complain if the Government were to train more Arabic speakers. So I’m not surprised that if the email address is correct, and I dare say it is, we’re dealing with a more typical native-born American, who can speak English and not a whole lot else.
Kelli
I’m still no historian, but I can crack open an (online) dictionary. Fascism:
Word History: It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, “bundle, (political) group,” but also refers to the movement’s emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini’s group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism.
Now correct me if I am wrong, but if Bush were to call for “greater sacrifices for the greater good of the collective whole”, this would not be a call to gain power through “violence and ruthlessness”, so it would not be appropriate to equate Bush with the Fascists of 80+ years ago? Seems to me you are a bit confused about the “essence of a fascist state”. We’re still in a democracy remember? But we’re also at war. Bush has to work within certain limits, and as we can already see, he does this with great success on the battle front. But as I mentioned before, we are in an ideological war — we didn’t choose it, but there it is, they overtly attacked us first, and without cause. If you think this is a simple matter of stamping out a finite number of “terrorists”, you are wrong. These people are born and bred to be who they are by a larger society, which in turn is shaped and developing according to the rule of governments not beholden to the people. As long as that situation is it place, we will not see the end of “terrorism”, indeed, as this black market in nuclear arms blossoms, we may find ourselves facing a small enemy with big arms. Not something we should fool around with don’t you think? Bush is not of the intellecutal caliber necessary to fight this ideological war. May Rove fail this fall.
The key problem with Bush and most of his supporters is that he was only transformed once, on September 11, 2001, so it is entirely inconceivable to them that facts might be changing on the ground, and not in our favor, because what could be worse than 9/11? Nothing, so it must be better. Not so.
They are also so beholden to fear that they can’t conceive of this world as insecure, which it naturally is. It is the status quo and it has always been thus. So it really is blind to ignore realities outside of national security, especially when these realities contribute to national security issues.
One lesson, oh just one of many, I feel like none of us have learned is that when our national mind becomes focused on an immoral enemy (read: the Cold War), it tends to ignore or brush aside “lesser evils” (like say, Islamofascists) or brutal dictatorships (Saddam Hussein, et al.). We all know how that turned out don’t we? And we’re doing the same thing again. Except the world is different this time, so we don’t know if it will turn to our favor — but the lesson that all those “folks” committing hanky panky “behind our backs” and getting a free pass are learning is probably not beneficial to us.
It is not enough for us to have democracy within our borders. It is not enough for us to have a solid set of democratic allies while the rest of the world goes to pot. It is not enough for us to pursue riches and ignore the needs of others. We need to transform this world now. Globalization is occuring whether we want it or not. We can fool around like children of the past century or we can follow or we can lead. Governance needs to go global.
The sad fact is that without French, german, and Russian accord, we weren’t going to get a UN mandate, and there were a number of reasons why the French, Germans, and Russians were not unhappy with the status quo. Some of these reasons are legitimate policy differences (the vision of a legalistic, ordered world), and some of them are less so (the list of folks who got oil contracts, including the French Ambassador to the UN – note that this document is not definitely proven yet, but it is clear that there was a vast and profitable web of corruption around both oil-for-food and the smuggled oil).
AL, here’s a what-if for you.
Now, I’m not necessarily advocating this, but what would have happened if we had offered equally corrupt bargains to the French and Russians as those they had before the war (are there German companies with oil interests in Iraq)? Maybe this was the idea behind the notorious Cheney Energy Task Force maps?
My guess is that the Russians, who had approximately zero interest in seeing a glut of low-extraction-cost Iraqi oil enter the market, would have been a tough sell, but the French should have been within reach if your argument is correct.
“I don’t think he did a good job. I think he could have spoken more directly to the forces of peace and freedom in the Muslim world.”
He’s been doing that, but those forces have been intermittant and cowed. But now that Saddam is gone more of them are speaking up, I think.
“…which would have meant staying in Afghanistan and getting the job done and staying in Iraq and getting the job done and promoting responsible government (a more palatable, conceptual alternative to American-style democracy) all over the world.”
We are staying in Iraq. We are staying in Afganistan, which does need more money and attention. So are other nations, some of which could pitch in a bit more.
Yehudit
We have different definitions of what it means to speak “more directly to the forces of peace and freedom in the Muslim world” and taking care of business in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Tell me we’re getting the jobs done when these are the headlines?
*US Aides Hint Afghan Voting May Be Put Off (NYT Feb. 16, 2004)*
Excerpt:
“Administration officials say attacks in the unsafe areas are being carried out by forces of the Taliban and Al Qaeda and of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a dissident Pashtun commander in the 1980’s uprising that drove Soviet forces from Afghanistan.
Mr. Hekmatyar’s forces at that time were subsidized by the United States and Saudi Arabia. Much of the resources for the fighters now come from drugs, which account for half the country’s gross domestic product.
The insurgent groups active now are mostly in the southern and eastern parts of the country, especially on the border with Pakistan, where pro-Taliban and pro-Qaeda elements are believed to be sheltering Osama bin Laden. The Afghan authorities have demobilized 2,700 former soldiers of the country’s many militias operating under various warlords, but many more remain active.”
And read about what Mr. Kristof, a columnist of the NYT (and long-time documenter of human rights around the world), has to say about the current condition of Afghan women:
*Afghan Women, Still in Chains*
Excerpts:
“A woman in Afghanistan now dies in childbirth every 20 minutes, usually without access to even a nurse. A U.N. survey in 2002 found that maternal mortality in the Badakshan region was the highest ever recorded anywhere on earth: a woman there has a 50 percent chance of dying during one of her eight pregnancies.
• In Herat, a major city, women who are found with an unrelated man are detained and subjected to a forced gynecological exam. At last count, according to Human Rights Watch, 10 of these “virginity tests” were being conducted daily.
“Many women and girls are essentially prisoners in their own homes,” Human Rights Watch declared. And Amnesty International quoted an aid worker as saying: “During the Taliban era, if a woman went to market and showed an inch of flesh, she would have been flogged. Now she’s raped.”
Mr. Kristof’s column is from this past Valentine’s Day. Lovin’ the women of the world….
And here’s what Afghan men and women have to go back to:
*Under the Taliban, a Decomposition of the Soul (NYT Feb 17, 2004)*
The choices we make in America today will effect many others outside of our borders.
Global governance? Putting the US military under UN command? Yes, John Kerry would be willing to do that. He said he would do that, and no doubt he would if he could. He is a man of the world, after all.
No, no, no… RB, do you know anything about the UN at all? That’s not global government by a long shot. And in case you didn’t look, I was advocating responsible governance, which wouldn’t include the UN by any stretch of the imagination. No, the “global” of global governance is refering to globalization. It’s happening, baby, and we’re big pushers of it. Problem is, we’re not being held accountable and our capitalistic tendancies abroad want no part of the word “responsibility”. No, the world is integrating; that end is in sight. The question is how it will come about, and how it will be. Will we lead? Will global government be responsible, like democracies are responsible? These are the questions our next president’s vision should answer.
I’m not holding my breath; democracies are notoriously short-sighted. We react much more than we act, and our country will have to get past its pragmatic tendancies to tinker and “better” everything to remember what’s “good” — something we’ve forgotten in the unfettered pursuit of riches.
Jefferson would not be proud of us today. The American dream is not coming true.
praktike –
Sorry, gotta disagree when you say we could have ‘bribed’ France into joining us in the war. From my old *post*:
A.L.
Somewhat off point but nevertheless part of the debate is this evidence of the essential nature of the US media (Democratic Party all the way):
http://drudgereport.com/mattht.htm
AL, I see now–you’re saying that bribery was a factor but not necessarily the factor.
So it doesn’t apply to you, but I still think it’s fair to say that if one believes that France didn’t want Saddam toppled exclusively because of lucrative oil contracts, then one should also believe that if France (or TotalFinaElf, if you want to be specific) had been offered the same lucrative deals in a post-Saddam Iraq, they would have been at least indifferent and possibly in favor of invasion.
Fair statement?
praktike –
If I can restate what I think you said and then respond: Because bribery was one (but not the only one) of the reasons for France’s opposition to the war, a counter-bribe should have pinned them into indifference. Is that correct?
Because it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me; if I’m doing something both because it advances my strategic goals, and at the same time makes me a lot of money, if you offer me more money at the cost of my strategic goals, I may or may not accept. If I’m smart, I almost certainly won’t accept.
Does the response make my notion any clearer?
A.L.
I’m with Armed Liberal on this one; France opposed us on the war primarily for strategic reasons, as misguided and intentional as they were.
But let’s not forget a political context. Chirac had been elected with an overwhelming 80+% (82%?) of the vote because he faced off with Jean-Marie Le Pen, of the right-wing xenophobic, arguably fascist, “Father France” National Front Party, and the voters didn’t want that. The Socialists were in disarray and unable to stand by someone almost everyone had agreed was an able, but boring leader. So, Chirac is hardly a favorite among his country(wo)men. As one of my friends said, it was a choice between Super Fasciste and Super Voleur; she promptly voted blanc (so she says). So Chirac’s political instincts tell him he is not loved by his people, he the lesser of two evils, and that is no compliment when you are paired with Le Pen. Yet Le Pen represents something very real in France — his base is solid (though it’s a bit of a cult of personality). Rural people like him; xenophobes like him. Increasing globalization and Muslim immigration rally his supporters and their message resonantes in the more moderate areas of France. Being on the right, they also trumpet the greatness of being French.
As Chirac seeks to consolidate his power in this environment he is also looking to Europe, and don’t forget he despises Tony Blair’s meddling into what he sees as France’s rightful place at the leadership of the EU (with Germany as a partner). Let’s not forget that anti-British sentiment is still strong among the frogs. Then there is always anti-Americanism, rampant among French people who both like and are envy of the US. The US is all around them; it is inescapable — more than that, the media makes us look hegemonic, demonic, out to destroy all that lays in our path to riches, oblivious to others. Tapping into this emotion, Chirac hoped to shore up his political support for European initiatives. Read that again. Chirac had his eye on Europe. Not a “multipolar world in which the power of the US is balanced out by several other nations”. No, Chirac thought that sentiment on the European continent would turn against the US with this war out of a natural jealousy of its power, aided by bigotry towards idiotic cowboys, and turn against its supporter Britain, to therefore create a leadership role for France within Europe. In this he failed miserably, but I believe these were his intentions.
Some more Arab fascists, for your edification.
A.L.,
France is not sale. French foreign policy is rented out by whoever controls the current government. The bribes go to them, not to France.
The Mitterand government was vehemently opposed to anything which might inhibit Serb genocide in Bosnia and Croatia. Then Chirac was elected and French foreign policy suddenly became anti-Serb. This lasted more than a year. Then Milosevich bribed the new Chirac regime and French policy went back to being pro-Serb.
Foreign bribes go to the relatives of prominent officials of the current French government. Long-term business deals with them are important.
The interests of France are a factor in French foreign policy only to the extent that the personal pecuniary interests of the individuals controlling French foreign policy are not involved.
A.L., sorry if I’m still not being clear. And remember, this is just mental masturbation, not advocacy.
From what you’ve said, it seems that *you* do not believe that greed is the only factor motivating French foreign policy. Fine. You and I seem to be in agreement here.
But it seems that Tom Holsinger does believe that greed (of French individuals) is the prime or only motivating force in France foreign policy, and presumably share his viewpoint.
Which leads me to think that Tom ought to believe that if we had bribed France, they would have gone along with invasion.
Is that right, Tom?
So if Tom is right, why didn’t we bribe them?
It’s not like we didn’t bribe Jordan and try to bribe Turkey, so there’s no high-minded principle at work here.
sorry- “presumably [others] share his viewpoint.”
Praktike,
Long-term relationships with French politicians _and their families_ mean more than once-only bribes. Saddam put Chirac and family on his payroll more than twenty years ago.
Praktike and SPF:
You seem to be arguing that France is still an ally because we could have bribed its leaders to support us.
I suspect you’re right that bribery would have worked. However, that doesn’t exactly make France an ally. In fact, the opposite is true. You don’t have to bribe your allies to get them to stop obstructing you.
Well, I’m not making that argument. It seems rather irrelevant, as the “commercial interests” of the US have often trumped our “national interests” in the consideration of foreign policy. It’s hardly fair to beat up on France here — everyone does it. 🙂 But perhaps they are a more egregious offender? This I do not know.
P.S.,
French interests define what its leaders can get away with. No amount of bribes would get Chirac to declare war on Germany.
The less important French interests are, the more its leaders can use French foreign policy as a vehicle to advance their pecuniary interests. This generally applies to countries outside the EU. And I emphasize again that their families are heavily involved.
It is error to consider French foreign policy in isolation from this significant degree of corruption. This pertains to other countries too. Former Canadian Prime Minister Cretien had Canada adopt significant anti-American positions in foreign policy because his in-laws were high officers of French companies used by French President Chirac as vehicles to enrich his, and Cretien’s, relatives.
Fredrik, I don’t think I’m arguing anything, really.
What I’m really trying to do is show that the idea that Saddam could move the levers of the universe via bribery requires one to believe some things that one does not really believe.
Tom has shown that there’s a way out of this absurdity, if you accept his claim.
>The less important French interests are, the
>more its leaders can use French foreign policy
>as a vehicle to advance their pecuniary
>interests. This generally applies to countries
>outside the EU. And I emphasize again that their
>families are heavily involved.
>
>It is error to consider French foreign policy in
>isolation from this significant degree of
>corruption.
Please consider this line from Holsinger in light of Ralph Peters “Spotting the Losers: Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States.”
These two seem to apply:
1) “Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.”
Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism are symptoms of a society that is looking outside itself for scape goats. France has both in spades.
2) “The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.”
This is the killer line from Peters section addressing this failing:
“Where blood ties rule, you cannot trust the contract, let alone the handshake. Nor will you see the delegation of authority so necessary to compete in the modern military or economic spheres. Information and wealth are assessed from a zero-sum worldview. Corruption flourishes. Blood ties produce notable family successes, but they do not produce competitive societies.”
France’s poltical elites have ‘gone Arab.’
That is why they are now an enemy. America is creating a world where they cannot exist.
So in a sense, A.L. is right about the “French creating a space for themselves to operate,” but not for the reasons he thought.
praktike,
That is correct. No amount of appeals to French national interest could have obtained French support for our invasion of Iraq, because French national interests weren’t directly involved. French indirect interests were outweighed by the fact that Saddam put Chirac and family on retainer 20-25 years ago, long before Chirac became president of France.
Milosevich of Serbia hadn’t done that with Chirac before Chirac was elected president of France. Milosevich had only paid off then-president Mitterand. Mitterand’s government therefore supported Milosevich’s genocidal policies in Bosnia, but the French socialists were defeated by Chirac in an election, and Chirac had France change sides. Milosevich then bribed Chirac and, when the Serbs attempted genocide in Kosovo, Chirac had France obstruct NATO’s attempt to stop it to the point that French officers asssigned to NATO reported on-going NATO military operations to the Serbs. They also gave the Serbs advice on how to shoot down American aircraft.
While I don’t disagree with all of the corruption charges here, and I do find some of them interesting, I think you all underestimate the degree to which France is a democracy here. Let’s not forget that.
Trent Telenko, I was reading your post with interest, until I hit the bit about family ties. French blood ties simply do not compare to those among Chinese; I specifically refer to Taiwan in this case since that is where I am from. Family is extremely important there, much much much much much more than in France, and this has shown itself to be less than pertinent in the area of competitiveness. If anything, combined with other things such as a strong work ethic, it can increase competitiveness by providing a solid social network for each individual and therefore decreasing the financial burden on the part of the government. If anyone can call family the basic unit of social organization, it’s the Chinese (and the Japanese and Koreans). These countries plus Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, etc. all show competitiveness is not a problem in such a social environment.
That said, I detect that blood is much more important in France as it concerns the aristocracy (or technically, former members of) and those folks are disproportionally represented in the government, media, companies even, etc. “Extended family” or “clans” are also more important in those social circles (indeed there is a ‘top social circle’). In my opinion, information and wealth have nothing to do with it — it has to do with your family name (and therefore blood). There are a lot of poor people named John de Doe who are treated as aristocratic over there.
My point is, every society will treat blood ties differently, and the correlation with competitiveness is not linear.
SPF,
Peters addressed your point.
Here is the full passage I drew from:
Family Values
After the exclusion of women from productive endeavors, the next-worst wastage of human potential occurs in societies where the extended family, clan, or tribe is the basic social unit. While family networks provide a safety net in troubled times, offering practical support and psychological protection, and may even build a house for you, they do not build the rule of law, or democracy, or legitimate corporations, or free markets. Where the family or clan prevails, you do not hire the best man (to say nothing of the best woman) for the job, you hire Cousin Luis. You do not vote for the best man, you vote for Uncle Ali. And you do not consider cease-fire deals or shareholder interests to be matters of serious obligation.
Such cultures tend to be peasant-based or of peasant origin, with the attendant peasant’s suspicion of the outsider and of authority. Oligarchies of landed families freeze the pattern in time. There is a preference for a dollar grabbed today over a thousand dollars accrued in the course of an extended business relationship. Blood-based societies operate under two sets of rules: one, generally honest, for the relative; and another, ruthless and amoral, for deals involving the outsider. The receipt of money now is more important than building a long-term relationship. Such societies fight well as tribes, but terribly as nations.
At its most successful, this is the system of the Chinese diaspora, but that is a unique case. The Darwinian selection that led to the establishment and perpetuation of the great Chinese merchant families (and village networks), coupled with the steely power of southern China’s culture, has made this example an exception to many rules. More typical examples of the Vetternwirtschaft system are Iranian businesses, Nigerian criminal organizations, Mexican political and drug cartels, and some American trade unions.
Where blood ties rule,…
Trent, thanks! That clears it up, and is much more interesting. I disagree with the reasons given concerning the Chinese diaspora — the “steely power of southern China’s culture” particularly strikes me as wrong. Those folks are known as much more wobbly and amoral/skilled in commercial transactions than say, the North (where betrayal is more lethal and family ties are more important). It appears that this “blood theory” concerns more of a clan/tribe relationship? I don’t know enough about the other cultures mentioned there (Iran, Nigeria, and Mexico), but in China the family relationship structure is based on Confucianism which also provides the moral backbone in the culture. Education was of pre-eminent value for Confucius, and thus (I believe) Chinese are less inclined to bestow favors on unworthy family members (for jobs or positions or deals that require merit at least) because then that member would never learn, and would thus give more problems than benefits to the family. If corruption occurs in those societies of the Chinese diaspora, it occurs within the “circles of friendship” (even among families). Because there, when you trade, if you’re dishonest, it could be a gain-gain situation, and not just gain-lose (but with your own family member). And of course, it occurs in places where Confucianism was overrun by the amoral (or new moral?) Chinese Communists who would have nothing to do with “traditional China”.
Trent,
France and Canada do not have America’s conflict of interest laws pertaining to nepotism. French public officials can’t steer public contracts to their relatives, but the wealthy can give sweetheart contracts to the relatives of high public officials and be rewarded with goodies from the public treasury. Especially non-monetary goodies like foreign policy.
I repeat, this is legal in France.
Foreign governments try the same here too. Do you recall Billy Carter and Neil Bush?
Have you all seen these remarks by former President Clinton at the US-Islamic World Forum in Qatar?
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/research/projects/islam/clinton20040112.pdf
Makes me wistful….
Sugar Plum Fairy – are you related to *Simply Sparkling*?
SPF & praktike,
It seems to me that your school is insufficiently informed about what happened in Europe in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and how deeply that structures everything that has happened since.
And it is precisely because ideas and ideology are so central in the current conflict(s) that the European gestalt constitutes, if not a threat itself, then at least a threat multiplier.
Okay, so Bush has proven himself to be incompetent at this level? It doesn’t matter much. It doesn’t matter much because when people simply refuse to listen to you or look at what you are asking them to look at to see if they see what you see, it makes no difference how well you describe things or make your case.
Some of us are talking about the state of affairs over there over here. I can’t help but wonder whether we’d all be in a better place if people here–especially those who believe that our leaders have “squandered unprecedented support” and “alienated allies”–would revisit the the last 2 years and 5 months as it played out in Europe. If this would happen, I suspect that a consensus might emerge that something has gone seriously wrong in political Europe. And that dealing with this situation in a constructive, pragmatic, and serious manner would be a step in the right direction.
This discussion here sounds rather surreal to my ears. To me it seems that the various sides in this argument disagree about rather less than they imagine.
tm, I don’t get your post. What do you think praktike and I don’t understand about what happened in European in the immediate aftermath of 9/11? And how has this structured everything ever since?
Just so you know, I lived in France from Sept 2002 to July 2003.
I don’t think the Europeans refused to listen to Bush or look at what he showed them. I think they were deeply skeptical of the threat Iraq posed which justified changing course. I think they were also deeply skeptical of Bush’s motives. I also think they rightly guessed that Bush had no post-war plan to speak of.
I think you and many others are right about political Europe. I also agree that dealing with the situation in a constructive, pragmatic and serious manner would be a good idea. I don’t blame the Bush Administration for anything except unnecessary incompetence and ignorance.
SPF,
I’ll try to get back to you, but things are too hectic at the moment for me to elaborate right now. Just so you know, I lived in Belgium from September of 1997 until 3 weeks ago, excepting a year in London from September ’98 to September ’99.
Iraq is just a secondary issue. It’s not about Iraq.
tm, I would be glad to hear your views, take your time. Were you in the French areas, and do you speak French?