Via TAPPED, a seriously great comment from Howard Dean.
In a column available at Cagle Cartoons (??), Gov. Dean says:
Europeans cannot criticize the United States for waging war in Iraq if they are unwilling to exhibit the moral fiber to stop genocide by acting collectively and with decisiveness. President Bush was wrong to go into Iraq unilaterally when Iraq posed no danger to the United States, but we were right to demand accountability from Saddam. We are also right to demand accountability in Sudan. Every day that goes by without meaningful sanctions and even military intervention in Sudan by African, European and if necessary U.N. forces is a day where hundreds of innocent civilians die and thousands are displaced from their land. Every day that goes by without action to stop the Sudan genocide is a day that the anti-Iraq war position so widely held in the rest of the world appears to be based less on principle and more on politics. And every day that goes by is a day in which George Bush’s contempt for the international community, which I have denounced every day for two years, becomes more difficult to criticize.
Right on, as we used to say.
I’m one of those who abandoned respect for the U.N. quite a while ago, and so have a hard time with those – Kerry included – who call for the U.S. to align it’s foreign policy with U.N. mandates. The appalling track record of the U.N. continues, and weakens the claims of those who look to it as the world’s moral arbiter.
Gov. Dean deserves applause for taking this stand, and for acknowledging – atypically for a politician – how it connects to his past views.
But A.L., just how does the Sudan pose “a danger” to Europe? If I’m tracking the governor’s calculus, only then would the Europeans be justified in “unilateral” action. Otherwise they’re aff the hook, in terms of “principle.” And somehow the sense of outrage he communicates doesn’t quite add up, according to his own method.
Demosophist:
Let me take a crack at it. If collective action simply does not take place (for whatever reason) to stop a manifest evil (like genocide), then the only way that such evils will be stopped is by unilateral action.
It’s inconsistent and incoherent to condemn both genocide and unilateral action to prevent it unless there is some commitment to collective action to stop geneocide.
Unless of course the consistency and coherence is provided in being opposed to whatever the U. S. does because the U. S. is doing it.
/ decides to spend lunch break going to confession in preperation for the coming Apocalypse.
Gee, AL, you were happy when Kerry won the nomination instead of Dean.
So was I, actually, but I’ve got some serious doubts.
Of course, there’s no telling if Dean would have said this had he won.
A.L.,
Great post. It goes to the heart of the dilemma facing left-of-center Americans who want to put their trust in broadly based international organizations for security, rather than American power and international organizations/coalitions led by the United States. What do you do when the UN, the EU, the IAEA, and other similar organizations repeatedly demonstrate their inability or unwillingness to act decisively against gross violations of international law and obvious threats to international security?
The first stage to this kind of cognitive dissonance between the ideal/paradigm and reality is to cling more closely to the ideal and attack those who point out the failures of the ideal. The second stage is to admit some failures on the part of the ideal, but attack anyone who proposes an alternative ideal/paradigm that more closely fits the reality we live in. The third stage is to accept the failure of the old ideal/paradigm and enthusiasticaly adopt the new ideal/paradigm that more closely fits reality. This third stage is often accompanied by bitter attacks on the remaining defenders of the old ideal/paradigm.
Governor Dean appears to be entering stage two.
Note this quote: “President Bush was wrong to go into Iraq unilaterally when Iraq posed no danger to the United States, but we were right to demand accountability from Saddam. We are also right to demand accountability in Sudan.”
What Gov. Dean leaves unexplained is how you “demand accountability” of a nation or a people without the willingness to use decisive military force against them. It will be interesting to see how, when, or if Gov. Dean and his colleagues resolve this contradiction between their ideal world and world reality.
Dave:
And clearly Dean’s comment rests on the assertion that the UN is capable of such a commitment. He may be sincere in believing that, but such a belief is naive both in terms of the role played by National Sovereignty in the UN’s founding, and by the facts of history (since it has simply never intervened aggressively to stop a genocide, to my knowledge).
So, again, the essential argument lurking behind even this relatively enlightened statement is a sophomoric worldview that doesn’t accurately apprehend the true role of institutions like the UN or NATO.
We could, btw, at least begin to establish such an appropriate institution… and it would be a valid argument for Dean to make. But he hasn’t, and neither have any of the other folks in that camp. (See I avoided calling them idiotarians. Well, almost.)
Rob, actually I wasn’t (happy when Kerry was nominated). I wasn’t at all Deaniac, but it would have been an election around some real choices for our future, as opposed to what we have had dropped in our laps now.
A.L.
but it would have been an election around some real choices for our future, as opposed to what we have had dropped in our laps now.
Oh come on now, A. L.. Mr. Kerry is to the left of Ted Kennedy fer chrissakes. This is a modern political campaign. Any candidate (including Dr. Dean) will make a mad rush (or appear to make a mad rush) for the center after nomination. Or re-define his entire C. V. to appear that he’s been there all along.
Mr. Kerry is to the left of Ted Kennedy fer chrissakes.
Based on what?
Dean deserves nothing, zero.
Don’t be fooled by him, don’t applaud him until a trend, not blip shows up on the screen.
He’s so far left he makes Carter seem right wing.
/sarcasm on/
I’m not sure I’m making my ‘feelings’ clear.
/sarcasm off/
It’s what the pundits say. It must be true.
Based on what?
His average ADA rating 1985—2000. Why pick those years? 1985 is the earliest year online. Starting around 2000 his ADA rating began to slip. It’s a reasonable inference that he’d decided to run for the presidency.
I wish people would stop thinking of the UN as an independent entity; it isn’t. The UN doesn’t have an bad track record, the nations of the world do.
…so have a hard time with those – Kerry included – who call for the U.S. to align it’s foreign policy with U.N. mandates.
When the heck did Kerry state this? Got a URL with a quote?
James Jones,
…the EU…
The EU doesn’t really have an army; indeed, attempts to create a robust EU military structure have been met with scorn and outright hostility by the Bush administration. Accordingly, blaming the EU for not intervening in the Sudan (if that’s what you are doing) is a bit silly.
…the IAEA…
The IAEA is made up of a bunch of inspectors. Their role is to inspect & they apppear to do a pretty good job of that. After all, we wouldn’t know jack squat about the true nature of Iran’s nuclear endeavours without the IAEA.
demo,
So, again, the essential argument lurking behind even this relatively enlightened statement is a sophomoric worldview that doesn’t accurately apprehend the true role of institutions like the UN or NATO.
I think we’re basically in agreement.
Dave Schuler,
So maybe he really isn’t left of Ted Kennedy then, maybe he was merely pandering to his constituent’s wishes. Past performance on a more limited stage is no guarantee of the nature of his future performance in other words.
BTW, as far as I can tell situation in Sudan poses no threat to the US or Europe, so I can see why both the US and Europe are hesitant to intervene. Indeed, with a nod to Burke, I am skeptical of the efficacy of an intervention.
“The EU doesn’t really have an army; indeed, attempts to create a robust EU military structure have been met with scorn and outright hostility by the Bush administration. Accordingly, blaming the EU for not intervening in the Sudan (if that’s what you are doing) is a bit silly.”
This seems a bit odd. Are you suggesting that it’s Bush’s fault that the EU can’t intervene in the Sudan because Bush is scornful of EU military capabilities? Or is it because the EU doesn’t have an army? Or is it a combination of both: Bush wouldn’t let the EU increase its military capabilities (and so now its Bush’s fault that the EU can’t intervene in Sudan). I fail to see how any of these is an adequate defense for the EU’s position.
I do, in fact, blame the EU for choosing to take few, if any steps, to end the genocide in the Sudan. I don’t believe their excuses are legitimate because Europeans (a) (and leftists in general) have been historically slow to recognize genocide and (b) reluctant to risk their personal safety and comfort to assist other people in times of need (while insisting that other people risk death in defense of European safety and comfort) and (c) as in Iraq, have oil and military interests that compel non-intervention. If there is a more odious attitude than that present in the EU, I’m hard pressed to identify it.
Gary G says:
‘The UN doesn’t have an bad track record, the nations of the world do.‘ …given this comment, I’m curious – does the U.S. exist apart from it’s constituent citizens and states?
A.L.
gary a few above said:
—–
The UN doesn’t have an bad track record, the nations of the world do.
—–
Get off the watermelon Gary (Watermelon: green on the outside red to the core).
Yes you are correct, but far more, you are dead wrong.
The majority nations are ukk fupped, the UN is their leader, enabler and worse mouthpiece/soapbox.
The UN has a pathetic track record.
Carter just certified Chavez as ‘properly elected’ even as the Green-Dean types spit upon our system.
Mark,
This seems a bit odd. Are you suggesting that it’s Bush’s fault that the EU can’t intervene in the Sudan because Bush is scornful of EU military capabilities? Or is it because the EU doesn’t have an army? Or is it a combination of both: Bush wouldn’t let the EU increase its military capabilities (and so now its Bush’s fault that the EU can’t intervene in Sudan). I fail to see how any of these is an adequate defense for the EU’s position.
No, I’m suggesting that its fairly ironic for a Bush supporter (as most of you folks appear to be) to be condemning the EU for not intervening when such a capability is contrary to Bush’s foreign policy.
I don’t believe their excuses are legitimate because Europeans (a) (and leftists in general) have been historically slow to recognize genocide…
This isn’t a trait that is particular to Europeans or the left; which is why your statement is silly. If your claim were indeed true, one has to ask, for example, why the Reagan and Thatcher administrations blocked a UN resolution which would have condemned the chemical attacks of the Iraqi regime on the Kurds and the Iranians.
…and (b) reluctant to risk their personal safety and comfort to assist other people in times of need (while insisting that other people risk death in defense of European safety and comfort)…
I hate it to break it to you, but the vast majority of combatants fighting for the Allies in WWII were Europeans (assuming that you are referring to that conflict); in the Cold War the majority of soldiers, etc. sitting on the ground in NATO were Europeans. Indeed, comments like yours denigrate the efforts of not only Europeans to defend themselves, but the Americans who served with them, and I find them disgusting.
Furthermore, the US also shares this reluctance; if it didn’t then we’d have hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Africa right now. When your prejudices and ideology meet reality they crumble to dust like a vampire exposed to sunlight.
Armed Liberal,
The US is a sovereign nation, the UN is not.
abc123,
Get off the watermelon Gary (Watermelon: green on the outside red to the core).
If you’re trying to call me a communist, well, hmm, I’m not (have you been watching the original Manchurian Candidate too much?). I’m a libertarian – pro-capitalist, for a truly minimalist government, etc.
The majority nations are ukk fupped, the UN is their leader, enabler and worse mouthpiece/soapbox.
You haven’t said anything that disputes my statement; indeed, all you did was reinforce it.
The UN has a pathetic track record.
Carter just certified Chavez as ‘properly elected’ even as the Green-Dean types spit upon our system.
Certainly, the UN does have a pathetic track record because the nations of the world have a pathetic track record; the UN doesn’t act until the nations which control it act.
The US State Department declared the election clean. Now I may not like Chavez, I don’t in fact, but that doesn’t mean that I support rigging an election just so he loses either. Venezuelan’s had a choice and they exercised it and the Carter Center, the OAS and the US State Department have declared the election a clean one. Now whether there choice was a stupid decision will ultimately be up for them to determine; but its not for me to tell Venezuelans how to run their country.
gary said:
I hate it to break it to you, but the vast majority of combatants fighting for the Allies in WWII were Europeans
———-
Once again you are correct while being wrong.
In America there is the radical left, Kerry, Dean, Moveon, blah, blah.
Then there is the W-GOP center (Iknow it sounds odd but W is more like JFK, the President, than anyone).
What is forgotten by the stupid, watermelon, left is 1. David Duke, 2. 1938, and 3. the nutjobs who used to be Republican but are angry that white nationalists have been kicked out of the GOP.
EUnichstanians are more like Dean and Duke. W is a centrist.
Never forget Never Again.
Democrats are either blind or BROWNSHIRTS.
Go to a protest if you think I’m whacked.
Blind or brownshirts. My guess is blind and comfortable, not keen on boat-rocking….
:-/
Gary Gunnels: …the EU…
The EU doesn’t really have an army; indeed, attempts to create a robust EU military structure have been met with scorn and outright hostility by the Bush administration…..
Ever hear of homework Gary? It’s a wonderfull thing really, you should try it.
Here is an example of Bush’s “scorne and outright hostility:” It is a Bush/Rumsfeld program that is just now coming on line. NATO Response Force.
In simple to understand terms it’s an ARMY.
Gary –
I can’t help myself on this one –
‘I hate it to break it to you, but the vast majority of combatants fighting for the Allies in WWII were Europeans (assuming that you are referring to that conflict); in the Cold War the majority of soldiers, etc. sitting on the ground in NATO were Europeans.‘
…so you’re comparing the number of troops stationed at home in European countries – to defend themselves – with the number of troops stationed there by the US, to defend European countries? Now I absolutely know tat we had interests in this, but that’s just a silly comparison.
And similarly, to compare the number of US troops in Europe during WW II with, say the number of Russian troops defending their homeland, is equally silly.
One qualitative issue in looking at US military history, dark as some chapters may be – is that it’s not easy to find another country that has done so much for others. Unless, of course, one wants to suggest that we colonized Europe, as the British did India…
A.L.
More Gary –
‘The US is a sovereign nation, the UN is not.‘
You’ve actually hit the nub of the issue; if we’re a sovereign nation, we get to do what we want and see as in our own interest. But some people – me included – wonder if there aren’t limits to sovereignty in today’s world, and what those limits might be.
If that’s the case, supra-state actors like the UN actually have some measure of sovereignty, based on the power granted them by nations (just as nations have sovereignty, based on the power granted them by their citizens).
A.L.
“I’m suggesting that its fairly ironic for a Bush supporter (as most of you folks appear to be) to be condemning the EU for not intervening when such a capability is contrary to Bush’s foreign policy.”
In your previous comments, you maintained that it was silly to blame Europeans for not intervening in the Sudan. I disputed your claim. Falsely re-characterizing your original claim as irony doesn’t make it any more coherent.
Nor do I see how your interpretation of Bush’s policy on EU military capabilities is relevant to the debate. The EU was capable of helping with Bosnia and Kosovo, and France was capable of intervening unilaterally in the Ivory Coast, so, again, I fail to see why they can’t field forces to stop genocide, unless you accept the fact that they’d rather profit from their economic and military interest with Sudan – a point I noticed you failed to address.
I also dispute your claims re: European military combatants. Please source this, by country. Nor do I see how this is relevant to my claim that Europeans have been reluctant to fight for the freedom of other people, but insist that others fight for theirs. If you find this offensive, at least make an attempt to dispute it; your emotional disposition toward my argument is of no interest or relevance.
Gary,
My post was all about the contradictions between Governor Dean’s foreign policy views and the actual performance of the multilateral institutions he would like to rely on for security and the enforcement of international law. I mentioned both the EU and the IAEA in this context because they are prominent multi-national/world organizations that are not led or dominated by the United States. (Unlike NATO or the IMF).
The European Union (EU) is a relevant example because EU spokesmen have repeatedly criticized the US for its willingness to use force without international approval, especially the approval of the EU and the UN. EU officials have often declared that political/economic engagement and protacted negotiation are more effective in establishing international security and the rule of law than the use of force. If force must be used, it should only be used with the broad support of the international community. Gov. Dean, like many left-of-center Americans, shares these views.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is also relevant because they are the entity that is supposed to ask the UN Security Council to act against IAEA signatories, such as Iran and N. Korea, that are attempting to develop nuclear weapons. You are correct that the IAEA has identified significant violations by Iran. However, a recent motion by the US to send a request for Security Council action to the UN was blocked within the IAEA by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. (Who are also members of the EU).
How are we supposed to deal with the major threat to our security that a nuclear-armed Iran represents in a broadly multilateral, UN and EU approved way if the IAEA isn’t even permitted to certify the violation and request Security Council action? How are we supposed to rely on international law for our security if a stridently legalistic organization like the EU is unwilling to intervene to stop gross violations of international law such as the Darfur attacks?
This is why I said Dean is entering stage two of cognitive dissonance in his foreign policy views. He recognizes that there is a large contradiction between his ideal of how a progressive, multilateral organization like the EU should act to stop the Sudanese genocide and how it is failing to act. He also states that Saddam Hussein needed to be called to account, but still opposes how the Bush Administration acted to settle Husssein’s account. It will be interesting to see if Dean enters stage three of cognitive dissonance and rejects his current reliance on the UN, the EU, the IAEA, etc., for international security and enforcement of the rule of law.
And if Gov. Dean rejects his reliance on the UN, et. al., as an unrealistic fantasy, what foreign policy paradigm will he shift to? Once you accept that it is a very dangerous world and we can only rely on ourselves and few allies for real security, it changes your perception of acceptable strategies and options very fast. Democrats have been militant expansionists, militant internationalists, and militant anti-Communists in the past. Could left-of-center Democrats, as represented by Gov. Dean, go through a similar shift?
Regards,
Jim
A.L. & abc123,
Just for historical purposes, via http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/AMH-22.htm:
“As V-E Day came, Allied forces in Western Europe consisted of 4 ½ million men, including 9 armies (5 of them American—one of which, the Fifteenth, saw action only at the last), 23 corps, 91 divisions (61 of them American), 6 tactical air commands (4 American), and 2 strategic air forces (1 American). The Allies had 28,000 combat aircraft, of which 14,845 were American, and they had brought into Western Europe more than 970,000 vehicles and 18 million tons of supplies. At the same time they were achieving final victory in Italy with 18 divisions (7 of them American). […] The United States lost 135,576 dead in Western Europe, while Britain, Canada, France, and other Allies incurred after D-day approximately 60,000 military deaths.
Unlike in World War I, when the United States had come late on the scene and provided only those forces to swing the balance of power to the Allied side, the American contribution to the reconquest of Western Europe had been predominant, not just in manpower but as a true arsenal of democracy. American factories produced for the British almost three times more lend-lease materials than for the Russians, including 185,000 vehicles, 12,000 tanks, and enough planes to equip four tactical air forces, and for the French, all weapons and equipment for 8 divisions and 1 tactical air force, plus partial equipment for 3 more divisions.”
Gary has crumbled to dust. Lots of big words, no coherent narrative. Sort of like reading a dictionary as literature.
>>Europeans cannot criticize the United States for waging war in Iraq if they are unwilling to exhibit the moral fiber to stop genocide by acting collectively and with decisiveness.
This has got to be the most hysterical thing I’ve heard all week. IT’S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO ACT COLLECTIVELY AND WITH DECISIVENESS. You can get one or the other, but rarely both. It’s a good thing too, because when the collective is mobilizing to act, the individual needs all the time he can get to run for cover.
I will attempt to weave several things together, yet keep it compact, necessitating some degree of generalisation….
If you have not read Strauss & Howe’s excellent books ‘Generations’ and (especially) ‘Fourth Turning,’ I suggest you do. The era we are _leaving_ was characterised by the “process-fixated and pluralistic” leadership style of an “indecisive and guilt-ridden” generation. Consequently much tut-tutting and desire for collective will, but little effective action.
As befits a generation who were children during and immediately after WWII this impetus has been much stronger in Europe, which still suffers from a sort of untreated post-traumatic stress disorder that has rendered them almost completely ineffective in the world around them, other than by attempting to dig in their heels and say No.
They can persist in this pattern only _because_ there is a stronger and clearer thinking younger brother increasingly unafraid to take decisive when needed.
Consequently Old Europe was full of sympathy for the US after the ’01 attacks — until we actually decided to _do_ something about it. Eastern Europe, having recently taken action themselves to throw off communist oppression, demonstrated greater clarity and resolve.
The Bush administration’s (and much of America’s) outspokenness, strategic vision, and willingness to act has shone a brilliant light on the ossification and paralysis in Europe and the old-line multilateral institutions.
Confronted with strategic plays they can barely understand (and most certainly cannot counter directly) their only recourse is to ally with similarly dysfunctional individuals and institutions in the US to rail against the inevitable _tactical_ problems that arise in any great undertaking. The hope is that by shifting focus from strategic to tactical they may be able to create enough confusion and doubt to cripple the whole thing.
Trying to drag down real leaders who make you look bad is as old as humanity. This November’s election in the US is their last clear chance to do this, and they all know it. If they succeed, we shall almost certainly arrive at a point where 2004’s fevered concern over the _humiliation_ (not torture) of prisoners in Abu Ghra’ib will be seen as befuddled naivete in light of unimagined horrors and brutality yet to come.
Lee said:
Gary has crumbled to dust
—
Gary seems a fantastic poster. In fact this thread is quite good.
Utopian is good, for books. Hopefully W will move a tiny bit right when he is re-elected. Hopefully Democrats keep moving left until they reach Paris….
🙂
A.L. said:
You’ve actually hit the nub of the issue; if we’re a sovereign nation, we get to do what we want and see as in our own interest. But some people – me included – wonder if there aren’t limits to sovereignty in today’s world, and what those limits might be.
——–
Thus there really is a choice with W and JFK, 1. Cowboy/gun vs. 2. UN/blindfolds.
How long? 10, 20, 50? years of allowing the losing nation in a war (read Saddam) to do what he wants? I like the swat, goodbye, method especially after 10+ years.
It is that simple. Prior to 911 I disliked W.
Last one for today:
From below:
So although half of Europe may be leaning to Kerry, it’s the wrong half.
And how will the U.S. benefit? Neither France nor Germany nor their camp followers are likely to heed Kerry’s call for troops in Iraq. Some have no troops to send — Germany spends just over 1% of its gross domestic product on defence — and others like over-stretched France will not commit scarce troops to a venture they believe doomed. Some leaders even want to see the United States humbled.
Will France and Germany take a different attitude in future crises if Senator Kerry, as he promises, regularly consults them in a spirit of multilateralism? Again, the prospects are bleak. France and Germany have an outlook on foreign policy entirely different from the viewpoint even of liberal Democrats such as Senator Kerry.
more
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/comment/story.html?id=daf02588-08d6-47f9-baae-ef0aa41f427b&page=2
D and K are so left that they make Carter seem Conservative. W is a good man and a good leader.
No-one seems to have commented on the facts that the French have already deployed troops to the Chad-Sudan border, to protect refugees from cross-border raids, and that the African Union has already deployed troops in Sudan to protect ceasefire monitors.
Admittedly, this falls short of a full-scale military intervention, but it’s enough to invalidate Dean’s statement which clearly implies that the US is the only one doing anything.
Hmmm. I don’t read this comment of Dean’s as calling for action in the Sudan so much as complaining that inaction undercuts his (and the Europeans’) ability to credibly criticize Bush (and America).
I mean, he does seem to want a properly-sanctioned UN or at least non-US intervention in Sudan (leaving apart that that ain’t likely as long as France sits on the UNSC), which is to his credit, but that seems like the secondary point here. “Every day that goes by without action to stop the Sudan genocide is a day that the anti-Iraq war position so widely held in the rest of the world appears to be based less on principle and more on politics.” – not intervening makes the anti-Iraq position less tenable.
Admittedly, I may be biased by prejudice against people who misuse the word “unilateral”. But that’s what the tenor of the comment sounds like to me.
If Bush were to wake up tomorrow and declare that the US, having consulted with Britain, Poland, Australia, Tanzania, and a collection of other partners, will now intervene with those partners in Sudan, I am fairly sure Dean would condemn the move.
“No-one seems to have commented on the facts that the French have already deployed troops to the Chad-Sudan border, to protect refugees from cross-border raids…”
The BBC article does not suggest that the French would actually engage with janjaweed militia to prevent atrocities. In fact, the French ambassador avoided addressing this issue when asked, stating that French troops would remain inside Chad’s borders. The French troops would only observe the situation, and provide token humanitarian aid. Your claim about the role of French troops is not substantiated in the article.
Essentially, the French have offered to observe the inflow of Sudanese refugees to Chad after the atrocities have been committed in Sudan, but have refused to implement sanctions against the Sudanese government.
Your view that the French are doing something to stop genocide is unsupported.