Why war now is not a good idea
It seems that the real internal US conflict boils down to a perception of the future of the US. The hawks apparently believe that the US will continue to be the dominant superpower for as long as can be imagined. Thus, international opinion is not as important as security, since we don't have to really concern ourselves with what the weaker nations think.
But this view of the future is entirely unrealistic. It is far more realistic the believe that within 100 years, the US will be eclipsed by nations like china or india, or even a more militarized EU. In fact, this could happen within 50 years or less. History shows us that the only realistic future view is one that incorporates the high posibility of dramatic unexpected events.
As the world's sole superpower, we are in a perfect opportunity to solidify our position for when our influence and status begins to wane. Which will likely be sooner rather than later.
Waging war is not the way to do this. The nations that support our war in Iraq are not doing so because they share the vision of the American hawks. They are doing so because the Bush Admin has bribed them with financial, militay or political commitments. Support of this kind is thin and will not last beyond our ability to provide our end.
It IS important to strengthen our ties with europe and the rest of the world, though many Americans have not realized that.
The hawks are calling for a dominating militarized USA that is strongly positioned globally and exerting direct influence on foriegn powers. This is prone to an inevidible collapse.
Under this system, at some point, be it in my life or my grandchild's (at the extreme latest), the superpower status of the US will come to a violent end, if it doesn't fall under its own weight first. This does not have't be the case.
If the US positions itself as a benevolent nation with an eye on foreign aid and development, the chances for a smooth and peaceful transition are dramatically increased. We also broaden the options for our economic position when this transition takes place. And most of all, we could have a solid support base in the EU, a potential super-region, which would be much needed.
To support this war is to support the future as laid out in Rebuilding America's Defenses, a document that also explicity points out that Saddam is not the driving motivation behind an attack on Iraq. Supporting this war in particular is equal to supporting an unpleasant end to the superpower status of the US.
Angering other nations is a very bad idea, whether they seem important or not. There is no question that nations we now support to futher our military aims will be come our worst enemies, and soon. Iraq and Afghanistan, the two nations in the Bush Admin's sights, recieved tremendous support just 15 years ago. This is a cycle that will continue forever.
We do not know what the next 15 years bring, but we can increase our chances for a peaceful future. This war is not about self-defence. Pakistanis, Saudis and Eqyptians (though not their current governments) are bigger threats. The royal family of Qatar, where the new large US ME base is, is only second to the Saudis in al-qaeda donations. And NOKOR is a vastly greater regional threat than Iraq could ever be painted to be.
As explicitly stated by those behind it (wolfowitz and his followers specifically), the goal is American influence in the Arab world. These men have stated it day after day in every major news source in the past few years, not to mention the fact that Wolfowitz has been shouting about it since the late 70s. We know from history that our attempts to influence political situation in foreign countries, and culturally foreign ones in particular, never ends up the way we wanted it to. I'm not even sure that the US can point to a single incident where it has worked. And it will not in this case.
As such, what is best for our national interest is to work with the international community through the UN and other organizations to create global systems of international cooperation. There will never be an end to conflict, but systems can be created to minimize the negative impact of those with motivated by ill-will, and a cooperative effort is vastly more effective.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
But this view of the future is entirely unrealistic. It is far more realistic the believe that within 100 years, the US will be eclipsed by nations like china or india, or even a more militarized EU. In fact, this could happen within 50 years or less. History shows us that the only realistic future view is one that incorporates the high posibility of dramatic unexpected events.
As the world's sole superpower, we are in a perfect opportunity to solidify our position for when our influence and status begins to wane. Which will likely be sooner rather than later.
Waging war is not the way to do this. The nations that support our war in Iraq are not doing so because they share the vision of the American hawks. They are doing so because the Bush Admin has bribed them with financial, militay or political commitments. Support of this kind is thin and will not last beyond our ability to provide our end.
It IS important to strengthen our ties with europe and the rest of the world, though many Americans have not realized that.
The hawks are calling for a dominating militarized USA that is strongly positioned globally and exerting direct influence on foriegn powers. This is prone to an inevidible collapse.
Under this system, at some point, be it in my life or my grandchild's (at the extreme latest), the superpower status of the US will come to a violent end, if it doesn't fall under its own weight first. This does not have't be the case.
If the US positions itself as a benevolent nation with an eye on foreign aid and development, the chances for a smooth and peaceful transition are dramatically increased. We also broaden the options for our economic position when this transition takes place. And most of all, we could have a solid support base in the EU, a potential super-region, which would be much needed.
To support this war is to support the future as laid out in Rebuilding America's Defenses, a document that also explicity points out that Saddam is not the driving motivation behind an attack on Iraq. Supporting this war in particular is equal to supporting an unpleasant end to the superpower status of the US.
Angering other nations is a very bad idea, whether they seem important or not. There is no question that nations we now support to futher our military aims will be come our worst enemies, and soon. Iraq and Afghanistan, the two nations in the Bush Admin's sights, recieved tremendous support just 15 years ago. This is a cycle that will continue forever.
We do not know what the next 15 years bring, but we can increase our chances for a peaceful future. This war is not about self-defence. Pakistanis, Saudis and Eqyptians (though not their current governments) are bigger threats. The royal family of Qatar, where the new large US ME base is, is only second to the Saudis in al-qaeda donations. And NOKOR is a vastly greater regional threat than Iraq could ever be painted to be.
As explicitly stated by those behind it (wolfowitz and his followers specifically), the goal is American influence in the Arab world. These men have stated it day after day in every major news source in the past few years, not to mention the fact that Wolfowitz has been shouting about it since the late 70s. We know from history that our attempts to influence political situation in foreign countries, and culturally foreign ones in particular, never ends up the way we wanted it to. I'm not even sure that the US can point to a single incident where it has worked. And it will not in this case.
As such, what is best for our national interest is to work with the international community through the UN and other organizations to create global systems of international cooperation. There will never be an end to conflict, but systems can be created to minimize the negative impact of those with motivated by ill-will, and a cooperative effort is vastly more effective.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
Comments
Well now you know what has been going on since Ronnie Reagan and his cronies have been in office. They want to use military power to sway countries such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Afganistan into democratic nations.
Turn them into USA #1!
God Bless 'em
I'm done, continue... <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
<strong>It is far more realistic the believe that within 100 years, the US will be eclipsed by nations like china or india, or even a more militarized EU. In fact, this could happen within 50 years or less</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd give it 10.
<strong>You watched Frontline, didn't you...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I didn't. Did they recently run a piece presenting something like this? I sure hope so.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<a href="http://lists.elistx.com/archives/interesting-people/200302/msg00186.html"; target="_blank">http://lists.elistx.com/archives/interesting-people/200302/msg00186.html</a>;
It's what the optimist in me has been hoping, but I still think it's a bad idea, and with all the TAI/PATRIOT Act/homeland security stuff I'm not sure I'm convinced that everyone's singing the same song.
<strong>No, I didn't. Did they recently run a piece presenting something like this? I sure hope so.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
On my PBS station last night they had
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/dirtybomb/"; target="_blank">NOVA: Dirty Bomb</a> and <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/"; target="_blank">Frontline: The War Behind Closed Doors</a> back to back...took a while to get to sleep last night. Frontline was a revelation and a frightening look at the past 20 years. It's Paul Wolfowitz that scares the sh!t out of me. It's always the silent types... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[quote]That case is unfortunately stronger, in the light of history, than the proposition that nations will coexist peacefully if we all try really, really hard to be nice to each other.
<hr></blockquote>
This shows the author has not realistically comtemplated alternative options. He is trying to brush off an entire range of possibilities without specifically addressing them, and hoping that no one notices.
I am not saying that we need to try to 'be nice,' and it is inaccurate to characterize a cooperative strategy as such. The United States were able to pull together; the EU is working on it. And this is just the tip of the iceburg.
What that author is advocating is peace through "unequivocal domination by a single ruthless power." (his words)
Need I say more? What kind of peace is oppressive peace? Peace through oppression is only apparent peace. Would you support it if you were the one being fed to the lion? Would you say you were living in peace if you had soldiers executing your community simply because it deviates from the ideology being used to control? American's aren't even free under this type of regime, and we are seeing the beginning of it with the Patriot Act.
The world is also dramatically more connected than every before, a fact that has not fully entered the world consciousness. Look how many different continents we are from here on AI! And we are non-chalantly talking in almost real-time. Imagine anything like that 50 years ago!
The posibilities are endless. The world is getting smaller and smaller by the day. Our global neighbors are getting closer and closer, and it is simply not realistic to ignore it.
Technology also allows other nations to pose greater threats. China WILL become a major superpower (so long as the government doesn't seriously screw up). So global domination is not a possibility.
The dominating force should be a cooperative one. I think it is inevidable that it will be as the population increases and technology advances. I just fear that many people will die before we realize it.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
What that author is advocating is peace through "unequivocal domination by a single ruthless power." (his words)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The author (founder of the EFF and ex-Grateful Dead member) is not advocating it, he is using his personal knowledge of the Vice-President to guess what he, and therefore the administration he runs, is thinking/doing.
Which makes the whole idea much scarier.
edit: It seems to *me* that they are running with a game plan that was written pre-9/11 and therefore takes little or no account of the possibility of large scale terrorism.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
The author (founder of the EFF and ex-Grateful Dead member) is not advocating it, he is using his personal knowledge of the Vice-President to guess what he, and therefore the administration he runs, is thinking/doing.
Which makes the whole idea much scarier.
<hr></blockquote>
Wolfowitz is as much if not more of a driving force behind the Iraq plan, with Rumsfeld right behind him. But Cheney made the decision.
The reason I say Barlow is advocating is this line which introduces the whole thing:
[quote]Subsequent events raised the possibility that he might not have been so wrong after all.<hr></blockquote>
(he repeats this statement at the end)
and the fact that he tries to brush off the plethora of less militaristic alternatives without addressing them.
He seems to be writing the article with guilty support, knowing that it is wrong, but still backing it in his head. But my response was less of my take on his motives than it was a response to some points he raised.
Just so you know where I'm coming from. I'm not saying you are wrong. It's just my reading of it. I could be completely wrong about his motives. I could have been misreading the parts about how he feels.
I think the article is extremely insightful. I also suspect his take on Cheney is spot-on.
[quote]
edit: It seems to *me* that they are running with a game plan that was written pre-9/11 and therefore takes little or no account of the possibility of large scale terrorism.
<hr></blockquote>
And here's all the proof you need to solidify that notion:
<a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf"; target="_blank">Rebuilding America's Defenses.</a>
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>I don't think it does boil down to perception of the US's future. Rather I think it boils down to perception of the UN as effective or not. Those that still believe in the UN want to give the "process" more time. Others have given up on the UN's ability to have a real effect on the world in these areas. Outside the UN there is no chance for "inspectors" to "disarm" Iraq. The only solution that's not been tried is war.</strong><hr></blockquote>So, in effect, you want to go to war to prove the UN's effectiveness, even though it is against the wishes of the UN?!?!
and isn't that a stupid arse reason to go to war?!?!
<strong>So, in effect, you want to go to war to prove the UN's effectiveness, even though it is against the wishes of the UN?!?!
and isn't that a stupid arse reason to go to war?!?!</strong><hr></blockquote>
No you got the wrong idea. The war is not about the UN. It's about disarming Iraq and "getting" Saddam. The people who are for the war are disillusioned with the UN's ineffectiveness. The UN's ineffectiveness is self evident.
It's just and idea. Not any worse than giants and more plausible.
<strong>
No you got the wrong idea. The war is not about the UN. It's about disarming Iraq and "getting" Saddam. The people who are for the war are disillusioned with the UN's ineffectiveness. The UN's ineffectiveness is self evident.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That would be assuming that the admin is not implementing a strategy with at least the next 20 years in mind. Anyone that backs the immediate 'disarm Iraq' justification shows that they not only know nothing about policy creation, but also that they have not read any of the reports and documents put out by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz or Freith for the past 15 years.
It also demonstrates that the advocate has not read a single one of the 100s of interviews these people have given to publications like the New Yorker, The Atlantic and The Economist. Hell, even the Atlantic posts full unedited transcripts of some of their interviews online. But it's not surprising that these don't get read by a lot of people. The articles are long and require actual reading.
It especially amazes me that psuedo-academics ignore this since those interviews are conducted by the Admin with academia and intellectuals as the direct audience. They actually address a lot of questions that are raised by people that aren't addicted to Fox, where you can see the dumbed-down propaganda aimed at sound-byten simpletons. Of course, as we can see here on AI, those simpletons don't mind demonstrating that they are a member of that group by regurgitating the three sentence news blips.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
That would be assuming that the admin is not implementing a strategy with at least the next 20 years in mind.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some of have read Wolfowitz et al and are scared sihtless about the future of this planet.
Pity poor Palestine (for example), because all you're going to see is lip service. Current policy on ending the intifada: bomb Iraq. You see ... no Saddam means no support to Palestinian militants. Problem solved. These guys must, they MUST be on drugs. And when Saddam's gone, no more desire to sort out Israel.
Not to take this thread back to Israel (like most of them) but it's a good way of showing, in a small detail, how the world view of the mob that wrote the 'Bush doctrine' makes them talk fücking bollocks.
edit: ironic mistake
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Harald ]</p>
<strong>
That would be assuming that the admin is not implementing a strategy with at least the next 20 years in mind. Anyone that backs the immediate 'disarm Iraq' justification shows that they not only know nothing about policy creation, but also that they have not read any of the reports and documents put out by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz or Freith for the past 15 years.
It also demonstrates that the advocate has not read a single one of the 100s of interviews these people have given to publications like the New Yorker, The Atlantic and The Economist. Hell, even the Atlantic posts full unedited transcripts of some of their interviews online. But it's not surprising that these don't get read by a lot of people. The articles are long and require actual reading.
It especially amazes me that psuedo-academics ignore this since those interviews are conducted by the Admin with academia and intellectuals as the direct audience. They actually address a lot of questions that are raised by people that aren't addicted to Fox, where you can see the dumbed-down propaganda aimed at sound-byten simpletons. Of course, as we can see here on AI, those simpletons don't mind demonstrating that they are a member of that group by regurgitating the three sentence news blips.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whatever
<strong>The war is not about the UN. It's about disarming Iraq and "getting" Saddam. The people who are for the war are disillusioned with the UN's ineffectiveness. The UN's ineffectiveness is self evident.</strong><hr></blockquote>People like Bush you mean? He seems very interested in the UN for a guy who is supposedly disillusioned with it.
<strong>They actually address a lot of questions that are raised by people that aren't addicted to Fox, where you can see the dumbed-down propaganda aimed at sound-byten simpletons</strong><hr></blockquote>Fox's coverage lately has been very interesting. First, they are virtually nonstop about Iraq, much more so than the other 24-hour news networks.
Second, it's interesting to see who they have advocating an anti-war position. They interview moron protestors who don't know anything (as if all the supporters of the war in the US are foreign policy experts) and then they bring celebrities on to debate people like O'Reilly about the Iraq. They had Janeane (sp?) Garofalo on last week and last night they had on the Smothers Brothers. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Great way to be fair and balanced in the war debate.
<strong>People like Bush you mean? He seems very interested in the UN for a guy who is supposedly disillusioned with it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Very true. In fact, Clinton stated that Bush's 'antennae' are much sharper than the whole 'Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz' wing and added that he was sure that it was Bush in particular that has been forcing the UN path.
So it beginning to look like Scott is anti-Bush by being anti-UN. How unpatriotic.
I see this as highly possible, but it's more than clear that Bush doesn't fully understand the importance of real international support.
General Peak puts it well in <a href="http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=57303"; target="_blank">this article.</a>
[quote]“I pray that America will last another thousand years, and during all of that time we’re a pre-eminent power,” says McPeak. “To do that, you have to understand the world in a more sophisticated way. You make your friends many and your enemies few.”<hr></blockquote>
An amusing example of lack of sophistication:
[quote]Guarding the Washington Monument with Stinger missiles, McPeak says, is “amateur hour.”<hr></blockquote>
<strong>
No you got the wrong idea. The war is not about the UN. It's about disarming Iraq and "getting" Saddam. The people who are for the war are disillusioned with the UN's ineffectiveness. The UN's ineffectiveness is self evident.
It's just and idea. Not any worse than giants and more plausible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why is this soooooo important right now with so many other countries just as bad or worse out there? hmmmmm?
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
Why is this soooooo important right now with so many other countries just as bad or worse out there? hmmmmm?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well one is because Iraq has existing resolutions against them. For 10 years and 17-18 resolutions Iraq has been asked to comply and they have not.
<strong>
Well one is because Iraq has existing resolutions against them. For 10 years and 17-18 resolutions Iraq has been asked to comply and they have not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good job at not answering the question.