I'm not so sure we can predict what's going on Powell's head. Maybe bureaucratic stagnation was his goal rather than a war with Iraq? He is portrayed as a moderate in the Frontline episode, which I could take to mean that his goal isn't an overthrow of Saddam Hussein, but containment or mitigation as seen with inspections or other means not necessarily military. Assuming that Wolfowitz and Powell have the same goal, the military overthrow of Iraq, and therefore he loses stature is presumptive.
Why not discuss the Wolfowitz doctrine? It is an idealist doctrine, one that essentially says that we want world domination, er, lone superpower status, and a democratic Middle East, through the use of military power and prevention of certain countries from gaining certain status. The hard part, the actual democratization is left to magic and rhetorical explanations. Any such policy will inevitably lead to a situation of the USA being against the World, including the USA being against its own allies. The worst part, an attack first policy, goes against all that we've been taught about being just, and simply does not feel right.
It is a position that is untenable in the long run with a couple of historical analogues: the Roman Empire and the British Empire. Both strove to make the world Roman or British, yet finally fell due to overreach. The USA will have the same problem as it commits itself to this doctrine. Without any allies, it would never get started, which will at least necessitate a coalition of democratic powers including Japan, India, Germany, Britain and France to provide logistics support, manpower, and funding. Not to mention that nary a thought has be considered towards paying for such a doctrine for years on end.
The Frontline episode did leave one side out of the equation, the political one. There were neocon realists, old guard conservatives, but where were the politicians? Powell is a lonely figure there, but Bush has gone with him most of the time, and I think that Rove pushed him that way because his political capital can only take so much damage without at least looking like they were going through a reasonable process of getting this done. American people want UN support, Bush went with what the polls (Rove) said.
The Roman and British empires fell because they were colonial. They oppressed the native people and installed their own governments that answered directly to the crown.
It is a huge difference. I do not think the US's goal is world domination, that is an out-moded idea.
The Wolfowitz doctrine assumes that democracies don't fight wars. The problem with it is, aside from the point about being a little too dependent on military means of democrasizing word?) the world, is how to transition those governments in to a democratic process, or rather how to teach others to place their new constitutional principles of self-determination above anyone who takes power -- checks and balances. It itself lacks checks and balances for the US, either internally or externally (the UN, the people who've just been liberated, etc.). The Wolfowitz doctrine could be very altruistic if it just gave more emphasis and responsibility to others' self-determination after its immediate agenda of preventing US threats is covered. In ther words, it has to think a few more steps ahead. It's a document about a process, less definite about goals or any "endgame" strategies. It seems to assume a certain intertia of shifting threats, but pays little attention to what is left in its wake once those threats shift.
Democratisation in Middle East nations is only acceptable to United States governments if the policy decisions of the peoples/governments of those nations are in line with that of the US. For example, when the democratically elected Mossadegh of Iran decided to nationalize the oil industry in the 1950s, he got overthrown in a CIA sponsored coup.
Working democracies are too unwieldy and unpredictable because their policies include the input of the people (who?). If the people (of Iraq) take some charge, which might bring into the equation concepts (alien to the current Bush admin) such as human rights, social contracts or environmentally conscious policies, look out for yet another war or a coup.
Dictatorships are far more manageable and we have a long record of supporting them, even subsituting elected governments for them. It is far easier dealing with one guy and his henchmen instead of a parliament or a congress of peoples' representatives. Saddam Hussein is a dictator and former friend of the US who ran afoul of the program. When he is killed in the war, or resigns, or whatever, he will be replaced by yet another brute, but more US friendly and malleable. The talk of "democratization in Iraq" is propaganda designed to make the Bush Admin. appear 'people friendly'. It will never, ever happen so long as folks like Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rove are in control here.
The Roman and British empires fell because they were colonial. They oppressed the native people and installed their own governments that answered directly to the crown.
It is a huge difference.</strong>
I'd agree that there is some difference, with the USA leaving said country alone after making harmless. So, would you say the difference, between Iraq and say Roman occupied England or the American colonies, essentially hinges on whether the Iraqis sees us as liberators or oppressors? Your other condition will have the USA installing a gov't of their making on the Iraqi people that answers directly to the American gov't, which is essentially your 2nd point.
What other countries will come into play after Iraq? Iran and South Korea? Saudi Arabia or Syria? Egypt? Sudan? How many countries will come into play? If there is more than Iraq and Afghanistan, the USA will be stretching itself awfully thin for no productive purpose.
<strong>I do not think the US's goal is world domination, that is an out-moded idea.</strong>
Wolfowitz's goal is the protection of our lone superpower status, is it not? It's not world domination, but he's beginning to cross the line with ideas of prevention and preemption. Bush himself has said the USA will always have a military advantage over any nation in the world, and will act to prevent rogue nations from endangering our security (which is the Wolfowitz doctrine).
The Wolfowitz doctrine assumes that democracies don't fight wars.</strong>
A decent assumption, but it isn't necessarily true. Wars and conflicts are over resources and land. Two democracies can easily be conflicted over such things or even be culturally conflicted.
<strong>The Wolfowitz doctrine could be very altruistic if it just gave more emphasis and responsibility to others' self-determination after its immediate agenda of preventing US threats is covered. In ther words, it has to think a few more steps ahead.</strong>
The problem with it is the US threat is a rather amorphous designation. There is no nation that threatens the USA outside of Russia (lots of ICBMs and transoceanic troop transport capability) and China (tens of ICBMs). None other militarily and none economically. Iraq doesn't even come close, yet here were are in the midst of changing it. What is one to think?
<strong>It's a document about a process, less definite about goals or any "endgame" strategies.</strong>
The process is a bit too imperial, especially when Iraq is considered a test case. With Iraq, an overthrow of the gov't is seen as necessary, when I think it can be debated. The essence of democracy is dependent on an economically empowered people. One way to begin a democratization is to lift the sanctions in Iraq, and only deal with Iraqi individuals and citizens without interference from the gov't. If there is hint of interference with the government, the business stops. This way, the Iraqis will want to change, will have learned how to do business, and if necessary, overthrow the gov't themselves.
<strong>It seems to assume a certain intertia of shifting threats, but pays little attention to what is left in its wake once those threats shift.</strong>
It doesn't specify what a threat is and what to do with it.
<strong>This way, the Iraqis will want to change, will have learned how to do business, and if necessary, overthrow the gov't themselves.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This part floors me. Do you really think it is within the capability of the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam? My opinion has always been "no", but I respect your sensibilities on a lot of stuff, so maybe you have some innovative thoughts to offer here?
This part floors me. Do you really think it is within the capability of the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam? My opinion has always been "no", but I respect your sensibilities on a lot of stuff, so maybe you have some innovative thoughts to offer here?
</strong>
I don't know about innovative, but my point is that we want to be liberators, not oppressors. In order to do so, Iraqis have to want it, they have to know about what it means to be businesspeople and capitalists. Democracies won't work if the people don't understand that. They have to feel that they are oppressed, and I'm not sure that's the way they truly feel.
In lifting sanctions and only doing business with Iraqi citizens and private Iraqi business, we are giving the Iraqi people the means to want to be liberated and to want to be self-governed. Hussein is playing the Machiavellian script pretty closely, and he knows that economically empowering Iraqi citizens will be a danger his power. If he allows it, it's good. If he doesn't, well, the Iraqi people have some good reasons to feel oppressed, and welcome some indiscriminate war damage to get themselves free.
As far as being able to overthrow the Hussein, it all depends on the army. They can't do it now, obviously. But if they are economically empowered, the loyalties of the army can change.
<strong>[qb]<snip replies to my post></strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. I agree. It's flawed because of some rather self-centered and hence myopic assumptions. It's blind to alternate lines of thought. It's hard to control the other end of things.
<strong>Democracies won't work if the people don't understand that. They have to feel that they are oppressed, and I'm not sure that's the way they truly feel.</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK, I can see where you are coming from, and it makes sense (given a period of time). However, the part about your not sure if they truly feel oppressed, I'm not sure about. Wouldn't you think they know pretty well about oppression when they are left starving and dying of sickness, but they fear speaking out against the regime for fear of being tortured, killed, and loved ones killed as well to make a point? Is it really not like that over there, or have we been fed a much bleaker picture of what it is like over there? Also, if they don't feel oppressed, why do they not overthrow him now?
Demonstrating to them the meaning of making a democratic buck is an interesting notion, as well, but how do you do that without Saddam stepping in the way? If you have to go through Saddam to do business, aren't you coming uncomfortably close to the sort of business activities that France, Germany, and Russia are currently involved in? I don't see that as a way to help the Iraqis more than ensuring Saddam's regime prevails.
THT I'm not sure why you think Wolfowitz's policy is one to assure that the US is the sole super power. It would seem that if there were a benevolent superpower in the world the US would have no beef with them and thus take no action against them.
It's disappointing that they skipped over some of the preemptive action Clinton took. It seems to be part of the evolving policy. Some fault Clinton for not taking advantage of the end of the cold war to reinvent US policy.
THT I'm not sure why you think Wolfowitz's policy is one to assure that the US is the sole super power. It would seem that if there were a benevolent superpower in the world the US would have no beef with them and thus take no action against them.</strong>
My comments stem from the comments in Chapter 1 at approximately 11:00 minutes then over the next 3 minutes or so. The commentators said the doctrine:
1. Would preemtively prevent the use of chemical, biology or nuclear weapons in any state, including states that are not engaged with the USA.
2. Was a doctrine of American hegemeny, that the USA would seek to maintain the position it had coming out of the cold war with and to make sure that there would not be any plausible challengers to the USA.
A benevolent superpower outside of the USA? I don't think neocons would appreciate that one bit. I'm not even sure I would appreciate that. Look at Japan in the 1980s. There was potential there, and the world would be so different if Japan continued to rise. So different, that I can't imagine an opinion right now.
<strong>It's disappointing that they skipped over some of the preemptive action Clinton took. It seems to be part of the evolving policy. Some fault Clinton for not taking advantage of the end of the cold war to reinvent US policy.</strong>
Insofar as Iraq, Clinton lost all his political capital by letting Monica Lewinsky earn her Presidential knee pads. That was truly a major frell-up of titanic proportions because it limited the USA in initiating any overarching Iraq and al queda action at the time.
But for American policy, there doesn't really need to be a grand policy except for just being honest with the principles we promote, and building a policy around them.
THT (whom I am once again glad to see re-activated):
[quote]<strong>I don't know about innovative, but my point is that we want to be liberators, not oppressors. In order to do so, Iraqis have to want it, they have to know about what it means to be businesspeople and capitalists. Democracies won't work if the people don't understand that. They have to feel that they are oppressed, and I'm not sure that's the way they truly feel.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have nothing but anecdotal evidence to back my feeling that Iraq can and will handle it just fine. They were a democratic system before Saddam and even now they have the pretense. They were, you'll recall, the "model" Middle Eastern nation at one point with regard to education and economy.
I feel there is great hope for Iraq where there is not so much for, say, Afghanistan. They have a wonderful commodity to base a strong economy off (the bubblin' crude) and a history of education. I think they will make out wonderfully. They could be a very strong nation economically and politically. A very strong ally, absolutely.
(All in my limited knowledge and opinion.)
[quote]<strong>In lifting sanctions and only doing business with Iraqi citizens and private Iraqi business, we are giving the Iraqi people the means to want to be liberated and to want to be self-governed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't have confidence that this is truly possible. Hussein is too good at this political game, he is a master at controlling and staying in power, I'd say without rival in recent memory.
[quote]<strong>But if they are economically empowered, the loyalties of the army can change.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think it will come faster than you think. I will use the Persian Gulf War as a backing when I say that when we decide to go in the Iraqi army will find many of their men surrending quickly.
If we truly aim to bring peace and democracy to Iraq, I think we will be successful.
As far as I know the goal is the removal of Hussein and the proscribed arms. I cannot see how this would be bad for the Iraqi people if measures are taken to maintain the regional instability that would result.
Insofar as Iraq, Clinton lost all his political capital by letting Monica Lewinsky earn her Presidential knee pads. That was truly a major frell-up of titanic proportions because it limited the USA in initiating any overarching Iraq and al queda action at the time.
But for American policy, there doesn't really need to be a grand policy except for just being honest with the principles we promote, and building a policy around them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Forgetting Iraq for the moment Clinton acted preemptively against terrorists in Sudan and Afghanistan. In the end his major failing was that he hit nothing. Had he not told Pakistan about the cruse missiles Ossama may well have been killed years ago. Also it goes toward the US policy on not making a distinction between terrorists and the governments that protect them. Much of Bush's policy today is based on US frustration with ineffective policies from the past. But the PBS spin is that Wolfowitz is only basking in the glory of US power rather than acting on the failures of the past.
I have nothing but anecdotal evidence to back my feeling that Iraq can and will handle it just fine. They were a democratic system before Saddam and even now they have the pretense. They were, you'll recall, the "model" Middle Eastern nation at one point with regard to education and economy.</strong>
Urm, my recollecation is a touch different. What time period are you talking about?
A brief scan of Iraq's history shows a pro-Western monarchy post-WW1 to the 1950s. Then the chaos began with revolution and military coups until the rise of the Baath Party in 1968. During all this time, the power structure in Iraq was similar to other Middle Eastern nations with an elite super-rich ruling class and a super-poor peasantry. All of the oil money in the entire region goes to this super-rich ruling class, prior to that, it was the same with the monarchies. I don't think there has been true rule of the people or true capitalism in any Middle Eastern nation in the 20th century.
It's like nothing changed since the Ottoman empire, only different lines have been drawn, and the ruling families are still around, mainly because those ruling families were given kingdoms (Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey, etc.) by Britain and France post-WWI.
<strong>I don't have confidence that this is truly possible. Hussein is too good at this political game, he is a master at controlling and staying in power, I'd say without rival in recent memory.</strong>
Yes, he won't allow his power to be endangered. But we are playing Hussein's game against him and turning the populace against him. Sanctions as they are now play into Hussein's hand. Lifting the sanctions and doing business with certain conditions can play into our hand. A large fraction of Iraqi people have to learn how to manage, and they aren't going to do it without learning a bit about business. So it has to be done one way or the other. I think it's better to do it before the violent revolution.
That Hussein won't allow something benificial to Iraqis will only make them feel they are being oppressed by the Hussein, not the USA. It's the old Machiavelli standby, people sooner forget the death of their fathers instead of their inheritance. Being able to have money and make money is important, and I'm not talking about the rich ruling class either.
<strong>I think it will come faster than you think. I will use the Persian Gulf War as a backing when I say that when we decide to go in the Iraqi army will find many of their men surrending quickly.</strong>
Yeah, sure. I think a US lead war would be over quickly. Maybe a couple of weeks. But if the Iraqis do it themselves by getting the loyalties of the Army on their side, it'll be better than the US coming in.
The important thing is what comes after, and I think the Iraqis aren't ready. The power structure will still be an elite super-rich ruling class and the rest below the poverty line. There's a good possibly of a resistence movement with bombings and all. If I were in charge, I don't think I'd allow a nationalist government at all until regional power is democratized. It may have to start even smaller than that. Land ownership may have to be revoked and reallocated. It's going to be a bloody mess.
Forgetting Iraq for the moment Clinton acted preemptively against terrorists in Sudan and Afghanistan.</strong>
As I recall, the cruise missile attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan were in response to the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. I don't think it was preemptive, stupid maybe, but not preemptive.
The Sudan bombing was a mistake. The Afghanistan bombing was a good try, but as you say, Clinton didn't realize that Pakistani Security Services was infiltrated by Taliban and al Queda friendly people. And as I recall, I don't think Musharruf made has coup yet at that time.
<strong>Also it goes toward the US policy on not making a distinction between terrorists and the governments that protect them. Much of Bush's policy today is based on US frustration with ineffective policies from the past. But the PBS spin is that Wolfowitz is only basking in the glory of US power rather than acting on the failures of the past.</strong>
I think there are two different policies here: the police action against al Queda and Wolfowitz's doctrine. Iraq is a test case for Wolfowitz's doctrine. I really don't think terrorism entered Wolfowitz's mind when he formulated the doctrine since it is mainly geared towards nation states. The doctrine itself isn't even remotely mature. I really doubt that the hawks have thought about any realistic protocols or situations that truly constitute a danger to the USA in order to employ the doctrine.
Comments
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]</p>
<strong>So is subjecting yourself to a continent historically known for bickering and horrible wars.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's true pretty much anywhere, isn't it?
Why not discuss the Wolfowitz doctrine? It is an idealist doctrine, one that essentially says that we want world domination, er, lone superpower status, and a democratic Middle East, through the use of military power and prevention of certain countries from gaining certain status. The hard part, the actual democratization is left to magic and rhetorical explanations. Any such policy will inevitably lead to a situation of the USA being against the World, including the USA being against its own allies. The worst part, an attack first policy, goes against all that we've been taught about being just, and simply does not feel right.
It is a position that is untenable in the long run with a couple of historical analogues: the Roman Empire and the British Empire. Both strove to make the world Roman or British, yet finally fell due to overreach. The USA will have the same problem as it commits itself to this doctrine. Without any allies, it would never get started, which will at least necessitate a coalition of democratic powers including Japan, India, Germany, Britain and France to provide logistics support, manpower, and funding. Not to mention that nary a thought has be considered towards paying for such a doctrine for years on end.
The Frontline episode did leave one side out of the equation, the political one. There were neocon realists, old guard conservatives, but where were the politicians? Powell is a lonely figure there, but Bush has gone with him most of the time, and I think that Rove pushed him that way because his political capital can only take so much damage without at least looking like they were going through a reasonable process of getting this done. American people want UN support, Bush went with what the polls (Rove) said.
It is a huge difference. I do not think the US's goal is world domination, that is an out-moded idea.
Working democracies are too unwieldy and unpredictable because their policies include the input of the people (who?). If the people (of Iraq) take some charge, which might bring into the equation concepts (alien to the current Bush admin) such as human rights, social contracts or environmentally conscious policies, look out for yet another war or a coup.
Dictatorships are far more manageable and we have a long record of supporting them, even subsituting elected governments for them. It is far easier dealing with one guy and his henchmen instead of a parliament or a congress of peoples' representatives. Saddam Hussein is a dictator and former friend of the US who ran afoul of the program. When he is killed in the war, or resigns, or whatever, he will be replaced by yet another brute, but more US friendly and malleable. The talk of "democratization in Iraq" is propaganda designed to make the Bush Admin. appear 'people friendly'. It will never, ever happen so long as folks like Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rove are in control here.
The Roman and British empires fell because they were colonial. They oppressed the native people and installed their own governments that answered directly to the crown.
It is a huge difference.</strong>
I'd agree that there is some difference, with the USA leaving said country alone after making harmless. So, would you say the difference, between Iraq and say Roman occupied England or the American colonies, essentially hinges on whether the Iraqis sees us as liberators or oppressors? Your other condition will have the USA installing a gov't of their making on the Iraqi people that answers directly to the American gov't, which is essentially your 2nd point.
What other countries will come into play after Iraq? Iran and South Korea? Saudi Arabia or Syria? Egypt? Sudan? How many countries will come into play? If there is more than Iraq and Afghanistan, the USA will be stretching itself awfully thin for no productive purpose.
<strong>I do not think the US's goal is world domination, that is an out-moded idea.</strong>
Wolfowitz's goal is the protection of our lone superpower status, is it not? It's not world domination, but he's beginning to cross the line with ideas of prevention and preemption. Bush himself has said the USA will always have a military advantage over any nation in the world, and will act to prevent rogue nations from endangering our security (which is the Wolfowitz doctrine).
The Wolfowitz doctrine assumes that democracies don't fight wars.</strong>
A decent assumption, but it isn't necessarily true. Wars and conflicts are over resources and land. Two democracies can easily be conflicted over such things or even be culturally conflicted.
<strong>The Wolfowitz doctrine could be very altruistic if it just gave more emphasis and responsibility to others' self-determination after its immediate agenda of preventing US threats is covered. In ther words, it has to think a few more steps ahead.</strong>
The problem with it is the US threat is a rather amorphous designation. There is no nation that threatens the USA outside of Russia (lots of ICBMs and transoceanic troop transport capability) and China (tens of ICBMs). None other militarily and none economically. Iraq doesn't even come close, yet here were are in the midst of changing it. What is one to think?
<strong>It's a document about a process, less definite about goals or any "endgame" strategies.</strong>
The process is a bit too imperial, especially when Iraq is considered a test case. With Iraq, an overthrow of the gov't is seen as necessary, when I think it can be debated. The essence of democracy is dependent on an economically empowered people. One way to begin a democratization is to lift the sanctions in Iraq, and only deal with Iraqi individuals and citizens without interference from the gov't. If there is hint of interference with the government, the business stops. This way, the Iraqis will want to change, will have learned how to do business, and if necessary, overthrow the gov't themselves.
<strong>It seems to assume a certain intertia of shifting threats, but pays little attention to what is left in its wake once those threats shift.</strong>
It doesn't specify what a threat is and what to do with it.
<strong>This way, the Iraqis will want to change, will have learned how to do business, and if necessary, overthrow the gov't themselves.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This part floors me. Do you really think it is within the capability of the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam? My opinion has always been "no", but I respect your sensibilities on a lot of stuff, so maybe you have some innovative thoughts to offer here?
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
This part floors me. Do you really think it is within the capability of the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam? My opinion has always been "no", but I respect your sensibilities on a lot of stuff, so maybe you have some innovative thoughts to offer here?
</strong>
I don't know about innovative, but my point is that we want to be liberators, not oppressors. In order to do so, Iraqis have to want it, they have to know about what it means to be businesspeople and capitalists. Democracies won't work if the people don't understand that. They have to feel that they are oppressed, and I'm not sure that's the way they truly feel.
In lifting sanctions and only doing business with Iraqi citizens and private Iraqi business, we are giving the Iraqi people the means to want to be liberated and to want to be self-governed. Hussein is playing the Machiavellian script pretty closely, and he knows that economically empowering Iraqi citizens will be a danger his power. If he allows it, it's good. If he doesn't, well, the Iraqi people have some good reasons to feel oppressed, and welcome some indiscriminate war damage to get themselves free.
As far as being able to overthrow the Hussein, it all depends on the army. They can't do it now, obviously. But if they are economically empowered, the loyalties of the army can change.
<strong>[qb]<snip replies to my post></strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. I agree. It's flawed because of some rather self-centered and hence myopic assumptions. It's blind to alternate lines of thought. It's hard to control the other end of things.
<strong>Democracies won't work if the people don't understand that. They have to feel that they are oppressed, and I'm not sure that's the way they truly feel.</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK, I can see where you are coming from, and it makes sense (given a period of time). However, the part about your not sure if they truly feel oppressed, I'm not sure about. Wouldn't you think they know pretty well about oppression when they are left starving and dying of sickness, but they fear speaking out against the regime for fear of being tortured, killed, and loved ones killed as well to make a point? Is it really not like that over there, or have we been fed a much bleaker picture of what it is like over there? Also, if they don't feel oppressed, why do they not overthrow him now?
Demonstrating to them the meaning of making a democratic buck is an interesting notion, as well, but how do you do that without Saddam stepping in the way? If you have to go through Saddam to do business, aren't you coming uncomfortably close to the sort of business activities that France, Germany, and Russia are currently involved in? I don't see that as a way to help the Iraqis more than ensuring Saddam's regime prevails.
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
It's disappointing that they skipped over some of the preemptive action Clinton took. It seems to be part of the evolving policy. Some fault Clinton for not taking advantage of the end of the cold war to reinvent US policy.
Good watching though.
THT I'm not sure why you think Wolfowitz's policy is one to assure that the US is the sole super power. It would seem that if there were a benevolent superpower in the world the US would have no beef with them and thus take no action against them.</strong>
My comments stem from the comments in Chapter 1 at approximately 11:00 minutes then over the next 3 minutes or so. The commentators said the doctrine:
1. Would preemtively prevent the use of chemical, biology or nuclear weapons in any state, including states that are not engaged with the USA.
2. Was a doctrine of American hegemeny, that the USA would seek to maintain the position it had coming out of the cold war with and to make sure that there would not be any plausible challengers to the USA.
A benevolent superpower outside of the USA? I don't think neocons would appreciate that one bit. I'm not even sure I would appreciate that. Look at Japan in the 1980s. There was potential there, and the world would be so different if Japan continued to rise. So different, that I can't imagine an opinion right now.
<strong>It's disappointing that they skipped over some of the preemptive action Clinton took. It seems to be part of the evolving policy. Some fault Clinton for not taking advantage of the end of the cold war to reinvent US policy.</strong>
Insofar as Iraq, Clinton lost all his political capital by letting Monica Lewinsky earn her Presidential knee pads. That was truly a major frell-up of titanic proportions because it limited the USA in initiating any overarching Iraq and al queda action at the time.
But for American policy, there doesn't really need to be a grand policy except for just being honest with the principles we promote, and building a policy around them.
[quote]<strong>I don't know about innovative, but my point is that we want to be liberators, not oppressors. In order to do so, Iraqis have to want it, they have to know about what it means to be businesspeople and capitalists. Democracies won't work if the people don't understand that. They have to feel that they are oppressed, and I'm not sure that's the way they truly feel.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have nothing but anecdotal evidence to back my feeling that Iraq can and will handle it just fine. They were a democratic system before Saddam and even now they have the pretense. They were, you'll recall, the "model" Middle Eastern nation at one point with regard to education and economy.
I feel there is great hope for Iraq where there is not so much for, say, Afghanistan. They have a wonderful commodity to base a strong economy off (the bubblin' crude) and a history of education. I think they will make out wonderfully. They could be a very strong nation economically and politically. A very strong ally, absolutely.
(All in my limited knowledge and opinion.)
[quote]<strong>In lifting sanctions and only doing business with Iraqi citizens and private Iraqi business, we are giving the Iraqi people the means to want to be liberated and to want to be self-governed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't have confidence that this is truly possible. Hussein is too good at this political game, he is a master at controlling and staying in power, I'd say without rival in recent memory.
[quote]<strong>But if they are economically empowered, the loyalties of the army can change.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think it will come faster than you think. I will use the Persian Gulf War as a backing when I say that when we decide to go in the Iraqi army will find many of their men surrending quickly.
If we truly aim to bring peace and democracy to Iraq, I think we will be successful.
As far as I know the goal is the removal of Hussein and the proscribed arms. I cannot see how this would be bad for the Iraqi people if measures are taken to maintain the regional instability that would result.
<strong>...
Insofar as Iraq, Clinton lost all his political capital by letting Monica Lewinsky earn her Presidential knee pads. That was truly a major frell-up of titanic proportions because it limited the USA in initiating any overarching Iraq and al queda action at the time.
But for American policy, there doesn't really need to be a grand policy except for just being honest with the principles we promote, and building a policy around them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Forgetting Iraq for the moment Clinton acted preemptively against terrorists in Sudan and Afghanistan. In the end his major failing was that he hit nothing. Had he not told Pakistan about the cruse missiles Ossama may well have been killed years ago. Also it goes toward the US policy on not making a distinction between terrorists and the governments that protect them. Much of Bush's policy today is based on US frustration with ineffective policies from the past. But the PBS spin is that Wolfowitz is only basking in the glory of US power rather than acting on the failures of the past.
I have nothing but anecdotal evidence to back my feeling that Iraq can and will handle it just fine. They were a democratic system before Saddam and even now they have the pretense. They were, you'll recall, the "model" Middle Eastern nation at one point with regard to education and economy.</strong>
Urm, my recollecation is a touch different. What time period are you talking about?
A brief scan of Iraq's history shows a pro-Western monarchy post-WW1 to the 1950s. Then the chaos began with revolution and military coups until the rise of the Baath Party in 1968. During all this time, the power structure in Iraq was similar to other Middle Eastern nations with an elite super-rich ruling class and a super-poor peasantry. All of the oil money in the entire region goes to this super-rich ruling class, prior to that, it was the same with the monarchies. I don't think there has been true rule of the people or true capitalism in any Middle Eastern nation in the 20th century.
It's like nothing changed since the Ottoman empire, only different lines have been drawn, and the ruling families are still around, mainly because those ruling families were given kingdoms (Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey, etc.) by Britain and France post-WWI.
<strong>I don't have confidence that this is truly possible. Hussein is too good at this political game, he is a master at controlling and staying in power, I'd say without rival in recent memory.</strong>
Yes, he won't allow his power to be endangered. But we are playing Hussein's game against him and turning the populace against him. Sanctions as they are now play into Hussein's hand. Lifting the sanctions and doing business with certain conditions can play into our hand. A large fraction of Iraqi people have to learn how to manage, and they aren't going to do it without learning a bit about business. So it has to be done one way or the other. I think it's better to do it before the violent revolution.
That Hussein won't allow something benificial to Iraqis will only make them feel they are being oppressed by the Hussein, not the USA. It's the old Machiavelli standby, people sooner forget the death of their fathers instead of their inheritance. Being able to have money and make money is important, and I'm not talking about the rich ruling class either.
<strong>I think it will come faster than you think. I will use the Persian Gulf War as a backing when I say that when we decide to go in the Iraqi army will find many of their men surrending quickly.</strong>
Yeah, sure. I think a US lead war would be over quickly. Maybe a couple of weeks. But if the Iraqis do it themselves by getting the loyalties of the Army on their side, it'll be better than the US coming in.
The important thing is what comes after, and I think the Iraqis aren't ready. The power structure will still be an elite super-rich ruling class and the rest below the poverty line. There's a good possibly of a resistence movement with bombings and all. If I were in charge, I don't think I'd allow a nationalist government at all until regional power is democratized. It may have to start even smaller than that. Land ownership may have to be revoked and reallocated. It's going to be a bloody mess.
Forgetting Iraq for the moment Clinton acted preemptively against terrorists in Sudan and Afghanistan.</strong>
As I recall, the cruise missile attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan were in response to the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. I don't think it was preemptive, stupid maybe, but not preemptive.
The Sudan bombing was a mistake. The Afghanistan bombing was a good try, but as you say, Clinton didn't realize that Pakistani Security Services was infiltrated by Taliban and al Queda friendly people. And as I recall, I don't think Musharruf made has coup yet at that time.
<strong>Also it goes toward the US policy on not making a distinction between terrorists and the governments that protect them. Much of Bush's policy today is based on US frustration with ineffective policies from the past. But the PBS spin is that Wolfowitz is only basking in the glory of US power rather than acting on the failures of the past.</strong>
I think there are two different policies here: the police action against al Queda and Wolfowitz's doctrine. Iraq is a test case for Wolfowitz's doctrine. I really don't think terrorism entered Wolfowitz's mind when he formulated the doctrine since it is mainly geared towards nation states. The doctrine itself isn't even remotely mature. I really doubt that the hawks have thought about any realistic protocols or situations that truly constitute a danger to the USA in order to employ the doctrine.