115 Comments

1. Terrye:

Roger:

So did I. I saw that mother fighting to control herself, clutching the medal and I thought sweet Jesus give her strength as my own eyes teared up.

I noticed the Iraqi lady show her that concern and kindness and I saw her pride as well. Her hands were shaking.

I watched Bush watch them. I have never seen such a look on a president’s face in any speech. He seemed completely focused on them.

He has aged. Maybe it was sending off young men like the fallen Marine that put those lines on his face.

As for the amendment. Forget about it, it ain’t happening. The states will deal with the issue first.

Feb 2, 2005 - 7:32 pm 2. Paul:

Jeez even I choked up for that.

Bush is on a roll, and before he’s through he just might be judged by history as one of the greatest presidents, especially if in hindsight it becomes clear he prevented WWIV from becoming a nookular nightmare, as I supect may be the case.

And yeah, it feels really good to be on the right side.

Feb 2, 2005 - 7:32 pm 3. Yehudit:

I was on the LGF open thread, and many people said they were crying.

Feb 2, 2005 - 7:33 pm 4. ajf:

…George Bush has done something never before done in human history by anyone I can think of — bring democracy to a faraway country that didn’t have it by force of his own will (because there’s no way this would have happened had he not been elected).

Make that TWO faraway countries.

Feb 2, 2005 - 7:35 pm 5. someone:

A moment like that, in a speech where he explicitly calls out Assad and the Mullahs. Wow.

This is no ordinary second term.

Feb 2, 2005 - 7:45 pm 6. jerry:

Roger:

I am slowly working my way back into the discussions after a hiatus and so I apologize for making a bit of trouble here but I have always wanted to ask you the following question:

You said: ” I am a supporter of gay marriage, so I groaned when Bush brought up “that amendment” again.”

I know you have realized that you were wrong on a many of your past national security issues. Could it be possible that you have been equally wrong on many social issues as well?

Sorry again for perhaps being a little contentious tonight.

Feb 2, 2005 - 7:50 pm 7. John Lynch:

Giving her son’s dogtags to the lady. Wow!

Feb 2, 2005 - 7:53 pm 8. John Lynch:

Roger, ten seconds on marriage amendment, ten minutes on social security. Balance of dedication to the issue?

Feb 2, 2005 - 7:56 pm 9. TedM:

Was it my imagination or did GWB hug and kiss Joe Leiberman as he exited the House?

Feb 2, 2005 - 8:00 pm 10. notthisgirl:

DH and I cried too.

I’m not 100% in step with GWB either, but I wouldn’t say that’s unusual with anyone.

One thing that has always struck me about him is that he honestly believes in what he’s doing and what he says. He actually cares; I just get that gut feeling.

President Bush is a great human.

Feb 2, 2005 - 8:03 pm 11. Stace:

As a young soldier was quoted on another blog, “I hear Damascus is nice in the spring”. Bush’s message to Assad and to the people of Iran was clear, and one result of this war in Iraq is that now everyone knows that we mean what we say, AND that, unlike in the past, we will not abandon people who are trying to be free.

A message was sent to our “friends’ Mubarak and the Saudis, too.

A very moving speech.

Feb 2, 2005 - 8:05 pm 12. Eric Deamer:

I thought Jeff Jarvis’s pithy reaction was the best I’ve seen tonight, and it exactly mirrored my own (and probably Roger’s):

: I like what he says about Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Palestine and freedom.

I do not like what he says about gay marriage, stem cells, and abortion.

I have no idea who’s right about Social Security.

: Who could not be touched by the mother of a son killed fighting for freedom hugs the daughter of a man who died for freedom in Iraq.

Please nobody clobber me on any super-specifics (like Palestine) I confess that I was simultaneously watching Project Runway. There’s more to life than speeches by politicians you know.

and jerry:

What an insulting way to phrase a question. Have you ever thought that you might have been wrong on any “social issues”, or about anything at all? I wonder.

Feb 2, 2005 - 8:06 pm 13. richard mcenroe:

And then there was Nancy *stare* Pelosi… altho I liked the bit where she swallowed the guinea pig whole live on camera…

Feb 2, 2005 - 8:07 pm 14. heather:

Congratulations, America, for your President who knows that Big Dreams are American Dreams.

Feb 2, 2005 - 8:13 pm 15. Samuel:

i wrote the following the other day(before the speech) in an e-mail exchange with Catherine Johnson…

I will predict that after Bush has left office and the weight of partisanship and political poison has somewhat dissolved he will not only be one of our more beloved ex-Presidents, he more importantly will have clout and respect in this world Clinton (either one) would die for. The day could and probably will come when it is said…

–

“Where have our leaders of principle and honor gone? Is there no leader who holds doing what is right as more important then self, a man that says what he means and means what he says, with no use for doublespeak or slight of hand, but one who carries bold straightforwardness ready to lead us to better ways and places, one who inspires the better angels within? Is their no one like George W. Bush with a heart of pure as gold but a spine of the finest steel, rigid and firm, yet with enough flex to bend without breaking? Give us a man like George W. Bush that we can trust to do what we may find difficult, yet accept because we trust him.”

–

After today’s speech I am ever more confident of George W. Bush’s greatness. Bush is more than just one of those interesting “accidents of history”. To believing people they would certainly be justified to view this as a witness that there is a God who is watching and every now and again leaves his mark through the workings of those more righteous. If there ever weas a leader in my lifetime that deserves to carry the reputation of being righteous, Bush is that leader.

Feb 2, 2005 - 8:13 pm 16. promoguy:

A tear to the eye, who wouldn’t. How moving to see the woman who was allowed to vote for the first time, hug the parents of the fallen soldier who provided that opportunity.

That my friends was moving

Feb 2, 2005 - 8:14 pm 17. Katherine:

God, I love this man. Because he is a man, and he does not to pretend to be anything else.

God definitely must be looking after the US of A.

Feb 2, 2005 - 8:19 pm 18. Sandy P:

Unfortunately, it costs a lot of money.

I agree on Amtrak, let’s see what else is in the kitty.

Marriage amendment – not going anywhere, states’ rights issue.

No more rulings from on high to divide the country like abortion.

It will happen, just not as quickly as some want.

It’ll take a couple more generations.

We will have come a long, long, long way in under 100 years.

Feb 2, 2005 - 8:21 pm 19. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Jerry,

Roger is wrong on most of his social views I suspect he probably rethinks them the way he did other views, and comes to the same conclusion as he did before.

I’m sure that we will have threads that drift into “that amendment” again. You will find that most posters (if they are the same as last time this came up) are pro-same sex marriage. I am not, one of a few social conservatives here.

It is a good question to explore with Roger and this community. But probably not this thread.

Bush is clearly a great man. Like all great men, he is confusing to study (look at Reagan), somewhat unpredictable, and doesn’t pander in the normal ways. His determination is like nothing I’ve ever seen in a president. This is the key that the left (marccooper.com – the last honest leftist) doesn’t understand: that Bush’s motives are humanitarian and pro-American, that he isn’t a corporate tool or Cheney’s puppet for stealing oil, and that he is deadly serious.

I wouldn’t want to be in Assad’s shoes, and I suspect something pretty amazing may happen shortly in Iran (which, unless we intervene, is scheduled to demonstrate ICBM capability this year by orbiting a satellite, and which I think already has nuclear warheads – Jerry, care to comment if you can? – and welcome back.)

60 Minutes Wednesday just ran an interesting story on the presence of Highly Enriched Uranium in many countries, including third world. They stated there was enough to make hundreds of nukes. The US is working to remove this.

These are left over the poorly thought out “Atoms for Peace” program (and probably Soviet equivalent). What I don’t know is if the HEU is poisoned to where it would be suitable for a reactor but not for a bomb. I believe that can be done by putting in hard-to-remove neutron sources – i.e. isotopes which have rapid neutron decay. This would cause a weapon to fission prematurely, resulting in a “fizz” instead of a “boom.”

Feb 2, 2005 - 8:31 pm 20. Rick Ballard:

The speech is all that I had hoped for and more. It was well crafted and well delivered with clearly defined objectives and parameters. The details of the necessary legislation were left to those who must craft and pass the bills. Syria and Iran were given a clear warning and I trust that the consequences of their failure to heed that warning will be just as clear.

The embrace of Mrs. Norwood and Ms. al-Suhail was as touching a moment as I have seen and tears were the only appropriate response. We’ve miles to go but we have the right leader for the journey. This was a truly inspirational speech.

Feb 2, 2005 - 8:31 pm 21. Brian Foster:

And, be assured, you’ll find a difference,

As we his subjects have in wonder found,

Between the promise of his greener days

And these he masters now:

Although he’d balk at the ’subjects’ bit, overall it seemed to me to fit the circumstances.

Feb 2, 2005 - 8:32 pm 22. Rick Ballard:

Btw-

Did anyone else note the “cut 150 programs” and “nuclear power” lines? It sounded to me like he was speaking of zeroing out the programs and that we will see some new nuclear plants soon. Wish I was offered the opportunity to pick a few of the programs.

Feb 2, 2005 - 8:40 pm 23. John Lynch:

Rick

On C-SPAN replay, the room plays out Dem/Repub politics with standing and clapping. I read acceptance and support for foreign affairs, strong resistance on Social Security and Legal Issues (Tort reform, judicial appointments.)

While this may not mean the Dems won’t continue to be loadly against foreign affairs issues, they seem to concede ground there. I suspect they have no intention of conceding ground on SS and Justice.

Your read?

Feb 2, 2005 - 8:43 pm 24. Allah:

It’s nice to see that the Iraqi woman appreciates our soldiers’ sacrifice, but I so deeply fucking resent the fact that a good man like Byron Norwood had to die because Arabs won’t deal with their own political demons. The only reason Norwood was in Iraq to begin with is because the people of that region let their culture degrade to the point where Osama bin Laden could attack American civilians and reasonably expect his popularity to increase because of it. The hug was a beautiful moment on a human level, but an American mother had to be consoled tonight only because so many Iraqi mothers, and Saudi mothers, and Syrian mothers, and Egyptian mothers, and Iranian mothers, never had to be. Let’s not forget it.

Feb 2, 2005 - 8:43 pm 25. John Lynch:

The line after the zero out 150 programs was that programs that aren’t spending the taxpayers dollars wisely, will not spend taxpayer dollars at all.

The “nucular” was in reference to “4 years of debate is long enough, it is time to pass a comprehensive energy bill.”

Feb 2, 2005 - 8:46 pm 26. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Allah,

Given the highly sexist nature of strongly Islamic societies, I’d lay the blame on the fathers, not the mothers.

BTW… nucular is the standard southern pronunciation for nuclear. I’m no longer bothered by it.

I wish he had said that he also plans to arm our ABM systems with nuclear warheads. Unless there is some remarkable magic, they won’t work otherwise against relatively simple countermeasures – 100 meter diameter gold plated (literally) balloons with the warhead (say 30″ in diameter for a crude one) somewhere in that volume. Congress recently prohibited that for some odd reason.

Feb 2, 2005 - 8:58 pm 27. Rick Ballard:

John,

The Dems have no foreign policy plan except cut and run. Reid and Pelosi did a great job of nailing that point right to the floor. Everyone loves a quitter, right?

On SS and judicial appointments I do believe that they will put up a fight but I also believe that Frist will invoke the “nuclear option” the first time an appointment is filibustered. There is talk of making the rule change on filibusters applicable only to appointments but there is absolutely nothing preventing Frist from making it generally applicable. I also believe that W’s framing of the SS issue was very close to perfect. I was hoping that the age would be around 50 rather than 55 but I’m sure that 55 must test better. My bet is that W gets over 80% of what he proposed this evening and that he gets 100% of the SS proposal.

The other factor in play is Reid’s ability to hold 6 Dem Senators in line in order to even try a filibuster. I can name three off hand that he will have a tough time holding and that’s without looking at the ‘06 roster of candidates.

Feb 2, 2005 - 9:05 pm 28. Markay:

Like Roger, I’m in favor of gay marriage. Also like Roger, I’m a fan of President Bush.

It’s a testament to Bush, the man, that he engenders (no pun intended the support of citizens like me. Bush gets it right on the things that matter most.

There’s a lot to be said for a clear, strong vision backed up with unequivocal action of the kind this President has demonstrated. Although I disagree with Bush on some issues I get the feeling that our disagreements are of the principled and rational kind, and can be resolved or tolerated in the most civil of ways.

Plainly put, Bush’s tent is big enough for even dissenters like me.

I was a Democrat for forty years. I’m not anymore. Is that my failing, or theirs?

Feb 2, 2005 - 9:08 pm 29. Samuel:

Markay

That is their (Democrats) fault. It is people like me who share blame for hanging on as long as I did as it delayed the needed soul searching by Democrats.

Feb 2, 2005 - 9:16 pm 30. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

I didn’t get to really hear the speech – too busy debugging (and, sigh, blogging).

I hope the news media (by which I mean blogspace) will summarize it well enough. A friend is trying to sell me on podcast space, but the bandwidth is too low given how busy I am.

I win on the 55 rule, but what I want is the ability to buy health insurance so I can retire. I have to have a job in order to get health insurance, sigh.

As a conservative, it pains me to say that the system is badly broken – a market failure in the sense that it fails to meet important social goals (universal insurance). One of my blog writings was on this.

I also read an article (with somewhat suspect statistics) that half of all bankruptcies are tied to medical costs. I don’t believe that, but it is a large number.

Bush, btw, walks on water as far as I’m conserned.

Feb 2, 2005 - 9:18 pm 31. OJ:

What a fantastic speech. The emotion and strength showed through at all the right places.

After such a delivery, today is not a day to mention the Democrat’s response. But man do they havit coming to them!!!!

Our analysis of the address:

http://www.rightviews.com/article.php?id=273

http://www.RightViews.com

Feb 2, 2005 - 9:22 pm 32. Morgan:

allah,

Good to hear from you again. Worn out your welcome? Pshaw.

I think the fundamental breakdown in the Middle East is the willingness to accept an external scapegoat for all problems. The big bad other. The Great Satan is responsible for all problems, and the only fight worth pursuing is the one against it.

That leads to not taking responsibility for change.

I don’t know what leads to that attitude, but I think there is an attraction to not having to take responsibility for change.

Here in the US we have a rather large group that does the same thing. They take the same single-minded approach, show the same unwillingness to look for any solution to their problems other than slaying the demon. Their Great Satan gave a heck of a speech tonight.

Feb 2, 2005 - 9:22 pm 33. chuck:

Allah,

While you are at it, don’t forget to curse France for spreading the progressive cancer of fascism in the region. It isn’t all the Arabs, it is also the toxic overflow of Europe.

Feb 2, 2005 - 9:25 pm 34. Kevin P:

Roger:

It was a great speech. He hasn’t had many but tonight he hit it out of the park. Like everyone else I teared up when I saw the hug. It was so heartfelt. But then I switched on Matthews and found out that I had been manipulated. Chris informed me it was somehow preplanned and he wondered whose idea it was to put the two women so close. And then Ron Reagan pontificated on how it was poor form to use the grief of the mother to score political points. And then suprisingly Dog Show boy mentioned that Chris Reeves widow was in the hall and how she was there to here what Bush would say about stem cell research. But I guess he wasn’t trying to trade off the suffering of a grieving widow for political points. What a cynical prig.

Feb 2, 2005 - 9:26 pm 35. PJ:

I cried, too, tears of joy. Not only was it a great moment, but he backed it up with further challenges to Syria, Iran and our “friend” Saudi Arabia and his explicit promise of support to Iranian freedom fighters. No one can doubt America’s words or intent this time.

I’ve been on cloud nine since Sunday, another day that changed the world. I thought of those courageous Iraqi voters and the women next to Mrs. Bush and it all seemed so right, so natural, how could we have ever doubted them? That the Arab people love and support democracy as much as any western nation is evident now to anyone with eyes to see, and the one courageous man who bet his life and his country on that belief was right all along, damn right.

Feb 2, 2005 - 9:32 pm 36. TmjUtah:

Samuel -

“Bush is more than just one of those interesting “accidents of history”.

He’s much more than that. He’s a living, breathing refutation of the lazy trope that “things just happen” that so permeates pop culture society. We do live in an embarassment of riches, and the resulting indolence has sunk deep.

He’s a man with a duty to fulfill. He’s got the tools to do the job and the job is going to get done. Some folks still haven’t figured that out.

Further thoughts here.

I didn’t cry. I heard what I expected to hear. I was moved during the ovation honoring the fallen Marine and his family, and by extension all our dead service people and their survivors. What a refreshing change from eight years’ worth of hour and a half of “see what sticks” speeches.

Feb 2, 2005 - 9:35 pm 37. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

These are people who can turn gold into lead, but not the other way around.

The stem cell issue, btw, is nonsense.

#1 – non-fetal stem cells are preferred for most areas. In particular, Ron Reagan needs to know he is being used, because the brain makes its own stem cells throughout life (and uses them), and stem cells offer no promise to help with Alzheimer’s. And lest I sound callous, my mother died of Lewy Body disease, a variant of Alzheimers or perhaps a distinct disease which makes Alzheimers seem like a picnic – which it isn’t.

#2 – fetal stem cells can be used with no restrictions, except on government grants. That means that experiments which cannot be done with the allowed stem cell lines can be done by private industry, which has lots of incentive to work with this stuff. Furthermore, much of the rest of the world doesn’t have the restrictions anyway.

I see a moral issue here akin to using the results of the Nazi Mengele prison camp experiments: the work is immoral in that it destroys viable blastocysts, but it is happening anyway and if it produces useful results, they will have no moral stain to them (depending on how they are used).

The issue is even more complicated because modern assisted reproduction techniques (hmmm… we need a cartoonist here? ed: don’t even go there. me: Roger, how did you get into my head?) produce embryos which will be destroyed eventually – another moral issue.

Feb 2, 2005 - 9:38 pm 38. Patrick Tyson:

This State of the Union reads better than quite a few others I’ve read during the past twenty years. I generally don’t watch as the live audience is a major distraction and, often, annoyance and what is said is, almost always, of little consequence in either the short or long term.

When I wrote a couple of weeks ago that I thought Bill Owens was the best positioned of the potential 2008 Republican nominees, I was not aware that the other Bill, Senator Frist, will not be seeking re-election in 2006. He has a lot riding on the next two years. Should things go well, he’ll be in great shape going into 2007.

I think Douglas MacArthur (and his people) did a great job in postwar Japan.

Feb 2, 2005 - 9:45 pm 39. Katherine:

Allah,

I get your point. I was always semi-resentful about the countries that could not put their own house in order – and which did not have huge Red Army standing on their borders as an excuse for submitting to tyrannical rule.

I find myself a bit ambivalent about Iran, after all they really did bring their current misery on themselves with both hands and then some. But nations are in constant flux. How can we blame young generation of Iranians for the folly and cowardliness of their parents and grandparents? At this point it seems that many oppressed people want freedom, but the apparatus of tyranny is too efficient for any internal revolution. Look at North Korea. It is almost unbelievable that the murderous regime there is holding for so longÖand yet the oppressed seem to be entirely helpless.

I hope that our current policies will free as many peoples as possible (some by direct action, and some by inaction). It just happens that our selfish interests are served best by other peopleís freedom. Which is fine by me.

Spreading freedom and democracy is good for security, it is good for the trade and it is good for peace.

And it is damn shame that so few other free nations are willing to help us.

PS. John, Bush may walk on water but for some it only means that he cannot swimÖ

Feb 2, 2005 - 9:54 pm 40. thedragonflies:

The Freedom President spoke tonight.

Because of him there have been four unprecidented free elections in the world: Afghanistan, Ukraine, Palestine, and Iraq.

And we are safer because of the freedom that he, and we, are spreading around the world.

I, too, wept.

Feb 2, 2005 - 10:00 pm 41. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Katherine…. good riposte!

You illustrate the tension between the ideological part of neocon views and foreign policy realist views.

I hold that realists have to be satisfied in any policy (i.e. it has to achieve their/my minimal goals, which are purely nationalistic), but that the more Wilsonian and humanistic approaches are important also.

The other issue is how many of our own young folks to we sacrifice purely for the benefit of citizens of foreign countries. I think it should be very few. It is one thing to fight in self defense, but another to send our kids out to be killed for humanitarian interventions (the main reason I opposed the Kosovo interve3ntion).

I have suggested the creation of a “humanitarian corps” – an all volunteer armed force and development organization that would only be used for humanitarian missions. That means that those who die for humanitarian reasons have chosen that risk.

Of course, there are some serious practical issues (cost, lost efficiency by splitting our resources, misuse of this group, etc).

Feb 2, 2005 - 10:10 pm 42. Kyda Sylvester:

This is no ordinary second term.

This is no ordinary man.

Feb 2, 2005 - 10:14 pm 43. Kate Marie:

I was chauffering the kids back from dance class, so I couldn’t watch the speech on television. It sounded great on radio.

I experienced the hug vicariously, through my father’s description of it. I had called him after the speech (while still driving) to get his take, and the first thing he described to me was that hug. He’s a very “old school” father, very much a man’s man in some ways, and in the middle of his description I could hear him choking up. He had to stop to compose himself. I sobbed without even having seen the embrace myself.

What a great moment. And what an historic presidency.

Feb 2, 2005 - 10:16 pm 44. blogaddict:

There is a feeling I get now while watching Bush’s speeches that I’m watching something of great historical importance. I don’t remember ever having that feeling so strongly before, and I’m pretty old. He isn’t eloquent in the usual sense of the word (Churchill, Lincoln, and the like), but I have never seen anyone so focused.

During the long runup to the war and then the long aftermath leading to last Sunday’s elections, I know how nervous even I have been–and, after all, I’m only an interested spectator on the sidelines. I truly cannot imagine what Bush has been through, with all the decisions and all the responsibility on his shoulders. Tonight I saw in his face weariness, satisfaction, and great resolve.

The hug between the Iraqi woman who lost her husband and the mother who lost her Marine son was one of those deep human moments that was totally authentic and real. It was almost as though they were alone there, comforting each other, with no cameras present. How anyone (even those in the press) can look on that scene with a cynical eye is beyond me.

Feb 2, 2005 - 10:31 pm 45. Van Gale:

I think the southern Iraqi Shia and the Kurds have, in fact, paid dearly in blood for their liberation. We don’t hear the full stories from the 1991 uprising or much about what’s been going on with them recently because they’ve never had any media on their side (neither “ours” or Al-Jazeera types).

Feb 2, 2005 - 10:57 pm 46. Allah:

At this point it seems that many oppressed people want freedom, but the apparatus of tyranny is too efficient for any internal revolution.

I dunno, Katherine. It’s amazing what people can do when they put their minds to it. Just ask the Vietcong. Or the Palestinians, who have spent decades outmaneuvering the world’s premier counterterrorism apparatus. The existence of people like Bin Laden and Zarqawi proves that the Arab world doesn’t lack for guerrilla talent; I wonder, though, why isn’t that talent ever brought to bear in the cause of liberation? The mighty Arab warrior seems rather more circumspect about attacking regimes which he knows will hit back with commensurate ruthlessness.

I completely agree that in this case “our selfish interests are served best by other people’s freedom.” That’s why I supported the war when it started and that’s why I support it now. But it bears reminding that the reason we have an interest here in the first place is only because those “other people” have been less than fully responsible in securing their freedom for themselves. They made a royal mess and their mess spilled over on 9/11 and now we have to fucking help them clean it up at a huge cost in American lives.

Which brings me to the hug. The reason it made me uneasy is because it symbolized an attitude I’m seeing from too many people on the right since Sunday’s election: namely, that “it was all worth it.” Bullshit. It will have been worth it if and when the spread of democracy in the Middle East begins to pay dividends in terms of greater security for the United States, and not a moment sooner. To suggest that people like Byron Norwood died only so that Iraqis might have the chance to vote is, I think, to be staggeringly profligate with the lives of American troops. If we’re willing to sacrifice Sgt. Norwood for nothing more than Arab democracy then we really do need to concede the point made by leftist contrarians that we should have thousands of troops in Darfur and the West Bank and every other hot spot on earth.

Don’t get me wrong: We all love the guys from Iraq the Model and I’m pleased as punch that they now have the chance to do something they’ve always dreamed of. But when it comes to people being sacrificed for Iraqi freedom, if it’s a choice between them or Byron Norwood it had better be them every time — unless Norwood’s country also stands to benefit from his heroism. Whether it will or not remains to be seen. I’m cautiously optimistic.

Feb 2, 2005 - 11:16 pm 47. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Allah,

This is a bit tangential, but the Viet Cong didn’t succeed. In fact, after the three offensives of 1968, they were wiped out. Furthermore, they were never an internal revolutionary movement, but rather a fifth column put in place by the North Vietnamese in the ’50s. They were encouraged to marry into Southern families to link into the indigenous people. Most importantly, the only enemy in Vietnam that the US faced was the North Vietnamese, either actual NVA units, or VC who were totally controlled by and supplied by the North. Note that the war was won by a foreign power (the North Vietnamese) in a massive combined arms invasion that had more tanks than George Patton ever commanded. This only happened because the backer of the South, us, reneged on our obligations as a result of a loss of will.

The Vietnamese were ready to sue for peace after the Tet ‘68 fiasco, until they realized that the press and opportunistic activists and politicians treated it like a defeat for the US, when in fact it was a catastrophic defeat for the VC (destroying 50% of their total force, and showing that the people of the South were unwilling to rise up in “liberated” areas and joine the VC in the fight).

See here for a history of that war.

Contrast that with Iran. They don’t have a safe haven like the Vietnamese Communists did. We would have to provide that (or Iraq or Afghanistan), and also weapons. The VC/NVA was a huge operation, and took many years to get the VC ready for battle (about 5 years). In five years if not stopped, Iran will be a nuclear power with ICBM’s. In fact, in a lot less than five years. See

Feb 3, 2005 - 12:06 am 48. Charlie (Colorado):

And then there was Nancy *stare* Pelosi… altho I liked the bit where she swallowed the guinea pig whole live on camera…

Richard … I’m afraid you fell asleep during Reid’s speech and dreamt a V rerun.

I can understand how you could be confused.

… and how you might fall asleep during Reid’s speech, as far as that goes.

Feb 3, 2005 - 12:51 am 49. Lola:

I have to say I was very much moved by Bush. He looked at his best and he was clearly enjoying it, and full of confidence. A man of confidence and sureness is wheat we need these days. I am sure history will judge him kindly long after this current age has passed.

Feb 3, 2005 - 3:10 am 50. Joe Schmoe:

I too am a staunch supporter of the war. However, I see what Allah means and partly agree with it.

Just look at Latin America and Eastern Europe. Most of the nations in those regions have never known true democracy. During the 70’s and 80’s, most all were ruled by dictators. Yet as soon as the cold war ended, they immediatley cast the dictators aside and chose democracy.

And most didn’t engage in an orgy of bloodletting, either. There was no violent uprising, no civil war, etc. Even in countries, like Guatemala and El Salvador, where there had been vicious guerellia warfare just a few years before. Instead, the people just quietly refused to live under a dictatorship any longer. As a result, former rulers like the Sandinistas simply went slouching into the night.

The people of the Middle East didn’t do this. They kept right on bowing and scraping to Sadaam, Uday, Qusay, and the mullahs.

For over ten years, no one supported Sadaam. He wasn’t being propped up by the Soviets, the Chinese, or the US, and he wasn’t a tool of foreign powers struggling for regional dominance. He was a pariah. If the Iraqi people had overthrown him, no one, repeat no one, would have come to his aid.

But they didn’t. Sadaam threw them in jail, tortured, and murdered them — and they didn’t have the guts to make him stop. Instead, they decided to keep their heads down, their mouths shut, and simply put up with the murder and the torture.

I supported the war because (a) I think spreading freedom is the best way to ensure our long-term security; (b) no one has come up with a better plan; and (c) I still felt sorry for the Iraqis and wanted to help them even if I was partly contemptous and believed that they did not have the guts to take freedom for themselves. Also, and this is important, even if the majority of Iraqis were willing to be subservient peasants, there were a few brave souls who, unlike their peers, do value freedom and are willing to take risks for it, and I really wanted to help them. I sometimes wonder whether Americans are so different. If we were to be invaded by the Chinese tomorrow, I suspect that a not insignifiant number of people would not put up much of a fight and would simply resign themselves to living under their new masters. That’s just human nature.

The thing that really shook me up was the desecration of our the corpses of our guys in Fallujah. It’s not that I thought it was a spontaneous show of rage against imperialist infidels by the Iraqi street, a harbringer of things to come, or anything like that. It was obviously a staged propaganda event by the thugs; I mean, the people in the crowd had PREPRINTED SIGNS, in English, which read “Fallujah is death to Americans.”

Until that happened, I assumed that the people of the Middle East were just like the people of Central America and Eastern Europe, i.e. people just like us who happened to be ruled by dictators. I still believe they are just like us on the most fundamental way — i.e. they love their kids, want security, etc. But their culture is very different. And frankly, it’s depraved.

Fallujah didn’t just happen by accident. And it spoke volumes about Iraqi society. It’s how people make political statements over there. There were scores of children in the crowd. They weren’t afraid to be there; they knew that their parents would not punish them when they returned home. And the men in the crowd didn’t send the kids home, either, to spare them from the sight of what was about to happen. Heck no, they let the kids join in the desecration.

That was a real eye-opener. Prior to that, I always thought that people watched those beheading videos on Al Jazeera becuase they were raised in dictatorships and were used to that kind of media; it was familliar to them. They believed the lies and the propaganda becuase no one had ever told them the truth. But once we showed up, I figured, they would see that a better way was available and would not be interested in that savagery any more. But now I think that there is also another reason: Al Jazeera shows those beheading videos because they know their audience, and the audience likes the beheading videos. They get a sick thrill out of watching innocent people beg for their lives before they are murdered on camera. The acts of terrorism aren’t just desperate, terribly misguided cries for help from people trapped in a horrible dictatorship. People actually cheer for that kind of thing.

I admit that I wasn’t prepared for this. I thought we were just overthrowing a dictatorship, helping oppressed people like ourselves. I didn’t know that we also had the duty of bringing the people of the region from the 8th century into the 21st. And I sort resented that, frankly. I still wanted to do it, becuase again, no one has a better idea, and becuase it is the right thing to do, especially with regard to the kids and those adult Iraqis who have already advanced into the present day. But the price had suddenly become much higher than I expected to pay, and I didn’t like that.

In retrospect I feel guilty for thinking this because I suspect that my perceptions were affected by the mainstream media to some extent. I knew that there were positive things going on in Iraq and that the media was lying to me. But since positive news never came out even I began to get cynical about the Iraqi street.

This election changed everything for me. I am beginning to wonder whether I was (a) wrong — maybe the people of the Middle East really aren’t that badly off; or (b) even if they are, in fact, living in the 8th century, they have a genuine desire to move into the 21st.

That was great to hear. I would have continued with our policy anyway but it was really good to know that the people of the region actually appreciate it.

They risked their lives to vote. There are no words to describe what that means.

Roger is right when he says that none of this would have happened without George Bush. He was strong and never waivered in his committment. He is a great man and belongs in the company of Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan. Heck, he belongs in the company of Ghandi and MLK. I too think that God put him in that office at this time.

Feb 3, 2005 - 4:44 am 51. Buddy Larsen:

What a great, honest, heartspoken thread to read at the top o the morn. Ahh, a place where I can admit that, to hell with it, I’d follow the guy anywhere, anytime. I always liked him; the whole family is to make a country proud…but these last couple years…I don’t know, nobody has ever before let me see strong-faith working, moving right before my eyes. The moment in the gallery, the mother and the Iraqi lady, not a good time to be a smart-ass cynic about this presidency.

(Lola, thank you for the poetic jewel, he IS “wheat we need”!)

Feb 3, 2005 - 4:57 am 52. Knucklehead:

What a great thread.

I tried to watch the SOTU speech but kept falling asleep. Not the speaker’s fault. I kept waking up and trying to stay awake but not to the point of getting up on my feet which would have worked. I didn’t see The Hug but just hearing it on a background TV this AM got me misty, so I suspect I would have seriously teared up – but I’m getting sappier the older I get.

Some comments re: what little I did see. I saw the camera pan to Hillary at one point. She did better than she has in the past during Dubya’s SOTU speeches, but I do not think she’s capable of fully hiding her deep resentment of the president. She really does hate the man. I also saw moments when the camera panned by Kerry and Rangle. These are not serious men. They were both behaving like HS sophomores. I personally waver between outright atheism and agnoticism. If there is a God, please, may he save us from such men.

I did manage to stay awake through most of the SSN portion. Very well done – he set the baseline for the “discussion” very well. I don’t know if jeering from the “loyal opposition” was ever an acceptable behavior wrt SOTU speeches. I can’t recall it ever happening in any SOTU speech I’ve ever watched. I didn’t like it and I would not have liked it had it been Pubbies going after Clinton. I’m socially conservative enough to believe there are times when one stifles oneself and a SOTU speech is one of those. As my mom always says, if you don’t have anything positive to say, don’t say anything.

I was awake, just barely, for the purple finger thing. I didn’t like it – tacky.

I woke up just in time to hear some of Pelosi. In fact, I was just realizing what I was hearing just in time to wonder what the heck she was choking on. Thanks to somebody above I now know but who the heck let her get her hands on a guinea pig?

It hard to pull off the Opposition’s Response to the SOTU stuff without sounding like a griping nutball, but it seems to me Pelosi really botched it – what I heard from her was weak, really weak. Didn’t hear the other one.

I’ll have to go read the speech. That’s what I always had to do for Bubba Clinton because, while I begrudgingly admired his ability to play to the camera I could never tolerate his unending laundry list of every inconvenience that the government was going to remove from people’s lives.

Feb 3, 2005 - 6:34 am 53. Hogarth:

I particularly like Bush’s velvet glove threats (’threats’ is a strong word, but I can’t think of anything else).

For example, I think there was a veiled threat when he was talking about Social Security semi-privitization and the already existing program federal employees have:

http://shortfinal.blogspot.com/2005/02/sotu-snippet.html

Feb 3, 2005 - 7:29 am 54. Solomon:

Eric Deamer:

“Please nobody clobber me on any super-specifics (like Palestine) I confess that **I was simultaneously watching Project Runway**. There’s more to life than speeches by politicians you know.”

LOL! So there was someone else doing that!? I was holding the laptop up to my ear so as not to bother my wife, but it wasn’t working.

It was a great speech, and I did get teary-eyed re-watching parts on the web-cast this morning…not unusual for me, though. I’m so emotional!

Allah’s point is well-taken. We’re for spreading democracy because it’s a good thing. We’re for spreading democracy at the cost of American lives for reasons of enlightened self-interest only – or we ought to be.

Feb 3, 2005 - 7:32 am 55. PJ:

Allah,

I understand your resentment, but I don’t see our choices the way you do. You seem to think the choice is between no deaths and deaths for the pipe dream of Arab democracy. But they came after us on 9/11 and would do it again. So we might as well face them with our military instead of our civilians. Even tho it’s W-reductive, we are cleaning out the swamp, killing them there instead of here.

Sunday didn’t indicate it was all worth it; history will tell us that. Sunday’s turnout means we now have a nation of able, courageous allies in the fight against fascism in the ME.

Feb 3, 2005 - 7:49 am 56. richard mcenroe:

Allah, Solomon ó (jeez, did someone switch the covers on my religious bookshelf? Where’s the Book of Mormon reference?) … Do you not get it? Spreading Democracy IS in our enlightened self-interest… Note that we are not fighting a war with Japan, or even Germany and France, for all their snivelling.

And for everybody else:

George W. Bush ó SOTU

John Forbes Kerry ó Meet The Press

If EVER you fear you made the wrong choice to vote for Bush, keep those two images in mind.

Feb 3, 2005 - 7:54 am 57. Catherine:

I’m just going to content myself with dittoing everyone else here, and especially Terrye.

The pain on that mother’s face, and on the father’s. I ache for them.

I veer between joy at the sight of Iraqis risking their lives to vote, and an almost wrenching hatred of the people who have taken so many from us.

I don’t know how many here saw the report that a Down syndrome boy was used as a suicide bomber last week in Iraq.

I would gladly kill these people myself.

I’m spending time sorting through, as best I can, the meaning of Sunday’s election to me and perhaps to other Americans.

The election doesn’t precisely ‘make it all worth it,’ and I suspect that’s not really what people mean when they make such statements.

I want Byron Norwood back; I want them all back. I want the people in the towers and the airplanes back, and I want the towers back, too.

As President Bush said in the beginning, we did not seek this fight.

I can’t–yet–say what it is the election did to me, or maybe I mean ‘for’ me. But it has to do with resolve. You all know I am married to an ABB voter and don’t know a single non-ABB voter to speak to in day to day life. (This is why I now have a lot of email relationships!)

So all I’ve heard for the past year is quagmire, quagmire, quagmire . . . and I’ve heard it from people I trust, like Larry Diamond, as well as from people who don’t know any more about what’s going on in Iraq than I do.

Nevertheless, I’ve stayed with it. I’ve had a constant sense, from the very beginning, before we invaded, that the war might be a mistake, that it might be overreaching, that it might do the opposite of what we hoped.

But I ’signed on’ for it anyway, and I stayed with it, because I believe in overreaching. If I didn’t, my autistic kids wouldn’t be where they are today. Nor would my typical child, for that matter.

(The irony is that, in his own life, my husband also believes in doing what others believe you cannot do.)

The Iraqi election, in some way I can’t quite grasp, confirmed my judgment in supporting the war. And, interestingly, it seems to have confirmed my judgment in a way that makes me feel less inclined to argue the point with my husband or anyone else.

The election makes me feel: This is the path I have chosen.

In the end, you can’t argue about paths. A path isn’t politics.

I don’t know what the future holds. There will be twists and turns; there will be good and bad and worse.

If things come out badly, I can live with that. And I understand exactly why any person who did not choose this path is going to be intensely resentful of having to live with a bad outcome if that’s the way things go.

I guess, at this moment, what I can say is that the election tells me I wasn’t crazy to support the war.

In the long run the Iraq War may make us safer or it may not.

But I had to place my bet one way or the other, and I did.

Sunday’s election, those millions of Iraqis risking their lives to vote, tells me that if I had it to do over again, I would make the same choice today.

That’s good enough for me.

Feb 3, 2005 - 8:14 am 58. Skookumchuk:

The incredible thing is how crabbed and classist and dated many of the anti-Bush crowd now seem in light of even the most modest Bush success in Iraq. And it applies not only to Iraq and their statments on Iraq, but to their deepest feelings about what they believe and who they are.

John Kerry saying that Middle Eastern stability was more important than democracy.

Teresa Heinz Kerry saying that “Europeans have lived with terrorism for years.”

The Machiavellian idiot in the French Foreign Ministry saying that Iraqi insurgents were France’s “best friends”.

Teddy Kennedy. Barbara Boxer.

All gone. All in the past.

Feb 3, 2005 - 9:02 am 59. Katherine:

I donít have time for a long response this morning, but I would like to point out that with regard to Eastern Europe people over there were well familiar with democracy before 1989. Place like Poland had electoral system for choosing a king for several centuries, and had institution such as a parliament, known as Sejm. Elections were also known there on very local levels. Yes, only certain percentage of population had a right to vote but that was not different than anywhere else. And in the period between the wars all of these countries organized themselves as liberal democracies. I am not sure that we can say the same about people in ME, where tribalism ruled and rules still.

Moreover people living in EE were strongly nationalistic, something that ME peoples haphazardly divided between countries by leaving colonial powers may have not experienced.

So, maybe we can cut them some slack.

I wish, with the rest of you that we were not forced to spend our own blood in this endeavor. Though it looks like that the only choice we may have is between the blood of trained soldiers and civilians showing for work on time.

Feb 3, 2005 - 9:15 am 60. Steven Mitchell:

On the marriage admendment: I’m against gay marriage, but somewhat ambivalent about what the states do. I’m also sick and tired of a handful of judges deciding things that properly belong in the legislature. I am a federalist, after all. However, I like the fact that Americans discussing such a thing has to drive the bin Laden’s of the world bonkers! I suspect that maybe Bush appreciates that last point.

On democracy and when it’s worth it: I agree that freedom is in our self interest. We also had at least a bit of an obligation for inciting the ‘91 uprisings. But there is a larger issue.

You aren’t obligated to dive off a 100 foot building into water covered with patches of flaming oil to try to save someone. You are obligated to call 911. 1000+ American soldiers and marines dead isn’t calling 911, of course. But putting them in harms way for this kind of payout isn’t exactly off limits, either.

It’s a non-sequitor to say that we must therefore put them in harm’s way for every remotely similar obligation. It’s not Iraq’s need that creates the obligation. Rather, the obligation already existed–and Iraq is a good place to fulfill it. (Plus, as I’ve said before, a good smack on the likes of Saddam every few years is good policy–an example to all the other jokers like him that didn’t quite make it to the top of the list.)

Look, Americans living today (especially our military) have worked to preserve and expand freedom. But we were handed a good starting point by our forefathers and their allies. We got a good push. That push creates an obligation, which is seldom reciprocal. Our relationship with Great Britain is the exception that proves the rule. Japan and Australia and most of Eastern Europe understands this moral duty. France and Germany do not. What Iraq owes the world and themselves is to make this work–and then sometime later, they can give liberty a push elsewhere.

Feb 3, 2005 - 9:47 am 61. WichitaBoy:

“Man shall not live on bread alone…” (Would that Marx had been able to understand this phrase.)

For those of you who believe that American lives can only be lost in the interest of narrowly-defined self-defense, I ask why you believe that 600,000 young American soldiers died during the Civil War. What was the point?

Knucklehead: “As my mom always says, if you don’t have anything positive to say, don’t say anything.”

So you are my long-lost brother!

Feb 3, 2005 - 10:12 am 62. WichitaBoy:

If you believe American troops should only be used for pure self-defense, here’s something to ponder. Why did 600,000 young American men die in the Civil War? What do you suppose they were thinking?

I guess 1400 men is a tragedy but 600,000 is a statistic.

Feb 3, 2005 - 10:35 am 63. Allah:

I ask why you believe that 600,000 young American soldiers died during the Civil War. What was the point?

To prevent the disintegration of America’s political structure? To free hundreds of thousands of black Americans from bondage? On a list of conflicts ranked by degree of national interest, I’d have to say that a civil war, by definition, ranks at the very top.

Feb 3, 2005 - 10:51 am 64. WichitaBoy:

Allah,

National interest, yes, obviously. Self-defense? Definitely not.

Feb 3, 2005 - 11:15 am 65. Patrick Tyson:

WichitaBoy—

Since 600,000 is the low end estimate of the dead on both sides of that conflict, I don’t see how a great many (if not all) didn’t die in some measure in the cause of self defense as they understood it. Advocates for the Confederate cause have always seen both succession and their part in the War of Northern Aggression as self defense.

Is anything so complex ever pure? No.

Feb 3, 2005 - 11:34 am 66. Knucklehead:

I’m somewhat surprised this group didn’t comment more about the Dem jeering of the Sosecurity stuff.

First, since some of y’all are even older than I am (and even DtP is only younger by a year or less), can any of you recall this ever happening before?

Next, does Dubya have the “political capital” to push sosecurity reform through the congress? Given that the changes he’s suggesting seem to me to be, basically, relatively small potatos (or is it potatoes) in any real sense (a heavily regulated personalization of a small portion of SSN “contributions”) I’m guessing yes. I ’spect that Dubya can make the Dems look obstructioninst to no point on this.

Last, what does “winning” or “losing” on this mean? I don’t see it hurting the Pubs/Dubya to lose on this any more than losing the health industry grab hurt the Dems/Bubba. But I suspect a loss on this issue would be a solid kick in the groin to the Dems (but I can’t say why).

Feb 3, 2005 - 11:55 am 67. Terrye:

Allah:

We brought democracy to Germany after they turned the Jews into lampshades and there is no way in hell Hitler could have made it across the Atlantic ocean.

We sit back and did nothing while Africans hacked each other to death in the hudreds of thousands. Should we have intervened? I don’t know but I don’t think the world is a better place because we did not.

I know what you mean about he loss of American lives, I often have the same feelings even though I am hesitant to admit it. But I will say this I would never trust Saddam Hussein to live up to an agreement or remain in a box and the sight of people scraming God is Great is Arabic while they cut off someon’e head with a dull knife makes even less likely to tolerate the bastard.

As for the Civil War, many people felt that the Southerners were part of a corrupt society and the north would be better off if they just let them go. They also felt that Lincoln lied to him because he refused to negotiate when he had the chance and made the war about slavery after he said it was about holding the union together. Needless to say the two are not mutually exclusive but the Civil War was not an easy sale and many people felt the war was not worth the lives it cost. It was only in retrospect that Lincoln became the hero he is today.

Feb 3, 2005 - 12:16 pm 68. Salt Lick:

This is a great group of posters, but there is an oddly detached quality to some of the responses to Allah. As you write, how many of you are thinking of friends and family in the US military? I am. I agree with Allah fully that the only time they should be sent anywhere to spread “liberty” is when that mission is congruent with their main mission of protecting American security. That’s what they signed up for. That’s what Dubya is using them for.

Anybody who wants to invade countries purely to bring liberty and freedom to other people should start their own Abraham Lincoln Brigade or something. Don’t send my friends.

Feb 3, 2005 - 1:21 pm 69. Allah:

Hitler declared war on us, Terrye. He had U-Boats stationed all over the Atlantic tasked with destroying our ships. Bringing democracy to Germany was an afterthought.

The world is not a better place for what happened in Rwanda. I would have welcomed intervention there. I just don’t think we should have been the ones responsible for intervening. The Germans still have some penance to do when it comes to genocide; let them send their army to Darfur now to keep the peace.

Feb 3, 2005 - 1:25 pm 70. Allah:

Well said, Salt Lick.

Feb 3, 2005 - 1:26 pm 71. someone:

What you don’t understand, Allah, is that it is always up to us, and always will be.

Doesn’t mean we always have to answer the call, or even should. But the cowardice and fundamental smallness of pretty much every other country (besides, uh, Australia?) is a fact every US leader for ages has and will have to deal with and work around. Being resentful won’t change anything. It’s just part of the cost of being who we are.

Something to think about before complaining that putting our navy in harm’s way against, say, a Chicom takeover of Taiwan isn’t our business.

Feb 3, 2005 - 2:13 pm 72. Terrye:

Allah:

You are missing the point. Hitler could not stage a successful invasion of Great Britain much less the United States. Teh feeling was that sooner or later we would have to deal with him.

And Saddam tried to kill a president, ignored a cease fire and openly applauded the attacks on the US on 9/11. The feeling was that sooner or later we would have to deal with him.

Now I am not a real fan of Arab culture, but then again I am not a real fan of the French, but we still liberated the French.[vichy or not]

But if the point is that we fight only when directly attacked then we should not have gone into WW1, we should have told Hiter that if he wanted us so damn bad he could and come and get us. After all what sweat off our ass is a few million dead Jews? Maybe we should use our reaction to Rwanda as a guide to our foreign relations.

My point is that countries that allow democratic reform and expression are less likely to abuse their neighbors or their populaions and that in turn is good for us.

How many times have we fought in western Europe since 1945? What is the likelihood that the countries of Eastern Europe such as the Ukraine will ever send nukes our way?

Feb 3, 2005 - 2:18 pm 73. Terrye:

But yes, it would be nice if someone other than the UK and Australia would make themselves useful.

Feb 3, 2005 - 2:22 pm 74. Allah:

What you don’t understand, Allah, is that it is always up to us, and always will be.

And what you don’t understand is that by adopting the attitude that it’s our responsibility uniquely in the world to prevent political catastrophe, you’re encouraging other First World nations to take a free ride. You’re practically inviting their apathy. Who knows what might have happened in Rwanda if Europe had a strong military? They might have intervened and saved hundreds of thousands of people. But Europe doesn’t have a strong military because for the past fifty years they’ve been only too happy to go along with the idea of American military exceptionalism. A.k.a., they spend their GDP on shitty, suicidal social programs while we take responsibility for their defense.

The free lunch is over. Innocent people are dying because of it.

Feb 3, 2005 - 2:25 pm 75. charlotte:

they spend their GDP on shitty, suicidal social programs while we take responsibility for their defense.

Yep,in a nutshell.

Feb 3, 2005 - 2:30 pm 76. Terrye:

Allah:

To hear the world leaders tell it we are the blight and not the savior of the planet. We are bleeding them dry, not the other way around. Which goes to show you the likelihood of the socalled world community stepping up to the plate. They are too busy obsessing about Kyoto and globalization to give a rat’s ass.

And if we do not do it, they won’t. Remember the two world wars and hundred million or so dead from communist revolutions? That was the world with “them” in charge.

I am just enough of an isolationist to kinda like the idea of saying to hell with them all and bringing all the boys and girls home. But the world is too small for that.

Feb 3, 2005 - 2:57 pm 77. Allah:

And if we do not do it, they won’t.

“We”? You mean “American soldiers,” don’t you, Terrye? You and I aren’t going to be doing anything. Although I suppose if we take your position to its logical conclusion, you and I actually will be doing something because we’ll both be drafted and sent off to fight on behalf of the people of East Timor or wherever the crisis du jour happens to be that week.

You’re having a big freedom party here and forgetting that it’s U.S. troops who are going to be stuck with the bill. So tell me something: if you want us to go around solving the world’s troubles instead of just protecting our own interests, do you also support instituting a permanent draft of all males aged 18 to 25, say? We’re going to need an awful lot of people here because there are an awful lot of problems out there and, lord knows, we’ll be taking an awful lot of casualties. Let’s see how many people here are willing to put their money where their mouths are.

Feb 3, 2005 - 3:31 pm 78. Syl:

Allah

History took a different direction on 9/11. The past is history and so are its policies because the players are different.

If Iraq were a prize caught between America and another great superpower, we’d coddle them like we did the Europeans. They aren’t and we won’t.

Iraq will stand on its own, God and Allah willing.

There is only a small window of opportunity/burden for America to transform nations into self-governing societies that will make our planet safer. I simply cannot imagine that we will be the world’s only superpower forever.

As Terrye says, the world is too small now. We can’t sit back and whine and moan about how unfair it all is. We are powerful and strong and with that we have an obligation and responsibility.

Feb 3, 2005 - 3:34 pm 79. TedM:

allah,

I am a veteran. I second what Terrye says. What part of the service are you speaking for?

Service in our armed forces is NOT a qualification for opinions as far as I know. Please don’t try to make it.

Feb 3, 2005 - 3:46 pm 80. someone:

wow, the Moon God going all Charles Rangel with the “chickenhawk” accusations…

He really has jumped the shark.

Feb 3, 2005 - 3:46 pm 81. Knucklehead:

Here’s an interesting take on the European Crisis.

Regarding Allah and Salt Lick’s comments re: the application of American power and the European tendency to freeride, I fully understand your points. I was very much against US involvement in the Balkans. At the time I was fully convinced intervention was necessary and equally convinced that the Euros could stew in their own juices and suffer their consequences if they could summon up the will to solve that level of problems in their own backyard. What I didn’t realize at the time was that the Euros had two fundamental problems. The first being that could not summon the will to solve the problems in their own backyard and the second being that summoning will was irrelevant because they did not (and do not) possess the military power to have done anything. If anything was ever going to be done the US had to take the lead and do the heavy lifting.

So what are the potential results of letting the Euros stew and suffer or, conversely, letting the world continue to go to hell in a handbasket until the Euros somehow magically decide to get their act together? What is the potential cost to the US of stubbornly doing nothing until such time as the freeriders decide to stop being freeriders? There’s no good way to quantify that cost or even predict what the various elements of cost would be.

All war is optional – all war. There is always an alternative to waging war. Sometimes the only alternative is surrender, but that alternative is always available. The US did not have to choose to fight, for example, WWII at all or even the way we fought it. When Hitler’s initial blitzkrieg had turned into sitzkreig we could have followed the advice of Joe Kennedy and left Europe to the Germans. They may or may not have ever crossed the channel and may or may not have ever built the military required to cross the Atlantic. To suggest they couldn’t have built it seems a bit unrealistic since, after all, we did. Whether or not they would have is forever a hypothetical.

We did not need to wage full scale, unlimited war against Japan. We could have licked our wounds, wrote off the troops and territory we’d lost, and invested probably half as much treasure and infinitely fewer lives simply rebuilding Pearl Harbor and securing ourselves from there back. We could even have let Hawaii go and settled into sealing up the continental US. Maybe Japan would have exhausted itself or become sated. Another question rendered forever hypothetical.

But even if we had chosen to sit behind our oceans and Germany and/or Japan never decided to try and cross them, where would we be – what would the world look like – today? Again, a rhetorical question that cannot be answered but it seems a reasonable guess that the cold, cruel world might be a whole lot colder and crueler. Who’s to say.

We could have chosen to do nothing – or chose to do nothing more. That options remain open to us. It is, apparently, the option Kerry would have chosen. We don’t know for sure what the outcome of that might be. We’ve chosen not to do nothing and we don’t know what outcome that will lead to. You makes your decisions, pays your money, and takes your chances. Such is life.

But the expensive fact of the matter is that the US is the only current superpower. Whether or not we try to create a Pax-American or whatever through the exercise of power is our choice to make. But we really don’t have the option, as far as I can see it, of simply resigning our position as the sole superpower. If we refuse to exercise power some force will attempt to fill the vacuum. I speculate that that is exactly what was going on with the rise of Islamofacism. The Islamofacists and their kissin’ cousins, the ME (and NK) dictators, convinced themselves (with our assistance) that the US had no will to exercise our power. They saw us, perhaps rightfully so, as a paper tiger. The result was attacks on our embassies, a warship, and eventually two of our cities. Whether we wish to exercise our power or not is irrelevant to whether or not we are the target of attack for those who would be powerful.

Sitting and waiting for Europe to come to its senses doesn’t seem a viable option to me. The Gathering Storm would have continued to gather until it burst upon us even more severely than it did. And at that point we’d be in a worse position fighting a stronger enemy with no help from the Euros. See Kagan’s “Paradise and Power” stuff. The Euros are still a long way from believing that military capability is necessary. And even further away from having any should they someday change their minds.

Pay now or pay later. Stubbornly taking no action as some sort of “you guys will learn, mark our words” is not a viable option, IMO. Obviously you disagree, but it seems to me akin to allowing the whole block to burn down because your neighbors won’t help you put out a fire. Sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do even when everyone around you is behaving like idiots and refuses to help.

Feb 3, 2005 - 3:59 pm 82. Knucklehead:

Really, Allah, stuff the chickenhawk crap. “You aren’t fighting!” is not an argument, its nonsense.

Feb 3, 2005 - 4:01 pm 83. Allah:

TedM and someone — That’s a total cheap shot. I’m not calling anyone a chickenhawk and I’m not saying military service should be a prerequisite to having opinions on foreign policy, and you both know it. I’m saying that the lives of American soldiers are precious and that I, for one, am not willing to spend them on solving other people’s problems. Particularly when those same people have shown very little interest in solving their problems themselves. I support the war in Iraq not because we owe Arabs democracy as thanks for knocking down our skyscrapers but because the expansion of democracy in the Middle East means a reduction of terrorism, which directly serves the security interests of the United States. That’s the only reason I support it and, in my opinion, the only reason any American should.

Sunday’s election was a beautiful thing but the fact remains that our resources — human and otherwise — are not limitless. If it makes you feel better to ignore that point and dismiss me as some kindred spirit to Charlie Rangel, so be it.

Feb 3, 2005 - 4:09 pm 84. Sandy P:

Only the American soldier pays the bill?

who’s been paying the bill for the past 60 years?

They’re our frontman.

We’re the back office.

And how sexist to just draft men.

I agree, this is in our best interest. Others will take note and decide on their future.

some will agree, some won’t, but those that won’t reform will find it very uncomfortable.

Feb 3, 2005 - 4:15 pm 85. Allah:

Et tu, Knucklehead? Let me be clear: I’m not accusing Terrye or anyone else of being afraid to fight. That’s what the left means when it uses the word “chickenhawk.” I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that people who justify the war solely on moral grounds, without regard to American security interests, are in my opinion being a bit too free and easy with our soldiers’ lives. And that holds true even if, like TedM, the person espousing such an opinion is or was himself in the military. By definition Ted isn’t a chickenhawk. But that won’t stop me from disagreeing with him about when U.S. military intervention is appropriate.

My question to Terrye was an honest one. To those who think spreading democracy is itself a sufficient justification for putting American troops in harm’s way, let me ask: where do you draw the line? Is there a line? And if not, are you prepared to institute the type of permanent draft I described to ensure that the military has all the manpower it needs to achieve its various far-flung missions?

Feb 3, 2005 - 4:20 pm 86. Roger:

Allah, far be it for me to quarrel with a Higher Being, but I am somewhat confused about how the moral argument for the war can be separated from the practical aspect — meaning democracy seems to be the only way the Middle East would ever calm down and not be a threat (to us, others and themselves). So the two arguments are really one.

Feb 3, 2005 - 4:34 pm 87. Bostonian:

Allah,

I cannot believe that after the last four years, this still needs to be explained to you or to anyone:

1) There are some very crazy people out there who are at war with DEMOCRACY ITSELF. They’re quite open about their beliefs and their goals.

2) These people happen to be Muslim and they first want all Muslims to live in their totalitarian theocretic hell (then the rest of the world, ditto).

3) It poses a severe problem to them, however, that people in the democratic countries are generally much happier and better off than those living in totalitarian hellholes.

4) So it’s necessary to destroy those democratic countries, starting with Numero Uno, us.

***

Starting from our side, how do we go about defeating such an enemy? Well, how about we convert a Muslim totalitarian hellhole into a democracy. That goes a long, long way to defeating the enemy’s fascistic ideology. And, as a bonus, we get most of 25 million human beings on our side in this battle.

And that has been part of the plan all along, and Bush has said this, and half the people on this blog have said this. Everyone else has said this, and you are not even going to read this anyway so why do I bother?!

Feb 3, 2005 - 4:36 pm 88. Terrye:

Allah:

I am a woman, which means I will never fight in a foreign war. If the fact that I have had family members fight in every war [including Iraq] and die in some is not sufficient credentials than I apologize.

I am not suggesting, nor is anyone that millions of highschool students be conscripted and sent off to war to die for ingrate barbarians. Our military is a volunteer service and these young men and women take an oath to protect and defend. And our government decides what that entails.

I am saying that in a country like Iraq, with which we have had a hostile relationship and which we invaded we should try to create a stable and democratic government. And as far as Iraqis fighting for their own country, Saddam killed or exiled about 1.3 million and the terrorists have killed almost 1400 Iraqi men in uniform just since last September. Of course that does not take into account all the civilians that have been killed and maimed. So I would say that when those people came out and voted after they were told the streets would run red with their blood that they too were prepared to fight.

Feb 3, 2005 - 4:38 pm 89. Steven Mitchell:

Since we are discussing motives, let’s not confuse the belief in a moral obligaton to act as “too free and easy with our soldier’s lives.” Where did anyone say that identifying something as a moral choice made it easy? I’ve supported the war from the beginning, still do, and have been practically sick at what I KNEW would be the cost.

With great power, comes great responsibility. America has great power. Whether France chooses to exercise its responsibilities says squat about that fact–though I agree that it’s annoying when we have to do something that France should have handled.

I already answered the non sequitor once before, but in case it was missed: There is a big gap between great power and limitless power. We have the former, not the latter. We don’t need a massive draft, because we don’t have an obligation to totally restructure our country to free the world. Having decided that we need great power for self defense, however, we now have that power and the obligations that go with it. In one respect, it is the same as our wealth. We aren’t obligated to pursue ever greater wealth and then support the world’s welfare. Having accumulated great wealth, we are sometimes obligated to share it.

Since our forefathers gave us liberty, we are obligated to use our might, wealth, and other resources to give liberty a nudge–as prudence dictates and opportunity arises.

Feb 3, 2005 - 5:00 pm 90. Katherine:

Salt Lick,

Honestly, I donít think that you are going to find a group of people more appreciative of our troops than the regular posters here. Many have served. Many have family/friends serving in Iraq now. A son of one of my friends is a Marine who rode into Baghdad in April 2003. The last thing I want to see is for him to come in harmís way.

But what other options do we have? We can argue forever about the degree of Saddamís involvement in a particular branch of terrorist organization, but the fact remains that, if nothing else, he was a living proof to the crazies that we Americans can be cowed, can be made to run at the sign of danger, in a word, that we are cowards. They believed it and kept provoking us until they managed to get our attention.

Thank God we are blessed with a President with a clear vision, who is not afraid to take action that in the long run will protect this nation. We had to take on Iraq because for militant Islamists it was a symbol of their own strength and our weakness. There were multiple other reasons, but for me this one is a critical one: we had to demonstrate our strength and our resolve. The fact that we managed to liberate 25 million in the process is a very nice extra bonus. But once we liberated them it was necessary to set them on a path of democracy and freedom so that they would not become a threat to us in a future.

I mourn every single American soldier that died in Iraq. I curse the evil bastards that made this venture necessary. But I really donít want this to escalate into a conflict where some of our cities go in a mushroom cloud and we have to pay back with vengeance.

Feb 3, 2005 - 5:10 pm 91. Allah:

Bostonian — I read your comment. You’re preaching to the choir. As I’ve said several times on this thread, and as anyone who read my blog knows full well, I support the war in Iraq. It’s a necessary war. That doesn’t stop me from feeling resentful about why it’s necessary, though.

Roger — I agree, in this case the practical and moral are fused. But what about a proposed intervention in Zimbabwe, say? No practical strategic interests there that I can see, and yet surely there’s a strong moral case to be made that Mugabe must go. What should we do?

Perhaps that hypothetical is a little too hypothetical, so let’s try this. Imagine a country where normal democratic processes have been suspended. Imagine further that the population of this country is more radical than the leadership. Finally, imagine that this country has a nuclear arsenal. (We’ll call our hypothetical country “Pakistan.”) The security interests of the United States appear to be in direct conflict with the Pakistani people’s moral interest in democratic self-determination. Question: What should we do?

Feb 3, 2005 - 5:12 pm 92. Katherine:

Allah, regarding your last, I can barely deal with the direct reality, let alone hypothetical question.

How about this: we should, but since we cannot do everything we have to pick our battles very carefully (translation: we intervene only if we truly belive that your “Pakistan” is a threat to us”)? We are not omnipotent, though most of the remaining world seems to think so.

John Moore suggested forming Humanitarian Corps. Perhaps this is a way to go, though practically speaking I just cannot see that they ever would become reality.

Feb 3, 2005 - 5:29 pm 93. Terrye:

Allah:

You sound like Scowcroft. You know that kind of thinking got us where we are. That is why we are still hearing about how Rumsfeld shook Saddam’s hand, etc.

Here is another hypothetical: Suppose we look the other way and allow dangerous and evil people to abuse their populations without even pressuring them to more democratic reforms and their people develop fanatical hatred for their leaders and for us for supporting those leaders and decide to fly large planes into skycrapers?

Bush said this was the work of generations and he said most of it would not be accomplished by force of arms.

So of course we protect ourselves.

Feb 3, 2005 - 5:33 pm 94. someone:

What do we do about Pakistan? Pretty much what we’re doing about Egypt. Egypt is another country caught between repressive dictatorship and effective (popular) opposition that’s pretty heavily Islamist. So why the hell did Bush call for democratic reform? Because we want Mubarak to open space for more liberal criticism of the regime. Is there a market for that? Wasn’t much before. But everything’s different after 1/30. And the more we talk about that, the more it’ll sink in.

Feb 3, 2005 - 5:44 pm 95. Allah:

Terrye — Yes, it is more of a Scowcroftian position. It’s also Bush’s position. For all the soaring rhetoric in his inaugural address, he seems okay with Musharraf postponing democratic elections in Pakistan. Which is the right call, in my opinion; to follow your approach would be to pay tribute to democracy by handing an arsenal of atomic bombs to Al Qaeda. Well intentioned madness, but madness nonetheless.

I think we should promote democracy wherever and whenever possible, and in Pakistan right now, it’s not possible. How about in Saudi Arabia, though, which also has a population that’s more radical than the leadership (if you can believe that)? I’m actually in favor of promoting democracy there notwithstanding that fact, so long as the new regime wouldn’t gain access to any WMD by coming to power. But as I say, it’s a tough call.

There’s a great passage in “The Road to Serfdom” where Hayek warns the reader not to confuse the mechanism of democracy with the liberal policies it typically — but not inevitably — leads to. Democracy, in other words, is but a means; freedom is the end, and if there’s a better means to that particular end, so be it. Worth thinking about vis-a-vis Pakistan and the Kingdom.

Feb 3, 2005 - 5:57 pm 96. Bostonian:

Allah, I went back up & read the rest of your posts, the better to understand your question. And I didn’t know I was talking to the mighty AllahPundit, or else I might not have slapped you.

But please look at the question you posed–it made no reference to the very real context that we are actually in. So it’s a purely theoretical question. I’m not interested in it, sorry.

As for your anger about the state of the world, well, I have two-part response to that.

First, nothing’s fair.

Second, the Arab world is handicapped by possessing great natural wealth and also by Wahhabism. These are not conducive to the natural growth of a free society of self-reliant individuals. Things would be mighty different if that oil was sitting under someone else’s feet–but then maybe the pathology would be elsewhere. That’s just how it is.

Feb 3, 2005 - 6:10 pm 97. Knucklehead:

Rectus, Allah.

If you claim you are not tossing about the chickenhawk meme then I accept your claim and hope you will accept my apology.

That said, unless you are asking rhetorical questions for the sake of discussion I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.

I’m saying that people who justify the war solely on moral grounds, without regard to American security interests, are in my opinion being a bit too free and easy with our soldiers’ lives.

I’ve scanned this thread and many others here at Roger’s Place. I’ve read numerous opinion pieces (well, OK, more than numerous – dozens, scores, a hundred or more) and a few books on the topic. I’ve tracked down tomes on “Just War” and read St. Thomas and Machiavelli fercryinoutloud. I’ve even gone and reread some history I thought I had a strong grasp of while pondering the issues surrounding the GWOT in general and Afghanistan and Iraq in particular.

In all that I can safely say I have not run across a single instance of anyone attempting to justify the GWOT, Afghanistan, the Iraq theater of the GWOT (or Iraq thought of as a seperate conflict), or any war past or speculated for the future who attempt to justify this or any war “solely on moral grounds, without regard to American security interests…”. The focus of individual discussion may be, at any particular time, the “morality” of the action and particular individuals may place more or less weight upon “morality”, but I have never seen any example where morality is the sole focus of justification.

For that matter I have never seen a case where national interest is not a factor in justification.

If you have contrary evidence I’d be interested to see it.

WRT to being “free and easy with our soldiers lives” I’ll start with the hardcore case:

- our soldiers are volunteers. They are the ones who place a “price tag” upon their lives. It makes not the slightest bit of difference to anything whether or not you believe they are undervalued.

- none of us, not a single one of us, decide when to send our troops “into harm’s way”. We are not “free and easy with our soldier’s lives”. We are citizens discussing what we believe are justifiable, necessary applications of our nation’s military. As I said in some other thread, get over your self-importance and elitist nonsense. They volunteer and they go where they are sent. And none of us send them – the CIC sends them and we hire him to figure out when it is necessary to do so.

Now let’s get to less hardcore, more “who the hell do you think you are” stuff. Keep your Holier Than Thou, I think of our soldiers lives!” drivel in your bottom drawer. There are those among us here at Roger’s Place who have served. Some of those served in times of war. It’s a safe bet that nearly every one of us who has served has seen our fellow soldiers die. I never saw combat and I’ve seen soldiers die. I’ve seen a close friend’s bloody brains drip-dripping onto the cold, steel floor of a tank. I’ve seen several men I never learned the names of die violent deaths – in peacetime. I served, in peacetime, for two years in a Die-in-Place unit. I’ve pondered death. Even training for war gets people killed. Weapons of war are made to kill and they manage to do that.

Take your “I care, you don’t” crap and shove it. I don’t know how to say that gently.

To those who think spreading democracy is itself a sufficient justification for putting American troops in harm’s way, let me ask: where do you draw the line? Is there a line? And if not, are you prepared to institute the type of permanent draft I described to ensure that the military has all the manpower it needs to achieve its various far-flung missions?

This is the false “intellectual/moral” consistency and “if you don’t have enough candy for everyone than nobody gets any candy” argument. Spreading democracy is not a sufficient justification for going to war. I challenge you to produce a single example of anyone who claims it is. It is, nonetheless, a valid factor among many.

Of course there are lines. Only idiots who insist on moral and/or intellectual consistency at the price of human lives are too stupid to fail to recognize lines and limits.

There is more than one way to skin a cat and there is more than one way to promote and further the reach of democracy and, hopefully simultaneously, protect national interests. Sometimes waging war is the best option. Our soldiers kill and die when we wage war. Blathering after “consistency” is mental masturbation. The world is too complex and dangerous for consistency.

Feb 3, 2005 - 6:35 pm 98. Allah:

Spreading democracy is not a sufficient justification for going to war. I challenge you to produce a single example of anyone who claims it is.

I’m using democracy as an example of a moral interest. And yes, I’m afraid there are plenty of people who think moral interests alone are a sufficient justification for going to war. You want an example? How does the future chairman of the Democratic National Committee grab you?

This is the false “intellectual/moral” consistency and “if you don’t have enough candy for everyone than nobody gets any candy” argument.

I’m not demanding complete consistency, K. I explicitly asked people to tell me where the line is. Quote from my comment of 4:20 p.m.: “[W]here do you draw the line? Is there a line?” You keep trying to lump me in with the leftists, first with the “chickenhawk” thing and now by accusing me of playing “gotcha” with consistency in foreign policy, and that’s not at all what I’m after. I’m perfectly willing to entertain arguments from the Howard Deans of the world who think we should sometimes deploy troops even when we have no national security interest at stake. Just draw me a line. Give me a few guiding principles. No absolute consistency required.

Only idiots who insist on moral and/or intellectual consistency at the price of human lives are too stupid to fail to recognize lines and limits.

Well then you had better talk to Terrye, as she seems perfectly willing to put the Pakistani nuclear arsenal in the jihadis’ hands in the name of democracy. Lines and limits — I couldn’t agree more.

Take your “I care, you don’t” crap and shove it. I don’t know how to say that gently.

I didn’t accuse anyone of not caring. I wouldn’t even accuse Dean of that, and he’s one of the biggest tools on the planet. It’s not that Dean doesn’t care about American troops; it’s that he evidently cares a little bit more about the welfare of Liberians. To which I say, why? Military intervention when there’s no national interest at stake does seem to me to be a case of being too “free and easy” with our soldiers’ lives. Doesn’t mean that a person who holds that position doesn’t care at all about our troops, though.

As for you chastising me based on your experience with war, now you’re the one who seems to be making a chickenhawk argument. Essentially you’re telling me I have no right to disagree with an interventionist who’s been in the military, at least when it comes to deciding what constitutes an acceptable level of casualties. If I do, then I’m being “holier than thou.” Not sure what to say to that, except perhaps “rectus.”

Feb 3, 2005 - 7:22 pm 99. Katherine:

But dear Allah, (whose blog I mightily admired), the real difficulty is dealing with the real life as opposed to theoretical questions. It needs to be done on case-to-case bases. It is extremely difficult to theoretically say what should we do about such and such situation until we know the details. Sometime one particular bit of info may tip the scale into action or inaction.

My heart bleeds for North Korean people whose sufferings, I believe, are magnitudes worse than Iraqis. But I also think that best way to deal with that particular situation is to do nothing and let that regime implode ñ and that will probably bring fastest relief to the suffering and solve political situation to boot. I think that we should take military action against Syria; I think that we should promote internal uprising in Iran. But these are very uninformed opinions and the true decision makers who have all the critical details will figure out what to do, and even then they may be wrong. Such, unfortunately is life. We all deal with uncertainties and take risks all the time.

In principle, it would be lovely if we could wave a magic wand and make everybody free and happy. The reality is different and often there are no perfect solutions. That is why it is so very hard to answer your questions, at least for me.

Feb 3, 2005 - 9:45 pm 100. Bill from INDC:

Forgive my lateness to the party, but the clannishness expressed by “American lives are so much more precious than those of an inferior culture” loses credibility when one takes an intermediate view of the shitstorm coming down in the next century. Interconnected economies, flattening of technological hierarchies – we are ALL fucked unless we invest in the relative success of troubled societies. This IS the realistic view. And an even more realistic view is possibly that we’re screwed anyway.

But it’s worth a shot. And in perspective, 1300 or 13,000 AMerican lives are worth creating the preconditions that marginalize elements that will essentially have access to levers that could unwind much of civilization within our lifetimes. It may feel good or right to analyze and acknowledge that certain cultures are not as adept as ours, not as good at being good, but staging precious American lives on friendly shores won’t protect anyone from that.

And when one really looks at the pace of change, the future is a lot scarier than people realize.

Feb 3, 2005 - 10:23 pm 101. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

I think Allah raises some valid points, albeit in a bit of a confusing way.

There are foreign policy “realists” – who look at the effects of policies primarily in terms of national interest.

There are also foreign policy idealists, who have goals that are based on humanitarian impulses.

Most people have a mix of the two.

As a Vietnam Vet, I tend towards the realist school, even as my heart pulls me the other way. I was against Kosovo specifically because I considered it a violation of the implied social contract between us and our soldiers: we won’t expend their lives except in defense of our country. I was especially angry that we called up reservists and guardists to fight not in defense of our country. That was inexcusable.

I once ticked off Bill O’Reilly (not hard to do) by calling his support for Kosovo racist because we were saving one group of white Europeans while letting the Africans butcher each other. This was to make a point: don’t go to war for humanitarian reasons.

To be clear, we kicked the Iraqi’s out of Kuwait in 1991 and conquered them last year for our national interest. It is good that this will probably lead to a humanitarian bonanza in the long term. As someone else pointed out, our humanitarian impulses and our perceived strategic needs are currently congruent in Iraq. But they may not be in Zimbabwe, where a mini-Ukrainian-style famine is in progress. Only if Zimbabwe becomes useful to Al Qaeda (and there are signs it may) should it ever appear on the American military interention radar screen.

This is why I suggested a “humanitarian corps.” I have no detailed plans, but I suspect it would be possible to shame the rest of the world into providing troops (volunteers only) and money to such a corps (but we would have to maintain control, or at least not allow the forces of evil, like France, to have a major say). The advantage of such an organization is that its members would have volunteered to fight for humanitarian reasons rather than self defense (which is not to impluthat our soldiers are not themselves great humanitarians – they are).

A “humanitarian corps” would solve the moral issue of important humanitarian interventions that do not benefit anyone but the victims. I think it’s a real possibility – low probability but not to be idly dismissed. It might also provide an opportunity to the anti-Military folks (usually on the left) to participate in humanitarian military missions, which would increase the volunteer pool, and would help educate the left on the realities of the world.

Feb 3, 2005 - 10:31 pm 102. Katherine:

John,

Your concept of Humanitarian Corps is appealing, but I fear that probability that Osama will convert to Christianity is greater than that of any leftists (at least these that I know) to join a mission with a military aspect, no matter how humanitarian.

Feb 3, 2005 - 10:51 pm 103. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Katherine,

I don’t think the odds are quite that bad… but they are in the same ballpark, unfortunately.

Feb 3, 2005 - 11:36 pm 104. Terrye:

Allah:

Excuse Terrye the idiot for not getting back to you sooner but I had to go to bed. Bothersome job and all.

Here it is morning and I come on to check out Roger’s place before I hit the road and find that somehow I have given Pakistan a nuclear arsenal.. golly gee.

Listen buddy boy I don’t give a damn if you do have a blog, do not call me an idiot.

And as far as the call to democracy is concerned, no I don’t want AlQaida to get a nuclear device, however, the state of affairs in regards to Pakistan’s military and as far as that is concerned NK’s existed long before the Bush Doctrine came along. I would say it was those realists out there who ran our foreign policy for many years that dropped the ball in this regard.

Maybe if they had been more interested in reform 20 eyars ago it might have made a difference today.

So don’t put words in my mouth. It pisses me off.

Feb 4, 2005 - 3:13 am 105. Salt Lick:

Folks, I’m confused with regard to these attacks on Allah. To my mind, here is the gist of Allah’s argument:

“Don’t get me wrong: We all love the guys from Iraq the Model and I’m pleased as punch that they now have the chance to do something they’ve always dreamed of. But when it comes to people being sacrificed for Iraqi freedom, if it’s a choice between them or Byron Norwood it had better be them every time — *****unless Norwood’s country also stands to benefit from his heroism***** [emphasis mine]. Whether it will or not remains to be seen. I’m cautiously optimistic.”

There is nothing in there saying we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. And Katherine, I didn’t say that either. I’m 100% behind the Iraq mission and gave so much money to Dubya and the Swift Boat Veterans last year my kid will have to do without shoes. (BTW, Katherine — thanks for the response. It’s nice to be noticed when the big elephants are sparring. I feel like a little bird running between their feet, pecking at their turds.)

Roger wrote, “I am somewhat confused about how the moral argument for the war can be separated from the practical aspect…” I was in the military AND in the Peace Corps. There are limits to what we can do in other cultures. There is often a big gap between what is moral and what is practical. It varies by country and by culture. For example, after a big invasion and billions of dollars spent, why is Haiti still such an armpit? Personally, I think it’s something in the culture. Oh shit, that is probably going to start something on me. I’m just a little bird. Go shoot Allah.

Feb 4, 2005 - 5:13 am 106. Bostonian:

Salt Lick, about Haiti & such places–our foreign policy for decades has believed that the way to convert the world’s hellholes is to spend money. It doesn’t work. And I think that idea is over.

If I were in the Cabinet, my foreign policy would be to recruit the people of the world themselves, bypassing their idiot and/or rulers.

In the case of Iraq, that meant a rather forcible bypass. So be it.

I don’t know what’s next, but I do know that we are making a big mistake if we omit from our calculations the people in these countries, whom we have treated as pawns for so many decades.

Let us see what emerging democracy does in Iraq to the politicial & world outlooks of the millions of people in the surrounding countries.

***

Allah, you suppose the US president (whoever he is) to have such power as to force the US population to go along with any plan. You neglect public opinion. You want a precise answer in a world that doesn’t give them–there is little precision when decisions are jointly arrived at by millions of people and their elected leaders. Whatever happens will be a messy compromise. For your homework assignment, go read _The Wisdom of Crowds_.

Feb 4, 2005 - 6:36 am 107. Bostonian:

John Moore, I agree with you on Kosovo for exactly the reason you give: “I was against Kosovo specifically because I considered it a violation of the implied social contract between us and our soldiers: we won’t expend their lives except in defense of our country. ”

The sticky part is that sometimes we argue about what is needed for our country’s defense–witness the ongoing war about the war.

Feb 4, 2005 - 6:42 am 108. Katherine:

Terrye makes an excellent point when she writes:

ìMaybe if they had been more interested in reform 20 years ago it might have made a difference today.î

Though to be fair to the decision-makers 20 years ago we still had Soviet Empire to deal with, and that made the geopolitical equation somewhat different than it is now.

And I second Bostonian: throwing money at a messed-up country even after successful military intervention has proven time and time again to be a dreadful mistake: the country usually end back where it started except that Swiss bank gains a shiny new account of a shiny new dictator. If we want that kind of outcome we might as well let the UN ìtake careî of the problem.

We are trying something unprecedented in Iraq and the chances are that we might be successful. So I hope. WRT rest of the region, the devilís in the details. One problem at a time.

PS. Salt Lick, I am most emphatically NOT an elephant. Just thought to clear this upÖ

Feb 4, 2005 - 7:02 am 109. Knucklehead:

Allah,

Obviously I misunderstand what the points your trying to make. John Moore apparently follows what your after and claims it makes some level of sense. I’ve failed to make any sense of it.

There is no “See Table B-4″ list that says when we should use military forces and when we shouldn’t. That’s why we elect presidents, so they can run the executive branch of government with its State Department, DoD, NSA, Justice Department, intelligence agencies, etc. Those are the people we expect to figure out how to go about dealing with the various dangers of the world around us given our vast, but not unlimited, power and resources and taking into account our current and projected commitments. These are the people we pay to assess the information available, collect more if necessary and possible, identify the possible courses of action and tools available, determine the potential range of outcomes, analyse costs vs. benefits, and make the difficult and imperfect decisions about priorities, actions, and resource allocations.

You keep mentioning the use of the military for “solely” humanitarian purposes and brought up Liberia. I don’t actually recall what the whole Liberia catfight was all about anymore but apparently we did use some two or three-hundred marines in Liberia. Googling the thing shows reports of that but I find nothing that tells me whether they encountered any military resistance or casualties of any sort or whether we remain engaged or have left. Do you know what the outcome was and what it cost us in terms of resources?

We sent an aircraft carrier and some 15,000 troops to do “solely” humanitarian work for disaster relief for the tsunami. What guarantee did we have that some lunatic fringe, Sri Lankan, Claw of Allah’s Tiger or whatever wasn’t going to sieze the opportunity and attack US troops? Now that we’re pulling out the aircraft carrier and ~10,000 of the troops, how do we know the remaining 5,000 will not have their lives placed at risk?

Playing “fast and loose” with the lives of our troops involves a whole lot more than simply deciding where and when to send or not send them. Consider Somalia. I recommend that anyone who wants to get some feel for how US troops become involved in UN humanitarian “quagmires” to read Operations in Somalia.

The point I’m trying to make here, after all that, is that the good folks here are not charged with making any of the decisions you ask about. We can only play rhetorical ping-pong. We hire POTUS to make these decisions and that is reason enough why one might prefer, for example, Bush-43 as CIC over, for example, Howard Dean or John Kerry.

Feb 4, 2005 - 7:10 am 110. Rick Ballard:

Very interesting discussion (after subtracting the mind reading). I strongly side with allah on this because logic is definitely on his side.

Military force is a blunt tool which happens to be extraordinarily expensive to use (in all senses). It is a last resort and its use indicates the exhaustion of all other means. Sgt. Norwood died protecting and defending America – not Achmed’s right to vote. He died after the US had gone an extra mile (and more) in the diplomatic arena and had been rebuffed by a cabal marked primarily by its overwheening venality. Corrupt politicians working with a corrupt institution insured that force (which they all profess to abhor) was the only option left.

Should our elected officials determine that deposing other tyrants be in the best security interest of the country I will have no problem in supporting the effort. In the event that the extension of “freedom” ( a very hazy ideal to those unable to garner the days rations for themselves) is proposed as the rationale for intervention in nations incapable of posing a security threat, then I would firmly oppose it – unless we had gone twice as far as we did in the case of Iraq in exhausting means other than military.

If we truly wish to support freedom then why do we have protectionist tariffs on agricultural products and why do we subsidize corporations? Freedom is a “higher need” that works best when “base needs” have been met. In one sense it is a luxury good. Getting rid of Mugabe or Kim (or the Chinese poliburo) will not lift the peasants in Zimbabwe, Korea and China to the status of “free men” able to self determine their lot but will instead create a rabble who will vote their stomachs at every opportunity until those stomachs are filled.

A focus on setting (or enabling) conditions for the filling of peasants stomachs will advance the cause of freedom far more effectively than the use of military force ever shall. Keep the bayonets shining and never fear to use them – but only as a last alternative.

We are nearing the end of diplomatic possibilities with regard to Iran. The Iranians have the right to vote. When we exercise the military option there (and I believe we will) we will not be doing so in furtherance of anyone’s freedom but our own.

Feb 4, 2005 - 7:32 am 111. Katherine:

Rick,

ìIf we truly wish to support freedom then why do we have protectionist tariffs on agricultural products and why do we subsidize corporationsî

Ah, tariffs! Sugar is my particular ìfavoriteî.

If we really wanted to help the developing/undeveloped countries we would do what you propose, but how politically viable is that? Even the free-trade agreement with Australia had an exemption for that vile sugar subsidy. Again, I will play the betting game: we will sooner withdraw from the UN than we will have rational policy regarding global trade. There are too many interests screaming for protection (remember the steel tariffs ñ and how is the American Big Steel doing those days, after the ìmuch neededî period of artificially set prices, did they to catch up with competitors?)

But I think the discussion was about using military force. I repeat: it just so happens that getting rid of tyrants is in our selfish interest and we should be doing it ñ when situation dictates (details, details). I also believe that once this is done we have to put the freshly freed country on some sort of promising path, politically and economically, to prevent backsliding. Recall that Mugabwe used to be an much praised ìenlightenedî ruler, before he caught the ìSoros diseaseî.

When I speak about economic aid I would prefer to see us setting some infrastructure, such as banking, and entering into free trade agreements, but not direct governmental aid, which usually ends up padding the accounts of corrupt officials. As the example of our St. Kofi demonstrates, all officials are quite corruptible ñ as long as they are certain that there are no consequences.

All this is not exactly easy. Building civil society from scratch is not a 5-year project and I am not sure that I have much stomach for righting ALL the ills that the rest of humanity brings on itself.

I only hope that we can avoid major catastrophes.

Feb 4, 2005 - 8:40 am 112. Rick Ballard:

Katherine,

Details are the crux of the matter. I believe that democracy will flourish in Eastern Europe because the people involved have a sense of themselves as belonging to nations rather than tribes. National (rather than tribal/ethnic/religious) identity lends itself to the commonality of identification and interest necessary for long term democratic stability. There are other factors that may be as important but I like to stick to the obvious.

Feb 4, 2005 - 9:21 am 113. Bostonian:

A pox on all tariffs & subsidies, I say.

Feb 4, 2005 - 9:24 am 114. Terrye:

Hey I got pissed off at Allah because he made a snide sippy little crack about me giving AlQaida nukes. or soemthing else just as ridiculous.

And as far as agricultural subsidies go, if we cut all of them in the end it will be something else to add to the trade deficit.

I mean come on, people in the third world were starving before there was a dairy program.

Feb 4, 2005 - 12:01 pm 115. Allah:

In case anyone’s still following this thread, I apologize for not responding to the last few comments. I spent two hours writing a reply this afternoon and the damned thing disappeared when I tried to post it. The prospect of hashing it all out again is too daunting so I’ll just take a pass if no one minds.

Let me note in parting, though, that what Bill calls “clannishness” is, I think, both necessary and inevitable notwithstanding the truth of his point about the interconnectedness of nations. Inevitable because common culture and gratitude for their sacrifice on our behalf mean most of us can’t help placing a bit more value on the lives of American troops vis-a-vis other peoples’, just as other people can’t help feeling the same way about their countrymen vis-a-vis American troops. And necessary because while Bill is quite correct that “we are ALL fucked” when troubled societies fail, America and Britain seem to be the only two countries expected to do anything about it. With the rest of the world content to take a free ride, I think “clannishness” in the form of excessive scrupulousness about when and where our soldiers are put in harm’s way is more than justified.

Feb 4, 2005 - 8:55 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: