I’ve always found this repeated meme fascinating. While it was proven that Iraq did not have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, it was proven to be in material breach of its cease fire agreement(CFA). Since it has violated the CFA, the U.S. has the right to impose consequences but the that right has been taken away by the nabobs. Since we can no longer enforce CFA’s, what is the point in signing them anymore? Do we now fight wars until we’ve annihlation? I suppose surrender is still on the table as long as it’s unconditional.

To the extent that leftists do see themselves at the center of defining and solving problems, it is because they accept civic responsibility.

American citizens can’t meaningfully accept reponsibility for the religious mysticism and gangster values that motivated the 9/11, but they can take responsibility for U.S. policy mistakes such as helping bin Laden get started as a terrorist and backing Saddam Hussein when his atrocities were at their peak.

While leftists want to draw attention to their country’s responsiblity for the events that befall it, that does not mean they deny the shared responsiblity of others. While there are certainly fringe lunatics on boths sides of the political spectrum that want to blame 9/11 on gay marriage or U.S. oil companies, no mainstream liberal Americans deny that bin Laden and his followers bear primary responsibility.

Shannon is absolutely correct that leftists do not see themselves as anti-American, but this in no way distinguishes them from right-wing ideologues. The only difference is that rightists tend to use the anti-American allegation more consistently and vehemently against their political opponents.

The left and right simply disagree on what is good and what is bad about America. To be sure, some leftists and some rightists have ulterior, emotional complexes and emotions that drive their political views. But this is no way unique to either side, as can easily be demonstrated.

I would be very interested to hear Shannon’s analysis of the motives and emotional frame of rightists.

As I said, I do think that we are already engaging with Russia and China, but that will almost undoubtedly lead to nothing because of energy politics. We have to agree to one-on-one, direct diplomatic talks with Iran.

What makes you think we’re not?

Let me first start with an assumption. I’ll assume that you don’t believe that we’ve made anywhere near our best peaceful effort to date. I think this assumption is difficult to argue (complete disengagement after declaring Iran part of the Axis of Evil certainly doesn’t qualify in my mind), but I don’t want to assume anything.

With that as a foundation, I would argue that what Iran is doing right now is very smart from their perspective. They’ve seen that North Korea has become essentially untouchable because they have the defense of a nuke (plus the ability to inflict devastating damage to S. Korea). They also have seen what happened to the pathetically weak and cornered Hussein in Iraq. They’ve concluded that the way to preserve power is to develop a nuclear defense. They key here is that (and this is my opinion) this is a way for them to preserve power. I don’t believe they seek these weapons for offensive goals, but as a shield against their rather correct calculation that we want them gone and will stop at next to nothing to achieve this. With this in mind, we have a way to engage with them if we direct our diplomatic efforts towards this end. The only way we can get them to stop their program is to offer up that we will not take aggressive military measures against them so long as they halt their nuclear enrichment program. Obviously this pact would terminate upon any aggressive steps that Iran would take against any of its neighbors. I am very confident that this would work, as Iran has come close to overt statements to this effect.

I understand the next argument would be about Ahmanijad’s rhetoric against Israel. This is troubling to say the least, but I don’t believe as dangerous as it appears on the surface. There’s some brinkmanship going on here, but he’s drawing attention to the potential dangers of a Iranian nuke, as a way to engage the US directly in discussions, with the goal of achieving assurances that the US will not take military steps against Iran.

This still doesn’t answer the question of what happens if the Iranians reject an offer such as this. I’ve already stated that I don’t believe that they would, and I will also add that we would be foolish and, arguably, morally bankrupt, to attack without attempting a step such as this. Military action against Iran would set the democratic reform process back at least two generations, if not forever.

Assuming these efforts were to fail, we could then engage Russia and China to exert pressure on them. This is likely not a promising strategy, but again one we should pursue (and one that I imagine we are pursuing now).

I’m not saying that we should take the military option off the table. What I am saying is that we should engage on all of these fronts first, as the ramifications to military action are severe. If all of our steps were to fail, we would then have to discuss whether we could live with Iranian nukes. This would be a long debate, and one that probably goes beyond the scope of what we’re currently discussing here, but you could make a strong argument that we can. I’m not saying that I necessarily agree with this, but it’d be an interesting discussion. Iran’s military would be in the crosshairs of both the Israeli nuclear arsenal, and the stunning US arsenal (the US defense budget is greater than Iran’s GNP btw). This is an incredible deterrent to aggressive steps by Iran against any of its neighbors.

Remember that we stared down the threat of Soviet nukes for close to half a century. The mullah’s first and foremost goal is to preserve power and exert regional influence. I personally do not believe that they are stupid enough to take offensive military steps, and their goals, rhetoric aside, are defensive. They understand, and we all should understand, that any aggressive steps on their end (inlcuding against Israel) would lead to the rapid evisceration of their state. They’re not crazy like our friend in North Korea, but instead are cold, calculating individuals who understand that this is the only card that they have to preserve power.

Interested in your thoughts on this…

I agree that Iranians are broadly pro-USA and that we would probably alienate many of them if we attacked their country. However, the Iranian Islamist regime has a long-running program to build nuclear weapons. What do you suggest we do if our best peaceful efforts do not result in the replacement of the mullahs by a democratic government? Should we allow the mullahs to have nuclear weapons because we don’t want to make Iranians unhappy with us? Please give us some concrete proposals.

This is a flawed premise, as it assumes a zero sum relationship. You’ve set up a binary choice, arguing that if I don’t support a invasion of Iran then I must not support democracy in Iran. This is utterly ridiculous. I have stated that I don’t believe that democracies arise at the barrel end of of a gun and I hold to that hypothesis. That doesn’t mean that I don’t support democracy! The argument that Japan’s thriving democracy arose through military means ignores the extremely important fact that the U.S. had the moral authority to occupy Japan after WWII because of a little event called Pearl Harbor. Iraq, on the other end, was a pre-emptive war of aggression. There is a world of difference between how the “occupants” view the occupying force in these two scenarios. In the case of Iran, throughout much of the ’90′s there was a growing movement among the people of Iran towards democracy. The democratic reformer Khatami was president; however, everyone correctly noted that he only had token power. Now that Ahmanijad is in power in the exact same relationship to the mullahs, suddenly he’s Hitler? It makes me sick that the people in Iran have to live under the oppression of the mullahs, but the facts of history demonstrate that the most unifying thing for any country is war, especially when your country is the one that is attacked. An invasion of Iran or, more likely, a strategic airstrike against their nukes, would simply consolidate power behind the mullahs as the people, despite an overall lack of support, would defend their country out of national pride. I support democracy in Iran, which is why I do NOT support military action against them. The people want democracy, but would fight an occupation tooth and nail. Democracy will come in Iran if we show the patience and resolve that we demonstrated throughout the Cold War. The Czech Republic’s long journey to democracy took 43 years, and it took brilliant leaders of courage and conviction like Vaclav Havel. We supported and sowed the roots of that journey. That’s how Iran’s transformation will have to occur.

Here is a quote, which I will have to leave unattributed, that I think aptly sums this up, “History is not kind to those who attempt to speed its course.” History will not be kind to our pre-emptive invasion of a country with bitter sectarian divisions and no unifying characteristics, a country that was cobbled together by the Brits and ruled by an iron fist since.

You ask about alternatives. There were MANY alternatives on 9/12/01, an extremely tragic day for this country, as it was on this day that we began to piss away the greatest opportunity to truly lead that the world has ever seen. There are far less options now, do to our mistakes and miscalculations, but still they exist. I’d be happy to have a discussion with you on this subject, if you would like, but I want respond again to claims of “intellectual cowardice” that are based on faulty premises.

The US & UK have already lost the War on Terror.

We lost when our govenments started to hold the muslim world somehow accountable for the actions of madmen. Statements like “The muslim community must work harder to expose the fanatics in their midst”. Bearing in mind that the guys who blew up buses in London were “ordinary blokes” who wore Nikes – who, exactly, is responsible for their actions aside from themselves ? I’m not – so why should a man who happens to be muslim be made to feel like he has to apologise or “work closer with police” than I do ? Does the goverment think that will make a person feel more or less accepted ?

We lost when our governments told us to be terrified. “Go about your daily business – but remember they are out to kill you and your family”.

Look at this suicide bomber – oh, no, hang on he’s a plumber.

Look at these two – they’ve got beards. We shot one when he was fighting our police – oh no hang on, they’re not and we shot him in completely different circumstances.

They are going to blow up planes using liquid. No liquid on planes! (unless of course they are coming from any other country in the entire world). Oh yeah – and no violins.

We lose every time we imagine that OBL actually wants to change anything – be it by invasion (!), as some people posting here seem to think or by “liberation of the muslims from the West”. He doesn’t care. We are playing his game. Everytime an infidels bomb lands on a civilian house, more angry 20-somethings feel a bit closer to him. And guess what happens when we catch him ? He becomes a martyr, and the angry young men find someone else to follow.

We lose when we remove 1,000 year old liberties.

We lose when we see enemies where there are none – Iraq was secular. The chances of Saddam supporting terrorist was non-existant.

We lose when we think of Us and Them. That’s OBL’s only aim.

To put my opinions into context, I am right of centre by inclination. Myself, and my entire family, are ex-forces. I ain’t no beardy-socialist tree hugging happy-clappy hippy.

I was initially gobsmacked by the US’s reserved response to the 9/11. I could not think of a state, in the entire history of the world that has as much power as the US has, that would have reacted as restrained as Bush did in the weeks and months following 9/11.

For the first time (and only) time in his PM’ship, I believed Tony Blair when he said he thought there were WMD in Iraq.

I think now, I was terribly, terribly wrong.

We’ve been lied to, we are being lied to and the only peope who can end the War On Terror is us.
Our governments will always be able to find something for us to hate/be afraid of. We need to stop being afraid.

Ocenia has always been at war with Eastasia. We will prevail.

Brilliant analysis. Immediately obvious upon reading. I’ll be using (and attributing) often.

Very nicely done.

I don’t believe you favor democracy in the ME — because of your arguments.
a) Bush claims to support democracy; invaded two countries; both have had elections. Both seem to be increasing in democracy.
You, Edgar, seem to be against the invasion for democracy.
You offer no alternative, which seems intellectually cowardly. ‘Let Iran remain a mullah-dictatorship until they have a velvet revolution’ — you don’t say this, perhaps because you know how silly it sounds. What is the alternative you propose?

Japan’s successful democracy isn’t the only one; so is S. Korea, AFTER a US supported General-dictator. Dictator-Pinochet in Chile, murderer but supported by the US, did create good market institutions and the basis of the most wealthy S. American country, AND democracy.

S. Vietnam could have been a success, and was on it’s corrupt but merry way, but needed more cash which the Dems pulled the plug on. So 600 000 S. Viet US allies were allowed to be murdered.

US weakness/ support for terrorism started with the Dem handover in Vietnam — proving to all anti-US folk that victory against the US was possible even without winning a battle.

The dictator-Shah of Iran was opposed by: a) idealistic democrats wanting human rights, b) idealistic communists wanting a Leftist dictatorship, and c) Khomeni, wanting an Islamic dictatorship. All “against the Shah” are responsible for the success of Khomeni, and partly the Islamic threat.

The Dems who cared “so much” about the hundreds of Vietnamese people being killed by the US in My Lai murders (during war), stopped caring about the murders when it was their N. Viet commie allies doing the murder after surrender.

And I doubt that Murtha, for instance, would care much if the US left Iraq and in the Sunni – Shia civil war bloodbath another 600 000 were killed. Of course, the Dems would claim that was proof it was a mistake to invade.

If we stay, Iraq will become a stable democracy (it’s not stable, yet), in less than the 1946-1989 43 years it took to win the Cold War. Is it worth staying until Iraq stability, relative to the alternative? I say yes — Murtha and the Dems don’t give any details on the cost of leaving.

Whether it’s worth the cost or not depends on what the costs and benefits of each alternative are — but these alternative cost/benefit packages are NOT being discussed. This is just one of the annoyances of 5 years of waiting for a rational discussion.

The North coast of the Mediterranean from Spain to Greece is Christian; The South shore from Morocco to Saudi Arabia is Islamic. This is a great social laboratory that has been stable for 500 years since the Moors were pushed out of Spain/Andalusia. The contrast in economic success is overwhelming. Islam creates poverty.

How then, can Islamic terrorism be blamed on poverty?

At the same time, others were thinking that to get at the roots of terrorism, we had to quit selling arms to these governments, quit supporting friendly regimes and playing them off against each other. In other words, withdraw from foreign policy, quit importing oil and run the nation on sunshine and windmills.

The real problem that divided us arose after the Congress approved military action in Iraq. When Howard Dean raised millions of dollars almost instantly via the internet because he was angry about the war, those who had voted for it and for funding it quickly found that they’d been lied to and would never have supported it if they’d known we wouldn’t find stockpiles of WMD. And now that’s their story and they’re sticking to it and getting more angry every day.

Then there’s the press coverage, which most people experience as a tone, rather than a detailed factual account. They hear John Stewart, Leno and Letterman and form a feeling toward the war, the economy, whatever.

Sigh. How did we ever survive this long?

I agree that since then, and especially since Iraq, both parties have gone in opposite directions. But it’s ridiculous to imagine that as soon as the towers fell the average democrat voter instantly erected a nuanced system to convert raw muslim hatred into refined Western guilt. It was a coping mechanism for a new paradigm, and those take time to build. So I believe there was a time when we were all united, but considering what it took we’re probably better off without it.

I’m of the opinion we must look to first to the past for clues on how to proceed against this enemy and its ideology of hate and Evil from Medievil Times.

See my post:

A 9/11 Message from RBT

RBT

Once more, you succintly post what I feel to be true, but could never articulate. Odd, how so easily so many of us projected what we felt, that day, onto every other of good will, given how little Americans are likely to agree with one another. I do still think that no matter how different, or misguided, our thoughts are. the vast majority in the US are “for” America and their fellow Americans. We just disagree violently, as ever, what the best outcome is and how we achieve it. I hope vehemently that our devisiveness will actually be our strength and our health.

PS Thanks for the direct to anim-e. I gave it a chance and love what I’ve found. Unfortunately, it’s on your no watch list, so I won’t bother blathering. However, I trust your judgment: so no “Bebop” for me, and I used your list to b-day shop for my husband. Thanks again and keep up the good work. Miss you much.

A celebration of our divisiveness?

While I fully understand where you’re coming from Stephen, I am afraid I have to take issue with you on our divisiveness not being a growing, potentially fatal, weakness.

A diversity of ideologies may be a sign of a healthy Democracy, and yes, its great to bask in the intellectual freedoms our ancestors have secured for us. But shouldn’t one of the measures of exactly how great our divisive political / social systems are be how big a disadvantage they put us in relative to the changing global norm?

How great is it really when half our government and electorate have to facilitate and celebrate the failures of the other half whenever they are out of power if the want to get back “In Charge”?

If paralyzing divisiveness is so great, why does it embarrass me so bad when it mirrors verbatim our united enemy’s propaganda attempts to divide us further?