Our Policy in the Mideast
fred...@papertig.com
> In article <1143935263.3...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> fred...@papertig.com says...
> > It is why even Bush gives primacy to "democracy" rather than crushing
> > Islamic fanaticism (and why it looks like all of our efforts in the
> > Mideast may simply go down the drain in the years to come).
>
> I doubt I will see any response to my earlier posts today, so it may be
> time to open another front. The argument for establishing democracy is
> that democracies have a record of being peaceful, not any assumption of
> "multi-culturalism" or "ethical relativism".
That is the argument - the only argument. It is not entirely
unreasonable, but implicit is that anything the majority in these
countries want is fine - including, eg. executing a Christian convert.
That was not the approach we took to Germany and Japan. For example,
former Naziis were not allowed to run for office.
> But what I am really curious about is how you would suggest the U.S.
> government crush Islamic fanaticism.
Nukes?
> I have a friend who claims he
> could manage almost any major league baseball team better than its
> current manager, but, strangely, no team has asked him to do so. I am
> wondering if you can match my friend's ability in baseball with a
> similar - and strangely untested - ability in foreign policy.
I don't expect to get any job offers anytime soon either. :-)
Fred Weiss
goo...@nobsys.net
> Gordon Sollars wrote:
> > I doubt I will see any response to my earlier posts today, so it may be
> > time to open another front. The argument for establishing democracy is
> > that democracies have a record of being peaceful, not any assumption of
> > "multi-culturalism" or "ethical relativism".
>
> That is the argument - the only argument. It is not entirely
> unreasonable, but implicit is that anything the majority in these
> countries want is fine - including, eg. executing a Christian convert.
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion.
My understanding is that democracies moderate both the best and worst
of our nature across nations. And the assumption is that even Islamic
nations find it against their best interests to support Islamist
terrorism when democratized.
Bill Carson
Gordon Sollars
fred...@papertig.com says...
> Gordon Sollars wrote:
> > In article <1143935263.3...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> > fred...@papertig.com says...
>
> > > It is why even Bush gives primacy to "democracy" rather than crushing
> > > Islamic fanaticism (and why it looks like all of our efforts in the
> > > Mideast may simply go down the drain in the years to come).
> >
> > I doubt I will see any response to my earlier posts today, so it may be
> > time to open another front. The argument for establishing democracy is
> > that democracies have a record of being peaceful, not any assumption of
> > "multi-culturalism" or "ethical relativism".
>
> That is the argument - the only argument.
So you now withdraw your claim that multi-culturalism and ethical
relativism are "why even Bush gives primacy to "democracy""? Is that
correct?
> It is not entirely
> unreasonable, but implicit is that anything the majority in these
> countries want is fine - including, eg. executing a Christian convert.
>
> That was not the approach we took to Germany and Japan. For example,
> former Naziis were not allowed to run for office.
I believe that mere Nazi party membership was not by itself sufficient
to disqualify, but was anyone with any significant connection to Hussein
allowed to run in Iraq?
> > But what I am really curious about is how you would suggest the U.S.
> > government crush Islamic fanaticism.
>
> Nukes?
Nuke /what/? It wouldn't take a nuke to kill bin Laden if we knew where
he was. Besides, if we nuke Iraq, how will we get "our" oil, Fred? My
earlier suggestion that the Young Objectivist Brigades pump it out while
wearing radiation suits was not meant to be taken seriously.
The notion that all that stands between the U.S. and victory in the war
on terrorism is the use of bigger weapons is a teenager's video game
fantasy. But it's good to see that you are young at heart. ;-)
--
Gordon
fred...@papertig.com
> In article <1143944518....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> fred...@papertig.com says...
> > > ...The argument for establishing democracy is
> > > that democracies have a record of being peaceful, not any assumption of
> > > "multi-culturalism" or "ethical relativism".
> >
> > That is the argument - the only argument.
>
> So you now withdraw your claim that multi-culturalism and ethical
> relativism are "why even Bush gives primacy to "democracy""? Is that
> correct?
No, because it is not democracies, per se, which have a record of being
peaceful. It is countries which respect individual rights, of which
democracy is a part but it is not unrestrained. Democracy is not and
cannot be the primary. Look at the recent Palestinian elections. Even
all the usual cheerleaders for "democracy" shrank back in dismay at
what happened in that election.
> ...was anyone with any significant connection to Hussein
> allowed to run in Iraq?
I don't know. That would certainly be a concern but I'm just as or more
concerned about the Islamists, the Imams and the avowedly religious
parties. We are not insisting on a separation of church and state
either in Iraq or in Afghanistan - and that is the primary issue.
That's what we are fighting in that part of the world - theocracy. It
achieves nothing to replace a secular fascist regime with an
IslamoFascist one.
> > > But what I am really curious about is how you would suggest the U.S.
> > > government crush Islamic fanaticism.
> >
> > Nukes?
>
> Nuke /what/?
Whatever it takes. It only took 2 to get Japan to surrender and they
were as fanatical and as suicidal as the Islamists.
> The notion that all that stands between the U.S. and victory in the war
> on terrorism is the use of bigger weapons is a teenager's video game
> fantasy.
I'm open to be persuaded to use other forceful methods. But the notion
that the problem can be stopped by grovelling is far worse.
Fred Weiss
goo...@nobsys.net
> cannot be the primary. Look at the recent Palestinian elections. Even
> all the usual cheerleaders for "democracy" shrank back in dismay at
> what happened in that election.
The "cheerleaders" note that one election does not make a
democracy.
If Hammas has a series of free and fair elections (struggling to type
that with a straight face) while promoting terrorism, it would at least
be an exception to the moderating power of democracy.
Democracy is strategically promoted as a primary because it's a
relatively easy sell in a world unified on nothing, at least easy
compared to forcing the philosophically primary values that it's
expected to unlock. "Palestine" is now relatively isolated.
Assuming the civilized world stays at least this resolved, Hammas can
compromise or stagnate and decay. Their choice.
> That's what we are fighting in that part of the world - theocracy. It
> achieves nothing to replace a secular fascist regime with an
> IslamoFascist one.
We have never directly fought theocracy.
To call what we're building islamo fascist regimes, evidence has to
be cherry picked and presented out of context.
> > Nuke /what/?
>
> Whatever it takes. It only took 2 to get Japan to surrender and they
> were as fanatical and as suicidal as the Islamists.
The world was politically unified in defeating Japan. If we can't
overwhelmingly win the political and moral arguments before nuking our
enemy, nukes feed our broader enemy.
> I'm open to be persuaded to use other forceful methods. But the notion
> that the problem can be stopped by grovelling is far worse.
At least we agree on something.
Bill Carson
Gordon Sollars
fred...@papertig.com says...
> Gordon Sollars wrote:
> > In article <1143944518....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > fred...@papertig.com says...
>
> > > > ...The argument for establishing democracy is
> > > > that democracies have a record of being peaceful, not any assumption of
> > > > "multi-culturalism" or "ethical relativism".
> > >
> > > That is the argument - the only argument.
> >
> > So you now withdraw your claim that multi-culturalism and ethical
> > relativism are "why even Bush gives primacy to "democracy""? Is that
> > correct?
>
> No, because it is not democracies, per se, which have a record of being
> peaceful.
Wake up. The issue was not whether a particular argument is correct,
but /what/ argument is being made. You are wrong about that, end of
story. You needn't go on to run down democracies to me - I'm an
anarchist. ;-)
...
> > ...was anyone with any significant connection to Hussein
> > allowed to run in Iraq?
>
> I don't know. That would certainly be a concern but I'm just as or more
> concerned about the Islamists, the Imams and the avowedly religious
> parties. We are not insisting on a separation of church and state
> either in Iraq or in Afghanistan - and that is the primary issue.
Iraq is falling apart, the U.S. government is looking for a way out to
end the strain on its resources, and you want to add another crippling
goal to the mix. Fred, we /could/ nuke Iraq into oblivion, but that
does not mean we have the means to bring about any state of affairs that
you are able to describe.
> That's what we are fighting in that part of the world - theocracy. It
> achieves nothing to replace a secular fascist regime with an
> IslamoFascist one.
>
> > > > But what I am really curious about is how you would suggest the U.S.
> > > > government crush Islamic fanaticism.
> > >
> > > Nukes?
> >
> > Nuke /what/?
>
> Whatever it takes.
And what /is/ that? Where do we start? What is the plan?
> It only took 2 to get Japan to surrender and they
> were as fanatical and as suicidal as the Islamists.
So Fred's First Law of Foreign Policy is that success can be achieved
against any fanatical and suicidal group by using nukes? Japan had a
government that could surrender; it had military forces under its strict
command. It was (and is) a highly hierarchical and homogenous society.
None of this applies to Islamic terrorists. Why do you mention Japan?
What parallels do you see? After the government of Japan surrendered,
did its military forces disappear into the general population and
conduct an insurgency? Did trained, radical Shintoists from all over
the Shinto world sneak into Japan to take part? Did significant
portions of the world-wide Shinto community believe that the U.S. had
acted unfairly? Would Truman have successively nuked the major cities
of the world Shinto community under those circumstances?
If you are going to make an analogy, try to make it analogous.
> > The notion that all that stands between the U.S. and victory in the war
> > on terrorism is the use of bigger weapons is a teenager's video game
> > fantasy.
>
> I'm open to be persuaded to use other forceful methods.
But apparently not open to the possibility that the degree of force is
not really the issue.
--
Gordon
Gordon Sollars
goo...@nobsys.net says...
> fred...@papertig.com wrote:
> > Gordon Sollars wrote:
> > democracy is a part but it is not unrestrained. Democracy is not and
> > cannot be the primary. Look at the recent Palestinian elections. Even
> > all the usual cheerleaders for "democracy" shrank back in dismay at
> > what happened in that election.
Please be more careful with your editing. "Gordon Sollars" did not
write that.
--
Gordon
fred...@papertig.com
> If Hammas has a series of free and fair elections (struggling to type
> that with a straight face) while promoting terrorism, it would at least
> be an exception to the moderating power of democracy.
There have been other "exceptions", most notably when the Germans voted
in Hitler. Granted, the Naziis didn't get the majority, but they got
enough to give them a foothold on power - and the majority was one or
another form of dictatorship, if not the Naziis, then the communists.
The Germans then put up little or no resistance to the Naziis taking
over - just as they put up no resistance to the persecution of the
Jews.
I assume you are aware that the Muslims in the Mideast are great
admirers of Hitler. Of course they openly supported the Naziis leading
up to and during WWll, including applauding the Holocaust - but just as
significantly nothing has changed since.
> Democracy is strategically promoted as a primary because it's a
> relatively easy sell in a world unified on nothing, at least easy
> compared to forcing the philosophically primary values that it's
> expected to unlock.
But unless those "primary values" - namely, individual rights (and in
the Mideast, most importantly, separation of church and state and
women's rights) - are upheld then nothing is accomplished. The savages
merely regain power via the ballot box.
> We have never directly fought theocracy.
Well, it's time we did - and that includes against our purported allies
such as Saudi Arabia. It wouldn't necessarily be an issue of foreign
policy, i.e. under other circumstances we could ignore them, except for
the fact that these thugs control a huge percentage of the world's oil.
And that might not even be an issue either, except for the terrorism
(most especially 9/11) and the constant threats against Israel.
> The world was politically unified in defeating Japan. If we can't
> overwhelmingly win the political and moral arguments before nuking our
> enemy, nukes feed our broader enemy.
But this is to continue to embrace the philosophical status quo. It is
precisely that status quo which has to be challenged. Furthermore,
accepting the status quo will get us nowhere. American foreign policy
since WWll has been a steady decline into ever more compromise and
capitulation - so that now if we stand up for what we believe, it is
far more difficult to impliment.
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
>
> But this is to continue to embrace the philosophical status quo. It is
> precisely that status quo which has to be challenged. Furthermore,
> accepting the status quo will get us nowhere. American foreign policy
> since WWll has been a steady decline into ever more compromise and
> capitulation - so that now if we stand up for what we believe, it is
> far more difficult to impliment.
When the chickens come home to roost and they gobble in Arabic maybe we
will wake up. Maybe.
Bob Kolker
goo...@nobsys.net
> There have been other "exceptions", most notably when the Germans voted
> in Hitler.
Nazi atrocities would only be an exception to the moderating power of
democracy if democracy had continued. Democracy is no more responsible
for what occurs after its fall than dictatorship is for what succeeds
it.
> But unless those "primary values" - namely, individual rights (and in
> the Mideast, most importantly, separation of church and state and
> women's rights) - are upheld then nothing is accomplished. The savages
> merely regain power via the ballot box.
Probably.
> > We have never directly fought theocracy.
>
> Well, it's time we did.
I've never seen a detailed, thoughtful or realistic plan for that.
Bill Carson
goo...@nobsys.net
> Please be more careful with your editing. "Gordon Sollars" did not
> write that.
Whoops... Bush's fault.
fred...@papertig.com
> fred...@papertig.com wrote:
> > There have been other "exceptions", most notably when the Germans voted
> > in Hitler.
>
> Nazi atrocities would only be an exception to the moderating power of
> democracy if democracy had continued. Democracy is no more responsible
> for what occurs after its fall than dictatorship is for what succeeds
> it.
It's possible, maybe even probable, that the Germans would have
recoiled in horror from the atrocities...had they been given the
choice. But the point is that once a dictatorship is voted into office,
you can't take it back.
Also, what the Germans might have done given a choice is only of
marginal significance given the fact that they obviously didn't want
that choice. They preferred that others do it for them - see no evil,
hear no evil...etc.
> > > We have never directly fought theocracy.
> >
> > Well, it's time we did.
>
> I've never seen a detailed, thoughtful or realistic plan for that.
Well, we have fought fanatical ideologues which is similar, including I
might add our own American Indians (at least some of them). The
solution in all cases was the same: annihilation. As Bob says, we "made
a desolation".
Maybe that's required when a people become so corrupted and
disconnected from reality that nothing else can succeed with them.
The other alternative is we impose our rule on them, either directly
with the British (or Roman) Empire as the model or we install dictators
favorable to us and civilized values, e.g. the Shah of Iran or Pinochet
in Chile. The Pinochet model worked particularly well but it is so
unusual it will be hard to duplicate. How many dictators would promise
to step down once the country is stablized and then actually do it, as
he did.
Fred Weiss
goo...@nobsys.net
> choice. But the point is that once a dictatorship is voted into office,
> you can't take it back.
I think the point was that Hitler was not an exception to democracies
moderating tyranny, just an example of them not always lasting.
> The other alternative is we impose our rule on them, either directly
> with the British (or Roman) Empire as the model or we install dictators
> favorable to us and civilized values, e.g. the Shah of Iran or Pinochet
Puppets are arguably counterproductive. If you ever find a detailed
strategy for maintaining colonization (or extermination as you suggest)
through domestic and international opposition, let me know. Otherwise,
if you really believe in it, you may want to be the first to write one.
Bill Carson
fred...@papertig.com
> fred...@papertig.com wrote:
> > choice. But the point is that once a dictatorship is voted into office,
> > you can't take it back.
>
> I think the point was that Hitler was not an exception to democracies
> moderating tyranny, just an example of them not always lasting.
They won't tend to last where there is not a strong and deep-rooted
cultural commitment to individual rights. That's why I say that needs
to be the primary - and it is almost entirely absent in the Mideast. Of
course they have no tradition or history of democracy either, which
also makes it a dubious proposition for that region.
> > The other alternative is we impose our rule on them, either directly
> > with the British (or Roman) Empire as the model or we install dictators
> > favorable to us and civilized values, e.g. the Shah of Iran or Pinochet
>
> Puppets are arguably counterproductive.
Many of them have certainly proven to be. I won't argue with you there.
Whether there are any discernible principles which can tend to make
some better than others, I don't know.
>If you ever find a detailed
>strategy for maintaining colonization (or extermination as you suggest)...
In today's environment, not likely. I merely propose it as an ideal -
as something that should have been done and/or which could be
considered in the future.
Fred Weiss
David Buchner
> When the chickens come home to roost and they gobble in Arabic maybe we
> will wake up. Maybe.
You're thinking of them muslim turkeys. Chickens cackle, I think. Or
maybe cluck.
goo...@nobsys.net
> They won't tend to last where there is not a strong and deep-rooted
> cultural commitment to individual rights. That's why I say that needs
> to be the primary - and it is almost entirely absent in the Mideast. Of
> course they have no tradition or history of democracy either, which
> also makes it a dubious proposition for that region.
...snip
> >If you ever find a detailed
> >strategy for maintaining colonization (or extermination as you suggest)...
>
> In today's environment, not likely. I merely propose it as an ideal -
> as something that should have been done and/or which could be
> considered in the future.
I agree that Middle East democratization is uncertain. We've never
dismantled a Middle East nation's civil service, police and military
and led them through rebuilding them from scratch. We convinced the
Iraqis and Afghanis to include dozens of constitutional protections for
individual rights, but they insisted on giving consistency with any
"undisputed rules of Islam" equal constitutional protection (despite
the contradictions) for the cultural and historical reasons you
describe. Now they'll undergo a long difficult resolution of those
contradictions, perhaps much like the West did centuries ago, but with
mature foreign examples and in a much smaller world.
So what else can our government do now that doesn't create new
problems? I think that we agree that puppet governments, colonialism,
and extermination are currently unrealistic. A choice had to be made,
and we're trying something totally new.
It may fail this year or in 20 years, but in a two steps forward one
steps back way (hopefully not the other way around), we're at least
molding some of that cultural commitment to individual rights and
history of democracy that you recognize as required for democratic
stability. We're nurturing its fledgling development with mixed
results, but any radical thing more and aren't we drifting into those
other strategies mentioned above with their own problems?
I agree though that as the environment changes, what's politically
reasonable changes. I doubt that we'll have patience for more
expensive experiments in this kind of Middle East democracy if these
two fail.
Bill Carson
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I agree though that as the environment changes, what's politically
> reasonable changes. I doubt that we'll have patience for more
> expensive experiments in this kind of Middle East democracy if these
> two fail.
And they will fail. There is no notion of rights in al Islam. There are
specific duties, various laws of behaviour, modes of worship etc.etc.
But no rights. Islam is consistent with slavery and the only chattel
slavery now practiced in the world is done by Moslems.
Think about it. Democracy took six hundred years to evolved in the
English speaking world subsequent to Magna Carta. It did not evolve
smoothly and did not really flourish until after the industrial
revolution. How can any reasonable person expect Moslems to adapt to
democracy and equality under law when they are intellectually stil back
in the year 800 c.e.
Which is not to say that Moslems cannot glom onto modern technology.
They can and they do. But philosphically they are still back in the cave
with Ali Baba and the Forty Theives.
Bob Kolker
Mark N
> goo...@nobsys.net wrote:
>
>> I agree though that as the environment changes, what's politically
>> reasonable changes. I doubt that we'll have patience for more
>> expensive experiments in this kind of Middle East democracy if these
>> two fail.
>
> And they will fail. There is no notion of rights in al Islam.
But Islamic countries don't exist in a vacuum. They are situated in the
modern world, in which the notion of rights is familiar. Many people in
Islamic countries have access to information and ideas that are current
in the rest of the world. It's not unthinkable that large numbers of
people in those countries will embrace "modern" ideas about rights.
> There are
> specific duties, various laws of behaviour, modes of worship etc.etc.
> But no rights. Islam is consistent with slavery and the only chattel
> slavery now practiced in the world is done by Moslems.
>
> Think about it. Democracy took six hundred years to evolved in the
> English speaking world subsequent to Magna Carta. It did not evolve
> smoothly and did not really flourish until after the industrial
> revolution. How can any reasonable person expect Moslems to adapt to
> democracy and equality under law when they are intellectually stil back
> in the year 800 c.e.
It's not a good comparison. The English speaking people that you are
talking about had to *develop* ideas about rights in the context of a
world in which those ideas were unfamiliar. Now that those ideas have
been developed, they are accessible to people all over the world,
including people in Islamic countries. And people can see examples of
countries like the US, in which some of those ideas have been put into
practice, and they can make their own judgments about what they see.
> Which is not to say that Moslems cannot glom onto modern technology.
> They can and they do. But philosphically they are still back in the cave
> with Ali Baba and the Forty Theives.
Don't be so pessimistic, Bob. I think they can "glom onto" modern
philosophical ideas too.
Mark
goo...@nobsys.net
> And they will fail. There is no notion of rights in al Islam. There are
I think Iraq and Afghanistan will at least be an arguable success. I
doubt future jihad glories bounce around as many Islamic adolescents'
bedtime imaginations now, but Iraq's chaos keeps it from inspiring
democratic reform among its neighbors to the degree that we wanted.
It at least deserved a seriously try, to see what an Islamic people
could build and maintain if given a fresh start, support and guidance.
If a trillion dollars and thousands of our lives fail to measurably
moderate either nation, political opposition to virtually anything
we'd do following another attack would be at a big disadvantage.
Bill Carson
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Don't be so pessimistic, Bob. I think they can "glom onto" modern
> philosophical ideas too.
Don't count on it.
Bob Kolker