We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata slogan of the day There are just as many guns as there were before, except now people are angry that they have become criminals if they try to protect themselves, when American soldiers are more interested in protecting themselves than us.
– a trader selling weapons covertly in Sadr City, a Shia slum about the effect of sending the trade underground after the drive against gun markets in Baghdad last week.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
The US obsession with ‘force protection’ may prove a false economy in lives in the long run. It is only through getting involved that the military presence can win hearts and minds, not by driving in with a truck full of medical supplies and then retreating to stare at the locals nervously from behind some sandbags. It is crazy that we still see the US forces on the streets of Baghdad in helmets and flak jackets acting like an occupying army rather than liberators. Perception is everything in such matters: act like occupiers and people will start treating you like occupiers rather than liberators.
Well said Perry,
What a government does abroad is usually an indecation of what it would like to do at home. The war is over George, so stop wasting the tax payers money.Give the Iraqis their guns and go home.
Unless we are a force of occupation. In which case George – you lied.
Imagine! Politicians lying…
>>It is crazy that we still see the US forces on the streets of Baghdad in helmets and flak jackets acting like an occupying army rather than liberators. Perception is everything in such matters: act like occupiers and people will start treating you like occupiers rather than liberators.
<< Alas, Perry, this is EXPECTED. It was unreasonable to expect the USG to properly manage something this complicated. This is especially true given how overextended the USG is at home (the debt ceiling just went up another $1T.) Now we get to see whether we get lucky and a nasty civil war can be avoided.
Once the testosterone rush of “Victory!!!” subsides, the ugly truth starts to become clear.
Luckily, we’ll soon have a war with Iran to distract everyone from the ugliness of occupying Iraq:
The Iranian Islamists are starting to sound downright Republican.
Just like invading Iraq distracted us all from Afghanistan (remember them?):
So Scott, by that remark I assume you think the best thing would be for the US to just pull out and better yet, find as many Ba’athists as possible and give them to keys to whatever town halls are still standing.
I know it kills you that I got my way and that I can indeed cry ‘Victory’ at the sight of Ba’athism being overthrown…
…and you did not get your way, which would have left the Iraqi people to Ba’athism’s tender mercies for god knows how many more years or even decades…
But as I have always said, I supported the war for my reasons, not Bush’s reasons. I got my primary wish fulfilled… liberation from murderous Ba’athism for the Iraqi people… and so my alliance of common interest with the statist republican in the Whitehouse and the quasi-socialist statist in 10 Downing Street is pretty much over as far as I am concerned. Time for me to get back to my more usual job of screaming at the lesser evils for still being evil.
Is that really such a shock?
In other words, any good in Iraq (no more Ba’athists) is credit to you, and any bad (like a Shiite theocracy) will be blamed on Bush and Blair? They, not you, are responsible for any negative consequences of “liberation”? How nice. How convenient. How morally bankrupt.
Intriguing that there were so many firearms around in a controlled dictatorship. Are former Ba’athists and soldiers really selling their stocks of weapons at a time of chaos and opportunity?
And if not, then why did firearms not help protect Iraqis against the dictatorial government? Unless, of course, guns in the hands of citizens are not as much use as many libertarians think….?
Eh. We’ll see. It doesn’t sound good, but the one fact that has been proven beyond doubt in Iraq is that any reportage coming out of the area will be in the darkest and most pessimistic vein, particularly in regard to the competence of Americans.
When we’d been ‘bogged down’ in the Iraqi ‘quagmire’ for three whole days, I believed the news media. Shame on me. I won’t be eager to do so again.
Early on, someone pointed out that it will be the same govt people who screwed up in the first place that would be in charge of ‘liberating’ Iraq, not Samizdatists. That sage advice (not from me, BTW) was ignored. We’re now seeing that it was correct. The same Rumsfeld that shook Saddam’s hand when it suited him isn’t turning Iraq into Minnesota. Who (other than everyone else) knew?
Gosh, yes, it’s been nine weeks since the first shots were fired. How come Iraq isn’t Minnesota yet?
Weasel, how long ago did we invade Afghanistan? Is that Minnesota yet?
Speaking of morally bankrupt, Scott, if you had your way rather than facing even the possibility of a better future in Iraq, if your fascist de facto friends were left in power then it would be business (i.e. rape, murder, torture) as usual. That you disgree with me irks me not at all, but damn, you are so sanctimonious as, to paraphrase another, your position circles the drain ever faster.
Iraq is going to be a mess for a while, no surprise there, but so what? The former Soviet Union is mess… perhaps you think the best policy would be ‘come back Stalin, all is forgiven’? Did anyone expect it to be easy? Did anyone here ever say that?
I expect lesser evils to act according to their natures, but how is the fact they are still evil an excuse for then siding with the greater evil, as you have done? Take a guess where I think you can stick your idea of what is moral.
I am not calling for the immediate withdrawal of allied forces precisely because I do not want to see a Shiite ‘Iran mark II’ government in Iraq, but how does that preclude me from saying the US military needs to get their head around the practical realities of effective stick and carrot hearts-and-minds operations rather than acting like nervous porcupines?
No, it’s Afghanistan. It hasn’t “slid backward” into factional fighting and lawlessness – it’s always been like that. How do you take a society traditionally based around tribal warlords and turn it into Minnesota? You don’t. You cobble together some sort of hybrid, then stand back and see how it holds up.
I couldn’t tell you how well that’s going. It’ll be a chilly day in hell before I believe a word that comes out the mouths of the oh-so-impartial “United Nations officials and human rights groups” on the subject. I only have slightly more faith in the accuracy and impartiality of professional journalists.
Perry, ditto!
Scott, you were wrong, deal with it.
If US troops can use new less-lethal systems like pain beams and noxious smells to control (Iraqi?) crowds, isn’t it about time ordinary people were able to deploy those weapons too?
I’d much rather have a pain beam at my disposal than a gun.
Maybe the reason that the US soldiers are still walking around in war gear is because people are still shooting at them. I believe a couple were killed in an ambush in Baghdad yesterday or the day before.
Covert arms dealers – that’s who I always consult when I want to put my finger on the pulse of a nation. Right after I talk to the UN and the NGOs, of course.
The US army is an occupying army, and has been for some weeks now. If anything, it is a little late getting started on acting like it. We should be confiscating full auto weapons, which are no more useful than semi-auto weapons for self-defense. “Spray and pray” is not necessary when faced with an immediate threat to life and safety.
We have to exert the minimal “night watchman” authority that even libertarians see as a legitimate government function, because if the US doesn’t, no one else will and you will get a nice tasty stew of Baathist terror and Iranian lunacy.
Until order is restored, there can be no civil society and no rule of law. Until the rule of law is in place, there can be no transition to a new government, and no withdrawal of US troops. This ain’t rocket science, and the opponents of US policy still haven’t put any alternatives on the table that don’t land somewhere between deliberately obtuse and laughably naive.
“Its eeeeevillll, the government has to do sooooomthing” is the rallying cry of socialists everywhere. “Judge me by my intentions (i.e. a ‘liberated’ Iraq) and not by the results of what I support (i.e. chaos or a theocracy)” is the defense of every socialist.
In Europe, even the libertarians are socialists. You’ll fit into the EU better than you expect.
Who said anything about bringing Saddam back? (Although there seems to be buzz about bring a Shah back to Iran – in the name of democracy, of course).
Mr. Syme, how was I wrong? Did I ever say Saddam was a nice guy, or that we’d lose? It went faster than I thought because I half believed our governments lies about his WMDs (remember those?) and his having an army capable of threatening his neighbors. I don’t think we’ll turn Iraq into Denmark, and the jury is still clearly out on that one.
The whole point of these invasions is to change these countries, isn’t it? Next year, will you be saying “Iraq has always been ruled by violent thugs, that’s the only way to keep that country together”?
Perry, what’s the next country you want to give the possibility of a better future? Iran? Syria? North Korea?
Yes, yes and yes. If I get my way, soon you will run out of people to send Chrismas card to, Scott.
You finally gave me a straight answer on who to invade. Thanks. As we’ll clearly need more men in uniform to invade and occupy that much territory, I assume you’ll reenlist?
Perry can send his Christmas cards to Major-General Geoffrey Miller:
US plans death camp
“The US has floated plans to turn Guantanamo Bay into a death camp,
with its own death row and execution chamber. Prisoners would be
tried, convicted and executed without leaving its boundaries, without
a jury and without right of appeal, The Mail on Sunday newspaper
reported yesterday. The plans were revealed by Major-General Geoffrey
Miller, who is in charge of 680 suspects from 43 countries, including
two Australians. The suspects have been held at Camp Delta on Cuba
without charge for 18 months.” (05/26/03)
Scott
Remember that behind all the rhetoric the simple fact that as humans as well as libertarians we should be against any regime that detains opponants in secret prisons indefinately without trial. Especially if mental or physical tourture is used to “extract the truth” more so if the detainees can be tried in secret and sentenced to death before a tribunal of government picked cronies.
Who in their right mind could ever endorse any regime that uses such methods? It is an anathema to civilised thought. On that basis alone I am happy that Saddam is out of power.
Of course things get a bit more difficult trying to explain “Camp Delta”. Or Why the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified while the American lead one was… but I don’t pretend to know everything.
I’m not shedding any tears about Saddam being gone either. My point is that:
a. When its all said and done I don’t see the people who helped Saddam originally (our governments) putting in someone much better, who actually lasts (they might put some warm and fuzzy democrat in, declare victory, and run like hell before it all falls apart so they can’t be blamed).
b. With Camp X-Ray, the Patriot Act, Bush strutting around in as close to a military uniform (the flight suit on the Lincoln after his “Triumph of the Will” landing) as he thinks he can get away with, etc, I don’t see the US being more free after Bush than before him, and too many so called libertarians are enjoying the hormone rush of their favorite sports team (the US Marines) winning to give a damn, because that would help the stupid evil people who oppose their war.
Why would Bush’s clothing and his ‘strut’ have any bearing on freedom? Yours seems a largely emotional argument, Scott.
One of the reasons people are reluctant to associate themselves publicly with libertarianism is this sort “tear it all down, man” absolutism. Because a thing isn’t good enough, it isn’t good at all and should be rejected out of hand. All or nothing. Problem is, realistically, just about everything that ever was isn’t good enough. Then what?
Realistically, George Bush isn’t nearly far enough to the right. Iraq will never be Minnesota. The Patriot Act and Camp X-Ray are deeply worrying precedents. But the pendulum swings in big, slow arcs and this one is just turning in a better direction. Make mine optimism with vigilance.
You can go pitch tantrums by yourself.
The flight suit was an emotional appeal to rush to the government for ‘security’. Its militaristic propoganda. Why do you think tyrants tend toward military uniforms (even the gaudy “Sgt. Pepper” style)?
As usual Scott thinks the fact the US might excecute a few hundred (hopefully) or a few dozen (more likely) members of Al Qaeda means that they should not have overthrown the people who murdered and tortured hundreds of thosands of people in Iraq.
If you think the US should not execute those people (I happen to think they should), how does that translate into ‘they should not have got rid of Saddam Hussain’?
And BTW, Perry has said many times who he would like to see overthrown and the list was longer than that. Yet you still use the ludicous chickenhawk argument. But it is you who don’t want to risk anything such as having to deal with anti-liberty fallout at home for the sake of a bunch of Iraqi a-rabs who could not possibly run their part of the world properly, ain’t that so? I wonder who is really the chicken here, not to mention a sneering racist?
The flight suit was an emotional appeal to rush to the government for ‘security’. Its militaristic propoganda.
So what? Everything politicians do is propaganda of one kind or another. I can tell you don’t feel good about that, but what does it actually do?
Why do you think tyrants tend toward military uniforms (even the gaudy “Sgt. Pepper” style)?
For the same reason movie stars buy big flashy cars and drink themselves to death. Most of your modern tinpot dictators are former peasants and farm boys who clawed their way to the top through blind luck and sheer ruthlessness. Most of them don’t have the taste god gave Elvis.
There’s a difference between wanting to see these govts overthrown and favoring an invasion to overthrow them. Perry finally came out in favor of widening the direct military part of the War on Terror, past the point where we may very well need more soldiers (to invade and occupy them).
“If you disagree with me, you are a racist” is another socialist favorite adopted by the War Party. Thanks for reminding me of that one, Snide.
>>but how does that preclude me from saying the US military needs to get their head around the practical realities of effective stick and carrot hearts-and-minds operations rather than acting like nervous porcupines?<< Perry, the US military is INSTITUTIONALLY INCAPABLE of acting in the way you (and I, and Scott) want it to. If it was structured in such a way as to solve the problems we want it to, a sizable percentage of these problems wouldn't exist. It's the STATE, Perry. It doesn't listen to us. States that did listen to us would shrink almost to the point of nonexistance -- by definition! The disagreement here has nothing to do with ENDS. After all the yelling is done, you and Scott want the same thing -- more freedom for everyone. (Claims that Scott & Co. support despots or that Perry & Co. support fascists are neither accurate nor helpful.) The problem is the MEANS, and here I have to agree with Scott's basic proposition that the long run costs of using the US/UKG to try and fix the tyranny problem are much larger than they seem. A side note about the Tranzi leftists: most of them aren't on our side, but Chomsky IS. Many of his ideas on HOW to get more freedom for everyone are broke, but his committment to freedom and opposition to tyranny are rock solid. When the time comes for the Final Battle Against the Fascists, we'll need Noam & Co. to help. This doesn't mean he shouldn't be continually razzed about his bad economic ideas.
“Perry, the US military is INSTITUTIONALLY INCAPABLE of acting in the way you (and I, and Scott) want it to. If it was structured in such a way as to solve the problems we want it to, a sizable percentage of these problems wouldn’t exist.”
The US military is a war-fighting military, one of onoy a handful in the world. If it was structured otherwise, it wouldn’t win wars the way it does. In fact, if it was structured to do things like impose martial law, administer cities and states, and generally act as a substitute for civlilan control, then we would have a whole new set of very serious problems on our hands. For one, our military would be more like the banana republic militaries of the world, fit only for oppressing the citizenry.
“The problem is the MEANS, and here I have to agree with Scott’s basic proposition that the long run costs of using the US/UKG to try and fix the tyranny problem are much larger than they seem.”
Maybe, maybe not. For one thing, most of the “cost estimates” out there for the war and occupation are ludicrously high, as they both count money that we would have spent anyway keeping our boys in beans and bullets, and they ignore the fact that the Iraqis will be paying some of the bills.
The real question isn’t ‘are the costs larger than they seem’, the real question is, are “the long run costs of using the US/UKG to try and fix the tyranny problem” larger or smaller than leaving the alternatives. Even if invasions are required for cleaning up Syria and Iran, which I doubt, the costs of those invasions will almost certainly be less than the costs of leaving the mullahs and the Baathists in charge and disseminating terrorism.
I am only in favour of Iraq-style invasion if that makes sense in a given place at a given time against a given tyranny… for example it would be madness to take the same approach with China and it is probably not needed in Iran.
Unlike Iraq, I supported the attacks against the Taliban in Afghanistan not just for my own reasons (the usual ones) but also for the very reasons given by the US government (shock horror!), which is to say, it was an attack against the command structures responsible for the Sept 11th Attacks. An nice little Jeffersonian War against later day barbary pirates.
As for other places, sense suggests watching to see if ther Iranians are going to do the job themselves rather than just barging in anyway. It was clear Saddam was not going to fall to his own people any time soon after the shameful inaction by Bush One in 1991, so it had to be done the hard way by Bush Two. Iran is rather different.
Invading North Korea tomorrow would have me cheering if it was done right, but trying the same against China would not bacause I cannot see how it can be ‘done right’ at this point in time. Also unlike North Korea, which can be occupied by the South Koreas afterwards, I cannot see how China could be occupied by anyone. Another approach is needed.
None of this is new stuff from me so do not see why Scott is acting as if I have just broken cover.
One more comment on Chomsky – the notion that he is for any kind of freedom that you and I would recognize as such is ludicrous. He is for freedom as defined and doled out by an elite group of the enlightened and anointed, as his writings make perfectly clear that he holds the beliefs of and decisions made by ordinary people largely in contempt.
He is, in short, at bottom, indistinguishable from a good old fashioned Marcusean Marxist who thinks that people are deeply delusional and must be led to the promised land by the vanguard of the party. I don’t know if his goal is classic Communism, but his means and tactics are much the same, can be expected to lead to the same results, and should be held in the same contempt.
The ‘cost’ of doing nothing was based on lies:
U.S. has gained little if Bush lied about reason for war:
Jesus, Scott, I really wish you wouldn’t dump whole articles in the middle of a thread. It messes up the continuity and it sure doesn’t communicate anything. I want some journalist’s opinion, I’ll go read a newspaper.
“Probably not needed”? If we invade Iran, will you put on the short skirt, pick up your pom-poms, and cheer? Do invasions stop making sense when our manpower needs expand to include Perry?
Yes, please Scott, just put a link to the article and extract a paragraph that you think makes the articles main point. Quite apart from breaking up the flow of the discussion as the Weasel points out, quoting entire articles has some unfortunate legal implications and it would be a pain in the arse to have to trim your stuff for fear for some prowling shyster.
Admin,
Sorry ’bout that – if you want to cut out everything but the last 3 paragraphs, I won’t object. I may not be the warmest and most cuddly guest, but I don’t want to be a bad one.
Scott, I do not recall asking for any one to be conscripted by the state to do the dirty work, so you really are talking out of your…
Large wars (like this one if it spreads beyond Iraq) breed conscription, whether you ask for it or not. Its not like the military draft is totally unheard of in the US. I honestly don’t know what the UK draft situation is.
We shouldn’t be confiscating Iraqis’ guns. Maybe we wouldn’t do it if we had better people over there. But the U.S. government is huge and some of what’s going on is the luck of the draw: decisions made by our Minetas rather than our Rumsfelds. (And even the Rumsfelds make bad decisions if they’re asked to do too much.)
The main thing is that we won the war. The aftermath is, by comparison, details. It was foreseeable that post-war Iraq would be full of problems, some of our own making, but that doesn’t mean the war wasn’t necessary or that we should have delayed it until our own house was in order. If one of the costs of the war is a post-war Iraq administered by incompetents, that is unfortunate, but it is a small and tolerable cost as compared to the benefits of liberating Iraq.
Tell me Iraq is liberated 10 years from now. Why is it that bad news from Iraq is just a temporary setback, but good news from Iraq means that “liberation” is the one successful Big Government Program in history so we should all shut up and praise the Almighty State?
Scott, why is it that good news from Iraq is just government spin, but bad news from Iraq means that the war was based on lies and will leave the Iraqis worse off than they were under Saddam forever and ever, amen.
I got news for you – Iraq is liberated NOW – Saddam and the Baathists are gone. The Iraqis appear fully capable of screwing this up on short notice, and God knows the US government can screw up damn near anything, but there is no reason at this point to believe that the US intends to stay on as occupying power indefinitely. If you have any evidence at all that this is the case, please present it.
The Philly editorial left me cold. Based on current information, there is absolutely no reason to think that Bush “lied” about the reasons for going to war. We may learn that there were no WMD in Iraq, that Bush knew it, that Saddam was about to step down in favor of the Dalai Lama, that Uday and Qusay were going to join Greenpeace and devote their lives to protecting baby seals, etc., but at this point the reasons articulated for going to war are still pretty valid. The presence of WMD is not yet confirmed, but every other reason for the war is as solid as ever.
So Bush giving the WMD threat as the reason before the war is just OK, because the “smart people” know better and the cheeto-eating couch potatoes wouldn’t make the right decision if they were told the truth?
Scott, at this point you don’t have any evidence of what the true status of WMD in Iraq was during the run-up to the war, much less what Bush knew of it. When we get to the bottom of what happened to the WMD (destroyed or hidden) will be the time to sling accusations. Not before.
Personally, I think Saddam made a last-minute decision to destroy all but a tiny fraction of his WMD, based on the realization that with the Americans coming for sure this time, his WMD could only hurt him. If he used or was caught with WMD, any hope of an exit strategy (exile, diplomatic intervention in the war, whatever) was gone. When he realized this, he had the WMD destroyed (the stuff we found in the rivers, all those bog oil fires around Baghdad, plenty of ways and means for getting rid of the stuff).
That is my speculation. Yours apparently is that Saddam destroyed it years ago and then endured years of sanctions and ultimately war simply because he didn’t want to document that he had done so. We will know soon enough who is right.
>>The real question isn’t ‘are the costs larger than they seem’, the real question is, are “the long run costs of using the US/UKG to try and fix the tyranny problem” larger or smaller than leaving the alternatives. << Ok, yeah. That's more accurate and precise. My suspicion is (sadly) that the costs of USG action were greater than the costs of inaction would have been in the case of Iraq. (By "inaction" I mean dropping the sanctions as well.) >>One more comment on Chomsky – the notion that he is for any kind of freedom that you and I would recognize as such is ludicrous. He is for freedom as defined and doled out by an elite group of the enlightened and anointed, as his writings make perfectly clear that he holds the beliefs of and decisions made by ordinary people largely in contempt.<< This is odd. Have we been reading the same guy? Are you sure you're not talking about Choudry, one of the other ZNet guys? From what I've seen, Noam has a rather high regard for the cognitive abilities of ordinary people, and a low regard for that of the elite. Noam's confidence in his own ability to figure out what is going on is high, but his confidence in his ability to formulate practical solutions is surprisingly low.
Yeah, we liberated the Iraqis alright. The right to bear arms was never meant for brown people. /sarcasm