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]
|
Perspective Another bracing dose of perspective from Victor Davis Hanson:
[A]fter September 11 we will either accept defeat and stay within our borders to fight a defensive war of hosing down fires, bulldozing rubble, arresting terrorist cells, and hoping to appease or buy off our enemies abroad — or we will eventually have to confront Syria, Lebanon’s Bekka Valley, Saudi Arabia, and Iran with a clear request to change and come over to civilization, or join the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
[B]y any historical measure, what strikes students of this war so far in its first two years is the amazing degree to which the United States has hurt its enemies without incurring enormous casualties and costs.
As always with VDH, it pays to read the whole thing.
|
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.
|
Victor David Hanson is a talented essayist — but my impression here is that he is pandering to the neoconservatives, if not quite brownnosing these control freaks. Or perhaps he’s neoconservative himself. And why no mention of what has been called “the proverbial elephant in the room”? Six letters – begins with an I. Middle East country often in the news.
Recommended libertarian reading: James Bovard’s “Terrorism and tyranny – trampling freedom, justice and peace to rid the world of evil”. See here.
I know, the Iraq crisis is a complicated issue. There are smart arguments and dumb arguments both for and against US policy. If you want to learn about the smart ones, read Bovard’s book.
Six letters – begins with an I. Middle East country often in the news.
That must be Israel. Not sure why VDH should talk about Israel in an essay about America’s war, as Israel has not engaged in terrorist attacks on us, does not support the Islamist terror network, will not need to be issued a “clear request to change and come over to civilization” before the war is over, and has not contributed in any direct or meaningful way to our war against the Islamists.
Sure, Israel is fighting its own war against the Palestinians, but we aren’t fighting the Palis (although we are whittling away at their allies). Hell, we are trying to help them get their own state! Our war on Islamists and that of the Israelis are going forward very much in parallel, in the sense that they are going in the same direction but have little contact with one another, by design. If Israel did not exist, our war on the Islamists would be going forward pretty much exactly the way it has to date, as far as I can tell.
C’mon, Charles, surely you don’t believe that the Islamists will leave us alone if we just let them kill all the Jews, do you?
R. C. Dean: Israel has not engaged in terrorist attacks on us
Not on us. But on their colonised, starving, humiliated, brutalised neighbour: Palestine.
The Berlin Wall won’t change anything. The massive stealing of territories, water, lives, pride & honour will just accelerate the final showdown. Sharon’s “policy” is suicidal. Israelis: wake up & throw this corrupt butcher to jail.
If one has the goal of overturning the autocratic states that spawn terrorism in the Middle East, Iraq is the place to start.
That’s really what it boils down to, as far as “why iraq now?” That was not only the best place to start to secure the most strategic advantages (positional and otherwise), but pre-existing causus belli (sp?) were already there.
But of course after a vote of the US Congress, anyone else’s opinion is moot anyway.
And it was indeed the only real place to start if you want to drain that swamp. Which is why all other reasons are window dressing, and feel like it to some.
With that as a long term goal (which it is post-911, at least of the neocons, and I’m with them on this as being a proper goal), then any fool with exposure to the classic works of military strategy would say “duh, start with Iraq”.
Modern technology also hasn’t moved the headwaters of the Tigris and the Euphrates, which feed the entire region, and everyone still needs water.
It’s blatantly obvious that this Administration feels that ‘you can’t just go on TV and say all that’.
Paleocons used to the geographic chess of the cold war find it generally transparent what’s going on, and just disagree with the neocons about it as a goal.
I suppose the lefty aversion to the military in the US is why the media just can’t see it as being self evident.
Watch out Kodiak, you’re starting to look like the cyberspatial variant of Pavlov’s dog: jumping compulsively on triggering keywords and barking the related refrain with no concern for the context of the thread whatsoever.
Yes, yes, Israel bad, Palis poor fellows, Kodiak good dog. Now don’t jump! Sit!
Let’s see what works besides the I word:
Capitalism?
Free market?
George W. Bush?
Iraq?
C’mon dogboy, bark and fetch and entertain us.
Sharon must be doing something right to get this reaction from Kodiak.
R.C. Dean writes:
“If Israel did not exist, our war on the Islamists would be going forward pretty much exactly the way it has to date, as far as I can tell.”
That seems to me to be the core of the neo-conservative argument – or, rather, that’s what they would like the rest of us to believe.
The other extreme is the belief held by many paleoconservatives that if Israel did not exist there would be no Islamist problem at all.
My own view — as a US-friendly person opposed to US policies that are not in the interests of the US people — is that support for Israel was certainly one of the motives for the war on Iraq. As Ari Shavit wrote in ‘Haaretz’ last April “The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.” (here). And as Kevin MacDonald recently pointed out in VDARE “the Jewish commitment of leading neoconservatives has become a critical influence on U.S. policies, and […] the effectiveness of the neoconservatives is greatly enhanced by their alliance with the organized Jewish community.”
Supporting Israel may not have been the ‘primary cause’ of the Iraq war, but it certainly was a major one. That is why I believe that Victor David Hansen was either deceiving others or – more likely – deceiving himself by failing to mention the I-word in his National Review article. Israel is the elephant doing a jig in the middle of the room that everybody pretends isn’t there.
P.S. Just discovered a fascinating critique of neoconservatism by Paul Craig Roberts entitled Wisdom of the father, folly of the son.
I can’t help feeling that PCR goes just a little bit over the top when he uses such expressions as ‘Muslim-hating neoconservatives’ — but his article is certainly food for thought.
Kodiac:
Just checked a map for Palestine: no luck. There is no such country. Perhaps you meant Transjordan?
To suggest that the islamofascist war on the west, and especially the USA, has nothing to do with the policy of support for Israel which has been going on since the state was established at the end of the 1940’s, is nonsense.
Clearly this policy, and other interventionist policies around the world, have earned the US and UK a lot of enemies. IMHO it is about time we minded our own business. Our military should be used purely for defense. If we were not constantly interfering in other nations we might not have as many mad fanatics killing innocent people in terrorist attacks.
Of course this cry is waste of breath as the politicians in both countries have too many vested interests to listen to reason. Iraq is a typical example. We were lied to about the necessity for invasion, we are now being lied to again as politicians on both sides of the Atlantic twist their previous words to justify the unjustifiable.
Unfortunately they will get away with it because the vast majority of the public have too many other day-to-day cares and this makes their memories very short-term.
So you want to use your military only for defensive purposes eh. Well, wait till the Islamofascist terrorists come after you and attack one of YOUR cities with a WMD. It could be us, it could be you. We don’t know, do YOU really want to wait until thousands of your fellow citizens lie dead, pus oozing from open sores, because some assholes from the Middle East decide to let that shit loose on you?
I sure as hell don’t. I say we go after them, and Heaven forbid they do something like that, then their civilization is FORFEIT.
“Got change for 10 million people?”
Since Iraq did NOT have WMD I do not have to worry about millions of my fellow citizens dying from them. I only have to worry about the thousands of fellow citizens put in harms way to satisfy the paranoia of politicians in our own country.
If there were any real evidence to suggest anyone who had WMD was likely to use them I would say right lets kill them before they kill us. I am not a pacifist just a believer that most of the hate directed towards us was engendered by our own self-serving foriegn policies. Most, not all. There are obviously some extremely dangerous people in the world who will always make up some absurd reason to attack the weakest targets. These are fairly small groups, not nations. The only effective war against these cowards is waged by highly trained specialists who have somewhat better intelligence than was used to “justify” an attack on Iraq. Incidentally neither was I a supporter of the Saddam regime – there many regimes around the world that I despise. This still does not give us the right to appoint ourselves the worlds policemen. Its none of our business unless there is actual threat to us.
By now, we should all know that Kodiak knows better than Israelis, or Americans, what is good for them. Heck, he even knows stuff we mere mortals don’t know, like Palestine is a country, and that they’re starving (Ethiopians are sending them their aid food because they feel so sorry for them).
The humiliation bit is more interesting than it looks though. It’s becoming quite the litany in some quarters to explain anything and everything. You just have to claim you’re humiliated and you’re entitled to indefinite, if not infinite compensation. Specially for the massive ‘stealing’ of territories (2% of the West Bank so far…LAND GRAB !).
Of course if you’re a white Westerner, you can never use nor abuse that convenient excuse. Instead, you are meant to expiate all the sins you commit by just being there and enjoying a better life. In the socialist zero-sum game, our relative success can only have been obtained at the expense of everybody else. All the rest follows from that axiom.
A bit more seriously, some of the other comments here smell of the the rotten stench of the Jewish conspiracy and other lunacies recycled from times that should remain buried where they are. Unless you’re a French ambassador or work at the Quai d’Orsay, it’s rather pathetic.
And Arthur, sure. Let’s wait until another country is a real threat. Like France and Britain did with Germany. That worked pretty well.
I mean, yeah, I want to wait until someone is actually big bad enough to be a threat to the US. That’s going to make the world safer.
And then, when we’re against the wall, let’s scramble and hope it all works out in the end, with the usual few million casualties. Or we’ll just have another 50-year Cold War. We were so much safer back then.
And please, let’s forget the Iraqis. If one single permanent member decides they don’t matter, let ’em die for another 30 years. And if freeing them was not the main objective, we won’t appreciate their liberation as a side effect either. We have higher standards than that. People liberated from oppression as a secondary consequence of a primary objective ? How shameful.
After all, we are the ones producing the fanatics by not minding our business. Iraqis, for instance, were never angry before. Thirty years of war, slaugher, torture, rape, oppression and tyranny did not piss them off and produce any extremists among their ranks. Of course not. It all started in March 2003. Three weeks of bombing and a quick invasion did a lot more damage to their psyche and self-esteem than the war with Iran, 30 years of political and religious repression, mass murder and scores of mass graves. But of course.
We are responsible. And when in doubt, assume we are responsible. Always.
It’s ironic isn’t it. The same people will accept that Palestinian fanatics do what they do because of their treatment at the hands of evil Israel. But far worse treatment, when inflicted by the Iraqi, Syrian or Iranian regimes on far larger populations over decades is not ever deemed to be responsible for producing any kind of violent extremism. Nobody ever worries about the long-term consequences of their policies at home and abroad, regardless of the volumes of evidence and the number of murderous nutheads funded and exported by those nations over the past 30-odd years.
I guess we just have to apologize for 09/11, for having the nerve of putting two towers and 3,000 people in the way of these righteous planes.
And then all will be well with the world.
“So you want to use your military only for defensive purposes eh. Well, wait till the Islamofascist terrorists come after you and attack one of YOUR cities with a WMD. It could be us, it could be you.”
What makes you think that will happen? I don’t notice a wave of Islamists launching massive attacks against Switzerland or Japan.
Besides, you commit the basic error of thinking that it is possible to prevent terrorism purely by use of force. But as long as enough people are sufficiently pissed off, terrorism will thrive (e.g. Palestine). Technological progress guarantees that the attacks will be progressively more destructive. The military can fight a conventional war, but has no hope of preventing all terrorist attacks. And in an age of future WMD proliferation, all it takes is 1 attack in 100 to succeed.
That’s right people, back the fascists in the middle east, when the only democracy in the ME is Israel. Well, at least until Iraq becomes that shining example of a future for the ME. Man you guys will be hating life then I guess. A Secular Technologically advanced ME country using Capitalism to drain the smart people from the other ME countries, until the whole house of cards collapse. And then when we look back, like people look back to the Reagan years and say, you know I guess those Bush people were right.
Many of those terrorist organizations have said they wish to make the Shia law the law of the world, yet some of you sit back and point fingers at Israel. Israel, which took a buffer because they were tired of being attacked.
The little guy in the middle, with a smaller army, defeating the armies of their enemies. Listen at you people.
So all of those Terror Attacks in the France and Germany, those were because of Israel. Even the towers, had nothing to do with Israel.
Know thine enemy, OBL attacked us because we had troops in Saudi Arabia, we had troops in SA because of Saddam Hussein. The Us/UK had to keep flying in the no fly zones to slow Hussein and his murderous ways. We had to keep troops in SA to keep SH from again attacking a neighbor, and created his dream, an Arab super state.
But yes, keep pointing fingers toward Israel, and realize when you point a finger, 4 are pointed back at yourself.
My goodness, please, do not bring Israel up again, it had nothing to do with 9/11 and less to do with the Taliban and Iraq.
My god, what bunch of maroons.
I apologize for my rants, but damn people, wake up and smell the danger, before it nips you in the ass.
Oh, and one other thing, have any of you people actually read the Kay reports. I guess you had not, if you had you would stay away from the no WMD meme.
The situation of US involvement in the Mid East is a bit odd, since NO ONE seems to know *exactly* why the US, et al went there. Is it the WMD? The gross violation of human rights and mass murders? Failure to comply with the conditions of the 1991 cease-fire?
This may be wild and it is certainly conjecture, but after some debate, I think we were led to war because the real reasons couldn’t be made public. I mean, consider the environment of the Middle East.
The US has had Israel on the payroll for a lot of reasons, some of those historical and ideological, but when push comes to shove, the US *KNOWS* that it can put men and material into Israel *whenever* it should need to do so. Granted, there would be many costs, both monetary and political, but Israel is the ultimate insurance of US military access to the ME.
Now, at the same time Israel is often being used to deflect a lot of anger that should rightfully be reflected back onto many of the ME states. Don’t worry about our standard of living at home when your muslim brothers are being slaughtered by the Jewish pigs!!! (You know what I mean). So…the US is stuck in a bit of a pickle. Truthfully, and to a degree rightfully, the Is/Pal conflict will continue until a truly inclusive gov’t is formed….or more autonomy is given to the Pals.
Now, incomes Iraq. The US/UK/Aus and a few others give the boot to Saddam and begin reworking Iraq. (I certainly shed no tears when that waste of volume and mass was thrown out.) The US will keep a presence in Iraq for no less than a generation. (How long have they been in Europe???) This gives the US a staging point *if needed* into other areas of the ME…*great* real estate, indeed! This *lowers* Israel’s strategic value to the US and gives the US more freedom to use economics to persuade Israel into reform. In turn, when the Pals begin to have a higher standard of living that most Syria, Iran, et al. Then, those people will begin to look back at their own gov’ts as well as (hopefully) an example of liberal, secular gov’t in Iraq.
Yes, it might be wishful thinking. But this *might* be the first real opportunity to settle ME conflicts since the fall of the Ottoman Empire…and it’s not something that you can exactly shout out into the world, as it involves putting the screws to a couple of friends.
That’s my $1.25.
> That’s right people, back the fascists in the
> middle east, when the only democracy in the ME
> is Israel.
What a stupid comment. Most war opponents are saying we should not back EITHER side, as it is none of our (or your-) damn business!! Libertarians should understand this better than most people. Let these religious crazies (the orthodox Jewish settlers in the occupied territories are extremists in violation of international law too) fight their own little jihads.
> Well, at least until Iraq becomes that shining
> example of a future for the ME. Man you guys
> will be hating life then I guess. A Secular
> Technologically advanced ME country using
> Capitalism to drain the smart people from the
> other ME countries
This assertion of yours is entirely unproven. First of all, Iraq is a long way from that rosy scenario which is going to take decades at best. Where is the evidence Islamic fundamentalism isn’t appealing to many Iraqis, BTW? The opinion polls suggest deep ambivalence and division between different ethnic groups.
—
As for the house of cards argument, please explain to me why even a reconstructed Iraq automatically would be democratic. Kuwait is fairly wealthy too, yet it doesn’t seem like a democratic secular haven to me. Or let’s take Turkey, which actually resembles a democracy yet apparently isn’t regarded as an example worth emulating. Or, let’s look at the millions and millions of Arabs living in Western Europe and the States. Surely their stories about the superiority of “western values” should have started to have an impact on their oppressed relatives in the Middle East by now! Wait, none of this has happened, right?! Could it be that Stephenson doesn’t know what he is talking about?
—
Most people don’t seem to be aware of this, but the British did rule the Iraqis for a time in 1920s and they had all the best intentions too. Yet the first thing the locals did in ~1934 when it ended was they started to slaught Christian Assyrians. So maybe our “superior values” aren’t as popular down there as our gadgets and toys are. In other words, they may like our standard of living but reject the policies and philosophies that created the wealth in the first place.
> I apologize for my rants, but damn people, wake
> up and smell the danger, before it nips you in the
> ass.
Look, 9/11 was a great tragedy, we sympathize etc. but you are drawing entirely wrong conclusions regarding the best way forward. Fight Osama? YES, by all means. International cooperation to combat terrorism e.g. by joint intelligence and surveillance? YES. But the War in Iraq is only going to increase the likelihood of further attacks while making the U.S. even less popular in the Middle East and elsewhere.
—
We don’t need a new “crusade” to combat the jihadists. We need to stop interfering with other people’s business.
MARCU$
Of course, there are better ways than force to deal with terrorism. Like…..what ?
Isn’t it interesting that this argument is always applied to those who fight terrorism, but never to the terrorists themselves ? Somehow, it is accepted and assumed they have a legitimate reason to kill innocent people who have no connection whatsoever to their grievances. But targeting them is unfair.
Go figure.
And terrorism is only a function of people being pissed off. OK I’m pissed off so I’ll go blow myself up now.
Interestingly, neither the leaders of Hamas, nor their children or family members, are ever involved in suicide bombing.
I guess they’re not pissed off then.