Robert Gates and the creation of al Qaeda
Robert Gates appears to have been a witness to the events that led to the creation of al Qaeda. Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski (Copyright, Le Nouvel Observateur and Bill Blum. For fair use only.)
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
Translated from the French by Bill Blum
The origins of al Qaeda the 9/11 attacks appear to have very deep roots that stretch into the Carter, Reagan and Bush 41 years as well as the Clinton years. The Robert Gates confirmation process may allow a greater public understanding of how all this came to pass and it appears neither political party (Carter, Clinton) and (Bush 41, Reagan) will be exempt from a mixture of blame and praise.
This is a 1998 interview. The last passage is very interesting.
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
This too would be appear to be a vital question when deciding how to plan for our national security.
/
--
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
Help support the Forvm by buying items through our links. All proceeds go to defraying our hosting costs.
Conservative
Liberal
Moderate/Mixed/Non-Partisan
Non-Political/Reference
Related Sites
Polisci Applied (Aaron)
Intrepid Liberal Journal (Intrepid Liberal)
Obsidian Wings (Bird Dog)
Open Hand/Open Eye (locutas)
Red State (Bird Dog)
Swords Crossed (brendanm98)
Wagster Speaks (Wagster)
WatchingAmerica (BlaiseP)
The Social Pathologist (TSP)
Foreign Affairs
Abu Aardvark
'Aqoul
American Footprints
Council on Foreign Relations
CSIS
Democracy Arsenal
Intel Dump
The Fourth Rail
War and Piece
Politics
Ace of Spades HQ
Andrew Sullivan
Balloon Juice
Belgravia Dispatch
Captain's Quarters
Crooked Timber
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton
Firedoglake
Glenn Greenwald
Global Guerrillas
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Liberals Against Terror
Matt Yglesias
Michael J. Totten
Michelle Malkin
Moon of Alabama
New America
OxBlog
Patterico
Political Animal
Political Wire
Publius Pundit
QandO
Reality Based Community
Talking Points Memo
The Agitator
The Belmont Club
The Corner
This Modern WorldTruman Project
Winds of Change.net
War
Counterterrorism Blog
Iraq the Model
Jihad Watch
Small Wars Journal Blog
Economics and Business
Angry Bear
Brad DeLong
Daniel Drezner
Mahalanobis
Marginal Revolution
Roubini Global Economics
The Big Picture
Science and Tech
Bad Astronomy
New Scientist
Real Climate
Science Blogs
Scientific American
The Panda's Thumb
Legal
Balkinization
Conglomerate
Ideoblog
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Overlawyered
ProfessorBainbridge
ScotusBlog
Talk Left
The Becker-Posner Blog
Volokh Conspiracy
Sports
Baseball Crank
Baseball Musings
Baseball Reference.com
ESPN.com
NFL.com
Only Baseball Matters
The Sports Economist
Film and Music
They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?
Internet Movie Database
All Music Guide
News and Aggregators
Asia Times
Boingboing
CNN
Digg
English Russia
Fark
Memeorandum
MSNBC
Politico
Poynteronline
Slashdot
Dead Tree Media
The New York Times
The Washington Post
Los Angeles Times
References
[Who else would the Bushies (re)appoint?]
Defense Secretary Nominee Robert Gates Tied to Iran-Contra Scandal and the Secret Arming of Saddam Hussein
--“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”--William Tecumseh Sherman
- reply
- quote
)-0_
--Sincerity is the first casualty of capitalism. John Burdett
- reply
- quote
| parent )Let me try again. It is from Democracy Now program last Thursday.
--“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”--William Tecumseh Sherman
- reply
- quote
| parent )http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20061109-114639-6418r_page2.htm
--The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
- quote
)Bush Replaces Rumsfeld with ... Another Rumsfeld
“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”--William Tecumseh Sherman
- reply
- quote
)The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
- quote
)The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Poppy is back.
--“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
- reply
- quote
| parent )Sully's rarely been right on much IMO, YMMV.
Anyone spending too much time on pop psychology is generally likely to be wrong in my observation...
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Whats the difference?
--The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
- quote
| parent )than Bush 41 -- which is good. Still, he (and possibly Gates) will try to skew things for the good of the party; the nation will probably come second.
I'm getting bad vibes about this...
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Link:
This must have been in the works before Tuesday.
--The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
- quote
)The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Discussed the Robert M Gates Sec Def nomination (minute 45:00->), and Gates' history/roles with the CIA and US administrations in 1980's. He said that Rush Holtz said that Gates had a reputation for shaving and molding intel info to suit his bosses' desires (minute~1:09:00)
Questions relating to Gates' relationship/possible involvement to Iran-Contra (selling weapons to Iran to use against our then-strategic ally Saddam Husein's Iraq) scandal came up several times during the 45 min segment.
It was interesting to me that when WaPo's Pincus (at minute 1:15:10->) was outlining the Iran-Contra triangle weapon trade/sale arrangement (US-Israel-Iran), he failed/forgot to note Israel's role in his narrative, but highlighted Hezbullah (the guys that Bush admin people accuse of being responsible for blowing up Beirut Marine Barracks only 1-2 yrs earlier??) of being the middle-men in the Iran-Contra deal.
--“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”--William Tecumseh Sherman
- reply
- quote
)Nations don't have friends or enemies, only interests. Whether Iran-Contra was a good idea is certainly up for debate, but if it was, hey, whoever can carry the guns.
- reply
- quote
| parent )....stated feeling that helpinng sap the USSR's strength was of more long-term import that whether or not we stirred up a bunch of Islamists. As has been pointed out previously, their ideology is a joke and unlikely to win many converts, so they hardly pose the threat that Communism/Capital-S Socialism did in systemic terms.
That said, the world has changed. As I pointed out on the previous site, the advances of technology and systemic complexity have created conditions such that a handful of Islamist clowns can create catastrophes that previously required big, organized nation-state type setups. The conditions that held true in the 80s no longer do, and the situation in that regard is sadly bound to get worse.
---“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
- quote
)Link
Okay, who here supports Gates? Opposes him?
Should Gates be confirmed by the current Congress before the new Congress is sworn in?
--The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
- quote
)Mr. White,
It is premature to judge his approach.
And he should be confirmed ASAP. We need a Secretary of Defense now, not in three months.
- reply
- quote
| parent )to Robert Gates. that said, the hearing process should not be short-changed.
Given Tom Delay's attitude, let us see what Bill Frist does. If Frist does intend to run in 2008, then a little distance from Bush wouldn't hurt.
--The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
- quote
| parent )...during the infamous late sixties. Hardly warms my heart to the guy, but let us refrain from GBA.
Supposedly aligned with papa and his posse, including the fabulous Baker boy. This signals to me that jr. is coming home: "Rummy and Wolfie broke it, daddy!, can you fix it?"
Then there was: "Consumate bureaucrat, in a good way" (heard this one on the radio or WSJ TV or something, these past couple of days are a media blur).
Sounds to me like a man well versed in the black arts of navigating the security establishment. Probably knows where a few skeletons are and has them all in microfilm or something. He also sounds ruthless but realistic. I would guess he will be set to do some cleaning. If confirmed he will be the anti-Rumsfeld. He will be low-key, bland, and a very busy boy behind the scenes.
That said, I don't know what he imagines he can do in Iraq.
--My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton
- reply
- quote
| parent )....favor. :^)
---“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
- quote
| parent )anything in Iraq. We're gonna be there for a while, period -- and he'll figure that out real quick if he doesn't already know it.
There is, of course, the option of just leaving but that's not his call and in any event, I think he's too smart to do that even if it were his choice to make.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )There is plenty that can be done in Iraq, if for no other reason than the fact that so much has been done the wrong way, particularly on the civilian side (I agree with you that the military has improved a lot after their "18 month" learning curve).
A CIA guy is ideally suited to the task. He's definitely going to do things. Just what he will do, and how visible it will be, is another issue.
That said, there is no magic bullet. More like crisis management rather than crisis resolution. But, once a crisis is managed, previously obscured paths to resolution may become evident. I'm not overly optimistic, but there is some chance for improvement now, which was absent with Rummy. It's not just due to Gates, it's due to the baggage he carries with him; Baker, etc.
--My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton
- reply
- quote
| parent )...is define a sane endpoint.
--"In the very long run, we are all dead." -- John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes
- reply
- quote
| parent )Link:
--The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
- quote
| parent )going nowhere. He's the conservative version of John Kerry in terms of PR persona. Both of them speak slow, seem dimwitted and have the unfortunate habit of adopting the "thousand yard how-can-I-answer-and-piss-of-the-least-amount-of-my-constituents stare" when anyone asks them a question. If you look real close you can even see gears trying to mesh!
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- reply
- quote
| parent )--
----
--Me: We! -- Ali
- reply
- quote
| parent )I mean, sure, he's got plenty of experience both ducking Congress and making sure that the Iranians get what they need, so he'll fit right into the current Bush Administration, but overall, he can't fix what can't be fixed.
My hope is that he'll stop making it worse. But unless (1) Gates has a plan to get us out of Iraq, and (2) Bush listens to that plan, then we're in Iraq, so we're hosed.
--"In the very long run, we are all dead." -- John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes
- reply
- quote
| parent )have been crafting a plan to get us out of Iraq and Jimmy Baker might be the only person capable of making President Bush listen.
--The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
- quote
| parent )You said about Baker that making sure that the Iranians get what they need [fits] right into the current Bush Administration. How is the Bush Administration making sure the Iranians get what they need? Specifics please.
--Sincerity is the first casualty of capitalism. John Burdett
- reply
- quote
| parent )1) Afghanistan used to be controlled by a bunch of fanatics who were fanatically opposed to Iran. We solved that problem for them.
2) Their neighbor Iraq used to be controlled by a secular anti-theocratic government which fought a horrific border war with them. Now their neighbor Iraq is not only far weaker but much more open to Iranian influences.
3) Iran's been wanting the bomb for a long while now but couldn't get the political cover it needed to work with the Russians to get it -- in addition, they used to fear a US invasion terribly. Turns out now the Russians are playing containment games against us, the Pakistanis are a good new source of the tech, and our military is bogged down in Iraq, so they've got a nice window to get their work done in.
The Iranian regime is the only entity to have unqualifiedly won the US interventions in the ME. Even Bush's idiotic "axes of evil" speech reinforced their home credibility.
--"In the very long run, we are all dead." -- John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes
- reply
- quote
| parent )your post that I questioned clearly implied that the Bush Administration was actively trying to help Iran. Are you now admitting that position is bogus?
--Sincerity is the first casualty of capitalism. John Burdett
- reply
- quote
| parent )Bush's tremendous efforts on behalf on the Iranian regime are almost certainly due to incompetence, rather than malice -- unlike soon to be Secretary Gates. Nevertheless, the pattern holds.
--"In the very long run, we are all dead." -- John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes
- reply
- quote
| parent )on behalf of the Iranians? Sounds like you really meant what I thought you said, in which case your point of view is, well, novel.
Did Bush do it (1) for Unocal's "Pipeline to the Stars", (2) because Prescott Bush was a Nazi, or (3) because the Iranians promised him a baseball team? Inquiring minds want to know.
--Sincerity is the first casualty of capitalism. John Burdett
- reply
- quote
| parent )Bush did a number of incompetent things which, collectively, were helpful to the Iranians.
Gates deliberately and competently did things which were helpful to the Iranians.
Thus, there is some commonality between the two, as far as US policy toward the Iranians go.
Sometimes a snark is just a snark.
--"In the very long run, we are all dead." -- John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes
- reply
- quote
| parent )The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Is "hyperbole for effect" the same as "fire for effect"?
--Sincerity is the first casualty of capitalism. John Burdett
- reply
- quote
| parent )lateral shifts required for it to be so have occurred.
The former is ineffective because it's over the top and the normal radio call reporting that is "Lost, Over."
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )- reply
- quote
| parent )Get over it.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
- quote
| parent )We will see
--The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
- quote
| parent )is on the way. Get over it.
Hillary's the next president. Get over it.
Nancy Pelosi has got the wheel. Get over it.
Also known as: yours is not a response to Kimmitt's comment; it's just annoying and rude.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Can be quite annoying and rude.
Shame you mentioned no facts in your list. But heh, I guess that means you're not annoying or rude!
This time.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
- quote
| parent )facts (or opinions, in your case) aren't annoying. But thanks for missing the point!
- reply
- quote
| parent )but "get over it" isn't?
??????
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )The actually words "clap louder" weren't the point. It was replying to a post as though the commentator had actually said anything that justified that reply. If you recall, the retort was to a mere link provided and without any comment. If the commentator had said something that justified a response of "clap louder" I wouldn't see any problem with that language.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
- quote
| parent )provided to let you know that if you expect monumental change in the next coupole of years -- or even the next ten; I think you're going to be really disappointed.
We've been through these sea changes before, they rarely make much difference; little things around the edges. That's all. This one could be different, there's always that chance -- but I seriously doubt it...
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Responding to an argument against something with "get over it" is weak and uncivil.
- reply
- quote
| parent )The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )It's hard to believe I'm hearing that from a Republican.
I heard Baker on NPR a few weeks ago, and the man went to great lengths to distinguish between talking with your enemies and negotiating with terrorists - convincingly I thought. He said something clever along the lines of 'countries don't really have enemies - just problems' and ridiculed politicians who thought like DeLay.
My initial impression is that I like the Gates appointment. His problem-solving temperament and willingness to take fire (not to mention his eagerness to get the heck out of Washington again) suit him for the horrible job ahead of him.
--"There are sneakers that cost more than an iPod." -Steve Jobs
- reply
- quote
| parent )Mr. Sebastien,
He leaves the aspect of ideology and morals out of the equation, which is disastrous. When he was working on the Cold War he was alongside plenty of others that could supply his deficiencies, notably Ronald Reagan.
Back in the Philippines, it was the Kissinger/Baker/Scowcroft types that advocated for retaining support of our dictator, and the "neo-cons" (notably Wolfowitz) who turned US policy around by making their case to the president; so also with support for Eastern European dissidents. It was not the realist school that worked with the Pope, Walesa, and others. It was not the realist school that turned US morale around in the 1980's, and the US international image around and seized the initiative against the Soviets.
The moral is to the material as ten is to one, and frankly the attention the government should pay to each should be in proportion.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Partisan expediency is strong.
It won't take the left long to remember why they used to dislike "realists" so much.
--God help the while, a bad world I say.
- reply
- quote
| parent )The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Induce the GOP realists and neo-cons to quarrel.
--The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
- quote
| parent )“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
- quote
| parent )Of course.
--"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
- quote
| parent )The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )...then I think I am going to fail the test because I don't uderstand the point you are trying to make. Do you believe Gates' actions were justified?
Why do you think the last passage is interesting?
--I went to YOUR institutional learning facilities?! So how can you say I'M crazy? - S. Tendencies
- reply
- quote
)the Administration (and the Right media) has been telling us that the Islamo-fascists are this monolithic implacable enemy. But if we enouraged Islamic religious revival to fight to Soviets that monolithic portrayl is called into question.
I believe radical Islam is a threat to the West, but only one threat among a great many and a threat that does not warrant being labelled as "The Threat"
Another point: Afghanistan was the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union. That strategy began in the Carter years. Winning the Cold War involved help from both parties.
We know that but does the average American?
Another point: Gates favors selective engagement rather than confrontation with Iran.
It is also a curious sign than Bush 41 realpolitick now seems so much safer and moral than the neo-con PNAC-er "America runs the Risk table" strategy.
--The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Mr. White,
He is right and wrong on Islam. It is not like Christianity, where the political element of unity is weak; there is a much more powerful unity in Islam. There is no organization of Christian countries like there is of Islamic ones. The point of radical Islam is that it is a transnational ideology that is getting stronger, not weaker. And it is about as monolithic as Communism ever was.
The only thing it lacks is that it has not yet taken over a powerful state, and the ones it has some prospect of dominating are very second rate. It is not therefore as big a danger as Communism was.
- reply
- quote
| parent )I do think Americans realize that radical Islam is not "The Treat". Or they are, at least beginning to come to this conclusion. In my mind this is one reason the scare tactics of the Rovians didn't work in this election.
--I went to YOUR institutional learning facilities?! So how can you say I'M crazy? - S. Tendencies
- reply
- quote
| parent )especially followers of Malkin, Coulter, etc . . .
I am also pleased that Robert Gates appears to advocate selective engagement with Iran rather than confrontation.
Perhaps Bush 41 and James Baker have decided to reel in Junior a wee bit.
--The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
- quote
| parent )....because they want to. I think that group would believe the exact opposite if it suited their purposes.
Perhaps Bush 41 and James Baker have decided to reel in Junior a wee bit.
I certainly hope so. I also hope Santa brings Dubya a new X-box for Christmas. It might help get him out of the way so Dad's friends can save his gluteus again.
--I went to YOUR institutional learning facilities?! So how can you say I'M crazy? - S. Tendencies
- reply
- quote
| parent )Robert Gates is not my "dream" appointment for SecDef but politics is the art of the possible and his nomination is in the right direction.
--The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
- quote
| parent )That's a major part of the threat they pose.
--Sincerity is the first casualty of capitalism. John Burdett
- reply
- quote
| parent )A disparate group of fundamentalist murderers that number under 50,000 is not a threat to the continued existence of the United States as we know it. The Soviet Union, Imperial Japan and the Nazi's were. And 20 years from now China may be. Should we worry more about 50,000 dead enders or 1 billion Chinese or perhaps both at the same time. I think our nation is capable of doing both quite easily.
--I went to YOUR institutional learning facilities?! So how can you say I'M crazy? - S. Tendencies
- reply
- quote
| parent )Mr. Neponset,
The fundamentalist murderers are the tip of the Islamic radical iceberg. What would the consequences be for the world if these people take over the Pakistani state ? Or Egypt ? Or Saudi Arabia ? All are likely. These will not be threats to the US, directly, but they will be to their neighbors, and are very likely to upset the peace of the world and its economic development, opening the way to yet another century of troubles, like the last.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Current situation: we already have an alliance between Venzuela and Iran. Venezuela in turn has it's allies in Cuba and Bolivia, plus a number of sympathizers and a support base in Europe and N. America. Iran can enlist North Korea (shared nuclear ambitions), and the Shiite portion of Iraq, along with possibly China for diplomatic support.
Now suppose Islamists do take over Pakistan, Egypt, and/or Saudi Arabia. Immediately, Somalia (already taken over) and Sudan (might as well be) are going to cast their lot on that side. Iraq's Sunnis will follow, and probably Syria too, despire being run by secual Baathists. Afghanistan would likely fall back under Taliban sway.
Thus we'd have a block of Islamist nations streching from N. Africa all the way to Pakistan. Either they turn against Iran (in which case we have a regional war), or they ally with Iran, in which case we have the equivalent of an Islamist Warsaw Pact, possibly armed with nukes.
In that case, they will be as big a threat as the former Soviet Union. Complete with an extended network of sympathizers in the US and Europe (via the Venezuela and Cuba link).
Edit: not to mention the effect that an Islamist Egypt would have on the Palestinian territories. Lebannon could (would) get drawn into the mix via both the Iranian and Syrian channels. So basically, pretty much the entire Gulf region would be sucked into the vortex in no time.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Ms. Andromeda,
These are alliances of convenience and rhetoric more than anything. These are all also bandit states without honor. Few of these regimes will risk itself for another, like the great powers of Europe did in 1914, and their ideological attachments are weak. They are no Warsaw Pact.
More likely is that they will cause wars with their neighbors, or subvert their neighbors, or fight with each other, and drag the world economy down with the increase in instability.
That is where the real problems will come from. The dominance of radical politics that caused WWII came out of the Great Depression, in Germany, Japan and Eastern Europe.
- reply
- quote
| parent )... if they were all being run by radical Islamists, they would have a strong ideological commitment to echother. The program of radical Islam is after all to unite the "Umma" to fight the Western infidel.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Egypt and Syria tried to create the islamic empire for a good 20-30 years after WWII... they were all about it in theory but it kinda broke down when they tried to figure out who ran the islamic empire.
- reply
- quote
| parent )... they can always trot out another video of OBL whenever they need a leader, can't they. ;)
Seriously, I imagine Zawahiri would be the acknowledged leader, since OBL doesn't have long to live (even if he isn't dead already). But after Zawahiri, it's true there wouldn't be a unified leader.
Of course, someone might emerge in the interim. Who knows?
- reply
- quote
| parent )Will subjugate themselves to a hick who's been in the mountains shooting rockets for the last 30 years?
Zawahiri isn't even the leader of Al Qaeda (witness Zarqawi until a little bit ago), they're too decentralized to have a leader. He's not going to be able to unite people under a caliphate to the point of including actual states.
- reply
- quote
| parent )... if you're an Islamist leader, you are probably a Imam, or Mullah, or whatever. Which means it makes you look good to subjugate yourself to the great spiritual leader of the Umma, be it Zawahiri or OBL.
These people are religious believers. They value different things than the average tin-pot dictator. Their heads of state are probably going to be selected by clerical councils, not by assassinating one's way to the top. they'd all be expected to swear alliegance to Muslim unity and the cause. Subjugating oneself to the 'sheik' or 'emir' or 'caliph' of a supposedly reborn caliphate would be their religious duty, and good PR.
- reply
- quote
| parent )in power the longest...
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Although we're good for a while longer as long as Karzai and Musharraf stay in power. But they won't be taking orders from him. Just throwing him a little meat once in a while a la Bush and the judicial appointments.
- reply
- quote
| parent )The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )... like those leaders aren't devoted religious followers who will genuinely admire Osama bin Laden, and Zawahiri, as real religious leaders.
They'll take orders from him in the same way that Cardinals take orders from the Pope. Because it's their religious duty to.
You don't "throw meat" to your heros, you listen to and respect them and follow them.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Venezuela is set ot have an election next month, so why not wait to see how that little link holds up in your doomsday scenario. The anti-Chavez guy Rosales is pushing 40% and has ridiculed Chavez's fantasies about a war with the US + Chavez's close ties w. Cuba.
He's no pro-US oligarch, but he's obviously not interested in participating in some anti-US empire. Here's hoping there can still be an honest election in that country and that Rosales wins.
Chavez had the state employees all out in a counter-demonstration a few days back, dutifully wearing their red shirts. Perfect example of giving the state too much power of nationalization w/out strong labor representation. The workers are threatened with losing their jobs if they don't go to pro-Chavez demonstrations and there's a legal battle over the 'right' to fire state employees who don't vote for Chavez in the next election.
Still, there's hope.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Mr. Catchy,
Power grows out of the barrel of a gun, and Chavez has the guns. He has his men running the military and he has his own militia. And he has the unrestricted funds of the state oil monopoly to keep his guns loyal. There is nothing to restrain him now, whatever is left is a facade. There is no shifting a man like that, if he keeps his nerve, short of an actual revolt with enough force to overcome his guns.
In comparison to Chavez, as I understand it, my dictator Marcos had a much more independent military (stronger independent institutions) and no unlimited funding source. Chavez will last.
As for the unions, its the easiest thing in the world to co-opt them. They are natural avenues for corrupt control. MArcos did, Batista did, and the former Venezuelan regime did too. If the money is there, there is no more useful ally to a dictator or a corrupt politician than a union.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Though by my read there's just enough room for a popular struggle to oust Chavez from power this election. But only with an overwhelming popular will to remove him that hasn't materializd yet. Anything close will go his way.
Chavez does not have all the military lined up and has been busy building a shadow militia precisely for this reason. More worrisome is his stranglehold over state workers and his control of the National Election Board.
Re: labor unions if they were so easy to bribe, Chavez would not have been working so hard to undermine them for the past three years. Here again he has gone to creating a shadow union in order to replace the legitimate one. The legitimate union has been at the forefront of the recent battle to secure the rights of workers to vote as they please.
All of which speaks against your general disdain for labor unions: "They are natural avenues for corrupt control".
I don't believe they are more than any other representative body. Any checks and balances are desirable and it is a pity these unions are not stronger.
Further, I note that conservatives like yourself stress the extent to which labor unions hurt economic performance in e.g. western European countries when they promote 'inflexibility'. But if unions are harmful to GDP and inherently susceptible to being bought off, businesses would have bribed them into submission long ago.
Can't have it both ways.
- reply
- quote
| parent )... you're probably right that if the Islamists really started looking scary (by taking over some major states), Chavez would either break off that alliance or be out of office soon after.
On the other hand, I'm not 100% sure of that. People like to find excuses to do crazy things out of emotional impulses, and the anti-American impulse is pretty powerful. I could plausibly see the ANSWER left rationalizing support for an Islamist anti-American pact, and Chavez et al. convincing themselves that supporting it is a good idea. I don't think that the world whipping itself into an anti-American frenzy is out of the realm of possibility at all. Such things tend to pick up steam as they go along.
- reply
- quote
| parent )But when does someone pull their head out? If 50,000 isn't worth it? What is the number then?
Is it the actual number? Or is it the potential number? Do you only take action when it's too late to do anything else?
A disparate group of fundamentalist murderers that number under 50,000 is not a threat to the continued existence of the United States as we know it.
9/11 didn't threaten the US existence as a single act. Is your answer to have had no active response?
- reply
- quote
| parent )No one is saying Al Queada or Islamofascist isn't a threat to Americans but I really don't see how they are a threat to the United States. We should, can and will protect our citizens from a group of murderers like Al Queada but we shouldn't overreact to the threat they pose.
9/11 didn't threaten the US existence as a single act.
No. On 9/12 I had absolutely no concern that the US would cease to exist as a result of what happened the day before. Should I be afraid that that may happen?
Is your answer to have had no active response?
No. The choice isn't between doing something and doing nothing. The choice is between doing the right things and doing the wrong things.
--I went to YOUR institutional learning facilities?! So how can you say I'M crazy? - S. Tendencies
- reply
- quote
| parent )No. The choice isn't between doing something and doing nothing. The choice is between doing the right things and doing the wrong things.
Well, Yeah... Which is why making threshold claims about the existence of the United States as some sort of benchmark is pretty meaningless.
- reply
- quote
| parent )We don't wait to do something only when it becomes a threat to the existence of the United States. No one I know or ever heard of has ever said anything like that.
For example, the pirates off of the coast of Somalia don't threaten the continued existence of the United States but we, rightly, sent a destroyer or two out that way to help deal with them. A bunch of idiots in speedboats with RPG's certainly don't threaten the United States but they do threaten some shipping lanes and that is enough to provoke a response from us.
--I went to YOUR institutional learning facilities?! So how can you say I'M crazy? - S. Tendencies
- reply
- quote
| parent )Is not a threat to the US's existence either. The Islamic Jihad threat is at a subjective level, and the response will be also. I don't know what "The Threat" is, but a lot of things are "A Threat." Some have criticized Iraq for being too little (need 600,000 troops), some have criticized it for being too much (shooting at and maybe knocking down a few coalition aircraft is no big deal).
Perhaps more claification of your point in post #9324?
- reply
- quote
| parent )I was trying to echo a point made by the diarist in comment 9315:
the Administration (and the Right media) has been telling us that the Islamo-fascists are this monolithic implacable enemy. But if we enouraged Islamic religious revival to fight to Soviets that monolithic portrayl is called into question.
I believe radical Islam is a threat to the West, but only one threat among a great many and a threat that does not warrant being labelled as "The Threat"
--I went to YOUR institutional learning facilities?! So how can you say I'M crazy? - S. Tendencies
- reply
- quote
| parent )...and mobilization of the American resources...I would definitely say this Administration has not considered it "The Threat." Though is has a potential (as all unattended threats do), of becoming "The Threat." I would say that actions (or inaction) over the past 35 years have moved it up a few notches.
- reply
- quote
| parent )As 9/11 and Katrina showed (Yes, I know AQ et.al. were not reponsible for Katrina) the cost in lives of a disaster is bad -- the ecsonomic cost is absolutley humungous. Each such disaster affects Insurance, Reinsurance, Government programs and a host of other intertwined. The issue is less protection of American lives, though that is important, than it is stopping this:
If you don't think a dedicated and remorseless enemy willing to die that is quite intelligent, very well educated, very media and IT savyy cannot wreak severe economic havoc in pursuit of their goal -- however unattainable that goal might be (IF the stated goal is the actual goal...) -- I suggest you might wish to give the matter more thought.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )I don't mean to underestimate the amount of damage Al Quaeda has and can do. In fact, they have shown that they can inflict a great deal of damage but that doesn't mean we should equate the threat from them with the threat from our larger and much more dangerous historic/future foes. If China invaded Taiwan in 5 years they could start a world war. I may be wrong, but I don't think Al Queada has the ability to do that much damage to us.
--I went to YOUR institutional learning facilities?! So how can you say I'M crazy? - S. Tendencies
- reply
- quote
| parent )... if China invaded Taiwan, it would only start a world war if we wanted it to. China's far saner than the Islamists, and both of us have more to lose from a war. They aren't after honor or martrydom, but wealth and power.
- reply
- quote
| parent )...wealth and power. In fact, I would guess that the great majority of wars were fought over wealth and power.
Also, we have no say over what our adversaries do, so it just isn't true that we could avoid a world war with China just because we wanted to.
--I went to YOUR institutional learning facilities?! So how can you say I'M crazy? - S. Tendencies
- reply
- quote
| parent )Mr. Neponset,
"that doesn't mean we should equate the threat from them with the threat from our larger and much more dangerous historic/future foes"
Which is why the military is still half the size it was in the 1980's, and why Rumsfeld emphasized accelerated R&D.
- reply
- quote
| parent )at $72B, that's more than the entire defense budget of France and Germany combined.
When the Navy starts expanding heavily and rapidly, then you can start worrying. If we were to institute a Draft (unlikely and totally unnecessary and generally a bad idea at this time IMO) and we suddenly expanded the active Army past 1.5 to 2M folks, then you should really worry... :)
In the meantime, AQ and clones are a potential economic and political, not military, threat. A significant one.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Righties are gonna have to learn that the public have now made the difinitive statement on this.
--"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
- quote
| parent )....to do with whether something is correct or not? You're entirely too wrapped up in other people's opinions, man. :^)
---“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
- quote
| parent )You might wish for enlightened dictatorship, but I don't and I don't consider Bush to be enlightened or even all that bright on a world leader scale, but he has certainly like one following his 'mandates' of '00 and '04.
--"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
- quote
| parent )....have to do with correct or incorrect? The actor implementing a decision and the agreement or disagreement of the public as to whether that was the correct decision have nothing whatsoever to do with whether it was or was not correct. You are conflating political reality with objective reality.
I, for one, don't like the idea of enlightened dictatorship, at least if I'm not the dictator in question, anyway. I wouldn't trust the rest of you any farther than I could throw you. :^) But that is neither here nor there. You and I both see that much of the electorate has a problem with the war in Iraq. You see that fact and jump to the unfounded conclusion that the war must then be bad policy. I see it and think that the electorate is about as full of fools as I always thought it was.
Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something. - Robert Heinlein
Of course, Heinlein's got a major error in there. Democracy is believed to imply that a million men are wiser than one man by many. What it's actually based on is the idea that each of the million prefer not to have one of their number lording it over the rest.
---“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
- quote
| parent )The Bush Administration or our lying eyes?
--"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
- quote
| parent )gather snippets of info and derive conclusions; different people can derive widely varying conclusions from the same information. You see lies and a fatally flawed concept, Bernard sees fools and I see people irked at apparent lack of progress. Who's correct? We'll see -- eventually...
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )the oversight of a Democratic Congress to reveal information that is damning or flatering to the Republican leadership?
--"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
- quote
| parent )has little or nothing to do with the topic, which was whether Iraq was a right or wrong response and which I contend is a judgment call. Very few things in life have only one solution; very few solutions are right or wrong, they just vary on degree of efficiency in accomplishing the goal.
No question this has not been efficiently executed -- that does not mean it was not a viable solution -- or will fail.
Let me modify my first statement; anything they do find that's remotely flattering, they're likely to try to bury while emphasizing the negative -- just as the Republicans would do were the situation reversed. That's politics; it ain't pretty...
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Iraq was a judgement call.
Bad judgement, wrong call.
--"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
- quote
| parent )The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )remains a bad and stupid decision whether or not someone other than W manages to salvage something from the situation in 5 years, or in 10 or 20 from now.
--"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
- quote
| parent )from now that could not and would not have occurred without the invasion; then your opinion will be proven wrong. We'll see.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )then it's no defense at all.
In order for history to prove W right the world would have to benefit from something that could not have been achieved by other less disruptive and deadly means. Iraq will gradualy be assimilated, I don't see it as a precurser for WW3 or anything like that, but it is making the 'war' against Islamic extremists more difficult not less and any potential benefit remains a pipe dream which for all we can tell at this point could equally accrue or not.
No way to run a foreign policy.
--"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
- quote
| parent )memory aid work or pills.
Seriously, no intent to be insulting, just a little snarky.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Who needs 'em? just gets in the way of decent argument.
No offence taken, not that I'm particularly thick-skinned so much as I'm aware that my truncated style unecessarily provokes occassional responses that might upset overly delicate sensibilities. It's not a tactic, I just don't write as well in longer installments.
Quite humorous to see you attract direct fire from the snarkmeister hisself tho.
--"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
- quote
| parent )You do well in the longer installments.
I may joke about your memory -- and it was a joke; aside from the fact that I don't really expect anyone who has to work and probably contributes on other blogs as well to recall every word of my deadly -- oops, deathless -- prose.
I can also joke about my typing and failure to undersrtand some of the quick posts -- not just yours, a lot of folks leave me scratching my head on occasion. Jordan and I have a great talent at at talking past each other...
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )every word you've ever said here. There's a fat file on you somewhere, and someone's probably reading it right now. So keep up the seditious remarks - when your comments suddenly stop, I'll know where to find you. And don't expect me to keep the mint tea warm.
--Sincerity is the first casualty of capitalism. John Burdett
- reply
- quote
| parent )cf. Norm Crosby.
--“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
- reply
- quote
| parent )intended, I've told you several times I didn't agree with it on a couple of counts. I've also pointed out that the fact it wasn't done my way -- or your way -- doesn't mean that it won't work.
You might also look at what I said: "In your opinion, others differ. If something occurs ten years from now that could not and would not have occurred without the invasion; then your opinion will be proven wrong. We'll see." (emphasis added / kw) That makes all your "... other less disruptive...' and so forth bit sort of moot.
You're too impatient; too early to tell.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )I seem to have ignored your formulation and gone straight to the heart of the matter.
Yes, I am very impatient with those who seek to create existential struggles out of nothing and you are right it is too early to tell whether Iraq will ultimately be written up as success or failure. But it isn't too early to know that it didn't have to happen this way at all or that GW's decision to focus on Iraq was wrong or that the project has been mismanaged to the point of imminent failure.
Someone is going to rescue the US from its folly in Iraq because someone has to and it will gat done, but I'm certainly not going to thank GW for creating the need.
--"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
- quote
| parent )We happen to agree that the timing and conduct of the attack were bad
You go further and think it created a veritable disaster. We disagree on that point.
You want to slam Bush; I could care less about slamming any politician -- or all of 'em. Most are sort of worthless IMO. Ideologically I lean right so I reserve my small amount of bile for the way-out, overly leftist folks. :)
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )60 years of relative peace during the Cold War and the lesson of Vietnam have combined to raise the threshold somewhat on what is considered a military and foreign policy disaster these days. I believe that represents progress and wouldn't want a return to the old ways and I do regard W's intervention in Iraq to be a return to the old ways of doing things, not some inovative new concept or the product of a modern visionary.
Presumably then, expositions of your bile - though terrifying in aspect, I'm sure - will probably remain rare and treasured events, since I wouldn't consider your perch here to offer much in the way of a target rich environment, I suspect by design. Then again, all depends where you draw that line I guess :)
Anyways, I enjoy our tussles and I do respect your views and arguments, even as I persist in teasing out the tiniest nuance in my inane fashion. In argument like legislation or law the process 'aint always pretty. So keep your eye out for line faults 'cos I'd hate to see you indignantly frogmarched off to the penalty box by an overly trigger happy Troika, especially given all the new faces trying out the forvm who may not be aware of your innate reasonableness on their first encounter.
--"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
- quote
| parent )42 years long; 1947-1989? :)
Seemed longer, didn't it? I'm sure you're aware that it was a very artificial period in the histroy of the world with only two major powers and the fears of MAD constraining both to play by certain well defined rules. That kept the minor players in check and somewhat subserviant to the two big guys. The end of that period of artificiality returned the world to it's more normal messy and semi-chaotic state as many more competitors for power and attention took the stage.
The cessation of that war allowed the global economy to take off in overdrive and that allowed the rise of non-state actors. The world was effectively not ready for that and 15 years later we still cope with those actors very ineffectually. Old habits die hard.
Still, your point of 60 years of relative peace and increasing civilization is accurate -- and it does represent progress, no question. I agree that a return to chaos is not at all desirable but I don't think what you and I want is likely to affect the actions of a good many folks who thrive and profit on that chaos -- or hope to do so.
I also suggest that the very same civilizing influence you cite has softened us to the point where we are reluctant to address hard issues and are not conditioned to make hard decisions that entail the imposition of suffering or the possible regression you mention. Others do not seem to have been leavened quite so much.
Don't have a lot of bile, I save it for things that are important; little written here qualifies. :)
Not to mention that very few things are as significant as many like to think and most make little difference in how the world proceeds -- or in how our lives are truly affected.
Reasonableness? Hmmm. I must be doing something wrong. They may revoke my VRWC Decoder Ring. Maybe I oughta cut back on the Bourbon, penalty of being a happy drunk...
If you see one laying around, pick up a copy of this book (LINK). Interesting read. You'll agree with his conclusions more than I but his research is good and there's a lot of illumination of little known factors.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )You stow the memory aid work/pills cracks, and I won't suggest you need a politeness enema. Deal? Thanks.
--“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
- reply
- quote
| parent )yourself.
I'm not sure what brought that on but you could've done it a whole lot better. You want to play the big Mod God, do it objectively and politely and you'll get objective and polite response from me every time -- as has happened in the past. Keep doing them in this mode and they'll continue to get the treatment they deserve.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Telling folks they need pills, memory aids, etc. is not only juvenile (act your age for chrissakes!), it is also a posting rules violation. Whether or not you appreciate my tact or lack thereof in bringing this to your attention is entirely beside the point.
Let's leave it at that.
--“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
- reply
- quote
| parent )We can disagree on whether my gentle dig at Spartacus was a posting violation; I think not; you think it was.
You're the Moderator and I respect that; however, as I've said before when you tack one of your snarks on to an effort to persuade someone elese to avoid excessive snark; your authority loses its effect. I'd also suggest that acting ones age as a remark is a double edged sword.
Thus, in an effort to restore your dignity, you again lose because you slip in yet another totally unnecessary snark.
That is not beside the point.
That being said, I'll apologize to Spartacus publicly and I'll apologize to you publicly and we can move on.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Then here is my authority, snarkless and short: you are warned.
And I'd like this to get through to everybody else because I'm getting tired of repeating the same thing; telling someone they need memory pills or brain cells or whatever is a posting violation plain and simple and that's all there is to it.
So don't do it. There are now three outstanding warnings over this and if people keep it up, somebody is gonna get himself suspended over something too dumb to be worth it.
--My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton
- reply
- quote
| parent )scrapbook and future reference should either of you fall off the wagon? :)
Thanks.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Leaving Ken out of this -- his apology is now matched by one of my own (I apologize) -- it would be great if we could all retire the various ways we call each other stupid. (Again, as opposed to calling someone's comment stupid.) All of them. That means suggesting a fellow commenter lives in a parallel (and lesser) universe, suggesting that a fellow commenter is not educated enough on a subject to argue it, suggesting that a commenter needs a politeness enema (I did that, btw -- the comment, not the enema :)), and any other comment that suggests/states/infers that the person you are arguing with is simply too dumb to grasp the superior nature of your argument.
And just for the record? The easiest way to ameliorate this temptation is to avoid arguing with people you do not respect. Full stop.
Now let's all return, happily, to our regularly scheduled programming....
--“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
- reply
- quote
| parent )The free market is premised on the idea that a million or billion dolts will do better at predicting than one wise man.
Why not apply that to politics?
= = =
But of course Heinlein never read that book. It was published after he died. ;-)
--The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
- quote
| parent )The free market is not predicated on the idea that a billion dolts are smarter than one dolt, it is predicated on the idea that even a billion dolts know what they, as individuals, actually want. The market just collects that information and aggregates it in such a way that producers get good signals as to what to produce. It can't be claimed that the billion dolts are right. In fact, as a Lefty yourself, I believe you denigrate the idea each time you look for some non-market solution to a market-failure or externaility problem. You are, in effect, saying, "Yeah, sure, the dolts want SUVs, but they don't know what's good for them in the long run."
Me, I think a billion dolts are still a billion dolts, but I'm sure they're opinionated dolts and that they're happier when they get what they want. As to whether what they want is what they should want, I leave that to the individual. But the market doesn't think, it just aggregates true opinions better than everything else ever tried.
---“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
- quote
| parent )I didn't say smarter, I said better at predicting.
And yes, market solutions should be the preferred route. Sometimes, however, there are markets and meta-markets and multiple markets intertwined in complex ways.
For example, finding a way to de-link health insurance and retirement plans from employers would minimize the personal dislocation that comes from jobs going overseas and make it easier for Americans to accept re-training.
It is hard to gather political support for creative destruction if a plant closing means a guy's kid goes off the company health insurance.
= = =
I am a leftie because of the motto that one cannot always stay solvent waiting for the market to get it right.
Tearing down buggy whip factories may be optimal from a group perspective but if an employee at that factory has a child with juvenile diabetes and goes uninsured during re-training gathering the political will to do that is diffiuclt.
--The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
- quote
| parent )... Heinlein didn't say predicting, or even smarter, but wiser.
- reply
- quote
| parent )that a million men are wiser.
Remember it was Plato who argued that the wisest men should rule. Philosophers kings and all that.
= = =
The wisdom of the first Federalist paper:
and this:
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
- quote
| parent )The purpose of democracy, such as it is, is to find a low-cost way to handle conflicts of interest (real or perceived) that would otherwise end in intercine warfare. It is a channeling of "might makes right", with US version and most thereafter incorporating the novel idea that even the mightier side will be limited to an extent, so that the weaker side never feels completely backed into a corner. Because you know what happens when people get backed into a corner.....
---“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
- quote
| parent )But getting a decision correct is not the sole factor in determining if the decision process was just. If it were then we could do away with a lot of trials. If the District Attorney thinks there is enough evidence to convict someone then they are found guilty without a trial. As long as the D.A. is correct it wouldn't matter that the guilty party didn't receive a trial. I doubt that you would want our courts to work like that so why is it ok for the President to decide who is guilty without due process?
--I went to YOUR institutional learning facilities?! So how can you say I'M crazy? - S. Tendencies
- reply
- quote
| parent )Mr. Spartacvs,
As always, not the electorate in one election.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Iraq (which is not totally sure) it is far, far more likely to be not that it was the wrong response but that it was badly bungled in execution, not the same thing at all.
My guess is that of those with strong reservation about Iraq, approximately 25-30% believe itto to be the wrong reponse; the vast majority just want it done and done decently if not totally right.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Los of people are coming late to the table on this.
Add 10-15% to the 30 once it became common knowledge that Iraq didn't posses WMD and a further 10-15% once it became quite clear that the Bush Administration had completely bungled the effort.
--"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
- quote
| parent )25-30% I gave; the bungled crowd is all the rest, the other 70-75% who voted for change. :)
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )and you have yours, just don't be claiming you have the math, because that way lies the ignominy of a Rove.
--"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
- quote
| parent )all. Me, I know very little but I talk to a lot of people from all walks and levels and I believe little of what I read in the papers or on the net...
Thus my "far more likely" and "my guess" as opposed to your rather emphatic #9330... :)
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )tend to be emphatic statements of opinion, that's why we have them I guess.
--"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
- quote
| parent )of that...
Not that the awesome display of logic addresses why the opinions expressed were in fact expressed the way they were expressed. Which was the topic -- in case you forgot.
Nor does it address the fact that I honestly admitted I have no firm data and my opinion is a sensing yet wonder why yours was expressed as a certainty...
However, I guess that displaying awesome logic can offset a failure to address the issue . :)
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )...trusted Bush that the idea was fundamentally sound. I don't know if they still hold that view or not.
--"In the very long run, we are all dead." -- John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes
- reply
- quote
| parent )the idea had at least some merit but are hacked at poor performance. The other half or a little more range from "thought it was, now it's not" to an adamant "it was always a lousy idea."
Be interesting to know but I can't see any way to ever get a sort on it; new knowledge and hindsight blur the original thought on the topic -- any topic.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Although Iraq was sold as a response to 9/11, it is becoming obvious that this elective war was actually no such thing. In my opinion, the actual reasons for the Iraq war had a lot to do with the Cheney sponsored secret "energy meetings". 9/11 simply provided the excuse to a gullible MSM.
I hope somebody gets subpoenaed over this.
**********
--Me: We! -- Ali
- reply
- quote
| parent )I've put out a cogent and coherent risk-based argument in favor of flattening Ba'athist Iraq a number of times, which holds whether or not they had nukes at the moment the decision was made (and which, memorably, even Harley said "almost makes sense").
All wars are elective, even the Russians had the option to lay down arms when the Nazis rolled in, and I've seen a pretty good mathematical treatment of just how little it would have taken to push them over the edge when the Germans were outside of Moscow. (Side note: The "good" thing about the Nazis, if you can stand a little violence to the term, is that they were so intent on stuffing everybody into ovens that they created even more resistance than a regular invader would.)
---“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
- quote
| parent )(A response to 9/11, I mean).
The invasion of Iraq happened *not* just because of something/anything said or done or thought or plotted or imagined by the present administration, but because the *American people* (as they say) were still seething about 9/11, and (not to put too fine a point on it) badly wanted to kick some Arab butt. Afghanistan simply wasn't enough, and wasn't even Arab anyway.
Am I the only one here who still remembers how wildly popular this war was at the outset?
But, for better or worse, and not too surprisingly, said "American people" were not particularly interested in the attempt to establish "democracy" over there.
Not, at any rate, if it took more than a year or two.
--God help the while, a bad world I say.
- reply
- quote
| parent )... considering that "opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul", is not synonymous with "Al Qaeda". This was long before Osama bin Laden and most of what became the muhajedeen ever went to Afghianistan.
Plus we were giving aid to lots of opponents of pro-soviet regimes at the time. Do you think there was something immoral about that?
- reply
- quote
)"Helping" the USSR decide to enter Afghanistan was a brilliant move. No complaint here. That began during the Carter years and continued under Reagan.
We did not directly fund bin Laden (as far as I can tell) but we did encourage Islamism. Re-read this:
I am okay with that trade. But now we need to deal with the consequences of that trade.
First impression? I support the Robert Gates nomination. He is a Bush 41 type of guy, rather than a Cheney-ite PNAC-er neo-con.
But this confirmation process can be a teaching moment for America concerning our Islamist enemy.
--The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Mr. White,
In 1979 Afghanistan was not exactly a hotbed of Islamic radicalism, being a very backward place and not up on the latest things. This was a new fashion blowing through the Arab world at the time. I recommend Naipauls of "Among the Believers" for an illustration.
- reply
- quote
| parent )rather than a Cheney-ite PNAC-er neo-con
.... I think you need to lay off the pumpkin juice.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Mission Accomplished!
:-)
But the point is entirely true. James Baker's Iraq Study Group was set up so the Bush 41 people could perhaps assist Junior in getting himself out of our Iraqi debacle before 2008. Jimmy Baker, Brent Scowcroft, and yes Robert Gates represent the old-CIA way of looking at things (RealPolitick) that Doug Fieth and Dick Cheney despised.
Heh! If Dick Cheney makes too much of a stink, Dubya (and Baker) could probably arrange for a Cheney indictment over Plame. Wouldn't that be funny! (Shout out to Harley!)
Of course, Dick is too smart not to play ball (he will merely grimace ominously) so that will not happen.
--The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Conservative realists are ok, and in fact I'm not sure what the difference between them and liberal realists on foreign policy is precisely.
Nutcases who start wars and don't follow through on detail because the theory is so beautiful that it will just work out somehow? No.
- reply
- quote
| parent )... I just think that stringing together three such adjectives describing objects of obsession is sort of indicative of unbalanced thinking. It has a strong odor of distilled aged paranoia.
- reply
- quote
| parent )New one on me, but I like it a lot, even if I have no clue what it means. A keepah.
--Sincerity is the first casualty of capitalism. John Burdett
- reply
- quote
| parent )... pumpkin juice is what they serve for breakfast at Hogwarts.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Pumpkin Juice recipe.
As is Pumpkin Soup
--“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”--William Tecumseh Sherman
- reply
- quote
| parent )Pumpkin Ash?
--"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
- quote
| parent )The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
- quote
| parent )that he's out of his gourd.
--"In the very long run, we are all dead." -- John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes
- reply
- quote
| parent )... in his gourd, to follow the analogy.
- reply
- quote
| parent )"The full story of the productive (sic) U.S.-China cooperation directed against the Soviet Union (especially in regard to Afghanistan), initiated by the Carter Administration and continued under Reagan, still remains to be told," Brzezinski wrote in his book, The Geostrategic Triad.
As LondonYank at Daily Kos writes: That story needs to be told before Robert Gates is confirmed as Secretary of Defense.
--The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
- quote
)