Glenn Greenwald presents a thoroughly incoherent response in which he professes not to understand why Dan Drezner and I might be offended by his saying:
What really underlies the mentality of people like McArdle and Drezner are two pervasive though toxic afflictions — a drooling, self-loving American exceptionalism, along with a self-interested refusal to acknowledge that there is anything truly wrong with our political and media establishment because they both support and are part of that establishment.
I certainly hope for the same forbearance when I argue that Glenn Greenwald is a self-serving media hound with a size-twelve ego squeezed into a size-four soul, and that the root of his rage is less a profound moral grievance than a narcissistic belief that his ideas are of such transcendant clarity, his concerns of such monumental importance, that any failure to obey his dicta can only stem from the most base of motives.
I mean, I'm not saying that or anything. I'm just saying that I'm glad to know that if I did utter the above, Greenwald wouldn't take it the wrong way.
As regards the war, I think his charge of American exceptionalism is actually pretty fair; I think the US has done a better job of occupying Iraq than, say, Iraq did of occupying Kuwait; and my belief in the basic goodness of America, a belief I still hold, made me think the war would be a way to get rid of a dictator and make the Iraqi people better off. My error was in not recognizing that our strength is not the strength of ten merely because our heart is pure. My conviction that we had the wisdom and power to take the fate of another country into our own hands was overweening arrogance, and it's too bad that other people, mostly Iraqi civilians, have paid the price. I think the war also hasn't been good for us, though I'm less concerned about that. The financial cost is not particularly important, but the cost in lives was large, and the cost to our national polity, and to the lives of soldiers who have been thrust into a brutal situation, has been enormous.
But this has absolutely nothing to do with the John Yoo memos, which as I understand matters are more about the war on terror than Iraq; it's not clear to me that our government policy in Guantanamo and elsewhere would be any different if we had not gone to war. (Indeed, it might have been more brutal).
I hope I haven't suggested anywhere that the media ought to report less of things that make my decision to support the war look bad. If I have inadvertently said such a thing, let me disavow it now. But mostly, as I've said elsewhere at tedious length, my arguments are not normative; they're positive. I disagree with Greenwald's assessment of why coverage is structured the way it is, which is simplistic and overreliant on nasty motives. Greenwald has repeatedly tried to obscure the difference. I find it hard to believe that he actually can't recognize a distinction between "is" and "ought"; either way, it does not reflect well on him.
Okay... I've read all of your posts and I still can't divine, exactly, if you think that our media has any obligations beyond the profit motive. You seem to go back and forth, or so it appears to me.
Did you and Greenwald decide to enter some kind of cross promotion agreement or something? Based on the response count in the previous posts with his name in it, it seems to be working. Good job at marketing!
I find it hard to believe that he actually can't recognize a distinction between "is" and "ought"; either way, it does not reflect well on him.
Wow, you noticed this all by yourself, or do you have some Editors to help you?
Greenwald is kicking your ass all over the schoolyard on this one, Megan, and he's doing so effortlessly. You supported the invasion of Iraq. Be an adult and accept the well-deserved criticism of that, as well as the equally well-deserved criticism of the compliant and foolish media which enabled Dumbya & Co. and CONTINUES to serve the public poorly.
Just be thankful you're not Joe Klein.
Let God and let go, Megan.
By the way, the root of Greenwald's rage is that his country, my country, your country, is engaged in a useless war of aggression and has committed countless war crimes. If you can't work up any anger over that fact then I suggest his criticism of you is far too mild indeed.
But Obama can't bowl! McCain is a maverick! Move along now, nothing to see over there in the Middle East.
Megan, you're an arrogant lightweight.
Nelson said: Did you and Greenwald decide to enter some kind of cross promotion agreement or something? Based on the response count in the previous posts with his name in it, it seems to be working. Good job at marketing!
I can't help but wonder how many of the responders in the other threads are Greenwald sockpuppets.
Freddie says:
That's because you have no reading comprehension. Megan is not trying to say whether or not the media should be driven primarily by profit, she is stating that it is driven primarily by profit. That's the difference between "normative" (what she thinks things ought to be) and "positive" (a statement of how things are.)
Right from the first post, she has said that she wishes the Yoo memo would be covered in more depth, but that major media outlets would stand to lose money by pushing it much more than they already have. This is in opposition to Glenn's assertion that major media outlets would stand to lose very little money due to covering the Yoo memo, but conspire to bury it. (For the record, I think that Megan is spot on. I don't think people much care, despite all of the Sturm und Drang on the internet)
The least you could do is deal with his argument.
He says that if you, like Hitler, like Napoleon, like Saddam in Kuwait, like the Romans, engage in wars of aggression, bad things will happen. Among those bad things are war crimes. His argument is that if you, say, support a war of choice against a country that poses no threat to you because you believe you'll do a better job than other invaders do own the consequences.
And to think that just because it is Good America engaging in these acts of aggression that things will turn out aok, well, Beethoven got fooled too when he dedicated the 3rd Symphony.
But he was a musician. You claim to be a participant in the world that communicates about the nature of these decisions.
For Bush to conduct this war of imperialist aggression, he had to have a chorus of supporters singing loudly beside him that when Americans engage in conquest, the rules are different. You may find it irksome that he points out that this is what you signed on for, but this is, indeed, what you signed on for. You signed on for a war of aggression in pursuit of imperial conquest and control. You were part of the chorus that chimed in when Tom Friedman said "Well, suck on this."
And you still seem to be saying that it's all okay, because, after all, the torturers are Americans.
Was just reading Ilya Solmin at the Volokh conspiracy last night, a discussion of whether mass murder by Stalin was morally equivalent to genocide and was happy my family lived in America. With your friend Greenwald and MoeLarryandtakeTHEnameinvain, perhaps we too shall join the world of moral masochists and their life horror and destruction. May American exceptionalism continue instead.
Megan, I read GG's response. Where exactly does he "profess not to understand why Dan Drezner and might be offended"?
Megan is not trying to say whether or not the media should be driven primarily by profit, she is stating that it is driven primarily by profit.
This statement is obviously false. A large segment of the media, from the New York Post to Harper's is not profitable. Many people claim that this subsidized media segment is much larger on the right than on the left.
The idea that it is a "normative" statement to say that the Times covered Whitewater in tremendous detail because their readers were interested in the story, and have neglected Bush's lawbreaking because their readers are not interested is risible. There's no way that Bumiller on McCain's foreign policy advisers is more interesting than the president approving torture.
It's also circular. It's like the joke about the two economists walking by a 20 bill in the street. Whatever is being published is what readers want, because otherwise they wouldn't publish it approaches contentlessness.
Good God! Anyone over the age of 12 who admits to believing in "American Exceptionalism" is a monumental lightweight, and anyone who compares our behavior to Saddam Hussein's as proof of that is just, well, driving in the slow lane. The US, like everyone other nation, has its own particular strategic goals, sometimes they're pretty, sometimes not so much. For heaven's sake, Megan, wake up.
jayackroyd, please stop lying. McArdle has never stated or implied that is all okay because the torturers are American. Why do you think such obvious dishonesty is an effective form of rhetoric?
Megan:
Where does GG claim your arguments are normative? (I personally believe your arguments do have a normative subtext of "this is the best we can do" but that's another matter.) He neither agrees nor disagrees with your positive description. Comment by GG:
"My conviction that we had the wisdom and power to take the fate of another country into our own hands was overweening arrogance, and it's too bad that other people, mostly Iraqi civilians, have paid the price."
I think the most shocking thing is that McArdle is supposed to be the Libertarian person around here. Her mea culpa for intervenionist foreign policy is "overweening arrogance?!" It's kind of unbelieveable to read this and to think McArdle expects to be taken seriously. No mention of the complete and utter lack of causal justification for intervening in Iraqi affairs in the first place. No attempt to justify the intervention at all (probably because there is no logical justification). Finally, no admittance that the entire project, from conception to implementation, was based on horseshit that people like McArdle have swallowed and regurgitated ad nauseum for approaching on 7 years now. As if the entire problem is that, shucks, Americans just dream too big, don't we?
The problem is that interventionist foreign policy is immoral and self-defeating. Let's all repeat this please: intervenionist foreign policy is immoral and self-defeating.
This is what Greenwald is ranting about, perhaps somewhat self-righteously, but in the face of McArdle's seeming willful refusal to put the pieces together I can't blame his anger. It makes me angry. It makes me want to start yelling and calling names like Greenwald does.
At the end of it I simply cannot believe that someone like McArdle has the cohones to call herself a libertarian and say the biggest problem is "overweening arrogance." It's truly stunning. Almost like she doesn't really understand what a libertarian is, or perhaps she just forgets when confronted with post-9/11 propaganda.
Actually, I'd like to see an American criminal trial, based on the revelations today that the principals on the security council authorized waterboarding Zubaydah, and thus he was coerced into giving up information that led to Khalid Mohammed's capture. First, it would actually let the public know whether torture "worked" in this instance. I suspect it does occasionally, when used by someone who is very skilled and disciplined. Unforunately, I also think it is a practice that can never be adequately regulated, thus allowing torture inevitably devolves into widespread sadism for the sake of sadism. Thus I think it should be always prohibited.
A trial, however, would be an excellent thing for the public to view, and would force people to confront the issue. I suspect jury selection would be critical to the defense and an attempt at jury nullification would follow.
No mention of the complete and utter lack of causal justification for intervening in Iraqi affairs in the first place.
You're going to need better material than that. You may not have liked the causal justification, you may even believe it was exagerated and/or a distraction from necessary affairs in Afghanistan, or whatever. But a claim that there was "a complete and utter lack" is a pair of lead wings on the back of a pig.
McArdle claims here that it is simplistic and unfair to ascribe base motives to the way the political press covers a story. Elsewhere she has claimed that all members of the political press are doing the best they can, and it's the mean old corporate side of news that makes them cover Obama's bowling instead of stories about torture.
The problem with this analysis is that political press bias is obvious within the confines of its whimsical coverage, and the existence of this bias lends a lot of credence to Greenwald's claims of "base motives".
For example, perhaps the public is demanding, and will only consume, frivolous stories about John McCain. But is the public somehow demanding positive frivolous stories about John McCain? Are editors nationwide demanding that he always be referred to as "the maverick"? Wouldn't there be a human interest value to pushing the frivolous, non-intellectually-taxing, easy and accessible story about how McCain likes to talk about how much he "hates gooks"? Somehow the public seems to continually demand "light" coverage that paints pro-war figures in a positive light. It's odd, to say the least, that the public demand is so achingly specific, and that cable news mavens have mapped it so precisely.
It is obvious to anyone who watches the political press on TV that individual reporters and on-air personalities have distinct personal preferences. John King of CNN loves John McCain and deliberately covers him in a positive light. Chris Matthews hates Hillary Clinton and abuses her at every opportunity. [I say this as a fellow Clinton hater who relishes Matthews' anti-Hillary abuse.] With these biases as obvious as they are, why is it so far out of the realm of consideration for McArdle that perhaps story choice is biased as well?
just when i thought she couldn't be any dumber, she goes ahead and outdoes herself.
hey, i have to admit, this is some hilarious stuff.
does atlantic realize that they are publishing a blog devoted to humor?
All B, C and D* list bloggers know they can boost traffic by picking a fight and then getting stomped by Glenzilla.
It worked for German, Japan, Iraq, Iran and even al-Qaida!
Go McGargle! You are in over your head!
*There isn't a letter rating low enough for Drezner.
I don't know that MM will answer my questions, so I am curious if someone else can point out to me where GG "professes not to understand why Dan Drezner and [MM] might be offended" and where he claims MM's arguments are normative. As far as I can tell, he couldn't care less about offending them, and shows no sign of disagreement with MM's description of the media market.
Oh noes! Smackdown from the big A lister!
"As for why anyone clicks through a Megan McArdle post, I could not say."
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2008_04_06_archive.html#4473406313343620128
phasearth:
GG accuses MM of a normative argument here), as quoted by MM:
Megan,
I think you are missing a pattern fairly basic to the admittedly recondite scholarship of international relations. Unlike classic totalitarian states, which want you to think the KGB might knock on your door at any time, our governing elites tend to obscure our power-seeking behaviors and our felt need for economic resources behind humanitarian rhetoric on the one hand and bureaucratic and consumerist obfuscation on the other. This aesthetic management of our massive military-industrial complex plays on the hyper-patriotism of many in the US, who are very concerned to uphold the nation’s moral self-image without attending to the details of our policies.
Thus, although we’ve committed a great deal of torture ourselves during the Bush administration (Bagram, Abu Ghraib and other Iraqi detention facilities, Gitmo, CIA prisons, etc.), it seems clear to me that our preferred style is to outsource the unpleasantness. This habit applies to more than extraordinary rendition; it speaks to overt and covert support for surrogates who engage in many proxy wars and brutal counterinsurgency tactics to secure regimes friendly to US military and economic interests. Study our tactics during the Cold War in detail and the pattern is not hard to discern. Once we ourselves arrive on the scene abroad, in situations in which our own perceived interests are not threatened by settling for a truly minimalist helping role, we indeed exhibit (and feel!) fine motives and deploy lots of technological and professional savoir faire to good ends (thus our military’s outstanding work after the December 2004 tsunami and its important peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans and the legal community’s work helping build more sound legal systems in former East Bloc countries, etc.). This fuller picture of the public relations components of foreign policy does not deny our goodness. (Thank God we won the Cold War.) But it does indicate that that goodness falls short of an absolute standard; to ascribe to the US purity of heart is badly inaccurate.
Also for Phasearth:
As for this from GG:
This is a little less clear-cut -- GG's original post argued that individual members of the press covered the fluff because that's what they saw everyone else doing -- basically a feedback loop:
So while he doesn't deny that the press is motivated by profit/ratings, he does imply that they're wrong in their assessment of what would lead to better ratings.
MM responds by saying that the press's assessment of the people's interest is correct:
Brian, it is all out the realm of consideration because your theory would entail a monolithic media preference, from the 90% of the reporters who vote for a Democrat, to the editors and producers who I suspect mostly vote for Democrats, if not at the 90% mark, to the publishers and CEOs who likely vote for Republicans in much greater numbers. The chance that this very large group of people have all decided to protect President Bush is pretty small, as is the chance that the CEOs and publishers have issued dicta that the lowly reporters aren't leaking to the public. It is far more likely that they are merely following their normal instincts as to what is the safest way to attract eyeballs. Now, it is possible that their normal instictls are wildly off base, and the market is thus hugely inefficient in meeting customer demand, but such situations are exceedingly rare. There is not a deficiency of capital available, if some person with intimate knowledge of the industry noted the inefficiency. What are the odds that this massive inefficiency has existed all these years, and not has been acted on? I have posed this question for a couple of days now, and the best evidence supplied so far is that Keith Olbermann has been able to draw 700,000 viewers a night. That is a bit less than convincing.
I'm sure he does recognize that distinction. What "is" is outrageous compared to what "ought" to be. What is galling is that you don't seem to be similarly outraged. Instead you spend a lot of time making excuses for why outrage is uncalled for (which all boil down to "it's just the economics of the business"), all the more outrageous because you yourself admit that what "is" is worse than what "ought" to be.
You are making positive arguments when (I think) you should be making normative ones. That upsets those of us who are daily trying to make normative arguments to get change to happen. Your positive arguments are undermining our efforts to make normative arguments, and we're going to fight back against that. What "ought" to be should win out over what "is."
The two are both linked as examples of abuse of power and executive overreach; but don't focus on that, if that's too confusing. Even taken separately, there is ample evidence now that both activities are fraught with human rights violations and possible war crimes. Do you accept the principle that the Yoo memos gave the green light for the President to authorize the use of torture on detainees? If you feel unqualified to make a legal determination, can you at least make a normative statement that torture is not something our government should engage in? Assuming you believe it is not, would it be outrageous to you to learn that in fact our government has engaged in torture, and that they are relying on John Yoo's legal analysis that no laws prohibited such actions as a defense for their behavior? If you can come that far, it would go some way towards lessening MY frustration at least that you refuse to put principle above economic interest and excuse the media for doing the same- which is what Glenn has been accusing you of doing.
to aMouseforallSeasons:
I'm a little surprised I thought the lack of causal justification for our Iraqi expedition could be taken as given by this point...
So I have to plead ignorance as to what you might be talking about. WMD's, relationship with Al Qaida, even Sadam's relationship with Zarcawi...all proved to be made up. I'm really interested in hearing what causal justification you think exists for our forces in Iraq?
Maybe you're going to say "our invasion caused such a massive mess that if we leave now it will be a bloodbath?" Or something like that?
Where we differ, liberalrob, is that in your effort to get to where we "ought" to be, you favor a new "is" that many of us find just as unacceptable as the current "is", and we furthermore beleve that your new "is" would still leave us short of where you think we "ought" to be.
bakum, I favored ending Baathist rule in Iraq, but wished it had simply been stated that the Baathists had violated the '91 cease fire agreement, so the firing was going to resume until the Baathist regime was toppled.
IMHO your efforts are undermined much more by your tendency to insult anyone who disagrees with you. Self-righteous outrage certainly feels good, but it's usually not a very effective tool for convincing people who don't already agree with you.
belief in the basic goodness of America
Well, golly, Ms. Megan, maybe you should read what Geoge Kennan wrote in 1948 in a US State Department document:
We have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security.
To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.
Is that enough American goodness for you?
Will Allen:
I appreciate that you are engaging with facts and ideas not name calling, but I disagree with your premise.
I don't agree that ending the Baathist regime justified the invasion. I think back in 2000 I would have been more sympathetic on sentimental grounds but by 2002 didn't we have more important fish to fry?
Further, if for the sake of argument I agree that in 2003 it was a wise, intelligent, logical thing to do to stop hunting for Public Enemy #1 and instead start playing moral cop around the world, I still fail to see why Iraq would be a logical target. Certainly the Baathists were horrible, but Congo? Sudan? North Korea? Zimbabwe? Saudi Frickin Arabia?! Pardon my French.
Post-facto we could bend ourselves around and perhaps eventually come to some rationalization with the benefit of hindsight. Pre-facto though, I have never heard even a halfway decent argument for invading Iraq. Certainly nothing the Bush admin has sent up the flagpole is salute worthy, as evidenced by nothing else than that their story keeps changing.
So, again, to say that the problem we had in 2003 is "overweening arrogance" is weapons grade poppycock. To get that from a regular person on the street would be frustrating but understandable. To get it from someone paid to think and write it's shocking. To get it from someone like Ms. McArdle who is paid not only to think and write, but whose bones were made on being an analyst of "facts" is nothing less than pathetic, and worthy of derision.
You admit to "overweening arrogance" regarding your support of unprovoked war (and then give it a living, shining, cringe-worthy example by saying "it's too bad that other people, mostly Iraqi civilians, have paid the price.")
Too bad. Tut tut.
But you're offended by Greenwald's words regarding that "overweening arrogance"? Really?
And since he said nothing about not understanding why you'd be offended, who exactly is being "thoroughly incoherent"?
And: But this has absolutely nothing to do with the John Yoo memos, which as I understand matters are more about the war on terror than Iraq...
How many false arguments can you cram into one post? Even going with your logic - the War in Iraq has nothing to do with the "War on Terror"? What the hell? And you somehow missed that people were tortured in Iraq?
And the fact that you started this fight with Greenwald - regarding a post about the John Yoo memos - Jesus, you have the nerve to say this doesn't reflect well on Greenwald?
Really astonishing.
As regards the war, I think his charge of American exceptionalism is actually pretty fair; I think the US has done a better job of occupying Iraq than, say, Iraq did of occupying Kuwait
Will Allen--
I don't know how else to read this.
Has the US done a better job of occupying Iraq than the Iraqis did occupying Kuwait? How is Abu Graib okay?
And even if that was over the top and wrong, she still hasn't dealt with the argument. And a commenter above intensifies it. How can she, a libertarian, possibly justify a war of aggression? How can she, a libertarian, believe that a government is engaged in some kind of beneficent action when it calls up its troops, and unleashes its bomber on a nation that poses no threat? And then, immmediately, engages in torture and abuse?
Greenwald's argument is simple. If you support wars of aggression, you have to accept the consequences of those wars. Those wars are wrong. Wrong for the Romans, wrong for the British, wrong for the Germans. Wrong for Saddam in Kuwait, and wrong for Bush in Iraq.
That's the point. And I do not see how a libertarian can assert that American exceptionalism makes it all right.
jayackroyd:
"And I do not see how a libertarian can assert that American exceptionalism makes it all right."
That is what stuns me the most I think. Fred Kagan, Bill Kristol...at least those people have the guts to align publically with the imperialist philosophy, however misguided I think it is. But a Libretarian?! It's...stunning, and it throws into doubt the very definition of libertarian as I understand it.
I'd like to see an American criminal trial, based on the revelations today that the principals on the security council authorized waterboarding Zubaydah, and thus he was coerced into giving up information that led to Khalid Mohammed's capture. First, it would actually let the public know whether torture "worked" in this instance.
Will,
Given the track record of dishonesty amassed by the Bush administration why would you believe this is anything other than their having tortured one guy into a false confession and then implicating another guy who was then tortured into a false confession?
Zubaydah and KSM may very well be guilty. But, believing in their guilt because of statements made under torture is absurd.
This is what the pros mean when they say torture doesn't work: you may get tons of information, but none of it is worth spit. Even if they give you the best intel in the world you'd have no way of knowing it was anything more than all the other bull the subject spouted hoping to make it stop.
Let me use the same techniques on you (and anyone you give up) and I'm confident that I can expose you and everyone you know as one big terrorist ring.
Glenn: McArdle possesses a drooling, self-loving American exceptionalism.
McArdle: That's right, I do. (Wipes away drool with sleeve)
Brilliant.
Remember how we are supposed to listen to people like Megan who are constantly wrong, and ignore people who are right, because they learn from their mistakes and that's super-valuable?
What is Megan learning here? She supported a disastrous war because of her drooling exceptionalism, and now she is defending her exceptionlism, while at the same time expressing fake outrage over the fact that we aren't taking in Iraqi refugees, a point that obviously contradicts the notion that America is nothing but kind-hearted.
No, your errors are as follows:
1. Believing America can do not wrong despite all evidence to the contrary.
2. Believing that America can and should create and maintain a global hegemony at gunpoint.
3. Believing that war is puppy dogs and flowers and not cracking open a history book and realizing that war has terrible consequences such as dead people and refugees.
4. Continuing to dismiss people who believe that America can do wrong, that America should not create a global hegemony at gunpoint and that war has terrible consequences as not worth listening to because they aren't wrong as often as you are and are "mean" about it.
Our heart is pure? Why do we care so much about the Middle East and so little about everywhere else? Is that better explained by the purity of our hearts or our reliance a certain natural resource?
Yes, these two are clearly wholly unrelated. It's not like the War on Iraq has been linked to and justified by the War on Terror and vice-versa, and that in the minds of many Americans they are together a nebulous war on evil outsiders.
You claim to learn from your mistakes. I'm not seeing it. What I'm seeing is someone who is happy to repeat the exact same mistakes ad infinitum.
"Unlike classic totalitarian states, which want you to think the KGB might knock on your door at any time, our governing elites tend to obscure our power-seeking behaviors and our felt need for economic resources behind humanitarian rhetoric on the one hand and bureaucratic and consumerist obfuscation on the other. This aesthetic management of our massive military-industrial complex plays on the hyper-patriotism of many in the US, who are very concerned to uphold the nation’s moral self-image without attending to the details of our policies."
Didn't somebody that can't even be mentioned on TV or in major newspapers write a few books about this? I always wonder how all these self-absorbed conservatives nuts get on TV, but those self-absorbed liberal nuts never seem to make it. I guess there is no market for them.
The more you hang out with libertarians the more you realize that for the vast majority it's simply a way to put an intellectual sheen on their own self-interest and preferences.
Why would a libertarian support the Iraq War? Because to them being a libertarian doesn't mean anything more than "doing what I want."
The great thing about principles is you only have to adhere to them when they benefit you.
The public has an incredible demand for the Kagans. It's true!
"I think the US has done a better job of occupying Iraq than, say, Iraq did of occupying Kuwait;"
Jesus. talk about the bigotry of low expectations.
"My error was in not recognizing that our strength is not the strength of ten merely because our heart is pure."
If that's not a joke then you are one of the stupidest people on the planet.
And given your previous posts i don't think it's a joke.
"My conviction that we had the wisdom and power to take the fate of another country into our own hands"
Nope , you are incredibly stupid. I've read your posts and thought you were ignorant. But apparently you're very very stupid as well.
Still keep waving the flag and supporting your government.
And no doubt you will still keep calling yourself a libertarian
Nice to see that other posters share the same general ideas as me. (Ie. helping with the smackdown.)
Is there really any point in continuing to argue with Greenwald? It isn't like there's any chance of his admitting he was wrong about something.
Come now kb, the Bush Administration is nothing of not both wise and pure of heart.
It certainly seem a bit odd for a "libertarian" to defend her terrible judgement and ignorance by claiming the government is a wonderful, benevolent and efficient entity with only our best interests at heart.
She doesn't believe that complex regulation can work but she does believe that...a global benevolent hegemony lead by the Bush Administration would be swell!
Curious.
How McArdle got this Atlantic blogging gig is one of the deepest mysteries of the blogosphere. Day after day, she embarrasses herself, the institutions where she was educated, and the Atlantic by demonstrating ignorance, naivete, and argumentative clumsiness appropriate to a third-string libertarian crank.
Watching McArdle try to trade punches with Greenwald is a painful ordeal. If there had been a referee, he would have stopped the fight in the first round. But her limitless sense of self esteem makes her confident in challenging people who completely outclass her in every category of intellectual capability.
McArdle's running joke of a worldview is that she is always fundamentally correct, even when proven wrong. Irrespective of the issue, she will find a way to morph her (usually fatuous) initial position into some kind of meaningless generality defended by disclaimers and caveats.
When, oh when, will the Atlantic editors stop giving a platform to the horrible mismatch of ego and talent that is Megan McArdle?
Not important, you misunderstand what I wrote. I didn't say the waterboarding produced evidence of guilt. I said it has been reported that the waterboarding produced information which pointed to the location of another wanted man. This is where torture is most likely to produce good information; when the torturer can verify the veracity of the information that the tortured prisoner provided, and the tortured prisoner knows his agony will become worse if the information does not prove accurate.
I think the opponents of torture do a disservice to their cause when they assert torture "never works". Very few things "never work", and most people can detect the falsehood in that assertion. When challenged by torture advocates, opponents of torture would be better served by stating that torture might work in limited circumstances, but the damage that is done to society by it's practice is so great that it must be prohibited anyways. If someone tortures in violation of the law, let them argue for nullification in front of a jury of their peers, for a jury composed of ordinary citizens is the bedrock of a free society.
As I said, I cannot forsee a circumstance where torture would be tightly regulated enough where it would not inevitably devolve into widespread sadism for the sake of sadism, given the corrupting nature of the pratice, and the type of people that would become attracted to it. Thus I think it should be prohibited, period.
The trial I was wishing for was for the people who ordered the waterboarding.
jayackroyd, I did not write what you attribute to me.
Oh, goody. We can have another discussion about torture.
I don't admit for a minute that waterboarding is torture, simply because as of now, the Congress has not seen fit to define it that way for purposes of the law. So even if waterboarding is torture, it is certainly not illegal at this juncture.
That being said, the fact of the matter is that torture WORKS.
Does it work for law enforcement purposes? Not very well, especially at the hands of untrained personnel, which is why the Supreme Court has said that it is not reliable enough to form the basis for a criminal conviction.
But is does work for intelligence gathering, where one is trying to elicit information father than confirm information. If you tell the victim that you want him to confess to a specific act, eventually he/she will confess to that act just to put an end to the torture. But if you don't tell the victim what it is that you want to hear, the victim will spill his/her guts and tell you anything that he/she thinks you might be interested in. Good interrogators know how to make tortue effective.
My reason for not liking torture is what it makes us become if we engage in the practice. But I have no problem at all with coercive or harsh interrogation techniques (short of turture) if they will save the lives of me or my fellow Americans.
you misunderstand what I wrote. I didn't say the waterboarding produced evidence of guilt. I said it has been reported that the waterboarding produced information which pointed to the location of another wanted man.
I understood your post.
That's why I closed the way I did - I bet you know the locations of loads of other terrorists and I'm certain it could be gotten out of you, along with all the terrible things you and they've done and are planning. Oh, and look they lived just where you said they did, and will doubtless support the veracity of your statements about their guilt.
If someone tortures in violation of the law, let them argue for nullification in front of a jury of their peers, for a jury composed of ordinary citizens is the bedrock of a free society.
You've been in these threads long enough that you know that "torture" is always in violation of the law. This is not some grey area - this is absolutely settled law for more than 50 years. The treaties and statutes are as broad as they are to cover anything close to torture and to make any attempts a hair splitting look as absurd as yours do.
You can easily find the law references (some even in these threads) and I'm confident that an honest reading will disabuse you of any notion of ambiguity.
I didn't say it never works. I said the pros say it doesn't work. And, the reason it doesn't work is exactly that even when it does "work" you can't tell... No matter if your uncle Bob lives where you said he did.
I didn't think the social damage and moral repugnance arguments needed any help from me. Surely, you can formulate those for yourself.
The trial I was wishing for was for the people who ordered the waterboarding.
Obviously.
And, apparently you're under the odious belief that an American court should allow material obtained under torture to be introduced as evidence for their defense. Otherwise how could any judgement be made on whether it "worked".
Never mind the absolute prohibition on such evidence that has been a defining feature of our legal system since it's inception. Seriously, what is your point here except to try to find some excuse to circumvent that restriction?
Since, to my knowledge, no one else has brought it up: on another blog comments at 1:00 am, The Editors writes,
...and here, at 3:46 pm, our hostess writes,
And there's no hat tip or nuthin. Ought someone call Shenanigans?
How many of the first few commenters do you suppose are Glenn himself
"Is" or "ought" is a red-herring anyway.
Megan has said many times that not only is this the way the media works, this is the way it should work, because the purpose of the media is to respond to consumer demand and consumers demand bowling and Whitewater tales.
This is a common complaint of hers, that someone didn't get what she was saying. At some point it should be evident that the problem is her poor writing.
And has Glenn has explained, this began by Drezner complaining and Megan seconding his complaints. Drezner's original post is a defense, not just an explanation.
I see this very often: one blogger quotes another, signals their approval of the original post, then when called on it plays dumb and claims "well I didn't write that post, I'm saying something totally different!"
If you read Drezner's original post carefully, the one Megan approvingly quoted, parts of it are normative arguments. For example:
I don't think this can be read as purely explanatory.
I would also point out that Drezner and by proxy Megan attacked Glenn personally before he said a word specifically about them, so their cries for civility are a bit absurd.
This is typical schoolyard bully behavior: attack then complain to teacher when reciprocated against.
Bakum, I favored removing the Baathist regime in Iraq for one reason; I thought a great many more violent deaths would likely result if it was left in place, and I pretty much expected to be where we are today.
If Osama Bin laden had died of a stroke on 9/12/01, the strategic stituation would have have changed very little, and if every Al Queda member in Afghanistan contracted a virus tonight and died by noon tomorrow, the conflict with violent Islamic sects would not be over. As long as the American public demands that Persian Gulf oil, especially Saudi oil be extracted on an uninterrupted basis, and added to world energy markets, so as to keep energy costs as low as possible to the American consumer (please don't make me explain the concept of fungibility again), the United States will be the defacto ally of the entity which has the most control over world energy costs, The House of Saud, which means we will be the defacto enemy of any who oppose the House of Saud. Now before anyone says, "But anyone who controlled those fields would sell the oil!", yes this very likely true, if short term interruptions are ignored in the case of violent attacks on the House of Saud. One of Al Queda's most desired tactical goals, after all, has long been to disrupt extraction form Saudi fields.
No Amrican President can risk, on an electoral basis, even a temporary stoppage in Saudi extraction. Look what has happened to this President, or what happened to President Carter, when the price of oil skyrocketed. The chance of an Ameican President being politically brave enough to risk even a very short term halt in Saudi extraction is nil. The U.S. is thus tied at the hip to the House of Saud, which inevitably means war with all who violently oppose the House of Saud.
The only way this ends in less than multiple decades is if the population of Saudi Arabia achieves self government, and willingly sells the oil for it's own benefit, because all technological dreams aside, the U.S. population is going to demand Saudi extraction for many decades to come, in a world where terribly destructive technology becomes more ubiquitous, likely eventually even regarding non-state actors, with each passing decade.
Now, I can hear the question now, "What has Iraq have to do with Saudi Arabia?" Well, given that an invasion of Saudi Arabia is impossible, quite a bit. The entire status quo of the Persian Gulf, as it existed prior to 9/11, must change for this conflict with violent Islamic sects to end. Directly pressuring the House of Saud is impossible, and Sunni Baathist rule actually served the interests of the House of Saud, which is why they so vehemently opposed removing Hussein, both in 1990 and 2003. A Shia majority Iraq population which achieves even rudimentry levels of self government, with recognition of the rights of religious or ethnic minorities, puts a huge amount of pressure on both the House of Saud and the Iranian mullahs, and emboldens the elements in those societies which also desire self government. Look at what the captured documents from Al Queda have stated as to what they fear happening in Iraq. An oil rich Arab population practicing self government, and not under the heel of theocratic dictators, would be an utter strategic disaster for them, as it would be to the Persian Shia theocrats to the east.
Now, saying it and doing it are two entirely different things, of course, and I never thought the chances of success were high. However, I also thought continuing to simply try to manage the status quo of the Persian Gulf for a few more decades, in hopes of slow improvement, would eventually end with a far more destructive attack on the U.S. population than the 9/11 attack, and that would result in a completely enraged American public demanding a total war response, which would make the current carnage appear like a minor dust-up.
The situation sucks, and has sucked, for many decades now. The world is changing rapidly, in terms of the ability to bring the sucking to bear on the U.S. population, and if that happens to any large degree, we will have violence on a level not seen since the middle of the last century. The only way out is for the people in that region to achieve self government, and then choose to peacefully and profitably trade with the rest of the world, and in my estimation taking the risk of ending Baathist rule would provide the best of some really crappy likely alternative outcomes.
And it takes neither genius, nor collusion, nor cosmic coincidence to notice that Greenwald constantly elides words that can create easier-to-argue opponents.
Stop calling yourself "Josh" Megan, you aren't fooling anyone.
will Allen--
jayackroyd, I did not write what you attribute to me.
I did not attribute anything to you. That's what Megan wrote.
Not important, I neither wrote or implied that torture cold be legal, and the term "torture in violation of the law" is just a redundant phrase. Sorry about that.
As a matter of logic, you are simply wrong about the possible utility of torture. If a torturer believes his victim knows where Osama Bin Laden is located, and tortures his victim for the knowledge, while also informing him that information will be verified shortly, the victim, if he actually has knowledge, can either choose to reveal it, or choose yet more agony, after the false information he provides undergoes examination. Of course, if he doesn't, then he wastes a lot of resources with false leads. There are circumstances, however, where the torturer will have know that the odds are pretty good the victim does have the information. Of course, torture never stops there, which is why prohibition is needed. I wasn
Finally, if you are going to try someone fairly for a violent crime, it's pretty much impossible to prevent the defense from showing the jury evidence which goes to motive. I also am of the opinion that information is kept from juries far too frequently in our justice system.
Well then, jayackroyd, in regards to your question, I have no real interest in verifying political labels, so I really can't answer it.
The U.S. is thus tied at the hip to the House of Saud, which inevitably means war with all who violently oppose the House of Saud.
Huh? Doesn't it mean thoughtful diplomatic outreach? Foreign aid?
The only way out is for the people in that region to achieve self government, and then choose to peacefully and profitably trade with the rest of the world, and in my estimation taking the risk of ending Baathist rule would provide the best of some really crappy likely alternative outcomes.
And the way to do that was to invade the country, kill a whole lot of them, and hope for a pony?
I mean, yes, I agree, that was the policy position of the neo-cons. Invade Iraq, topple Saddam and hope for a pony--10 percent shot, maybe, according to them.
But you consider this a good idea? As opposed to any number of any foreign policy alternatives? Like giving Saddam an obscene amount of money, and sending him to Dubai?
There is nobody violently threatening Saudi Arabia in any case. Their problems are internal. And if you think that a populist, Islamist movement is going to overthrow the Sauds and then refuse to sell the oil onto world markets, well you need to study the history of populist movements.
The only thing a country can do with oil is sell it onto world markets. Even bilateral sales have that effect, as with Soviet sales to Cuba.
It's so hard to figure out when conservatives will believe in the fairy dust of markets, and when they'll dismiss them as irrelevant. Bill Keller's decision-making is finely tuned to every nuance of NYT front page readers, but islamist revolutionaries have no idea about what's in their own interest.
People are rational actors, except when they aren't.
Will Allen--
These ticking time bomb scenarios are ridiculous. If you can verify the information you get from torturing this person, then there is no need to torture him.
These scenarios don't arise. And they should not be considered as reasons for permitting torture.
If one ever does arise, like Dirty Harry in the football stadium, then the torturer will have to run the risk that he will be convicted of breaking the law. But to suppose that these scenarios will arise, and therefore set up rules for dealing with them, is ridiculous.
We've seen this in Israel. Torture was permitted under the ticking time bomb rule. Torture took place in circumstances that didn't meet the criterion. Israel's highest court banned torture.
(Hey Megan--check out your peeps. They do believe in torture.)
If the alternative is a five percent pony shot, then a 10 percent pony shot is a good one. No, Baathist rule could not have been ended by bribing Saddam Hussein. Also, please read what I wrote, so as to avoid arguing what I have addressed. I never said that anyone who controlled the Saudi fields would refuse to sell it. I said an internal entity (you know Al Queda is an internal Saudi enemy, right?) which sought to topple the House of Saud would seek the tactic of temporarily halting extraction from Saudi fields, and that no American President would take the electoral risk of a temporay halt in Saudi extraction, thus meaning all American Presidents would back the House of Saud, thus becoming the enemy of those who oppose the House of Saud.
liberalrob at 6:25 is right that the "is vs. ought" issue is more easily applied to Megan's response than to Greenwald's initial post:
You are making positive arguments when (I think) you should be making normative ones. That upsets those of us who are daily trying to make normative arguments to get change to happen.
This is actually an interesting pattern that runs through many political debates over the past 7 years; it may even be a fundamental structural difference between liberal and conservative ways of thinking. Broadly, conservatives seem to resist thinking about systemic change, or apportioning blame for failures in systemic environments. In this case, Greenwald's basic argument is that a news media which pays more attention to Obama's bowling than to John Yoo's memos authorizing torture has something deeply wrong with it. Megan is saying, well, but that's nobody's fault, it's just market demand. Greenwald says, by deflecting the attempt to fix responsibility for this problem, you yourself become part of the problem. Megan says, excuse me? I was just describing the way things work. And so on. But at much more heated temperatures.
What's interesting is that this conflict over the attempt to fix responsibility mirrors the conflict over American torture and the torture memos themselves. When the Abu Ghraib story first broke, conservatives described it as the frat-boy excesses of a few bad apples. Liberals responded angrily that such excesses are predictable in wartime unless there are clear command directives restraining soldiers' and prison guards' natural tendency towards cruelty, and that those who failed to provide such guidance were culpable. As the story developed, it became more and more clear that in fact the case was far more awful than liberals had at first thought. The problem was not a lack of clear instruction; it was that political and military leadership had gradually, deliberately crafted a methodology of torture, and had commissioned pliable lawyers to author opinions which confused the legal structure and created a grey area within which they could torture people without fear of eventual prosecution. At no point in this process could one easily identify an evil mastermind to pin the blame on. It was a systemic evolution. But one common characteristic that ran through the whole story was the evasion of responsibility, the evasion of law, the evasion of guilt by everyone who created the system for torturing detainees in Iraq, Guantanamo, and the CIA's black prison sites.
In "Control Room", the documentary about Al-Jazeera's coverage of the Iraq invasion, there's a scene in which several reporters, including a female reporter for I think CBS, are interviewing a US Army officer about the rioting in Baghdad immediately after the US takes the city. The CBS reporter is flabbergasted that the Army officer is blaming the rioting on the Iraqi people and denying the Army's responsibility for ensuring security. It's the clearest example I've seen of how a conservative ideology of individual responsibility leads to complete, culpable irresponsibility among the people who are supposed to create and enforce governing structures. And that clash in worldviews has played out over and over again in these last 7 years, on issue after issue.
So, again, I think this different in attitudes explains some of the fury one sees in these posts. Liberals feel that conservative descriptions of how responsibility for catastrophes, misdeeds and atrocities is, in fact, diffuse, are basically attempts to evade blame.
On reflection, though, I don't think that this divide in attitudes maps quite so neatly onto the liberal-conservative divide, or even onto the Greenwald-McArdle divide. In fact Greenwald is overly personalistic and Megan is overly systemic, on this issue. But Greenwald is being personalistic in an effort to assign systemic blame, and Megan is being systemic in an effort to deflect personal blame (on the persons of journalists, that is, not on herself). Complicated, but interesting.
Still, not 180-posts interesting.
Encountering an assertion about politics can provoke in me a set questions: Is this true? Likely to be true? Possibly true? Should I do something, even if that's just to find out more or reconsider I view I now hold?
But that almost never happens when the assertion's swaddled in disdain, however expressed - sarcasm, sneering dismissal, etc.
That posture means the writer doesn't understand the other side well enough to have any useful to say. Public issues only have two or more sides because each side has thoughtful, well-intended, knowledgeable people -- people who may be entirely wrong - though generally not, but people who have a point of view worthy of being taken into account before deciding. Otherwise these issues just don't last long enough to be controversies. And if you're not addressing the thoughtful, well-meant, knowledge-based positions of another side, then you're not really offering anything worth taking seriously.
Obviously, a scan through this trail of comments suggests that some people aim at something else than persuasion or enlightenment. They may imagine they're humiliating people by holding their devastated arguments up to ridicule as retribution for error or for misleading others into mistaken thinking. But if you've demonstrated you really haven't appreciated the argument of your adversary then you haven't demolished it and the insult really only rebounds. It is therefore pointless, if not self-defeating.
Hey, here's yet more stuff that the media was doing because "That's just what the people want".
As someone said up above:
Yes, yes, I know, people only _say_ they disapprove of Republicans in general and George Bush in particular, but of course, the media knows that what The People _really_ want is just more of the same, and that they just don't like Democrats.
Uh-huh.
Could someone please define for me, a lowly foreigner, what American exceptionalism means? It sounds as though it is a belief that Americans, as opposed to other races, are born with an inherent goodness. The thinking goes like this: As Americans, anything we do or done in our name is, by definition, a good thing. Is this correct?
Oh dear God, another Greenwald post. Megan, the guy is a pompous inflated fool who is always right. Arguing with him is like wrestling with a pig. You will only get dirty and the pig will enjoy it.
Please take the high ground and let Greenwald root for his truffles.
Shan, Greenwald meant it in its most widely used sense, that the United States is "exceptional" because, unlike European nations, America can do what it wants and only cares about its own interests, not things like treaties and diplomacy. In economics and politics the term means means that socialism or workers rights or labor/capital dichotomies never caught on in America, unlike in Europe.
Megan, it seems, wrongly thinks that American exceptionalism means that America is an "exceptional" country, i.e., the best in the world. Very strange for a college graduate.
Kevin P apparently thinks "taking the high ground" means making excuses for those who fiddle while the Republic is burned down by Repiglicans.
Greenwald IS the higher ground here. Megan would do well to find a way to climb up there.
Bush and those who have accommodated him have shamed this country. No other journalistic message is more important these days.
Megan - while I frequently disagree with you, I normally enjoy your columns, but this pissing match with Gleen has to end - you can't win because he and his fans/sockpuppets/pool boys are nothing but giant sacks of urine, and will thus win any pissing contest. Move on to something useful instead of giving these jagoff and his clone army the attention they seek but in no way deserve.
jayackroyd, your logic fails. The torturer can only verify what he has been told. If the prisoner refuses to say anything, the torture is applied to compel the prisoner to provide information, with the knowledge that information which is falsified will result in more agony. ABC News reported today that the whereabouts of Khalid Mohammed were discovered by the use torture. I don't know if this is true, but it isn't even close to being impossible. I don't know why some torture opponents have been so hell bent on claiming that torture could never produce useful information. Making your case with an easily falsifiable claim seems unwise. Better to make your argument with rock solid assertions, which can easily be done in this matter.
Shan:
I've never read the term "American Exceptionalism" without cringing first, and thinking second, what an exceptionally dangerous delusion. I've never actually seen it defined.
I have however seen it referred to in a reasonably positive tone by people who'd abhor the notion that "exceptionalism" implied that individual Americans were innately superior, by virtue of being Americans, to others.
That's led me to think about what it might mean if it weren't just pure chauvinism. My thoughts: first, America's exceptional in the sense that it is predominately a country of "lowly foreigners." Everyone not exclusively descended from Native Americans came here from elsewhere or their forebearers did. What unites the American polity are ideas that transcend race or ethnicity and which, however imperfectly practiced in history, are capable of progressively fuller realization over time.
Second, as the most world's most powerful country in the last century, America played an indispensable role defeating Totalitarianism and containing Communism until it could change, gradually or more quickly, into a less domineering, threatening creed.
Obviously, this is a subject for books, but the last thing I think of is that America has seen what "lowly foreigners" can do when unshackled from caste, class, or regime. Despite moments when those already here get alarmed by worries about how to integrate those new people, America has been powered by the hopes, ideas, energies, and values of its newcomers, or of those who were belatedly freed after coming here in bondage or who were subjugated native peoples. America has been exceptional in its belief in what can be accomplished and contributed by people in conditions of freedom.
I've been led to conclude that we might have a new opportunity for exceptionalism, though we would share it with Great Britain. That is, the ability to appreciate and accommodate the growing power and stature of countries who are coming to play more prominent roles in world affairs, especially recognizing that they generally do so in proportion to the degree they also liberate their citizens to develop and employ their talents.
Blake, that's tendentious and misinforms Shan about what the phrase means. (I say this as someone who thinks American exceptionalism is a plague that must be rooted out.)
Basically it's an outgrowth of the contention by idealistic American thinkers in the early 1800s that the US had escaped the limits of history, and was starting afresh as a nation based on principles and ideals of self-governance rather than on inherited identities. Some thinkers took this in an isolationist direction, arguing that America should stay unsullied by the bad old wars of the Old World; others took it in an expansionist direction, arguing that America was uniquely suited to free the world because as the embodiment of democracy it had innately good intentions.
More recently the phrase is sometimes used to mean simply that the US is quite different from most other countries in the world, especially in its political culture. For instance Americans combine high religiosity with a strong individualist sense that people are responsible for their own social or economic situations. Those two things don't usually go together in the rest of the world. I think when you look at data from the Pew Global Attitudes Survey, the two countries whose assortment of responses is the most different from any other countries are the US and Japan. (The US because we're religious individualists, the Japanese because they're pessimistic Asians.)
I participated in this quasi-foodfight on Wednesday; today I had work all day and assumed it had ended.
I return from work near midnight and find, to my astonishment, that Megan has made another post which moves not one wit from her original position (at least that I can see), and which certainly does absolutely nothing to take account of the intelligence, knowledgeability, and passionate advocacy of many of the posters here (on both sides, although I do think that the anti-Megan posters have made better arguments).
People ask her questions; she barely acknowledges, much less answers them. I suppose it really is an attempt to drive up her clicks--it's hard to explain any other way, if one wants to be charitable enough to assume she's not actually a moron. I have too much respect for the Atlantic, which used to publish C.S. Peirce and Emerson, to believe that.
I'm not sure what to make of so much energetic intelligence being tethered to the effectively immovable object that is Megan MacArdle; even when she admits an error (her support for the war), she wraps it in so many layers of justification that the apology (it really never comes, but let's call it that for convenience) is deeply insufficient and unsatisfying.
I don't want to post here any more, because it seems to me to enable her frozen narcissism (as it appears to me). But I hope to benefit from the thinking and conversation of the many intelligent, fairminded, and passionate people I've encountered here--margalis, phasearth, liberalrob, will allen, mark, and brooksfoe, just to mention a few on each side off the top of my head--on better sites hosted by better hosts.
Remember the African proverb, Megan: "The white man has no God--his God is money." Take it to heart--du muss sein leben andern. As we all must, in this sad, bad, but still potentially beautiful world of ours.
Blush.
I have my own blog. You could be the 6th reader ;) I haven't been linking my name to it because this place embarrasses me.
I started coming here when I was looking for examples of people who learned nothing from Iraq for a blog post I was working on.(I found one, and she'll be in part 2) I've stuck around because I enjoy laughing at Megan and her more moronic followers, I won't lie.
On my own blog I try to be mature but in comments on worthless sites like this one I enjoy being an ass. Why cast pearls before swine?
It's a terrible attitude I suppose.
I'm going to stop coming back because my research is done and this is a train wreck I'm having trouble tearing myself away from.
Megan, don't go there. Why try to defend the Iraq war? If you still think loving kindness comes from Shock and Awe and that said loving kindness would have been administered to a country that exported bananas (say) then you are really, confused. We first strangled a nation for ten years and then smashed it to pieces, precipitating a holocaust that has probably killed 1 million people and displaced multiple millions, leaving Jordan and Syria destabilized by the flood of refugees. To continue to say that this flowed from our benevolent intentions is total nonsense. It assumes that we be satisfied with surfaces in judging intentions, that we don't need to perform any analysis. This is just a delusion.
Both you and Glenn are both right--in part.
Wow, Greenwald has you, er, pwned, I think is the correct term. And not through any sneaky lawyer tricks, just by stomping on your own incoherence.
What set him off most recently was your charge that he called you pro-torture. Which is a false accusation, on your part.
What he has accused you of, is being supportive of a lawless presidency. One that believes it is okay to spy on American citizens without a warrant, okay to suspend habeus corpus, and okay to launch a war of aggression.
You freely admit your support for at least one of these violations.
His charge then is that when you support lawlessness, you reap the consequences covered by the Yoo-Bybee papers. And part of the reason this is able to happen is because the media establishment is in bed with the political establishment, and does not cover the law-breaking for what it is.
But what I think is most unintentionally tragic (yet oddly comic) is your invocation of American exceptionalism as justification for supporting law-breaking. It's the perfect circular argument, like the Pope relying on the principle of infallibility to get comfortable with a particular Catholic teaching.
This here - "I think the US has done a better job of occupying Iraq than, say, Iraq did of occupying Kuwait" - is almost perfect. I just reckon you didn't aim low enough. We were surely better than the German occupation of Poland. Also the Japanese occupation of Manchuria. And the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states.
It's really quite heartening that you get a patrio-ego boost that we aren't the worst occupying power in history. No wonder the Atlantic values your insights.
American Exceptionalism is the idea that when the US engages in some foreign policy action, usually military, it should be judged differently from other, past actors because the US motives are based on a desire to spread freedom and democracy. You will hear this constantly in Bush's justification for the occupation of Iraq. You can hear it in Megan's post:
my belief in the basic goodness of America, a belief I still hold, made me think the war would be a way to get rid of a dictator and make the Iraqi people better off. My error was in not recognizing that our strength is not the strength of ten merely because our heart is pure.
This is not a view without foundation. The decision after WWII to rebuild, rather than demand reparations from, West Germany and Japan was a remarkable, and remarkably successful foreign policy decision. In the post-war period, US foreign policy actions, military and not, were focused on stopping Soviet imperialism, the antithesis of democracy and freedom. And so the Korean and Vietnamese wars were presented as Americans making sacrifices for the freedom of others.
If you believe that people were sincere in their concerns about the spread of godless Communism, then this indeed makes sense. Personally, I think by Vietnam that story stopped working, because Ho Chi Mihn was not a godless Communist, but the leader of a popular insurgency. The freedom loving act would have been to support him, rather than the French. But that's neither here nor there.
The usage now is mostly sardonic. While Megan may believe that the reasons the US invaded Iraq were noble concerns for the good of the Iraqi people under a heinous dictator, she strikes me as either naive or disingenuous. (See, it's nearly impossible to write this without being sardonic.) I will not rehash the weakness of this claim, but it was very weak at the time and has become weaker still as the occupation has continued.
So usually the phrase nowadays means the use, either naively or manipulatively, of rhetoric regarding American motivations for imperialist actions, that attributes the motivation for the actions to the spread of freedom and democracy, rather than the extension of American power in the world.
This in turn becomes fodder for some right wing commentators. If you point out that this whole spreading freedom and democracy thing has lost a lot of its power in the absence of the godless communists--and that maybe eliminating farm subsidies might be a better method than killing people by the tens of thousands as a mechanism for spreading freedom and democracy in a world with no enemy, then they will say you hate America. That is, by denying American Exceptionalism, you hate America.
Greenwald's point is that if you are going to advocate the spreading of freedom and democracy with the barrel of the gun, then you own the consequences of that advocacy. And that those consequences were utterly predictable. Megan has never responded to that argument. Rather she has said that it is mean and unfair to point this out--that she wasn't in favor of what happened. She was in favor of what cannot be described as anything other than a fantasy. I suppose you could say that is her response. She was unaware of the fantastical, extremely improbable nature of the scenario she was supporting. And she was unaware that the actors involved were not really committed to freedom and democracy,but rather the acquisition of a pliant client state in the middle east that would permit the presence of large US military bases. She believed in Kanan Makiya's dream, unaware that nobody else among the real players did. And without noticing that even he put the odds at 10 percent or less.
There's always the possibility that Bush believed in this fantasy as well, just as Reagan believed in the fantasy of a nuclear shield. So much the worse, if so.
If it happens, it's better we don't know about it.
"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
Babs Bush
McArdle (aka Mindles H. Dreck, aka Jane Galt):
To some extent, I believe in the hidden law. Which is to say, the choice that some citizens make, under some circumstances, to break the law as it is written... If terrorists must be tortured -- and I am unwilling to state that there is no circumstance ever under which I could condone it -- then it should happen in dark rooms, at risk to the lives and careers of the men who carry it out, so that the hidden law will only trump the written law when times are truly desperate enough to call for such desperate measures.
Posted by Jane Galt at March 17, 2003 4:03 PM
http://www.janegalt.net/archives/004028.html
Greenwald:
With the sentencing of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald has apparently finished his work, which was, not to put too fine a point on it, to make a mountain out of a molehill. At the urging of the liberal press (especially the New York Times), he was appointed to look into a run-of-the-mill leak and wound up prosecuting not the leaker -- Richard Armitage of the State Department -- but Libby, convicted in the end of lying. This is not an entirely trivial matter since government officials should not lie to grand juries, but neither should they be called to account for practicing the dark art of politics. As with sex or real estate, it is often best to keep the lights off.
That really is the central belief of our Beltway press, captured so brilliantly by Cohen in this perfect nutshell. When it comes to the behavior of our highest and most powerful government officials, our Beltway media preaches, "it is often best to keep the lights off." If that isn't the perfect motto for our bold, intrepid, hard-nosed political press, then nothing is.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/19/cohen/
Personally, I think by Vietnam that story stopped working, because Ho Chi Mihn was not a godless Communist, but the leader of a popular insurgency.
To be fair, Ho Chi Minh was a godless Communist and the leader of a popular insurgency. He displayed his superior organizational efficiency, competence and determination in part by assassinating many of the Nationalist leaders in the early to mid 40s. But the reasons the US didn't back him had less to do with any shrewd assessment of his dictatorial tendencies than with inattention to the whole problem of Vietnamese independence and with the fact that US postwar policy was still unformed with regard to postcolonialism. Also we were afraid if we didn't back the absurd French quest to regain their colonies, they might go Communist themselves.
The real problem with this
My error was in not recognizing that our strength is not the strength of ten merely because our heart is pure.
is that our heart is not pure. No one's heart is pure. That is the great danger of unilateralism.
because our heart is pure.
No person acquainted with the history of US colonial and neo-colonial actions since 1898 could possibly reach this conclusion. Libertarians have no hearts, only pocketbooks, therefore their assessments of purity of the heart are necessarily defective.
It is far more likely that they are merely following their normal instincts as to what is the safest way to attract eyeballs. Now, it is possible that their normal instictls are wildly off base, and the market is thus hugely inefficient in meeting customer demand, but such situations are exceedingly rare. There is not a deficiency of capital available, if some person with intimate knowledge of the industry noted the inefficiency. What are the odds that this massive inefficiency has existed all these years, and not has been acted on?
This economic argument would make more sense if the style of coverage dominant in the last 25 years did not coincide with a steady erosion of the economic position of the industries involved.
The newspaper industry is in dire straits. Network and cable news is vastly less profitable than it once was.
Different possible answers to your question emerge from this data. Perhaps no one is deploying capital to provide news in a different manner because of a general market recognition that the industry itself is doomed, and an unwillingness to commit capital to experiments in a buggy whip market. Or perhaps stickiness in these markets [no new major newspaper has been successfully introduced - to my knowledge - since USA Today, and there are structural, market and regulatory difficulties in introducing new television competitors] allows the preferences of a relatively small number of owners to ride existing media properties into the ground, and they simply haven't declined far enough for new competitors to have a large enough advantage to overcome that stickiness.
And again, while the economic argument is interesting in a macro way, it is difficult to understand what direct economic incentive requires the political press to [say] continue to present Bill Kristol as an authoritative voice on foreign policy.
On the specific issues of the war and the Bush administration, if the political press were to cater to the preferences of the public in the way McArdle has asserted, one would assume that coverage would have long ago begun to reflect the preferences of the large majorities that oppose both.
Actually, the war in particular seems to be an area where many editors and producers have made the positive decision to attempt to rebuild public support for the war even in the face of obvious public preference. So we have the combination of "market driven" light and frivolous coverage [that somehow by coincidence is kind to John McCain] and "market opposing" gravely responsible, good-editorial-citizen coverage [that somehow by coincidence is also kind to John McCain]. We'll leave Fox out of consideration for a moment for obvious reasons, but CNN's war coverage seems to be largely driven by the pro-war sensibilities of Michael Ware, and its political coverage by the pro-McCain sensibilities of John King and Wolf Blitzer. To a certain extent one could argue that it's an "economic" decision to allow personalities in which one has invested to have free reign - but that would contradict McArdle's assertion that the political press wants to cover stories in a certain way, but is prevented from doing so by the economics of news reporting.
This post and many of the responses show -- unfortunately -- why few people ever apologize for their past mistaken beliefs in public. Megan has done so several times, and she is unfailingly greeted with ever-increasing scorn and contempt from all of the assholes who are too dumb to take "Yes" for an answer.
They can't bring themselves to say, "Thanks for acknowledging your errors." Instead, they feel compelled to flood her site with comments along the lines of, "How could you have been so stupid as to believe that!" or "I'd never have been such a moron," or "Any fool would have known blah blah blah," and so forth.
It happens, via Brad DeLong, that Clive Crook has recently written about the American exception.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803u/no-american-exceptionalism/2
Sorry. Posted the link before reading it. It's about the American Economic exception. Belongs in the regulatory thread.
I don't think people much care, despite all of the Sturm und Drang on the internet)
Greenwald's point, which I will pose to you as a question, is this: do you have any evidence that "people don't much care" besides the assumption of the media that people don't much care?
The point is that the reasoning is circular. "We won't cover this", says the media, "because people don't care. How do we know they don't care? If they cared, we'd be covering it."
John Doe--
Nobody is picking on John Cole.
There are a great many of these admissions of wrongness that actually turn into claims of being as right as they could be at the time, or just making excuses. Like the excuse Megan offers here, about just believing in America too much.
John Doe:
The issue has arisen anew because, even if McArdle has acknowledged errors, the other day Greenwald blogged a complaint that the political press is ignoring the Yoo story in favor of frivolous stories designed to demean Obama, and McArdle piped up to say "Nobody's interested in old torture stories; the public wants the press to forget all about this stuff, and the press is unwillingly complying." Or words to that effect.
And unfortunately for Megan, the overwhelming majority of the people who make that argument are doing so for self-serving reasons or for political reasons. Maybe she's not one of those people; it's difficult to tell. But the only way to really have any credibility when you "acknowledge errors" of this kind is, after the acknowledgement, to bang the drum for the clear light of day to be shone on anything and everything that has to do with the error, and never let yourself get caught saying anything that remotely sounds like, "Hey, no one wants to talk about that stuff any more! Stop being a dick so we can talk about John Edwards' hair cut without your self-righteousness messing up our fun!"
They can't bring themselves to say, "Thanks for acknowledging your errors."
In the long and glorious history of the Atlantic Magazine, it has been a showcase for some of the best minds in America. So how has it come to this, that an obvious mediocrity like McArdle appears, day after day, spouting nonsense under its masthead?
The simple answer is that the new owners of the Atlantic brand have decided to provide a spectrum of opinion that includes libertarian nonsense. Those who passionately admire Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan now have a large, naive, and poorly educated blogger championing their cause. The fact that she has to apologize for stupidity a few times a month does not diminish her zeal in praising the power of selfishness.
Simply reading the daily headlines of food riots, energy depletion, crumbling financial markets and the madness of the Iraq occupation shows us how well governments perform when they are subverted by the "magic of the marketplace." But this has no effect whatever on McArdle's one-note symphony of selfishness. It appears that only the complete collapse of the US economy (disaster is a healthy form of marketplace discipline) will end our exposure to McArdle's absurd commentary.
Megan, you endorsed torture in March 2003. Your claim that you have repeatedly argued that we shouldn't even discuss whether torture works is simply untrue. You endorsed torture "when times are truly desperate enough...".
I suppose it is encouraging that you apparently now realize your error. But let's admit it - your attacks on Greenwald are obviously motivated by your resentment at his outing of your disgraceful capitulation to bush/cheney torture policy.
I ask you to re-read your March 2003 comments regarding torture. Did you not endorse torture in March 2003?
Brian:
Bingo!! In fact, Glenn Greenwald makes exactly your point in again addressing the problem with Megan and Dan Drezner.
However, I also thought continuing to simply try to manage the status quo of the Persian Gulf for a few more decades, in hopes of slow improvement, would eventually end with a far more destructive attack on the U.S. population than the 9/11 attack, and that would result in a completely enraged American public demanding a total war response, which would make the current carnage appear like a minor dust-up.
Will,
Given the complexity of factors that influence international relations, how on earth do you presume to know what will happen in the Mideast with any reasonable degree of certainty? If, rather, you (like everyone else) are substantially uncertain, how can the “ounce of prevention to avoid a pound of cure” justification for the invasion hold up? If you have other justifications, that’s one thing, but if you are basing your advocacy on prescience, it doesn’t make sense.
It’s as though the actual violence and intimidation, mass death, widespread torture, unjust detentions, subjugation of women, decimation of the middle class, widespread child malnutrition, and refugee crises that have emerged in Iraq in the past five years are matters of no great concern.
food riots,
Stop subsidizing and mandating the use of ethanol. Even Krugman acknowledges the role social engineering has played in this.
energy depletion,
A century of social engineering on several continents was needed to produce our current transportation model [built on the automobile] and our current energy generation model [built on centralized generation by public or quasipublic utilities]. Our road system and our utility systems are not examples of market economics run amok.
crumbling financial markets
Brought to you courtesy of Federal Reserve cheap money policy from 2001 to 2004
and the madness of the Iraq occupation
I think you missed the day in school where they taught you that the White House, the Congress, and the US Army are public, nonmarket institutions.
[Glenn Greenwald] professes not to understand why Dan Drezner and I might be offended by his saying...
Huh? Greenwald professed no such thing. He was responding to claims that he called you and Drezner pro-torture. He directed some pretty harsh criticism at both of you. No doubt he knew that is likely to cause offense. Just as both you and Drezner no doubt know that some of your comments are likely to offend him (faux hypotheticals in the current post notwithstanding).
Stop subsidizing and mandating the use of ethanol. Even Krugman acknowledges the role social engineering has played in this.
The subsidies come from profit-seeking farmers twisting the arms of their representatives.
Our road system and our utility systems are not examples of market economics run amok.
Sadly, no! The superior resources of the auto-makers, real-estate developers, and highway builders out-lobbied the railroad men. General Motors literally bought and burned the trolley cars all over America. Profit seeking manufacturers and builders shaped policy to create an unsustainable sprawl.
Federal Reserve cheap money policy from 2001 to 2004
The policy was administered by Ayn Rand accolyte Greenspan, who steadfastly refused to regulate the financial institutions he unleashed to plunder the depositors.
the White House, the Congress, and the US Army are public, nonmarket institutions.
You seemed to miss the part of our history in which our government was taken over by GE spokesman Ronald Reagan. The Fortune 1000 have been running America since the Reagan administration, deregulating and deficit spending their way to national destruction - and optimizing quarterly profits all the way.
Libertarians don't grasp that short-term optimization and blindness to "externalities" leads to collective suicide. Their current argument is that periodic total collapses of our economy are a healthy and necessary part of the free market mechanism. The same could have been said of the Great Depression. Of course, with enough loot in your offshore accounts, you can afford to tolerate the pain of others.
I'm sorry to read that you care little about the monetary cost of the war. aWol's abusive borrowing to finace his bogus war will end up costing us far more than what you may now believe. In the short run, have you been to Europe lately?
Ms. McCardle, your rationalizing hasn’t worked. You supported torture – you wrote about it, approved of it, and supported Bush and the war criminals. You stand convicted by your own words. And now your little feelings are hurt? Sorry, but you deserve to be publicly shamed for enabling the Bush war crimes. But hey, some of them will be in the dock! Of course you have zero credibility. BTW,attacking glenn G. is sorta stupid, since we have an internet and he can actually look up what you wrote.
Your own stinkin’ words! Hidden law. Cheney’s law. I am ahamed to have you as an American.
But I know you’d much rather write about Obama and Bowling. That is so key,, you know…
A better press please. This one is stupid and corrupt.
John Doh!
Torture: Yea or Nay? By you know who...
Mark Kleiman has emailed asking me what I think about torture, and I suppose I should weigh in, although I doubt my contribution will be very useful. . .
To some extent, I believe in the hidden law. Which is to say, the choice that some citizens make, under some circumstances, to break the law as it is written. . . . I view torture in somewhat the same way. To see what I mean, I want you to imagine that there's a terrorist group that is threatening, not some faceless person somewhere, but your kid. . . .Now, are you going to give him back to the Feds to be sent to Gitmo in the hopes that a couple years down the road, he might tell you something -- if they haven't already gassed your child, that is? Or are you going to whip out the toolbox and get to work? . . .
And I think that our operatives are probably so tempted when they face down the evil men who seek out soft civilian targets to sow terror. I cannot entirely fault them for it. I'm not sure they should always be punished. But neither do I want to see the apparatus of the legal system turned to codifying, regulating, and normalizing torture, as Alan Dershowitz has suggested with his terror warrants. If terrorists must be tortured -- and I am unwilling to state that there is no circumstance ever under which I could condone it -- then it should happen in dark rooms, at risk to the lives and careers of the men who carry it out, so that the hidden law will only trump the written law when times are truly desperate enough to call for such desperate measures.
HH, sadly for your argument, each and every instance of "profit seekers" employing the government to attain the ends you describe is anathema to libertarian philosophy.
The raison d'etre of libertarian philosophy is to make each of the cases you list impossible. Indignation that such things are possible is the main engine driving the libertarian impulse.
Rand in particular would describe the principal actors involved as being engaged in theft [in addition to even less kind descriptions and labels] and not seeking "profit" per se at all.
And Greenspan is properly described as a Rand apostate. Calling him an acolyte puts you behind the times by about 40 years.
Libertarians don't grasp that short-term optimization and blindness to "externalities" leads to collective suicide.
What's funny, but a little sad, is that most of the examples you employ as cases where libertarian philosophy has led to collective suicide were fought by libertarians at the time they were enacted.
For decades, the textbook critique of the free market was that it failed to provide certain public goods very well. Roads in particular were the cherished academic example of a good we just would never have enough of without massive state intervention.
Now that the massive state intervention which non-libertarians demanded to correct the "market failure" in roads has put us behind the eight ball environmentally, has been the main cause of massive, continent-wide poor land use decisions, has placed us in a state of dependence on overseas energy resources, etc., people like you come back and claim that all of this damage is the fault of...the market, and libertarians.
The market you previously said would not build roads, and which therefore had to be "corrected". [I am using a general "you" here.] The market you said would not properly house the masses unless suburban scrawl was subsidized. The market you said had to be overruled by zoning and planning. And the libertarians you spat on every time they tried to warn you about all of these.
In your formulation, "libertarians oppose ethanol subsidies" = "libertarians are to blame for ethanol subsidies". "Libertarians opposed the creation of a federal reserve" = "libertarians are responsible for the actions of the federal reserve". "Libertarians opposed federal and state transportation, energy and land-use policies" = "libertarians are responsible for sprawl".
Spare me.
Oh, the glory of libertarians! They believe that personal selfishness is wrong only when it corrupts government. When a corporation attains monopoly control over a market, is that not a suitable reward for the talents of its leaders? How then did this perfect flower of the marketplace, like the Rockefeller Oil monopoly or the Steel Trust, function without evil governmental interference? By predation.
Businessmen hate uncertainty, and as soon as they enjoy a commanding advantage, they act to undermine the very principles of competition that enabled them to rise to dominance. This is the great pitfall of pure market delusion. It is arrant nonsense to recommend a social model that fails simple behavioral tests. Marxism is rightly pilloried for failing to account for human frailty, thus it is no defense of libertarianism to say that it works fine absent human weakness.
"I just don't understand" - Megan McArdle
Obviously -- 'nuff said.
jason, unless you wish to posit Baathist subjugation of the Iraqi population until the end of time (btw do you really think all those horrible activities were absent from Iraq prior to 2003?) , the violence you speak of was a near certainty, because of the nature of the parties involved, and their millenium-old conflict. I'm actually a little surprised it hasn't been worse.
There were two primary reasons I thought attempting to manage the pre-2001 status quo would produce considerably worse results than ending Baathist rule. One, the historical record of success of entities which try to keep highly motivated parties with resources and signicant tactical intelligence, from obtaining technology which the highly motivated parties wish to obtain is very, very, poor. Given enough time, highly motivated people with resources will nearly certaintly obtain the technology they wish to obtain, and have some success in obtaining their tactical goals, no matter how smart and determined the entities which try to prevent it.
Second, the nature of the opponent is far different than was the case in the previous conflict. The Soviet Union was of course nearly infinitely more powerful, and their ideology had it's own elements of irrationality, ironically steeped in theories of rationalism, but it was not possessed with supernatural beliefs which posited the desirability of titanic violent conflagration. The current opponent has just that, and is thus largely indifferent to classical deterrence. It is nearly impossible to maimtain a perfect record over a multi-decade period, and anything short of perfection means a catastrophe which would make the current level of violence seem minor.
No, the current opponent does not pose an existential threat. However, they pose a tactical threat which would entail an enraged American population, in response, posing an existential threat to the populations of the Persian Gulf. Hugely weaker populations, when seen as the source of misery and death, even if not a existential threat, to a hugely more powerful population, almost always end up getting annihilated. Getting slaughtered is the worst possible outcome for a society, but being the slaughterer is hugely damaging to a society as well, and that was the path that I think we are very, very, likely on, unless the populations of the Persian Gulf achieve some degree of self governemnt in the fairly short term, historically speaking. I truly wish we had a multi-decade period to allow things to slowly play out, but I don't think it exists.
Megan McGargle! Blogging herself into a hole since 2001!
Just like Bush has been decidering himself, and the entire country, into a hole, inside a quagmire, wrapped in a disaster since about the same time!
Poot O'Rear!
HH, in your ranting, you have manged to ignore the specific rebuttal that Brian put forth, which demonstrated that the things you condemn libertarian philosophy for, were, in fact, things which were created by the exercise of state power that libertarins oppose. Would you please try again?
It reminds one of people who blame the Great Depression on a lack of government action, when the real cause was malregulation by the Fed and horrible tax and trade legislation.
HH, reflection on what you written, it has become apparent that you have hallucinated, and thus have come to the conclusion that "businessman"="capitalist/libertarian". In reality, libertarian thought prominently addresses the fact the people engaged in business will frequently seek to put up impediments to the free market, and are to be opposed when they do so. There is even a strain of libertarian thought which supports some form of anti-trust legislation, while recognizing it's drawbacks historically.
Do you ever get tired in your titanic battles with the men of straw?
Pardon the horrible typing/editing; "upon reflection on what you have written", of course.
things which were created by the exercise of state power that libertarins oppose.
If you grasp the meaning of the term Military-Industrial Complex, you should understand that there is no longer a clear separation between corporate America and the state. Revloving door careers feature government officials moving into and out of senior corporation positions in the industries they were supposed to regulate.
I simply don't see how libertarian fantasies of an unmolested marketplace correspond at all with the deformed and dysfunctional society that corporations have foisted upon us. Rupert Murdoch actively shapes the policies of the US government by working to secure the election of politicians that favor the aggrandizement of his business empire. Does this violate the libertarian creed?
Just what does libertarianism propose as the policing mechanism for regulating the animal spirits of businessmen, when these unchecked spirits have been shown repeatedly to be injurious to society.
I simply don't see how libertarian fantasies of an unmolested marketplace correspond at all with the deformed and dysfunctional society that corporations have foisted upon us.
Very small, one might say negligible, changes to our Constitution or to the judicial history of the United States would have given us much different corporations, and a much different society.
I would submit that the political deformations came first, the corporate deformations came second, and the various symptoms of what academic theorists like to call "late capitalism" came third.
How do we defeat the desire of corporate leaders to deform the marketplace using the power of government? With a properly-structured Constitution. There are lots of people out there who try every year to pass legislation harming one area or another of [for example] free speech. They don't get very far [although they will have unfortunate successes from time to time] because the Constitution, and the judiciary, shoot them down. If the "all too human" impulse to strangle free speech can be blunted that effectively by law and by our institutions of law, why can't we similarly blunt the impulse to use government to enrich one corporation or another? Just starting thinking in terms of "Congress shall make no law..." and maybe we can get somewhere.
Brian there is nothing about being opposed to the war that would necessarily entail being willing to to switch the channel from "Sportscenter" to a channel that featured Yoo stories, or to read Yoo strories on "Seriousnews.com", instead of looking at TMZ.com. I actually think your buggywhip industry comment makes a great deal of sense. Greenwald is simply behind the times, and doesn't grasp that people with a real hunger for the types of stories he favors have no need to demand it from the New York Times. Nor would there be any convincing reason for a reader or advetiser to pay a lot of money to the NYT in the production of such stories.
Very small, one might say negligible, changes to our Constitution or to the judicial history of the United States would have given us much different corporations, and a much different society.
Stand and deliver. What are the magical tweaks to our Constitution that will give us the benefits of liberatarian political philosophy? How would we be protected from monopolistic aggrandizement of businesses? How would consumers be protected from every sharp practice profit-seekers can devise? (Would inspection of aircraft be improved after every crash?)
Show me a single nation on earth that approximates your libertarian model. Where is the evidence that libertarianism is a stable, sustainable, and productive political philosophy?
Since so many seem unable to recall the reasons for the War on Terror and how that translates into the current war in Iraq, let me share the following article written by Stephen Den Beste.
The reasoning is still valid.
USS Clueless: Strategic Overview
Posted July 28, 2003 to World category.
The purpose of this document is to provide a high level strategic view of the cause of the war, the reason that the United States became involved in it, the fundamental goals the US has to achieve to win it, and the strategies the US is following, as well as an evaluation of the situation as of July, 2003. Most of what is here has been explored in far greater detail in numerous posts made on USS Clueless (http://denbeste.nu).
The original version of this outline can be found at http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml. I have copied the whole document for future reference below. See Blogdex,Technocrati for commentary. Steven de Beste responds to his critics.
What is the root cause of the war?
Collective failure of the nations and people in a large area which is predominately Arab and/or Islamic.
Economically the only contribution they make is by selling natural resources which are available to them solely through luck.
They make no significant contribution to international science or engineering.
They make little or no cultural contribution to the world. Few seek out their poetry, their writing, their movies or music. The most famous Muslim writer of fiction in the world is under a fatwa death sentence now and lives in exile in Europe.
Their only diplomatic relevance is due to their oil.
They are not respected by the world, or by themselves.
Since this is a "face" culture, shame about this this has led to rising but unfocused discontent, anger and resentment.
Some governments in the region have tried to focus it elsewhere so as to deflect it away from themselves. (The "Zionist Entity" is a favorite target.)
Ambitious leaders of various kinds of tried to use it for their own purposes.
Khomeinei and the Taliban used it to support revolutions respectively in Iran and Afghanistan.
Saddam used it to gain support for creation of a united pan-Arab empire ruled from Baghdad.
Why is the US fighting the war? Why were we attacked?
American success casts Arab/Islamic failure in sharp contrast. Politically, economically, militarily, technologically and culturally we set the standard and our accomplishments make their failure look particularly bad.
America is the largest and most important supporter of Israel. Arab leaders have used Israel as a scapegoat for their own failure, and part of that is to blame us since we refuse to abandon Israel. They have provided enough support to the Palestinians to keep the struggle going, so that their own people have someone outside to hate, which is why Israel is top of their shitlist. But that also causes them to hate us for our support of Israel.
America is secular. Islamic religious zealots have been preaching that much of Arab/Islamic failure happens because Muslims have not been sufficiently devout. Allah has not been fighting on their side because they were sinners who have turned away from the teachings of the Prophet and a true virtuous life. The zealots claimed that only by embracing extreme forms of Islam could they again gain Allah's favor and begin to succeed. But the US government and the American people do not follow those teachings, and America is a success. At the same time, in the nations where the extremists took power things got even worse. American success is heresy. In religious terms the only explanation for that is that America is in league with Satan, and Khomeinei said as much.
American culture and American ideas are very popular with many of the people who live in the Arab/Islamic belt in question, particularly among their young people. This is viewed with alarm by traditionalists of all kinds. Their own people were being seduced away from their traditional culture and extreme religious practices.
America has earned a reputation in much of the world as being rich, well-armed, but also cowardly; full of bluster but having no guts. Such events as our defeat in Viet Nam, our experiences in Beirut and Somalia, our half-hearted and largely ineffectual responses to the attacks against us in the 1980's and 1990's, and many other episodes contributed to the impression that we would not fight back if attacked, and that there was little risk in in attacking us, whether rhetorically or even violently.
America is the "top dog" in the world right now, and there was prestige associated with attempting to take down the "top dog".
Possible responses, small and large
Some advocated appeasement: reduce our military spending, massively increase foreign aid, stop supporting Israel and throw it to the wolves, and apologize, apologize, apologize.
Historically, appeasement doesn't work.
Those proposing this generally hold strongly leftist, post-nationalist political positions and assumed that since the terrorists evidently hated the US as much as the leftists do, that they must hate the US for the same grounds. But there's no reason to assume that al Qaeda or the other terrorist organizations that imperil us have any sympathy with what Fonte calls transnational progressivism, or that they would cease making plans for attacks against us if the US ratified the Kyoto accord or the ICC treaty.
This approach claimed that poverty and American foreign policy missteps in particular were the proximate cause of Arab/Islamic anger directed at the US. But there's no reason to believe that this is true.
al Qaeda's original political statement regarding the US did not include any such claims. (Later statements sometimes did at least touch on such things because al Qaeda was trying to gain support from leftists in Europe.)
Most of the terrorists who carried out the attack on 9/11 came from prosperous families. None of them came from impoverished backgrounds.
There doesn't seem to be any difference in the degree of hostility expressed towards the West in Arab nations which are relatively prosperous (e.g. Saudi Arabia) and those which are less well off (e.g. Syria).
Arab and Islamic hostility towards the US even in nations relatively unaffected by American foreign policy is far greater than in nations which have suffered far more at our hands, such as Viet Nam (which has been trying for years to reestablish normal diplomatic and commercial relations).
If the true root cause was anger and resentment caused by Arab shame at lack of Arab accomplishment, massively increased aid would not help. You do not make a man proud by giving him charity.
Irrespective of any other arguments against this approach, it wasn't politically possible in the US. The vast majority of Americans (especially America's Jacksonians) were in no mood to accept such a solution. The domestic reaction to those who advocated this solution was nearly uniformly hostile.
The microscopic solution was to respond "proportionally" with a token counter-attack, and then deal with the situation as one of international law enforcement, by attempting to find and arrest those who were implicated in the plot so as to put them on trial for it after extradition.
That's what we tried to do in the 1980's and 1990's, and it failed. bin Laden was already under indictment for previous attacks against us, and all diplomatic efforts to gain control of his person for trial over a period of several years had failed.
This policy in the 1980's and 1990's was part of what established our reputation in the Arab world as being cowardly.
Doing this after an attack as devastating as the one on 9/11 would have further reinforced our reputation for cowardice. It would have raised the reputation of all terrorist groups by showing that terrorism was a valid (and successful!) way of striking back.
Such a response would have encouraged further attacks against us which potentially might have been far more devastating, if the terrorists had managed to gain access to some sort of extreme weapon.
The small solution was to assume that al Qaeda was the entire problem, and to eradicate al Qaeda and all others who could be shown to be directly involved in the attack in September of 2001.
If we had concentrated exclusively on al Qaeda it would have left intact other similar movements, equally dangerous but not directly implicated in the attack against us. al Qaeda launched the attack against us but were not the only ones who had the ability or will to do so, and other groups had been and had every intention of continuing to launch such attacks against other targets (e.g. Bali, Israel, the Philippines, Kashmir).
This would have been a case of treating the symptom, not the disease. It would have left the deep discontent and frustration of the "Arab Street" intact, as fertile ground for the next demagogue to come along wishing the plant the seeds of jihad against the West.
The large solution is to reform the Arab/Muslim world. This is the path we have chosen.
The true root cause of the war is their failure and their resentment and frustration and shame caused by that failure.
They fail because they are crippled by political, cultural and religious chains which their extremists refuse to give up. The real causes of their failure is well described by Ralph Peters. Most of the Arab nations suffer from all seven of his critical handicaps, and the goal of reform is to correct all seven, as far as possible.
If their governments can be reformed, and their people freed of the chains which bind them and cripple them, they will begin to achieve, and to become proud of their accomplishments. This will reduce and eventually eliminate their resentment.
Their governments would then cease needing scapegoats.
Their extremists would no longer have fertile ground for recruitment.
This is a huge undertaking; it will require decades because it won't really be complete until there's a generational turnover. But ultimately it is the only way to really eliminate the danger to us without using the "foot-and-mouth" solution (which is to say, nuclear genocide).
The primary purpose of reform is to liberate individual Arabs. This is a humanist reform, but it isn't a Christian reform. There will be no attempt to eradicate Islam as a religion. Rather, Islamism as a political movement, and as a body of law, and as a form of government must be eliminated, leaving Islam as a religion largely untouched except to the extent that it will be forced to be tolerant. The conceptual model for this is what we did in Japan after WWII, where only those cultural elements which were dangerous to us were eliminated, leaving behind a nation which was less aggressive, but still Japanese. No attempt was made to make Japan a clone of the US, and no such attempt will be made with the Arabs.
Short term strategy in response to the 9/11 attacks
al Qaeda had to be eliminated, or at least drastically crippled.
In order to reduce the immediate hazard, we had to change the perception that we were cowards who could be attacked with impunity. In the short term, it was not possible for us to make the "Arab Street" love us, but we could convert its contempt into fear. Though not ideal, that had the dual merit of being feasible and effective. (Respect and friendship ideally would come later.)
The international web of finance which supported the terrorist groups was vulnerable; their resources needed to be trimmed as much as possible to reduce their ability to operate against us.
The purpose of all of this was to give us breathing room, to stabilize the situation for a few years so that we could carry out longer-term and more effective strategies. It was not, however, sufficient on its own.
Stage 1: Afghanistan
al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan, politically protected by the Taliban. It had operated there with impunity for years. The majority of its membership was organized into relatively normal military formations which had been fighting on behalf of the Taliban in the ongoing Afghan civil war. It also had training bases for terrorists, and most of the leadership of al Qaeda was located there, beyond the reach of international law enforcement.
Even after the 9/11 attack, the Taliban refused to cooperate, and continued to protect al Qaeda. We now know that this is because al Qaeda controlled the Taliban. Omar was the nominal head of government but bin Laden pulled the strings.
Thus the Afghan war, fought by us mainly with air strikes, special forces and bribery.
The goal was to drastically reduce al Qaeda's ability to use Afghanistan as a base of operations and eliminate the government that had been protecting it.
Elimination of the Taliban would be an object lesson for other governments who had been protecting terrorist organizations.
"Nation building" in Afghanistan was not an essential part of the operation there, except to the extent needed to make sure that Afghanistan did not again become a large al Qaeda stronghold in the short run (3-5 years). Anything beyond that was inspired by humanitarian impulses, but did not further any strategic goals.
Stage 2: Iraq
Goal of Stage 2: we had to conquer one of the big antagonistic Arab nations and take control of it.
To directly reduce support for terrorist groups by eliminating one government which had been providing such support.
To place us in a physical and logistical position to be able to apply substantial pressure on the rest of the major governments of the region.
To force them to stop protecting and supporting terrorist groups
To force them to begin implementing political and social reforms
To convince the governments and other leaders of the region that it was no longer fashionable to blame us for their failure, so that they would stop using us as scapegoats.
To make clear to everyone in the world that reform is coming, whether they like it or not, and that the old policy of stability-for-the-sake-of-stability is dead. To make clear to local leaders that they may only choose between reforming voluntarily or having reform forced on them.
To make a significant long term change in the psychology of the "Arab Street"
To prove to the "Arab Street" that we were willing to fight, and that our reputation for cowardice was undeserved.
To prove that we are extraordinarily dangerous when we did fight, and that it is extremely unwise to provoke us.
To defeat the spirit of the "Arab Street". To force them to face their own failure, so that they would willing to consider the idea that reform could lead them to success. No one can solve a problem until they acknowledge that they have a problem, and until now the "Arab Street" has been hiding from theirs, in part aided by government propaganda eager to blame others elsewhere (especially the Jews).
To "nation build". After making the "Arab Street" truly face its own failure, to show the "Arab Street" a better way by creating a secularized, liberated, cosmopolitan society in a core Arab nation. To create a place where Arabs were free, safe, unafraid, happy and successful. To show that this could be done without dictators or monarchs. (I've been referring to this as being the pilot project for "Arab Civilization 2.0".)
Not confirmed: It may have been hoped that the conquered nation would serve as a honey-pot to attract militants from the region, causing them to fight against our troops instead of planning attacks against civilians. (It seems to have worked out that way, but it's not known if this was a deliberate part of the plan. Many of the defenders who died in the war were not actually Iraqis.)
Neither Afghanistan nor Iran would serve the political goals. The conquered nation had to be one generally thought of as being Arab.
The human and cultural material we needed for reform did not exist in Afghanistan.
The "Arab Street" would not have been impressed by successful reform in Afghanistan or in Persian Iran.
Why Iraq?
Already a problem
The existing sanctions process against Iraq (including patrols over the "no fly" zones) was a failure and was unsustainable. One way or another the status quo was going to end soon. Lifting the sanctions and ceasing to enforce the "no fly" zones without removing Saddam from power was too risky.
Saddam represented a substantial long-term threat. He had demonstrated utter ruthlessness and viciousness in two external wars and uncountable internal repressions. He showed no sign of abandoning his ambition to develop nuclear weapons irrespective of how long it might take or how much it might cost or what political sacrifice might be required.
Saddam had been providing immense support for terrorist groups, both monetarily and in other ways. There were known terrorist training bases in Iraq and he had been providing money and arms. It appears that little of that support went to al Qaeda. Most of it went to various Palestinian groups such as Hizbollah.
Saddam had placed a bounty on Israelis by stating that he'd pay a lot of money to the families of any successful suicide bomber, no matter what group the bomber came from.
Saddam had developed and used chemical weapons against Iranian troops and on Iraqi civilians. Left to himself there was a non-trivial chance of his giving such weapons to terrorists. After the war in 1991 and 12 years of Anglo-American enforcement of sanctions, Saddam had a grudge against the US, and the chance of him surreptitiously aiding terrorist attacks against us simply out of spite was too great to ignore. It's a matter of record that he attempted to have the senior George Bush assassinated. (George Bush Sr. had been President during the 1991 Gulf War.)
Military feasibility
The leaders of Kuwait feared Saddam and owed us a big favor from 1991, so Kuwait could be used as a base from which to launch an invasion of Iraq.
NATO ally Turkey shared a northern border with Iraq and it was expected that a second invasion force could be massed there. (As it turned out, this didn't happen.)
Iraqi terrain between Baghdad and the Kuwaiti border was well suited for mass armored assault.
Because of ongoing low-level combat in enforcement of the southern "no fly" zone, it was possible to do most of the essential air preparation slowly over a period of months before combat began.
Though the Iraqi military was large and had a reputation with the "Arab Street", in fact it was deeply crippled and likely to be much less formidable than many expected.
Political feasibility
A casus belli existed that could be leveraged to justify conquest in certain international fora.
This related to Saddam's failure to abide by the truce terms signed in the aftermath of the war in 1991, particularly in cooperating with international inspections to eliminate Iraqi chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and development programs.
Saddam's possession or intent to acquire such weapons represented an indirect and long term threat, but were not the primary real justification for the war.
There had been substantial support by American voters since 1991 for military operations to remove Saddam from power. There was far less support for invasion of Iran and no support at all for conquest of any other nation in the region.
Strategic suitability
Iraq is centrally located with borders on Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. It has major ports through which supplies and troops can move. Thus if we occupied Iraq, it would be ideal as a potential base of military operations against any of those other nations later, should that become necessary.
The governments in the region know it. Having American troops on their borders, or even the threat to move troops there, was guaranteed to get their attention.
If the military victory over Iraqi forces was overwhelming, that would make the threat even more impressive. The military forces of the other nations in the region were even less formidable than that of Saddam's Iraq.
This would make diplomatic threats against them far more effective and inspire much more cooperation from them than had been forthcoming to that point.
Potential for Reform
Among the major nations of the region, Iraq before Saddam had been relatively mercantile, relatively secular, and had originally had a relatively well-educated and cosmopolitan population.
Iraq had a history of democratic government, albeit not very successfully.
The Kurds had already established a government similar to what we needed to create.
Iraq's oil wealth could be used to offset much of the cost of rebuilding after the war, as well as making the nation economically viable and prosperous and helping to finance diversification of its economy.
Symbolism and propaganda value
Saddam had become a hero to the "Arab Street". He was thought of as a strong Arab leader who was standing up to the West. Though Iraq's military had been decisively defeated in 1991, Saddam survived politically and this actually enhanced his reputation. He hadn't won against us, but at least he'd tried, which was better than anyone else seemed to be doing. The "Arab Street" was proud of him for making the attempt. (This involves a lot of revisionism, such as ignoring Saddam's earlier invasion of Kuwait, or the participation of large Arab military forces in the coalition army which fought against Iraq.)
Iraq's military had the reputation of being the largest, best armed and most dangerous of any in the region. If it could be decisively crushed it would be psychologically devastating.
Baghdad historically was one of the great capitols of classic Arab civilization. Having it fall to outsiders would be symbolically important.
Other factors
We owed the southern Shiites a moral debt for not supporting their attempted revolution in 1991, and for our failure to make any attempt to prevent the retaliatory slaughter inflicted on them by Saddam afterwards. (I consider this the most important and most shameful lapse by the US since the end of the Cold War.)
The Kurds had prospered under the umbrella of the northern "no fly" zone. If the sanctions against Iraq had ended and we had stopped enforcing the northern "no fly" zone, the Kurds would then have been crushed, in a repeat of the 1991 slaughter inflicted on the southern Shiites.
Without invasion, reform in Iraq was impossible. The sanctions had failed, and after the debacle of the 1991 Shiite uprising, there was no further possibility of revolution. Removal of Saddam and beginnings of reform in Iraq could only be imposed from outside by military force. Thus invasion of Iraq would be necessary eventually even if it wasn't the first target.
Potential problems
Saddam might use nerve gas or biological agents against the invading force. The possibility existed that the cost of the war in casualties could be extremely high.
Iraq isn't really a single nation; it is at least three, depending on how you count. Creating a unified nation out of it faced problems due to ethnic divisions.
It also included both Sunnis and Shiites, who generally felt about each other the way that the Catholics and Protestants feel in Northern Ireland.
It could be expected that neighboring nations would try to support factions inside Iraq to work to prevent creation of a democracy there. Iran, in particular, was certain to try to inspire the majority Shiites to establish Iraq as another Khomeinite Islamic Republic.
Preparing for war
Development of a "coalition of the willing".
NATO was a hopeless waste of time, especially since some NATO members sided with Saddam and tried to use the mechanisms of NATO to prevent our attack.
The British and Australians openly sided with us. The British in particular could offer substantial military and diplomatic assistance. Australian assistance was smaller but no less welcome.
Canadian opposition was a major unpleasant surprise.
Other nations were willing to help, though in some cases they didn't want to admit it publicly until the last minute.
It was necessary for Congress to pass an authorization for war.
The one passed in September of 2001 (under which we had fought in Afghanistan) could not plausibly be interpreted as authorizing war in Iraq unless the Bush administration claimed that Saddam's government was directly implicated in the 9/11 attack, and no such evidence existed. There's no reason to believe that Saddam was directly involved.
An attempt to try to use the one passed in 1991, or to go into combat without one using the 60-day clause in the 'War Powers Act', would have caused a constitutional crisis.
It would have been wrong to try to bypass Congress.
It was vital that the Congressional authorization for war in Iraq not include any provision that would give hostile foreign nations (e.g. France) the ability to veto the war. Thus it was vital that it not require UNSC authorization or NATO approval or participation.
We had to attempt to deal with the UN.
Tony Blair required UN approval (or an "unreasonable veto") for domestic political reasons. In the British system, a decision for war is made by the cabinet, but if Blair had done that without any attempt to gain UN approval it would have led to a party revolt.
It was clear that the UNSC would never actually grant permission for armed invasion. By going to the UN in September, it had become abundantly clear by October that the UN wasn't going to cooperate, so Congress defeated all attempts to include a requirement for UNSC approval in its authorization.
Wrangling with the UN ended up covering the primary period of troop deployment in Kuwait and restraining Saddam from a preemptive attack against us before we were ready. (Not yet known if this was deliberate or fortunate side effect.)
Dealing with the UN required arguing the case on the basis of Iraqi failure to comply with previous UNSC resolutions, and to concentrate on the issue of inspections and WMD disarmament. This was not the real issue for anyone involved.
All negotiations at the UN happened on two levels. Speeches and announcements all talked about Iraq. The real issue was the fact that the French feared the US more than Iraq. It was a keystone of French foreign policy to use all possible means to restrain US military power and diplomatic influence.
After Congress passed an authorization for war without requiring UNSC approval, and after the Republicans won the November election and gained a majority in the Senate while keeping control of the House, European opponents of war were chastened and permitted Res 1441 to pass. It started one "last chance" opportunity for Saddam to cooperate with inspections, and was ambiguous as to whether war would automatically be authorized if the inspections failed. The US claimed it did; the French that it did not.
To no one's surprise, the new inspections were a joke.
After Saddam yet again failed to really cooperate with inspections, the US and UK introduced one final resolution in the UNSC that effectively would have authorized war. Those opposing the US, in particular the French, continued to oppose this. The debate became surreal because the true French position was to oppose the US irrespective of the merits of the situation.
Chirac ultimately overplayed his hand and gave the US and UK the diplomatic opportunity to walk away. Tony Blair had as a practical matter gotten his "unreasonable veto".
Despite the setback of Turkish non-cooperation (due to another French political maneuver) logistical buildup was complete and CENTCOM told Bush that it had sufficient force in place and was ready to go. The attack was launched, and we won.
Results. No battle or war is ever 100% effective in accomplishing the goals set for it, but this one was very good. To review:
The military operation was rapid, efficient and overwhelming.
American losses were very light.
Iraqi civilian losses were also very light, confounding predictions before the war.
As a result of a very successful psyops campaign before the war, large parts of the Iraqi military deserted. Many of those who remained refused outright to fight. Most of the paper strength of the Iraq military never had to be engaged, and the remnants of the Iraq air force never made a single sortie.
Iraq's military was not seen by other Arabs as even having put up a good fight.
We now control the territory of Iraq, and have been applying substantial pressure to Syria, Saudi Arabia and indirectly to Iran. Syria and Saudi Arabia appear to grudgingly accept the new situation. The situation in Iran is very fluid and difficult to predict.
Headlines notwithstanding, in most of Iraq the rebuilding process is actually going moderately well. There have been mistakes and progress has not been as fast as many would like, but most of the resistance has been in a small region of Iraq which is dominated by those groups and tribes who were the top-dogs under Saddam. The armed resistance remains a concern and will continue to be a problem for months, but in the nation as a whole progress has been satisfactory. Most of the people of the nation are glad we're there, and their main fear is that we'll leave too soon, or that the Baathists will somehow regain power and reinstitute their reign of terror.
After the war, the true degree of brutality and barbarism of the Baathist regime there began to be revealed. This helped shift the political discussion internationally, since it became increasingly difficult for anyone to argue retroactively in favor of any policy which would have left Saddam in power and thus let the horror continue.
When Baghdad fell in just a couple of days, with very few American casualties, Arabs elsewhere were totally disillusioned and deflated.
The news reports fed to them during the war had been lies, and had told them that the Americans were being badly hurt and that the Iraqi army was putting up a good fight.
As a result, the rapid fall of Baghdad was like a bucket of ice water in the face; totally unexpected and an even more massive shock.
They are now asking themselves what other lies they've been fed by their governments.
And some are asking themselves "why we Arabs always seem to fail? What is wrong with us?"
Some Arabs are now openly debating the merits of reform.
Anti-American rhetoric is rapidly going out of style in the region. It's no longer fashionable to advocate picking a fight with us.
Irrespective of whether Saddam actually had physical possession of any kind of WMD, it remains the case that he had not abandoned his ambitions to develop such things. Now that he has been deposed, that is no longer really possible, even if he is still alive. He may still have that ambition but he no longer has the means. It would be nice if he were captured or killed, but removing him from power was the primary goal. (Qusay and Uday were found and killed; Saddam may also die very soon.)
With Saddam's defeat, substantial support for Palestinian terrorist groups has been cut off, and it's already beginning to have effects on them.
Stage 3 and beyond: the future
Pacification and nation building in Iraq must continue. This is a gradual process which will go on for at least the next year and probably for several years at a reduced level. I expect us to have at least some military presence in Iraq for the next 30 years.
A new Iraqi army, modest in size but far higher quality compared to the old one, will be trained over the next year and will eventually take responsibility for most internal security.
The process of creating Iraqi self-government got off to the wrong start with the wrong concept (top-down) but is now moving in the right direction (bottom up). Most of the cities and towns in Iraq now have ruling councils, and local elections will become the norm. A national council is in place but has little real power, but in perhaps a year there will be the beginnings of a process to write a new constitution and to hold real elections, after which most power will be turned over to the new government. Then, for a period of a few years, there will be "democracy on training wheels" where some of our troops remain but largely don't interfere unless there is a threat of the government being taken over by radicals.
Iraqi liberal democracy will represent a threat to the autocratic regimes in the region merely by existing, and the US will have to militarily guarantee Iraqi security against threats in particular from Syria and Iran, and to a lesser extent from Saudi Arabia. We'll also have to guarantee Kurdish security against threats from Turkey. This is another reason why there will need to be a significant American military presence in Iraq for years.
There's going to be low level armed resistance in Iraq for years, and that means a ongoing trickle of casualties. This isn't a problem which can be solved in weeks.
Diplomatic pressure will continue on other nations in the region to cut support for terrorist groups and to implement domestic reforms, and that will be far more effective. Also, as Iraq gets back on its feet, the new-found freedom there will serve as both a challenge and an inspiration for others in the region. The "Arab Street" will begin asking their governments why they can't have the same thing.
There is no way to predict whether any more significant military operations will be needed in this multi-decade war to bring about fundamental reform in the Arab/Muslim region. We will plan no new major wars there in the immediate future (the next three years), but invasions of Iran or Syria or even Saudi Arabia are conceivable sometime in the next 20 years if their leaders refuse to cooperate in reforming, or if hostile and activist regimes take power.
Punitive or preventive bombing, especially of Iran's nuclear facilities, are entirely possible.
The shadow war against terrorist group finances and against the cells of those groups will continue, occasionally popping into the public view when there's a high-profile success ? or a high-profile failure.
The chance of new and devastating attacks against the US and UK now appears to be substantially reduced. The risk of attacks against us is not zero; there will be more attempts and some may succeed. However, the terrorists now seem to be operating inside the Arab world itself (except for ongoing Palestinian operations against Israel). That's doubly good, because it's motivating the governments there to help us more than they have been.
We can still lose this war.
If nation building in Iraq fails, we won't succeed in demonstrating that reform can work for Arabs and make them happier and more successful. We will fail to show them that reform is a better choice for them than jihad.
If we permit low level resistance in Iraq to drive us out, the Arab street will once again conclude that we are ultimately cowardly, and will again feel contempt for us. And no nation or group in the region will ever again take the risk of helping us in any future operation there.
If other nations in the region don't implement reforms, their people will continue to be angry and will continue to support terrorism and extremism.
If the other nations in the region don't cut off support for terrorist groups, those groups will continue to have the wherewithal to operate, and may eventually target us.
If we do not bring about general reform before one or another nation in the region successfully develops nuclear weapons, the political situation will become vastly more complicated and we will be in extreme peril. It will become extremely difficult for us to continue to foster reform in the region, and there will be an unacceptably high likelihood that one of our cities will eventually be nuked.
It is therefore critical that we continue to be engaged in the region and continue to work for reform there, doing whatever we must to prevent development of nukes by hostile nations in the region and continuing to work to weaken existing terrorist organizations. We are winning the war but we have not won it. It will take decades to win, just as the Cold War took decades to win. The greatest danger facing us now is that we'll lose heart and give up before we do win.
Updated at 10:13 AM on August 15, 2005 | Email
Comments (0 comments so far.)
Enter Your Comment
Please read the comment policy before commenting
Name: (required)
Email Address: (required)
Website: (if you've got a website)
Your comment: (required)
recieve reply via email
remember me, or forget me
Please be considerate of others. Keep comments relevant. Content deemed inappropriate or offensive may be edited and/or deleted.
You are reading USS Clueless: Strategic Overview, an entry made on November 23, 2005, filed under World. You can be the first to comment on this entry!
Related Entries
News overview
Trance 2002 Overview
A Quick Overview of Buddhism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to top | About | Contact | RSS. Some rights reserved. Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional and CSS. Design by KO
hh, if there are libertarians who suppose that utopia can be achieved, I certainly don't read them. Libertarian theory predicts that regulatory schemes will often be captured by those who are to be regulated, which is why most libertarians are very skeptical of regulation.
Look, self-government is a real bitch, and will inevitably entail a lot of bad outcomes, no matter who is in charge. The libertarian thought I lean favorably towards is Hayekian in nature, in that I tend to think that concentrating power in the hands of people who control prisons and can monopolize violence, and thus compel people to participate in relationships and transactions when they would rather not, very much tends to produce unintended negative effects that outweigh the positive effects that compulsion was designed to produce.
As an example, the Enron debacle, as horrible as it was, at least resulted in Enron being dissolved, because Enron could no longer convince people to voluntarily supply more capital. In contrast, the Bureau of Indian Affairs can go on,and on, and on, decade after horribly corrupt decade, because it can compel the acquisition of more capital. In a similar vein, Archer Daniels Midland does great global damage, on many fronts, with no end in sight, because it has employed Congress to compel taxpayers to supply capital to it.
Rex, that really is an abuse of other people's bandwidth. A link would have sufficed.
Stand and deliver. What are the magical tweaks to our Constitution that will give us the benefits of liberatarian political philosophy? How would we be protected from monopolistic aggrandizement of businesses? How would consumers be protected from every sharp practice profit-seekers can devise? (Would inspection of aircraft be improved after every crash?)
You are now changing the area of your objection.
Your previous objection was that businessmen use the ability of the Congress to regulate interstate commerce to demand favorable treatment for their businesses.
The simple way to prevent that abuse is to remove the ability of the Congress to regulate interstate commerce in any way other than preventing the erection of internal trade barriers or tariffs by the individual states.
You have also objected in this thread to sprawl, farm subsidies, our national monetary policy, and the Iraq occupation.
Nothing can help you with the Iraq occupation other than electing better legislators and a better executive. But limiting the spending of the Congress to matters directly listed in the Constitution, and then tweaking the list slightly, would very neatly get rid of farm subsidies, further expansion of the interstate highway system [I can't help you with what's already there; that's your mess and you just have to live with it now], and the Federal Reserve.
And you will have to give up the benefits of these things along with the harms. There were times when the Federal Reserve has served the interests of the nation well. But 2001 to 2004 was not one of those times.
With regard to protection from monopoly, I would suggest you peruse Ida Tarbell's original work on the history of the Standard Oil Company. For all the "sharp practices" they used, their monopoly would not have been possible if it weren't for plain old simple assault and battery, which they had hired thugs employ against rival pipeline operators and refiners with impunity. So if you want protection from Standard Oil, I recommend enforcement of the laws we have against assault.
So if you want protection from Standard Oil, I recommend enforcement of the laws we have against assault.
Rubbish. Microsoft and IBM did not use strong arm tactics, but without government intervention, they would now have monopoly pricing power. Monopolies can be established without violating any laws, then the customer is at the mercy of the monopolist.
Your "liberal" notions can't survive even the simplest thought experiments and you can point to no nation on Earth where they have been successfully deployed. Like McArdle, you are just a kibbitzer, with no coherent alternatives to propose.
Rubbish. Microsoft and IBM did not use strong arm tactics, but without government intervention, they would now have monopoly pricing power
The statist pseudohistory of Microsoft is crap. You can't really prove what "would now" be the case.
Statists like yourself once claimed that the Big Three automakers needed to be regulated because they functioned oligopolistically as an effective monopoly. How's that theory working out for you now?
Monopolies can be established without violating any laws, then the customer is at the mercy of the monopolist.
False, and false. Since you're big on historical examples, please provide me an example of a monopoly established without state assistance and without breaking run-of-the-mill laws like the law against assault and battery.
I also should specify that, personally, I favor libertarian arrangements because I think that man should be free, and not necessarily because I think he should "compete". So I would not regard the mere existence of a natural monopoly as a definitive rebuttal of the premises of libertarianism, even if you could provide such an example.
Since it seems you like thought experiments, I'll supply you with one. If I was marooned on an island with a group of people that included only one doctor, that doctor would possess a temporarily insuperable natural monopoly in the area of medical care, and I would be "at his mercy" as a consumer of medical care. But that state of affairs would not justify my compelling the doctor to serve me in any way. The question of whether allowing monopolies to exist maximizes utility for consumers would be utterly irrelevant to the morality of my human relationship to the doctor.
Your "liberal" notions can't survive even the simplest thought experiments and you can point to no nation on Earth where they have been successfully deployed.
There was a time when no one could point to a nation on Earth where slavery had successfully been eradicated. That was, of course, irrelevant to discussions of the desirability of eradicating slavery.
I could argue that states have been successful to the extent that they have possessed libertarian features. You could counterargue that states have been successful to the extent that they have possessed well-designed regulatory schemes. The question is too Gordian to ever be satisfactorily resolved. But it is not entirely a question of utility, so I am not discouraged by the absence of perfect historical examples for us to examine.
Nor would there be any convincing reason for a reader or advetiser to pay a lot of money to the NYT in the production of such stories
This is the central fallacy in the argument. No advertiser is paying for Michael Cooper's story on McCain's need to raise money, nor on Edwards' haircut. The front page is free content to readers that is not affected by advertisers much. In fact, the Times would be very disturbed were you to suggest that advertisers influence editorial content on the front page. In the non-news sections, this is not so true. I know for certain of one non-news section that let a market segment know that editorial content would fall if advertising did not rise.
So this really is a question of readers. Nobody has made a convincing case that readers prefer McCain campaign finance stories to stories about the destruction of the constitution. We do also know, for sure, that the Times has killed stories for political purposes, because of Risen's and Lichtblau's experience. These were stories with enough reader interest to be turned into books that sold quite well.
Risen's book is very much the same subject matter as the Yoo memorandum. There's enough reader interest that Lichtblau has a book coming out on the same subject.
There will be no book on McCain's campaign financing plans.
The central argument that's being made here is that media people know which stories command reader interest. The evidence for this is that they run those stories.
It's difficult to know what made the Times think that Americans would be deeply fascinated by a small, complex real estate transaction involving Clinton, but are not deeply interested in illegal presidential behavior involving torture and domestic spying. The administration certainly seemed to think there would be an interest.
Jayackroyd, advertisers pay newspapers in part out of hope that the front page will cause a consumer to purchase the paper, and thus eventually open it to the pages where the ads are. Newspapers don't use up valuable space on the front page with big block letters because printer's union demands it; they do in hopes that the big block letters induces someone to buy the paper, open it up eventually, and see the ads. Advertisers are very much interested in publications which have interesting (to the desired demographic) front pages, even if the front page is devoid of advertisements.
I also should specify that, personally, I favor libertarian arrangements because I think that man should be free, and not necessarily because I think he should "compete". So I would not regard the mere existence of a natural monopoly as a definitive rebuttal of the premises of libertarianism, even if you could provide such an example.
This is just ridiculous doubletalk. You do not offer a coherent philosophy that can be implemented in the real world. Instead you offer a critique of the world that never quite proposes an alternative. There are no libertarian states because unchecked human self-interest does not cohere into a happy society. The result looks more like Somalia on a bad day.
It was the US Government that busted the Trusts, not some high-minded bunch of libertarians. The strong aggrandize their power, and strong market participants are no different from strong generals, politicians, or crime bosses. Libertarians want a world in which everything is controlled by individuals, but society is made up of many complex group structures, and libertarianism has next to nothing to say about how these necessary groups should be constructed or guided.
You can't point to a libertarian country and you can't point to a coherent libertarian governmental model. All you can do is snipe at the wrong things: the remaining restraints on the excesses of the marketplace in world society.
Yes, of course. The advertisers are not interested in the content of the front page. They are interested in the number and demographic makeup of the people who read a paper with a particular front page. So Hermes advertises in the Times and Modell's in the NY Post.
But the advertisers don't care whether the Times leads with McCain campaign finance story or a torture story. Just as the advertisers in Atlantic don't care whether Megan does an Iraqi body count story or a bond calculation primer.
So the point is that the "marketplace" is diffuse.
Moreover, these publications insist that there is no direct influence on their editorial content. So the "market's" effect on what Bill Keller runs is very diffuse. To say that they run one story over another because of market forces is silly. They have their formulas, and the Times just changed in ToC content to become more of a digest form, seeking a younger demographic. But the stories themselves are not determined by the "marketplace." The types of stories, their location on the page and so forth, yes. But Edwards' hair vs Bush's torture regime is not part of that market driven decision making.
jayackroyd, "Edwards hair" and "Yoo memo" are entirely two different types of stories. One doesn't really demand any effort, while the other does, and one really carries with it nothing that will make a reader especially uncomfortable, and the other does. Now, if you seek to advertise a local upscale restaurant that wants to attract 30 year olds without kids (more disposable income), or an upscale spa that is seeking the 35 year old professional female, or a furniture chain seeking young parents, which headline is better for you?
hh, show me the market participant which can order SWAT teams to do their bidding, and erect and fill prisons, if customers refuse to purchase the good or servive, or others refuse to supply operating capital.
hh, show me the market participant which can order SWAT teams to do their bidding, and erect and fill prisons, if customers refuse to purchase the good or servive, or others refuse to supply operating capital.
In the old days the Pinkertons were used to provide muscle for the robber barons. Today it is Blackwater or one of the other mercenary outfits. In Iraq, Blackwater literally gets away with murder.
Your internet service is provided by either a telco or a cable TV operator. If they raise their rates in tandem, you have no recourse but to pay. Without government antitrust policy we would have just one commercial Internet provider. There is no natural market deterrent to the emergence of dominant, then monopolistic firms. Thus libertarians have no answer to a fundamental flaw in their societal model: the inability of markets to self-regulate.
You are right, Will. I just get so tired of the usual natterers claiming all sorts of BS as to why we are really in Iraq and that the developments since then are totally unexpected. I guess I'll just have to learn how to insert a live link into the comments section.
Yes, HH, in the past some corporations did have private armies which they employed against people they didn't like. A thoroughly bad idea, which is why it is good that you rightly said it happened in the old days. Yes, the government alows firms like Blackwater to operate in Iraq, which I tend to think is a bad idea as well. That doesn't have a lot to do with the power to imprison or kill evey single U.S. citizen, fopr failure to send capital to Archer Daniels Midland, or the Medicare system. Let me know when Blackwater can dun citizens at will for the capital they need.
I actually have four internet service providers to choose from,but in any case you argument boils down to "Libertarian theory can't perfect the world!". Thank you for your contribution. Perhaps next you can next inform us of that the fundamental flaw of statist's societal model, the inability of any state to avoid acting tyrannically towards at least some of it's citizens.
It probably starts with them being historically illiterate, thinking that, e.g., Standard Oil was a "monopoly" that was "broken up" by the government.
The "natural market deterrent to the emergence of monopolistic firms" is called competition. Unless companies can get governments to erect regulatory barriers to competition, there is no way for a monopoly to sustain itself. It has never happened. Not IBM, not Microsoft, not Standard Oil. The only monopolies that have ever thrived are government ones.
It's remarkable how little libertarians know about economics. While monopolies are rare, oligopolies are not. A standard part of an industrial organization course discusses the tendency of industries to become concentrated, with most of the market share held by 4 firms or fewer. These oligopolies are resistant to competition, and often silently collude to fix prices at levels above their marginal costs. Good examples are the breakfast cereal and soft drink industries.
Adam Smith wrote about this at some length--that the businesses abhor competition and seek to create as concentrated a position as possible. It's true that the best way to obtain a monopoly is through government intervention, as with patent and copyright law. But free market competition rapidly leads to concentration and pricing that is not consistent with the perfect competition models in the first part of the theory of the firm section of economics textbooks.
Libertarians also have always weirded me out, because they profess belief in both capitalism and a minimally intrusive government. These are incompatible objectives. Capitalism requires collective ownership of real estate, and other massive interventions, in order to exist.
>I think the war also hasn't been good for us,
>though I'm less concerned about that.
Given your belief in American heart-purity, goodness, and capacity as a force for good in the world (much of which I share but with massive qualifications), I'm surprised that you don't point out the greatest geopolitical result of Iraq and its associated policies:
George Bush and his muscular militarists have presided over the greatest decline in American power at least in living memory--quite possibly in all of history.
If true power is the ability to convince your friends and coerce your enemies (and on occasion, vice versa), we have never seen such a nadir.
What does that say for America's future ability to effect positive change in the world?
Steve
http://trueconservative.typepad.com
Apparently you've never been in a supermarket, or you'd have noticed something called "store brand."
Sure have. Noticed their product placement, too. Noticed that the soft drink refrigerators are supplied by the soft drink vendors, and the people who stock those coolers enforce product placement.
Also am aware that placement in store of product is paid for, and that these are things that people who know something about economics are aware of--that oligopolies create something called "barriers to entry" that are discussed in Industrial Organization courses in Economics Departments.
As I said, it is remarkable how little relationship there is between libertarianism and economic theory.