Balkinization: The Bush Presidency and the Constitution

Comments:

Professor Griffin:

It is worth bearing in mind that whatever our opinions of the war initiated by the September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, all three branches of the federal government have repeatedly reaffirmed or at least assumed that the United States is still in a state of war. One of the key questions facing the next Congress and especially the next president, is whether they are going to continue the war, that is, commit themselves to an indefinite war against a largely unknown enemy.

Your post implies that the war between Islamic fascism and the United States began when Congress passed the AUMF against al Qaeda and its allies. In fact, the Islamic fascists had been warring against the United States and murdering our citizens with impunity for roughly a decade before the much belated AUMF.

Likewise, this war will not end if we return to the status quo ante the AUMF and again pretend we are not at war with Islamic fascism. The enemy continues to war against us.

The comparison between the Cold War against communism and the current war against Islamic fascism is actually very apt on a number of levels.

While we remained on the defensive or engaged in detente with the communists during the Cold War, the enemy continued to war against us indefinitely.

The Cold War only ended when we went on the offensive in the 80s with the goal of tossing communism on the "ash heap of history."

The same realities apply today.

So long as we remain passive and pretend the enemy no longer exists, the Islamic fascists will continue to war against us indefinitely. The enemy is in this for the long haul even if we are not.

We will only end this war when we go on the sustained offensive with the intent of eliminating Islamic fascism.

We are in the midst of just such an offensive since the enactment of the AUMF and, as a result, the enemy has been unable to attack our people outside of the Middle East war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do we now lose heart in the midst of this victory and return to the passivity which led to 9/11?

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:53 PM

It is a Bush talking point that the terrorist hate our freedom and are therefor attacking us. Al Qeada wants the US to stop meddling in Saudia Arabia and the rest of the arab world. It wants the US to stop funding (secular) dictators. They want to bring the Caliphat back.

This kinda screws up this axiom for the War on Terror of us against them. It's them against them (Arab's inter se) not us against them. True 9/11 and Madrid were unsubtle wakeup calls, but not proof of a Cold War situtation where the US and the USSR where fighting each other ideologies. Bush is fighting a straw man: an enemy that does not exist.

And before you beg the question: yes, I want to have Saddam's babies, too....

# posted by

Anne : 3:34 AM

Anne:

I commend the excellent National Geographic miniseries "Inside 9/11" for your viewing. I think it will be an eye opener for you.

http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/
channel/inside911/

Unlike nearly all the other media reports on this subject, National Geographic actually spent a reasonable period of time listening to what the enemy was saying for years prior to 9/11 with actual audio clips with subtitles.

Forget about Mr. Bush and listen to what the enemy was saying while Mr. Clinton was in office.

The speeches are chilling and reminiscent of Hitler and Goebbels. The Islamic fascists are quite open about their goals. The enemy continuously rails about the pernicious effects of Western culture. They consider the West to be infidels who either need to be killed or converted by the sword. If memory serves correctly, bin Laden said that the United State's blood debt to the Muslims would not be settled until a million of our people die. The enemy's goal is to create a Caliphate which will first cover the Middle East, then Europe and then the World.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:51 AM

Bart Depalma:"Your post implies that the war between Islamic fascism and the United States began when Congress passed the AUMF against al Qaeda and its allies. In fact, the Islamic fascists had been warring against the United States and murdering our citizens with impunity for roughly a decade before the much belated AUMF."

No, actually the part of his post you referenced was referring to the change in US posture signaled by the AUMF.

"We will only end this war when we go on the sustained offensive with the intent of eliminating Islamic fascism."
...
"The comparison between the Cold War against communism and the current war against Islamic fascism is actually very apt on a number of levels."

To assume that the tact which brought about the end of the cold war will somehow bring us to a successful end in the struggle against Islamic fascism ignores the basic differences between the two conflicts. The cold war and the struggle against Islamic extremists are comparable only in that neither is an open war between nation states. And, to attribute the end of the cold war to an offensive in the 80's ignores history and pretty much sweeps aside the broader nature of the conflict and boils it down to a victory for conservatism. That's fairly narrow and very inaccurate. If we had never rebuilt Europe and prospered ourselves as a real democracy, the cold war would have lasted much longer, although the intractable Soviet habit for out-of-control military spending would have eventually bankrupted them, with or without Ronald Reagan. We didn't win because of what we did as much as they lost because of what they did - as you said - warred with us 'indefinitely' while 'we remained on the defensive or engaged in detente'.

Even if we were able to 'defeat' 'Islamic fascism', another form of fascism would quickly rise to take its place. You propose a governmental global struggle against the darker elements of human nature itself, namely fascism. You also seem to be proposing a brute-force fight against a thing with no substance, borders, and barely any organized leadership. It is a thing whose roots come from the destitution of poverty, ignorance, and corruption, among other things, but not from Islam. The more ignorant force we bring to bear, the larger and more pervasive such an opponent will seem to become. That's like trying to win a head-butting contest with a demon - all you get is a broken mirror.

# posted by

John : 11:09 AM

If we're going to swap literature on terrorists all provide you with a nice reading list later on the day that contradict everything you say.

# posted by

Anne : 12:09 PM

adam said...

Bart, Your analysis of cold war history lacks credibility. We did not "remain on the defensive" or seek to contain communism though detente. (See Vietnam).

Let me start by clarifying that I do not think that détente and containment are the same thing. Détente was a series of negotiations with the Soviet Empire while containment was a much broader defensive strategy of preventing further countries from falling to communism.

As to your second point, both the wars in Vietnam and Korea were defensive actions to keep the communists from conquering South Korea and South Vietnam. Truman and Johnson refused to carry the wars against the Chinese and Soviet sponsors of North Korea and North Vietnam. LBJ refused to even take the ground war into North Vietnam as MacArthur had done in North Korea.

And we did not "go on the offensive" against the Soviet Union in any military sense in the 1980s. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the mujahideen successfully resisted (with our stinger missiles), and that was the denoument of the evil empire.

We went on the offensive against the Soviet Empire in the 80s in the war of ideas, economics, diplomacy and the military with the intent to topple the communists. To get a good outline of the multi front actions in which we engaged, read Peter Schweizer's books Victory and Reagan's War.

As to the military front, the Reagan Doctrine called for rebuilding the military and for supporting rebel groups around the world to topple Soviet satellite countries supplied by the Soviets with the intent of draining the Soviet economy when they tried to keep up. In Afghanistan, this strategy allowed the rebels to engage the Red Army directly and cause them to retreat.

But that isn't analogous to the kind of direct, military offensive action that you seem to recommend against the "Islamic fascists."

Offensive action can occur on many fronts, not just military.

The long term key to defeating Islamic fascism, as it was in defeating 20th century fascism and communism, is to provide people with the alternative of democracy and self rule. You can promote this through the war of ideas, through economic intervention, through diplomacy and, yes, through military liberation.

Fascism thrives in failed societies where the people feel helpless to control their own destinies. Democracy is the cure.

Furthermore, democratic countries do not attack one another.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:15 PM

And for the record: I think we should listen to what the terrorists are saying and if possible negotiate. The whole point of terrorism is to get accross a polital point. You bury your head in the sand (or your own a**) by saying that we shouldn't believe what terrorists are saying, because they are terrorist, but that approach will get us more of what Cheney brought us: "we shouldn't listen to the terrorists, but they clearly want the democrats to win!"

# posted by

Anne : 12:19 PM

bitswapper said...

And, to attribute the end of the cold war to an offensive in the 80's ignores history and pretty much sweeps aside the broader nature of the conflict and boils it down to a victory for conservatism.

Actually, I would compare the Reagan Doctrine to FDR's liberation of the world from the Nazis in WWII. "Conservative" foreign policy is more often identified with the "realism" school championed by Kissinger and now Baker, whose goal is maintaining balances of power, not in defeating the enemy.

If we had never rebuilt Europe and prospered ourselves as a real democracy, the cold war would have lasted much longer

There is nothing in the Reagan Doctrine which precludes reinforcing allies against the enemy. However, the duration of the Cold War after the Marshall Plan indicates that defensive reinforcement is insufficient to win.

although the intractable Soviet habit for out-of-control military spending would have eventually bankrupted them, with or without Ronald Reagan.

The Soviet system and its massive military expenditures had lasted and expanded for 60 years before Reagan. The Soviets were indeed overextended by the 80s. However, that overextension needed to be exploited through affirmative action before the Soviets corrected their course themselves.

Even if we were able to 'defeat' 'Islamic fascism', another form of fascism would quickly rise to take its place.

That is why democratization must be a key part of any strategy to deal with this threat for the reasons I gave above.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:29 PM

Anne said...

And for the record: I think we should listen to what the terrorists are saying and if possible negotiate.

Negotiations only succeed when compromise accepting part of the other parties demands is acceptable to you.

Which one of the goals of the Islamic Fascists are you willing to accept in negotiations? Your murder? Converting to Islam? Living under a Caliphate which treats women like chattel?

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:35 PM

Stop meddling in the Arab world? Stop funding dicators that are subjecting Arab people while putting up a smile and saying we are spreading democracy?

I'd say the problem would be that there is no one to talk to, because there is no such thing as "the terrorists". There is no war on terror, because terror is a tactic not an army. But we can take the words of Bin Laden serious when he says that he wants the US to get out of Saudi Arabia (which is not to say that the US should do what he says) instead of claiming that everything he says must be a lie because he says so.

If you want to you can go and talk to Hezbollah, Iran or Syria. They have no interest whatsoever to chop down my head.

# posted by

Anne : 12:46 PM

Anne,

Wow, I'm floored? Please explain what compromises you think would be acceptable by both Al Qaeda and ourselves, so we can all see the depths of your delusion.

Your comments are revealing. It really is amazing that people like yourself can believe negotiation and compromise is possible with terrorists of the Al Qaeda sort.

You say, "Stop meddling in the Arab world? Stop funding dicators that are subjecting Arab people while putting up a smile and saying we are spreading democracy?"

You should read Lawrence Wright's "Looming Tower" (sorry can't get the italics to work) that was mentioned previously on this blog. At the least it will disabuse you of your notion that any practical sort of compromise is possible. Unless, you consider all of the Middle East, Northern Africa, large parts of Europe subject to an Islamic Caliphate as a "reasonable compromise."

That is what "listening" to the terrorists will tell you.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 1:07 PM

Bart Depalma:'However, that overextension needed to be exploited through affirmative action before the Soviets corrected their course themselves.'

This assumes the Soviets would have reigned in their military spending. They clearly would not have as long as the USA presented any kind of threat. Reagan only accelerated the inevitable.

That is why democratization must be a key part of any strategy to deal with this threat for the reasons I gave above.

Democracy is not an immunization against fascism.

# posted by

John : 1:10 PM

Bart:

The Islamic fascists are quite open about their goals. The enemy continuously rails about the pernicious effects of Western culture. They consider the West to be infidels who either need to be killed or converted by the sword. If memory serves correctly, bin Laden said that the United State's blood debt to the Muslims would not be settled until a million of our people die. The enemy's goal is to create a Caliphate which will first cover the Middle East, then Europe and then the World.

This is a constant theme of Bush supporters. In most I would dismiss it as ignorance but you, as a soldier, should know better. While it is important to understand the enemy's intentions, it is also important to understand their objective capability.

The Soviet Union had nuclear missiles sufficient to destroy our cities. They had an army large enough to control their own empire, to guard their borders, to impose their will on Eastern Europe, and to require a defensive alliance by Western Europe. Their only attempt to use their army beyond these limits, in Afghanistan, proved disasterous.

Our Islamic enemies are considerably less powerful. You yourself have said that in Iraq the Islamist insurgents have not managed to conquer or rule any territory. How, then, can they possibly conquer the entire Middle East, let alone the world? This is no more than a deranged fantasy on their part.

Obviously they can hurt us; 9/11 proved that. Their attacks before 9/11 were all small-scale, and the combined casualties they inflicted in the decade before 9/11 stopped well short of what we have suffered in Iraq. And certainly none of this remotely approaches what we would have suffered from even a single Soviet missile strike.

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 1:11 PM

Anne,

Further point. Seriously, can you be so short sighted?

Of course, Bin Laden wants the US out of Saudia Arabia. Part of it is because we "infidels" spoil their sacred lands just by the fact that we are on the same land mass as their holy sites according to Bin Laden.

The second reason is that our support of relatively moderate Arab regimes is what prevents the Bin Laden's of the world from creating their Islamic Caliphate.

So, sure, let's listen to Bin Laden. Let's help him create the very apparatus he seeks to create to rule over the Middle East, if not the world.

Furthermore, Lawrence Wright helpfully explains that this "negotiation" you seek is exactly what will NOT happen. They won't negotiate. Their goals, one of which I explained, AREN'T negotiable. Either we take the terms or they continue their war against us. Some "listening" and some "negotiating."

Liberals, such as yourself, complain that we aren't listening. We listen all to well. We hear exactly what Bin Laden says his ultimate goals are and we take him seriously. That's is exactly the reason why we find your position so incredibly unserious/dangerous.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 1:15 PM

Bart,

I should also add that I do not believe that Reagan's approach to the Cold War differed so dramatically from his predecessors'. Contrary to what you sometimes imply, he negotiated with them no less than any other president. John Foster Dulles also went on the offensive in the war of ideas, denounced containment and called for "rollback." The Soviet Union did not crumble at mere words.

Nor did the act of supporting rebel groups against Soviet allies begin with Ronald Reagan. The Nixon administration began support for UNITA in Angola and RENAMO in Mozambique. The Carter administration, to our eternal shame, supported the Khmer Rouge in its resistence to Vietnam. He also began support for the Afghan rebels, although Reagan certainly expanded on it. The only assistance to rebels Reagan actually initiated was to the Contras in Nicaragua.

And, in fact, following WWII we supported rebels within the Soviet Union itself, in the Baltics and the Ukraine, who were not defeated until the mid-50's. Surely that constituted "going on the offensive." To say that Reagan's confrontation with the Soviet Union were far more aggressive than supporting rebels within the Soviet Union itself is absurd. The Soviet Union died of imperial overreach. It just took time.

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 1:24 PM

enlightened layperson,

Let's talk about their capacity. Let's go country by country.

Pakistan is one bullet or car bomb away from ceding control to the Islamic fundamentalists. The ISI (the Pakistani secret police) is run through with radical Islamists. It is not only possible, but unforunately, fairly likely that Pakistan may in the future be ruled by Islamic radicals.

Iran: Already ruled by Islamic radicals. There are some democract/Western undercurrents but is by no means clear they will prevail.

Iraq: Toss Up (too long of a discussion and our positions on it are known to each other).

Saudia Arabia: Relatively moderate. Seem to have a tacit understanding with the radicals (they won't attack the Saudi royal family in exchange for support of the madrassas, etc.), but this has been faltering in recent years. Fortunately, the large size of the royal family prevent one simple assasination attempt from fundamentally changing the government, but the Islamic radicals have been making headway.

Yemen (all): Mixed bag. Okay government from our perspective but they do have lots of unruly Islamic terrorist supporting tribes to deal with.

UAE: Good

Bahrain: Good

Syria: Already ruled by Sunni hardliner. Though he may not be supportive of Bin Laden types beyond their usefulness in expanding his influence.

Lebabanon: Mixed Bag. Hezbollah gaining ascendancy.

Palestininan Territories: rule by terrorists.

Egypt: Nominally moderate government, but the radicals keep winning in elections and have a reasonable chance of being able to take power in the future -- especially if a regional war or other event provides a spark.

Here's your problem in understanding their capacity. The Islamists already control several powerful countries in the Middle East and very close to control in several others. They could either slowly gain more control over time or some event or war could provide a spark propelling them into power. (This isn't assured, but very possible.).

Furthermore, if they did control over a few more countries this allows them much greater leverage of the final resisting countries.

Also, they don't need a large army per se. They have oil. Oil is a weapon that can destroy the West without a shot being fired.

Additionally, they don't need an army to control territory or the like. If Pakistan falls, or Iran continues on its path -- they have nukes. THey have no need for a military that can stand toe to toe with the US.

There is your "capacity" for you.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 1:32 PM

Bart writes: "Fascism thrives in failed societies where the people feel helpless to control their own destinies. Democracy is the cure."

Perhaps you mean a strong democracy, one where people's rights aren't abandoned for sake of security. Such a democracy has a chance at keeping fascism in check, but its no cure. Take away people's rights, and fascism can get a foothold to spread.

Bart also writes: "Furthermore, democratic countries do not attack one another."

Yes they do. Also, all the things you claim will address the problem of terrorism imply the establishment of some kind of utopia, where every nation is a democracy that meets your definition of an what an acceptable democracy is. This unlikely ever to happen.

# posted by

John : 2:26 PM

Anne writes:And for the record: I think we should listen to what the terrorists are saying and if possible negotiate. The whole point of terrorism is to get accross a polital point.

I can't think of an instance where negotiating with terrorists has ever resulted in anything positive. They just come away from it knowing that they're always a kidnapping or bombing away from getting what they want. I also don't think terrorists do what they just to make a benign point - they want violence. It doesn't make sense to deal with them on a strictly political basis.

# posted by

John : 2:35 PM

Who is saying that we need to compromise with Al Qaeda? You are not reading my rant. You should start by distinguishing that there is no such thing as "the terrorists". There are different groups of people.

I don't see a possibility to negotiate with Al Qaeda, because as I said there is no one to negotiate with. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't listnen to what they want to achieve. Bush is intentionally misstating the goals of Al Qaeda to promote his good versus evil approach.

I don't care one bit for a Caliphate, but that won't happen until hell freezes over. But that won't happen just because a small splinter group called Al Qaeda wants it to happen. In order for that to happen there would need to be wide spread support for the Caliphate throughout the Arab world. And in that case, the U.S. won't be able to stop it.

Ironically, the U.S. is making for a Caliphate more likely at the moment by supporting corrupt dictators. The need to be free is and will no be associated with a democracy because the Big Democracy the US is supporting corrupt dictators to advance its goals. If the US continues to discredit itself in the Arab world the Arabs will turn to the other power able to get rid of the corruption. Look what happened in Israel. The palestians got so fed up with democracy that they voted for Hamas.

I am though saying that we should stop this "war on terror" and should start focusing on the objectives. Maybe the US could start taking its own promise to the Arab world serious and accept the consequence that maybe the new government wouldn't like the US either, but would provide stability.

# posted by

Anne : 2:51 PM

Humble Law Student:

First, let me apologize for the comment, "You yourself have said that in Iraq the Islamist insurgents have not managed to conquer or rule any territory." That was meant more to catch Bart in a contradiction than to contribute to serious discussion.

Second, Syria is not controlled by Sunni hardliners. It is controlled by secular Baathists belonging to the tiny, heretical Alawite sect. Sunni hardliners are the main challengers to the current regime. The Syrian government is, however, exceptionally nasty and repressive and a former Soviet ally, so we regard it as an enemy.

I will concede that, although currently Islamicists control only Iran and are near taking control only in Iraq, they are a threat in a number of Mideastern countries. Furthermore, like Communists, they are in ideological danger because of their ability to attract adherents. However, unlike Communists, Islamicists can attract adherents only among Muslims, so their range and scope as an ideological danger is much less than Communism's. Islamicism shares the same weakness as Communism -- it cannot create a decent society. Like Communism, I believe it will lose its appeal the more people actually see it in action.

I do share your concern about Pakistan. Pakistan has the Islamic Bomb, is infiltrated with radicals, and for a long time was the Taliban's only ally. Even now, the Pakistani government is turning a blind eye on Taliban and Al-Qaeda bases in their territory. And, as you say, the Islamic radicals do not hold power in Pakistan now, but could easily seize power. I have long believed that Pakistan is the real fulcrum in the current struggle, and our policy should revolve around how to deal with Pakistan. We are not currently giving this anything like the priority it deserves.

So yes, I agree that radical Islam is a threat. It can seize control in at least some Mideastern countries, and stir up trouble in others. It can hurt us physically with terrorism, or economically with an oil boycott (although I consider that unlikely, since it will hurt the oil producers a good deal more). And if it seizes power in Pakistan, that will be cause for alarm.

But my point remains that its chance of conquering and subjugating us are nil. To control and impose a regime on another country does require a powerful army, as we are learning to our cost in Iraq. If our mighty army cannot impose its will in a small country like Iraq, how can much-outnumbered Islamicists impose a theocratic caliphate on the entire world?

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 2:52 PM

I should add, because apparantly it is not clear, that I don't see a problem with fighting "the terrorists" at the same time as trying to find out what they are aiming for.

I am al for creating a IV Geneva Convention applicable to terrorists (however won't happen, because just go and define a terrorist without including Bill O'Reilly and the likes) so the Western world will make abundantly clear that force can and will be used against anyone employing terrorism.

I am not saying we should lay them down on a sofa and pamper them, but I am saying that you go to war with the enemy you have, not the enemy you want. You cannot "beat" terrorism if you fail to understand what it is.

Tell me how are you going to beat terror in an ideological struggle if you do not get their ideology?

# posted by

Anne : 3:04 PM

@hls: and now on to your sollution: how are you proposing on going about eradicating terrorism all over the world (as Bush seems to achieve)?

For Bush the ETA, Hamas, the PKK, the IRA etc. are al the same, because terror is an ideology, not a tactic. So killing all of them is not an option...

# posted by

Anne : 3:11 PM

@hls: your list is nice, but it doesn't reflect the fact that Iran would never be part of a caliphate because they are Shi'ite controlled. That's why they hate Al Qaeda's guts. Or take the Turks: they insist that they are not even Arabs.

The Islamic world is just to divided to ever come to a caliphate without all of them just miracously agreeing on the Caliphate.

# posted by

Anne : 3:26 PM

Enlughtened Layperson,

We are talking past each other a bit. I fully recognize that the Islamists could never land an invasion force on the US and take control over our country. But, none of us are arguing that (at least i'm not and I don't think Bart is). So, your comments to that effect are beside the point.

Our point is that the Islamists can make our lives a living hell, if not snuff out our lives, with far, far less than a full invading army.

Oil, nukes, mass terrorism, and other WMDS all fit the bill.

The Islamists have a reasonable chance of control over the Middle East. Only a few more nations needs to fall under their sway for them to have a real chance. And as I pointed out, there are several nations that could fit this bill.

While a Caliphate over the entire world is obviously far beyond their current or likely future capacity, a Caliphate over the current Middle East and parts of North Africa is not. And this is more than sufficient for them to wreck havoc across the world with their new found power in their fanatical pursuit of a world Caliphate.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 3:30 PM

Anne said...

Stop meddling in the Arab world? Stop funding dicators that are subjecting Arab people while putting up a smile and saying we are spreading democracy?

This reminds me of what a certain British PM said about Hitler after Munich:

Herr Hitler himself confirmed this account of the conversation in the speech which he made at the Sportpalast in Berlin, when he said: "This is the last territorial claim which I have to make in Europe." And a little later in the same speech he said: "I have assured Mr Chamberlain, and I emphasise it now, that when this problem is solved Germany has no more territorial problems in Europe." And he added: "I shall not be interested in the Czech State any more, and I can guarantee it. We don't want any Czechs any more."

http://www.johndclare.net/
RoadtoWWII5_Chamberlainspeech.htm

However, like Hitler, the Islamic fascists' goals are far greater than barring the West from the Middle East.

I'd say the problem would be that there is no one to talk to, because there is no such thing as "the terrorists".

I'll admit that there are far fewer enemy commanders to speak with now than there were before 9/11. However, the surviving enemy commanders have been well identified in the news media. Indeed, they have repeatedly suggested negotiations since we decimated their ranks.

...instead of claiming that everything he says must be a lie because he says so.

Actually, bin Laden has been very forthright about his goals and methods. We just choose not to believe that he wants to murder and subjugate us.

Who is saying that we need to compromise with Al Qaeda?

What exactly would be the purpose of negotiations then? To dictate our surrender?

I don't see a possibility to negotiate with Al Qaeda, because as I said there is no one to negotiate with.

Who were you intending to negotiate with in this previous post?

And for the record: I think we should listen to what the terrorists are saying and if possible negotiate.

Bush is intentionally misstating the goals of Al Qaeda to promote his good versus evil approach.

Which enemy goals has Mr. Bush misstated?

I don't care one bit for a Caliphate, but that won't happen until hell freezes over.

That is not the point. The problem is how many of our people does the enemy murder or maim attempting to reach that goal?

Ironically, the U.S. is making for a Caliphate more likely at the moment by supporting corrupt dictators.

Routing out the worst of the lot and setting up democracies next to the rest is hardly supporting corrupt dictators.

The need to be free is and will not be associated with a democracy because the Big Democracy the US is supporting corrupt dictators to advance its goals...Look what happened in Israel. The palestians got so fed up with democracy that they voted for Hamas.

What? The Palestinians never had a democracy before the last election. The Fatah terrorist gang which Hamas defeated was being ostracized by the Bush Administration at the time, so US support could not be the reason for the Hamas victory. Hamas was elected because they kill Israelis more fervently than did Fatah.

Maybe the US could start taking its own promise to the Arab world serious and accept the consequence that maybe the new government wouldn't like the US either, but would provide stability.

Why exactly would we want to recognize a gain of murderers like Hamas? Hitler was elected initially and sure as hell provided stability in Germany. Do you also suggest that we should have accepted the Nazi government?

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:31 PM

The goal of some pan-Arabic confederacy -- whether Nasser's or bin Laden's -- strikes me more as a rhetorical tactic than an actual political goal. It's much like "panhellenism" was to the Greeks of the 4th C b.c.e., the Crusades to the Middle Ages, or the GWOT today: a "motherhood" issue intended to limit domestic political discourse rather than a program with any serious chance of achievement.

It may happen that some unification of the Arab world occurs. I doubt it, given the substantial, long-standing internal divisions, though no one can ever predict these things.

If it were to happen, would the consequences be harmful to us? I don't see how. There'd likely be greater political stability to the region; better yet, there'd be a real target for us if terrorism continued. As el pointed out, there's no chance that such a confederacy could, even in the short term, obtain enough military power to pose any existential threat to us. As for oil, the solution there -- conversion to alternate energy sources -- is going to phase in over the next 50 years. Nor could oil be used as an economic weapon, since that would deprive them of the income needed to undertake a military build-up.

IMO, these societies are highly dysfunctional (as el also noted). We'd be far better off ignoring them whenever possible and strengthening our own economy and society.

# posted by

Mark Field : 3:35 PM

Enlightened Layperson said...

Bart: This is a constant theme of Bush supporters. In most I would dismiss it as ignorance but you, as a soldier, should know better. While it is important to understand the enemy's intentions, it is also important to understand their objective capability.

The Soviet Union had nuclear missiles sufficient to destroy our cities. They had an army large enough to control their own empire, to guard their borders, to impose their will on Eastern Europe, and to require a defensive alliance by Western Europe.

It is correct that the Islamic fascists do not possess and are not likely to possess the conventional military power to conquer us.

However, I fear al Qaeda in possession of a single nuclear warhead far more than I feared the several thousand Soviet warheads. The Soviets were checked by our nuclear arsenal and were not led by a death cult which glories in suicide murder. In contrast, al Qaeda is not subject to the MAD doctrine because it has no nation state and we are not likely to destroy any cities where al Qaeda might be hiding in retaliation. Nor is the enemy personally deterred by the thought of dying in a US retaliation.

al Qaeda can strike to a lesser, but still significant effect, with biological and chemical weapons.

We are fighting an asymmetrical war with potential WMD.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:41 PM

Godwin. You are still trying to get me to say that we must surrender to Al Qaeda. Once again, unlike you, I differentiate between "terrorists". Iran is not in bed with Al Qaeda, nor are the sunni and Shi'ite insurgents in Iraq.

What I am saying is that "the terrorists" as a group won't go away, because they are not a group. The individuals of the group should be listned to and might be negotiated with exactly because they are not a group.

# posted by

Anne : 4:20 PM

"the idea that history is only written in the distant future when we are all safely dead."

To be fair to them, I doubt they literally thought that no history is written except in the distant future. They probably thought that no dispassionate, objective history is written in the heat of the moment.

Which is pretty close to the truth.

# posted by

Brett : 4:39 PM

Bart:

It is correct that the Islamic fascists do not possess and are not likely to possess the conventional military power to conquer us.

Glad that you acknowledge this. Than can we please drop the absurd ranting about their "goal" being to establish a world-wide caliphate that has no chance of actually happening and focus more on the danger that we realistically face.

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 5:11 PM

Enlightened Layperson,

In your response to Bart, you completely miss the point. The issue isn't "whether" the Islamists can establish a worldwide Caliphate.

The issue is what must be done (what will be the losses) in opposing their attempt at creating a worldwide caliphate -- right now, we are suffering the occasional terrorist attack at home and abroad.

Look at WW2. Japan attempted to created a Pacific Co-Prosperity Sphere (read Japanese empire in the Pacific). The fact that they didn't have a good chance/couldn't isn't the point. The point is that it took a war and thousands of lives to prevent them.

This fundamental distinction is the key point your are missing.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 5:58 PM

anne,

You are correct to note that any attempt at creating a Middle East Caliphate would have to deal with the Sunni/Shiite split. That is one powerful factor in our favor.

That said, I wouldn't put it past them to unite against a common enemy -- the US.

What the US may be forced to do in the future may be throwback tactics from the Cold War. Support one faction against another and in exchange secure promises that they won't be too hostile to our interests. Of course, there are many problems concurrent with such a strategy. The consequences of which we are still reaping today. But, they are likely preferable to a united Shiite/Sunni alliance.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 6:02 PM

shag,

I just deal with the truth. Any disagreement with my position by others is only evidence of their bias and/or partisanship. ;)

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 6:04 PM

Sorry, HLS, but I disagree. What the enemy is realistically capable of doing necessarily influences what I am willing to do, and what losses I am willing to accept, in order to stop them.

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 6:25 PM

@humblelawstudent: partisanship is highly overrated. I said it before and I'll say it again: I appreciate that you are actually try to have an honest conversation.

Glad you acknowledge that part of the mess the US is in, is exactly because it decided to support factions and play faction against each other. The costs are simply too high too play such games: in the end they always come out and bite you in the ass.

If I can now only get you to stop whining about "the terrorists" and start differentiating...

# posted by

Anne : 6:25 PM

@enlightened layperson: I sense a frustation that our adversaries in this discussion are trying to have the cake and eating it. They started out saying that the Caliphate is a catastophe waiting to happen and now they agree that it's a pipedream but the longing for this pipedream is a catestrophe waiting to happen.

@hls: not only the sunni/shi'i split, but also the moderate/extremist, atheist/believer splits and so on and so on. You are pretending that the Islamic world is one big homogenous mass, while in fact there is not one Arab country that isn't hetrogenous.

# posted by

Anne : 6:29 PM

Anne said...

Once again, unlike you, I differentiate between "terrorists". Iran is not in bed with Al Qaeda, nor are the sunni and Shi'ite insurgents in Iraq.

You may want to read this NY Sun article:

http://www.nysun.com/article/46032

When the US and Iraqi military captured the Iranians in a raid on a Shia militia, we found a treasure trove of very interesting documents showing that Iran is supporting not only the Shia militias, but also al Qaeda in Iraq and its allied Sunni terror groups in order to create a civil war to weaken Iraq and drive us out.

Additionally, we have known for a long time that Iran allowed al Qaeda fighters to escape our forces in Afghanistan and allow them to love to Iraq and other countries.

What I am saying is that "the terrorists" as a group won't go away, because they are not a group.

Anne, you seriously need to do some reading about the enemy. al Qaeda was a world wide alliance of jihadist terror groups. It was aligned with yet more groups. A variety of states supported, sheltered and cooperated with al Qaeda.

This enemy may not be a nation state, but that does not mean that they are not organized or unified.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:36 PM

"Bart" DePalma says:

Likewise, this war will not end if we return to the status quo ante the AUMF and again pretend we are not at war with Islamic fascism.....

"Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His banners go!

At the sign of triumph Satan’s host doth flee;
On then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell’s foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
Brothers lift your voices, loud your anthems raise....."

The comparison between the Cold War against communism and the current war against Islamic fascism is actually very apt on a number of levels.

Wow. For once, "Bart" gets it right. Demagoguery needs its 'Satans'. And the RW lives by fear (see John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience" for a more detailed treatment of this).

I remember the bus ads: "Stand Up And Be Counted In The Fight Against Communism". Fear and paranoia. Blacklists and lives ruined. Commies in the toothpaste and under the bed. But we didn't prevail by how strong and militaristic we were, but rather by how free and prosperous we were. We had "detente", and then we got "glasnost" and "perestroika" in return. The Soviet Union fell bloodleesly, and now the Chinese are beating us ... but at our own game while we rack up trillions of dollars in debt, much of it to the Chinese, trying (and succeeding) in being the Arnold Schwarzenegger of nations....

Yes, "Bart" finally (and unintentionally) got one thing right here, folks.

"Bart", having gotten his keister pasted (once again) for his misstatements of cases and law a couple threads back, is going to go back to ignoring me though ("Is this wha you call manhod?"). Fine by me. I haven't prevented him from responding, and his silence says as much as any words.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:42 PM

"Bart" DePalma emits a copious wad of noisome tripe:

While we remained on the defensive or engaged in detente with the communists during the Cold War, the enemy continued to war against us indefinitely.

Ummm, look up "detente", buster. And read a few friggin' history books that explain what "detente" was.

The Cold War only ended when we went on the offensive in the 80s with the goal of tossing communism on the "ash heap of history."

What "offensive"? Boastful words through an (unknown) live mike?!?!? Kind of like Dubya winning the Iraq war single-handedly by taunting "Bring it on!"....

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:46 PM

adam said...

Bart, You're response to me seems to be self-contradictory. First, you say that Vietnam was a defensive war. Then you imply that the US policy to supply the mujihideen against the Soviet aggressors was offensive. I don't understand the basis for the offensive/defensive distinction except as a vehicle for futher venerating St. Ronnie.

An offensive action attacks and defeate an enemy and takes their territory.

A defensive action seeks to protect your own forces and their territory from an enemy offensive.

In Vietnam, the enemy attacked and eventually conquered South Vietnam. We successfully defended South Vietnam for about a decade before we lost heart, withdrew and surrendered South Vietnam to the enemy.

We turned the tables on the Soviets in Afghanistan by supporting the Afghans in their ultimately successful attack to take back Afghanistan.

The US did not win the Cold War primarily through offensive warfare--while historians have only begun to analyze the reasons why, it seems safe to say that the USSR collapsed more from the weight of its own social, economic and nationalities problems (which the defeat in Afghanistan exacerbated), than from offensive US military action.

Once again, I recommend that you read the Schweitzer books which I cited above. It would take too long to duplicate the Schweitzer work here. However, suffice it to say that military action was only one level of our offensive. We also economically broke and diplomatically isolated the Soviets.

Nor, incidentally, did the US win the cold war by promoting democracy. See US support of Trujillo in D.R., the Shah in Iran, Pol Pot in Cambodia, etc, etc, etc.

You are confusing alliances of convenience with the long term goal of democratization. Count the number of democracies across the world before and after Reagan.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:50 PM

"Bart" DePalma is a nutcase; keep him away from any dangerous utensils:

As to your second point, both the wars in Vietnam and Korea were defensive actions to keep the communists from conquering South Korea and South Vietnam.....

Yes, South Korea (and U.S. troops) were attacked. Vietnan was no such thing. We took over a war from the French, and ended up putting in (and thus having to defend) our own unpopular puppets. There was no "North" Vietnam and "South" Vietnam (as was/is also true of Korea, BTW), there was only a snapshot of the "front". We purportedly stayed in (and even jumped into) the mess to prevent the "dominos" across Asia from falling. That didn't happen, even as we walked away, minus tens of thousands of young men.

... Truman and Johnson refused to carry the wars against the Chinese and Soviet sponsors of North Korea and North Vietnam. LBJ refused to even take the ground war into North Vietnam as MacArthur[!] had done in North Korea.

Keep "Bart" away from sharp objects. He's likely to hurt himself playing with them.

"Bart" seems to be under the hallucination that we should have gone "all out" against both the Soviet Union and China. History (both recent and during WWII) shows the sanguinary stupidity and futility of such a course.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:03 PM

"Bart" DePalma says:

As to the military front, the Reagan Doctrine called for rebuilding the military and for supporting rebel groups around the world to topple Soviet satellite countries supplied by the Soviets with the intent of draining the Soviet economy when they tried to keep up. In Afghanistan, this strategy allowed the rebels to engage the Red Army directly and cause them to retreat.

Wow. That sure worked out well.... "Bart" needs to read Stephen Kinzer's book "Overthrow", seeing as he's so fond of books.

BTW, I remember "Bart" bragging not too long ago about how we managed (through supporting a bunch of terrorists and mining the harbours of another nation) to install the 'correct' regime in Nicaragua. But history sometimes has the last laugh, and I haven't heard "Bart" crowing about this triumph of our "speading freedom and democracy" for a while now. Cat got your tongue, "Bart"?

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:10 PM

"[M]ilitary liberation".... One for the ages.....

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:11 PM

"Furthermore, democratic countries do not attack one another."

That one got debunked a while back. "Bart" figures that enough time has passed so that people have forgotten, and that he can just trot that Dubyaesque/neocon meme out again as a bald assertion, and maybe people will believe it, sans evidence, this time. He's wrong.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:14 PM

"Bart" DePalma says:

Actually, I would compare the Reagan Doctrine to FDR's liberation of the world from the Nazis in WWII.

Of course you would. And you'd be wrong. If you tried that at a convention of historians (or even semi-literate people), you'd bring down the house (in gales of laughter).

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:18 PM

"humblelawstudent":

Unless, you consider all of the Middle East, Northern Africa, large parts of Europe subject to an Islamic Caliphate as a "reasonable compromise."

Newsflash fer ya: The Middle East, parts of Europe (and for that matter, even Asia) are majority Muslim, if not massively so. Are you suggesting that they should not be? While I may have a personal opinion that this is 'not a good thing' (and also think that the predominantly Christian U.S. is also 'not a good thing'), that doesn't shake my belief that people ought to be any damn religion they want, nor my belief that people ought to be pretty much left to sort out their own internal affairs. Hell, if I can make it here with the Christians trying to shove their religion down my throat, I'm sure others will find ways of dealing with it....

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:57 PM

"humblelawstudent":

The second reason is that our support of relatively moderate Arab regimes is what prevents the Bin Laden's of the world from creating their Islamic Caliphate.

"[R]elatively moderate Arab regimes". Worked like a charm in Iran (yeah, I know they're not Arabic, but the principle's the same) ... in 1953. May I add to the suggested reading list Stephen Kinzer's other book: "All The Shah's Men"?

So, sure, let's listen to Bin Laden. Let's help him create the very apparatus he seeks to create to rule over the Middle East, if not the world.

Huh?!?!? Where do you get that? More of that "If you're not with the Preznit, you're with the Terra-ists" crapola?

Furthermore, Lawrence Wright helpfully explains that this "negotiation" you seek is exactly what will NOT happen. They won't negotiate. Their goals, one of which I explained, AREN'T negotiable. Either we take the terms or they continue their war against us. Some "listening" and some "negotiating."

Hmmmmmmm. Yes, I can see that there might be a problem with negotiations and diplomatic solutions when you're dealing with a hardened ideologue who is adamantly opposed to any kind of negotiation. Here, sir, here's a dollar. Buy a mirror.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 11:06 PM

"humblelawstudent":

Egypt: Nominally moderate government, but the radicals keep winning in elections and have a reasonable chance of being able to take power in the future -- especially if a regional war or other event provides a spark....

Horrors! What will we do, what will we doooooo!

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 11:14 PM

"Bart" DePalma said:

Once again, I recommend that you read the Schweitzer books which I cited above. It would take too long to duplicate the Schweitzer work here.

Let me help out here: "Reagan good. Reagan very good. Reagan smartest man ever, even smarter than Genghis Khan."

That ought to suffice.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 11:24 PM

"Bart" DePalma attributes his own sins on others:

Nor, incidentally, did the US win the cold war by promoting democracy. See US support of Trujillo in D.R., the Shah in Iran, Pol Pot in Cambodia, etc, etc, etc.

You are confusing alliances of convenience with the long term goal of democratization.

No. I am not (nor is Adam). You, "Bart" are conflating the two. You seen them as not the least incompatible, at the very least. "Allies of 'convenience'", of course is a monstrous euphemism for brutal dictators (you know, like, ummm .... Saddam?). You assume the ends justify the means, and completely forget to analyse whether the means are actually effective (instead of downright detrimental) in achieving the purported ends. When they don't (as they haven't for the most part), this "pragmatism" becomes even more horrific ... more despicable.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 11:54 PM

enlightened layperson,

Let me try one more time.

You wrote, "What the enemy is realistically capable of doing necessarily influences what I am willing to do, and what losses I am willing to accept, in order to stop them."

Let's parse that out. What the enemy can "realistically" do is a function of his capabilities and our own. We can agree I assume.

If we (and others) don't resist, then even a very small force can take over. It's all depedent on both our ability and our willingness to accept losses to prevent the enemy from carrying out its plans.

So look when you wrote, "What the enemy is realistically capable of doing necessarily influences what I am willing to do, and what losses I am willing to accept, in order to stop them."

This is the wrong way to look at it. Whether or not another country can "realistically" do something is largely a function of our (and other's) response. Japan had little realistic chance of winning a war in WW2, but ONLY because the US decided to accept the necessary losses to stop them. If the US had rolled over and allowed the Co-Prosperity Sphere, then Japan might have gotten away with it. So, Japan had a realistic chance only insofar as we did NOT fight them.

Furthermore, aggressive countries are notorious for improperly determining what they have a "realistic" chance of achieving. It's just plain naive and foolish to assume that they will accurately gauge their own capabilities and our own. Because of this, wars happen.

So, once again, the issue isn't "whether" they can establish a world-wide Caliphate, even if we resist. Even if they don't have a realistic chance, they ARE TRYING RIGHT NOW.

The question is what losses must be sustained to prevent them from attaining their current goal of creating the Caliphate.

"Realistically accomplish" is a function of our response. Your ideas of what is realistic for them to do, WILL NOT prevent them from trying. So, as such, your inquiry is misplaced. The issue is what must be done (what will be the losses) in opposing their attempt at creating a worldwide caliphate.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 10:19 AM

Adam:The US did not win the Cold War primarily through offensive warfare--while historians have only begun to analyze the reasons why, it seems safe to say that the USSR collapsed more from the weight of its own social, economic and nationalities problems (which the defeat in Afghanistan exacerbated), than from offensive US military action.

Bart: Once again, I recommend that you read the Schweitzer books which I cited above. It would take too long to duplicate the Schweitzer work here. However, suffice it to say that military action was only one level of our offensive. We also economically broke and diplomatically isolated the Soviets.

Adam: Nor, incidentally, did the US win the cold war by promoting democracy. See US support of Trujillo in D.R., the Shah in Iran, Pol Pot in Cambodia, etc, etc, etc.

Bart: You are confusing alliances of convenience with the long term goal of democratization. Count the number of democracies across the world before and after Reagan.

This last statement is purely ad hoc reasoning and deeply flawed logically. The Soviet Union supported a number of satellite communist countries, and it spent itself in to bankruptcy because we existed as a viable threat. RR cleverly seized on that and got them to spend even faster. As long as we existed as an opponent, however, the soviets would have still spent themselves into bankruptcy. I do think its fair to point out that promoting and supporting democracy was just as effective in ending the Soviet government once they had gone bankrupt.

# posted by

John : 10:38 AM

Humble Law Student,

This is going nowhere, and you have probably moved on to the next thread, but I will give it one more shot. I agree with you that what Islamic radicals can achieve depends on how much resistence they encounter. But I also believe they will encounter a great deal of resistence apart from and independent of the US. Indeed, if the US fell off the edge of the earth tomorrow, I am confident there would be enough other sources of resistence to prevent a world-wide Islamic caliphate.

I do agree with you that fanatics and megalomaniacs consistently overrate what they are capable of and can cause enormous short-term damage in pursuit of goals that are impossible in the long run. I would also agree that people with truly grandiose dreams are liable to overreach in the most dangerous and harmful ways.

So, let me offer this in an attempt to find common ground. The most militant Islamicists have a goal of establishing a world-wide Islamic caliphate. There is enough resistence to that goal in the world to prevent it from happening, even if the US does not raise a finger. However, Islamic fanatics can cause considerable damage in their futile attempt.

To me, how much damage Islamicists can cause in such futile attempts, taking into account the resistence they will encounter independent of the US, is the measure of their power and what they can realistically achieve. That, rather than just their subjective intentions, if what I believe we should consider in assessing how dangerous our enemies are.

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 12:13 PM

"humblelawstudent":

This is the wrong way to look at it. Whether or not another country can "realistically" do something is largely a function of our (and other's) response. Japan had little realistic chance of winning a war in WW2, but ONLY because the US decided to accept the necessary losses to stop them.

The Children's Crusade (you ought to look it up if you haven't heard of it; see also here) had little chance of taking back the Holy Land.

Not to mention another fly in the ointment here; the will and the ability to defend oneself (from actual attacks, when they do in fact occur) are not independent of one another, but the second doesn't derive solely from the first. The perceived ability to defend oneself successfuly can be just as effective (if not more so) in deterring attack as the perceived will to do so. Perhaps the will is to some extent useful in developing the physical ability, but by no means essential. Not to mention that the "will" to defend oneself us almost universal under circumstances of actual attack (as the Japanese found out when they "awoke the slumbering giant").

You pretend it's ("largely") a matter of not enough 'will'. "Clap louder!"

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 5:41 PM

"humblelawstudent":

Furthermore, aggressive countries are notorious for improperly determining what they have a "realistic" chance of achieving. It's just plain naive and foolish to assume that they will accurately gauge their own capabilities and our own. Because of this, wars happen.

So, once again, the issue isn't "whether" they can establish a world-wide Caliphate, even if we resist. Even if they don't have a realistic chance, they ARE TRYING RIGHT NOW.

Assuming arguendo that you're correct in this analysis, perhaps you can explain what you suggest to cure these (perceived) problems with deterrence. Something like standing on a soap-box and saying "Bring it on"?

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 5:45 PM

HLS: Furthermore, aggressive countries are notorious for improperly determining what they have a "realistic" chance of achieving.

Sorry to weigh in on so old a thread, but I did a double-take here, as it seemed HLS was making a point about the failed "achievements" of the aggressive U.S. of A. in the immoral and illegal invasion and occupation of our former ally, Iraq. My bad, but HLS's point remains ironically apt.

# posted by

Robert Link : 6:19 PM

HLS: The issue isn't "whether" the Islamists can establish a worldwide Caliphate.

@HLS, I say to you that this is indeed the issue. More to the point is the tiny portion of your words above, where you use the definite article in relationship to "Islamists." So long as you think in such reductionist terms you will be consigned to fallacy. There is no more a "the" Islamists than there is a "the" Christians. Dear God, would you want Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson, for example, to be the measure of Christianity by which the U.S. of A. is judged? Those two men indeed do want a world-wide Christian rule, as they define it. Thank heaven not many in or out of the U.S. of A. seriously believe either of those buffoons represent "the" Christians.

So, yes, any sentence which uncritically accepts as fallacious a usage as "the" Islamists is by definition so far from valid as to be worthless---at least from a legitimate problem solving point of view. Of course if you are a self-proclaimed black and white ideologue concerned only with swaying others to your world view rather than with finding any real truth then statements such as this war will not end if we return to the status quo ante the AUMF and again pretend we are not at war with Islamic fascism will serve you well. Such rhetoric is good for rallying a certain class of sloppy thinker who is easily impressed by a little Latin. But you have all the marks of striving for more. Finding justice in the post-nine-one-one world is difficult enough without falling victim to childish black and white thinking or absurd reductionisms.

Peace.

# posted by

Robert Link : 6:39 PM

HLS: Egypt: Nominally moderate government, but the radicals keep winning in elections and have a reasonable chance of being able to take power in the future -- especially if a regional war or other event provides a spark.

I should probably leave this be, but it's another prime example of a repetitive problem in RW rhetoric. How can we claim to be spreading democracy while decrying the results of elections? Or is it only democracy when it means contracts for KBR and Bechtel? What would it mean if a legitimate democratic process put in power people who were violently opposed to the U.S. of A.? Is such a thing possible? Or is such excluded from your definitions of democracy?

# posted by

Robert Link : 8:26 PM

bitswapper said...

As long as we existed as an opponent, however, the soviets would have still spent themselves into bankruptcy.

This argument is simply untenable.

The Soviets had managed to stay out of bankruptcy and expand for 62 years since we invaded their country in 1918 and for 35 years since the beginning of the Cold War after WWII before Reagan took office.

The Wall fell just six years after the Reagan Doctrine was put into effect.

Here is a very short list of actions we took to bring about this collapse:

1) We bribed the Saudis to flood the market with oil in exchange for weapons sales to the kingdom. Soviet oil revenue collapsed.

2) We blocked the planned natural gas pipeline into Western Europe to replace these lost funds.

3) We actively sabotaged Soviet oil and gas production including a recently disclosed computer virus which infected and caused an enormous explosion in the main Soviet natural gas pipeline in Siberia.

4) We heavily reinforced NATO with a new generation of nuclear weapons and leapt ahead two generations in conventional technology. The Soviets could not keep up.

5) We pressured the Soviet Empire around the world by attacking their satellites with rebel forces and attacked the Red Army itself in Afghanistan.

6) We diplomatically isolated the Soviets around the world by calling the Soviets exactly what they were, and evil empire. The Soviets helped in this effort by shooting down the Korean Airliner.

7) We diplomatically and monetarily supported dissident organizations like Solidarity inside the Empire.

8) According to multiple Soviet leaders who wrote on the subject afterward, the final straw which caused the collapse was Reagan's threat to field space based ABM system, known derogatively as star wars. The Soviets had been working on such a system for far longer and believed that we had the technology to make it a reality and moot enough of their ballistic missile force to make a US first strike feasible. After Reagan's star wars proposal, the Soviets suddenly returned to the nuclear disarmament talks with the primary goal of getting Reagan to trade away star wars. At Reykjavik, Gorbechev was so desperate that he offered total disarmament if Reagan would only get rid of star wars. Reagan said no and the Soviet Empire was doomed from that point.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:20 AM