President Bush is not the only one who is delusional. What is it but a delusion to claim that a dichotomy exists between Bush's values and "true American values"? Viewed historically, "true American values" do not coincide with Professor Tamanaha's (or my) values. Ours is a nation founded on slavery, and is one that has engaged in genocide against Native Americans, wars of imperialism, the overthrowing of democratically elected governments, the exclusion of immigrants based on ethnic background, internment of Japanese Americans, Jim Crow, and torture. (Has anyone heard of the School of the Americas? Torture did not start with the Bush administration.) I could list good things in this nation's history too; my point is not to bash the United States. My point is that to proclaim only the good things as our values is the product of blind patriotism. Imagine yourself a citizen of a foreign country before you start proclaiming American values.
 

The exigencies of September 12 and beyond may now seem very far away. But the actions of the United States will for many, many years be driven by the knowledge that we are in an unfair fight

Boo-hoo. The Germans in the two world wars were not exactly famous for their rigid adherence to Hoyle, were they? Ditto the Japanese.

The problem is simply that the Bushies do not believe in their own country -- do not believe in the rule of law or any of the institutions that make America great -- and hence have done all they can to evade our courts, our laws, and "the rules."
 

Prof. Tamanaha:

Rather than listen to the condemnation of their contemporaries, those who suffer this delusion can feel all the more superior and virtuous in knowing that they recognize and are pursuing the right path in the face of great opposition.

Just as the religious RW claims persecution, marginalisation, and victimhood despite their far greater influence than the seculars have.....

Good for fund-raising, if nothing else....

Cheers,
 

Rice argues that ultimately the US can prevail only if the rest of the world is won over to the ideals of democracy, human rights, and respect for the rule of law....

... at the point of a gun, in illegal and/or covert wars, if need be.

Has anyone asked "Dr." Rice how that "respect" thingie is going nowadays?....

Cheers,
 

Henry:

Imagine yourself a citizen of a foreign country before you start proclaiming American values.

I have a head-start, I guess. ;-)

(Not to mention, this week I'm posting from Canada to boot....)

Cheers,
 

Rice's the "New American Realism" is an effort on her part to salvage her career post-George W by incorporating "Realism" in the title. Is the "New American Realism" reflected in George W's October 2002 National Security Strategy, which states in effect that the US is #1 military, #1 ecomically and #1 politically internationally; that the US will do whatever it takes to maintain these position. Things have not followed the way George W anticipated in the 5+ years since, although the US may still hold these #1 positions - but not as confidently as back in 2002. Query whether Rice, post next January, can claim to Realism acceptable to her peers?
 

Henry,

I adjusted the language in the final sentence to reflect your point.

While we have indeed been party to bad things in the past, I think it is important to recognize (and celebrate) that we have positive ideals with beneficial consequences. This is neither a universalist claim nor a matter of blind patriotism. It is about recognizing the power of ideals to make the world a better place.

Brian
 

Brian, I appreciate your having changed "true American values" to "best American ideals." And I agree that "we have positive ideals with beneficial consequences." But let's not forget that we have negative "ideals" as well. All those bad things I listed came from somewhere. And "we," with our ideals, are the ones who have allowed and continue to allow the Bush administration to commit its crimes.
 

Brian:

The Bush Doctrine is simply the application of the successful Reagan Doctrine on a different foe. The Reagan Doctrine is the offensive use of military, economic and diplomatic power to remove dictatorships and replace them with democracies under the pragmatic theory that democracies do not war against one another and under the moral theory that all people deserve to live in freedom.

The Bush Administration had many faults. However, the application of the Reagan Doctrine to the Middle East was not one of them. The United States has liberated 50 million people and the example of a democratic Iraq and Afghanistan when placed in comparison to the mass murder of Islamic fascism has all but destroyed support for that movement in the Muslim world.

Was it worth the US payment of nearly 4000 KIA and around 1% of GDP over the past few years? There has not been another attack of any significance on the United States or its interests since the liberation of Iraq. We have lost far more in prior wars with less return for the investment of blood and treasure.

Was it worth the Iraqi and Afghan payment of about 80,000 lives lost to Baathist, Iraqi Shia, al Qaeada and Taliban terrorism? Ask nearly any Iraqi on the street if they would trade their democracy for a return to Baathist terror or its successor al Qaeda terror. Ask Afghans of they want to return to Taliban and al Qaeda terror? Europe lost millions of civilian dead in the war to be free of Nazi terror. The Iraqis and Afghans got off cheap in comparison.

I recall much the same response to the success of the Reagan Doctrine at the time it was being implemented. It took years after the fall of the Soviet Empire for a more sober ad favorable appraisal from Mr. Reagan's opponents.

I expect it will take time for Mr. Bush opponents as well.
 

Rather than listen to the condemnation of their contemporaries, those who suffer this delusion can feel all the more superior and virtuous in knowing that they recognize and are pursuing the right path in the face of great opposition.

Which is as good a definition of a despotic and antidemocratic ideology as any. That Rice would color this with the goal of spreading democracy is the height of silliness; it's just a complete non-sequitur.

It is her hope and prayer that something good will be made of all the bad visited on the planet by her actions. Indeed, it will be the only thing that can happen. Maybe it was this administration's plan to do an end-around the caveat that things will get worse before they get better by making them worse on purpose. I believe psychologists call this "exposure therapy."
 

There has not been another attack of any significance on the United States or its interests since the liberation of Iraq.

Baghdad, it was damned nice of you to provide an example of delusion for the class.
 

I recall much the same response to the success of the Reagan Doctrine at the time it was being implemented. It took years after the fall of the Soviet Empire for a more sober ad favorable appraisal from Mr. Reagan's opponents.

Like who? It seems far more likely that most Reagan opponents still think he had little to do with the fall of the Soviet Union, because no new facts have come along to change that reality.
 

Baghdad, it was damned nice of you to provide an example of delusion for the class.

Don't be sidetracked into falling for it: he is incapable of providing an objective definition of "significant."
 

Right on Mr. DePalma. If not for the Reagan Doctrine, the horrible
Gorbachev would still be in charge in the Soviet Union.
 

The Reagan Myth.

I was sitting in my backyard when a limb broke off from the old cherry tree.

I guess I "caused" the fall.

Proximity in time or space does not imply causality.

Reagan just happened to be the one in office when the old SU fell apart from its own internal dynamics.

Yes, he had put pressure on them, but so did his predecessors since Truman.
 

farris w said...

Right on Mr. DePalma. If not for the Reagan Doctrine, the horrible Gorbachev would still be in charge in the Soviet Union.

Along with the KGB and the Gulag he ran.

The fact is that Gorbachev's attempt to reform the Soviet empire into a kinder and gentler totalitarian dictatorship failed.
 

The fact is that Gorbachev's attempt to reform the Soviet empire into a kinder and gentler totalitarian dictatorship failed.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 5:08 PM


How do you think Putin's efforts to reform democratic Russia into a totalitarian dictatorship are coming along?
 

The Bush Doctrine is simply the application of the successful Reagan Doctrine on a different foe.

Yeah, we noticed. Iraq instead of Grenada.

Take your Raygun hagiographic hallucinations elsewhere. No one here is stoopid enough to buy it.

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DeDicta still hasn't read Pulitzer-prize-winner Richard Rhodes's latest book yet:

It took years after the fall of the Soviet Empire for a more sober ad favorable appraisal from Mr. Reagan's opponents.

The only think we've seen is you RWA types slapping Raygun's name on anything that doesn't move, trying to pretend that the Alzheimer's poster boy was the Second Coming of Jayzus Cheerist.

Before Dubya's maladministration (where we're waiting the final tallies), Reagan's was the most tarnished and corrupt in recent history, with well over 100 of his administration indicted, convicted, or resigned under an ethical cloud....

Cheers,
 

michael said...

Reagan just happened to be the one in office when the old SU fell apart from its own internal dynamics.

Yes, he had put pressure on them, but so did his predecessors since Truman.

There was nothing inevitable about the demise of the Soviet Empire. When left alone, it kept on going for two generations.

The containment strategy implemented from Truman to Carter was purely defensive and left the Soviet Empire alone. The Soviets expanded without interruption during the entire period apart from the setback in Cuba.

In a 180 degree change in policy, Reagan went on the offensive with the express purpose of overthrowing the Soviet dictatorship. He succeeded in less than a decade.

Several good books have be written on the subject.

The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism by Paul Kengor is the best of the lot because it makes the best use of released US and USSR archives.

Even the left is beginning to catch on - up to a point. Liberal professor John Patrick Diggins in his book Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History concedes:

Reagan was also one of the three great liberators in American history. Abraham Lincoln helped emancipate African Americans from slavery; Franklin D. Roosevelt helped wrest Western Europe from fascism; Ronald Reagan helped liberate Eastern Europe from communism.

Having made this concession, though, Diggins fails to make any further progress. Diggins argues that Reagan negotiated the surrender of the Soviet Empire as if he were the inspiration for Barrack Obama rather than George W. Bush. Diggins pretty much ignores the offensive use of military and economic power which drove the Soviets to the bargaining table and then out of business entirely.
 

bartbuster said...

How do you think Putin's efforts to reform democratic Russia into a totalitarian dictatorship are coming along?

Putin is creating a corporatist authoritarian state not unlike the Chinese model. The emerging Russian and Chinese middle classes will have to decide if they want to keep that model or join the rest of the free world. Once people taste economic freedom, they generally start demanding political freedom as well.
 

[farris w]: Right on Mr. DePalma. If not for the Reagan Doctrine, the horrible Gorbachev would still be in charge in the Soviet Union.

Along with the KGB and the Gulag he ran.

Rrrrrriggght. It was Gorbachev, the former head of the KGB. And Putin, the farmer's son from the Russian Caucasus.

Eedjits! Getchour eedjits here!!

Cheers,
 

One can expect Bart to propound a view of matters which is at odds with reality. So I should like to offer an alternative view on Bart’s take on US Policy in Afghanistan.

I remember that when I watched the Reagan funeral on television, I was struck how his prolonged absence from public view had given rise to a sort of rose-tinted and largely false memory of what his Administration had wrought. I think I may have posted elsewhere on this site a “Res Gestae” for the late President which better shows how controversial his policies were.

Of all the misconceived policies, his Afghanistan policy is the one which has had the most long lasting ill-effects. It was Reagan’s policy which has been largely responsible for the creation of Al-Quaida and the salafist terrorism which is now a world-wide plague. It will take a little space to document this, but I think it is important.

Afghanistan
Like in the FATA of Pakistan, on the other side of the nominal border, the dominant groups in Afghanistan are Pushtun tribes whose reputation for ferocity is of some antiquity.

No less a general than Alexander the Great encountered the Pushtuns in 329-326 BC. Although Alexander managed to subdue the tribes, he encountered such fierce resistance that it took him three years. He founded numerous new cities at sites of strategic and commercial importance. Some of these cities had very brief lives but others prospered and served as conveyors of Hellenistic art and culture in these remote regions. In Afghanistan, these cities included Alexandria Herat (330 BC), Prophthasia Afghanistan (also 330 BC, Alexandria-in-Arachosia at or near modern Kandahar (329 BC ), Alexandria Afghanistan near modern Ghazni (also 329 BC), Alexandria-ad-Caucasum, possibly present-day Jebal Seraj (also 329 BC), Alexandria Oxiana, modern Aï Khanoum (328 BC), and Nikaia, at or near Jalalabad (327 BC).

When Alexander died in Babylon in 323BC, his empire broke apart and his cavalry commander Seleucus took control of the eastern lands and founded the Selucid dynasty which lasted for a few hundred years more.

But no ruler, ancient or modern, has ever achieved the dominion over Afghanistan and the North West Frontier which Alexander the Great had, although many, including the British Raj and the Russians have tried.

All of Afghanistan’s neighbours have long been deeply involved in manipulating its internal affairs, Pakistan and to a lesser extent Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan: all have significant interests in Afghanistan and most have supported at least one of the many tribal factions competing for power in the interminable civil wars which have ravaged the country at regular intervals.

It has long been a part of fundamental Russian policy to expand its zone of influence southward and secure access to warm water ports. Russian expansionism and empire building in Central Asia began in 1734 and Imperial Russia's interest led to Russian absorption of the lands of the Caucasus, Georgia, Khirgiz, Turkmens, Khiva and Bukhara. Russian interest in Afghanistan was apparent by the late 1830s and led to what became known as "The Great Game", the struggle between the British and Russian empires for influence along the unsettled northern frontier of British India and in the entire region between Russia and India. Afghanistan lay directly in this contested area.

Thus it is hardly a surprise that the Soviet Union had a continuing interest in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan in the 1970's remained, as it always had been, a feudal, tribal society with a very weak central government whose writ only ran in the territory of the tribal leaders if they were content for it to do so. It was one of the poorest nations in the world.

In April 1978, a small leftist group of Soviet-trained Afghan officers seized control of the government and founded the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. President Nur M. Taraki came to power with a programme designed to drag Afghanistan into the 20th Century with land reform and redistribution, education, a changed status for women - in effect the destruction of the feudal Afghanistan social structure.

That was the programme the West should have embraced and supported. Even if it meant competition in aid programmes with the Soviets

Needless to say, that programme upset the feudal lords and tribal leaders who well understood that they could only retain their own comparative wealth and power if they kept their people in a state of subjection and ignorance. Civil war broke out and the feudal and tribal leaders persuaded the local mullahs to declare the republican government apostate and call for "jihad".

It happens that the Afghanistan -Pakistan border ("the Durand Line") is very largely just a theoretical line on a map and on the Pakistan side are the Pakistan tribal areas where writ of the Pakistan central government also does not run. The Madrassas in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan are important to this story because they provided much of the theological and doctrinal engine of the Mujahiddin where potential recruits could be brain-washed.

The call for jihad was taken up in the FATA areas of Pakistan and aid and assistance started to arrive for the "Mujahiddin" in Afghanistan.

Unable to cope, the Afghanistan government called for Soviet assistance and Leonid Brezhnev sent the troops in on Christmas Eve 1979. This was the height of the cold war and it was a fundamental tenet of US foreign policy at the time to resist any expansion of the Soviet empire. That was a policy common to all post-war US Administrations. The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was seen as possibly leading to such expansion.

However, after Vietnam, there was no public appetite for sending troop to fight wars in far-off places most of Middle America had never heard of and Afghanistan was just such an "unheard of" place. Further, the war lords and tribal leaders opposing the central government were not exactly the kind of people even the US government really wanted to be seen to support.

US Policy towards Afghanistan
The Soviet-Afghan War was one of the deadliest and most persistent conflicts of the second half of the 20th century. Nearly 2 million Afghans were killed (as well as at least 15,000 Soviet soldiers during the 1980s), and there were 600,000 to 2 million wounded.

More than 6 million Afghans fled to Pakistan and Iran, producing the world’s then largest single refugee population since 1981, while at least 2 million more Afghans were internally displaced. More than 50 percent of Afghanistan’s indigenous population (estimated at 15 to 17 million persons at the war’s beginning, now estimated to be as many as 22 million) became casualties—killed, wounded, or made homeless by the war. The Soviet army in Afghanistan and the Afghan communist government planted an estimated thirty million mines throughout the country, most of them completely unmarked and unmapped.

Carter Administration
There is a some evidence which suggests that it was President Carter's National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who first had a hand in the first covert support operations.

Brzezinski and others worried that the USSR might take advantage of its presence in Afghanistan in order to influence events in neighboring Iran and Pakistan, two traditionally pro-American countries that for years had helped safeguard what the USA thought were its interests in the region, namely access to oil and the containment of the Soviet Union. Brzezinski argued that the Soviet Union might turn Afghanistan into a launching pad for aggression in the region.

While President Carter was absorbed by the Iran hostage crisis, Brzezinski pushed a decision through the Special Coordination Committee (SCC) of the National Security Council (NSC) to be, as he put it, "more sympathetic to those Afghans who were determined to preserve their country’s independence". Although deliberately vague as to what this meant, the evidence indicates that Brzezinski called for moderate covert support for Afghan dissident groups which had set up headquarters in Pakistan.

Some such groups, such as forces under the command of Rabbani and Hekmatyar, had been operating out of Pakistan without much outside aid for years. According to a former Pakistani military official who was interviewed in 1988, the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad had asked Pakistani military officials in April 1979 to recommend a rebel organization that would make the best use of U.S. aid. The following month, the Pakistani source claimed, he personally introduced a CIA official to Hekmatyar who, while more radically Islamic and anti-American than most Afghans, headed what the Pakistani government considered the most militant and organized rebel group, the Hizb-i Islami (Hekmatyar).

This is a translation into English of an interview with Brzezinski published in the French weekly, Le Nouvel Observateur, issue of 15-21 January 1998:-

” Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Question: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Question: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.”

Nothing could be more indicative of the dangers of transporting a world view shaped by experience of the Soviet satellite system in Western Europe into the complexities of Afghan, and particularly Pushtun fundamentalism:

“…Some stirred up Moslems”, indeed.

This is the text of a White House Memo I found on the CNN web site:

“ Memo to President from Zbigniew Brzezinski - 26th December 1979

I will be sending you separately a proposed agenda for the NSC meeting on Friday, and it will focus on both Afghanistan and Iran. In the meantime, you are receiving today's SCC minutes on both subjects. This memorandum is meant merely to provide some stimulus to your thinking on this subject.

As mentioned to you a week or so ago, we are now facing a regional crisis. Both Iran and Afghanistan are in turmoil, and Pakistan is both unstable internally and extremely apprehensive externally. If the Soviets succeed in Afghanistan, and [blacked out] the age-long dream of Moscow to have direct access to the Indian Ocean will have been fulfilled.

Historically, the British provided the barrier to that drive, and Afghanistan was their buffer state. We assumed the role in 1945, but the Iranian crisis has led to the collapse of the balance of power in Southwest Asia, and it could produce Soviet presence right down on the edge of the Arabian and Oman gulfs.

Accordingly, the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan poses for us an extremely grave challenge, both internationally and domestically. While it could become a Soviet Vietnam, the initial effects of the intervention are likely to be adverse for us for the following domestic and international reasons:

DOMESTIC
A. The Soviet intervention is likely to stimulate calls for more immediate U.S. military action in Iran. Soviet "decisiveness" will be contrasted with our restraint, which will no longer be labeled as prudent but increasingly as timid;

B. At the same time, regional instability may make a resolution of the Iranian problem more difficult for us, and it could bring us into a head-to-head confrontation with the Soviets;

C. SALT is likely to be damaged, perhaps irreparably, because Soviet military aggressiveness will have been so naked;

D. More generally, our handling of Soviet affairs will be attacked by both the right and the left.

INTERNATIONAL
A. Pakistan, unless we somehow manage to project both confidence and power into the region, [blacked out];

B. With Iran destabilized, there will be no firm bulwark in Southwest Asia against the Soviet drive to the Indian Ocean;

C. The Chinese will certainly note that Soviet assertiveness in Afghanistan and in Cambodia is not effectively restrained by the United States.

COMPENSATING FACTORS
There will be, to be sure, some compensating factors:

A. World public opinion may be outraged at the Soviet intervention. Certainly, Moslem countries will be concerned, and we might be in a position to exploit this.

B. There are already 300,000 refugees from Afghanistan in Pakistan, and we will be in a position to indict the Soviets for causing massive human suffering. That figure will certainly grow, and Soviet-sponsored actions in Cambodia have already taken their toll as well.

C. There will be greater awareness among our allies for the need to do more for their own defense.

A SOVIET VIETNAM ?
However, we should not be too sanguine about Afghanistan becoming a Soviet Vietnam:

A. The guerrillas are badly organized and poorly led;

B. They have no sanctuary, no organized army, and no central government -- all of which North Vietnam had;

C. They have limited foreign support, in contrast to the enormous amount of arms that flowed to the Vietnamese from both the Soviet Union and China;

D. The Soviets are likely to act decisively, unlike the U.S., which pursued in Vietnam a policy of inoculating the enemy. As a consequence, the Soviets might be able to assert themselves effectively, and [in] world politics nothing succeeds like success, whatever the moral aspects.

WHAT IS TO BE DONE ?
What follows are some preliminary thoughts, which need to be discussed more fully:

A. It is essential that Afghanistani resistance continues. This means more money as well as arms shipments to the rebels, and some technical advice;

B. To make the above possible we must both reassure Pakistan and encourage it to help the rebels. This will require a review of our policy toward Pakistan, more guarantees to it, more arms aid.

C. We should encourage the Chinese to help the rebels also.

D. We should concert with Islamic countries both a propaganda campaign and in a covert action campaign to help the rebels;

E. We should inform the Soviets that their actions are placing SALT in jeopardy and that will also influence the substance of the Brown visit to China, since the Chinese are doubtless going to be most concerned about implications for themselves of such Soviet assertiveness so close to their border. Unless we tell the Soviets will not take our "expressions of concern" very seriously, with the effect that our relations will suffer, without the Soviets ever having been confronted with the need to ask the question whether such local adventurism is worth the long-term damage to the U.S.-Soviet relationship;

F. Finally, we should consider taking Soviet actions in Afghanistan to the U.N. as a threat to peace.

So the covert arming of the “stirred up Moslems” becomes US policy in the dying days of the Carter Administration.

But while President Carter will have had other things on his mind besides the situation in Afghanistan - the Iran hostage crisis for example - the same cannot be said of President Reagan and the crew of Neoconservative ideologues he brought into his administration.

Reagan Administration
While there was a degree of restraint about actions taken under the Carter Administration, under Reagan, the brakes were taken off with a vengeance.

In the US system of government, the legislature controls the activity of the executive in very large measure by exercising its power to control the purse-strings. Congress has to vote the money to fund an Administration's policies.

The Reagan Administration deliberately - and quite unlawfully - set out to subvert that restraint by creating "back-routes" to funding. A lot of relevant data came out during the Iran-Contra scandal which resulted in the indictment of a number of Reagan Administration officials.

One of the Iran Contra deals was the supply of 400 Stinger missiles to Saudi Arabia – with some of the purchase price going to the contras – and the Stinger missiles finding their way to Afghanistan. CIA funding for Afghanistan was largely channelled through Pakistan's military intelligence service. Saudi royal family money also went largely via Pakistan, but in addition, there was much money raised from wealthy Saudi families sympathetic to the Mujahiddin cause.

This is a transcript from a BBC Documentary, The Power of Nightmares:

“VO: In 1982, Ronald Reagan dedicated the Space Shuttle Columbia to the resistance fighters in Afghanistan.

President RONALD REAGAN : Just as the Columbia, we think, represents man’s finest aspirations in the field of science and technology, so too does the struggle of the Afghan people represent man’s highest aspirations for freedom. I am dedicating, on behalf of the American people, the March 22nd launch of the Columbia to the people of Afghanistan.

VO: Since 1979, the mujaheddin resistance had been fighting a vicious war in Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion. But now, a small group in the Reagan White House saw in these fighters a way of achieving their vision of transforming the world. To them, they were not just nationalists; they were freedom fighters, who could bring down the Soviet Union and help spread democracy around the world. It was called the Reagan Doctrine.

JACK WHEELER , Adviser to the Reagan White House, 1981-1984: It was a small group of people and—yes, we did have. Everyone thinks, “oh, the Reagan Doctrine, the Reagan Administration,” like everybody was for. No. It was a small little cabal within the Soviet—within the Reagan White House, that really pulled this off. What united this small group of ours was the vision of bringing more freedom to the world, more security to the world, to actually get rid of the Soviet Union itself. As a result, supporting the freedom fighters became the premier cause for the entire conservative movement during the Reagan years.

VO: But the Americans were setting out to defeat a mythological enemy. As last week’s episode showed, the neoconservatives, who were now in power in Reagan’s White House, had created an exaggerated and distorted vision of the Soviet Union as the source of all evil in the world. One of their main influences were the theories of the philosopher Leo Strauss. He believed that liberal societies needed simple, powerful myths to inspire and unite the people. And in the 1970s, the neoconservatives had done just this. Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and other neoconservatives had set out to reassert the myth of America as a unique country, whose destiny was to struggle against evil throughout the world. Now in power, they had come to believe this myth. They saw themselves as revolutionaries who were going to transform the world, starting with the defeat of the Evil Empire.

RICHARD PERLE, Assistant Secretary of Defense 1981-1987: We’re closer to being revolutionaries than conservatives, in the sense that we want to change some deeply entrenched notions about the proper role of American power in the world. We want to see that power used constructively, and to enlarge the opportunity for decent governance around the world. We’re not happy about the old, cozy relationships with dictators.

VO: And the man who was going to help the neoconservatives do this was the new head of the CIA, William Casey. He was convinced that Afghanistan was one of the keys to this aggressive new policy. America was already sending limited amounts of aid to the mujaheddin. But now, Casey ordered one of his agents to go and form an alliance with the freedom fighters, and give them as much money as they wanted and the most sophisticated weapons to defeat the Soviet military forces.

MILTON BEARDEN , CIA Field Officer, Afghanistan, 1985-89: For Casey, Afghanistan seemed to be possibly one of the keys. So he tapped me one day to go. He says, “I want you to go out to Afghanistan, I want you to go next month, and I will give you whatever you need to win.” Yeah. He said, “I want you go to there and win.” As opposed to, “let’s go there and bleed these guys,” make a [unintelligible] Vietnam, “I want you to go there and win. Whatever you need, you can have.” He gave me the Stinger missiles and a billion dollars.

[ SUBTITLE OVER AFGHAN WAR SCENE : God is great!]

VO : American money and weapons now began to pour across the Pakistan border into Afghanistan. CIA agents trained the mujaheddin in the techniques of assassination and terror, including car bombing. And they gave them satellite images of Russian troops to help in their attacks.”

[Note: CIA Director Casey was viewed as a pivotal figure in the CIA's secret involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair, in which U.S. weapons were sold to Iran and in which money from the sale was funneled to Nicaraguan rebels, in possible violation of U.S. law. Just before he was to testify in Congress on the matter in December 1986, he suffered seizures and then underwent brain surgery; he died from nervous-system lymphoma without ever testifying.]

The CIA having organised the program to support the Afghani Mujahiddin with arms and funds in cooperation with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden, they called upon the Gulf states and Egypt to facilitate the travel of Arabs who wished to participate in the fighting. Kamal Hassan Ali, then the Egyptian Minister of Defence, announced the training of Afghani volunteers in Egyptian army camps. In 1980 the Egyptian Parliament issued an official invitation to Egyptian citizens to enlist in the Mujahiddin. Advertisements in the official papers invited young Egyptians to "join the caravan" traveling to Afghanistan. The Islamic seminary of Al Azhar which was and which remains a hotbed of islamist clerics also pitched in to recruit youth and send them over. But many of those who went to Afghanistan went with the express purpose of gaining military expertise during their participation in battles there which would help them train their brothers back home."

In time, the Soviet Army was fought to a standstill. Gorbachev came to power in Russia and quickly realised that he had no alternative pull to pull the Soviet troops out. He sought to warn the USA that without some scheme for a transition to a democracy, Afghanistan would degenerate into a failed state and result in islamist terrorism.

But this was the time of the Reagan Administration and the Neoconservatives running US foreign policy were not listening.

So the unintended consequence of the Reagan Administration's foreign policy towards the "Evil Empire" was the creation of Islamist Afghanistan as a haven and base for Bin Laden and the salafists who joined Al-Quaida operating from there to pursue a policy of targeting Arab states allied to the USA, in particular Saudi Arabia and, later, the United States itself.

There is every reason to believe that if both the Carter Administration and the Reagan administration had had a little patience, and limited US interference to minimal support for the groups supporting the resistance to the Soviets, the Soviets would have been compelled to withdraw from Afghanistan anyway. The Soviet military machine was simply incapable of winning a mountain guerrilla war against the Afghan tribes.

It must be remembered that this was a war which the United States of America fought by proxy inasmuch as it desperately wished to contain Soviet expansion in the region, but did not wish an open confrontation which might have "gone nuclear". So the war was fought by encouraging, arming and training the mujahhidin groups.

The participants in these mujahdidin groups came from throughout the Muslim world to fight the "jihad" against the Soviets. They were brainwashed into salafist belief as part of their indoctrination and training before being set into battle against the Soviets. The concept of fighting a divinely-sanctioned holy war with Paradise as the prize for martyrdom is a powerful means of keeping up morale against impossible odds. It worked in Afghanistan against the might of the soviet army. But in due course, many trained and battle-hardened survivors returned to their own countries to indoctrinate others.

I have a personal interest in these matters. As a secular member of the UK Muslim community the spread of terror ideology worries me greatly. I believe the decision of the United States of America to have the CIA participate in the arming and training of mujahidin forces, must be counted one of the most serious instances in modern history of the "law of unintended consequences".

Postscript
Having opened Pandora’s Box, there is still little understanding of what is needed in both Afghanistan and the North-West Frontier Provinces of Pakistan. I do not believe that the present intervention in Afghanistan will succeed in my lifetime – and indeed that it cannot succeed without resolution of the problems on the other side of the Afghan-Pak border.

The societies on both sides of the theoretical border are tribal. The concept of a nation state is alien. The only time the tribes have ever united is against an invader and that is how the forces in Afghanistan are perceived.

The problems are legion. They have been exacerbated by the Carter - Reagan - Bush adventures. I see no military solution.

The fundamental problem with the Reagan/Bush “democracy” argument is that you cannot impose a 20th Century concept on a people whose social and cultural mindset is still firmly oriented to the 16th Century.

Bart and others will note that many of the names of the Reagan Administration Neoconservatives resurface in the Bush Administration. To that extent he is correct. The GW Bush Administration has inherited the Reagan Neoconservatives who have not learned from their original mistakes and have only compounded the Afganistan disaster by adding to it the invasion of Iraq.

Contrary to what Bart may believe there is every reason to think that the USA has "bitten off more than it can chew" because this is a struggle which cannot be won my military means.
 

Bart,

Thank you for your reply vis a vis Reagan and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Reagan's hagiographers have made much of his role in this historic event, especially emphasizing the SDI and the Afghanistan War. And there is some truth to those claims as the SU was forced in reaction to divert monies from their consumer sector to the military end of things...this built up the unrest and discontentment that Gorbachev had to deal with once he started his ill-fated program of reforms.

There really were two Reagans when it came to the SU. One fairly confrontational, one much more conciliatory. The second one, of course, is ignored by the true-believers.

I commend to Raymond Garthoff's splendid book: The Great Transition: American-Soviet Relations and the End ofthe Cold War (Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, 1994)

As you might guess, since it is me recommending it, this book takes a much more objective view of Reagan's role, than his adoring cult members do.

If you recall the famous "X" article in FR, then you know the containment policy was more than mere passivity!
 

Michael:

I have never understood the attempts on both sides of our ideological divide to exclude tools of statecraft. The left like Diggins wants to exclude the military and often any effective economic tools, while the right often wants to exclude diplomacy and often the economic tools. ALL of them have their place.

Indeed, as I observed above, diplomacy was the third prong of the Reagan Doctrine offensive.

Reagan was a very experienced negotiator from his days as head of the SAG union. Based on the way the Soviets had rolled the prior three administrations in negotiations, Reagan knew that he needed the upper hand to gain the advantage in future negotiations and pursued a very deliberate and detailed military and economic offensive to achieve the upper hand.

By the time he entered negotiations with the Soviets, Reagan had achieved military and economic superiority and was essentially negotiating the nearly complete nuclear disarmament of the Soviet Empire.

The tipping point for the Soviets was SDI, which their scientists told the leadership was possible for the US, but not the USSR. The USSR kept trading away weapons if only the US would give up SDI. Reagan refused all of the Soviet concessions at Reykjavik and said that SDI was non-negotiable.

Reykjavik was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Empire. Knowing that they could not keep up with the US, the Soviets essentially surrendered the Cold War, withdrawing from Afghanistan in 1988, allowing the Wall to fall in 1989, and then dissolving the Warsaw Pact in 1990 and going home to Russia. Over these years, the Soviets agreed to massive cuts in their nuclear arsenal out of necessity.
 

Diggins pretty much ignores the offensive use of military and economic power which drove the Soviets to the bargaining table and then out of business entirely.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 5:34 PM

There's a good reason for that. Only a complete imbecile could think that is what actually happened.
 

The tipping point for the Soviets was SDI, which their scientists told the leadership was possible for the US, but not the USSR.

Another EXCELLENT example of delusion. You are really going for the gold star today.

In fact, SDI was not ever, nor will it ever be, a tipping point for anything. Any missile defense system can be relatively easily overwhelmed with multiple warheads and decoys. Out scientists know that, the Soviets know that, and so does everone else.
 

Once people taste economic freedom, they generally start demanding political freedom as well.

Baghdad, the Russians had their taste of political freedom. Putin is leading Russia AWAY from political freedon, not towards it. The Russians appear to be meekly following him. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

In short, you are full of shit.
 

Bartbuster--

To be fair, Bart is correct in the limited sense that the SDI did impose a further economic burden on the Soviet Union as they shifted resources to try to counter it.

But this was probably not the great factor the Church of Reagan would have it.

As Reagan observed himself, early in his first term, the Soviet economy was already in bad shape and in his (RR's) words: "held together with baling wire".

SDI to the SU was like a terminally ill man catching pneumonia, it did speed the process, but the end was in sight anyway.

The basic problem was that the Soviet's own decades-long propaganda campaign finally caught up with them. The people of the SU, having heard since child- or young adulthood, how many human rights they were given by their own constitution, started taking the propaganda seriously and demanding the State live up to its promises. The discontent boiled over, not as a reaction to Reagan's intransigence, but as a long suppressed resentment that found an opening with Gorbachev's loosening of the restraints.
 

To be fair, Bart is correct in the limited sense that the SDI did impose a further economic burden on the Soviet Union as they shifted resources to try to counter it

They didn't do any such thing. There was no need. SDI would have been easily overwhelmed with the resources they already had, and they knew it.
 

Michael,

The Soviets never invested much in countering SDI. Like the vast majority of the American scientific establishment, they never believed it had much chance of success.

What the Soviets couldn't match was the automation, and the way it was multiplying the effectiveness of American forces.

The automation made possible a level of training that the Soviets, with their sixties-era technology, simply couldn't match. In order to achieve force equivalence they'd have had to spend four or five times the money the USA was spending, and that was far beyond what they could afford.

But SDI? Nah.

This brings us back to the legacy of the Bush administration, which has been to demolish the military machine that intimidated the vast Soviet machine, in order to create a theocracy in Iraq.
 

Excluding Abraham Lincoln [pre-emptive] i often wonder why is it that to be a true conservative icon .. one must be a president of the united states who subverted or attempted to subvert the US Constitution ?? ... Why is that ??
 

Bartbuster and C2H50H,

I stand corrected. That will teach me to talk out of my field of expertise....

I googled away after reading your comments, "Could I be wrong, after all?"

It looks like you are correct. SDI did not materially effect internal Soviet spending:

"The Soviet Union's defense spending did not rise or fall in response to American military expenditures. Revised estimates by the Central Intelligence Agency indicate that Soviet expenditures on defense remained more or less constant throughout the 1980s. Neither the military buildup under Jimmy Carter and Reagan nor SDI had any real impact on gross spending levels in the USSR. At most SDI shifted the marginal allocation of defense rubles as some funds were allotted for developing countermeasures to ballistic defense."

From Reagan and the Russians, Atlantic Magazine 1994.

In fact SDI prolonged the influence of the anti-perestroika faction, by giving them arguments that the West was out to get first-strike capability.

Thanks for the information and corrections.
 

jkat,

A good question indeed. They have lost faith in constitutional government and the rule of law. They are authoritarians at heart and want only to follow Strong Men who can brusquely shrug aside niggling legal restraints.

The conservatives are a rabble without a figure of historic importance to point to as a symbol. Thus their attempt to transmogrify the Gipper into a Rushmore'an giant, worthy of having a statue, airport, or street named after him in every one of the 50 states. They want him to serve as their FDR.

Probably would like him on our currency.

In actuality, he was the second of the string of the 3 Bad Presidents, (RN, RR, GWB)that someday a modern Suetonius will write a history of and that have done so much damage to this country.
 

And to counter the Caesar-ians in the Republican Party, we have our own people's tribunes, I just finished watching one of them, Dennis Kucinich, read out his 35 articles of impeachment for almost four hours.

A historic and virtuous effort.
 

They are authoritarians at heart and want only to follow Strong Men who can brusquely shrug aside niggling legal restraints.

The crux of the matter is faith in human nature. Conservatives don't have much. They can't see people as capable of governing themselves, but only as incorrigible brutes (maybe they spend too much time in front of the mirror...) in dire need of an iron fist. But as this is not a very palatable view to hold it inspires grotesque forms of subliminal gymnastics to supress it from consciousness.

(*Plato was the greatest and most eloquent champion of right-wing politics, with Socrates as his mouthpiece. For a real treat read I.F. Stone's The Trial of Socrates!)
 

Indeed, as I observed above, diplomacy was the third prong of the Reagan Doctrine offensive.

Wow. Who woulda thought? It was the sainted Sir Ronnie that invented foreign affairs through military, economic and diplomatic means. He even got the freakin' patent for this....

I am duly impressed, and now I can understand why "Bart" holds Sir Ronnie in such high regard, despite his occasional foibles (such as illustrated here, and such wonderful real manifestations of his wisdom such as doubling the national debt, getting 241 Marines killed in Lebanon, invading Grenada as a consequences, trading arms to the Great Satan Iran for hostages, running insurgencies in Latin America, and so forth....

... and on to the Dubya hagiology....

Cheers,
 

The tipping point for the Soviets was SDI, which their scientists told the leadership was possible for the US, but not the USSR.

It wasn't possible for either.

But Raygun was hung up on it. It nearly wrecked Rekjavik. Once again, for those interested, I recommend Rhodes's book, "Arsenals of Folly" (which also details the hand of the same people -- including Richard Perle -- who managed to screw up Iraq in more recent times, trying to torpedo any detente).

Cheers,
 

Folks:

1) The Soviets did not raise their military production in response the the Reagan buildup because their economy was failing and their military production was maxed out. The Soviets had been at a wartime level of production for decades. THAT was the entire point of increasing our production to a point past which they could not keep up.

2) SDI was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for the Soviets. The USSR nearly bankrupted itself attempting to establish nuclear superiority after having to back down during the Cuban Missile Crisis. They viewed SDI as a threat to that weapon.

3) The USSR was a firm believer in ABM systems and had been working on them for years. However, much of their technology was stolen from the West, Reagan largely shut down that inflow of Western technology.

4) Start out with "Crusader" and read the Soviet's own archives and post Cold War statements on the subject. Start with pages 300-302, footnotes 27-41.

5) Even absent the Soviet's own admissions, why do you think the Soviets were willing to substantially disarm for the first time in their history, throwing away an investment of hundreds of billions of dollars which they could ill afford, all in order to get rid of SDI?

6) Even on a shoestring budget and largely ignored for the Clinton decade, SDI is now up and running.
 

arne langsetmo said...

Wow. Who woulda thought? It was the sainted Sir Ronnie that invented foreign affairs through military, economic and diplomatic means. He even got the freakin' patent for this....

Actually, Reagan was simply bringing us back to the days when FDR wielded all the tools of American power - tools which the Dems abandoned when they went isolationist after Vietnam.
 

1) The Soviets did not raise their military production in response the the Reagan buildup because their economy was failing and their military production was maxed out. The Soviets had been at a wartime level of production for decades. THAT was the entire point of increasing our production to a point past which they could not keep up.

So fucking what?

2) SDI was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for the Soviets

Numbnuts, the only way this is true is if the Soviets increased their military spending to match Ronnie Raygun's increase in military spending. They didn't. End of story.

6) Even on a shoestring budget and largely ignored for the Clinton decade, SDI is now up and running.

And would still be easily overwhelmed by a Russian attack.
 

Actually, Reagan was simply bringing us back to the days when FDR wielded all the tools of American power

Yes, how could we forget when FDR invaded Grenada in response to Hitler's invasion of Poland.

Or when FDR removed US troops from Normandy after the Germans set off a truck bomb.

Good times...
 

bartbuster said:

Any missile defense system can be relatively easily overwhelmed with multiple warheads and decoys. Out scientists know that, the Soviets know that, and so does everone else.

The main problem is that "all it takes is one nuclear bomb to ruin your whole day". Any defence, to be credible, must be 100% effective. And warheads are relatively cheap (and decoys even cheaper). Not to mention, there's any number of ways to get them through (and not all through ballistic trajectories).

Cheers,
 

Actually, the military spending increases started in the Carter presidency. Credit where credit is due.

To evaluate the truthfulness of Bart's arguments, all that is necessary is to contemplate his assertion, made just now, that "SDI is now up and running."

Yes, having successfully intercepted a single target, a satellite whose orbit had been continually tracked for weeks, which was making no attempt to evade, and was not hardened.

This is an exceptionally dangerous belief (as opposed to those right-wing beliefs that are merely stupid or misguided), that we are now protected by an operational "missile shield."

Yes, another great legacy of the Bush administration: billions spent on a hopeless plan to construct an ABM system, undermining more international treaties and, coincidentally, militarizing near-Earth space.
 

Remember that Dem Senate report which was supposed to confirm that "Bush lied and People Died?" Well, the Senate Dems finally and very quietly issued that report and it nearly suceeded in passing under the media radar. However, the Washington Post caught the high points of the report which exposed as a lie the claim that Bush lied:

[D]ive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence."

Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and

statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
 

Michael:

In fact SDI prolonged the influence of the anti-perestroika faction, by giving them arguments that the West was out to get first-strike capability.

Covered in the Rhodes book. Read all three of his trilogy ("The Making of the Atomic Bomb [Pulitzer prize winner], "Dark Sun", and the latest, "Arsenals of Folly")

Good summer reading list.

"Bart", of course, is allergic to Pulitzer prize winners, and will stay on the Regnery Press Froth-Of-The-Month Club list.

Cheers,


Cheers,
 

"Bart" DeDicta:

1) The Soviets did not raise their military production in response the the Reagan buildup because their economy was failing and their military production was maxed out. The Soviets had been at a wartime level of production for decades. THAT was the entire point of increasing our production to a point past which they could not keep up.

Assuminf arguendo what you said is true: Huh? If so, what was the point? That they couldn't keep up? Then why would we do such a foolish thing as doubling the national debt?!?!?

Cheers,
 

Arne, don't you remember when our Panzers crossed the Russian steppe on their way to Moscow and forced the Soviets to surrender? No? Anybody? Still no?

Well, I'm sure that's the way Bart remembers it.
 

It was an Op-Ed column by Fred Hiatt in the Washington Post that Lisa's bro enumerated as being the words of the Washington Post. If Fred Hiatt is the equivalent of the Washington Post, could that apply to EJ Dionne and Dan Froomkin and his White House Watch speaking for the Washington Post? Does Lias's bro have inside information that Fred Hiatt voices the Washington Post's views? (Granted, the link is to Hiatt's column. Keep in mind that Hiatt has long been and continues to be an enabler of George W's faulty administration, perhaps as much of a hawk as Chuck Krauthammer.)
 

"Bart" DeDicta:

2) SDI was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for the Soviets. The USSR nearly bankrupted itself attempting to establish nuclear superiority after having to back down during the Cuban Missile Crisis. They viewed SDI as a threat to that weapon.

False. As pointed out, they viewed it as a part of "first-strike capability".

3) The USSR was a firm believer in ABM systems and had been working on them for years. However, much of their technology was stolen from the West, Reagan largely shut down that inflow of Western technology.

Oh. Like the 8085 masks they started using in the '80s?

4) Start out with "Crusader" and read the Soviet's own archives and post Cold War statements on the subject. Start with pages 300-302, footnotes 27-41.

5) Even absent the Soviet's own admissions, why do you think the Soviets were willing to substantially disarm for the first time in their history, throwing away an investment of hundreds of billions of dollars which they could ill afford, all in order to get rid of SDI?

That's in Rhodes's book. I recommended it to many months ago. Why don't you read it?

FWIW, Rhodes is not some Reagan-hater. He thinks that Saint Ronnie had the proper notion at times (but was nonetheless a little short on the transition from idea to practise, in part thanks to the UC/Wohlstetter eedjits that pervaded his administration).

But thinking that no one else could have done the stuff that Reagan did do is a logical error.

Cheers,
 

Hiatt selectively quoted from the report. Where the report says "substantiated by intelligence information, but the administration failed to convey the substantial disagreements in the intelligence community", Hiatt claims the report says "substantiated by intelligence information."

More bluntly, Hiatt is lying.
 

"Bart" DeFataMorgana

6) Even on a shoestring budget and largely ignored for the Clinton decade, SDI is now up and running.

Just like my OTA server here is "up and running". It's showing "active" when I type "OTA_status".....

Does that mean I can go home now?

Cheers,

P.S.: First time I've heard of a trillion dollars (or even $100B) being called a "shoestring". As Everett Dirksen purportedly said: "A trillion here and a trillion there, and soon you're talking about real money." Oh. Right. He said "a billion here..."
 

The Bush Doctrine is simply the application of the successful Reagan Doctrine on a different foe.

Stop with this "doctrine" crap. Intelligent, deeply read foreign policy thinkers come up with "doctrines". Bush has policies, but he doesn't apply them consistently. (For that reason, 4 or 5 things have been called the "Bush Doctrine" over the years.)

"Bush Doctrine" is a piece of empty Republican spin.
 

dilan said...

BD: The Bush Doctrine is simply the application of the successful Reagan Doctrine on a different foe.

Stop with this "doctrine" crap. Intelligent, deeply read foreign policy thinkers come up with "doctrines". Bush has policies, but he doesn't apply them consistently. (For that reason, 4 or 5 things have been called the "Bush Doctrine" over the years.) "Bush Doctrine" is a piece of empty Republican spin.

Did I mention that the reaction from Mr. Bush's opponents is much the same as that offered by Mr. Bush's opponents - he is too stupid to have a foreign policy.

I would observe that only "intelligent, deeply read foreign policy thinkers" offer intelligent critiques of a foreign policy. The rest simply use they learned in the kindergarten sandbox: "You are stupid!"

When you are prepared to actually offer substantive critiques based on actual facts of either the Reagan or Bush foreign policies, I will enjoy discussing them with you.

However, what is being offered so far merely confirms my observation to Mary of the absurdity of lawyers posing as foreign policy experts.
 

Back to the "Legacy" of the Bush administration:

highly condensed:

1) A demolished economy

2) A thoroughly plundered Treasury

3) A prostituted and debased EPA, HUD, Labor Dept, DOJ, NLRB, FEC, etc.

4) A citizenry whose avg lifespans are less than when the administration took office.

5) An atmosphere with the highest CO2 concentration in 600,000 years.

6) A destroyed fishery industry, a polluted ocean.

7) A biosphere depleted by thousands of species.

8) A legal system brought into thorough disrespect and cynicism on the part of the public

9) a voting system brought into thorough disrespect and cynicism on the part of the public.

10) A de-legitimization (by abuse) of major democratic political institutions: hence a weakening of popular democracy.

11) A weakened military.

12) A strengthened Islamic fundamentalism.

13) A strengthened autocratic movement in Russia.

14) A de-linkage to allies abroad.

15) A weakening of America's strategic position by the encouragement of new alliances aimed economically against us.

16) A deconstruction of large parts of our federal government.

17) A weakening of citizen protections in health, workplace safety.

18) A contraction of media diversity

19) An encouragement of predatory democracy including lending industries, mortgage industries, punitive banking practices.

20) A perversion of governmental agencies to purposes opposite their charters.

21) A weakening of the public education system.

22) A weakening of the public health sector.

23) A reduction in the legal standing of citizens to bring suit.

24) A strengthening of private economic power to oppress.

and so forth and so on
 

the absurdity of lawyers posing as foreign policy experts.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 2:47 PM


Presumably this means you are going to stop posing as a foreign policy expert?
 

arne:

All weapons are first strike weapons if one wields them first.

It is irrelevant why the Soviets were desperate to convince the United States to forego SDI.

It is also irrelevant that SDI was used as an argument to oppose the doomed attempt to create a kinder and gentler totalitarian system known as Perestroika.

The only thing that matters is that the Soviets believed that US development of SDI meant that they had lost the Cold War.

The Soviets themselves have admitted this last fact.
 

When you are prepared to actually offer substantive critiques based on actual facts

Your claims have been repeatedly hammered by substantive critiques based on actual facts. You have responded with rightwingnut fantasies. Physician, heal thyself.
 

The Soviets themselves have admitted this last fact.

They did no such thing.
 

michael:

For such a stupid man, it is interesting that you believe that Mr. Bush has influence on par with God.

Tell me, do you believe that Mr. Obama can cure all of these "problems" which you believe that Mr. Bush somehow caused?
 

For such a stupid man, it is interesting that you believe that Mr. Bush has influence on par with God.

What does being smart have to do with having influence?
 

Bart,

Obama, with the best will in the world, with two full terms in office, and with the happy circumstances of filibuster proof majorities in the Senate and bluedog dem +gop proof majorities in the House, and with, even more improbably, the support of the media will still be unable to undo all the damage this administration is leaving in its wake.

But at least he can try.
 

Michael:

It is good to see that you have not completely fallen for the latest cult of personality. No man could cause or remedy your list of problems.
 

Neocon Bart wrote:-

"Tell me, do you believe that Mr. Obama can cure all of these "problems" which you believe that Mr. Bush somehow caused?"

With a Colombia degree in Political Science, with a specialisation in International Relations, President of the Harvard Law Review, Harvard JD, magna cum laude, and having taught constitutional law for 12 years at Chicago,he might be better placed than the Toxic Texan was to understand and observe the proper limits on the power of the Executive.

He would, of course, face a task equivalent to the labours of Hercules, with special regard to the cleansing of stables, and as with individuals, national honour and international respect is harder to regain once lost than to preserve.

Still, the worldwide reaction to his nomination is favourable. So far as the UK is concerned, he is unlikely to find a big circulation daily carrying for him the headline which marked the unhappy outcome of 2004::

How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb? - Daily Mirror 4 Nov 2004

One can but pray and the following text may be apposite:

Be merciful, spare us, O Lord. Be merciful, graciously hear us, O Lord.

From all evil, O Lord, deliver us. From all sin, deliver us. From your wrath, deliver us. From sudden and unprovided death, deliver us. From the snares of the devil, deliver us. From anger, and hatred, and all ill-will, deliver us. From the spirit of fornication, deliver us. From lightning and tempest, deliver us. From the scourge of earthquake and tsunami, deliver us. From plague, famine and war, deliver us. From everlasting death, deliver us.

From the foreign policy of the George W. Bush Administration, deliver us.

From George Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Alberto Gonzalez, Richard Armitage, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, John Bolton, Stephen Cambone, Dov Zakheim, Lewis Libby, Eliot Cohen, Elliott Abrahams, John Negroponte, Richard Perle and all US Neoconservatives, deliver us.

From the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Project for the New American Century, deliver us.

From John 'McSame', deliver us.

From state sponsored torture, corrupt contractors, misfeasance by public officials,deliver us.

Deign, O Lord, to rescue us; O Lord, make haste to help us, Let them be put to shame and confounded who seek our lives. Let them be turned back in disgrace who desire our ruin.

But may all who seek You exult and be glad in You, And may those who love Your salvation say ever, "God be glorified!"

But we are afflicted and poor; O God, hasten to us! You are our help and our deliverer; O God, hold not back!
 

Trivia for the Cognoscenti

Since Condi Rice inspired this thread, people may recall that at the time of her nomination she was a Chevron director, and as is customary had a tanker named after her.

Perhaps appropriately for an Administration which is friendly to the oil industry and helps it with tax breaks, the vessel was registered off-shore - in the Bahamas.
 

I composed my little list on the fly and so missed another score of "legacies"

I welcome anyone else adding to the list.

Note: not all are sins of commission; some are of failing to act.
 

Another res ipsa loquitur moment for you all to enjoy:

["Bart" DeDicta]: Did I mention that the reaction from Mr. Bush's opponents is much the same as that offered by Mr. Bush's opponents - he is too stupid to have a foreign policy.

I sure hope not. ;-)

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DeDicta:

All weapons are first strike weapons if one wields them first.

If your "first strike weapon" is a slingshot and your shield is papier-mâché , you might think again. Don't be stoopid, "Bart" ... oh, nevermind, forgot who I was talking to....

It is irrelevant why the Soviets were desperate to convince the United States to forego SDI.

That's not what you claimed above.

It is also irrelevant that SDI was used as an argument to oppose the doomed attempt to create a kinder and gentler totalitarian system known as Perestroika.

Huh?!?!? Will you just go and freakin' read Rhodes's book?!?!? Get back to me when you have....

The only thing that matters is that the Soviets believed that US development of SDI meant that they had lost the Cold War.

BS.

The Soviets themselves have admitted this last fact.

BS. Now go. Read. The. Book.

Cheers,
 

Mourad:

Still, the worldwide reaction to his nomination is favourable. So far as the UK is concerned, he is unlikely to find a big circulation daily carrying for him the headline which marked the unhappy outcome of 2004::

How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb? - Daily Mirror 4 Nov 2004

Half the population is of under-average (or more accurately, under-median) intelligence.

Although, as we can see, intelligence (or lack thereof) can not account for election results in entirely. You have to factor in greed and RW authoritarian tendencies, not to mention bigotry and other less admirable traits.

Cheers,
 

Bart said: "For such a stupid man, it is interesting that you believe that Mr. Bush has influence on par with God."

Well I assume "stupid" modifies "Mr.Bush", but if it is meant to modify "Michael", then you and my wife are in close agreement! (Like some husbands, I am a master of a mulish stupidity and forgetfulness when it suits my overall strategy of avoiding household work!)

As for Mr Bush's intelligence,
I never was in the Bush-is-dumber-than-a-sackful-of-hammers school. I do believe that he wilfully limits information inputs so operates with self-imposed blinkers....

As far as no man can cause the damage I cite, remember that sins of omission sometimes have more far-reaching effects than sins of commission.

For example, no one thought to assassinate Hitler (or Stalin) before 1938, or if they did, abstained.

That was an omission that shaped the world.
 

Mourad,

Your "prayer" is a work of genius!

Please add Addington and Yoo to the list of neocons.
 

Scientists prove Politicians Stupid

Recent studies of the human brain have discovered many distinct features. Scientists have realized that inside our brain is a reptilian brain. Reptiles having among the least amount of intelligence in the animal kingdom. This area of the brain is responsible for the dominance hierarchy behavior in animals. Meaning it’s function is basic survival and climbing the status ladder so to speak. So invariably people always trying to rise to the top of the social/economic ladder are using the least intelligent area of their brain. Thus politicians being among the highest positions in our society are the epitome of this.

www.truenewspaper.blogspot.com
 

Please add Addington and Yoo to the list of neocons.

In a spirit of charity I would have left Negroponte off the list. He sometimes actually sounds like a reasonable person.

:^)
 

mattski:

In a spirit of charity I would have left Negroponte off the list. He sometimes actually sounds like a reasonable person.

I'm sure that Wohlstetter also sounded "reasonable" at times.

John Negroponte has the blood of thousands on his hands for his "betted dead than Red" work in Latin America for Reagan.

Cheers,
 

I think it was one-sided of me to list exclusively negative legacies to Bush's administration.

Here is a list that looks to the bright side and lists the positives Bush will leave after he steps down (assuming he does step down).

1) Specialty funds featuring energy stocks are healthier. Executive compensations up across-the-board.

2) OLC liberated from previous restrictive ethics constraints.

3) DOJ allowed more freedom, free to be blatantly partisan, thus enhancing usefulness to the Executive.

4) More crime control especially by means of political prosecutions. Ask Gov Spiegelman.

5) More meadows in clearcuts of previously roadless areas in Colorado and California. Increase in meadow flowers.

6) More stability in Pharmaceutical industry. Less worry about irritating state tort cases. Freer to produce defective goods and medicines without hysterical lawsuits.

7) Rationalization of the higgly piggly media industry. Desirable centralization with enhanced economic stability and more uniform coverage of social/political "issues"

8) Greater vitality in agricultural sector by increasing CO2 counts that aid crop productivity.

9) Disentanglement from cramping alliances and friendships with nations like Germany and France. M

10) Enhanced religious values in Government by way of the CFBI's in every department. Breakdown of that spurious church/state wall.

11) Creation of whole new sectors of the economy, such as private military, surveillance technology, and database management software companies.

12) Replacement of aging sections of the national infrastructure with modernized privatized alternatives in power, water, transportation sectors.

13) Creation of a large low-pay alien worker labor pool for use by American Business.

14) Ronald Reagan Days instituted in many states across the union.

15) Elimination of inefficient and costly production and manufacturing facilities by economies of offshoring.

16) Effective suppression of the anarchic labor movement with all the cost savings that entails.

17) Creation of an administration-friendly media outlet with the benefit of molding public approval and support of administration initiatives.

18) Colleges made aware that they cannot just teach anything they please. Persecutions of leftist professors.

19) Legitimization of Intelligent Design, 10 Commandment displays and so forth.

20) Boosting of church attendance rates! Especially in "mega-church sector.

21) Military given much-needed real combat experience. Training of the junior officer corps for future field grade service.

Truely a legacy of many glowing accomplishments!
 

George II's Pros:

Cut marginal income tax rates and as a result the economy is far larger than when he came into office and inherited a recession.

Liberated 50 million people.

Largely destroyed al Qaeda.

Appointed great judges and gave the Court its first semi reliable conservative majority.

George II's Cons:

Spent like a drunken Dem on domestic programs, harmed the conservative GOP brand and allowed the Dems to get back into office.

Out of misplaced Bush loyalty, failed to fire Rummy when it became plain that he could not run a counter insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. This also harmed the conservative GOP brand and allowed the Dems to get back into office.

George II's Mixed Results:

Moved to restore Executive power back to pre 1974 levels, then started to back down by returning the TSP to FISA. Shoulda stuck to your guns George.
 

"Bart" the comedian:

Cut marginal income tax rates and as a result the economy is far larger than when he came into office and inherited a recession.

ROFLMAO!!! Got any other howlers?

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DeDicta:

George II's Pros:

[...]

Liberated 50 million people.

Largely destroyed al Qaeda.

[...]

George II's Cons:

[...]

Out of misplaced Bush loyalty, failed to fire Rummy when it became plain that he could not run a counter insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Alice laughed: 'There's no use trying,' she said; 'one can't believe impossible things.'

"'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'"

The Rev. C.L.Dodgson, Alice in Wonderland

Lewis Carroll was far more intelligent. And humourous.

Cheers,
 

Liberated 50 million people....

Darn, I left that off my list.

Better subtract approx .6 million from that figure...civilian fatalities since Cobra II.

Oh, and subtract 2.5 million refugees to other countries. Not to mention the 2.4 million displaced from their homes but still in-country.

Better also subtract the 40% left who say life was better before "liberation" and the 52% who said the invasion/liberation was "a mistake".

Heck of a job Mr. President!
 

"Largely destroyed al Qaeda"

Great! Then why do we need so much budget for DHS? Why are the terror alerts still at orange?

Those remnants must be pretty active!

Bart--seriously, do you really believe that statement. Really? I know you hang out at the milblogs- is that the consensus there?

Or were you referring to Alqaeda in Iraq?
 

Back to this canard:

"Cut marginal income tax rates and as a result the economy is far larger than when he came into office and inherited a recession."

That merits the canonical "Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining" response. We're heading into the second recession of the Dubya maladministration, added $3 trillion to the national debt, unemployment shot up (and is far above where Clinton left it), oil is sky-high and putting pressure on prices all around, and the stock market's in the doldrums.

If the stock market performed as it did under Clinton, my sweetie and I would be happily retired, on a nice new boat, and sailing Pacific islands and enjoying the lovely waters there right now. We'll be OK, but just a look to the bank statements is enough to make any sane person look back fondly on the Clinton years of peace and prosperity. To be sure, I ahev to really wonder what the Bartster finds so appealing about the Dubya reign.... Must be the authoritarianism and naked aggression. The "Go f*ck yourself" attitude that the maladministration has made so socially acceptable again. And since it is, here's a hearty "Go 4q2" to you as well, "Bart". We'll start feeling a lot better once this present fustercluck starts getting cleaned up) and the perps put in jail).

Cheers,
 

Yet another Bart-barfing into the face of truth and reality --

"The Bush Doctrine is simply the application of the successful Reagan Doctrine on a different foe. The Reagan Doctrine is the offensive use of military, economic and diplomatic power to remove dictatorships and replace them with democracies under the pragmatic theory that democracies do not war against one another and under the moral theory that all people deserve to live in freedom."

You are the last person on the planet to be talking about "morality". Your head is so far up your ass you almost look normal. You are, in a word, an obscenity masquerading as a human who walks on its hind legs.

From you, "morality" doesn't talk, it _swears_.

Cesspool SCUM is your superior.

But I'm sure you "faithfully" wear a lapel flag-pin in order to show off the true depth of your fascist bullshit "patriotism".

As for the Reagan delusion: Saying it's so, LIAR, does NOT make it so.

You are the penultimate and quintessential proof against the Socratic method of "legal" education: bullshit ideological politics as substitute for rule of law.

You are so fucking horrendously clueless that it's doubtlfull you'll ever recognize an actual clue, even if it -- properly -- were to spit in your anti-American face.

Your are not an American. You are a lawless juvenile punk hoping to pass as being instead a sociopathic thug.
 

Gee, Jnagarya.

Why don't you say what you really think!?
 

I rise in defense of Bart DePalma.

Bart has a set of beliefs, value, attitudes and outlooks, that are incredibly resistant to counter-arguments, logic, persuasion, imploring, or vitriol.

Piece by piece, no assault on his statements will succeed in convincing him of his error.

This is because his belief system is a coherent and rational whole. The only way to overturn any part of it, is to overturn the whole of it.

And that is impossible, ladies and gentlemen.

Bart is destined for GOP political office, where he will prosper and join other Colorado luminaries like Tancredo whose beliefs also are of a similar block-like nature.

This impregnable, unimpeachable mindset, we may call the Red State World View.

It glorifies and takes enormous pride in American Military Power. It mourns our losses, and exults in victory. It glorifies and takes enormous pride in being in the American mainstream, which is defined as the white protestant tradition and values (and grudgingly those races and religions who put those traditions and values foremost). The lineal tradition of Valley Forge, Gettysburg, the Somme, the Bulge, the Drive to the Yalu, are all part of this exulted tradition.

In this view, The Commander in Chief, so long as he is a fellow member of the RSWV can do no wrong, should never be disrespected and accorded utmost deference, especially in times of war.

The Armed Forces likewise can do no wrong, should never be disrespected, and accorded utmost deference, especially in times of war.

Bart has, strengthening his certainty, membership in the secret fellowship of combat veterans who have not yet seen the worst war has to offer. He has exulted in the beauty of military power in action, and the intense fraternity of combat soldiers. He scorns civilians as he knows they can never guess at this form of love and devotion to war as a good in its own sake and a definer and uplifter of lives.

You can vilify my client all you want, but you cannot begin to touch his heart of hearts, which is Flag, Country, Service, Courage.

I rest..
 

Michael:

Bart has a set of beliefs, value, attitudes and outlooks, that are incredibly resistant to counter-arguments, logic, persuasion, imploring, or vitriol.

You left out "facts" in the latter list.

Cheers,
 

Michael:

You can vilify my client all you want, but you cannot begin to touch his heart of hearts, which is Flag, Country, Service, Courage.

Oh? Then why does he "bravely turn and flee" from threads when his a$$ is getting whacked?

Hell, if blog commenters make him turn tail, what would a big angry black man (albeit this is sometimes a subset of the above) do, ya think? Or a raghead? Or a Commie? I've noticed a definite fear on his part of all the above too....

Cheers,
 

"Excluding Abraham Lincoln [pre-emptive] i often wonder why is it that to be a true conservative icon .. one must be a president of the united states who subverted or attempted to subvert the US Constitution ?? ... Why is that ??

"# posted by Jkat"

Macho patriotism of the depth of a lapel flag-pin as bellicosed by chickenhawks. Call it "Bartology," or for the more discerning, "Bartiditology".
 

Aren encapsulates Reagan's gigantism --

"Indeed, as I observed above, diplomacy was the third prong of the Reagan Doctrine offensive.

Wow. Who woulda thought? It was the sainted Sir Ronnie that invented foreign affairs through military, economic and diplomatic means. He even got the freakin' patent for this....

I am duly impressed, and now I can understand why "Bart" holds Sir Ronnie in such high regard, despite his occasional foibles (such as illustrated here, and such wonderful real manifestations of his wisdom such as doubling the national debt, getting 241 Marines killed in Lebanon, invading Grenada as a consequences, trading arms to the Great Satan Iran for hostages, running insurgencies in Latin America, and so forth....

... and on to the Dubya hagiology....

Cheers,

# posted by Arne Langsetmo

Ah such fond memories . . .

Reagan's invasion of Grenda was one of the greatest and most brilliant military engagements of all time: unlike all us "weak on defense" lubruls, he recognized the major threat it was their determined intent to destroy the US. He knew, ya see, that Grenada was a huge military machine only cleverly pretending to be a small island.

And then there was Beirut, the brilliant turn-tail-and-run strategy by means of which he sucked the terrorists into leveling the WTC, thus giving his stalwart successor Bushit the needed excuse to shove "democracy" down the throats of the children of the Endarkenment by the delicate imposition of torture.

But my favorite TeeVee moment of all time, and that which inspires in me the greatest admiration and awe, was when Reagan -- wearing his suit jacket -- waggled his finger at the camera and boldly declared:

"I did not have sex with those terrorists to whom I gave the missiles in violation of the Trading with the Enemy Act".

Put him on Rushmore!? Piddling small insult to his towering greatness. Nominate him for GOD!
 

"Bush Doctrine" is a piece of empty Republican spin.

# posted by Dilan

The "Bush[it] Doctrine" is putting firecrackers in frog's mouths and blowing them up.

And torturing brown people who haven't been adjudicated of ANYTHING let alone GUILT in order to save their souls by liberating them from freedom, and in many instances from life itself.
 

Classic nincompoopism from Bart de Bullshitter --

dilan said...

BD: The Bush Doctrine is simply the application of the successful Reagan Doctrine on a different foe.

Stop with this "doctrine" crap. Intelligent, deeply read foreign policy thinkers come up with "doctrines". Bush has policies, but he doesn't apply them consistently. (For that reason, 4 or 5 things have been called the "Bush Doctrine" over the years.) "Bush Doctrine" is a piece of empty Republican spin.

"Did I mention that the reaction from Mr. Bush's opponents is much the same as that offered by Mr. Bush's opponents - he is too stupid to have a foreign policy."

That being the fact -- the "stupid" part --

"I would observe that only "intelligent, deeply read foreign policy thinkers" offer intelligent critiques of a foreign policy. The rest simply use they learned in the kindergarten sandbox: "You are stupid!"

"When you are prepared to actually offer substantive critiques based on actual facts of either the Reagan or Bush foreign policies, I will enjoy discussing them with you."

Ummm . . . Bart, one doesn't offer a critique, quality of it being irrelevant, of that which does not exist.

"However, what is being offered so far merely confirms my observation to Mary of the absurdity of lawyers posing as foreign policy experts.

"# posted by Bart DePalma"

And yet we have Bart, who claims to be a lawyer, posing as [a] foreign policy expert.
 

Gee, Jnagarya.

Why don't you say what you really think!?

# posted by Michael

Because my mother taught me to always be mild in criticism of others.
 

Michael:

Bart has a set of beliefs, value, attitudes and outlooks, that are incredibly resistant to counter-arguments, logic, persuasion, imploring, or vitriol.

You left out "facts" in the latter list.

Cheers,

# posted by Arne Langsetmo

Arne --

You left out --

"I rest."