|
Link color codes:
Britannica Wikipedia Project Gutenberg Questia The Teaching Company FindArticles News: The Economist Depesjer Sploid Music chart: 
Worth reading
From the archives: Remember, remember 11 September; Murderous monsters in flight; Reject their dark game; And let Liberty's flame; Burn prouder and ever more bright - Geoffrey Barto "Bjørn Stærks hyklerske dobbeltmoral er til å spy av. Under det syltynne fernisset av redelighet sitter han klar med en vulkan av diagnoser han kan klistre på annerledes tenkende mennesker når han etter beste evne har spilt sine kort. Jeg tror han har forregnet seg. Det blir ikke noe hyggelig under sharia selv om han har slikket de nye herskernes støvlesnuter."
2005: 12 | 11 | 10 | 09 | 08 | 07 | 06 | 05 | 04 | 03 | 02 | 01
|
The axis of rudeness
Aftenposten's Per A. Christiansen is no friend of terrorism. But do we really have to use all those big words to describe it? Words with meaning, words that sear, that raise eyebrows, impolite words: [Bush and Blair] are the foremost international representatives of a view which makes [the war on terrorism] into a moral war, a struggle of good against evil. Blair just spoke of the "evil" terrorists in Istanbul represented. And Bush underlined the two countries' will to "fight and defeat this evil, wherever it may exist". Evil is such a strong word. How much better to say merely that we disapprove of terrorism, that we shall "fight and defeat this nuisance, wherever it may exist". We're not at war with terrorism. We're having an argument. Blowing up random strangers on the street is not evil, it's rude. That whole "moral" way of speaking is so out of fashion, haven't you heard? People keep telling me that "killing people is wrong", that "terrorism is evil", and I'm like "Hey, you, go thump your Bible on somebody else's head, ok? Am I thumping my books on your head? Stop oppressing me!" Unless Bush and Blair convert their moral language into diplospeak real soon, Christiansen fears a holy war: It is one thing to fight terrorism, a fight which deserves the broadest possible support. It's something else to use military force to fight the world's evil. Then you're quickly in something that reminds of a holy war. Or a jihad, as Osama bin Laden would have said id. I don't buy into the "Europe is doomed" argument popular with some Americans. Seems to me they rather enjoy turning Europe's anti-Americanism on its head, ("you're depraved and doomed", "no you are"), and that explains a lot of it. But this op-ed is evidence for the prosecution. Don't forget: This is written the day after a major terrorist attack against Muslim and European interests, and it's one of few op-eds in Norway to even mention the attack. Christiansen dedicates one paragraph to condemning what he refers to as a "misdeed", and nine to criticizing George W. Bush and Tony Blair for their choice of words in fighting these "misdeeds". He picks this day to (implicitly) defend the terrorists from the charge that what they do is evil. Why? And why today? Bush and Blair do not speak the language of holy war. They speak the language of fighting a specific threat to the world, which they correctly refer to as evil. They do not claim to fight in the name of the Christian God. They do not speak of preserving the purity of Western culture against Islamic corruption. But the mere use of that single word, evil, to describe their enemy, is enough to ring all alarm bells in the head of Per A. Christiansen, even trigger an association to bin Laden himself. Now let me ask a question: If terrorism is not evil, why are we fighting it? Perhaps we shouldn't? Perhaps Christiansen will address this some other day.
Houston | 2003-11-21 17:55 |
Link
Cultural relativism disallows judgment statements regarding another person and his/her beliefs, actions, etc. Your beliefs are not bad, just different. This is a good thing in a culturally diverse world. What if, however, your beliefs intrude on my my beliefs? Then, within the boundaries of cultural relativism, we can discuss the problem (assuming you are also a cultural relativist) and come to a solution. This is a good thing in a culturally diverse world. What if, however, your beliefs are repugnant to me in a manner that is unbridgeable? We can (since we are both cultural relativists) decide not to be a part of each other's lives. It's a shame, but there is no real harm done. At no point is it acceptable to say, "I'm right and you're wrong." Cultural relativism does not allow for that. Nobody is wrong. We're just different. What if, however, your beliefs cause you to murder innocents, subjugate and entire class of people, and wreak havoc on the world? Is it still the right thing to say, "Nobody is wrong. We're just different."? This is where cultural relativism breaks down and the lunacy of the language and attitude that many people want to use in this context, as you point out, Bjorn - becomes laughable. This is not a cultural issue that can and should be resolved with a nice sit down discussion. Neither should the language adopt a tone that evokes that idea. Until people like this fellow can unequivicollay say, "We're right and they're wrong", we'll continue to see this futile attempt to bring this back to the table of cultural relativism, where we all just need to tone down the harsh language and undertsand each other. Leif Knutsen, New York | 2003-11-21 21:25 | Link Cultural relativism has one important exception: if it can be construed as being anywhere right of center, it's fair game, i.e., "evil," "terrorist," whatever. Just ask Noam Chomsky (or for that matter 1/Noam Chomsky, Ann Coulter). Totoro, Chicago, U.S. | 2003-11-21 22:46 | Link I guess the basic question should be asked: is anything evil? Is everything permitted? Can I just stick in pencil in the eyes of a little child on the playground if I feel like it? I'd love to hear some opinions by people who think that terrorists aren't evil-- they're just unfortunates who haven't had the same chances in life that us privileged Americans/Jews/Christians have had. Totoro, Chicago, U.S. | 2003-11-22 02:12 | Link How do we define evil? Is everything permissible? Where does one draw the line? If I feel like it, can I go to a playground and stick a pencil in a little child's eyes? If not, why not? Calling people "Old Testament" is yet another way to sneer at them. Maybe Mr. Aftenposten would feel differently if he were blown up while at work, and he were left to vegetate blinded and missing two legs and an arm. I'm afraid that many of the people who see no evil are people with a lack of imagination. They need to see the body parts of their friends and family strewn about the room before they think things through. Sorry to be so morbid, but a foul wind is blowing, and the "smart set" is too in love with its own smug and hackneyed views. Totoro, Chicago, U.S. | 2003-11-22 02:19 | Link Sorry for the double posting. I first tried to post around 4:00 PM, but it didn't seem to go through. Now it's after 7:00 PM, so I thought I'd try again. I did not mean to repeat the same idea twice!!!! However, since I did repeat myself, I hope some people who think Bush is too "Old Testament" will take up the challenge and respond to my questions. Johan | 2003-11-22 02:19 | Link
Again, I find it amazing that what used to be a "conservative" Norwegian newspaper, is now in bed with the International Socialist type-protestors in London. Cultural relavtism and political correctness has posined any debate in Norway, and don't see it getting better any time soon. Anders, Oslo | 2003-11-24 12:24 | Link The word evil is not inappropriate when describing terrorism. However, it is not a good term for being specific about the problem we are trying to solve. “What’s this war all about?” “Oh, don’t worry we are just fighting evil!” “OK.. sure, go on then.” It does not make much sense. Most terrorist methods are truly evil, but if we do not try to look beyond the “evil-label” our understanding of terrorism will be imperfect, and consequently the countermeasures taken will often be inappropriate. I am not sure if the Bush administration has any kind of insight into why terrorists hate America so intensely. I am not at all saying that the USA deserves terrorism. My point is that the USA does not seem to be interested in why terrorism occurs, and why so much of it is aimed at the USA. I am not happy with the argument. They are evil. Find them and kill them. Persecute every member of Al Qaeda, I have no problem with that. But don’t fool yourself into believing that they are crazy, irrational, inhumane people “who hate freedom”. http://www.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/index.html Friedman actually supports the war in Iraq, so he is not dovish. The op-ed “The way we were” is among the best short pieces I have read on terrorism. It relates to our earlier discussion on “hiding”, being open and not letting terrorists shape who we are. Another op-ed from NYTimes the same day (Maureen Dowd) describes the US thusly: “A nation motivated by fear and ready to lash out at any country it defines as the source of a gathering threat. Instead of a shining city, we have a dark bunker.” Ian Jennings, Berlin | 2003-11-24 14:14 | Link "I don't buy into the "Europe is doomed" argument popular with some Americans." Dare I ask you to explain why you don't, Bjoern? I'd like to believe it - I have a big soft spot for "Old Europe", but there's much to be pessimistic about, it seems to me. Ian tm | 2003-11-24 14:20 | Link Anders, Maureen Dowd (aka MoDo) is not a serious columnist. For a sense of how the problem is viewed in the US, here are a few things to try: Michael Scott Doran, "Somebody Else's Civil War" Paul Berman, "The Philosopher of Islamic Terror" ibid, "Terror and Liberalism" Demosophia's review of Berman's book. Bernard Lewis, "The Roots of Muslim Rage Daniel Pipes, "The Western Mind of Radical Islam" Here's a paragraph from an amazon reviewer on this book: "Dick Cheney experienced a transformation after September 11, 2001. He immersed himself in studying Islam and the Middle East, meeting with the top scholars on the subject: Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami. These scholars argued that toppling Saddam would send a message of strength and enhance America's credibility throughout the Muslim world. Having spent time with such tutors, the vice president became the chief advocate of the neoconservative position. Thus, if one can argue with Dick Cheney's position on Iraq; surprisingly, one can't argue he had not consulted the top minds on the subject. With 20/20 hindsight, it is easy to rebut the Administration Iraqi policies. However, it is more challenging to navigate the quicksand of foreign policy. Nevertheless, the book does an excellent job of clarifying one's hindsight on such matters." For a better sense of what that means, do some googling for Fouad Ajami and Bernard Lewis or, better, read their books. See also _The Age of Sacred Terror_, by two members of the Clinton administration's NSA team. Sam Tannenhaus's interview with Paul Wolfowitz is also interesting: Also, if you have a fast connection, see this video with US foreign policy types (including Ajami) about a week after 9/11: tm | 2003-11-24 14:26 | Link Ian, here are two books which look optimistically towards Europe's future: Calleo, _Rethinking Europe's Future_ Elizabeth Pond, _The Rebirth of Europe_ Leif Knutsen, New York | 2003-11-24 15:26 | Link TM - Maureen Dowd is no less serious than any other columnist. I find her annoying, but disagreeing with her is different from disparaging her as not being serious. And although I am an avid reader of Pipes, Lewis, and the others you mention, they are not emblematic about how things are viewed in the U.S., nor are these an exhaustive list of experts in the Middle East. The State Department is full of Arabists who also can claim expertise, and it's pretty clear Cheney doesn't give them much consideration. This week's New Republic has an interesting article on Cheney's radical perspective on U.S. foreign policy, which is based on the premise that the best long-term source of security for the U.S. is to ensure that there are more democracies in the world. Anyone who paid attention will know that the real reason for the war in Iraq was to destabilize a whole block of dictatorial Arab regimes in the hopes that democracy will break out instead. It's a radical idea the merits of which don't get nearly enough attention in Europe, but let's be clear that it isn't a watertight case, either. Occupying a country to introduce autonomy has been done, but it's really hard to do. I think the administration would be better off explaining that this is a noble experiment borne out of unassailable strategic interests, rather than a no-brainer. Houston | 2003-11-24 15:57 | Link Anders, In regards to: "...the USA does not seem to be interested in why terrorism occurs, and why so much of it is aimed at the USA." I think you are correct at some level, but many in the USA do investigate, and do try to understand the root causes. Those in the USA that do investigate the causes of terrorism find that it is almost always boiled down to two things: 1. American support of Israel. The only acceptable Israel to terrorist muslims is a destroyed and non-existant Israel. 2. Misinformation from their own tyranical dictators, who place blame for their people's poverty and suffering at the feet of the USA and Israel. While they enjoy living like a king (literally), they have somehow convinced their own people that it is the USA's fault that they live in squalor. Niether of these things is actually a policy that we can fix. According to the terrorist apologists we could end terrorism if the USA would simply 1. stop supporting Israel and let them be overrun by Syria, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Iran , etc. and, Point one is impossible becuase we won't abandon an ally to be overrun. Point two is immposible becasue it is actaully their own leaders that are oppressing them, not the USA. Houston | 2003-11-24 15:58 | Link Anders, In regards to: "...the USA does not seem to be interested in why terrorism occurs, and why so much of it is aimed at the USA." I think you are correct at some level, but many in the USA do investigate, and do try to understand the root causes. Those in the USA that do investigate the causes of terrorism find that it is almost always boiled down to two things: 1. American support of Israel. The only acceptable Israel to terrorist muslims is a destroyed and non-existant Israel. 2. Misinformation from their own tyranical dictators, who place blame for their people's poverty and suffering at the feet of the USA and Israel. While they enjoy living like a king (literally), they have somehow convinced their own people that it is the USA's fault that they live in squalor. Niether of these things is actually a policy that we can fix. According to the terrorist apologists we could end terrorism if the USA would simply 1. stop supporting Israel and let them be overrun by Syria, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Iran , etc. and, Point one is impossible becuase we won't abandon an ally to be overrun. Point two is immposible becasue it is actaully their own leaders that are oppressing them, not the USA. Bjørn Stærk | 2003-11-24 16:53 | Link Anders: I agree - we're not fighting terrorism merely _because_ it is evil, but has anyone ever said that? Has the US said that it will now dedicate itself to uprooting evil, wherever it may be found, and that terrorism is merely one form of evil they will fight, or has it said that it will now dedicate itself to uprooting _terrorism_, and underlined this by pointing out how evil terrorism is? The latter, obviously. There's no confusion on the part of Bush here - only among those who object to presenting the war on terrorism in a good-evil perspective. But speaking of good and evil is not the same as justifying the war on terror as a "war on all the world's evil", which truly would be scary. Even when the phrasing has been unfortunate (like Bush's one-time "crusade"), the meaning has been clear. So I do not see a problem with using "evil" fairly often to denounce terrorists. Terrorism is evil. We need to be reminded of this, because political realism (our enemy's enemy is a freedom fighter) is still with us, in various forms. Not just among old Cold War fighters, but among supporters of the Palestinian cause, who have become very skilled at tolerating and rationalizing terror in a good cause, and more recently among peace movements after 9/11. How else can we describe the belief that the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's regimes should be preserved, merely because their enemy was the US, than as a paranoid form of political realism? The US, too, paid lip service to human rights as it made alliances with anti-communist dictators. How are today's peace friends any different? And they don't even have the threat of any greater evils to justify themselves with. I wouldn't be surprised if we can attribute some of the current American foreign policy idealism to the role of national conscience played by the left during the Cold War. Now the peace movement has lost its conscience, and needs some reminding of what is important and what is not. Cutting through the neutered diplospeak many now speak in is part of this. We should beware not to overstate our case for rhetorical effect, but in this we're just speaking clearly: Terrorism is evil. Al-Qaeda is evil. Saddam Hussein is evil. Ian: Somebody else asked me about that too. Have to think it through first. Might write a post about it. | 2003-11-24 20:43 | Link Bjørn, Your response is good. However, I don't fully agree. Is the Al Qaeda group evil? Yes. Why are they evil? Because they are terrorists. Are the separatists in Chechenya evil? Are they terrorists or freedom fighters? Not a clear cut case. Russia labels them terrorists, many others would label them legitimate freedom fighters battling oppression. Personally I do not know what to label them. The people who took hostages in the theatre are terrorists, but the people targeting Russians in Chechenya is a more complicated matter. My point is that the usage of 'evil' is contributing to a lack of precision in terms. All of a sudden all non-state groups that take up arms are labeled terrorists. And terrorists are evil. Evil must be fought, and states seize the opportunity to strike down very hard without the scrutiny of the international community. Tell the US that you are dealing with terrorists and your hands are free. We get caught in our rhetoric when we are not carefully selecting our terms. Give me a good definition of evil!! And if such a defintion were possible, who is to determine what is evil in this world and what is not? Abstract terms of morality are not specific and lead us into a maze. Terrorism is a form of evil, as you state, but evil is not a form of terrorism. Houston: Israel is spot on. This is a place where it would be an exaggeration to claim that the US has followed a pro-Islam policy. The US supports Israel regardless of what Israel does. Israel is combatting terrorism. (There is no doubt about that.) And consequently their hands are free. Poverty, on the other hand, is another issue. There is no direct link between poverty and terrorism. James Versluys | 2003-11-24 22:39 | Link Bjorn, you made an excellent point via the American tendency. There is a rather acute form of schadenfreude in the American response to European nastiness now. I fear this will be permenant now. There has always been anti-Americanism in Europe, but there has only been desultory and sporadic anti-Europeanism in America. This is all changing now due to the connectiveness of the internet, which is putting anti-US feelings constantly to the fore in the American intelligentsia's hands. Simply put, anti-Americanism quickly disseminates now. And it reinforces because while the attention initially comes from the American intelligentsia, it filters down into popular prejudice. I fead at this point we have something that has never been had in US history: a permenant constituency of anti-European, anti-EU, anti-Central Europe bias. There are signs it's become deeply felt, as well. I've been noting that even Leftists in the US take cheap shots at Europeans, which is a bad sign that anti-European feelings are running deep. This is more damaging than you might think. Baseline prejudices are going to be hard to dislodge, and Europeans are among the few groups of people not protected by the polite dance of political correctness, which means that Americans can unload with both barrels.
Totoro, Chicago, U.S. | 2003-11-25 02:15 | Link Anders: Maureen Dowd is not a serious columnist. She's a "pundit" in the worst sense of the word. The New York Times has been very weak in understanding the War on Terror. You would be much better off reading the writers on the suggested reading list in the comments section on this website, the National Review Online, or the Weekly Standard. The so-called "neoconservatives" are doing the real thinking these days. The so-called "liberals" are lost in time, somewhere around 1975. Re the question of evil: I know some Europeans find it hard to believe that Americans have any brains. Unlike many "intellectuals," the people who do the thinking about U.S. foreign policy do not sit around all day trying to find definitions of "evil" so they can fight and destroy it. No, what is motivating U.S. foreign policy is the understanding that the non-Islamic world is under threat by the Islamists, or Islamofascists, who have barbaric goals and the ability to deal death to thousands or millions because of the nature of modern WMD. Now, I suspect you will want to argue about what is "barbaric." Feel free to argue. Meanwhile, I hope the U.S. goes about the business of destroying the evil that is upon us. If "Old Europeans" want to opt out of the world of problem-solvers, well, that's their choice. However, if the Islamofascists win, civilization as you know it will not exist. Totoro, Chicago, U.S. | 2003-11-25 02:31 | Link In a much earlier comments section I mentioned a book that helped me understand much about U.S. foreign policy. It is Walter Russell Mead's Special Providence, c 2000. I recommend it because it analyzes the many threads in U.S. policy, and it also explains a lot about the differences between the U.S. and various European countries. It's a lot to read, but well worth it. You can skim much of it. Og K -- Santa Monica | 2003-11-25 03:54 | Link Leif, You write: "I think the administration would be better off explaining that this is a noble experiment borne out of unassailable strategic interests, rather than a no-brainer." This brings us back to Bjørn's point that there are "reasons," and then are "justifications." Do you believe the Rummy-Cheney gang misjudged the ability of a significant portion of the U.S. citizenry, and of course most of the chattering 4th Estate and much of "world opinion," to handle the unvarnished "reasons" for our emergency intervention in Islamdom. Were Rummy-Cheney and kid brother Dubya mistaken to assume that a spoonful -- or perhaps a bucketful -- of "justifications" were mandatory in order to help the medicine go down? In this vein, how does one, I wonder, have a serious discussion with Peace Now folks (bless their hearts) when they insist on maintaing they've been "lied to." It looked to me that the "reason/justification" approach in the build-up to the Irak intervention was transparent, almost guileless. How can anyone seriously claim to have been beguiled? Who could _not_ know that this was swamp drainage, urban renewal, a pyromania pre-emption project? They HAD to know! No? Totoro, Chicago, U.S. | 2003-11-25 05:15 | Link Og K . . . Yes, they (the so-called peaceniks) HAD to know what the swamp-draining plan is. The U.S. government still has to move carefully. It can't say everything in plain English. For example, I can say in plain English that the Saudis are our enemies. Surely that is obvious to anyone who reads a newspaper. But the U.S. government can't come out and say "You're next, motherfu...rs," even though they're thinking it and planning it. Og K, I reread your post and note that you are rather contemptuous of Bush. I too was a Bush-hater during the fight over the 2000 election, but slowly gained a lot of respect for him. Check out a fairly recent issue of the Atlantic Monthly for an article entitled "The Mind of President Bush." You may reevaluate him too, as I did. | 2003-11-25 10:37 | Link Totoro: However, if the Islamofascists win, civilization as you know it will not exist. This may be true. However, I also believe that the world as you know it does not exist. You seem to be deep into a religious war between Islam and Christianity already. That is not the case. But you may eventually be right. Especially if the USA continues to pursue its imperialistic ambitions in the Arab world. Imposing democracy militarily is nothing short of empire building. Think more closely about the terms: Unilateralism, overreaction and Exceptionalism and constructive engagement. We create the world we live in to some extent. Sneer at others and they will sneer at you. I am not saying that one should underestimate real threats in the real world. My point is that one should not overrate the significance of “a few very bad men”. Regarding Maureen Dowd. Is the Pullitzer Price an award for journalists who are so unsuccessful that they need some kind of relief? I thought it was for distinguished commentary? Her writing skills are phenomenal. However, her constant ridicule of politicians will make her opponents lose sight of her arguments. She is preaching to the congregation. Leif Knutsen, New York | 2003-11-25 12:48 | Link I haven't taken the trouble looking back at all the newspaper articles, speeches, etc. before the war started, but I remember vividly that the Bush administration gave *several* reasons why it was necessary to invade Iraq. One was related to WMD; another was a more or less vague tie between Al Qaeda and Saddam; a third was an even vaguer notion of Pax Americana; and the fourth - mostly articulated by the neocon wing - was that a democratic Iraq would create a kind of benign domino effect in the Arab world. As it turns out, the WMD argument wasn't as strong as people expected (hence, people feeling misled); the Al Qaeda tie may have been more real than previously supposed, though perhaps not that persuasive; Pax Americana was mostly a left-wing projection; and the neocon view is the one that's being brought out now. I was kinda convinced by the neocon argument. I think the Arab dictatorships present a huge threat to world peace for many reasons, and I think it's depriving a population of more than 200 million people of basic rights. Saddam was probably the worst despot still in power, and his WMD program presented - at least in the long run - a real threat to the West. Weapons inspections weren't the least bit helpful. Etc. Etc. But I think there were only a few who paid attention to the neocon argument, and even fewer who bought it. And in any event, it's a radical, risky strategy - many things can go wrong with it. It's like Desert One - the leaders look like heroes if they pull it off, idiots if they don't. Ian Jennings, Berlin | 2003-11-25 13:18 | Link Thanks for the book suggestions, tm - I'll have a look at them. And Bjoern, I hope you do post on this topic - I'm always keen for good news. Ian & PS, seeing this is my first post here - keep up the good work. I enjoy your blog a great deal. Johan | 2003-11-25 19:02 | Link I wouldn't characterize Maureen Dowd as a serious columnist. Just as Paul Krugman is clearly not a serious economist. In todays media picture, I have far more respect to the Blogoshere and the Weekly Standard than New York Times or Aftenposten. tm | 2003-11-26 01:01 | Link Leif, Yes, you're right about "the view in the US." I didn't put that well but what I had in mind was Anders' doubt about the Bush administration having any kind of insight into the problem. The views of Ajami, Lewis, and Pipes are listened to. Berman's a different case but in view of Bush's rhetoric about the failed ideologies of the past in relation to the present crisis there's a definite parallel. And the Doran piece is a good articulation of the view that it is best to see this, in the first instance, as a civil war within the Islamic world. But I do think that Dowd is not a serious columnist. Here's an explanation from Josh Chavetz of Oxblog: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/741snfel.asp The Belgravia Dispatch has also given her an appraising glare.
Better still, stuff like Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and New Perspectives Quarterly. Sandy P. | 2003-11-26 02:09 | Link Gee, where to begin, anonymous?? --You seem to be deep into a religious war between Islam and Christianity already. That is not the case. But you may eventually be right. Especially if the USA continues to pursue its imperialistic ambitions in the Arab world. Imposing democracy militarily is nothing short of empire building-- You're not paying attention or listening to what is being said. We are. I'd rather impose democracy militarily than Islamofascism by nuke, bioweapons and car bombs, which BTW, might be on the way to America. We're not talking about a "few bad men." We're talking minimum low millions, if not at least 20 million. Is the world safer?? In a way, YES - we're more aware of the possibilities of attack and we're paying attention. The UN is nothing but a thugocracy, look at the breakdown. It's a USELESS interfering organization, trying to make itself relevant so those who work there won't have to get real jobs in the real world. How well are they doing in Kosovo? East Timor??? Where'd the UN's cut from the oil-for-palaces go? As to "traditional allies" those are the anglosphere. We welcome New Europe, they get it. Old Europe is still fighting their wars of history. Frankenreich is trying to do by law what it couldn't do by hundreds of years of war, rule. Yet the laws it agreed to aren't to be followed (budget busters).
And yes, the world is wrong. It's not the first time, it won't be the last, but this is going to be deadly. Our traditional allies have learned nothing, hoping to feed America to the alligator so it'll be fed last. --Johan, hahahahahahahaha - not any more, he's a partisan political hack. There's at least 3 bloggers who monitor Herr Doktorperfessor. Totoro, Chicago, U.S. | 2003-11-26 03:59 | Link Sandy P., a great post! I agree with everything you said above. I also enjoy your posts on Europundits and Little Green Footballs. I've noticed that so many people who are against Bush's policies are not really paying attention to what's going on. It's as if these issues are theoretical, rather than actual. For example, so many seem disappointed that WMD was not found. However, there is abundant evidence that Saddam's regime had the capability to create a dangerous program as soon as the sanctions were lifted. Life is not a James Bond movie. This is real, folks. Can you imagine what life would have been like 10 years from now if Saddam had his bomb, his long-range missiles, and his anthrax or other diseases? And what about Iran? Everyone seems pretty relaxed about that new nuclear power. The car bombs in the U.S. have been predicted. We'll see if that occurs. I, for one, often think about bus bombings on the route I take--it would be so easy. What kind of disasters will it take for the o-so-sophisticated to take the dangers of Islamofascism seriously? Sandy P. | 2003-11-26 06:05 | Link Totoro, they know what's coming, who would want to face it? But face it we must, we're not going to be surprised. I read a story a blogger posted after 9/11 - a Jew (prominent, I think) was interviewed either right after being released from a camp or around 1947, can't remember which. He said this, "When someone tells you he intends to kill you, believe him." 1998 - OBL stated his terms of American surrender. July (?) 2003 - AQ printed it's manifesto. Surrender terms are coming from Indonesia, Malaysia, sermons, even London. They refuse to listen and take what is being said seriously. After all, the ultimate goal was printed in the Koran, wasn't it?? Something about the world will be at peace under Islam (hah, what a joke, whose interpretation)? And now they're trying to obtain the weapons to make it happen. The terms of surrender are unacceptable. Europe had better get used to the idea. Unconditional surrender for the other side. The ultimate goal is peace, we're just discussing the terms. Anders, Oslo | 2003-11-26 11:02 | Link Sandy P, Totoro: I strongly disagree. (By the way I accidentally posted the anonymous post.) There is only one alligator in the world Sandy. Guess who that is? Let me put it this way: you are the only ones who do not need to worry about being eaten by it :-) I think that your perception of the world resembles a James Bond movie. I am somewhat shocked over the "Find them and kill them mentality" and also the ridicule of the "intellectual approach". Action now against whatever comes in the way is not the way to peace. "A little less conversation a little more action" is the Elvis approach to foreign policy. What is very interesting about the media discussion is that "The new Republic" is not slandered about. This is rightly deserved as it is an excellent publication with quality material ranging from the far-right to the far-left in US politics. (By international standards there is no far-left in the USA, if so it would be one economist which has already been mentioned). Leif Knutsen, New York | 2003-11-26 18:44 | Link I have a major beef is with this quote: *********************** This is nothing short of absurd. Let's deconstruct it. First of all, the people who are being imposed upon in Iraq is the Saddam regime. And it seems to me that instituting democracy is logically incompatible with imperialism. You can't have democracy without autonomy, and autonomy is in direct contradiction with imperialism in any meaningful sense of the word. What we're left with is the notion that democracy is a "bad" (evil?) Western idea, which is precisely what Al Qaeda believes. I don't think so. Arab states may develop their own form of democracy, but I think they're better off living in democracies than in theocracies. And I think we're better off too. Totoro, Chicago, U.S. | 2003-11-26 22:04 | Link Victor Davis Hanson has a terrific column in today's Nation Review Online (Nov. 26). He talks about various aspects of multilateralism and unilateralism that fit with the general discussions on this blog. Sandy P. | 2003-12-01 08:29 | Link --I think that your perception of the world resembles a James Bond movie. I am somewhat shocked over the "Find them and kill them mentality" and also the ridicule of the "intellectual approach". -- You can jaw-jaw til the cows come home, Anders, it's what Europe is good at. Well, that and killing multimillions. But, hey, gotta break a few eggs to get socialism right, correct? Or make sure frankenreich rules...... Oh, and the intellectual approach worked well in Iraq for the past 12 years, didn't it? That severe finger-wagging worked wonders. Doesn't change what's in the Koran and the big hole in NYC. I'm w/in 90 miles of approx 13 nuke reactors and my water supply is from the largest body of fresh water in the world. Poison it and good-bye middle America and the world's breadbasket. And here's something from Vodkapundit. Maybe your intellectually-oriented brain will get the point: Hey, kids! It's History Trivia Time! Wait -- come back. The questions are easy and the answers are even provided for you, so everyone can feel all smart and stuff. Today's topic is Modern Warfare. Here we go: Q: When did the Civil War end? Q: When did World War I end? A: It didn't really end until World War II ended. Q: OK, Mr. Smarty Pants, when did WWII end? A: It ended when Germany was burned, occupied, and crying uncle. And when Japan was burned, occupied, slightly radioactive, and crying uncle. Q: Well, what about Korea? A: That war is still on, too. Q: Oh. A: Did you have another question? Q: Yes. When did Vietnam end? A: It ended when South Vietnam was burned, occupied, and crying uncle. Q: And Iraq? A: I'll get back to you on that one. We didn't burn a whole lot, and some crazies just don't know when to cry uncle. --- It's history, Anders. And you'd better hope that western civ is not on the "crying uncle" end. It's not September 10, it's September 12. Especially when one reads things like this via LGF: "Follow the money" is an old adage, and it means that economic interest will eventually explain much human behavior. That France opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein because he owed millions to French banks is proof of this. Less well known, but much more troubling, are key French financial links with other U.S. enemies. They raise the belief that the Franco-American conflict over Iraq was just one slice of the action. For France was not just Baathist Iraq's largest contributor of funds; French banks have financed other odious regimes. They are the No. 1 lenders to Iran and Cuba and past and present U.S. foes such as Somalia, Sudan and Vietnam. This type of financing is shared by Germany, France's partner. German banks are North Korea's biggest lenders, and Syria's--and Libya's. But France is the most active. In Castro's sizzling gulag, French banks plunked down $549 million in the first trimester this year, a third of all credit to Cuba. The figure for Saddam's Iraq is $415 million. But these pale in comparison with the $2.5 billion that French banks have lent Iran. The figures come from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, and were interpreted by Iñigo Moré for a Madrid think-tank, the Real Instituto Elcano. As he says, "one could think that Parisian bankers wait for the U.S. to have an international problem before taking out their checkbooks." French banks seem to be almost anywhere U.S. banks are absent. They lend in 57 such countries, and are the main lenders in 23 of those. (His report can be read at www.realinstitutoelcano.org.) The report offers reasons why Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin really ought to stop using the phrase "our American friends" every time he talks about the U.S. Sandy P. | 2003-12-02 18:21 | Link Anders, USS Clueless has a timely post. Read it and imprint those words in red into your brain as well. Anders, the planet Venus | 2003-12-03 16:40 | Link Sandy: I read the first post and thought there wasn't much more to debate about here. I read the second one and had my suspicions confirmed. However, your second reponse suggests that you want some kind of answer. We live on different planets. I can assure you that if you kill everyone else on the planet, no one will pour poison into your drinking water. It was a shame with all those nukes, chemical, and biological agents Iraq whipped out on the world during those "12 years of finger-wagging". I must agree with you there. If Uncle Sam hadn't cleaned up that lethal kitchen in Baghdad right away, civilization as we know it would have been exterminated by now. Who do you think should be next? How far down the list is Frankenreich? They must be stopped as they are constantly getting in the way of companies like Halliburton. Maybe the US should re-establish the United Fruit Company? Sometimes people shoot themselves in the foot, sometimes they even shoot off both their feet... Lars Ruben Hirsch, Norway | 2003-12-04 22:07 | Link Anders, As most of the Iraqies themselves seem happy with the US ouster of Saddam, why do you think it was wrong? What about all the lives that are saved? Your comparison with France is way off, Chirac doesn't support terrorist (like Saddam did with Hamas, Islamic Jihad and possibly al-Qaida), torture and (mass-)murder his fellow frenchmen (Saddam: kurds, shias and any other opposition), threaten other countries with destruction (Saddam: Israel, Saudi-Arabia) or invade his neighbours (Iran, Kuwait). Ray G, California, USA | 2003-12-05 00:21 | Link From Anders "..don’t fool yourself into believing that they are crazy, irrational, inhumane people “who hate freedom”. " I can only judge by their actions and words, and they do seem to fit that description. To quote an old USA saying that you may or may not be familiar with, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then just maybe it is a duck." Anders, still on Venus | 2003-12-05 13:28 | Link Lars Ruben: The war was wrong because it is about breaking international rules: (No UN-mandate, no self-defense) and about breaking international norms regarding "just war" (there is no just cause, in this instance.) It also violates generally accepted conceptions of legal justice. It involves punishing someone for something they might do in the future. Have you ever seen anyone sent to the electric chair because "they might end up with killing someone" in the future?? The results of all this is very depressing. The precedent created is abysmal. It's called exceptionalism. The strong do as they please. The weak must shut up in order to hope not to be on the receiving end the next time the strong decide to invade somebody. The international order is on the verge of collapsing. Was this necessary after 9-11? Collapse of all international norms would indeed be a victory for the terrorists. They wanted this!!! RAY G: Do you seriously believe that "Crazy, irrational" people could organize such a complicated and highly sophisticated attack?? Jerold Post is a researcher and renowned analyst who does psychological profiles of terrorists for the CIA. Terrorists are not prone to psychopathology. An abstract of his paper on the "Root causes of terrorism" conference is available on the link below: http://www.nupi.no/English/Research/Knowledge_base_on_terrorism_and_int._crime/External_resources/News/ Jerold Post says: "terrorist groups regularly exclude emotionally disturbed individuals, who represent a security risk." He walks like an islamist, he talks like an islamist, he looks like an islamist... TURBAN = TERRORIST and
Bjørn Stærk | 2003-12-05 16:18 | Link Anders: Some would say that the war was mandated by resolution 1440 and a dozen resolutions before it, but I'll grant that many the members of the UNSC didn't see it that way. But so what? I don't mean to shrug off the importance of diplomacy and international relations, I would just like you to be more precise about what horrible damage Bush has done to international relations, and what the _practical_ effects of this will be. "International law" has become a buzzword, and when something becomes a buzzword you need people to stop and ask "what's the big deal about this thing anyway?", even if it's just to remind ourselves what we're talking about. I also wonder if not your own connections to this world make you think international relations are more important than they really are. "Do you seriously believe that "Crazy, irrational" people could organize such a complicated and highly sophisticated attack??" I don't believe that al-Qaeda are crazy and irrational. They have a crazy worldview and crazy goals, but they're rational about reaching them. Like in other totalitarian ideologies, radical Islamist thinkers are very intelligent, and have blinding visions of a pure and perfect future, which can only be achieved with rational craziness. The analogy may not be perfect, but we should approach them like we would approach Nazi's - on the assumption that they have the same crazy hatred and contempt of what we stand for, the same rationality about how to destroy us, the same _faith_ in their vision, the same appeal to mostly-normal human beings, and that they live in the same millennarian fantasy world. I believe this is worth fighting, and it's worth fighting at the source, which is the Arab world. The Iraq war was a part of that. It's simply not true as you say that "Of course there was a hidden agenda other than the official reasons. Should we then just sit back and say: "well they probably had their reasons even though they had to lie and spin in order to persuade us for this war"?? " because this "hidden" agenda was not very hidden. It was obvious to anyone who paid attention to the American debate about the war on terror. To claim that the Iraq war was supposedly only about wmd's is to say that you didn't pay attention, that all you knew about the American motivation for going to war was what NRK told you. I hope that's not so. As I've written before, 9/11 taught Americans and many other people two things, that 1) the Arab world is in deep shit, and that 2) their problems are now our problems. This was clear from week one. If you're surprised about the direction American rhetorics have taken, don't blame Bush. Go back two years in the archives of political magazines and blogs, and _start reading_. Pay attention to what people actually say, pay attention to the mood, to the sudden and total shift in attention. It should be rewarding. Lars Ruben Hirsch, Norway | 2003-12-05 22:56 | Link Anders, From what you say I can only interpret that you would rather have seen Saddam still in power - as that would be the only realistic outcome if the US had _not_ gone to war. And BTW, turbans are primarily used by Sikhs, although Hindus and some Muslims use them too. Anders, Oslo | 2003-12-08 12:00 | Link Bjørn: I am very surprised about one thing in your post. I have already been precise several times in this forum about what damage is done to international order. I will therefore cut and paste: “The precedent created is abysmal. It's called exceptionalism. The strong do as they please. The weak must shut up in order to hope not to be on the receiving end the next time the strong decide to invade somebody.” “the USA has demonstrated that it neither cares about, nor needs the support of the UN or its traditional allies.” “states seize the opportunity to strike down very hard without the scrutiny of the international community. Tell the US that you are dealing with terrorists and your hands are free.” I am also a bit baffled by the way you insinuate that I am not aware of the shift in US rhetoric after 9-11. It’s what I study. I am not surprised by the USA lead invasion of Iraq. I strongly oppose it. I analyze all major speeches Bush has held following 9-11. I am fairly informed regarding their content. Lars Ruben: Difficult question. We will never know what would have happened if the war in Iraq never had occured. Saddam had been in power for decades. He has been supported by the USA to balance Iran. The world is not that much better without him and it would not have been that much worse if he had stayed on another five years. The order of international society would have been better without the war in Iraq in which Saddam was ousted. Bjørn Stærk | 2003-12-08 18:53 | Link Anders: "I have already been precise several times in this forum about what damage is done to international order." Perhaps, but what I wanted to know was why this is bad? Why are good international relations between the US and other countries important? And how important are they in relation to for instance international security and other things? These are what you might call stupid question, except the last one, but that's intentional, as I explained. "The precedent created is abysmal. It's called exceptionalism. The strong do as they please. The weak must shut up in order to hope not to be on the receiving end the next time the strong decide to invade somebody." That's not an answer. The strong always do as they please, unless there's something stronger to hold them back. In this case, there's nothing stronger than the American people. So they do what they please, in this case liberate Iraq, at the price of strong criticism from other countries. (That doesn't mean they'll do _anything_. Their options for the foreseeable future are limited by the major lines of political thought.) When the US falls from power, other countries will do as they please, (China might invade Taiwan, for instance). Perhaps a genuine global power will eventually emerge from the UN. But it will always be like this. The strong do as they please, unless there's someone even stronger to hold them back. A democracy ruled by law is not an exception to this, it has just organized power in a clever way, so that there's always someone stronger than you. But the world is not a democracy, and it is not ruled by law. If it were, the US would not have been _able_ to go to war in Iraq, or at least it would have been severely punished. I'm not saying that international law is pointless - on the contrary. But it's perhaps better to talk about international agreements than international law, which implies the _rule_ of law. It's very good that we have international agreements on how to make war, for instance, but they're laws only in a primitive sense. And because these agreements are made in only a pseudo-democratic way, there's little _inherently_ wrong in violating them. Each case must be judged by itself. I believe it was right to attack Iraq, and whether it was also "legal" is relevant only to the _practical_ side of this. Ie. because it possibly violated written and unwritten agreements with other countries, and certainly was against their will, it damaged relations with them. What I want from you is an explanation of why this was bad - and why it was so bad that the whole war should have been avoided. "I am also a bit baffled by the way you insinuate that I am not aware of the shift in US rhetoric after 9-11. It?s what I study." I'm sorry - and I'm glad that you're paying attention. But then I fail to understand why you seemed to take the wmd claim at face value, ie. that it was _the_ only major reason for going to war. Or did I read you wrong? Leading up to the war American pundits and intellectuals, including neoconservative ones one could assume thought in similar ways to the administration, did speak of other reasons. Bush stuck mostly to what mattered to the UNSC - Saddam's violations of wmd resolutions - but others spoke of Arab democracy, and of countering Saudi Arabia. The nuclear threat probably was a major reason, not _just_ a justification, (and a good reason too), but I find it odd if you expected it to be the only one. It was certainly not the only reason people supported him. "The world is not that much better without him and it would not have been that much worse if he had stayed on another five years. The order of international society would have been better without the war in Iraq in which Saddam was ousted." And the quality of life for Iraqis would have remained hellish. Saddam's nuclear aspirations aside, that's a rather big price to pay for good international relations. You talk like an idealist, but your valuation of international relations at any cost is more like that of a cynical realist - except that where realists sacrificed other peoples for their own national interest, you're sacrificing them to some transnational ideal. During the Cold War, the US would have installed an anti-communist puppet dictatorship in Iraq, rather than risk a pro-Soviet democracy or a communist takeover. You would rather preserve Saddam than risk a few bad words between diplomats. I'm not sure I see the improvement. Og K. - Santa Monica, CA | 2003-12-08 21:21 | Link Bjørn, Don't concede the point about the Iraq intervention being illegal. IT WAS FULLY LEGAL! Article 51 of the UN Charter: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of the individual or col-lective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of theSecurity Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary inorder to maintain or restore international peace and security.” What does this mean? > Senator Arthur Vandenberg, chairman of the committee that drafted Article 51, governing self-defense, later told the Senate, “If the omission [of the right of collective self-defense] had not been rectified there would have been no Charter. It was rectified, finally, after infinite travail, by agreement upon Article 51 of the Charter. Nothing in the Charter is of greater immediate importance and nothing in the Charter is of equal potential importance.” > In a 1949 speech to the Inter-American Bar Association, Senator Vandenberg emphasized that the fact that Security Council action could be blocked by a veto was a major factor in the decision to adopt Article 51. “If the Security Council fails to act — or is stopped from acting, for example, by a veto —A rticle 51 continues to confound aggression. The United Nations is thus saved from final impotence. So is righteous peace.” How does this relate to the Iraq intervention? > The legal presumption must be strongly against anticipatory self-defense. However, in a setting like that of the Middle East in 1967, a victim of imminent aggression should not be forced to absorb the first blow. I submit the same holds true when a “repeat offender” like Saddam flagrantly rebels against Security Council resolutions in preparation for aggression. This is all the more important in an age when the first attack could involve the slaughter of literally millions of innocent people. There is not the slightest reason why Saddam Hussein should be permitted a “free kick” with weapons of mass destruction against the United States or any other peace-loving country. He faces no present military threat that is not directly tied to his violation of Security Council resolutions, a fact that supports the conclusion that he intends to use such weapons again. Article 25 of the UN Charter requires that all members “accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.” What Saddam is doing is illegal and threatens the security of the United States and the world community. http://slate.msn.com/id/2091988/ For a good discussion of the well-known & generally accepted reasoning re self-defense and Article 51, see: "Military Action Against Iraq Is Justified" Bjørn Stærk | 2003-12-08 23:05 | Link Og K: I didn't say the war was illegal. I said it might be. Many people have claimed it was, including, (if he was quoted correctly), Richard Perle, and I'm not qualified to consider the evidence. But this does not matter much to me. It may matter to some countries, but I rather doubt it - what matters to France and Russia is that the US did not do what they wanted it to do. I also believe that there are very few in the peace movement who would have supported the war had it been clearly legal, (for instance if charter 51 had spoken of preemptive self defense). So it's really a proxy issue. Og K - Santa Monica, CA | 2003-12-09 08:54 | Link [what follows is rambling... sorry... hope you can understand the gist...] Bjørn writes: "I didn't say the war was illegal. I said it might be... I'm not qualified to consider the evidence." Au contraire, mon ami! With knowledge of the legislative history of Article 51 of the UN Charter, you're now in the top 99.999 percentile in the blogosphere to consider the subject of the legality of national self-defense, and to develop your own fully qualified views on the subject. You do me the wonderful favor of running this blog. Please allow me to reciprocate and permit me the honor of presenting you with an emic/etic arrow or two to add to your arsenal of arguments. :) You also write: "But this [question of the legality of the war] does not matter much to me. It may matter to some countries, but I rather doubt it - what matters to France and Russia is that the US did not do what they wanted it to do. I also believe that there are very few in the peace movement who would have supported the war had it been clearly legal, (for instance if charter 51 had spoken of preemptive self defense). So it's really a proxy issue." True but incomplete. True that the "regimes" in question are not motivated in the least by the ideals of law. True also that the peace-fakirs would drop the "illegal war" trope like a hot potato if it no longer served their ulterior agenda. BUT there's at least one important "constituency" you may possibly be overlooking: Those who share _our_ views! And especially those who share our views, but may be wavering. You accurately describe the "illegal war" objection as a "proxy" for unspoken underlying concerns. But the term "proxy" may be be somewhat misleading in that it deflects attention away from the dynamic use to which the "proxy" is put -- namely AGIT-PROP. The "illegal war" trope is a magnificent concept for agit-prop; it is so oft repeated precisely because it so effectively boosts the morale of the appeasers, while instilling doubt in those of us who might otherwise have the gumption to look the devil in the eye and stare it down. This WHOLE damn weblog of yours, Bjørn, is dedicated to exposing agit-prop in the Norwegian media. So why bend or budge even a micron when it comes to the favorite agit-prop lie of the supposed "illegal war." Don't do it, lad! :-) Let 'em bite steel when they come snapping at you with this tired old retread. Do I exaggerate the central importance and utility of the "illegal war" meme? Well... not according to our friend Anders. Anders boils his anti-Americanism down to one word -- "Exceptionalism." And what does "Exceptionalism" signify? It meams MY way. The rule of man over law. The law of the jungle. A descent into pernicious chaos. Here's Anders' longer version: "The war was wrong because it is about breaking international rules: (No UN-mandate, no self-defense) and about breaking international norms regarding "just war" (there is no just cause, in this instance.) It also violates generally accepted conceptions of legal justice.... The international order is on the verge of collapsing. Was this necessary after 9-11? Collapse of all international norms would indeed be a victory for the terrorists. They wanted this!!!" Hence America is the Great Satan. I would deny Anders and his fellow appeasers the agit-prop high ground. Deny them, moreover, the satisfaction and vindication of witnessing our erroneous acknowledgement or acquiescence to the charge that allegedly we do not revere the civilized principles of international law and equity. The force (of international law) IS with us. It may be a force of little concequence in the world of real-politik, narrowly considered. But broadly (and more accurately) considered, real-politik must also take into account morale... and the question of morale plunks us down right smack dab in the middle of the psychological & spiritual magic of "proxies" and "symbols"... of which the socratic ideal of reverence for law is fundamental! "International law" is one of our sacred "proxies." We ignore or dishonor it at our peril. But it is we who hold this banner, so let us hold it high! Bjørn Stærk | 2003-12-09 16:50 | Link Og K: Good points on the importance of proxies - as long as we remember that this is what they are. But let's discuss Article 51. It does not literally support preemptive wars. That's your interpretation. So I don't see how you can say that it _clearly_ supports the war on Iraq. Was preemption an _intended_ meaning of self-defense? That would surprise me, as preemption has always been a popular justification for aggressive wars. So an article that approves of preemption would in effect be an article that approves of _any_ war, as long as you use the correct rhetorics to justify it. The most valid way I can see Article 51 applied here is by seeing the second Iraq war as a continuation of the first Iraq war. But that's a stretch too. In any case, the danger with proxy debates is that you risk investing credibility in a lost cause. Even if it is a rhetorical advantage to be able to say confidently that this war was legal, or for the peace movenent to say that it was illegal, there's a similar rhetorical disadvantage if the facts aren't on your side. And I'm not convinced that they are. Anders, Oslo | 2003-12-10 10:37 | Link Og K: The War is illegal according the UN charter. These discussions remind of the OJ trial. Bjørn: You are also struggling a bit here. Because you have already stated the truth, which is that the threat was not imminent. Pre-emptive wars can ONLY be justified when a threat is imminent and it gives you a tactical advantage to attack first in a war that is inevitable. The war in Iraq was never inevitable. The war in Iraq was what is defined as a preventive war. This is in breach with all norms and rules the UN has ever stood for. Preventive war is to KILL OFF anyone which has wherewithal to eventually become a threat. You do not need a pre-text just a possible future threat. It is a primitive warfare waged by those who trust no one and those who ONLY care about themselves. "A beacon of freedom and democracy in the Middle East....YEAH RIGHT. Everyone knows that Palestine would be the place to start for that. If stopping oppression and mass murder was important: GET THE HELL DOWN TO CONGO AT ONCE!!!!!!!! I am sad to say that I kind of miss isolationism. Your argument should be: The UN is dead. The terrorists are alive. They break every possible rule, so consequently we should respond in kind. This argument has some coherence although I would not agree, especially to the last part. Fight for a just cause with dignity!! Jus in bello and jus ad bellum. Bjørn Stærk | 2003-12-10 12:37 | Link Anders: I agree, the fact that the threat was a longer term one reduces the urgency required for preemptive self-defence. On the other hand, the non-imminent threat was very real, and aborting the war this year might have delayed this conflict for four years or more. Governments are slow, especially a democracy like the US. We have no idea when Saddam would have had nukes, but we know that he would have kept trying. And we know that by the time a preemptive attack in your strict sense could be justified, it would already be impossible, because of MAD. "Your argument should be: The UN is dead. The terrorists are alive. They break every possible rule, so consequently we should respond in kind." Now you're arguing like a Christian. If God does not exist, then everything is allowed. Nonsense. The US should not be bound by international agreements, not if they're wrong and dangerous agreements. But it should be bound by morality. Al-Qaeda is evil not because they violate international agreements, but because what they do is evil. What the US has done possibly also violates international agreements, but it was also good. The lesson is more fundamental than it might seem, because all laws must pass this test. Right and wrong is independent of law. Morality is not caused by law, but law is sometimes caused by morality. It is usually not right to murder, and it is usually not legal to do so, but it is not wrong because it is illegal. We've made it illegal because it is wrong. Living in a democracy where most laws are just encourages the fallacy that laws are inherently just. They're not, and the less democracy the more this is true. What particular agreement you think the US violated was not good enough to deal with Iraq, and so it was right to break it. This ties in with my original question to you, which you haven't answered, ie. why international relations are important. Anders, Oslo | 2003-12-10 17:15 | Link International relations are important because they have the potential (at least partly) to save us from the Hobbesian world you describe. I may talk like an idealist, but that's because I am a realist when all the chips are down. The world ultimately has the potential of degenerating into a dog-eat-dog inferno. I hoped the USA would not encourage this... IR are important because now a viable strategy for Europe, China and the rest of the world is to balance the USA. No superpower has ever managed to constrain itself and consequently someone else will have to do it. So by spitting Europe, Arabia and other parts of the world in the eye, the USA are grabbing short term security gains at the expense of a more democratic international order. Do keep in mind that "democratic = US national interest" is a fallacy. You may accuse me of arguing like a Christian but your argument of breaking any agreements whenever you feel is utterly DECEITFUL. This is the essence of the worst feature of US foreign policy. ABM-NPT-Kyoto-ICC are among the darkest chapters in US history. "Pacta sunt servanda" is an ancient principle you seem to be unfamiliar with. Treaties are signed for a reason. Only children run away from all obligations. | 2003-12-10 20:17 | Link Anders writes: "The War is illegal according the UN charter." Not so fast, senor. Article 51 states: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations Nations..." Does the Charter at Art. 51 or elsewhere therefore IMPAIR the inherent right of self-defence IF an armed attack has NOT yet taken place - that is, before the "first kick"? Does "impair" mean "abrogate," even in the face of an "imminent threat"? How about if the threat is less than imminent, say, a "grave and gathering" danger? Would the U.S. have been justified in exercing its "inherent right of individual self-defense" by means of pre-emptive intervention in Afghanistan had it learned in advance -- at the "grave and gathering" stage -- that the Afghan regime's very own STATE SPONSORED TERRORIST organization, namely, Al-Q, was planning 9-11? In the case of Saddam, clearly a STATE HOST OF TERROR MASTERS and FINANCIER of fine organizations such as Hamas, was the U.S. truthfully legally obliged UNDER THE UN CHARTER to postpone the coalition's Iraq intervention until the guest terror masters, like cuddly Abu Nidal, had been definitively reactivated to the all-systems-go operational stage and equipped by their Baathist STATE SPONSOR with devices or vials produced only in the second half of 2003 to 2007 or so, with which to inflict vast harm on Dar-al-Habr? Cutting it a little close, no? [ I refer you to "Why the war couldn't wait," the latest essay (5 Dec 03) by the great British sage, Allistair Cooke. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/letter_from_america/3300545.stm ] Even the most simplistic interpretation of Art. 51, whereby "impair" = "abrogate," does not settle the question. Lincoln was faced with a similar conundrum in the context of his suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War: "... the legality and propriety of [this measure is] questioned, and the attention of the country has been called to the proposition that one who is sworn to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' should not himself violate them... To state the question more directly, Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the Government should be overthrown when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it?" Y2003 translation: the UN Charter is not such an ass that it demands national suicide. For an excellent discussion of Article 51 and Preemption, see: "International Law and the Preemptive Use of Military Force"; Anthony Clark Arend: "The language of the UN charter clearly admits of two interpretations about the permissibility of preemptive force. Given this state of affairs, it is logical to explore the practice of states in the period after the charter was adopted to determine if recent customary international law has either helped supply meaning to the ambiguous language of Article 51 or given rise to a new rule of customary international law in its own right that would allow for preemptive action." The Washington Quarterly (Spring 2003) • 26:2 pp. 89–103. http://www.cfr.org/pdf/highlight/03spring_arend.pdf See also: Preemption and International Law On the Legality of Preemption We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. Og K - Santa Monica, CA | 2003-12-10 20:18 | Link Anders writes: "The War is illegal according the UN charter." Not so fast, senor. Article 51 states: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations Nations..." Does the Charter at Art. 51 or elsewhere therefore IMPAIR the inherent right of self-defence IF an armed attack has NOT yet taken place - that is, before the "first kick"? Does "impair" mean "abrogate," even in the face of an "imminent threat"? How about if the threat is less than imminent, say, a "grave and gathering" danger? Would the U.S. have been justified in exercing its "inherent right of individual self-defense" by means of pre-emptive intervention in Afghanistan had it learned in advance -- at the "grave and gathering" stage -- that the Afghan regime's very own STATE SPONSORED TERRORIST organization, namely, Al-Q, was planning 9-11? In the case of Saddam, clearly a STATE HOST OF TERROR MASTERS and FINANCIER of fine organizations such as Hamas, was the U.S. truthfully legally obliged UNDER THE UN CHARTER to postpone the coalition's Iraq intervention until the guest terror masters, like cuddly Abu Nidal, had been definitively reactivated to the all-systems-go operational stage and equipped by their Baathist STATE SPONSOR with devices or vials produced only in the second half of 2003 to 2007 or so, with which to inflict vast harm on Dar-al-Habr? Cutting it a little close, no? [ I refer you to "Why the war couldn't wait," the latest essay (5 Dec 03) by the great British sage, Allistair Cooke. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/letter_from_america/3300545.stm ] Even the most simplistic interpretation of Art. 51, whereby "impair" = "abrogate," does not settle the question. Lincoln was faced with a similar conundrum in the context of his suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War: "... the legality and propriety of [this measure is] questioned, and the attention of the country has been called to the proposition that one who is sworn to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' should not himself violate them... To state the question more directly, Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the Government should be overthrown when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it?" Y2003 translation: the UN Charter is not such an ass that it demands national suicide. For an excellent discussion of Article 51 and Preemption, see: "International Law and the Preemptive Use of Military Force"; Anthony Clark Arend: "The language of the UN charter clearly admits of two interpretations about the permissibility of preemptive force. Given this state of affairs, it is logical to explore the practice of states in the period after the charter was adopted to determine if recent customary international law has either helped supply meaning to the ambiguous language of Article 51 or given rise to a new rule of customary international law in its own right that would allow for preemptive action." The Washington Quarterly (Spring 2003) • 26:2 pp. 89–103. http://www.cfr.org/pdf/highlight/03spring_arend.pdf See also: Preemption and International Law On the Legality of Preemption We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. Anders, Oslo | 2003-12-11 10:26 | Link OJ Trial once again. Iraq was not self-defense. I have been accused of meddling too much with definitional issues in this forum. Now I think the hairsplitting activities have caught on. :-)You are not in your right mind if you claim that Iraq was self-defense. To use the Bush administration favorite: Sport allegories. Your offensive line is on the pitch and you claim that you don't have the ball. You have a baseball bat in your hands and you claim that you are the pitcher. SELF-defense is not defense of others. By the way, I love American sports and a lot of American culture. I am no Anti-Americanist, I have good American friends. I have, however, become very critical of US foreign policy over the two last years. Remember: I was still on board in Afghanistan. I put a candle up outside the American embassy on 9-11. One year later demonstrants returned equipped with rocks!! Bjørn Stærk | 2003-12-11 11:05 | Link Anders: "International relations are important because they have the potential (at least partly) to save us from the Hobbesian world you describe." A potential, yes. I support that potential, if it leads to a limited world democracy with rule of law. In such a world, tyrannic regimes like Saddam's would not be allowed to exist, and the world would have the power to enforce this. There would be a minimum set of standards for all countries - democracy and respect for basic human rights. We should try to reach this. But we're not there yet. And we have no guarantee of ever reaching it. What we have today is not really a "Hobbesian" world, where everyone distrusts everyone. There are steps between rule of law and total anarchy. What we have is something between a (mythical) Wild West one and a gathering of chieftains. There are ideals and laws of sort, but it's often up to individuals and communities to enforce them. There is corruption everywhere, and local strongmen, and the lawmen aren't always good, and good men walk on both sides of the law. I don't mean to go off into fantasy here, just to point out the danger of setting up a false dichotomy - that we either obey the UN or we have total anarchy. For one thing we shouldn't idealize the UN. It was not there against the Soviet Union - for good reason. It was not there for Rwanda - for no good reason. It is not there for the people of the Arab world - for an understandable but unacceptable reason. We should work towards global rule of law, but we won't get there if scores of petty dictators are allowed to oppress their peoples and destabilize their regions. Nobody wins if the US adheres to international law today, in the interest of some vague and uncertain future, only to have Washington and New York hit by a nuke in 2013. Nobody wins if the good guys obey international law but the bad guys violate it unpunished. Nobody wins when the UN General Assembly, a gathering of tyrants, criminals, corrupt officials and democrats, is thought to be a moral authority. The same goes for the Security Council, also a gathering of tyrants, criminals, corrupt officials and democrats, but mostly just the very powerful ones. "IR are important because now a viable strategy for Europe, China and the rest of the world is to balance the USA." China and Russia would do that anyway. Ie. to the extent that the US does not use its power, they will be happy, and to the extent that it does, they will want to counter it. But as America stops using its power, they will use theirs more, and towards what ends? Certainly not the installation of democracy in faraway countries. A power vacuum can not be filled with words, only with other forms of power. Currently the world power is a liberal democracy. If we can encourage the growth of liberal democracy in other parts of the world, we may one day see a global rule of law, but the keyword here is "liberal democracy", not "international law". Rule of law can't be built through agreements with dictators. "ABM-NPT-Kyoto-ICC are among the darkest chapters in US history." Really? As dark as slavery? Have some perspective. I don't recognize the acronyms ABM and NPT, but the US did not violate the Kyoto agreement - it never ratified it. It did not violate any ICC agreement - it never supported it. Is this what you mean by the US violating international law, ie. not signing agreements you think it ought to sign? "Treaties are signed for a reason. Only children run away from all obligations." Agreed. But is it also true that only children run away from _any_ obligation? What if one obligation conflicts with another? Breaking treaties has consequences. Actions have consequences, (as Joe Straczynski - creator of the partly "UN in space" series Babylon 5 - would put it.) But not acting also has consequences. The US won't be powerful forever, but as long as it is, I'm glad when it uses its power to protect and spread liberal democracy. It hasn't always, but it did now, and to me that matters a lot more than the displeasure of some other countries. Most of them wouldn't like the US anyway, and have a very good reason to fear the spread of democracy. You want a better world than this one. So do I. But there are a lot of world leaders who don't share our ideals, and we have to deal with them at the same time we build a future with no room for such people. This can't always be done within international law. So if we can't build rule of law within current international law, which of them do you think we should discard? | 2003-12-11 13:09 | Link Bjørn: Your post is good. I still disagree with parts of it, but your argument is coherent and provides answers to some of my questions. Of course there is a middle way between chaos and harmony on the international arena. My point is that the USA which has such a MASSIVE reliance on rule of law within its borders should not promote the opposite outside of its borders. This will not set a good example for the "bad leaders" you refer to. Must all "bad leaders" be removed by force? Must democracy be spread by the Marines?? Joseph Nye has introduced a term called soft power. Sadly, it has been erased from the Bush administration's vocabulary. An excellent scholarly article on this topic is Michael Mastanduno's "Preserving the unipolar moment" from "International Security" three or four years back. His precsription is to diminish antagonism and avoid controversies if possible. If you're on top of the Iceberg don't do the Cha-cha-cha, don't rock the boat too much. The way down is slippery... And if everyone wants you down, you will go down eventually. Clever diplomacy, trust building...what happened to that?? Slavery was a shameful chapter of humanity. Most nations did it. Refusing to sign good treaties and scrapping the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty and weakening the Non-Proliferation Treaty is a feature the USA are infamously leading the Western "civilized" world in. It's a disgrace!! By the way, it seems that your idea of reaching world order has elements of the "Kantian perpetual peace tradition". However, this does not correspond very well with your consequentialist ethics. I am not a deonthologist or legalist but I do think it may be wise to follow a few rules every now and then. This is why I am more interested in the principal consequences of the Iraq war than if most Iraqis wanted the war or not. I am frightened of the idea of what's next. Maybe justifications go completely out of fashion?? A step towards dog-eat-dog society. Anders, Oslo | 2003-12-11 13:11 | Link Bjørn: Your post is good. I still disagree with parts of it, but your argument is coherent and provides answers to some of my questions. Of course there is a middle way between chaos and harmony on the international arena. My point is that the USA which has such a MASSIVE reliance on rule of law within its borders should not promote the opposite outside of its borders. This will not set a good example for the "bad leaders" you refer to. Must all "bad leaders" be removed by force? Must democracy be spread by the Marines?? Joseph Nye has introduced a term called soft power. Sadly, it has been erased from the Bush administration's vocabulary. An excellent scholarly article on this topic is Michael Mastanduno's "Preserving the unipolar moment" from "International Security" three or four years back. His precsription is to diminish antagonism and avoid controversies if possible. If you're on top of the Iceberg don't do the Cha-cha-cha, don't rock the boat too much. The way down is slippery... And if everyone wants you down, you will go down eventually. Clever diplomacy, trust building...what happened to that?? Slavery was a shameful chapter of humanity. Most nations did it. Refusing to sign good treaties and scrapping the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty and weakening the Non-Proliferation Treaty is a feature the USA are infamously leading the Western "civilized" world in. It's a disgrace!! By the way, it seems that your idea of reaching world order has elements of the "Kantian perpetual peace tradition". However, this does not correspond very well with your consequentialist ethics. I am not a deonthologist or legalist but I do think it may be wise to follow a few rules every now and then. This is why I am more interested in the principal consequences of the Iraq war than if most Iraqis wanted the war or not. I am frightened of the idea of what's next. Maybe justifications go completely out of fashion?? A step towards dog-eat-dog society. "We invade you." "Why?" "You don't need to know...It's none of your business, we do as we please. Bend over!!" Bjørn Stærk | 2003-12-11 14:48 | Link Anders: "No administration in history has ever CARELESSLY WASTED such amounts of good will as the Bush administration has. How did that happen?? It's not called good leadership..." I believe you if you say you're no anti-American, (though this should be understood as the belief that the US is a constant negative influence on the outside world, not as _hatred_ of the US. In fact most anti-Americans have an image of a _real_ America they really do like, a reflection of the internal American origins of anti-Americanism.) But don't transfer your own disappointment with American unilateralism onto the rest of the peace movement. Bush merely played into a stereotype that already existed, the image of the shady, right-wing hawk who sends kids off to meaningless wars, who deceives the public, abuses his powers, and controls the media. This stereotype dates back to Vietnam and Nixon. It was created by the American peace movement, and exported to the outside world where it became today's anti-Americanism. Bush did not cause this stereotype to be created - he just woke it up after eight years with a relatively Europe-friendly Democrat. Carelessly wasted? I find it hard to imagine how he could have preserved the sympathy of 9/11. Bush was the "idiot president" in European media from the moment he was elected. Do you really imagine that he would be respected if he had abandoned Iraq? Do you imagine that the peace movement would have died off if he had managed to get that second UNSC resolution? Of course not. He would still be a dangerous right-wing moron. It was his _essence_, and all that followed merely a confirmation of what everyone already knew. Anti-Americanism is the driving factor here. It's an intellectual disease that survives on ignorance, groupthink and national chauvinism. It's the worst kind of ignorance, not an intuitive ignorance like xenophobia, but the kind that is based on _some_ knowledge, just enough to increase confidence, but not enough to really learn anything. I recognize it because I've been there myself, several times, (and possibly still am). I recognize how easily this form of ignorance takes root when it is not confronted, and anti-Americanism is not confronted in Norway today. This should have been the task of the media, to provide a battleground of ideas where nothing is holy or taken for granted. Everyone ought to be able to open a newspaper and have one of their favourite beliefs assaulted. My own background is with the mid-90's BBS community, where people with all kinds of weird beliefs met to fight them out. Most of us were pretty ignorant, but we weren't allowed to be lazy. The media culture in Norway today is both. The result is one big, national echo chamber, where even most politically interested people think of the outside world in terms of ready-made thoughts. The problem goes deeper than anti-Americanism, (as far as I know, Norwegian media unity on foreign policy dates at least back to the pro-American post-war years), but that's the most visible form it takes today. Bush is just a trigger, a justification. The problem is on our side. Anders, Oslo | 2003-12-11 17:53 | Link Hmmmm... Are you suggesting that maintaining a decent level of good will and popularity is impossible for Bush?? He has never been popular in Europe, but I think he did better right after 9-11. I think your attitude here is utterly defeatist. Of course he could have done better than he has regarding popularity in Europe. And that goes for the entire administration. They squandered it. They crawled into their own shell. They have actively created a large part of the anti-american sentiments around the world. This is not just a ghost from the 60's... Anti-americanism is now ranging from left to moderate right in politics. Is this only due to the evil leftist journalists in the world or could it have some sort of explanation also in the arrogance, indifference and egoism conveyed in US foreign policy??? No one is listening in Washington and it shows, and naturally that pisses people off!!!! The new barring of nations for contracts is another great accomplishment of Wolfie (evil in persona). The move was predictable and in a way understandable. It's called tit-for-tat. However, this could have been done without making everybody angry. Just give the contracts to those you want to spoil!! Don't rub it in and underline that the economic reasons for going to war were important. It's so arrogant and unwise that you wonder how these people have made it into the high positions they regrettably possess!! Does no one else in the US want to be deputy secretary of defence???? Pentagon diplomacy you just have to love it!! Shoot first and if someone asks questions....shoot them too! Totoro, Chicago, U.S. | 2003-12-12 04:15 | Link Anders . . . You make a lot of interesting points and seem very well read. One of the threads of your arguments concerns the rule of law vs. lawlessness. I won't try to respond, because it seems to me that that is a continuum, and it is a matter of opinion as to where an action like self-defense fits along the line between the two extremes. My main point to you is that you seem to have far more faith than the Bush administration or the average American in the good intentions of France and Germany during the run-up to the war. I suggest that you reconsider their goodness. France and Germany have very specific reasons for opposing the United States--not because it is "hegemonist," but because they were selling arms and other banned materials to Saddam's Iraq. Russia also belongs in this group. (In the U.S. we tend to forgive Russia for a lot of things because we're so happy they're not dedicated to our destruction these days.) One book that I have been recommending to many people is Kenneth Pollack's The Threatening Storm, written around 2000 (before 9-11). He was a military analyst during the Clinton administration and has a very detailed account of U.S. policy towards Iraq, especially during the 1990s. He discusses the imminent breakdown of the sanctions imposed by the UN, the no-fly zones, etc. I'm surprised that this book hasn't received more publicity--it is essential reading. I think it will put the UN veto in perspective. I found Pollack's book the single most important book that I've read on the subject, except for Kanan Makiya's Republic of Fear (1989?), which opened my eyes to the murderous Saddam regime. Anders, Oslo | 2003-12-18 16:35 | Link Totoro: I generally agree with most of what you say. However, when it comes to dealing weapons to states and non-state actors without prudence the US should not be pointing too much at others. It's like Charles Manson telling people that thou shalt not kill. Practice what you preach! The reasons for stressing the legalist position are less important than the reasons for breaking it. Pacta sunt servanda again. For those of you who read Norwegian I strongly recommend a recent chronicle by the director of NUPI on this topic. At NUPI we don't have any official opinion on issues, but this is as close as it gets. I believe there are very few here at NUPI who don't subscribe to the core content of this. I fully support Lodgaard's argument that small states have to pursue rule of law. I call it the Shylock syndrome, named after the famous rigid rule-following jew in "The Merchant of Venice". Bjørn Stærk | 2003-12-19 14:40 | Link Anders: "For those of you who read Norwegian I strongly recommend a recent chronicle by the director of NUPI on this topic. At NUPI we don't have any official opinion on issues, but this is as close as it gets." I'm sorry to hear that. And what I thought about that article is fairly close to this: http://www.document.no/weblogg/archives/001020.html And if this is correct .. "I believe there are very few here at NUPI who don't subscribe to the core content of this" .. then the first priority for an organization as important as NUPI should be to increase your political diversity. Get in some new people with unusual points of views, to stir up trouble. Hire some neo-conservative speakers, the smartest you can find, talk to them, try to bring them to your point of view. Anything to escape the feedback loop that has done so much damage to Norway's intellectual life. This isn't about me being right and you being wrong, it's about exposing your views to criticism, so they can become better views. This applies to everyone, everywhere. All ideas have flaws, but in the wrong culture the flaws turn invisible. Flaws in ideas only stand out when they're put to the test, and if almost everyone at NUPI subscribe to the core content of this axiomatic belief in international law, then I don't think you're putting them to the test. At least not from within, and certainly not from the Norwegian media. Ideas that aren't put to the test rot and die. Always. They only look alive because they're artificially animated by intellectual feedback loops. The implied consensus in that article is frightening, and a strong indicator of just that. Anders, Oslo | 2003-12-19 16:42 | Link Well... I fully agree that arguments have to be exposed to critiscism. It's healthy, and believe it or not it is done at this institution. One of the academic books I have been strongly recommended in this forum is "Special Providence" by Mead. Today there was a one hour meeting dedicated exclusively to discussing this book and improving understanding of it. We read a lot of the publications of the PNAC which is the hatching arena for the bulk of "neo-con" thinking. So Bjørn, we are (at least partly) doing what you ask us to do. You can not require me or anyone else here at NUPI to agree with you. That is undemocratic. And basically that is what America does on the world stage. You can not disagree with the US on security issues. That is not tolerated. Then you're aiding terrorists. It's almost like knitting Bin Laden's turban! This is a development which I find very disturbing and its figure head is PNAC. Aggressive, confronational, "no-talk-all-guns" tactics are not a favorite of mine. I believe we read a lot of the same material, the thing is just that we interpret it completely differently. I was accused of having too much faith in the nobility of France and Germany. I accuse you of having too much faith in the Bush Administration and the "neo-cons". Imperialism is a primitive exploitative phenomenon that should be in the scrap-yard of history. Do you agree that what's happening in Iraq is cultural imperialism? Bjørn Stærk | 2003-12-20 13:51 | Link Anders: "We read a lot of the publications of the PNAC which is the hatching arena for the bulk of "neo-con" thinking." That's a start, but there's a difference between studying the enemy and engaging the enemy. Think of it from a military point of view. Defenses that look strong on paper crumble on first touch, and there are often hidden reserves behind what looks like a weak line. The only way to know for sure is meet the enemy head on. "You can not require me or anyone else here at NUPI to agree with you. That is undemocratic." And I don't. I'm sort of trying to help you here. For _your own sake_ you should increase political diversity at NUPI. If everyone at NUPI agrees with Lundgaard's ideas about international law, then that's bad for _your ideas_. From my short-term selfish point of view that's great. It means those ideas will be easier to kill off in the near future. Then again, from my long-term selfish point of view I want your ideas to be strong and survive, so that one orthodoxy isn't merely replaced by another. A perpetual war of ideas, like the Red Queen arms race of evolution, that's my vision. If my own ideas took over as completely as the current orthodoxy has done, if they got to a position where they were more or less accepted by everyone who matters, and were never seriously challenged anywhere, they would rot and die within a decade. I have a half-written post on this subject I might finish later, but what I'm trying to say was said pretty well by Dean Esmay a year ago. The subject is American conservatives and liberals, but it applies to any worldview and idea: http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000261.html He quotes John Stuart Mill: "Lord, enlighten thou our enemies...; sharpen their wits, give acuteness to their perceptions and consecutiveness and clearness to their reasoning powers. We are in danger from their folly, not from their wisdom: their weakness is what fills us with apprehension, not their strength." Amen to that. Bjørn Stærk | 2003-12-23 13:46 | Link Anders: "I accuse you of having too much faith in the Bush Administration and the "neo-cons". Imperialism is a primitive exploitative phenomenon that should be in the scrap-yard of history. Do you agree that what's happening in Iraq is cultural imperialism?" Not in the usual meaning, and not in your sense of a "primitive exploitative phenomenon". There's something else at work here, some combination of selfishness and idealism. A very explosive mix, which we should be glad is used for something good. I don't have faith in the Bush Administration specifically. I believe I understand how they think about Iraq and the war on terror, and how Americans who support them think about Iraq and the war on terror, and I agree with that. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong, but we don't have to speculate. We can just watch what is happening. If I'm right that the US wants Iraq to be independent, prosperous and democratic, then we will see an attempt to establish a democratic system and transfer sovereignity to it. Some troops may be stationed for a long time, but they won't play a political role. And the oil will be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Same with everything else. I for one am very interested to see if there is a change in the relationship with Saudi Arabia. I believe there are many Americans who want this, but I haven't decided about the Bush administration. Again, we'll see. What we have here are a lot of hypothesises that are both testable and disprovable: "The US wants to establish democracy and sovereignity in Iraq", "Bush is/isn't fooled by the Saudis", "A democratic Iraq will inspire similar change in neighbouring countries", "The new Iraqi government will be stable", "Syria/North Korea/France will/won't be next", etc. They will all be tested, some of them very soon. Anders, Oslo | 2003-12-27 19:48 | Link Merry Christmas to y'all! Bjørn: I am afraid you might be fooling yourself if you believe that American troops stationed in Iraq "won't play a political role." If Big Daddy has a viscious cane it will play a role even when it is not used. The American troops will make sure that things don't get out of hand politically. All military operations have a political side in the old Clausewitzian sense. War is normally an extension of politics. I am glad to read that you don't see any altruism at work in Iraq. Self-interest is the name of the game, and as you suggest a twisted kind of idealism. Remebmber that the Soviet Union forcefully installed communism in countries who did not want it. Today there is only country which forcefully installs a form of government. However, .......(drum roll please)........ Btw..It brings me joy to know that the dictator is now a prisoner, but why depict him as a horse having his teeth checked? Don't fight "evil" with evil means. No means "mala in se" as Michael Walzer would probably say. Bjørn Stærk | 2003-12-28 14:57 | Link Anders: "If Big Daddy has a viscious cane it will play a role even when it is not used." Yes. And there are forces in Iraq who needs to keep that cane in mind. They're not the democratic forces, whatever they may be, but the religious extremists and the wannabe tyrants who are positioning themselves for a quick takeover once the Americans are gone. I have no doubt there are Iraqis who are planning |
