WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

Good! Economically (as in everything else) it would be a poor idea to build a 21st century superstructure of international trade on a lousy old foundation... NAFTA (which I was for) is full of flaws which need to be addressed, for example.

Tartarin,

I don't think we disagree on the substantive stuff. I actually think we were saying the same thing......a conclusion I came to as I was writing that post. And I agree, as I think george just said he did as well, when he wrote:



george,

I'm not sure that Tartarin was advocating "social distribution of resources" (I'll let her speak for herself) but I think we are very wasteful of resources in this country. When I go to Europe, I cringe when I see how wasteful I am at home in comparison to Europeans. We talk about conservation here in the US, but few of us really do it. Certainly, it's much too hard to recycle, for instance, and this discourages even those who would gladly do so if it weren't so difficult. In any case, I think we are much too proud of our good deeds, many of us are braggarts because we have not been encouraged to evaluate our own government, country and selves. We are taught we're the greatest nation in the world.........I've been taught that all my life and I hate to admit when I actually realized I was taking this teaching without question. We are a great nation (but not better than others in important respects), however and I'm proud to be an American, but I'm not proud of our current administration. I'm afraid of our current admin and Congress as well.

But having said all that, I'll have to say that it's true that when one is successful and born with natural talents, one (nation or person) is more likely to be the target of envious, hostile attack, especially if that nation or person is not looking for ways to be helpful but instead brags arrogantly, as GW, Rumsfeld, Rove, et all do. If the well endowed is a bully, he will be hated and eventually someone will find a way to attack him and beat him. And when they do, as happens often in the revenge type movies, so universally popular, everyone cheers. Never mind if the bully was also helpful in some way.

Here's today's Walter Cronkite essay on NPR. It's about the TV program, "You Are There" which ran during the years of the McCarthy era. apropos of today's circumstances in Washington. And the Rough Beast........

<http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=1480691>

Nope, I'm not advocating social distribution of resources but it's not a solution I reject when our old mixture of capitalism and socialism stops working. But I do think great people are generous, and would rather we were great rather than just boastful.

oops, that link didn't work.......try this one:

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2&prgDate=27-Oct-2003

Just scroll down to Walter Cronkite....very interesting

George

But why? If not to excuse? Isn't this just the way excusing or justifying works?

Look, I know I've been a bit relentless (we could use the term 'resolute', perhaps) over the course of this thread. And that I have taken the intimate liberty of directing my aim not just at the arguments, but at the arguer. So let me come clean, and speak forthrightly to you.

I happen to truly love America. Have ever since I was a kid. I found your country more dynamic than mine, more exciting. The sciences and the arts have blossomed in America over the last two centuries with few precedents in history, I believe. The future, if there is one, will surely and appropriately attach the 'Golden Age' label to what has gone on. And in political theory....what a noble humanist experiment it is!

It is not just that America is so powerful that I yell and scream, though that would be adequate cause...it is because of what you could be, what you have been...and how you are now failing in so much of what your own dreams of self hoped for. It is no coincidence that on 9-12, pretty much the whole world shared the wound you suffered. It is no coincidence that in such a very short time, they were against you.

Didion wrote a terrifically moving piece not long after. She wrote about that brief period when, in San Francisco and New York and Albuquerque Americans were thinking, wondering about their relationship with the world, wondering how such a thing had come about, how they had come to be a target of such anger. Then, the wall came down. "Because we are good they hate us!"

Wrong answer. Or rather, an answer so juvenile that it could make a man weep.

Or at least a very incomplete answer.

I posted this on another thread, but I think it appropriate here as well:

Bush said:




you can hear it here:

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2&prgDate=27-Oct-2003

But who believes him? He's so ineffective. And it's a really lousy excuse that's getting old, very old.

The "they hate freedom" excuse would be laughable if so many otherwise intelligent people didn't buy into it. The true haters of "freedom" seem to be those in charge who wish to restrict access of the media to Guantanamo, to the White House, to administration personell's financial statements, etc....
I have said it before...the current administration's perfection of "doublespeak" is frightening. When I hear them use the words "freedom," "Democracy," "Liberty," "truth," "Justice," "compassion," "mercy," or law" I cringe, because they are usually referring to the polar opposite of their words. They seem to be the living proof that if you lie about something often enough people will believe it.

Blatham,

I do appreciate your statement, and did recognize you were being resolute, not relentless.

I don't for a moment think we are the focus of Islamist rage because of any supposed virtue. Clearly it is because we are a symbol of the West and modernism and because of our support for Israel and compromised (in the eyes of the Islamists) Moslem regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and perhaps Jordan. Perhaps a better question is why Europe is not also a target. I suspect the answer to that one lies in the equivocal policies the major European powers have taken on these issues, no doubt because of their greater proximity to the Moslem world.

Are you suggesting that the "great wave of sympathy and solidarity" that followed 9/11 was dissipated because we struck back in Afghanistan? Would today's situation have been better if we had not intervened in Afghanistan and instead continued treating this terror as a criminal problem? perhaps we should also have refrained from threatening and acting to take the war to the terrorists; from demanding of other nations that they are either with us or against us in this; or from clearly identifying Iran, North Korea and Iraq as rogue states? Would we then bask in the approval of the French and the Germans?

In such a situation, with such irresolution in the face of such an outrage, what would their approval or solidarity be worth? Approval for what? Solidarity to what end?

The first coordinated attempt to take out the World Trade Center occurred in 1993. That was followed by consecutive bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa and a barracks in Saudi Arabia. Throughout we acted with great (some say unpardonable) restraint and remained in close touch with our loyal allies. I saw no upwelling of support from them. On the contrary France was openly critical of our support for Israel, the US/UK operations in support of the Iraqi 'no fly' zones and even the continuation of the embargo against Saddam Hussein. Germany was less direct, but generally in accord with France. Given these facts, on what basis do you suggest that continued restraint after 9/11 would have yielded anything different or anything of value in this situation? Are you suggesting that our pronouncements and actions after 9/11 somehow thwarted the firm, resolute support that was building in these timid, ungrateful hearts ?

Indeed the flaccid self-absorbtion of Western Europe during that period was so great that it was only with great difficulty and after several years of pressure from us that we were able to induce them to act to stop some rather systematic and brutal 'ethnic cleansing' at the hands of Serbia in the very midst of Europe. Of what possible value is the approval and support of countries such as this? On what basis do they who would have continued tolerating Slobodon Milosovech's crimes in their midst, now criticize us for our actions in Iraq?

Nations do not decide on policies on serious matters based on sentiment. They act based on their perceptions of their self-interest. Western Europe has very clearly communicated its post Cold War concept of its self interest to the United States. I believe the Bush administration is acting based on a sober and realistic assessment of these facts.

Enjoying the exchange very much between you two. I was abroad after 9/11 qnd experienced both the sympathy and the decline of it directly. It was not just the war in Afghanistan, it was the fact that immediately after 9/11 Bush's statements were domestically based and contained all the elements that people fear or dislike about the US.

It was immediately a "with us or against us" mentality and that among many other things helped eliminate the most substantial outpouring of sympathy for a foreign nation that nay nation on earth had ever enjoyed (feetingly in our case).

It takes a special type of person to waste all that political capital, the only excuse I can give for that is that the management of domestic political capital has been nearly flawless.

Craven,

If "all that capital" was dissipated as you describe and by a few awkward phrases, then it was never of much substance. It would never have endured hard times or stress. It was never of significant value. It was nothing.

I disagree, it's like saying that if one spoils a friendship by one's actions then one's actions were irrelevant because if the friendship could not withstand those actions it was a worthless one.

I think it's understandable to consider relationships to be a two-way street.

It wasn't a few phrases that did it. And I'm pretty sure you'd agree that presidential speeches are not mere phrases.

george

You ought to be careful, what with Tartarin and Lola watching, in the use of metaphors like 'flaccid'. For all the chunkiness and solidity with which we guy-types fancy ourselves blessing the world, I've always been a little unsettled by how accurately women can describe the terrain directly behind our imposing shoulders. Agreed. But then, Bush ought to quit saying it. The consequence of a leader loudly repeating a dull and false simplicity is to encourage the citizenry to become dullards and simpletons with a wrong idea. This is hardly what your Founding Fathers, educated and sophisticated men all, had in mind. george

Europe, too, has been a target of of terrorism, but the central aim from the Muslim world has been towards the US, yes. The support of client state Israel is, without question, the single most critical element here. But let's not forget that America helped bring to power, or have openly and substantially supported, truly ugly regimes in Iran, in Iraq, in Saudi Arabia, etc. This is on-going, as the link I posted on another thread demonstrates (involving US support for a regime in a previously Soviet controlled state which has, among other things, boiled folks). You suggest European countries have been equivocal in their policies towards Muslim states. I suggest that America has been entirely equivocal in support of human and civil rights, justice, and democracy in this part of the world. These are real sins, and they didn't go unnoticed. No, I'm not. The dissipation followed a trajectory beginning with "you are with us or against us", through "we are good, they are evil", through clear contempt for the notion of international consensus, through active demonization of Blix and the UN, through deceit upon deceit regarding the rationale for moving on Iraq (craven speaks to this somewhat just above). Hubris, george. Pompous self-interested bullying. Here we have ground upon which we can agree, but only in part. The active involvement in this situation was far too long in coming, and Europe failed the humanitarian obligation to its great discredit while the US did what we all hope and expect from a powerful modern democracy which values liberty and freedom. But the US shines here not simply in comparison to Europe, but because it is such a singular case.

But more importantly, george, it is not that approval from the a European head of state is the proper measure, it is the citizens beneath that head of state, all over europe, all over the world, did not approve of the trajectory the US has taken. Where did support arise? Two leaders who moved against the overwhelming wishes of their constituencies, people within the white house and pentagon, and folks in the 'heartland' of the US who believed.

Craven's post above is astute. Yes. But now, it seems that the marketing whizzes have got their product out to a demographic they don't understand, because they don't really give a damn about that other demographic.

I'd like to link two editorial pieces from the times...one from Krugman and one from Brooks. Both are relevant to the questions of motive
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/28/opinion/28BROO.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/28/opinion/28KRUG.html

"Europe, too, has been a target of of terrorism, but the central aim from the Muslim world has been towards the US, yes."

Blatham -- I think that's because European countries have accepted increasing numbers of people from Muslim countries as immigrants and guest workers and therefore has a reality for the Muslim world, is known better to the Muslim world, is closer to it than we are. What they know of us comes from our intrusion in their space, not so much their immigration here. Our culture is everywhere; it imposes itself. We are everywhere; we impose ourselves. We symbolize a conquering horde, the raw, brutish and powerful, the great uncivilized over-turning an ancient civilization.

Well Blatham, we are getting closer to the identification of the core issues of our disagreement in this area - not there yet, but much closer. OK that we disagree, but useful and perhaps mutually instructive if we each understand precisely where that disagreement lies.

My impression is that while you regret the dissipation of Western European popular support for the USA in the aftermath of 9/11, you don't quite suggest that had we presented a more favorable face to the issue, France and Germany would have supported us more vigorously in an aggressive war on Islamist terrorism. True? As I indicated in my last post, I find that view highly unrealistic, indeed ludicrous, when one considers the known facts of history.

My view is that France and Germany are acting in accord with their perceptions of their national interest in the post Cold War era - nothing else. The absence or presence of popular sentiment has little to do with it either way. Long before 9/11 they had been working to create an independent European international policy - led by them - that would emphasize their new concept of a distinct European view of the world and the policies and positions attendant to it. This was even to include an integrated European military force, quite independent of and distinct from NATO and other steps to distance themselves from us. Given these facts, there should be no surprise at the present divergence in our respective policies. European horror at the supposed vulgarity and belligerence in Bush's statements and actions provided a convenient cover for their actions, but it was not and is not the reason. All this is, of course their right. It proceeded from their concepts of what they are and what they want for themselves. Our obligation is to understand and act accordingly.

The Islamist revolution that is sweeping much of the world has its origins in the decline of Moslem power that began in the late 16th century, and accelerated rapidly in the 19th century with the many depredations visited on the Ottoman Empire, chiefly by France, Britain, and Austria. Most of the burning issues of today are tracable to to various actions of these countries during the last century.

the Pahlevi family under the father, Risa Shah was introduced to Iran soon after WWI by the British. The then known oil reserves were in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Iran (or Persia) - the British, in effect, controlled each of these countries. During WWII the Soviets set an army of occupation into northern Iran, and the US association with the Pahlevis began then in various attempts to get the Red Army out and establish a government there that could resist Soviet attempts at destabilization.

After WWI France and Britain were all too eager to pick up the pieces of the Ottoman empire they had destroyed. France took Syria and Lebanon as protectorates - and didn't leave 'till 1949. The British, in possession of all the rest of the Arab world, and finding they had made separate incompatible deals with Zionists and the Hashemite leaders of Arabia, held on to their Arab protectorates, gradually reducing their visibility, if not influence. They, of course, waffled in Palestine and thus bequeathed a particularly malignant problem to the world. The Baath party in Syria and Iraq can trace its origins to the Syrian resistance to the grotesque French attempts at reestablishing its former empire there after supinely accommodating Hitler during WWII.

In the mid 19th century the British stole the Suez canal from the Egyptians in a stock scam - this to protect a vital new link to the Indian empire - and ended up more or less taking over Egypt. Meanwhile the French and Italians were carving out new empires across North Africa from Lybia to Morocco. In the Moslem East the British ruled India/Pakistan and Malaya.; the Dutch, Indonesia.

Very late in the historical day, just before WWII the US became involved in Saudi Arabia, seeking to beat the British in co-opting the rising new leader, Abdul Azziz and gain a measure of control of the oil reserves then thought to be there. We were successful but before long the Saudis nationalized their wealth.

That is the basic picture. Now I ask you, from what did the Islamist resurgence that now besets the world arise?

No doubt it was all those Republicans in the USA.

This of course leads one to ask, 'why, in view of all that, are the Islamists sore at the US and not Western Europe?' Good question. I believe the answer is that during the Cold War we became the champion of the Western culture and political power they had represented, and in many areas picked up where the Europeans had left off. Generally our chief motives were the containment of Soviet expansion, the protection of strategic oil reserves, and support for Israel. However British and French influence remained - the British continued to dominate the Persian Gulf until the early 1970s, and of course the French didn't abandon their attempts to restore their North African Empire until DeGaulle.

Now we are holding the bag and find ourselves criticized by France for a lack of worldly sophistication. How right they are!

At some point we're going to have to come to some common understanding of what we mean by terrorism as preemptive strike vs. retaliation. And then begin to sort through how to break the cycle. A lot of us, at 9/11, believed we'd started the fight or at the very least provoked it. We should be the ones to examine what the cycle is and stop it, not add to it.

George -- your explication is really interesting in many ways, but it needs to be acknowledged that we weren't handed "the bag," we grabbed it with our large fists!

Also, it just makes no sense for anyone on either side (as I think you mean) to assume that one side or the other, Democrat or Republican, should take all the blame for the mess, and you're right to assume many (on both sides) do assign the blame unilaterally. My reluctance, in the present day situation, to "vote for anyone but Bush" comes not from some feeling that "Bush isn't so bad" (he's about the worst we've produced to date) but because I think our big-puppy-imperialism-turned-cynical-corporate-imperialism is supported by both parties.

There is little security in being the champ if one doesn't come to terms with the fact that other younger champs are out there waiting to take the crown. We assume that building ourselves up is all that's necessary to stay on top. In fact, it's the brainy kid in the third tier filled with resentment and courage who'll take us down, using weapons we never addressed seriously. (Vide 9/11, a trial shot maybe.) Our assumption of superiority is what's going to do us in. (Vide our non-response to actual, ongoing attack at that hour on that day, and what we've since found out about intelligence failures.)

"Alien" is having some sort of (20 year?) anniversary provoking interviews and reassessments... The beast which inhabits the guts of the enemy and then destroys it is a great metaphor for what happens so often in life, in societies, and (I believe) is happening in our lives today. That's why, though I think your posts are almost always interesting and often informative, they inevitably remind me of the old saw about the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Mark Lombardi, an art historian, began to be fascinated by conspiracy theories and researched them meticulously for years. To keep track of the interrelationships (among them for example Reagan, contras, BCCI, and murders here and there around the world) he kept not only thousands of index cards but translated his findings into graphics -- drawings so wonderful in themselves that a show has been put together of his work. A description of the show and of Lombardi's work is in yesterday's NYTimes. One paragraph seems to relate, humorously, to what I posted above about intelligence failures and the ironies thereof:



Don't miss the whole article and a not very clear photo of one of Lombardi's spiderwebs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/arts/design/26HEAR.html

George,

So what you've said is that throughout history, there's evidence that nations seek too obtain a sense of safety and self esteem by gaining power. And that this is their right. This power has usually been gained by coercive action, bullying, taking away from one to keep for self. Or by banning together for the purpose of increased strength. This can be seen very clearly in the very interesting history you've provided.

If, in fact, this is human nature, and, if this is what you're saying, then I agree with you, then, it seems to me to be all the more reason to look for creative methods for resolving conflict. Because it's obvious that if we all act simply on our impulses, we'll destroy each other pretty quickly.

You say:



Are you suggesting here that national sentiment has nothing to do with a given nation's perception of their national interest? Or that it's not also a reflection of it? If so, then this, I believe is a point of disagreement.



Here you indicate that understanding is important, but you're not clear about what you feel must be understood. I take it from this context in your post:



that you mean we should understand what the Germans and French consider to be in their best interest. And I agree with that, but I don't think you go far enough in your definition of understanding. You speak as if one nation's actions never influence the course of action by another. Surely, you don't believe that. It's true that France and Germany were on their way to doing what they felt they needed to obtain what they wanted for themselves. But this action of their's (for instance) can take many forms. And it's the form of their ultimate action that makes the difference. Will they be friendly with us? Will they see us as helpful to them in achieving what they need? Will we be respectful and encouraging of their ability to function independently, seeing this as a healthy condition for other nations? Or will they see us as hostile, selfish and uninterested in their needs? Surely you aren't saying the president's and his administration's attitudes (representing the collective attitude of all American citizens) have no influence over the form of changes in other countries.

You write:



If you aren't saying that you believe our attitude and behavior has no influence over the actions of other nations, it seems to me that we may be disagreeing about whether you agree with others of us that Bush has been belligerent or vulgar.

I disagree with Bush's method for dealing with this crisis. Not the war against Afganistan. We had to defend ourselves and other nations agreed with us on that, I think. But his attitude now, the pre-emptive strike, disregarding the opinions and feelings of other nations is the problem. He's behaving like a bully. Which in my view makes him a bully. My problem is that he's taking actions based on his position of power without a clear mandate from the people in this country. He's lied to us all along, running for election while hiding his private, secret agendas. He is carrying out the philosophy of Leo Strauss. He's influenced by the extreme and ludicrous religious beliefs of fanatics. And he hasn't the skill to hide his contempt for the wishes of others.

Is this our disagreement, george?

And Tartarin writes:



My only concern with your feeling here, Tartarin, is that I feel we have to be practical now. It's not true, as Ralph Nader said that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Neither Gore nor Bush were the candidates I wanted, and for sure they are alike in many areas. However, I believe the Democrats are more willing to consider the rights and feelings of others, to respect the Constitution, etc. They are certainly, at this point likely to produce a better man for president than GW and his crew. This is an emergency. And we can't afford to hold out for the ideal.

Well, it's a hard call Lola, one which I won't be sure of until polling day, but I hope to take what appears to be the highest road. It will depend a whole lot on who the Dem candidate is, whether demonstrably independent of the current Congress, funding sources, and military, so that leaves.... uh... !

Jjorge has posted this in another discussion -- take a look, guys!

http://www.democrats.org/blog/display/00010130.html