WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

Tartarin,

Your point about the need to wisely husband our strength, and be wary of others who might wish to knock us off is a good one. It is simply the fate of any dominant power to face such issues - we are indeed riding a tiger.

I don't however buy your notion that we actively sought this role - unless you wish to align yourself with the "America First" crowd who in the late 1930s worked hard to keep us out of the war that all could see was coming. By getting involved in WWII, - and it is clear that this process started in 1936 under FDR who knowingly positioned the country to oppose both Japan and Germany, - we set in motion a basic process that continues today. After WWII there was no evading the challenge of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. The devils here are indeed in the details, and before accepting your assertion that we somehow sought this situation in any other way, or could reasonably have avoided it, I would like to know how you believe that could realistically have been done.

I do believe we were right to oppose Hitler, though I also believe we could and perhaps should have evaded the war with Japan. (However Japan's brutal treatment of China made that virtually impossible.). It is simply a fact that we entered the European war to save Britain and rescue France. Hitler posed no immediate threat to us and there were serious people here who advocated sitting aside and allowing the Germans and Russians to exhaust each other before getting involved. Some historians say it was the surprising fall of France that forced our hand. In any case the very Western European powers that so vigorously criticize us now were the chief beneficiaries of the actions that brought us to the present situation (in the case of Germany, they were the perpetrator).

I don't repeat any of this tiresome stuff to suggest that we are somehow the victims of our former allies. Instead I note it to give the lie to the 'Blame America' crowd who would have us draw precisely the wrong conclusion from the present situation and, as a result, advocate the wrong policy going forward.

0 Replies

A friend just sent this to me by e-mail. Interesting. You may not be able to access it now, since the date is Oct. 20, so I'm copying it all here.

I think it's especially interesting in that Robert Novak is reporting.

My apologies to those who have already seen it.

http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi

Quote:

War is worrying Republicans

October 20, 2003

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

The defeat on Iraq aid that the Senate handed President Bush on Thursday, when normally dependable supporters defected, was presaged
four days earlier when the respected Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee called on Bush to act more like a president. Sen. Richard Lugar's comments, unexpected in their bluntness, conveyed a major political message. Members of the president's party are really worried about the war.

Lugar's stance on NBC's ''Meet the Press'' was the exception among
Republicans in openly implying Bush is not in control. Nevertheless, GOP
senators returned from the weeklong Columbus Day recess reporting discontent by constituents. Defections by congressional Republicans in supporting loans to Iraq reflected deep unease.

That unease goes to the difficulty of waging a global war against terror. While building a democratic Iraq is laudable, not only Democrats question whether investment of blood and treasure in Iraq is directly related to that war. Hints by a prominent Pentagon adviser that Syria could be the next target for an overextended military seem even
further removed from directly assaulting terror.

Lugar, an elder Republican statesman who usually minds his words, was
the talk of Washington after his ''Meet the Press'' performance. As his
Democratic counterpart on Foreign Relations, Sen. Joseph Biden, delivered partisan slashes, Lugar offered no criticism. When Biden commanded Bush to ''take charge,'' moderator Tim Russert
asked whether that was good and necessary advice. ''Yes it is,'' Lugar
said. ''It's very necessary.''

Republican insiders have been talking all week about what came next from Lugar: ''I concur with my colleague. The president has to be president. That means the president over the vice president and over these secretaries [of state and defense].'' Lugar had just had enough of the administration's divided voices, especially Dick Cheney's, which
he called ''very, very tough and strident.''

Other senior senators share Lugar's concern. Sen. John Warner, chairman
of the Armed Services Committee, is reported to be unhappy (though it is
unlikely he ever would go public). Many GOP lawmakers who do not share Lugar's opinions have their own concerns.

Freshman Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has no doubt Bush is in
charge. He knows from personal experience because the president tried to dissuade him from supporting a proposal to lend Iraq half of $20 billion in reconstruction money. Graham never was intimidated by party leaders during eight years in the House and has not changed in the Senate. He feels there is nothing the American people should feel ashamed about in lending some money to oil-rich Iraq.

Sen. Sam Brownback, a conservative Bush loyalist from Kansas, also
affirms the president is in control. But at town hall meetings during
the recess, he felt the public's alarm over casualties in Iraq. Like Graham, he defied Bush as the Senate voted 51-47 (with Lugar and Biden both backing Bush in this instance).

Irritation with Bush's intractable opposition to loans spread to his
strongest supporters in the House reflecting Iraqi war weariness. Rep.
Zach Wamp of Tennessee, a leading advocate of loans, was called to the White House to be lectured. That turned Wamp around. However, other conservative Republicans -- led by Representatives
Mike Pence of Indiana and Dana Rohrabacher of California -- rounded up
votes against the White House.

Concern by Republican constituents over American soldiers being picked
off one by one suggests deep-seated hostility to new battlefields. A new
combat area was suggested in a little-noticed AP interview in Jerusalem last weekend with Richard Perle, a Defense Policy Board member and adviser to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. ''We have problems with the Syrians who continue to support terrorism,'' said Perle, adding ominously, ''Syria is militarily very weak.''

That's what Perle was saying about Iraq two years ago, and he was
exactly right in conventional terms. It is postwar worries that haunt
Dick Lugar and other thoughtful Republicans, who do not relish Syria as yet another fighting front in the war against terrorism.

0 Replies

Lola,

My point is that the currently popular conception that, by being overly aggressive and willing to act on our own, we have somehow wasted the good will of our European Allies, who otherwise would have more forcefully supported our security and defense in the face of the Islamist threat, is false. While we may have dissipated some popular goodwill, it made no difference in regards to the threat. The actions of these governments would have been the same in either case. Why? Because governments act in response to their self interest, and not relatively ephemeral public sentiment, which they can usually shape to fit their purposes particularly if what they want is the easy way out.

The sad fact is that Western Europe is happy to be able to escape most of the bad effects of the distemper that has been growing in the Moslem world for a long time. They are well aware that we have no choice but to resist, and that whatever good results we can achieve in that struggle will inevitably benefit them as well. They have the chance to pick up the benefit without paying the price, and they intend to take it. This is, of course, an easy sell to the popular opinion in these countries because they can easily hide behind the illusion of all the wiser and more effective things that they would do if only they were in charge, and suggest, as they have already done, that it is all somehow our fault.

We can contemplate the hypocrisy involved on their part, but there is little benefit to anyone in that. More importantly though is the need to avoid ourselves becoming the victims of their false propaganda, as evidently Blatham has done. He and Gov. Dean would have us believe we are on the wrong path: we are not. It is important that we forcefully defend our vital interests and avoid making a bad choice for the wrong reasons, and allowing ourselves to be lead around by the fears and the propaganda of others, particularly those looking for a free ride.

0 Replies

george,

Do you believe the war with Iraq was necessary? In your opinion, was it necessary because of the terrorist threat or the "Islamic threat" you mention. Is there a difference in the two terms in your terminology, or are you using them inter changably?

I believe that we could have accomplished whatever we needed to accomplish had we taken the necessary time and diplomatic effort to help our allies (who are now very pissed off with us, so I should say, previously understood to be our allies), see how working together would be in everyone's best interest. Not to mention allowing our Congress and citizens to better understand what and why we were taking the action of war before we signed on?

I'm sure the brunt of the cost and man power would have had to come from us anyway, if after going through the normal and well established process of deciding to go to war, everyone had agreed, or enough had agreed it was necessary, but at least we wouldn't now be out there on a limb as we are. Maybe the reason the French and Germans didn't go along with us is because they saw what Bush and Co. were up to, and didn't want to help him create the disaster that now exists in Iraq and the Middle East purely for the benefit of the U.S. and our desire to dominate the world by controlling the oil supply.

george said:

Quote:

Because governments act in response to their self interest, and not relatively ephemeral public sentiment, which they can usually shape to fit their purposes particularly if what they want is the easy way out.

Would you be willing to concede that there is usually more than one opinion about what is in each nation's "self interest?" And that the determination about which course to take is at least influenced by an interaction with public opinion and a political party's agenda? Do you believe there's only one way to seek the best interest of a nation? If so, who should determine what it is?

Also, about your quote above, would you say there has been an attempt to "shape" the "relatively ephemeral public sentiment" in this country by Bush? I anticipate your agreement with me on this question, that there has been. Every government must attend to the PR thing. But if the PR initiative is failing (as I hope Bush's is beginning to do), especially one as well designed as Karl Rove's, there must be something very compelling going on that's catching the public's attention. The public's sentiment is only influencable (made up word) so far. Many voters ultimately think for themselves and make judgements based on their own decisions. (See above article by Robert Novack.)

I'm holding out hope for the better judgement of enough of the American voters to turn this disaster of a president out of office.

0 Replies

"Maybe the reason the French and Germans didn't go along with us is because they saw what Bush and Co. were up to, and didn't want to help him create the disaster that now exists in Iraq and the Middle East purely for the benefit of the U.S. and our desire to dominate the world by controlling the oil supply."

Of course you're right, Lola, no maybes about it. I'm surprised this issue is even being debated! For those of us who listened to the full series of speeches at the UN when the admin tried to get support for the invasion (and then read them over later), the rationale of those who held out was utterly clear, mature, and uncomplicated.

0 Replies

george,

What's it like to be lone man here in this match? I love cut throat in racquetball........that's one against two.......but this is more like four against one......are you holding up ok? Need a cigar?

0 Replies

Finished dinner and lazily working on notes for a Board meeting and idly wandered over here to see what's new.

Sipping a glass of wine and .... YES I WANT A CIGAR !!

Holding up OK (I think). I can go for days without an approving or encouraging word. I do agree that you & Tart count double, maybe triple.

C'mon over here and have a sip.

0 Replies

george........now you cut that out! Laughing

0 Replies

But it feels so good and I know you like it.

0 Replies

very loud laughing.........funny......now stop it!

OK, you out did me this time, george. I admit defeat.

0 Replies

Blatham et al,

...Just checking in here now. I read the articles several days ago and my husband is reading them now. I hadn't read the Leo Strauss scholar but I am familiar with Dworkin and Didion and enjoy their writings, however discomforting the writings maybe. And these were!

On the Didion piece, I have a little personal tidbit. Right after the 2000 election debacle, I decided that I wanted to keep track of what the Christian Right was doing, so I signed up online for the Christian Coalition newsletter. Along with that came this online newsie called something like CSNS or something like that (very right wing! Homophobic and anti-abortion)...I cancelled these items when I went away for three weeks because they filled my mailbox. Receiving these was sometimes very disturbing. They certainly were a revelation about tactics used.

There was one mystery that I think I have solved, however. I kept getting solicitations for George W. Bush's campaign...and even got an invite to the secret goings on down in Virginia...and to a very small fundraiser with high rollers! I couldn't imagine how I got on the list. Then it dawned on me! The Christian Coalition!

Yes, Lola, these people are scary and they are a force for George W.

0 Replies

Tartarin

Quote:

We symbolize a conquering horde, the raw, brutish and powerful, the great uncivilized over-turning an ancient civilization.

There's something to this, for sure. There is an insularity and exclusivity in America (physical remove and mythology) which is unlike the Europeans, as any backpacker will attest. And cultural output is pervasive, and frequently at odds with local cultural values. Even here, in Quebec most particularly, there is a negative response to quantity and content in much American cultural output.

0 Replies

Quote:

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.

george
Is it your conviction that groups such as states, or individuals, are motivated solely and only by self-interest? Would this apply to the Vatican?

Quote:

The absence or presence of popular sentiment has little to do with it either way.

Popular will has little or nothing to do with what policies a government advances? Well, that puts a lie to the whole notion of representative government and democracy.

Quote:

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.

And Canada? New Zealand etc? Recall what Blair said to his party, as justification for why he was going along with America on the Iraq issue...to temper US unilateralism.

You argue, AGAIN, that everyone is selfish so the US is no different, thus justified. And of course, this argument serves as justification for US arbitrary withdrawl from any and all previous international agreements at any time it serves US interests. Co-operative action, co-operative values, all a temporary facade. Though Cretien, Villipin, Mandela and thousands of other leaders or foreign policy people or thoughtful political commentators - not to mention many millions of world citizens - said that unilateralism was the problem, they are deluded. It's a jungle. All that makes right is might. OK. Principle is irrelevant, it's the 'resolute' which wins the day. But that Strauss piece heading up this thread is bunkum?

Then you continue with a nice little history of the break up of the Ottoman Empire and the consequences for the present situation. You note European control of the area as a function of empire. OK. Dollars to donuts, however, you'll conclude here either that 1) this provides justification for US actions (two wrongs may not make a right, but they sure prove there is no wrong at all), or 2) the US is uniquely jam-packed with goodiosity such that it almost drips off the boots of American soldiers in Iraq.

Quote:

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

Now that is an interesting sentence! Cultural inferiority complex...you guys have been suffering this FOREVER. It is so juvenile. You get the big guns and you huff and you puff as you swagger about the world - "I can beat the tar out of anybody in this place!" Meanwhile, your artists and your cultural people and your tecnical people have been producing - all along - incredible works! But there is something in your group psyche which doesn't believe that...doesn't think that Whitman matches Colleridge, nor that Louis Armstrong is the equal of Bach, nor that movies are an art form on par with the novel.

George...I love your country, but it is nuts.

0 Replies

george

I just now read your response to Lola above (more on the self-interest notion)...I gotta tell ya fella, you are presenting a purely Straussian elitism the more you voice your arguments. The US is right to dominate, and those within the US who dominate are right to do so. Democracy is, in essence, palatable presentation of this schema for the porly-washed.

From where does principle arise, george?

0 Replies

"Even here, in Quebec most particularly, there is a negative response to quantity and content in much American cultural output. "

Blatham, when I was working on my exchange program, one had to be very, VERY careful to make sure the Maritimes and Quebec were shown that this was not a Trojan horse but rather a straight exchange.

We have a habit (and we're not alone in this) in wanting more territory and denouncing its inhabitants as "savages" who should therefore welcome us and our "better" ways. It's the main beef I have with Christianity -- the arrogance of our-god-is-better-'n'-your god. It even underlies opposition to the environmental movement to save the integrity of specific areas, their biota, as mere plants and animals.

As for the lack of worldly sophistication, the French are often right, but not across the board. There are Americans, and there are Americans. George, you run the risk of showing yourself to be the very kind of American most likely to be criticized for narrow-mindedness. Some of the worst aspects (the least "sophisticated") of our culture seem to have informed your thinking. But not all American culture (and sense of history) is puerile, simplistic, xenophobic, arrogant. You might want to emulate the French and be more selective.

0 Replies

VNN

Nice to see you! Been a long time.

I saw Ralph Reed on some tv news show last night. He is getting slicker and slicker every day. A very smart boy, and he appears to be the individual who has been the main strategist who's brought the christian coalition into the position of power it now enjoys. He commonly advises his compatriots to prudence - to laying low on the rhetoric - to speak palatables which won't ruffle (which won't reveal ideas and intents, actually) and to dig in on matters of organization.

I too think these guys a danger which george, for example, don't go no clue regarding.

0 Replies

Tartarin

Trudeau, of course, made that wonderful analogy of our situation to someone sleeping with an elephant...one has some concern for where it might roll. And it isn't just the size that's the problem, as you know. My daughter went down to a school in LA for grades 11 and 12. On day two, she sent me an email expressing her dismay (to the level of disbelief) at how little about the rest of the world her fellow students demonstrated.

The 'superiority' thing is so very interesting. It really does seem compensatory, in the manner I spoke of above (certainly not a new thought). I suspect that is greatly why women are so much less likely to buy into this package - it is so clearly male and juvenile in coloration.

0 Replies

ps

george is a good guy, but jesus bloody christ, you'd think he's just graduated from a 1984 re-education program, and topping the class even over Winston Smith.

0 Replies

PS yourself, Blatham! I think Ralph Reed may not only be a danger to us but a danger to Bush.

George -- I can't remember. Were you in the military?

Baltham -- you really need to attend to the thigh problem. South Beach Diet isn't that bad... Then there are those rollers but DON'T fall for that cellulite cream, okay? And cut down a bit on salt -- that helps... Alternatively: crop.

0 Replies

Tartarin,

Actually I consider myself to be a very well-educated and remarkably well-read and experienced fellow. Likely a good deal more so than the average Frenchman and certainly not at all the product of "the worst aspects of our culture .... puerile, simplistic, xenophobic, arrogant ". Those are fairly tough words. Do you really mean them?

Based on the known facts of history (both recent and long past) your beef with Christianity could as easily have been directed at any religion or at any of the major political/economic theories (fascism, Communism) that have been put forward as the "true" models for mankind. With that in mind, I don't think your observation means very much. (Here I include as well the modern secular/environmental all-species-are-equal quasi-religion that often dominates today's discourse. )

Blatham,

I was truly surprised to read your reaction to my suggestion that nations act on serious matters out of a sober consideration of their self interests, and not just on the popular passions of the moment. It seems to me that this is a rather elementary universal lesson of history, and one could easily trot out various epigrams and quotes from Disraeli and other British (and French and German and Russian and Italian) statesman to reinforce the point. This is also amply demonstrated in the classical literature from Herodotus to Livy. As for the Vatican bit - I will accept that too.

There is nothing either remarkable or speculative in my observation that France and Germany, long before 9/11, were embarked on a policy of leading the development of an independent (of the U.S.) international policy for the EU and distancing it from the United States. The truth of this observation is amply demonstrated in the public record. You have simply ignored this very relevant point. It bears heavily on the credibility of your suggestion that only Bush's belligerence and avowed willingness to act independently prevented us from enjoying the strong support of the 'old European' powers. I find it much more plausible to suppose that the current positions of these countries spring directly from their previously well thought out strategies and the fact that they find it easy to whip up popular anti U.S. sentiment in support of what they have already decided on is only an added plus.

As to the attitudes of Canada - there are simply too many people up there who listen to you.

The question of whether or not the West is now confronted with a likely long term challenge and assault by radical Islamists, bent on purging the influence of the West and restoring imagined past glories by destroying our icons & power and restoring Moslem purity and Shaira law, is also fundamental to this discussion. I believe we are so confronted. I don't know your view on this but I do know the question is critical to one's interpretation of the events we are discussing. Basically, in my view, it IS about much more than WMD's, and I believe the observable facts support this view.

There is no need for any of this to get in the way of your impression that the U.S, is wrong headed and beset by bad impulses. Undoubtedly some of what concerns you is true. However it is simply not the governing factor in the issues we have been discussing.

(I am tempted to add the observation that whatever might be the wrongheaded and bad impulses of the United States, they have been, at least so far, a bit less than those of other great powers that have preceeded us in this role. However, knowing that such an observation, though it may add to the quality our detached historical perspective and therefore improve our understanding, will merely infuriate you. So I will not dwell on it,)

0 Replies

WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know