America, Ensign of Freedom

Very likely not.

That is why it is so important to analyse the ideology and see what and where it leads - as well as to examine the actions of the people claiming the idealism.

Their ideals tend to make me squeak and gibber in horror - but this is the nature of strongly held ideas and idealism.

dlowan, you know, of course, that by idealism I mean ideology run wild.

As it is not in this particular thread:

The Project for a New American Century


It is a simple matter to find precisely the agenda i have quoted in the Neo-conservative thread. It is taken from the PNAC site.

In particular, i would direct the reader's attention to the Statement of Principles page. Please note at the bottom of the page, that this statement is endorsed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

I visited the site you gave a link to, and in so far as I could see with that limited exposure to the material, I have no problem subscribing to their objectives.

I don't believe that the use of military force in Iraq was entered into lightly, nor that it has turned out badly for either us, the West, or the Iraqi people themselves. The military operations during this campaign were outstanding in their conception and execution. More was accomplished faster and with the least cost in life than in any military action before. The U.S. military is today the best, and much of that is attributable to Secretary Rumsfeld. The size of our forces are too small for the mission mix we are demanding, but the demand for a reduced military by Americans and Congress is at least partially responsible.

Some of what we expected turned out not to be the case, but that isn't lying it is mistake. After all the idiots in the previous administration, whose lying was a matter of public record, also believed that Saddam was a genuine threat to the region and to international peace. Both administrations made honest, and understandable mistakes, since it was widely believed that Saddam did have huge stockpiles of terror weapons forbidden under the conditions of the cease fire. Saddam could have cleared the whole thing up, but he prefered to believe that his friends in Europe would keep consequences at bay.

The unfortunate loss of command and control within a prison manned by a National Guard detachment, and contract interrogators was not a policy of the Army, or the U.S. government. When the misbehavior was reported, the Army moved quickly to investigate in a complete and professional manner. Steps were taken without delay to correct the situation, and those soldiers and officers responsible are now within the disciplinary process stipulated by the UCMJ.

BTW, I think there is a good chance that either Clinton, or Kerry, finding themselves in the same circumstances would have adopted the same, or nearly the same, policies that this Administration has. Thanks for your consideration of my perhaps too thin skin.

I could not agree less about the character of the military operations engaged in. The force sent in was sufficient to deal with the enervated forces of the old regime. It was not large enough, trained to, equipped to, nor even conceived as needing to provide a stable, effective occupation atmosphere. Looting was wide-spread, and often as dangerous to the looters as to anyone else, because no provision was made for establishing order in newly occupied territories. A series of bumbled attempts to address the myriad problems which immediately arose as the result of predictable chaos ensuing the collapse of the only force for social order known there for a generation--which is further evidence of the criminal incompetence of those responsible for planning this war--served to increase resentments and hostilities, which is a boon to insurgency. Marcel Aimée has written a beautifully sad novel, Uranus (there's some idiot prosaic title for the English translation, can't recall it) describes the very real turmoil in newly liberated France, with the Communists stepping in to the power vacuum, and personal vendetta rampant. This in a nation which welcomed our liberation, and in which there was no insurgent reaction to our passing.

How much the more acute the need to assure that there would be no or at the least little of a power vacuum after overrunning such a feeble operation? How many "hearts and minds" did we lose when we could provide them electricity, clean water and waste removal, gasoline--they had those things along with the horror of the former regime. This adminstration spouted endless rivers of self-righteous and self-serving sewage about the better day we were bringing to the Iraqis, and failed to deliver.

The entire point of bringing up PNAC is to underline that this entire project was on the agenda of at the least three powerful members of this administration, six years before we went to war. This is considerably more effective a basis for questioning the motives and the honesty of the administration, than for example, pointing to a single meeting alleged to have taken place between an officer of the Iraqi security apparatus and an AQ member, all the while ignoring the historical antipathy between Hussein and the Wahabbis. Lest anyone suggest that i've developed 20-20 hindsight, i invite to peruse any portion of the seven long threads entitled The US, the UN and Iraq. I've doubted the accuracy of statements about WoMD, i've ridiculed the claim that we needed a war to contain Hussein and i've denied the possibility of a link between Iraq and AQ on the basis given above since long before the war.

In Aimées novel, the Communists step into the power vacuum because they were the only ones with an existing political organization at the point where the Allied battleline washed over them and passed on. In Iraq, the only existing political organization at the time the Americans and Brits put the Iraqi regime out of business, was the Bha'at Arab Socialist Party. Small wonder there is such a virulent insurgency.

Actually the PNAC "agenda" isn't all that different from the Federalist agenda of the founders extrapolated into modern times. The nation's security is paramount, and a strong, effective and credible military force is a primary key to any foreign policy.

Setanta, you are a good historian and know that all wars no matter their size are inevitably chaotic. They are destructive and wasteful of property and human life. Iraq is no different. During the combat phase, the military preformed far beyond expectations of most people. You will doubtless remember the dire predictions offered in the period vamping up to open hostilities on the Iraq threads of A2K. Those opposed to the use of military force to resolve long-standing problems with Saddam's Iraq sure seemed to believe, along with the rest of the world, that Coalition forces were about to be badly mauled. The degree to which Rumsfeld's approach was successful even surprised some within the military.

The problem was that forces sufficient to the combat phase were not sufficient to prevent problems when the Ba'athist regime collapsed. I believe that the Pentagon was expecting a prolonged period of chaos where new institutions and repair of infrastructure would be required. They just underestimated the swiftness of victory on the conventional battlefield. The looting and social disintegration following the end of saddam's regime wasn't, relative to other post-war periods, that bad. I think that the Pentagon underestimated the size and dedication of pro-Saddam elements to sabotage and terror tactics. We probably over-estimated the military's nation-building ability, but after all that is a pretty new demand on the military. We've been working for a number of years to make the military more sensitive to local civilian attitudes, and have tried to develop skills in rebuilding what previously we trained to destroy. The nation and military learned some lessons about the difficulty of trying to add nation-building to the military mission. Unfortunately, no good alternative to dealing with post-combat in the modern world seems evident. Wars are always messy, and it seems that they will remain that way for the near future.

The pacification phase in Iraq is proceeding. The unique circumstances and animosity between ethnic and religious groups have made pacification more lengthy and difficult than what we had hoped for. However, very few ever intimated that rebuilding Iraq would not be a lengthy and difficult task. Things are better in Iraq today than they were some months ago, and I expect that the new Iraqi government with Coalition assistance will further improve things in the years to come.

I'm not going to get in to a prolonged argument about the military competence of the current administration--nothing you can write will convince me that they possess any. That they did not come prepared to police the nation and get the infrastructure running again is undeniable--although i'm sure many will dance and evade, or baldly state they were prepared. Events provide no evidence for that.

However: "Actually the PNAC "agenda" isn't all that different from the Federalist agenda of the founders extrapolated into modern times."--is a completely unwarranted statement. The PNAC's core thesis is the projection of American military power for hegomonic reasons, and to spread our "moral superiority." Nothing so mealy-mouthed formed a part of the Federalist agenda, and they certainly never considered using a large military to estalish even a continental, much less a global hegemony. I cannot agree in the least with such a statement.

Setanta writes:


This seems a very strange point for a historian to make. My understanding is that the Federalists advocated a strong central government and strong defense for the explicit purpose of defending the nation's borders and trade routes, and that they used the military explictly for expansionist purposes.

The anti-Federalists on the other hand may be who Setanta is thinking aobut.

Setanta,

I must have missed the "moral superiority" claim for the United States in the PNAC statement. That is why I added the qualifier. We aren't "morally superior" to others, but we are the worlds best hope for global civility,stability, security, and the spread of the liberal-humanistic values of western civilization. I'm for that, and I think most Americans would agree.

It seems your biggest problem with the Iraq situation is that the aftermath of combat has been so chaotic. Difficulties in restoring the infrastructure, and bringing a stable Iraqi government acceptable to all are certainly evident. You seem to criticize the United States for not having an effective plan and the means of implementing the reforms necessary before the conflict began. There is certainly some, perhaps a lot, of truth to that.

However, the idea that the victor is somehow obligated to leave the defeated nation quickly and with an strong economy is rather recent, and is an ideal not uniformly held throughout the world. As you know, less than a hundred years ago the European nations demanded that Germany be forced to bear the whole burden of the Great War, pay reparations, and have no military establishment beyond a palace guard. Didn't work of course, and the Great War phase II ensued. In the ruins of WWII, our policy regarding the treatment of defeated nations drastically changed. West Germany and Japan both reaped great benefit from the American decision to rebuild them. Some of our allies at the time, like Britain, were a bit miffed that we spent more to rebuild Germany than to repair the damage German arms did in England. I believe if you look at those cases since the mid-20th century where any nation (other than the United States) defeated another you won't find any who in the post-war conflict expended any resources in restoring war damage, or even trying to alleviate the suffering of civilians. If the Palestinians were to conquer Israel, what do you think their post-war plans might be? If the DPRK were to defeat ROK, what do you suppose the victors plan for the civilians in South Korea?

We aren't those folks. We do try to limit the damage to property and lives during the conflict, and in the aftermath we try very hard to make the defeated nation better than it was before. That the military isn't perfect in this new nation-building mission, shouldn't be surprising. It may be that it is mission impossible, only time will tell. In the mean time, the United States is trying to restore order, repair damage, and get a civil society up and running ... almost overnight. How long it it take to "restore" West Germany and Japan?

And this is why attacking and invading other nations is justified Setanta, bring 'em civility of the PNAC variety.

PNAC represents just about the worst politics I have ever seen people in power in America espouse but militaristic sorts eat it up. It's the civility in them.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10172901%255E1702,00.html

Iran has now been linked to the 9/11 attacks. Any word on when we can we start invading Iran?

We've already got a bunch of people in the general vicinity...

This is just as disingenuous and coy as Asherman's statement of the case. The Federalists were not trying to establish a mitlitary hegemony, to project American military power for the purpose of securing "strategic" resources and regions. It is a far cry to compare defying (with but mediocre success) the Beys of Tripoli for their interference with American trade, and the invasion of a sovereign nation on a pre-emptive basis on flimsy excuses, by a coterie of those who have espoused establishing military bases in the middle east to enable the projection of military power . . . and this is for Asherman as well . . . all in aid of a progam which intends to ". . . boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities." Precisely what are those American principles, and who chose them, or who elected those who chose them? It's a cinch that Bush did not campaign on this program.

What are American values? American values are predominantly the liberal-humanistic values shared by all of western civilization. American values are enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and in the "Four Freedoms" proclaimed by FDR over fifty years ago. American values the individual, their right be hold different opinions and to be judged on an equal basis by impartial justice. We believe in the rule of law, and of forbearance. We believe that individuals can govern themselves without the direction of a tyrant, or despot. We believe that a person's religious faith and beliefs are no one's business but their own so long as they don't harm, or try to dominate others. We believe that life is better when individuals have material success, and are left free to pursue their own interests. We believe that a person should be valued for themselves, and not for some label hung on them by others.

Gosh, Setanta you are a bright fellow who has a fine grasp of history, you know what values lie at the heart of American life. These are the values that virtually every American politician runs on. These are the values that touch people's hearts and motivate them to vote for one candidate over another. If a candidate were to run on a program of shooting mothers, burning the flag, and enslaving all groups other than their own, how many votes do you think they might garner? Both Democratic and Republican parties and candidates run on the same values, what varies is their approach to actualizing the ideals.

Ideals. That in its self is one of the American values. We believe in the perfectibility of humans and human institutions, rather than destiny or the Will of God. The thing about ideals is it always impossible to achieve the perfection of the ideal. American values, the values of western civilization, may never be achieved, but they are a goal toward which we believe that we and our nation should strive.

Those are a gloss of our values, and I believe that most humans alive today sorely wish that they lived in a system holding those values. The world can be changed to bring those ideals closer within the reach of others. The hold that dictators have over people should be resisted wherever and whenever possible. Sometimes those regimes can be dealt with using economic sanctions, or diplomatic pressure, but sometimes the use of military force is necessary. Existence of the best military in history is of little use if one's enemies don't believe that it will ever be use against them. Americans and American interests have been under violent and direct terrorist attack since the early 1990's, but little was done about it. After 9/11 a direct, effective response against terrorists and those who finance, supply, support and encourage terrorist acts directed at the United States was inevitable I believe that either Clinton, or Kerry, in the same circumstances would have acted in a similar fashion. Would you then be so critical of them?

It just isn't always possible, nor practical to oppose all the dictators and tyrants in a complex world. Patience, but always keeping the faith.

This is the kind of PNAC militarism that is so objectionable.

Whatever happened to the military having a purpose for defending our country?

When did the military's usefulness become measured by our willingness to use it to invade other countries and use it outside of our borders?

<shakes head>

It's not going to work, Ash . . . word was principles, American principles, not American values. The point i've never been willing to let go is that this is not principled behavior, nor is it behavior which can necessarily be said to be consonant with how Americans feel about their world. But Mr. Lincoln, the first Republican President, had a dictum about this . . . you can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but . . .

I wonder if those who so object to a preemptive strike in Iraq felt the same way about the threat of war against Cuba in the 60's? Did we feel the same way in the 90's about Bosnia? Haiti? Somalia? Or go back to the 80's and consider Granada, Panama, and Lybia. Then of course there was Afghanistan who only harbored terrorists; they did not attack us as a country. The strike on Iraq was not unprecedented.

Evenso, I think for many of us, 9/11 forever changed the way we will look at national defense. Do we wish for somebody to take out another 3000+ of our citizens on U.S. soil before it will be principled to initiate an attack to prevent that? I think if a threat was imminent, a strong majority of American people would vote not to wait.

Craven, exactly so. Pre-emptive war most likely reflects imperial ambitions rather than self-defense, and, if so, it can be assumed to reflect some faction's INTERESTS within America, not the interest of the country as a whole.

Indeed, and the argument that Asherman posited was a variation of the ole "Paper Tiger" argument that says we need to attack people with our military simply to show people that we are willing to do so.

Asherman goes so far as to call the military useless unless we do so and that saddens me in a heartfelt way because the military's primary purpose is to defend the territory of the US and not to impress upon others the size of our military penis.

I didn't interpret what Asherman said that way at all. Can you deny that if our enemies do not believe we have the will and ability to use our military, it is essentially useless for anything other than a counterpunch?