Lash wrote:911 wasn't about Bush's personality. [..] This smacks of diplomacy as the answer to AQ. I didn't think anyone was still thinking diplomacy would work with OBL or Zawrkawi (sp) or any murderous thugs... It IS the Democrat position, though, isn't it?
The idea about diplomacy isn't to negotiate with OBL or Zarqawi. It's about avoiding the situation where you end up batting it out with them all on your own. Cant defeat AQ all on your own. You're gonna need the others - and "the others" here includes everything from your previously allied countries and the UN to Arab governments and "the Arab street".
In order to isolate the militant extremists, the first thing to do is to avoid getting isolated yourself.
Lash wrote:Again, personality complaints against Bush. He said the word "Crusade". This is a verbal gaffe, not a policy mistake.
Nah, its not some random gaffe. Its an expression of a mindset, a perspective of what he thinks this conflict is about. A perspective well illustrated by the rest of his rhetorics and actions, and a mindset with devastating consequences for the message you're putting out there to that "Arab street" you have to win over if you are to isolate and squash Al Qaeda. It's also a mindset happily absent with Kerry.
Lash wrote:No US President will put US troops under the authority of the UN in military operations.
American soldiers have not taken part in past UN peacekeeping missions? I think they have. Kudos to the Presidents who sent them.
Lash wrote:The French and others have said they don't care who asks, they will not do this.
Yeah, it has become a lot more problematic now. A lot of water under the bridge. There is a strong sense of "well, you chose to get into this mess when we told ya not to, you solve it yourself now too". But yes, I think with enough massaging over time, things could be changed again. Not with France probably - but with other countries. To start with the countries who have by now pulled out of the current Iraq mission. Perhaps even some Muslim countries.
Lash wrote:At least the 'dropping idea of long-term bases' is a tangible thing--But, it is not enough to effect change, is it? I don't think your average terrorist is worried about Halliburton.
Nope, not the terrorists - but it's not them you're trying to win over in the first place. Its all the folks (governments, populations) that now have retreated into a neutral wait-and-see position in disgust at Bush's strongarming and blackmail tactics. And
they care about whether the US is in there to do what ideally the UN should do - set up elections, establish basic facilities, get out - or in fact to set up a cosy national interest set-up, the hidden agenda of which involves US military and commercial footholds in the country for the next decades.
Lash wrote:Remember Tiannenmen Square? Wouldn't both of us commend the students if we met them now? They failed--but we were pulling for them. So many died for their freedom. Was their struggle in vain? I say resoundingly NO! Would we tell them--Don't try it again. Many will die, you may not win? Good God, I hope not. There is nothing more precious--nothing more worth the fight. I hope we never stand coldly by, calculating losses when the choice is freedom or oppression.
Good point, soul-searching question. Still, there is a difference between rushing in to support what already is a 'native' popular uprising - and invading a country on the basis of our own judgement of what is best for them. What if they turn out to see you as invaders as much as as liberators (as is the case with how the Iraqis now see you)?
And there is always, sadly, a question of balancing expected costs and expected results. You may be right - against dictatorships, you've got to take on a kamikaze attitude sometimes, or things will never change. But consider this parallel:
Karl Popper was a famous political-philosophical thinker. I am no expert on his work but I remember - in general terms - one of his essays. It dealt with how he once was a communist, and when he turned away in disgust. It was after a protest rally in Vienna. The communist party had called on the proletariat to demonstrate. They did. It was a doomed battle. They were vastly outnumbered by the authoritarian state's police/army, and their protest was violently crushed. People died. Popper had been there, and he realised just how blatantly hopeless this particular rebellion, at this particular time, had been. And he realised that the Communist leaders must have known that. And yet they had called upon those people to go into that kamikaze protest anyway. That, he concluded, was immoral.
Freedom is always good. But if the move you are going to make can reasonably be foreseen to involve disproportionate costs, it might still be wrong to make it. That probably wont stop me from taking to the street if it's my struggle. But it would make me wary about making the decision for others.
Thanks for your detailed response to my arguments, Lash. We won't easily agree on anything any time soon ... <grins> ... but that was a serious post. And you took mine seriously, too <nods>
