The Easy Way Out
I guess I'm a little bit agnostic on the Drum versus Black dispute about the utility of canvassing one's support or lack thereof for past wars as a guide to foreign policy wisdom. It seems to me that this has some value, but I agree with Atrios that its value tends to be overstated. My biggest problem with this way of looking at the world, however, is that it winds up discounting people's views on wars that didn't happen. Since 2001, for example, various Weekly Standard articles I've read have advocated that the US send more troops to Afghanistan, that we send more troops to Iraq, that we go to war with Sudan over Darfur, that we go to war with Syria, that we go to war with Iran, and that we go to war with North Korea.
I'm not sure whether or not any individual Standard writer or editor actually thought each and every one of those things, but, clearly, to have done them all would have been a disaster, if only because we couldn't, in practice, have done all that stuff. Similarly, various post-9/11 New Republic articles have called for more troops in Afghanistan, more in Iraq, and interventions in Haiti, Liberia, and Sudan along with a "ruthlessly serious" Iran policy. Again, it's not clear to me that any individual -- as opposed to an institution publishing a diverse array of hawkish authors -- advocated all of those things, but as an approach to the world this is clearly unsound.
Writers, simply put, get to advocate war on the cheap. Even in the relatively war-friendly Clinton-Bush era, in the overwhelming majority of instances where some bloc of opinion wanted a war, we haven't gotten one. This is because presidents -- even highly militaristic, seriously unwise ones -- need to take account of the fact that if they back a war, the war will actually happen, and they may pay the consequences for problems. Actual governing responsibility makes even the comically irresponsible George W. Bush at least a little risk-averse. Pundits, by contrast, get to say war is the answer more-or-less for free, especially in instances where they can be reasonably sure the war won't actually happen and then just run around asserting that the war would have been fine. And if the war does happen, and doesn't go well, you're always free to blame implementation for the problems.
It really is, for that reason, a good idea to try to ask something somewhat deeper than "which past wars do you approve of?" A similarly rough-and-ready heuristic that, I think, would shed some more light might be something like "do you worry more that in the future the United States will be likely to launch unwise wars, or likely to fail to launch wise ones?" I think that even the new-model Iraq-was-bad Peter Beinart worries more that the USA will be too dovish or too isolationist, while I worry more than we'll be too militaristic and prone to adventurism.
Comments
America is way too militarist mainly because Americans expect to win wars easily. Nearly the entire world hopes the humiliation in Iraq will teach America a lesson. Well, it's not going to happen. It takes a lot more than losing an overseas TV war that's hardly even on TV to erase an imperial mythology. Decades from now, Americans will still picture themselves as the heroes of WW2, ready to send troops or missiles, anytime, any place.
"Foreign policy wisdom?" Where?
I mean, look how many "wise" people bought the idea that this Iraq gamble would be a cake walk.
I think Drum has a good point -- and not a self-serving one either -- since he was for the invasion and occupation of Iraq and so would stand to lose a little credibility when gauging foreign policy astuteness from war stances. Drum is being intellectually honest.
As for Black, what's the point of having a blog if one's opinion about such basic foreign policy questions are inconsequential? Should we start thinking of atrios.blogspot.com as a really bad poetry site? Black seems much too worried about whether the Beinarts or Jonah Goldbergs of the world are going to call him "morally unserious."
Of course we can all go back and do retrospective nuance, but a simple "yes" or "no" to dropping bombs and occupying a country is as much as Congress was asked to provide October 2002, so us archair pols and generals can at least do the same, especially when the stakes for us are so small.
The framing of the question is still not right. The question should not be whether or not to go to war, but rather after the inevitable US victory in the intial phase, then what. We have been acting like the dog that caught the car. There is not a plausible military scenario you can come up with that does not end the same way.
"There is not a plausible military scenario you can come up with that does not end the same way."
So the answer to the question is "no". See how easy?
Now, if you didn't have this answer before spring of '03, and only arrived at it in hindsight, that's cheating.
"There is not a plausible military scenario you can come up with that does not end the same way."
Probably. I at the time and in hindsight wonder about a "clear-and-hold" strategy from the outset. IOW, take Basra, disarm Basra, move ten miles closer to Baghdad. The idea is that the initial invasion might have taken a few months instead of weeks, slowly pacifying and disarming Iraq.
> Black seems much too worried about whether
> the Beinarts or Jonah Goldbergs of the world
> are going to call him "morally unserious."
I don't think Mr. Black is much concerned that the Radicals and their fellow travellers call him "unserious"; I think he IS concerned that the traditional media and DC insiders absorb, amplify, and redistribute the gas product of these self-styled "serious" people until it becomes conventional wisdom. Deadly, killing, soul-destroying conventional wisdom.
Cranky
"I don't think Mr. Black is much concerned that the Radicals and their fellow travellers call him "unserious""...
That seems a little non-sequiturish, since "radicals" would only applaud an anti-war opinion (unless you think Beinart is a radical).
> (unless you think Beinart is
> a radical)
To use their own preferred terminology, he is either a fellow traveller or a useful idiot, yes.
Cranky
"I agree with Atrios that its value tends to be overstated."
Considering that you supported the War in Iraq, a person less generous than I might perceive this as self-serving.
"I think he IS concerned that the traditional media and DC insiders absorb, amplify, and redistribute the gas product of these self-styled "serious" people until it becomes conventional wisdom. Deadly, killing, soul-destroying conventional wisdom" ...
Cranky, I watch MY and Steve Clemons and Ackerman and others, whom I consider somewhere between the Beinarts and the Blacks.
I don't think the motives and process in which the "conventional wisdom" is created is as simple or as stupid as it often appears.
For instance, there apparently is no plausible DC foreign policy establishment in which the Kissingers and Perles and Ledeens don't get to play, and the Abrams and Wolfowitz and Negropontes don't get forgiven. Given that fact, how foreign policy is discussed has certain constraints, and actual policy is also constrained.
bob mcmanus,
I agree with you, actually, but could you amplify a bit? The process is not simple, sure, but how _does_ it occur? And the process that will not exclude the Kissengers, Wolfowitzs, and Feiths is not fundamentally stupid in what way?
Again, not disagreeing with you. Just curious as to where you take this line of thought.
Cranky
Uli, I don't think your assessment of Drum's Iraq position is accurate. Despite a few bouts of kool-aid drinking around the time of Powell's UN speech, he turned against the invasion before it started. Credit where credit is due.
Otherwise, I generally agree. It's important to note where political thinkers stood on these issues, and also important to note how their positions evolve over time. Do they accept the evidence and learn from their mistakes, or do they keep digging?
Matt has obviously taken home a few lessons from Iraq. I think that says more about him than whether he initially supported the war. But that initial position is not entirely irrelevant, either.
Americans aren't wondering whether Democrats support or oppose the use of force generally, or which wars they may or may not have supported (although it has been the case that hawkish politicians are more likely to be elected for the purpose of ending a particular war than doves).
Now that the dream of liberal democracy for the Arab world is dying in Iraq, Americans are wondering what the Democratic vision is for political, economic, and cultural reform in the reform, and how they can bring it about without a draft, without bankrupting the country, and without turning the entire Arab world and Central Asia into Iraq.
They're also wondering when the Democrats are going to become as obsessed with energy independence as Bush was with invading Iraq.
I am working on it, and still don't completely understand it, but it is obviously important. As I see the process, Pollock had little choice but to support the war.
"And the process that will not exclude the Kissengers, Wolfowitzs, and Feiths is not fundamentally stupid in what way?"
It isn't what you or I want, or what is smart or stupid, but the facts on the ground. I don't know why, maybe corporate influence or AIPAC or personal relationships established overseas, but foreign policy must be bi-partisan and have comity. Steve Clemons is very firm on this; he may hate Cheney and Rumsfeld and Bolton; but ya know there are these young Republican underdudes in State that have been trying to do the right thing etc. I see Clemon's colleagues as the Boltons of twenty years ago and Boltons of twenty years to come but Clemons believes he has to work with them.
The endstate is that the Duncan Blacks or the guys who opposed Vietnam in the wrong way or the wrong time never get a seat at the table or access to Deciders; and nor will anyone else who opposed Iraq at the wrong time or in the wrong way.
This may be bad, but is the way it works. And may help explain an awful lot of what moderates or people like Beinart or the Clintons said or did or say or do. It's a club. Hostile diagreement occurs behind closed doors. Don't embarrass the members.
Oh. And I forgot. As with most else in American politics, it really only goes one way. Liberals must behave. IOKIYAAR.
"Oh. And I forgot. As with most else in American politics, it really only goes one way. Liberals must behave. IOKIYAAR."
That's an interesting one. If a liberal opposes the wrong war or opposes it at the wrong time, their credibility is screwed, but, at least up until Operation Inigo Montoya, a conservative was free to advocate any war (or oppose a war: c.f. the position of many republicans on Kosovo) and not be discredited.
The shadow of the Democratic Convention in 1968 hangs over us still, I guess.
> The endstate is that the Duncan Blacks or the guys
> who opposed Vietnam in the wrong way or the wrong
> time never get a seat at the table or access to
> Deciders; and nor will anyone else who opposed
> Iraq at the wrong time or in the wrong way.
>
> [...] It's a club. Hostile diagreement occurs behind
> closed doors. Don't embarrass the members.
As long as the members owned all the printing presses and TV stations, yes. I have no doubt that the anti-Net Neutrality push going on at this time is intended to return control of the printing presses to the club members, but it isn't clear that the genie can be put back in the bottle yet.
Cranky
"Uli, I don't think your assessment of Drum's Iraq position is accurate. Despite a few bouts of kool-aid drinking around the time of Powell's UN speech, he turned against the invasion before it started. Credit where credit is due."
I think "strong misgivings" is a better description than "turned against", but once you've supported the Joint Resolution of Oct.'02, it's kinda lame to say you were for the war until you were against it. To Drum's credit, it's all in his archives.
"The shadow of the Democratic Convention in 1968 hangs over us still, I guess."
Nah. at least the late 40s, and got its origins at least in the Red Scare days. I mark the modern Republicans from then. Beinart wrote a book. Kevin Phillips has written a couple.
And it is not about the voters, but about "the establishment". Ivy League + Chicago & Stanford. Trilateral Commission. Wall Steet. I am not conspiratorial about this, old money controlling everything for business, although Phillips gets pretty close sometimes. That just isn't the game Clemons is playing. There can be good reasons.
There is just a tendency toward stability and continuity and moderation. And you must show willingness to protect "our interests". I mean, really willing, when the chips are down and the bodies are falling.
I do believe Lindy was an outsider back with America First.
> There is just a tendency toward stability
> and continuity and moderation.
Up to the point that Norquist, Rove, and Chency took command I would have agreed with that (and I do agree with your "club of old money" analysis). But between Rove's "50.001%" theory, Norquist's "seize the entire applecart" plan, and Cheney's "stir the beehive", well, whatever it is, I have a hard time seeing any stability and moderation in our future. If the Republicans are held responsible for the resulting situation (which, given their control of the media, they _probably_ won't be) there could be some actual change for the first time since 1932.
Cranky
America First ...from Wikipedia
Well, Well. Founder of Regnery publishing, Socialist Norman Thomas, McCormick of Chicago, Gerald Ford, Sargent Schriver, Gore Vidal.
Politics makes strange bedfellows.
It's a stupid idea to judge someone's foreign policy based on their yes/no votes on wars,
for the same reason that
it's a stupid idea to judge someone's domestic policy based on their yes/no vote on giant omnibus spending bills.
In both situations, the agent is being asked to decide hundreds of questions, and has to return a single answer for all.
It's a situation custom made for retrospective vilification. The omnibus bill cuts a little off Head Start here and adds a little to WIC there. So if you vote for it, then it's going to be "Congressman Fizzle voted to deprive our children of a fair start in life!"
If you vote against it, it will be "Congressman Fizzle voted to starve our children!"
Every war-related decision is the same huge grab-bag. The least useful information about Congressman Fizzle is how he voted on the omnibus budget bill. The least useful information about Statesman Fazzle is whether he was for or against such and such war.
"This may be bad, but is the way it works. And may help explain an awful lot of what moderates or people like Beinart or the Clintons said or did or say or do. It's a club. Hostile diagreement occurs behind closed doors. Don't embarrass the members."
That's right. The only difference today is that the Jews, spics, negroes, and Catholics are now allowed in. Fags and dykes are still iffy, but as long as they have one of those Oprah/Gayle deals they're probably okay too. The politics and policy haven't changed.
There's a reason all those American prep schools still have Episcopal chaplains (ours was a gay drunk; he made us memorize Chaucer but we learned which cigarettes we should prefer, which was helpful).
A generation or two ago even us 3 1/8% Jews were untouchables.
On the other hand, everything changed after 9.11.
Madison is now a conservative, Truman too. Bush is the better liberal (I read it in the New Republic it must be true).
And Eve Sedgwick is now a gay man (although I believe this may have begun before 9.11).
Shorter kid bitzer: "It's stupid to play tennis with the net up."
gömlekçi
ısmarlama gömlek
http://www.ekmekmusafcarpsin.com/
Thank you very much for this information.
Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
sohbet
forum
chat
online sinema
catlak
türk forum
turk forum
kafkas
kafkasya
ders
siyaset
izmir
karşiyaka
karsiyaka
forum
karsıyaka
sohbet
harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
cinselkozmetik.com
bayanpartnerler.com
erkekpartnerler.com
kizarkadaslar.com
yonjaarkadas.com
siberalem-siberalem.com
sexpartnerler.com
sekspartnerler.com
erotikpartnerler.com
gencyuz.com
erkekarkadaslar.com
bayanarkadaslar.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
baskahaber.com
medikalkozmetik.net
kozmetikmedikal.com
zayiflamavediyet.net
zayiflamahapii.com
zayiflamabandii.com
kilovertr.com
zayiflamatr.net
diyettr.com
toksinbandi.net
botoxtr.com
botokstr.com
selulittedavii.com
selulitgiderici.net
selulitkremii.com
catlaktedavisii.com
catlakgiderici.net
catlakkremii.com
penis büyütücü
Post A Comment