Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
1. A CNN editor trying to express her admiration for Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah on Twitter is just silly. (The name and title alone are 42 characters!) One should not try and explain what seems to have been a nuanced opinion in a text message. Firing her for it, though, also seems silly. Also silly, though, is continuing to describe Fadlallah as Hizballah's spiritual mentor. That may have been kind of true in the 1980s but has probably not been the case since then. My guess is that the young and relatively undistinguished religious scholars who formed Hizballah's leadership in the early 1980s -- Musawi, Tufaili, Nasrallah, etc. -- needed someone of high religious stature like Fadlallah to beef up their Islamic bona fides.* Fadlallah, in turn, benefited from his relationship with Hizballah within civil war-era Lebanon. By the 1990s, though, both groups more or less outgrew one another. Fadlallah no longer needed Hizballah's support, and Hizballah no longer needed his blessing. Both Fadlallah and Hizballah had enough stature to stand on their own. Even Martin Kramer, who once wrote a long monograph on the man titled "Oracle of Hizballah", is highly sensitive to the way in which Fadlallah's stature and relationship with Hizballah has changed over time. Personally, I think Hizballah and Fadlallah are best understood as separate if overlapping phenomena within Shia Lebanon. Fadlallah's ministry and activities, for example, long precede those of Hizballah.
2. This Andrew Bacevich blog post is off. Bacevich wants us to consider foreign policy decisions black-and-white moral affairs. Bush, he argues, reliably chose the wrong option out of two available but was at least guided by a flawed moral compass. Obama, Bacevich argues, is amoral. This is absurd. In matters of war, leaders at all levels make hard moral choices involving sin and virtue. One could describe this as the hard moral economics of war, and it applies from platoon leaders to presidents. Invading Iraq, for example, delivered difficult-to-calculate moral benefits (overthrowing a brutal dictator, responsible for the death or torture of hundreds of thousands) and similarly-difficult-to-calculate moral costs (horrific violence affecting the lives of millions and costing the lives of many thousands more). By invading and occupying Iraq in such an incompetent manner, we Americans changed the margins, indesputably raising the moral costs further. I disagreed with the initial decision to invade Iraq on both strategic and moral grounds but understood the moral calculus involved. (I have never understood the strategic calculus.) In the same way, just because you disagree with the Obama Administration on Afghanistan does not mean that the administration lacks a moral compass. They probably just did a strategic and moral cost-benefit analysis and arrived at a different conclusion than Bacevich did. I understand that Andrew Bacevich is upset about our policy in Afghanistan. But concluding as he does -- without any evidence to suggest that moral considerations, such as an obligation to the Afghan people, were not weighed in the president's decision-making process -- that the president lacks a moral compass is ugly, unnecessarily ad hominem, and beneath a man of Bacevich's intelligence and humanity. If Bacevich was serious, he would consider not just the strategic risks to a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan -- which is what he is apparently advocating -- but also the moral costs to be paid by the Afghan people we leave behind. In that light, the moral economics of war are no more black and white than the strategic economics of war. We're left with hard choices and trade-offs, and the public discourse is very poorly served by those who pretend they are easy.
*I should add here that I am hardly the only person who has come to this conclusion. I do not have any citations handy, but I do not want to be accused of plagiarizing someone else's research either. So let me just say, again, that my take on this is not unique.
I disagreed with the initial decision to invade Iraq on both strategic and moral grounds but understood the moral calculus involved.
could you explain the moral calculus involved to me please? i have never understood it.
and bacevitch is simply wrong. During his campaign, Obama promised to listen to his generals if elected. In order to counter McCains war-hero mil-expertise. He listened to his generals, is all. the mini-surge was a hail mary pass that failed. pure machiavellian pragmatism.
The ROE of the War on Islam is that expressing admiration for any islamic cleric with a connection to terrorism, however nebulous, is a career-death offense.
bi la kayfah
On your first post, her subsequent excuses (consisting basically of "respected, ya`ani, I wish every inspirer and supporter of terrorists was also not a misogynist") clearly show that "nuance" has nothing to do with it. There is no way to connect her clarification with "sad to hear of the passing..." "one of hezbollah's giants i admire". Her "i lost family at the marine barracks bombing" schtick rings to me about as hollow as the occasional "when i say Eichmann wasn't that evil, bear in mind, i'm Jewish, so i lost FAMILY bla bla bla". It's an attempt to lend more credibility based on dubious personal identification with victims of the person being unjustifiably praised.
On your second, I quite agree. Every "amoral" strategic decision yields real consequences, and only a strict Kantian could possibly think that that isn't a moral consideration in and of itself. The highest morality any national leader can possibly consider, based on his own mandate (barring exceptional circumstances like, say, nuclear apocalypse), is the survival of his own country and citizens (to be weighted, perhaps, against the survival of people from elsewhere). Hell, even economic advantages yield real life and death consequences in a world where the government provides people with some degree of healthcare. To talk about an amoral foreign policy is to talk about a foreign policy that doesn't consider the consequences-- which doesn't exist. one can disagree regarding those consequences (both the reality of what will come, and the evaluation of what is a more moral outcome), but to speak of "moral clarity" as distinct from clear strategic thinking is to slip into 19th century philosophy instead of 21st century reality.
also i watched a debate between Bacevitch and Dr. Kilcullen on Fareed's show.
Kilcullen's position was that we have a moral obligation to make reparations in Afghanistan.
Bacevitch wanted to gtfo then as i recall.
I find it incredible that Bacevitch finds Bush's cuckoo-bananas evangelical christian compass that CAUSED all the pain and death and agony to be in any form justified.
I fully expect Bush to be tortured in gehenna until the End of Days.
perhaps the little shaitans will even waterboard him.
;)
Michael Young is at his best today:
"If the US considers opening a new page with Hizbullah and Hamas, what happens to the domestic adversaries of these groups who are closer to Washington politically?"
Indeed, Michael, indeed. And if the US withdraws from Iraq, might we assume no more DOD IO contracts for Quantum?
Sad days, indeed.
PS: Mr. Exum, you are forgetting to note that the reality of Fadlallah is secondary. He is* specially-designated. The End.
* Out of curiosity, does someone get 'un-designated' after they die? Do you actually have to be alive? Curious minds ...
Taking into account the interests of the Afghan people is laudable, but is not applicable here. Obama the private individual can do what he wishes for the Afghan people. But Obama took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and entered into a contract with the American people. The Constitution states that it was/is a contract to secure liberty for Americans living at that time and their posterity; nothing mentioned in there about Afghans or their little girls. If defending foreign citizens and securing civil liberties for Afghans, or anyone else, requires that the liberties of Americans be curtailed, which they are thanks to the war on terror (some might debate this) then the president should be required by contract to change his/her policy.
Bacevich made the point far more eloquently than I could that the Constitution's applicability is limited to American citizens as are also the duties of American government officials. In short, we only owe the world what is in our best interest, and by our I don't mean government employees and multinationals, and people with problems picking a single country to be loyal to. If people don't like that, then go ahead and amend the constitution.
I also object to Bacevich's assumption that people with strategic power have more obligation to be true to themselves than to strategic reality. As you and Alex point out, grand strategy necessarily interacts with a higher morality, one that stands beyond the scope of our personal convictions.
Given that poor strategy has inherent moral consequences, why should a president seek to be more true to their own beliefs than to his moral duty to craft sound strategy? Presidents are elected to become the commander in chief, not to test their ability to meet their moral convictions. If a president fails to unflinchingly implement their true beliefs, and harbor doubt about some of their actions, that is between them and whatever higher power they believe in. I don't vote for saints, I vote for statesmen.
Bacevich hits it out of the park and so does Visitor @1:35.
When America loses in Afghanistan, Atlanticism is dead - at least, in its security component. America cannot secure her own borders, much less protect anyone from anyone else. What's left? Sheer shameless bribery. Which used to be called "dollar diplomacy" and is now called "development assistance."
Aid with military force is conquest. Aid without military force is, or quickly becomes, something else: tribute. Note that the Rabbit is quite enthusiastic about USG paying tribute to her blue-monkey friends in "al-Islam." She, an American, thinks she can rule America with the aid of these murderers.
Yes - this, reduced to plain English, is the fantasy of power, conscious or unconscious, behind all her blather about social networks. This is an old dream. It is, quite simply, the dream of Communism. Or if you prefer, Lucifer.
Thus it is not sufficient to simply terminate the military side of US foreign policy. It is also necessary to terminate the diplomatic side. Until both the Pentagon and the Truman Building are turned into luxury condos and squash courts, history is likely to retain the satanic aspects it acquired in the 20th century. And these aspects will become increasingly familiar on the North American continent. Look at how the Rabbit flirts with terrorism - like a cheerleader with the first-string quarterback. She, too, loves a winner. All these things I do - they're waiting for you.
Bacevich is right. Bush may have been misguided. Obama is evil. It is only the complete absence of a moral sense which allows him to act and speak as he does. If we didn't know it from his past associations, we know it now. MacArthur was right. So was McCarthy. (And I am really not at all sure Secretary Forrestal jumped out that window.)
Now that I think about it, I would think the designation survives death, esp. for Treasury purposes, no? If such is the case, I think the USG should look beyond probate and go all LDS by designating all sorts of dead dudes. Could be fun!
I think people may just be overthinking this Bacevich thing a little bit. Bacevich has strong views about the Afghanistan war that the Obama administration does not share; his blog post was a shot at President Obama and his supporters, using what he probably thinks is the comparison they would find most unflattering.
He's probably right about that, though his speculation about what is in Obama's heart is not apt to lead to much more than dirty looks from his intended targets. Actually, one problem Obama and his team face is the very general nature of their disdain for Bush and the way he operated; it isn't specific things they object to, but the atmosphere -- or culture -- of Bush administration Washington. Changing cultures, as any number of people have observed in a different context, is a complicated business that can last many years. Obama doesn't have that much time.
The moral calculus to intervene in Iraq was never very moral. There were moral arguments on the table, but upon close examination they all collapsed. Saddam's ranking on the horrible dictator scale was never even in the top 5 at the time of the invasion. There was no possibility of him developing a nuke without CIA knowledge (Quite preventable without an invasion, he lacked the uranium as Mrs. Plame pointed out).
What is interesting is that the moral calculus becomes quite different post-invasion than pre-invasion. Once there are boots on the ground there are these justifications that withdrawal will produce all these horrible humanitarian results (though not as horrible as events ignored in Rwanda). The moral commitment INCREASES after intervention due to something like imperial responsibility and obligation. When you add honor to that calculus, then you get a situation where it is well nigh impossible to abort COIN or nation building even if it is clearly not in the national interest. This is why Powell developed the Powell doctrine.
So now we have McCain telling the nation that we have to commit to indefinite war if we are to break the insurgents. I can't imagine where the 'strategic calculus' would ever carry weight sans a decisive defeat or a complete economic collapse of the US in this situation. Which pushes the strategic decision back to pre-invasion...
I support hitler's roading policies, but oppose his racial policies.
does that get me fired?
lawl, im supposed to take crits from a Harry Potter character?
Rabi'a al-Adiwyya was a least a sufi saint.
Im not a cheerleader for terror.......just perhaps for al-Islam which i find infinitely preferrable to the intellectual scold's bridle that drove me out of catholicism to atheism.
You are terrified of al-Islam, right Moldy?
It is the most recent and progressive evolutionary stage of the memetic evolution of monotheisms......and thus will be the successful.
al-Islam is the future......Big White Christian Bwana is the past.
:)
It's not a question of what tactics you favor, Rabi'a. It's just a question of what side you're on. I'm glad to know we agree on that part. The question is: why are you here, talking to the Crusader enemy?
I'm also glad to know you think "al-Islam" should renounce terrorism, and fight by Marquess of Queensberry rules. Or even go full-Gandhi, and rely solely on sit-ins. They don't seem to be listening to you, however. Maybe it's because you're not talking loudly enough?
Given what side you're on, why don't you head over to that side and try your Tokyo Rose act on them? You could start by convincing Anwar al-Awlaki of the importance of avoiding collateral damage. Point out that the more American civilians he kills, the more they hate "al-Islam" - on account of their complex social networks. Or whatever shit.
As you may have noted, I favor exactly the same solution as you: peace between America and "al-Islam," with minimal cultural or economic contact across the Green Curtain. However, I propose a second step which will provide improved harmony. I think each side should identify its traitors, and deport them across the separation fence. You're first! I'm sure Mullah Omar will have a free burqa for you. Good luck with your new husband, Abu Kalb, and his senior wives.
Harry Potter? Maybe you're thinking of Lord Voldemort. An amateur, frankly. Merely toying with the powers of darkness. I'm more fond of Lord Cromer, Lord Curzon, and (last but not least) Governor Eyre. Now them niggaz could colonize...
The point that Fadlallah let the Pasdaran manipulate that splinter of the Amal militia, deprived of leadership because of the passing of Musa Sadr, and turn it into a tool of Iranian policy, through Mohashtemi-pur.
Bacevich was wrong when suggested we abandon El Salvador in the late 80s, and wrong now abour Afghanistan, haven't we seen this movie before, on a dark day in September
The morality of war, well that's a debate starter right there.
As much as I opposed to the invasion of Iraq, much of my umbrage was directed at the reasoning and the justification. WMD etc.
If Bush had made a clear case, supported by the UN and the international community that this was a man that we all agreed was a bad actor and had to go then maybe I would have been on broad.
Of course that neatly avoids the issue that he was a bad actor that was not a real threat to international stability, but still his record on human right abuses alone puts him, along with some others on a hit list in my book.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/the_worst_of_the_worst
And no I'm not advocating a direct action wet works team scenario here.
But the morality of what we are doing needs to be defined. Like Iraq the prosecution of Afghanistan leaves me simply angry. that we started, then stopped while we banged around Iraq, then came back, then wasted more time, and are now saying that we are war weary and are looking to leave.
You break it , you bought it.
Obama has sent US troops to Afghanistan to fight in a campaign he doesn't believe in for his own political needs. The fear of being tarred as a "coward" or giving in to the terrorists forced his hand. These same domestic calculations at least doubled the cost of Viet Nam to the US no purpose. We're seeing a replay.
There is no "strategic" reason to be in Afghanistan in the sense that the US is being protected by being there or can make a profit. The only reasons are domestic political, personnel. business and institutional desires. Bacevich is correct. US troops and Afghan civilians will die because Obama wants a second term and not because he thinks he's protecting the US from harm.
The greater good demands it Shannon.
Ah, the unpleasant road consequentialism can lead us on.
"al-Islam is the future"
Increasingly they are just practice targets for the developers of Drone War - the ultimate video game.
I think there is a real risk that endless drone wars against troublesome foreigners, will become the real high-tech future.
Millions of drones, millions of unemployed young people with awesome video game skills.
The ultimate military-industrial-entertainment complex.
Now - Imagine Drone War on the scale of WWII
Solved the last economic depression, didn't it?
You think I am the only person to think of this?
You can't understand the full power of drone war if you can't understand how easily scalable it is.
So you can't sell enough cars anymore?
No problems. Mass production still has a future.
It's the biggest military revolution since the Bomb.
And almost as immoral. Another form of pushbutton war.
Sides?
Im a student and an amerimuslimah. Freedom of religion, right?
Bush started a war we can never win according to what I know about evo theory of culture and cognitive anthropology and SBH.
COIN is an attempt to repair a policy with a hideously flawed premise....that muslims will vote for quasi-secular judeoxian democracies when empowered to vote. They just won't and its frackin' obvious to any sapient with an IQ over roomtemperature.
because of the consent of the governed.
So the way COIN could still work, is to exploit al-Islam--the mosque is the local power node and prime influencer, right?
But I don't think that will happen.
A lot of the comments directed at me express some sort of sexualualized jealousy.....that is passing strange.
Why does my choice of faith inspire that? Being a muslimah makes me a terrorist? Makes me willing to be beaten or oppressed? Isn't this the Land of the Free where freedom of religion is paramount? You believe in some sillie caricature of Islam the neocolonials have sold you.
So you can't leverage Islam to extricate yourselves from the awful quaqmire that ignorant fool Bush dragged you into.
So people will still suffer and die. American soljahs are dying for nothing. Certainly the islamic government you are leaving behind in Iraq is an improvement over Saddam....but was it cost-viable? 5000 american soljahs and a trillion dollars later, and the clergy are still calling the shots and the Iraqis made a national holiday of the day the americans left their cities.
Obama is a machiavellian pragmatist. He gave the generals what they asked for.....a hail mary pass that has failed.
The min-surge was never anything but a way out. ..just as the Iraqi Surge was just laying down cover for retreat.
I don't think the drone strikes are going to continue, Spock. They interfere with Obama's attempt to remodel Americas world-face. He needs the world to get behind him on Israel/Palestine before grandmaw palin's boobies and America's Crazy Ex-Girlfriend Israel get the rubes fired up enough to lob a nuke at one of the Iran nuclear enrichment sites.
I'm kinda disappointed in Abu Muqawama though.........you talk SNT, Exum, but you don't walk it.
bi la kayfah
I don't think the drone strikes are going to continue, Spock.
For now USA develops the technology.
If you're not watching it closely, you have no idea.
Some of the public stuff is stunning.
Especially if you can juggle the pieces together in your mind.
Give it time. Sooner or later there will be a provocation, another 9/11 maybe. Something.
Then the full power of what is being steadily perfected will be unleashed.
AfPak is as much the proving ground as anything else.
A place to gather data, to test theories.
It happened once before.
The Vietnam war, was the place where early forms of precision guided munitions were seriously developed and trialled.
It reached its apotheosis, 15 years later, in the first Gulf War.
Welcome to the world of Twitter.....is it worth it?
US postal service is about the only form of communication that his legal precedence for privacy. We are trying to put it out of business....
Everything else is a post card. If it is digital, there is a cache copy that you will have to deal ....later.
Instant communication, instant firing.
Employeers use your Facebook to find what silly things you did in college. With liability what it is these says, if you post something negative you might not get the job. Your credit history, the same. Card companies have a history on you, they trade information with credit bureaus. Our HR people used Equifax, the more you pay ....the more information you get back on a job canidate. Credit bureaus are private companies, their middle name is information, and they do not have to follow the rules(and if they want to bury it, they can contract it out). Wireless (802.11) computer is a joke, connect to your neighbors ISP...why pay for it. On-line banking and credit card purchases, not private(don't fool yourself....that goes for your IRS/State on-line tax return too...even heard that our State Department of Revenue is getting in on the freebees, they are trolling email for information on tax cheats looking for bragging about cheating!). Neither are your land line phone calls, especially if they go international. Heck, patriot act allows the governement to use Equifax too(they are more efficient!) and they even have access to your library check-outs. I chuckle at the NEW smart phone shopping...just click and get a coupon on 5,000 products...do you know what companies will pay for the buying habits of all those smart phone users(hope they don't sell the names/addressed too....our state driver's license agency does).
Welcome to the information processing generation, you do not own you identity anymore. You pay for the service, the company makes a wicked profit, and you spew your private thoughts to the ether. It is not about big brother, it is about your private life/career......why pay someone to give it away......it is really the only thing in your life that is truly yours.
It is sooooo convenient isn't it?.......marketing 101. It is not fair?......You agreed to use the service.
Think about it.......what is next....Debt Cards?...Digital currency?.......burn your Visa, save your privacy and buy American.....bring jobs home.
Don't believe me? Than why is it that Ovtavia Nasr is leaving CNN. Will you be next? Why is it that credit cards are so easily stolen from online business?Why is it that I got a call from a private investigator when I lived in Florida asking me a bunch of silly questions and asking me if they could inspect my home (Is that legal?). Found out LATER (that is important cause the PI did not tell me up front) the PI was hired by EQUIFAX for STATE FARM INSURANCE to find information on customers so they could drop their home owner insurance coverage after Hurrican Andrew? Florida state insurance commissioner would not let insurance companies drop customers without reason. Needless to say, I told the PI to go to hell and told him that if my STATE FARM AGENT wanted a walk through, I would be glad to give it. I kept my home coverage, a lot of others were dropped. My VISA card...it was hijacked twice in a a three year period (different card numbers, they only change the last four digits). No money was lost, I was proactive, I alway check my balance each month. Sometimes I will call in for a balance check on the half month. After being the suspect two times (yes they treat you like the bad guy, ask for more private information for them to sell). They wanted $30/yr to maintain the card after Obama passed his consumer protection........that was the last straw......cancelled a perfect 20 year history.....paid enought in 2-3% fees at retail to maintain the card and that was not enough money for VISA, how many billions do they need?.......burned the damn thing. Why are Facebook customers so pissed about their networks being sold?
Lastly.....why are we so buggy about CYBER attacks?......Man made it, man can defeat it.
PS....Saw a news piece about High Tech companies beating up Washington for not knowing the High Tech industries issues. It was about policy making. Garbage like H1B visa qoutas.....Bandwidth issues (wireless communication again).....list goes on. I forwarded a copy to my Congressman...told him to tell the High Techies to stop off shoring jobs, hiring foreign workers at reduced salaries, and hiding their profits in foreign banks....and then we will talk policy.Part of the stone throwing at Washington was that our Congressmen did not even know what "cookies are", did not use email, and a list of other modern life conviences. Told my Congressman that only thing he needs to know about cell phones and internet is that it works. Bandwidth is about money, the more High Tech gets, they more the line their pockets. Really, Americans own the bandwidth....rather than an auction we should get a cut of the action!
We will modernize Tip O'Neil..........If you can email it, twitter it....if you can twitter it, cell phone it.....if you can cell phone it, speak it....if you can speak it, .........wink it. There is a reason politicians don't use modern communication....there is no privacy....there is a record.
It is your responsibility, not the provider. You agreed to the terms of the contract....... : )
Let us not forget....Since post Win98 and the 286 processor, your processor ID in you computer is sent out in the IP packet on the WEB. Cell phones...they send out GPS co-ordinates, it is about call tracability (911 was the justification).
Yes, Virginia it is tracable. .....it is not private.....
All that from Twitter..........It is YOUR cell phone account. IT IS ABOUT PRIVACY and we lose more every day because of the war on terror
Sides! Oh, yes, Rabi'a, there are sides. You obviously didn't learn the phrase "dar ul-harb" in your hippie Islam class.
What you'll never see is that you are the worst neocolonialist of all. "Al-Islam" is what it is: a genuine foreign culture. You're not respecting it - you're appropriating it. And trying to turn it into Koran-flavored Ben and Jerry's, with hadiths by John Lennon. Inevitably coming along for the ride is that other Lenin, who is basically Osama without the headrag.
Authentic historical Islam is cruel, barbaric, poetic, austere and beautiful. Like all of mankind's genuine old civilizations, it is an irreplaceable treasure to be cherished and preserved, which has sadly fallen into great disrepair. It is not a Ben and Jerry's religion. It has no room for Midwestern undergraduates, unless of course they're willing to carry a bomb on an airplane. Sure, if you scrounge fragments here and there from the last 13 centuries, you can construct a politically correct Islam from authentic pieces. Still, it is a forgery - something you made, not something you found.
When fools in the West succumb to Avatar syndrome and embrace Islam, they either (a) dilute it to kitschy Unitarianism, or (b) cause it to reject Westernization violently a la Sayyid Qutb. (a) is physically harmless, but cultural imperialism. (b) kills Americans and Muslims alike. For the good of both, these cultures need to be separated.
Have you read Qutb, Rabi'a? If I were you, he would be my first stop on the road to reality.
"Bacevich made the point far more eloquently than I could that the Constitution's applicability is limited to American citizens as are also the duties of American government officials" - Visitor
Yeah, visitor, doesn't that lead to charges of moral hypocrisy? People should be free from dictatorial rule, regardless of what country they live - only a two-faced lying jackal would promote basic rights at home but not abroad, or a relic racist from the 19th century.
diablotakahe - that's exactly what I was thinking - but to be fair, you have to treat Zionist terrorists the same as Christian terrorists and Islamic terrorists, and it's these multiple standards that leaves the U.S. wide open to charges of hypocrisy in foreign policy, an obvious conflict between true motivations and political posturing. Bacevich's post is nothing but the latter, tripe meant for public consumption - the neocons are obsessed with this kind of thing. The public can't be trusted with the facts, but must be guided by a wise elite - that's a cornerstone of their ideology. It's vaguely Confucian, vaguely fascist - but that's where the neocons come from, really.
The basic ideology of Aryanism and Zionism and Islamism is the same - using ethnic and racial identity linked to nationalistic ambitions to forge group identity, and then taking the reins of power and guiding the group - that's essentially what Osama bin Laden hoped to inspire, isn't it? His greatest enemy is actually the scholastic and legalistic traditions within Islam, which (as in Judaism and Christianity) work in opposition to the mindless fundamentalism that political manipulators prefer (don't say Palin!).
If you want the moral justification for the Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL), it's all spelled out in that infamous 2002 book, "Threatening Storm: The Case For Invading Iraq" - vetted by the CIA, too, and not one single redaction! Pollack is ex-CIA, so everything he writes has to be vetted by them, and he's now the Director of the Saban Institute for Middle East Policy at the very RESPECTABLE Brookings Institute, wow, aren't they great?
There are a few choice nuggets in that book, if you can dig them out of the sewage - for example:
In September 1978, the Joint Chiefs of Staff set down three primary policy goals:
1. To assure continuous access to petroleum resources...
Secretary Clinton just reiterated this policy, too!
Remember the Satellite Phones to Chile?
http://www.thepulse.cl/2010/06/22/usa-donates-more-than-13-million-to-re...
It was after the earthquake......
Always thought it was interesting that Hillary would donate something that is monitored by No Such Agency. They even have the phone numbers.........
Why are we giving $13M to Chile......If the US government wants to make a donation to the Catholic Church, I will give them a parish here in the US that needs the money!....and they will take the sat phones too. ..........It is about education......
Mencius,
Your comments about Islam are well taken, I'd also extend that critique to Sufism, another misunderstood phenomenon. There certainly were heterodox, ecumenically minded Sufis, but there were also puritanical, intolerant, dogmatic, and venal Sufis as well. The problem is in our new, brave Postmodern era we have abandoned any claims to objectivity and turned our backs on our Enlightened beginnings. I guess I must now explain that I've the same views towards Christians to appear balanced. Thomas Jefferson rightly condemned Europe as a priest-ridden, backwards society. What would he think of America now in the age of the megachurch? Taibbi and Maher are right, we have to at some point drop the pretense, you can't be a "modern" enlightened person and give lip service to a trumped up ancient Semitic storm deity, much less base geopolitical decisions or social policies on what you and your friends think that storm deity may or may not want. Some might say that Jesus told us to ignore the more nasty aspects of the Mosaic law, but do we? Not entirely. But if people want to ditch traditional religion but still avoid becoming some Soviet style dystopia or Nazi nihilist insanity, then the only solution is to avoid universalist ideologies. And yes, that means abandoning quixotic democratizing interventions.
Visitor@1114
Calls for international liberation and intervention and aspersions on the morality of those who oppose them are flawed for several reasons
1) A Manichean world-view is sort of implicit in the justification for intervention. The problem is the reality isn't that simple. The burden of proof should lie on those calling for action, but historically we have seen that advocates of intervention either a) outright ignore or under value counterclaims or information that goes against their narrative, b) possess a strong tendency to change the justifying narrative c) often are not willing to follow through with their calls to action or deal with the consequences of their actions d) are willing to use immoral means to an end including making alliances with parties who are as immoral as the purported enemy d) are willing to use the coercive power of the state or outright violence (non-state actors) to make others support their interventions.
2) Every man is his brother's keeper, therefore every man is responsible for everything that happens everywhere. The idea is silly, but let's entertain it. If this is the case then won can't intervene because anything evil, even if unforseen, arising from the intervention becomes the responsibility of the intervening party, or even its supporters and advocates. In other words, Bill Kristol needs to be doing time for Abu Gharaib, similarly I should be punished for not stopping anti-Roma violence in Bulgaria.
3) Governments are forces for positive liberty whose responsibility extends beyond their citizens and tax-payer supporters. Noble idea, but history has shown that governments are flawed institutions who will not go to war simply for an altruistic purpose. Moreover, at what point does the citizen say "hey wait a minute here, my interests come first." If citizens can not expect their governments to have their interests first, then the idea of contract-based government and enlightened, citizen-based states becomes a farce.
Yah I know...off subject and ranting....guess I am on a roll.
Local Democrats got 1% sales tax increase for education. It was voted on twice. First in the main election where it was voted down, with a good majority margin. Second in a minor local election,six months later, no one showed up to vote except the promoters of the sales tax increase. Thought it was interesting the referendum was on the ballet twice....the local democrats control what goes on the ballet.....and they are always ready to re-educate anyone that disagrees with them ( we have not heard that in national politics....have we.).
*The 1% sales tax money is going only to develope Magnet Schools...someones pet project.
*Meanwhile the Democrat controled state is broke ($13B in the hole and not paying or slow paying its bills....laying off teachers.....yup it is Illinois...home of Obama and the rest of the jokers. The teachers a the Magnet Schools will get laid off.....but they got a new Magnet School......go figure
*Meanwhile the Democrat controled Federal Government is broke and can not stop the teachers from being laid off.
* Meanwhile Hillary's State Department is giving $13M to Chile to build a school...on Catholic owned land? Just think if that happened in the US, the far left would howl......seperation of chuch and state!
* Billions of dollars to Afghanistan? And laid off teachers in the US....Education ...the great far left topic.
In the 60's it was about Vietnam and Moon missions sucking up Geat Society money.....
It is were the far Right & Left met.........different type of Regan democrats.
Far Left and Right have more in common then they think. I am niether....more independent. Our priorities are goofed up. Illinois is thinking about adding to the state revenue by expanding GAMBLING. When Rebecca Paul put the Illinois lottery in place, the sales pitch was it was for the schools. Guess what, when the lottery was voted in....the existing school funding was directed somewhere else in the budget. Then she did the same thing...State to State (Exum, I think you got her in TN now). School funding was a wash. Net gain ZERO. Now it is about Casino gambling. Some states are even looking at the revenue that LEGAL POT is producing.....the guys that came to high school gooned up on POT were the ones that DID NOT LEARN. Figure that one out.....maybe the gooned up high schoolers are the ones selling pot these days....they grew up and developed a market.
WHY? .
If we got our priorities straight.....BRING MANUFACTURING HOME....China would not have a leverage on us. Ten percent unemployment would go away (really is it 20%, you for get the under employed). Our children would have jobs and a future. Our corporations would have skin in the game to support local education. Money would be in the tax till. .............Tell corporate America, if they want to expand off shore do it at their own expense....stop using our military as a surragate protection agency.
All we have to do is stop pissing off money like......WE ARE PRINTING IT.
What are we getting for a TRILLION BUCKs....lost liberty....go board a plane and see how free you are......go walk through the NEW TSA million dollar full body scanner that would not have stopped 9/11 from happening (really guys...9/11er's did it with what was in their minds....OPPS...scan that...that scanner will cost a billion dollars and they would do it if they could! ).
Bring home the troops and tell the guy behind the cash register that you want an AMERICAN MADE PRODUCT (if you live in the US...If you in Europe, buy European....point is buy less oil.....buy local......Arabs get less.....less money for posters in Lebanon....less the US getting into others business.....less money for Zion and Iran to piss on each other with.......Less reason for radical islam to bitch about......)
Nothing is more powerful than the AMERICAN CONSUMER......and you can twittier too (but the cell phone will be locally made).....maybe the marketing guy will not have so much need to buy your personal buying habits...smaller margin...less need for greed.
It is about your future. Our country's future.....yah, I know less growth.....does Bill Gates really need all that money to retire on?
Exum.....you are the one worried about the status of the United States declining in the next twenty years.....why is it declining? If we did all the things I suggest, would we care?
...............................put that in your policy making basket............I know....talking to a wall.
"When fools in the West succumb to Avatar syndrome and embrace Islam"
gotcha.
Angry Old White Guy Syndrome. Shorter Moldbug-- "you kids get off my lawn!"
Visitor 11:14
"The basic ideology of Aryanism and Zionism and Islamism is the same - using ethnic and racial identity linked to nationalistic ambitions to forge group identity, and then taking the reins of power and guiding the group - that's essentially what Osama bin Laden hoped to inspire, isn't it? His greatest enemy is actually the scholastic and legalistic traditions within Islam, which (as in Judaism and Christianity) work in opposition to the mindless fundamentalism that political manipulators prefer (don't say Palin!)."
Very true. I reverted through reading al-Ghazali and Ibn Arabi. The fundamentalists and millenialists try to capture al-Ghazali for their ideology, but he is actually against every thing they stand for. He was excoriated for using christian sapentia poetica in legal argument as intellectually promiscuous. It is exactly like the teabaggers' mormon-dead-baptism of Thomas Jefferson. Both Ghazali and Jefferson were liberal polymaths, and would be purely horrified to see snippets of their work used to burnish the chops of both the Afghani and American Talibans.
oops, that was me, Rabi'a.
;)
Don't laugh, it's as real as anything else here today...but I am definitely entertained by the Rabbayaht vs Moldbug dialectic- oh do keep it going....Rabia BTW how much Xanax do you take a day? I'm amazed you can still type.
Don't confuse morality with war. Or war with justice. Or war with Law. And all will become much clearer to include the path to ending it. You can't fix the problem because you can't define it, or pick the right tools.
"The moral calculus to intervene in Iraq was never very moral. There were moral arguments on the table, but upon close examination they all collapsed. Saddam's ranking on the horrible dictator scale was never even in the top 5 at the time of the invasion. There was no possibility of him developing a nuke without CIA knowledge (Quite preventable without an invasion, he lacked the uranium as Mrs. Plame pointed out)." - Cicero
I am wondering if there are multiple Cicero's....
Im glad you think its funnie, Elf....but i don't have to lissen to anything Moldbug says anymore-- he has Angry Old White Guy syndrome....everything he says can be reduced to "hey you kids get off my lawn!"
My purpose here is discussing the biological basis of behavior, and how COIN seemed to be poised to exploit that with SNT. Sadly, you can't just use the parts of SNT you like.
The whole thing is working all the time.
and Elf....
Don't confuse morality with war. Or war with justice. Or war with Law. And all will become much clearer to include the path to ending it. You can't fix the problem because you can't define it, or pick the right tools.
War is biology.....so using organic tools (like SNT) is our best worst choice, right?
Still......only the dead have seen the end of war.
bi la kayfah
I signed after 9/11 to kick AQ's butt into the stone age
.....................................not to put two third world countries on US welfare.
Lot has changed since. We are making it profitable to throw rocks at the US........buying our way out.
It's true, Rabi'a - you remind me of my daughter. Of course, she's two. And you are a classic product of the school system she will be attending, which teaches young people to be proud of their inherent naivete, arrogance and ignorance.
Jefferson? Through your John Lennon lenses, everyone in the past - Christian or Muslim - turns into John Lennon. I don't know your Arab Jeffersons, but I know Jefferson. Have you read your Arabs from cover to cover? Or only garbled little hippie-Jesus excerpts, which is all they teach "kids these days?" Jefferson was real and so were your Arabs, and you wouldn't last fifteen seconds in a room with either. If Jefferson showed up on your campus tomorrow and said this, they'd throw him in prison. He's dead, so what makes you think he's changed his mind? So much for your fscking "tolerance."
I also am a product of this hive mind. I went to Brown as an undergraduate and Berkeley as a grad student. I feel that, if there were any justice in the world, the entire American university system would be dismantled, sold off for parts, and replaced with a cheap, brutal copy of West Point. That is - West Point as it was in 1910. Their daughters can go to Sarah Lawrence - as it was in 1910. Or they can be Carmelite nuns, of course. Aren't you glad I'm not president? Yes, you really would have to get off my lawn.
Elf says "Don't confuse morality with war. Or war with justice. Or war with Law."
Elf, when have you ever heard a politician or other "serious" person make such an ugly, but true statement? You are right, but I think it fair that proponents of intervention or war should have their b.s. justifications served right back at them. The job of the rational citizen is to always hold up the mirror to the leadership. And contra to polite understandings of legitimate public discourse, holding up the mirror involves ad hominems, because to pretend that people's backgrounds and baggage can somehow be divorced from their actions is a ploy of the cynical and a habit of the naive.
The avatar sneer was a dead give-away, Mold.
You are obsolete....a representative of a zombie culture clutching desperately at the reins of power slipping through your grasp....there is no culture war...there is only an evolution of culture event, like glaciation or the extinction event at the K-T boundary. evolve or go extinct.
you can't go back to 1910....time travel to the past is not possible, because of closedform time curves. both Hawking and Carroll say this.
My homeslice thomas jefferson said, the earth belongs to the living, and not the dead.
My homeslice ghazali said....
"Therefore, there is no salvation except in independence of thought.
If writing these words yields no other outcome save to make you doubt your inherited beliefs, compelling you to inquire, then it was worth it -leave alone profiting you. Doubt transports [you] to the truth. Who does not doubt fails to inquire. Who does not inquire fails to gain insight. Without insight, you remain blind and perplexed. So we seek God's protection from such an outcome."
one more thing, Mold.
why would John Lennon comparisons be meaningful to me?
as far as im concerned hes some old Beatles guy that got offed by a fan.
if there is some fantastic ideological denouement in your statement, it went right past me, at 3x the speed of light.
;)
Keep da dialecticah going on Brudda Mold N Homeslice Rabbi....
I'm ROFL......
He's right about your Avatar Islam-eeyah, Rabia. It's not the real thing. What you read in a book that you liked is Islam LOL... But keep the rap going. Until Zombie Elf and Zombie Moldbug can't or won't pay for the last redoubt of Communism: Academia and the Public Sector. The USSR 's graveyard wasn't Afghanistan. It was the rouble and Reagan telling the Western bankers and Wall Street we won't pay for it anymore.
In other words, we told them to take their crackpot scheme and get off our lawn.
I'm a NJ Homeowner, which means an average of 10K a year in property taxes. Know what that means?
It means I've got 10,000$ good reasons to burn down the school. Or at least turn out the lights.
Now here's a Tenneesee homeslice for AM to get behind...
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c60bf53ef013481d51404970c...
Vijay Kumar for Congress. Defeat Universal Jihad now.....
Ha! The quote you want, Rabi'a, is from Santayana. What I'm telling you is that, since I do know something about history in general, I recognize your ideas. You think they are either very new, or very old. But they are neither - just very stale.
To be precise, you think your ideas are either (a) your own generation's, or (b) authentic fragments of the ancient Koranic tradition. In fact, they are the ideas of dead white men - men from your great-great-grandfather's generation. Such as, for instance, Charles R. Crane. Like any adolescent, you think you are striking out on your own. You're conforming to a well-trodden path. Charles R. Crane actually was striking out on his own. But then, he had the trust fund for it.
Incidentally, I am quite familiar with this ruling elite. My father was a Foreign Service officer and my mother's first cousin is the president of an American university in the UAE. I do know something about Arabism - what it actually is, and where it came actually came from. It owes a heck of a lot more to Boston than to Mecca. Ie: it is an invention of dead white men. American men, principally. (Arabs can't really be considered "white.")
So, while I fear al-Ghazali probably had the same views as Jefferson on the ol' Abid - and would probably last just about as long in your freshman orientation - I feel his advice is well-taken. You should take it. A good way to do so is to read the only major skeptical introduction to Anglo-American Arabism, Elie Kedourie's The Chatham House Version. Unhappily this focuses on the British brand, not the American (which would be the "CFR version," ie, the State Department version), but they are pretty close anyway.
The trouble with you, Rabi'a, is simply that you're a conformist and a conspiracy theorist. If you do not recognize that you are thinking in step with the entire thinking population of North America, you think you are thinking ahead of them - the only thing, of course, that could possibly be worse. Radical progressivism always appears as a variety of adolescent hyper-conformism, ruefully familiar in retrospect to all those over 30.
Recognizing if only subconsciously this reality, you project and accuse dissenters of conformism - as if they were part of some vast right-wing conspiracy to undermine the whole university regime. But alas, there is no such conspiracy. There are no neocolonialists but me (okay, and maybe Paul Romer). I didn't get it from anyone. I got it from books.
Everyone who thinks the way I do got there the same way I did: they looked at the official reality, personally, themselves, and decided it didn't make any freaking sense. Precisely according to al-Ghazali - at least by your quote. A lot more people can talk that talk than walk the walk, and even the former are in the vast minority. The latter? A handful. And not an important handful.
Everyone else agrees with you, Rabi'a - if maybe with a few more unprincipled exceptions. You reduce American progressivism to its obvious, yet easily evaded, absurdum, providing a valuable if often trying service to the public discourse. AM, Kilcullen, and the rest of the supposed big brains running the US war in Afghanistan think just like you. Using bigger words, and using them better. But just as stuck on just as stupid.
With what results, we see. Afghanistan may not be the graveyard of empires, but it's certainly the graveyard of fools. Visit Kandahar before Kandahar visits you. (Just last night, Kandahar paid a short visit to downtown Oakland.)
euwwwwwww
atlas shrugged the Toilet Blogger???
i can't believe you linked her.....shes gross.
Old Peoples, Elf and Mold.
the world has changed.
We can code synthetic life and the Unification Theorem will be published in my lifetime (but mebbe not in yours). ;)
We are going to find Higgs Bosuns at the LHC by next year.
Academe is painted blue because culture is painted blue.
Evo theory of culture 101-- culture doesn't shape society as much society shapes culture according to its needs.
94% of scientists are NOT republican (PEW 2009). 70% of postbaccs vote democratic, and the curve goes up.
you might win a last election or two, but the demographic timer is running down.
by 2030 non-hispanic cauc becomes an electoral minority, and that sux for you, because 1/3 of non-hispanic caucs vote dem (like me). the lily white vote will be doomed to permanent defeat by 2020.
It isn't get to the next nail anymore, its get to the next screen.
Mold, you are just done.
the world has moved on.
I find it both striking and hilarious that the end result of the Bush Doctrine is MORE Islam, not less, and the end result of COIN is MORE terrorists than are killed.
Why can't everyone just admit this?
Don't you think its funnie?
"A good way to do so is to read the only major skeptical introduction to Anglo-American Arabism, Elie Kedourie's The Chatham House Version."
why would i read that?
im busy reading Penrose, Caroll, Arabi, Ghazali. Im interested in third culture scientists and Physics review section D and Social Brain Hypothesis and the mesolimbic pathway. im not interested in what old guys think or believe about religion or politics.
the past is dust.
and you're done.
"Don't you think its funnie?"
I see it as the gathering storm.
You underestimate the power of scientific civilizations like the United States.
Everything is being studied, modeled, mathematicized.
Because you don't have a deep respect for the empirical method of the American way of war,
you don't understand how every contact with the US military,
brings them more data and your side closer to its end.
The soldiers and the weapons are only the cutting edge of the steel.
The force, the mind directing it, is in the development labs and research institutes behind the scenes.
The drone tech and information tech is being perfected, precisely by testing it on Jihadis.
I told you: If you're not watching it closely, you don't see it.
Afghanistan is a laboratory. A place far from public view, where the US military can develop its art of war.
If COIN fails, there will be other, better theories to replace it.
Even if USA decides to withdraw from the conflict for a while,
it will not mean that the war is over.
It is a strategic withdrawal to give time to mature the strategies and build up the resources, for the next encounter.
You don't know enough about the history of Western style of warfare.
This is an old story. Tanks were trialled in WWI.
They swept the field in the blitzkreig war of WW2.
By then there was not only a perfected tech,
there was also a perfected theory of how to use it.
It's always that way.
"The trouble with you, Rabi'a, is simply that you're a conformist and a conspiracy theorist. If you do not recognize that you are thinking in step with the entire thinking population of North America, you think you are thinking ahead of them - the only thing, of course, that could possibly be worse. Radical progressivism always appears as a variety of adolescent hyper-conformism, ruefully familiar in retrospect to all those over 30."
You're giving her too much credit Mencius. She is a conformist-nonconformist and a conspiracy theorist (i.e., likes to believe she holds the single key to the world), sure. But don't overestimate the extent she's bought into the latest mumbo jumbo. As I said, a mere two years or so ago she was a huge booster of the 'War on Terror' and a Bush fan. It's anyone's guess what bandwagon she'll be on in a few years. The only thing I think I've seen her seem really committed to is her desire to conduct eugenics - Islamic as that is. Wait, what? She hasn't mentioned that here yet? ... Can't get the messages crossed, I guess.
Keid,
I agree with what you wrote, and your comment terrifies me. The US military is an awesome force, probably the most lethally effective fighting force in human history. Besides fighting, the logistical know how of the military amazes me. The military isn't "winning" in Afghanistan because America still isn't sure why it is there, and is loath to abandon its commitment to universalism and American exceptionalism. Contra claims on the left, the Afghan war shows that the military is most certainly subservient to the civilians, and culturally far closer to the mainstream than people realize. But, think for one second, about such power falling into the wrong hands, or how quickly it could be turned inwardly. It sounds melodramatic and trite, I know, but as a libertarian it worries me. If another 9/11 happens or if the economy really tanks, what then?
Gucci belts, Gucci belt, fabulous Gucci men's belt, with high ratio of performance and price Gucci belts for men.
Visitor @ 8:47pm
Yes, The US military is an awesome force.
Visitor 731
i was intelligent enough to jump ship....i guess there is is an IQ gradient between conservatives and liberals after all.
The sad thing about memetic evolution and conservatives, is that even their smart people are retards-- like Bush..
Again, the only thing i relly want to say at this point, is the Bush Doctrine was always utter fail, because MORE democracy in MENA means more Islam. And COIN is fail in Afghanistan, because it makes more terrorists than it kills.
The reason both these facts are true is the biological basis of behavior; SNT, SBH, evo theory of culture, cognitive anthropology and the newly popular consent of the governed.
I have taken a lot of verbal abuse here for just speaking the empirical truth.
finnimilyyah
and no way Spock.
you are the one allus saying we are going down to China.
we are broke. there are unemployed people here that will never work again.
still, there will be fundage for defense....we just can't afford the neocons little foreign adventures anymore.
the 10 year R&D military deployment cycle that brought us C4I is going to bring us C5I.
And the 5th C is control of remotes. the New wars will be fought in remote, teleops and telepresence, and the Chinese will be players. Never doubt it.
then in another 10 years, nanotech and bioweapons. a netborne cybervirus perhaps to screw up the AIs and all the remote mecha. biomemes. weaponized viruses.
And it won't stop.
Add your comment