Friday Fun Link--Or Pure Politics?
Brian Doherty | August 25, 2006, 10:22pm
Was I so amused by this week's Tom Tomorrow comic strip on the difference between "serious" and "frivolous" approaches to foreign policy because its inherent artful hilarity, or because I found its underlying message pleasing and largely true?
I'm sure I'll be the last to know. Radley Balko skillfully takes on the question of libertarian "seriousness" about foreign policy conundrums. It's two years old, yet alas still fresh.
edna | August 26, 2006, 4:31am | #
balko misses several points. let's make a better analogy than his wasp one. the house next door is full of crazy gang bangers who have a shitpot of money from their crack slinging. they like shooting at one another and at other gangs. every once in a while, a bullet comes whizzing through my window. maybe an accident, maybe not; the gang leader assures me that it's probably one of the guys when he's out of the leader's sight, but he'll try to keep an eye out. i can more-or-less tolerate that, but realize that one of my kids could get hit.
the cops are too busy munching krispy kreme to help me out.
the ominous part is the anonymous scrawled notes i find on my door telling me that they hate me because i'm not a gang member. leader says, don't worry, that's no doubt just one of the boys having some harmless fun.
now the next day, the leader mentions to me that they're about to get a bunch of rpgs and 50mm cannon. don't worry, if you don't bother us, we won't bother you, he tells me. what about the bullets that fly over here every once in a while? aww, that's no problem, he assures me, just don't fuck with us. what about the threatening notes? well, he says, i didn't write them, and i'd be pretty pissed off if you accused me of doing that. but, he continues, you really ought to do what the notes say and join the gang.
so... do i wait until an rpg hits my house, certainly killing at least one of my kids? do i trust that if i don't fuck with them, nothing will happen? or do i just take them out myself as a preventive measure?
imo, the problem is not pre-9/11 thinking, it's pre-august-1945 thinking.
LoafingOaf | August 26, 2006, 5:49am | #
Was I so amused by this week's Tom Tomorrow comic strip on the difference between "serious" and "frivolous" approaches to foreign policy because its inherent artful hilarity, or because I found its underlying message pleasing and largely true?
I dunno, let's have a look.
The strip begins by mockingly portraying the "serious" as saying we need to confront terrorism "by starting wars in unrelated countries."
Iraq under Saddam was "unrelated" to terrorism? That's factually false, since Saddam had given safe haven a list of some of the world's worst terrorists, such as Abu Nidal, Zarqawi, and Ramzi Yusef (Yusef being one of the terrorists who tried to knock down the WTC in 1993). Saddma also funded terrorism, such as his offers to pay the families of suicide bombers. Saddam also opnely praised terrorism, such as when he called 9/11 the "operation of the century." Saddam also had some communications with Al Qaeda, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, although the extent of the connections is still an open question.
I find it a bit idiotic for people to say Baathists would not deal with Islamic terrorists when just in the past few weeks we have seen the Baath regime of Syria very connected to Hizballah.
Furthermore, the article you linked to by Balko says, in comdening U.S. intervention in the Muslim world as a cause of terrorism:
Bin Laden has made clear several times over that it is the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, the first Gulf War, the sanctions and no-fly zones imposed on Iraq....
The U.S. had troops in Saudi Arabia because of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. The first gulf war was fought to prevent Saddam Hussein from successfully invading a sovereign country and annexing it out of existance. The no-fly zones were put in place, in part, to prevent genocide against the Kurdish people of northern Iraq.
So, if you think it's so fucking brilliant to say Iraq is "unrelated" despite all these examples of how Saddam had been a festering problem in the region, and you cite an article which says that our responses to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait were related to Al Qaeda's attack on 9/11, frankly you're not making any sense.
If you'd like to make a Hit & Run post where you say Saddam Hussein should've been allowed to keep Kuwait, he should've been allowed to ethnically cleanse the Kurdish people at will (despite the USA having signed the Genocide Convention), and that Saddam Hussein should've been allowed to continue on to invade Saudi Arabia, please do so so and so clearly so we can see how well that would hold up to scrutiny.
Tom Tomorrow contiues, mocking the administation: "Our troops will be greated with showers of rose petals....."
It's actually a matter of fact by journalists (such as Chritsopher Hitchens) who were in Iraq at the time that many Iraqis did greet American troops with celebration. It's a lie to say this did not occur.
Tom Tomorrow: "....And Islamofascist leaders thoughout the region shall fear out mighty wrath!"
On what basis do you think Islamofascist leaders are not fearing our wrath? Did the dictator of Libya, for example, not fear our wrath? What makes you confident that other Islamofascist leaders are not worried?
Tom Tomorrow, presenting one of the critics of Bush foreign policy as someone who spoke truth but was unfairly mocked for it: "I'd even go so far as to suggest that it exposes us yo increased risk! If I weren't such a frivolous ninny, that is!"
It's a matter of debate whether we're now exposed to more risk. On the one hand, we haven't had a terrorist attack in America since 9/11. OTOH, that may be luck and it's just around the corner. A post earlier this week on Hit & Run opined that Al Qaeda is no big deal becaus emore people die in car crashes than in 9/11s, and that Al Qaeda "scracely exists." One day on Hit & Run the enemy "scarcely exists," the next day America is more at risk than ever. Do get your stories straight or make a post saying why you disagree with each other.
Tom tomorrow, back to mocking the advocates of Bush foreign policy: "Do these cut-and-runners have no historical perspective."
So what do you believe? Islamic Fascists seem to think it's pretty important that we don't succeed in Iraq. I'm of the mind that accomplishing what they don't want us to accomplish is a good idea, and I agree with Bush that the long-term solution is planting the seeds of better countries in the Middle East. Perhaps you disagree.
What exactly do you think will happen to Iraq, the Middle East, America, and the world if we pulled out of Iraq right now? Or can you only link to a cartoon with shallow talking points and mantras?
Tom Tomorrow, going back to the "truth-teller" who was unfairly mocked: "It's almost as if the Bush administration never had an exit strategy."
His strategy is to complete the mission. Tom Tomorrow's strategy is apparently to abort the mission and who really cares what consequences that would have. What's your recommendation, or is it easier to just link to a cartoon and not get too into the details?
Tom Tomorrow: "Using news of a foiled terror plot to score political points against democrats." Back to the supposed "truth-teller" that is unfairly mocked for "trying to figure out what REALLY happened": "If it's true that many of the suspects didn't even have passports -- I don't understand how an attack could have been 'imminent'!"
So I take you you agree with Andrew Sullivan's conspiracy theory? How about you make a Hit & Run post where you clearly state that and let it stand up to scrutiny?
Some didn't have passports? Um...aren't they terrorists? Is it so outlandish that a terrorist might use a forged passport? And what is "imminent" precisely"? How close to the actual terror attack should we wait before authorities bust them? Isn't it better to bust up a terror plot a little early than too late? Or are you attempting to set up a situation where you can abuse Bush no matter what? Pretty transparent.
And where do people like you (since you praise this cartoon), Andrew Sullivan, and Tom Tomorrow get off saying others are playing politics with terrorism when you're apparently trying to make people believe British authorities were acting to help Bush divert from, I guess, Ned Lamont? And why can't people point out the distinction for voters between those who wanna pretend Al Qaeda and its affiliates "scacely exist" (at least for the election year, for those candidates who don't poll well on fighting terrorism) and those who think there's a very real threat? We're talking about the #1 issue in our country and you wanna pretend Republicans are not allowed to talk about the attitudes in the Democratic Party? What a silly rubbish.
This has gone on too long, and I had wanted to get more into the article you linked to.
So...just a couple points.
Unfortunately, the "they hate us for our freedom" reasoning fails the Occam's Razor test. It's difficult to believe that a loathing of strip clubs, rock music, cable TV, and all-you-can-eat buffets would motivate 19 young Arab men would move to the U.S. from thousands of miles away, live and work here for several years, learn to fly airplanes, and then immolate themselves in a mass suicide attack.
I don't think it's the
only reason, but I find it pretty astonishing that someone would think what some negatively refer to as Western "cultural imperialism" is no factor in why Islamic Fascists hate the West. The world has shrunk through globalization and technology, and thus our culture is not "thousands of miles away." What do you think Islamic Fascists mean when they refer to a "Great Satan"? They're referring to a seducer. Part of the seduction they are lashing out against is cultural. Why do you think it is that a Taliban regime would send cultural enforcers out to rip out the painted fingernails of women and whip people for listening to music? Why do you think Islamic Fascists went on a rampaging killing spree over a beauty pageant in Nigeria?
Eland warned -- and bin Laden later confirmed -- that more recent U.S. interventions, in Kosovo, Somalia, and even Gulf War I, could soon provoke a catastrophic attack on the U.S. homeland.
What kind of masochism are you buying into here?
In Kosovo we intervened in support of Muslims who were being ethnically cleansed. Am I to apologize for America not allowing the Saddams and Milosevics to do as they please?
And have you not noticed that Islamic Fascists are attacking people across the world, whether U.s. foreign policy is an issue or not?
I'm sure I'll be the last to know. Radley Balko skillfully takes on the question of libertarian "seriousness" about foreign policy conundrums. It's two years old, yet alas still fresh.
Well, you keep patting him and tom Tomorrow on the back. But throwing a link to them on Hit & Run and simply saying they are "skillful" and "largely true" doesn't really tell me much, and leaves me still wondering how serious you are. Oh well, I guess Nick Gillespie will come by tomorrow and do a "hit and run" about how "idiotic" Bush is and you can feel smug about yourselves on the basis of nothing.
David Tomlin | August 26, 2006, 7:58am | #
Saddam had given safe haven a list of some of the world's worst terrorists, such as Abu Nidal . . .
Abu Nidal is ancient history.
Zarqawi
I think the latest information is that Saddam had his people looking to arrest Zarqawi.
I am reminded of the Fox documentary that accused Iran of 'harboring' people that it actually had in custody.
. . . and Ramzi Yusef (Yusef being one of the terrorists who tried to knock down the WTC in 1993).
OK, you've got a score on Yusef. But AFAIK Saddam didn't let him operate from Iraq. He just gave him a haven after the fact. That's pretty minimal as support for terrorism goes.
Yusef wasn't found in Iraq when the U.S. invaded. They only found one terrorist, and he was covered by an amnesty and once lived openly in Israel. But the war crowd made a big fuss about him being a smoking gun.
Saddam also funded terrorism, such as his offers to pay the families of suicide bombers.
So does Saudi Arabia, and I think some others as well. But Palestinian suicide bombers don't have 'global reach', so technically aren't targets of the 'War on Terror'.
I find it a bit idiotic for people to say Baathists would not deal with Islamic terrorists . . .
Who has said that? Seriously, I'd like to see a quote.
It seemed to me that lots of people jumped to the conclusion that Saddam and bin Laden must be 'allies' because they both are Muslim and anti-U.S. In response to that, many of us pointed out that bin Laden's 'caliphate' agenda required bringing down Saddam's regime, among others, and that bin Laden might even hate Saddam as much as or more than the U.S. That didn't mean there couldn't possibly be a 'Hitler-Stalin pact' between them. It did suggest such an alliance couldn't be taken for granted without evidence.
. . . we have seen the Baath regime of Syria very connected to Hizballah.
It's my understanding that Hizballah is focused on Israel and Lebanon, and has no agenda for overthrowing the Syrian Baathists.
Did the dictator of Libya, for example, not fear our wrath?
Not clear. What is known is that he was moving toward rapprochement with the West long before 9/11.
The Syrians and Iranians don't seem intimidated. The neo-cons are demanding that Iran be made the next example.
"It's almost as if the Bush administration never had an exit strategy."
His strategy is to complete the mission.
That's not a strategy. It's a slogan.
How close to the actual terror attack should we wait before authorities bust them?
Close enough to get the evidence to put them away for a long time.
Whether that is true of this case remains to be seen. I understand some of the arrested people have been released.
Will Allen | August 27, 2006, 4:17pm | #
Mr. Rhoads, unless you are advocating the invasion of Canada, you may reflect upon the implications of the fact that oil in fungible. It terms of economic dislocation, it matters not a whit where oil actually originates from, prior to arriving in the U.S., unless, again, you advocate invading Canada, pumping out the oil, and telling the Canadians to pound sand. That this has to explained on a regular basis to libertarians, who presumably have some passing familiarity with the workings of markets, is a bit of a wonder.
The accessability of the oil in the Persian Gulf is the key component in the global oil market. The global oil market has a gigantic impact on global economic conditions, including economic conditions in the U.S.. This is only going to change very slowly, over several decades. Thus, the U.S. is inevitably entangled in the politics of the Persian Gulf, for if the U.S. were to simply withdraw, some other international actor would seek to dominate this militarily weak, yet geologically vital region of the globe, and there is no assurance that such an entity would do so in a way that would not harm the citizens of the U.S..
None of this, of course, obviates the question that crimethink poses above, that of whether the specific entanglement of the Iraq invasion was wise. I wish, however, that people like crimethink would be more forthright in their position. Given that the U.S. will inevitably be entangled in the extraction of Persian Gulf oil, in what form is the entanglement to take place?
There are three choices. One, the people of the region can be slaughtered, which is how this sort of a situation, that of a militarily weak people sitting atop a vital natural resource, has been handled throughout most of human history. Two, the people can be enslaved, which is what usually has happened to those not slaughtered. Three, the people atop of the region can self-govern, and engage in productive trade with other populations.
The status quo since the oil reserves in the Persian Gulf were discovered has been to enslave the native populations via despotic proxies, who are paid tribute by oil consumers, in return for access to the reserves. Of course, the despots then encourage the resentment of their native populations towards the outside oil consumers, particularly the most prominent ones, since this provides a distraction from the despots' oppressive ways. The outside enemy is always useful to the despot, after all. The problems with this paradigm, however, has been on display for some time now.
Of course, just because a paradigm has problems does not mean that a better paradigm is available. It would be preferable, however, for those, and perhaps you are one of them, crimethink, who think that continuing to pay tribute to despots in return for access to oil reserves, is the least worst option available, to simply say so forthrightly, instead of simply bemoaning how useless the Iraq invasion was.
Will Allen | August 27, 2006, 5:38pm | #
O.K. Mr. Rhodes, instead of reviewing the meaning of "fungibility", perhaps you should instead review at an atlas, specifically a place called the Strait of Hormuz, and then also reflect on the wisdom of assuming that the militarily weak governments of the Persian Gulf will maintain control of the Strait of Hormuz absent the U.S. military guaranteeing security.
Some entity will inevitably dominate that small area, and there is no reason to suppose that it will behave in a way that you consider economically rational, because although humans as a whole are economically rational over the long term, history is rife with examples when what we normally consider irrational behavior won the day. In regards to the Persian Gulf, it only takes one actor in a temporary stretch of irrationality to inflict a gigantic amount of misery on the rest of the world's population, including that of the U.S..
It didn't make a lot of sense for the Germans, French , and Britons to slaughter each other in droves from 1914 to 1918, but that's what happened. It didn't make a lot of sense for Japan to wage genocidal war throughout Asia, until the U.S. repsonded with an embargo, and then it didn't make a lot of sense for the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor, but that's what happened. Heck, I'm sure there are plenty here who say that it didn't make sense for the U.S. to embargo oil destined for Japan in response to Japanese slaughtering other Asians in droves. But that's what happened.
It may make sense to you that if the U.S. withdraws from the Persian Gulf, all the other international actors with the potential to affect the area should just allow the current regimes to keep control of the real estate, and allow the oil to be extracted without interruption. Unfortunately, everybody doesn't see the world as you do, just as the thug who robbed a liqour store last week in my town, and shot the clerk to death for the fun of it, didn't see the world as you do. What is equally unfortunate is that an international thug without your view of rationality in the Persian Gulf would not result in a single death of a store clerk, as awful as that is, but rather millions of deaths.
The U.S. will not be withdrawing from the Persian Gulf, and the only question is how the U.S. engages with the population of the Persian Gulf.
