Decius wrote:
] ] Defying fears of suicide bombings, mortar attacks, and
] ] insurgent threats to kill every voter, Iraqis Sunday
] ] lined up in greater numbers than expected to cast ballots
] ] in historic elections.
]
] It sounds like the elections went well.

but do the ends justify the means

adam wrote:
] Decius wrote:
] ] ] Defying fears of suicide bombings, mortar attacks, and
] ] ] insurgent threats to kill every voter, Iraqis Sunday
] ] ] lined up in greater numbers than expected to cast ballots
] ] ] in historic elections.
] ]
] ] It sounds like the elections went well.
]
] but do the ends justify the means

If our goal was to elminite WMD then obviously the ends don't justify the means because there was no WMD to eliminate. If our goal was to project power in the region (and it was) it remains to be seen. There have been some effects that have been to our advantage, but this has not gone dramatically well by any stretch of the imagination.

Its not democracy we want. Its liberal democracy. If Iraq becomes a conservative islamic state like Iran, then no, the ends were not worth the means to us in my opinion, even given the pressure that this has allowed us to place on other governments in the region. If Iraq becomes like, say, Mylasia, then maybe they were. The result will probably be something in the middle.

What would we be doing now had we not gone into Iraq? We'd be having more difficultly pressuring various states, including Pakistan, to cut down Al'Q, but Al'Q would have a harder time recruiting and would have fewer targets to attack. People would be more focused on Afghanistan and frustrated that its taking so long. Saddam would still be funding Palestinian terror networks and torturing athletes.

Its really, really hard to say.

I recal feeling before this war started that I didn't have great arguements against doing it, but I also didn't have great arguements for it, and as its a war, you should always say no unless you are sure you are right. I still feel that way. Unless there is some clear sign that this has improved the situation significantly over what we would have otherwised faced its hard to beleive in it. For many people this election is that sign. Its not for me. It will be what the government this election elects does with its power over time that leads me to a conclusion. Ask me in 2010.

Decius wrote:
] adam wrote:
] ] Decius wrote:
] ] ] ] Defying fears of suicide bombings, mortar attacks, and
] ] ] ] insurgent threats to kill every voter, Iraqis Sunday
] ] ] ] lined up in greater numbers than expected to cast
] ballots
] ] ] ] in historic elections.
] ] ]
] ] ] It sounds like the elections went well.
] ]
] ] but do the ends justify the means
]
] If our goal was to elminite WMD then obviously the ends don't
] justify the means because there was no WMD to eliminate. If
] our goal was to project power in the region (and it was) it
] remains to be seen. There have been some effects that have
] been to our advantage, but this has not gone dramatically well
] by any stretch of the imagination.
]
] Its not democracy we want. Its liberal democracy. If Iraq
] becomes a conservative islamic state like Iran, then no, the
] ends were not worth the means to us in my opinion, even given
] the pressure that this has allowed us to place on other
] governments in the region. If Iraq becomes like, say, Mylasia,
] then maybe they were. The result will probably be something in
] the middle.
]
] What would we be doing now had we not gone into Iraq? We'd be
] having more difficultly pressuring various states, including
] Pakistan, to cut down Al'Q, but Al'Q would have a harder time
] recruiting and would have fewer targets to attack. People
] would be more focused on Afghanistan and frustrated that its
] taking so long. Saddam would still be funding Palestinian
] terror networks and torturing athletes.
]
] Its really, really hard to say.
]
] I recal feeling before this war started that I didn't have
] great arguements against doing it, but I also didn't have
] great arguements for it, and as its a war, you should always
] say no unless you are sure you are right. I still feel that
] way. Unless there is some clear sign that this has improved
] the situation significantly over what we would have otherwised
] faced its hard to beleive in it. For many people this election
] is that sign. Its not for me. It will be what the government
] this election elects does with its power over time that leads
] me to a conclusion. Ask me in 2010.

Decius is thoughtful as ever and I largely agree we have to judge the situation 2010 however my main problem is that the USA is acting
as an imperial power, a largely unilateral world policeman. If the
aim of the war was to project power in the region then that strikes
me as a war of aggression and we spent much of the 20th Century fighting wars to uphold the principle that wars of aggression were immoral. I believe in democracy and the rule of law but I do not believe that the West is morally justified in spreading democracy through the barrel of a gun in the same way that communists spread the dictatorship of the proletariate (although to be fair spreading your idealogy then asking the people makes a difference). Am I indulging in moral nicities and not real politic.
I see my own country's history of colonialism and imperialism. I cannot help but wince at the thought of the USA's corporate colonialism, the debts Iraq is racking up in the West. Is Iran next? Once you start invading countries with appalling human rights
records then where does it stop. Next stop Beijing.

adam wrote:

] USA is acting
] as a largely unilateral world policeman.

Oh, for the good 'ol days when Republicans were isolationist and Democrats wanted to interfere in Eastern Europe.

] Am I indulging in moral nicities and not real politic.

I don't think we're doing what we're doing for democracy. Bush isn't a neocon. We're doing what we're doing for more direct strategic reasons. But if the result produces a state thats more violent then the one we had before those stategic advantages will be moot.

] Next stop Beijing.

Yeah, good luck!

Decius wrote:
] adam wrote:
]
] ] USA is acting
] ] as a largely unilateral world policeman.
]
] Oh, for the good 'ol days when Republicans were isolationist
] and Democrats wanted to interfere in Eastern Europe.
]
] ] Am I indulging in moral nicities and not real politic.
]
] I don't think we're doing what we're doing for democracy. Bush
] isn't a neocon. We're doing what we're doing for more direct
] strategic reasons. But if the result produces a state thats
] more violent then the one we had before those stategic
] advantages will be moot.
]
] ] Next stop Beijing.
]
] Yeah, good luck!

So direct stategic reasons, real politic is the justification and moral questions are by the way. It sounds like a justification of imperialism to me. Like Nixon in China.
If the result produces a state and world that is less violent then
is Pax Americana justified. Do the ends justify the means? That is itself a difficult moral question. The Roman Empire was violent, built on slavery, warlike, the Republic fell and dictatorship brought stability after a century of civil war. It was also a flowering of civilisation that wasn't surpassed until the Renaissance which was fueled by printing and the publication of classical works.

adam wrote:

] So direct stategic reasons, real politic is the justification
] and moral questions are by the way. It sounds like a
] justification of imperialism to me. Like Nixon in China.

Justification, no. We're foisting our will on other people for our benefit, but we're not enslaving them. We can't. The general public has enough power to prevent that from occuring. Its a kinder, gentler imperialism. The imperialists can only get away with stuff the people don't understand. And the people have internets where digital cam pics of prison abuse occaisonally get leaked.

Imperialism really isn't the same animal in a world where the nation state is in decline, and thats why these questions are still on the table.

I'd call this Regan and the MX missles more then Nixon in China. Bush isn't talking. He's shooting, and he wants everyone to know that he is prepared to shoot even more.

] If the result produces a state and world that is less
] violent then is Pax Americana justified. Do the ends
] justify the means?

Not just less violent, but less violent and more free. A dictatorship is just violence waiting to happen. Its like potential energy. We want to escape the cycle of war and oppression by building institutions that respond to bad leadership non-violently, with things like elections.

Decius wrote:
] adam wrote:
]
] ] So direct stategic reasons, real politic is the
] justification
] ] and moral questions are by the way. It sounds like a
] ] justification of imperialism to me. Like Nixon in China.
]
] Justification, no. We're foisting our will on other people for
] our benefit, but we're not enslaving them. We can't. The
] general public has enough power to prevent that from occuring.
] Its a kinder, gentler imperialism. The imperialists can only
] get away with stuff the people don't understand. And the
] people have internets where digital cam pics of prison abuse
] occaisonally get leaked.
]
] Imperialism really isn't the same animal in a world where the
] nation state is in decline, and thats why these questions are
] still on the table.
]
] I'd call this Regan and the MX missles more then Nixon in
] China. Bush isn't talking. He's shooting, and he wants
] everyone to know that he is prepared to shoot even more.
]
] ] If the result produces a state and world that is less
] ] violent then is Pax Americana justified. Do the ends
] ] justify the means?
]
] Not just less violent, but less violent and more free. A
] dictatorship is just violence waiting to happen. Its like
] potential energy. We want to escape the cycle of war and
] oppression by building institutions that respond to bad
] leadership non-violently, with things like elections.

Its a kinder, gentler imperialism.

So the USA has crossed the Rubicon. Imperialism is ok if it fulfills your definitions of freedom. Capitalism, US corporations, the American vision, a unipolar world. If the UN objects then use the veto or pretend no clear UN mandate is necessary because the French might veto. Democracy and freedom when it suits you but what about Guantanamo. You pick and choose your freedoms. Will the USA invade again if a government which is unfriendly to the US is elected, that throws out the US corporations and renationalises the
oil industry. The true test of freedom like freedom of speech is when they say things you disagree with.
I hate dictators. What right does a US administration have to dictate to the world. Like Bin Laden violence is the tool of those who feel they cannot win an argument by rational means. I believe in liberal democracy and believe like Gandhi it can win the war on terrorism by satyagraha ('"truth force"). We hold these truths to be self evident. That is how you win the war on terrorism not by imperialism.

adam wrote:
] Its a kinder, gentler imperialism.

Of course, that was a quazi sarcastic reference to a Bush Sr. campaign quotation.

] So the USA has crossed the Rubicon.

The realpolitik perspective is that there was never a rubicon to cross in the first place. Everyone operates in his own interest and so in a unipolar world the US becomes "world dictator" when the same action would not seem that way in a multipolar context.

But I think that Bush has in fact changed the rules of the game considerably and I think that is a reason that this war is uncomfortable for a lot of people.

] Imperialism is ok if it fulfills your definitions of
] freedom. Capitalism, US corporations, the American
] vision, a unipolar world.

There is no one outside of the radical left who thinks this is about "US Corporations." The US might have an interest in free market capitalism in general but they are not specifically pursuing foreign policy that excludes foreign corporations from the market. In fact, the concept a "US Corporation" is really becoming old fashioned in certain respects. Some corporations really don't have countries...

Other then that you're reasonably close to what the neocons think. However, the neocons are an odd group of conservative intellectuals. They have certainly influenced the Bush administration but he stops short of being a neocon.

The Bush administration is not pursuing a broad based strategy of reforming world governments in a particular image nor do I think that the US has the resources to do that if they wanted to. The administration is acting in what it feels its interests are in Iraq specifically, and specifically with respect to a broader fight against Al'Q.

] If the UN objects then use the veto or pretend no clear
] UN mandate is necessary because the French might veto.

Americans do not beleive that the UN should have the power to veto their military actions. There is clearly an attempt to demonstrate independence from the international system. There is a lot of frustration around about UN processes that put western nations on equal footing with terror states. There is also some frustration with the UN's inability to contain certain international conflagurations in the 90's.

I would argue that while some of these objections are realistic, in gutting these institutions without replacing them with something more effective the US is returning international law to a state of nature, which will ultimately result in serious problems.

] Will the USA invade again if a government which is
] unfriendly to the US is elected, that throws out the
] US corporations and renationalises the oil industry.

Not for those reasons, but any government that "threw out the US corporations and renationalises the oil industry" is likely to be a totalitarian one, and so there would be other problems that went along with that. Those problem... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

]Bush has in fact changed the rules of the game considerably

How do you think Bush has changed the rules of the game?

]the neocons are an odd group of conservative
] intellectuals. They have certainly influenced the Bush
] administration but he stops short of being a neocon.

The perspective on this side of the Atlantic is that Bush has very much aligned himself, and virtually got into bed, with the neocons. However I agree the USA has neither the resources, the military might or the will to pursue a broad based strategy of reforming world governments. The cost in lives alone would be astonishing. There will be no invasion of China.

]The administration is acting in what it feels its
] interests are in Iraq specifically, and specifically with
] respect to a broader fight against Al'Q.

but before the invasion there wasn't a clear connection between Sadaam and Al'Q. But Bush has given the impression to the Muslim world that that the West is at war with Islam. Peculiar when Iraq was a secular state, which is why Bin Laden hated it.

]Americans do not beleive that the UN should have the power to
] veto their military actions.

But are those Americans right? The UN was formed after one group of nation states had tried to impose their beliefs and way of life on others by force. The international community should have the right to maintain the stability whereby one member state is not forcing its will upon others without due regard to international opinion and ultimately international law.

]There is a lot of frustration around about UN processes that put
] western nations on equal footing with terror states.

Only certain members of the Security Council have the veto and since when could France be classed as a terror state.

] gutting these institutions without replacing
] them with something more effective the US is returning
] international law to a state of nature, which will ultimately
] result in serious problems.

I completely agree

]Well, ostensibly the US is acting in self defense against a
] bunch of crazy fundamentalists bent on murder and destruction.

Again there was no connection between Sadaam and Al'Q.

]Sometimes you can't win the arguement by rational means
] because the person you are arguing with isn't rational.

Yes Al'Q isn't like the Imperial era British Government they are more like the Nazis and force must be restisted resolutely. The audience for the argument is global Muslim opinion which is very much accessable to rational argument. Al'Q is only a tiny group maybe not much bigger than the Baader-Meinhof gang. By stoking the fire the US acts as a recuiting sergeant for Al'Q just as the British government did for the IRA with its policy of internment.

]They did not do this because they did not care.

that is unfair

adam wrote:
] ]Bush has in fact changed the rules of the game considerably
]
] How do you think Bush has changed the rules of the game?

By running a military engagement without broad international support. By blowing off the UN. By launching a pre-emptive strike. By not following the Geneva Convention. Etc...

] but before the invasion there wasn't a clear connection
] between Sadaam and Al'Q.

There isn't one. "Shit ain't checkers, man. Its chess."

] But are those Americans right? The UN was formed after one
] group of nation states had tried to impose their beliefs and
] way of life on others by force. The international community
] should have the right to maintain the stability whereby one
] member state is not forcing its will upon others without due
] regard to international opinion and ultimately international
] law.

I agree, but try telling someone with a hell of a lot of guns who just had a bunch of his buildings blown up that he cannot defend himself without permission from people whose interests are not aligned with his and see how far you get. This is reality. I think its going to create problems, but saying "you can't do that" ultimately is meaningless if you won't back it up with force.

] ]There is a lot of frustration around about UN processes that
] put
] ] western nations on equal footing with terror states.
]
] Only certain members of the Security Council have the veto and
] since when could France be classed as a terror state.

I didn't say anything about vetos, or the security council, but people are pissed off that countries like Syria get to be on the security council and countries like Libya get to chair the human rights commission while the U.S. gets booted off of it. These are not the trappings of credible institutions.

] ]Well, ostensibly the US is acting in self defense against a
] ] bunch of crazy fundamentalists bent on murder and
] destruction.
]
] Again there was no connection between Sadaam and Al'Q.

read:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200303/msg00323.html

] By stoking the fire the US acts as a
] recuiting sergeant for Al'Q just as the British government
] did for the IRA with its policy of internment.

Most analysts agree with you. The counter point is that its more important what governments do then what people on the street think. Which side is right remains to be seen.

]http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200303/msg00323.html

fasinating

do you think that the US should invade Iran?

do you think that it is any more within the power of the Saudi authorities to stop Al'Q than it was within the power of the British government to stop the IRA in Northern Ireland or to stop its mainland Britain bombing campaign?

adam wrote:
] do you think that the US should invade Iran?

No, but then I haven't seen anyone present the case, and I don't know as much about Iran as the Stratfor folks do.

] do you think that it is any more within the power of the Saudi
] authorities to stop Al'Q than it was within the power of the
] British government to stop the IRA in Northern Ireland or to
] stop its mainland Britain bombing campaign?

Do you think that the British government does nothing about the IRA because they feel like they can't stop it?

] Do you think that the British government does nothing about
] the IRA because they feel like they can't stop it?

Numerous British Governments have tried very hard and used various more or less draconian measures to "win" the war. We saw the Anti-terrorism law, Diplock courts and internment. Nobody could say that Margaret Thatcher didn't vigorously pursue the war especially after the IRA murdered her close friend and confidant Airey Neave, a man who escaped from Colditz.
However as to when a British Government last thought it could win militarily is a difficult question. We call it the Long War and it isn't over yet note the very latest troubles in the peace process after the IRA was alledged by senior Northern Irish policemen of being deeply involved in one the biggest bank robberies in British history.
But and it is a major but the British Government wasn't in a position to cut off the "support network". The IRA was largely funded through an organisation called Noraid, funded by US citizens and though racketeering in Northern Ireland. Also the British Government couldn't invade Eire where the IRA had training camps.
It would be usuful to know more about the support networks for Eta the Spanish Basque separatists.
Having said that I remain unconvinced that the war on terrorism can be won militarily

adam wrote:
]
]
] ] Do you think that the British government does nothing about
] ] the IRA because they feel like they can't stop it?
]
] Numerous British Governments have tried very hard and used
] various more or less draconian measures to "win" the war. We
] saw the Anti-terrorism law, Diplock courts and internment.
] Nobody could say that Margaret Thatcher didn't vigorously
] pursue the war especially after the IRA murdered her close
] friend and confidant Airey Neave, a man who escaped from
] Colditz.
] However as to when a British Government last thought it could
] win militarily is a difficult question. We call it the Long
] War and it isn't over yet note the very latest troubles in the
] peace process after the IRA was alledged by senior Northern
] Irish policemen of being deeply involved in one the biggest
] bank robberies in British history.
] But and it is a major but the British Government wasn't in a
] position to cut off the "support network". The IRA was
] largely funded through an organisation called Noraid, funded
] by US citizens and though racketeering in Northern Ireland.
] Also the British Government couldn't invade Eire where the IRA
] had training camps.
] It would be usuful to know more about the support networks for
] Eta the Spanish Basque separatists.
] Having said that I remain unconvinced that the war on
] terrorism can be won militarily.

You make a strong arguement. Is there an example of a non-state terrorist organization that has lost and gone away?

] Is there an example of a
] non-state terrorist organization that has lost and gone away?

not that I know of

Actually yes the Baader-Meinhof / Red Army Faction they were either captured or killed. I am not too familiar with the details. However the important difference between them and Al'Q is that at the time communism was a living social experiment. Yet it was a dying meme (intentional pun, a social experiment that cost millions of lives). West German democracy survived and defeated them although how much physical support they had from the Soviet bloc I honestly don't know. Radical Islamism is very much a thriving meme. Al'Q as it's military wing, the symbiosis of extreme violence as a meme and radical Islamism as a meme, must be decommissioned.

In Northern Ireland we have had long discussions about decommissioning, the IICD (Independent International Commission on Decommissioning) led by General John de Chastelain has worked long and hard to the find agreement and monitor the process of destroying the IRA's guns and bombs.
I heard what I regard as one of the most intelligent observations about the whole issue of decommissioning. Physically destroying the IRA's semtex and guns isn't the point because they can always get more. What you must decommission is the will to use those weapons in the first place. An IRA bomber will always know how to build a bomb but if they have no desire to build bombs and kill, then voila. It is like the NRA's argument guns don't kill people, people kill people and it has the same flaws (a terrorist who only has access to knives can kill people but a terrorist who has access to nuclear weapons!).
Decommissioning
1 You can kill them with the danger that they become martyrs for the cause.
2 You can capture them, put them in prison and make them political prisoners. They might go on hunger strike like Bobby Sands and become martys ( he ran for Parliament, was elected and died. You can execute them (see 1).
3 You stop them wanting to bomb and destroy. You decommission their will to do so.

Al'Q - I do not believe that 3 is a realistic option for the senior hierarchy of Al'Q. They must be captured or killed. I believe this war will last at least a generation and I believe the secret of success is through 3. Stopping the agressive and war like posturing of the US administration which creates militants on both sides. In civil wars it is the collapse of the center ground which is one of the key stages. Look at the French revolution or the events which led to the English Civil war. It was the collapse of the center and the rise of the militants; the creation of two armed camps.

We will win this war. We have a working model of how to run a society and a civilisation which is far more credible than Al'Qs. They offer only medievalism, tyranny and oppression.
The key is to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim World by demonstrating the moral, political and economic superiority of the Western liberal model.
By reverting to a trench mentality we only increase the dichotomy in the Muslim world between the radical Islamists and the pro-Western elements, which can be seen so clearly in Bin Laden's own family.