What are the pro-war liberals saying now?

[Gordon B]

Slate article

I hope Ellery stops by to read this.

[Sergio Zamora]

One of the many reasons I'm not a 'liberal'.

[Paul B]

Interesting--though hardly convincing. The Powers piece from the NYRB I posted on another thread (here it is again) makes a far more compelling case from the liberal (a word we are, alas, stuck with) standpoint, and serves as a solid rebuttal to the sort of nonsense in the Slate piece.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16813

The "terrorism bubble" Thomas Friedman mentions in the Slate piece was hardly the problem in Iraq that it is in other Arab countries. Using diplomacy to solve (or at least visibly work to solve in a way that doesn't seem blindingly pro-Israel) the Palestinian situation would be a far more powerful incentive. I used to like Friedman's writing, but he has waffled constantly on this issue (and others in the past year or two) and is no longer interesting to this reader.

And if deposing Saddam because he was a tyrannical butcher (which NO ONE denies) was the real reason all along, why the bullshit about WMD from the administration. And if deposing tyrants is the order of the day, when does Bush take down the other half-dozen or so egregious examples, such as the far more dangerous North Korean despot? You know, the one that HAS nuclean weapons? The one that's truly a threat?

The Slate piece shows that all liberals weren't anti-war. But so what?

Bye-ya.

[moneyp]

I think Fred Kaplan hit the nail on the head:

"My case for multilateralism was, and still is, strictly pragmatic: The United States does not have the budgetary resources, the military manpower, the international legitimacy (especially in the region), or, I suspect, ultimately the political wherewithal to go this all the way to the finish line alone."

Exactly.

I've always wondered how 30+ nations could fall under the term "unilateral"?

Paul, I'd really be interested in your answers to my questions on the O'Neill thread.

[Monte Smith]

Looks like an interesting piece, which I shall print out and perhaps read tonight. Obviously it is a limited selection of pro-war liberals. Another such animal, William Shawcross, has a new book called Allies out. There was a mildly snarky review of it in the NY Times Sunday Book World this weekend.

By the way, Gordo: that book you recommended to me awhile ago called In Denial is fantastic. I think you had not read it, just come across it and thought it was up my alley when we were discussing the history of the liberal reaction to communism or something similar. I picked it up really for my dad for Xmas but it will have to wait until Father's Day because I've started into it. I'd have finished it already but my reading time allotment is not what is was a few months ago.

[moneyp]

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
I've always wondered how 30+ nations could fall under the term "unilateral"?

Considering 29+ of those nations have little or no presence in Iraq right now, I think "unilateral" fits. It's our party, and when we eventually decide to pull out leaving the place an unstable, volatile mess, nobody is going to step in to pick up the slack. The financial and military contributions of most of our supposed allies in this endeavor amounts to nothing more than a Hallmark card saying, "Sure, whatever. Go nuts."

[Paul B]

Paul, I'd really be interested in your answers to my questions on the O'Neill thread.

There are no easy answers to your questions on the O'Neill thread. Yes, Bush pere was theoretically right to not overstep the U.N. mandate. But things change in media res, and capturing him them would have been a valid enterprise: he had just illegally invaded a country, killing thousands and destabilizing the area. That reason doesn't hold up a decade later (except as a motive for revenge for little Bush). In fact, it wouldn't have held up a year later. When the momemtum was on the allies' side--when the forces were already in place, and the Iraqi military infrastructure weak and broken--they would have been justified in arresting and trying Hussein for war crimes (which invading Kuwait most certainly was). I'm far less worried about what would have happened if the elder Bush had overstepped a U.N. mandate (or rushed a resolution through that would have allowed him to capture Hussein in Iraq) that the younger Bush's utter and total disregard for diplomacy, for alliances, for the long-term stability of both the Middle East and the West.

Saying that the situation is black and white, i.e. that either I'm behind capturing Saddam or not--regardless of the context or the reasons--seems simplistic to me.

Bye-ya.

[Gordon B]

Monte, you are right, I'll have to get "In Denial" now on your rec. I read the review of Shawcross. I was astonished to find out that he had written that book.

the younger Bush's utter and total disregard for diplomacy

By diplomacy I'm guessing you're referring to a cease fire which Saddam had broken within a few years after 1992. 12 years, 17 unfulfilled U.N. resolutions. That kind of thing?

Or perhaps in 2002 when Bush told Hussein to finally live up to his end of the bargain or suffer the consequence?

How many more years, and how many more resolutions were you in favor of?

[crawjo]

Paul B,

I didn't realize that war-time atrocities and genocide carried a statute of limitations. I guess if we let a murderer walk away today, that's wrong, but if we decide to go get him in 10 years, then we're just out for "revenge."

[Uli]

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
By diplomacy I'm guessing you're referring to a cease fire which Saddam had broken within a few years after 1992. 12 years, 17 unfulfilled U.N. resolutions. That kind of thing?

What unfullfilled U.N. resoultions? Get it, there were no WMDs.

[Paul B]

Diplomacy is never easy.

But Bush has never been interested. He didn't give a sh*t about those resolutions, because he didn't give a sh*t about the U.N. That whole chain of rigamorole was just an excuse to get the war machine--put into place as soon as he took office--moving.

Iraq was contained by inspections and the no-fly zone. Eventually the Hussein regime would have been toppled. A pain in the arse to us, and the world. Yes. But better than declaring war.

Bye-ya.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally posted by Uli
What unfullfilled U.N. resoultions? Get it, there were no WMDs.

Good point, but he was still supposed to allow inspection on the UN's terms, and he really never did that. Given that it appears he had no WMDs, or at least not the vast stockpile we thought he had, one has to wonder why he never allowed the inspections to proceed. Hubris? Something else to hide? Paranoid schizophrenia? Who knows.

[Paul B]

I didn't realize that war-time atrocities and genocide carried a statute of limitations.

Great. So when are we going after the others? If that's the goal of U.S. foreign policy, let it be stated loud and clear. But don't just pick the easy targets (not to mention those that will enrich the pockets of corporate donors).

And why the dissent when Clinton went into Bosnia? Republicans didn't like that. But now they're all for war in Iraq--the consequences of which are much larger and more complex.

Bye-ya.

[Uli]

Originally posted by jesus marion joseph
Good point, but he was still supposed to allow inspection on the UN's terms, and he really never did that.

Admittedly it was late and under the threat of the invasion already, but the U.N. reports gave him a B in cooperation with the inspectors.

And U.N. reports also clearly indicated that he was NOT in complete compliance. Sorry Uli, this isn't a "you did your best" type of scenario.

I didn't realize that war-time atrocities and genocide carried a statute of limitations.

Exactly part of my point, Crawjo. The things that he had done to have everyone frothing at the mouth in '91 didn't just suddenly vanish from memory or reality.

And why the dissent when Clinton went into Bosnia? Republicans didn't like that. But now they're all for war in Iraq--the consequences of which are much larger and more complex.

Well of course, Paul. It's all about politics. That doesn't make one right and the other wrong in my book. But, to have supported a defiance of the U.N. one year, and strongly oppose it another year when it concerns the same person and the same history of problems, well, something just doesn't sound right about that.

Considering 29+ of those nations have little or no presence in Iraq right now, I think "unilateral" fits.

Last I checked "uni" meant one. How many nations have troops in Iraq now? And how many had troops in Iraq in 1991?

[GoodSpeak]

[ahem]

If I may...Bosnia was all about the systematic genocide of an entire race of peoples, the Croations, by the Serbs.

If you will further recall, the republicans feigned opposition mainly because Clinton thought of it first [though they later ragged on him for not going in sooner during the next election as a shameless attack on Democrats use of the military] and that the success didn't jibe with the republican's unwarrented belief that the military was unduly hurt during Clinton's tenure [a position they erroneously took against Gore in the election saying that the military was at it's weakest point and in desperate need of Dubya's help. Right...help for Daddy Bush.]. Additionally, the republicans whined incessantly about America becoming the World's policemen that this would be the next Vietnam. After Bosnia, they argued, who would be next etc, etc, ad nauseum, yap, yap, yap.

Fast forward to the unjustifiable invasion of Iraq: The republicans, after less than one short year in office, now have this undefeatable military [Now, how the hell did that happen? I thought they were SO incredibly weak?] to bring peace to Iraq in the guise of terrorist affiliation [unproven] and WMDs [also unproven] and are on the verge of...becoming the World's policeman.

First Kuwait, then Iraq, then Somalia, then Afghanistan, then Iraq again...who's next? We've come full circle...who knew?

Once again, like trying to jam a sqaure peg into a round hole, the republican party creates the facts to fit the history.










After Iraq #2 comes...uh, wait...they have no exit strategy do they? Well, they'll just fob it off on the next Democratic President, allow a few Marines to get killed and then blame Clinton. Hey, worked before didn't it?




OK...dig in guys.

[steve(thelil)]

I think they might be saying "bite me"

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by steve(thelil)
I think they might be saying "bite me"

Not even for a $50 dollar bill ;-)

How 'bout a forty dollar bill?

[GoodSpeak]

LOL

[Captain Hate]

Originally posted by GoodSpeak
[BAfter Iraq...uh, wait...they have no exit strategy do they? [/B]

We're still in Bosnia.

[Gordon B]

Originally posted by Paul B
But don't just pick the easy targets

You'd rather pick a difficult target, where we'd suffer tens of thousands of causalties or maybe a nuclear attack on an ally's soil or even our own?

Of course, if we are going to go after a totalitarian regime, all things being equal, it's better to go after an easy target than a difficult one. I thought that was obvious to everybody but apparently not.

Originally posted by Paul B
Eventually the Hussein regime would have been toppled.

Why do you say that. How do you know that Saddam wouldn't have survived another 12 years like he did after Desert Storm and passed his rule on to his lovely sons.

Does anybody not think that Saddam was worse than Milosevic? I guess what's acceptable in Iraq isn't acceptable in Europe. I'm not arguing against the war against Milosevic, just wondering why that was more acceptable than the war against Saddam.

If Clinton had gone after Saddam like he nearly did in 1998, he would have had more Democrats supporting him than Bush had and fewer Republicans supporting him. That's politics.

If the Bush Administration had been more in awe of Wesley Clark and had given him an important position, he'd still be a Republican. That's politics.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by Captain Hate
We're still in Bosnia.

The war still rages in Bosnia???

Wow...how'd I miss that little tid bit of news?


And all this time I thought the UN took over and the war crimes trial was the rule of the day.



Psssh. I guess ya just never know, now do ya?

[Captain Hate]

Goodspeak, you are so fucking obtuse; are we or aren't we still in Bosnia?

Sorry brother Goodz, but I gotta do it:


In homage to my mentor, Chris




Troops may come home from Bosnia next year, official says





By Thomas E. Ricks
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- U.S. peacekeeping troops could be withdrawn from Bosnia sometime next year, the U.S. military commander for Europe said Friday.
If current trends continue in the northern Balkans nation, said Marine Gen. James Jones, who is also NATO's military chief, "during '04, we could have a different footprint there than we currently have."
About 1,500 Army troops still are deployed to Bosnia nearly eight years after the initial entry of U.S. forces. All there now are from the National Guard, Jones noted at a Pentagon news conference. Some 20,000 U.S. Army soldiers originally entered Bosnia in December 1995 and were at first slated by the Clinton administration to stay there for just one year.
Ending the U.S. mission there would ease strains on the military caused by the large occupation of Iraq. It also would lessen Pentagon worries that post-Cold War missions are open-ended efforts that have a "roach motel" effect on troops, pulling them in but not allowing them to leave.
As the northern Balkans become more orderly, Jones added, "We're seeing in Bosnia a real potential for ending the military mission there and transitioning to . . . a presence that will be more based on establishing police forces as a fundamental enforcer of the rule of law."
But Jones said it was too early to plan to end the parallel peacekeeping mission in the Serbian province of Kosovo, where U.S. troops have been present since June 1999. There are about 2,200 U.S. troops still there.
"I would characterize Kosovo as somewhat different, because it's at a different stage in terms of its maturity," Jones said. So, he continued, he has "a sense that Kosovo still requires a military presence, at least in '04."
Jones was less concrete about his plans to move some of the U.S. military presence in Europe eastward to Poland and other new members of NATO. That plan has been discussed within the U.S. military and with allies for much of the last year.
The majority of U.S. bases are still in western Europe, he said, but "the center of activity is clearly shifting" toward the east and the south, closer to new threats emerging from the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, he said.





© Copyright 2004, The Salt Lake Tribune.
All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune.

[Ellery Eskelin]

Originally posted by Gordon B
Slate article

I hope Ellery stops by to read this.

Thanks Gordon, interesting reading, certainly more thought provoking than much of the heated rhetoric from both the right and left. (tangent: tuned into Rush Limbagh this afternoon, could take about 15 minutes...I used to get mad at this guy, now I just laugh...)

Anyway, the basis for most of the post invasion analysis and justification seems to rest upon the humanitarian aspect. And it's one that deserves honest appraisal, by all means. And I think it's the thorniest issue for those who were against the invasion and subsequent occupation. But I don't think there's much I can say here that I haven't said in various other posts. In summary, these are the issues I think about...

First, does a preemptive unilateral invasion and occupation cause more problems than it solves? What of the destabilization and potential precedent should other nations decide to adopt this doctrine? I suppose this remains to be seen. And I do consider it unilateral, by the way, in that our allies, France, Germany and Russia were not with us.

Perhaps if Bush had separated this from the war on terror he could have gotten better global support, and I suspect that if he had not been so hell bent and in a hurry maybe he would have actually gotten UN support. I think he needed to time the invasion at an advantageous window for the troops, but it was at a crucial juncture for the UN and I think he stomped on it.

For a humanitarian invasion to be a success you need more consensus than Bush was able to muster. Without the trust of the rest of the world, especially the Arab world I don't know if we'll ever be able to do more than try and minimize the damage created.

It's interesting to me that none of these writers dealt with Israel and Palestine to any real degree. I think this is at the root of why the Arab world has such a problem with the US. Not just terrorists, but mainstream Arab culture. The more I think about why there is so much distrust of the US in the Arab world and the effect that has on the current occupation it makes me think that perhaps Iraq should not have been viewed so much as a fight in the war on terror but that progress towards a resolution in the Israeli/Palestine should be part of the war against terror. And from that I think that the situation in Iraq may have been better handled in the context of greater trust of the US as the result of a better policy on Israel and Palestine. Maybe we could have even gotten better cooperation and more forthcoming involvement from other Arab and regional states, after all they are the ones (after the Iraqi population itself) who were most in jeopardy from Saddam Hussein. The government in Turkey for example, wanted to send troops to get on Bush's good side, but the population wouldn't hear it.

But Bush practically took a hands off policy towards Israel and Palestine when he entered office. Now, if anything, he seems to back Sharon in everything he does. Bush will make the tepid admonishment here and there but that's it. If the plan was regime change in Iraq I think this is a crucial pice of the puzzle needed to set the stage. Which is why I i disagree with what Thomas Friedman says entirely when he writes:

This bubble was a dangerous fantasy, believed by way too many people in the Middle East. This bubble said that it was OK to plow airplanes into the World Trade Center, commit suicide in Israeli pizza parlors, praise people who do these things as "martyrs," and donate money to them through religious charities. This bubble had to be burst, and the only way to do it was to go right into the heart of the Arab world and smash something—to let everyone know that we, too, are ready to fight and die to preserve our open society. Yes, I know, it's not very diplomatic—it's not in the rule book—but everyone in the neighborhood got the message: Henceforth, you will be held accountable. Why Iraq, not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Because we could—period. Sorry to be so blunt, but, as I also wrote before the war: Some things are true even if George Bush believes them.

He's almost as far right as Richard Perle with those comments. Perle, by contrast, seems unafraid to go into any other country the same way Bush hit Iraq.

Fo me it boils down to this: a sane foreign policy backed up by force is one thing, but a fucked up foreign policy of force is another. And that's what it looks like to me. If Bush really wanted to help the Iraqi people he should have turned more attention to Israel and Palestine early on to gain some credibility and then done a better job of gaining a consensus. Busting shit up (as one of the other writers put it) is not a sane foreign policy in my mind. In any event, the repercussions of this situation will likely be with us for a long time.

PS Fred Kaplan, is the same fellow who writes about jazz. He wrote one of the first articles about a band I was in back in the '80s, Joint Venture.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by Gordon B

Does anybody not think that Saddam was worse than Milosevic?

You just can't be serious.

Phantom WMDs vs genocide???









Wha-?