A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
September 27, 2004James Fallows, in The Atlantic Monthly, has an article entitled "Bush's Lost Year" in which he argues, based on interviews with "national security professionals" that the Administration has essentially blown the WOT by focusing on Iraq and ignoring Afghanistan. He argues that we are less safe than we were before the the Iraq War. The site is at http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200410/fallows However, since you need a subscription to access it on line, I have excerpted fairly extensively from the article. Personally, I find it rather disturbing Among national-security professionals there is surprisingly little controversy. Except for those in government and in the opinion industries whose job it is to defend the Administration's record, they tend to see America's response to 9/11 as a catastrophe. But about the conduct and effect of the war in Iraq one view prevails: it has increased the threats America faces, and has reduced the military, financial, and diplomatic tools with which we can respond. The United States succeeded in removing Saddam Hussein, but at this cost: The first front in the war on terror, Afghanistan, was left to fester, as attention and money were drained toward Iraq. This in turn left more havens in Afghanistan in which terrorist groups could reconstitute themselves; a resurgent opium-poppy economy to finance them; and more of the disorder and brutality the United States had hoped to eliminate. Whether or not the strong international alliance that began the assault on the Taliban might have brought real order to Afghanistan is impossible to say. It never had the chance, because America's premature withdrawal soon fractured the alliance and curtailed postwar reconstruction. Indeed, the campaign in Afghanistan was warped and limited from the start, by a pre-existing desire to save troops for Iraq. A full inventory of the costs of war in Iraq goes on. President Bush began 2002 with a warning that North Korea and Iran, not just Iraq, threatened the world because of the nuclear weapons they were developing. Because it lost time and squandered resources, the United States now has no good options for dealing with either country. It has fewer deployable soldiers and weapons; it has less international leverage through the "soft power" of its alliances and treaties; it even has worse intelligence, because so many resources are directed toward Iraq. "Had we seen Afghanistan as anything other than a sideshow," says Larry Goodson, a scholar at the Army War College who spent much of 2002 in Afghanistan, "we could have stepped up both the economic and security presence much more quickly than we did. Had Iraq not been what we were ginning up for in 2002, when the security situation in Afghanistan was collapsing, we might have come much more quickly to the peacekeeping and 'nation-building' strategy we're beginning to employ now." Iraq, of course, was what we were ginning up for, and the effects on Afghanistan were more important, if subtler, than has generally been discussed. The Administration later placed great emphasis on making Iraq a showcase of Islamic progress: a society that, once freed from tyranny, would demonstrate steady advancement toward civil order, economic improvement, and, ultimately, democracy. Although Afghanistan is a far wilder, poorer country, it might have provided a better showcase, and sooner. There was no controversy about America's involvement; the rest of the world was ready to provide aid; if it wasn't going to become rich, it could become demonstrably less poor. The amount of money and manpower sufficient to transform Afghanistan would have been a tiny fraction of what America decided to commit in Iraq. But the opportunity was missed, and Afghanistan began a descent to its pre-Taliban warlord state. How will history judge this period, in terms of the opportunity costs of invading Iraq?" said John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, when we spoke. "I think the opportunity cost is going to be North Korea and Iran. I mean, in 2002 it became obvious that Iran has a full-blown nuclear-weapons program under way, no ifs or buts. For the next eighteen months or so, before it's running, we have the opportunity to blow it up. But this Iraq adventure will give blowing up your enemies a bad name. The concern now has to be that the 'Iraq syndrome' will make us flinch from blowing up people who really need to be blown up." President Bush's first major speech after 9/11, on September 20, 2001, was one of the outstanding addresses given by a modern President. But it introduced a destructive concept that Bush used more and more insistently through 2002. "Why do they hate us?" he asked about the terrorists. He answered that they hate what is best in us: "They hate what we see right here in this chamber—a democratically elected government … They hate our freedoms—our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." As he boiled down this thought in subsequent comments it became "They hate us for who we are" and "They hate us because we are free." "There are very few people in the world who are going to kill themselves so we can't vote in the Iowa caucuses," Michael Scheuer said to me. "But there's a lot of them who are willing to die because we're helping the Israelis, or because we're helping Putin against the Chechens, or because we keep oil prices low so Muslims lose money." Jeffrey Record said, "Clearly they do not like American society. They think it's far too libertine, democratic, Christian. But that's not the reason they attack us. If it were, they would have attacked a lot of other Western countries too. I don't notice them putting bombs in Norway. It's a combination of who we are and also our behavior." I have some problem that the article relies to some extent on anonymous sources, but I think this is an argument that won't or shouldn't go away. Posted by Marc W. Schneider at September 27, 2004 04:46 PMComments
I can almost hear a collective, "no kidding," echoing through the Democratic Party. :-) Posted by: AmyE at September 27, 2004 05:02 PM Have you read 'Imperial Hubris'? It's very strong critique of how the entire 'war on terror' has been mis-directed because Americans look at the world through an American lense, and forget that the rest of the world (Muslims, for example) are not looking through that lense. Posted by: Erasmus at September 27, 2004 06:08 PMI guess you need to read the whole thing to find the substance. Without that, we're just left with another restatement (albeit more erudite and credentialed) of anti-Bush left talking points, namely that Afghanistan was a Good War but Iraq is a Bad War. Dressing it up with some quotations from DLC experts doesn't make it any more (or less) valid. Posted by: Tully at September 27, 2004 08:16 PMIt's amazing how many false premises the author fits within a single article. That we would be safer with Saddam still in power. Kerry once said anyone who believed this didn't have the maturity to be president. I agree. That we neglected Afghanistan. Actually we overthrew the Taliban, installed a provisional government, and still today confront terrorist and militia remnants, much of whom have relocated elsewhere. We never claimed to make things perfect overnight, eliminating a terrorist safe haven is enough. At least now they have to hide and cannot operate training camps with impunity as before. The author sets up a false "opportunity cost" of Iraq hurting Afghanistan, suggesting we can't walk and chew gum at the same time. That national security professionals uniformly view our anti-terrorism efforts as a "catastrophe". Maybe if Michael Moore and his ilk are the only "experts" in the eyes of the author. One of cited "experts" advocates the impeachment of Blair on his website, if that helps you understand who he is listening to. That there was "no controversy" about US involvement in Afghanistan. Sounds like a total rewrite of history to me. I seem to recall considerable protesting at the time. That Afghanistan is descending into its pre-Taliban warlord state. This falsely implies two things, that Warlords didn't exist under the Taliban, or that the US effort ever deposed all the Warlords. The author seems intent on judging US efforts in Afghanistan against some contrived utopian ideal. That we support Putin against the Chechens. I'd love to see the author try to document that one. The author totally ignores every bit of history that contradicts him, like our efforts on behalf of muslims in Serbia, Kuwait, Somalia. The beneficial side effects of our efforts in Libya, and even Syria (recently withdrawing from Lebanon). The author embraces dangerous claptrap about why Muslim terrorists seek to overthrow our civilization and kill as many of us as possible. It is what we are, successful and free non muslims. It is also what we do -- being the greatest obstacle to muslim terrorist goals of imposing a Taliban style tyranny in their region, with progressive steady expansion throughout the world. First Chechnya, then Daegestan and the rest of Russia. First Kosovo, then Macedonia and the rest of Europe. First the "occupied territories", then the rest of Israel. First Sudan, then Nigeria and the rest of the African continent. Thailand, the Phillipines, even Australia. There are few areas of the world that Islamic terrorists do not have future designs on. It's not that we "support israel", it's that we stop Hamas and surrounding countries from genociding off the map the lone tiny spec of non-muslim rule in the middle east. Many Islamic imams refer to Jews as "pigs and dogs", "cursed by God", and it is this racist perspective on jews that colors their perspective on our involvement with Israel. In this respect, Islamic terrorists are ideologically akin to the Nazi SS and Goebbels. Their dream is to push Israel and its Jewish citizens "into the sea". It's not that we support corrupt dictators in the middle east, it's that we are stopping their dreams of far more repressive Islamic governments throughout the region. They want strict Sharia, they want the power of the governments to be used forcefully against Israel and the west. They want Islamic supremacy, and are very uncomfortable with any other religion or country being more successful than they are. They want the rest of the world forcably coverted to Islam, or underfoot. You can see terrorists tyrannical leanings in microcosm as they take over places like Falluja and Najaf, where they quickly impose tyrannical versions of traditional Islam. The same even began happening in Chechnya when the Russians pulled out for 3 years. Posted by: susan at September 27, 2004 08:36 PMI think Fallows goes overboard, and such words as "catastrophe" are too much. But when it comes down to it in Iraq, the Country Joe & the Fish song applies one, two three, what are we fighting for No weapons of mass destruction We must continue to fight, because we can't let Iraq fall into the hands of terrorists like Zarqawi. But this is a lousy position to be in. These aren't just Democratic talking points. Bush's record is at best mixed, and that's generous. The problem is that Kerry doesn't inspire much confidence. Posted by: rickheller at September 27, 2004 09:02 PMThese aren't just Democratic talking points. But they "aren't just" independent analysis either, as they are being represented. From the excerpt presented, it's obvious that the thesis is being offered as a concensus of national security experts ("Among national-security professionals there is surprisingly little controversy.") yet there is no contrasting viewpoint offered at all. Which leaves us with allegational opinions, delivered by a slate of agreeable partisans, offered as concensus without any consideration of rebuttal. Indeed, the author scornfully dismisses any dissent without bothering to do any analysis or even exposition of same. However you parse it, it's propaganda. That doesn't make the points any more or less valid, as I pointed out. But it does add up to an incomplete and misleading picture. This kind of article scares me more about what it says about us Democrats than about what's happening out in the world. He and a disturbingly large number of Democratic policy wonks and pundits, IMHO, are too busy distrusting the Republicans to be interested in looking at the evidence of what's actually going on with the alliance between Islamofascism and Islamic terror. They prefer to stick their heads in the sand and yell at the Republicans. Much more fun, but it does make for some bad comments when Republicans actually happen to be for something good for a change. Sometimes even Republicans are for freedom, spread of democracy and prosperity, a small military, health care, and other Democratic goals, and it behooves us to be careful and not oppose them when they are, but rather to make sure they do it right. Karl Rove set that trap just for us Democrats, waving a nice red flag, and it behooves us not to fall into it. Fallows fell in, IMHO. Sigh. I don't have time right now to reconstruct the evidence chain on this (I'll try and do a post on this stuff soon), but I'll just quickly note some low points (IMHO, again). First, what would've happened if we'd just concentrated on Afghanistan and left Iraq alone, terrorist-wise? What would've happened if we'd used most of our troops to occupy Afghanistan instead of Iraq? Well, first, a review of superpower occupations in Afghanistan is unencouraging. The FSU got hurt bad there, desite their airpower advantages, as did the British Empire. Trying to occupy often roadless mountains gives away alot of advantages. On the other hand, with no other fronts to look at, we might be looking awfully silly just trying to git al'Qaeda with bin Laden thumbing their noses at us across the Pakistani border. We can't even begin to secure even the Mexican border, right under our noses. In fact, as Tully points out, there was alot of Democratic opposition to the idea of a big garrison in Afghanistan until the very moment it became clear that a small garrison was going to be Bush' policy. I have no idea where Fallows fell on the issue back then. Posted by: Jon Kay at September 28, 2004 12:44 AM(whoops, posted too soon, sorry about low quality of 1st post-half Lessee...why do they hate us, a destructive concept. There you have it. Can't have those whys. No thinking allowed! Oy! The soldiers, spies, academics, and diplomats I have interviewed are unanimous in saying that "They hate us for who we are" is dangerous claptrap. He doesn't get out much. "There are very few people in the world who are going to kill themselves so we can't vote in the Iowa caucuses," Michael Scheuer said to me. But there's a lot of them who are willing to die because we're helping the Israelis... If that's all, that would make them startlingly different from our homegrown Christian religious extremists (or any other kind of religious extremist I've read about). Many Christian extremists hate our society because it's too free. On 9/11, they were rejoicing, and saying this was payment for our libidinous ways. Posted by: Jon Kay at September 28, 2004 03:07 AMThis really doesn't seem to add much, IMO. I'm with Tully. The device of simply stating that some anonymous strong majority of experts agrees is, to steal the author's words, dangerous claptrap. How are serious people supposed to evaluate such a statement, simply by trusting that the author is right? Come on. And of course the criticism of Bush's "they hate us for who we are" rhetoric is specious. It's only rhetoric, it's a one-liner for a speech. It's not SUPPOSED to substitute for a detailed understanding of the conflict. Why bother pretending that it does, other than to score rhetorical points? The effort now is what it is. 2 years ago, many paths could have been taken. Undoubtedly, had another one been chosen and then followed with less than unchecked success, that path offered now as a better choice would be criticized as a bad choice, and the one criticized now would be the hypothetical smarter one. It matters why our enemies hate us insofar as such insight helps us defeat them or alternatively, win them over. But it still matters much more THAT they hate us than specifically why. ANY nation-building effort in the middle east was always going to be a long uncertain uphill climb, especially an effort to build a democratic nation from fractious muslims unused to and unconvinced of the merits of modern democratic ideals. The President was in a postion where he had to decide whether there was greater risk to trying to do it anyway, or greater risk if we instead chose to stay out and try to effect change through negotiation. His decision was to try nation-building despite his doubts, and to go about it by signalling to the world how very serious we were by moving quickly and agressively. The measured, proportionate response that careful moderate people can be relied upon to advocate was judged in this instance to be inadequate for the circumstances. In my view, this is a questionable but very defensible way to have gone. And I think it's important when discussing it to realize that the decisionmaker did not have the benefit of the hindsight that critics often rely on to make their case that the decision was obviously wrong. When I take that into account, I am inclined to give the President substantial benefit of the doubt. This is surely a decision worth examining in an academic sense. But for Americans living in the real world, it's important that such debate not result in our losing focus on fighting to take the next step forward. This matters so much more than poring over the minutaie of what we could have done that seems to make sense now and might have worked better then. Posted by: bk at September 28, 2004 09:39 AMI recognize the problem with excerpting from articles that are not accessible on-line and I apologize, but I thought it was worth discussing. I wish I could have printed the entire article; I left out things in the interest of space that might have clarified his premise. On the other hand, I doubt that reading the whole article would have changed many minds that are already made up. According to Fallows, these are NOT DLC-types. (And, by the way, those of you who think the criticisms of Bush's policy come only from the left or from Democrats should read a journal called the National Interest, which is predominated by conservatives. Many of them are highly critical of Bush's policy. That doesn't make them right, of course, but many of you are simply dismissing any criticsim as being partisan.) He claims these are military and intelligence professionals "who in the nature of things are mostly Republican." You can take that for what it's worth, but I think the man tried to say that this was the consensus. I admit I did leave something out and I apologize: "Some of these people argue that the United States had no choice but to fight given a pre-war consensus among its intelligence agencies that Iraq actually had WMD supplies. Many say things in Iraq will eventually look much better than they do now. But about the conduct and effect of the war in Iraq one view prevails: it has increased the threats America faces and has reduced the military, financial, and diplomatic tools with which we can respond." Ok, so is that balanced enough? Tully, I'm sorry if you don't find the excerpts substantive enough. Obviously, in the interest of space, I had to be selective. Susan, it would be nice if you would actually comment on what the author actually said rather than reading your own biases into it. He NEVER says that we would be safer with Saddam in power. The argument is that Afghanistan was a more central threat and should have been taken care of first. Frankly, though, my own feeling is that removing Saddam has had little effect on our security. (I'm not saying the world is not better off with him gone.) Iraq was never much of a direct threat. Could he conceivably have provided WMD to terrorists? Yes, but there are a lot of countries that fit in that category now. Saying that we did not neglect Afghanistan does not make it true. Obviously, we still have troops there, etc. Again, my poor editing probably left the wrong impression. The article notes that we did a lot in Afghanistan. His point is that, when we had a chance to clean out the terrorists and really remake Afghanistan, we chose to begin focusing on Iraq. No one is saying it could be done overnight, but many think that diverting resources from Afghanistan kept us from really accomplishsing our goals. And your point that they always had warlords is exactly the problem; it was the warlordism that allowed the Taliban to take power in the first place. He is not judging against a utopian standard ;he is simply pointing out that one of the goals of nation-building should have been to work at eliminating warlordism, not bringing them into the government. As far as the motives for the terrorists, obviously, that's everyone's opinion. But, I think his point has real merit. I think the terrorists are evil. But the point (and apparently what a lot of the analysts think) is that they have specific goals, not the general overthrow of western civilization. I think its' a point worth considering. Moreover, you are confusing the terrorists--a relatively small group--with the Islamic world in general. It's easy for the Bushies to talk about the Again, Jon, I don't really understand your argument that the article is a Democratic attack on Bush. Fallows argues that this is a broad consensus of ostensibly non-partisan security professionals. It's likely you don't believe him, but that's what the man says. Another point, which I should have included but did not and, again, I apologize for my poor choice of excerpts. Fallows specifically says we did not need to occupy all of Afghanistan: "it did not have to control the entire country to show that US intervention could have lasting positive effects. What it needed, according to the 'second war' group, was a sustained military, financial and diplomatic effort to keep Afghanistan from sinking back toward chaos and thus becoming a terrorist haven once again." I disagree strongly with BK's assertion that it doesn't matter why they hate us. If I hate you because I think you did something to me, isn't that different than hating you because you have red hair? The response is obviously going to be different. If the hate is existential, there is nothing you can do to change; if it's based on behavior, you may want to change the behavior or at least communicate differently. That doesn't justify terrorism in the least or argue that we shouldn't kill these guys. But it at least means we should consider the consequences of our policies. As for Jon saying, these guys don't get out much, I suspect that the people Fallows talked to has had far more contact and expertise related to terrorism than any of us bloggers. Again, I apologize for my poor editing, which may have led to some misconceptions. I would encourage people to get a copy of the October Atlantic Monthly and read the whole article.I don't think it's fair, however, to simply dismiss the article as a simply a Democratic attack on Bush. Even if it was, it doesn't mean that the points aren't worth considering. Posted by: MWS at September 28, 2004 10:39 AMCan anybody point me to an independent expert on Islamic terrorism and/or Iraq that disagrees with Fallows' basic points? (Consider this 40% snark and 60% honest inquiry.) Posted by: Oberon at September 28, 2004 10:47 AMAs you say, Marc, and as I hoped I was clear about, I can only speak to the excerpt. But the experts cited (and the ones cited by name are, for the most part, people actually possessing some real credentials as such, not posers) honestly are "DLC types." Jeffrey Record is a former Senate Armed Services Committee staffer for Dem Senator Sam Nunn, for example. GlobalSecurity.org is an offshoot of the anti-nuke Federation of American Scientists, staffed with former Clintonites. Fallows himself has been criticizing the US military for more than two decades, but only when Republicans were in charge. He's also a former Carter speechwriter. And he's been spectacularly wrong for much of that time, both about the US military and about the east Asian economies. While the points raised are valid and worth discussing, there is indeed a massive amount of controversy among the experts about them. Fallow's trick is to offer only one side without contrast or dissent, using experts from only one side, and pre-dismissing any dissent as partisan without exploring it. In other words, there is "surprisingly little controversy" among those who already agree with Fallows, and anyone who disagrees doesn't count. What a shocker! That's not even remotely a concensus, as it is purported to be. It's propaganda. Posted by: Tully at September 28, 2004 11:16 AMTully, Touche! I concede your points about the experts mentioned, whose affiliation I was not aware of. And I concurrently acknowledge that it was not an unbiased article. But I don't think it should be dismissed simply because it advocates a particular point of view. Posted by: MWS at September 28, 2004 11:35 AMOh, absolutely, Marc! I think the points raised should be discussed. That it's presented from only one side doesn't mean it's wrong, just that you're not getting the entire story. The experts cited are real experts, with some impressive credentials. It was Fallow's claim that it's a near-universal concensus that I was contesting, by showing how he stacked the deck. That's not a reflection on the experts cited, but on Fallows. I'd also like to make clear that propaganda isn't necessarily a dirty word and doesn't even imply any inherent falsity. It's just one-sided by definition, much as the court presentations of prosecutors and defense attorneys are. Posted by: Tully at September 28, 2004 11:49 AMI disagree strongly with BK's assertion that it doesn't matter why they hate us. Mark/MWS: This is not at all what I said or what I meant. I thought I was simply covering fairly uncontroversial ground quickly. Here's what I said: It matters why our enemies hate us insofar as such insight helps us defeat them or alternatively, win them over. But it still matters much more THAT they hate us than specifically why. Basically I agree that we need to understand because it helps us win and change minds and effectively change our approaches when necessary. I'm only stressing that if push comes to shove, then we must be more concerned with those that oppose us than with their reasons. So really, I'm simply noting that on the battlefield, you shoot first and ask questions later. Brian, I apologize; I misread what you said. I agree and I think that's what Fallows (and his sources think)--that you base your stratgy according to the characteristics of the particular group involved. Tully, In fairness to Fallows, I should cite exactly what he said on your point: "Over the past two or three years I have been talking with a group of people at the working level of America's anti-terrorism efforts. Most are in the military, the intelligence agencies, and the diplomatic service; some are in think tanks and nongovernmental agencies. I have come to trust them, because most of them have no partisan ax to grind with the Adminstration (in the nature of things, soldiers and spies are mainly Republicans), and because they have so far been proved right." Now, I recognize this does not necessarily disprove your point; we don't know how large this group of people is or whether they have some other ax to grind. Personally, I believe that Fallows was making a good faith effort to be fair (at least by his lights). Posted by: MWS at September 28, 2004 12:52 PMPropaganda is a word that should be reserved for a deliberate effort to deceive -- as opposed to spin, which is verbally placing one's 'best argument forward'. I've listened to Tully for some time now and cannot help but note that he spends much more time and effort dismissing an argument as one sided or partisan rather than identifying non-partisan sources that may support or detract from an argument. It's obviously his chosen purpose in life -- at least on Centerfield. Please note that this has the effect of distracting from discussing substance. In other words: obfuscation. I'd simply suggest not getting into a pi**ing contest about what is or is not biased. Not useful. MWS: I see your mainstream "experts" have now been unmasked as partisan hacks by Tully. I was right on the mark -- the supposedly universal view that our efforts were a "catastrophe" was a giveaway. Now who is embarassingly ill-informed? Look in the mirror and smile... "According to Fallows, these are NOT DLC-types. " Ha ha. OK, an honest mistake. We know not to trust Fallows anymore hm? You grasped on to fraudulent leftist propaganda, and presented it as centrist gospel truth. On the bright side, at least now you can emphatise with Dan Rather a whole lot better. "Susan, it would be nice if you would actually comment on what the author actually said rather than reading your own biases into it. He NEVER says that we would be safer with Saddam in power. What's this I see in the very first paragraph quoted from the author? "But about the conduct and effect of the war in Iraq one view prevails: it has increased the threats America faces" Posted by: susan at September 28, 2004 01:22 PMErasmus, I agree with your characterization of Tully, it's one of his best feautures, IMO. I almost entirely disagree with your characterization that this is not useful. We must always consider the source. Here, the problem is that the "substance" is a point of contention. I don't disagree (nor does Tully so far as I can tell) with the idea that these ideas MAY have some merit. They have plausibility. To me, the question is how widely accepted the ideas are, not whether they are plausible. If we are ever going to rely at all on the opinions of accepted experts in areas in which we are far from expert, we really really need to know who these experts are and what reasons there are to trust or not trust them. Any time, and I mean __ANY__ time an article's authority rests on claims that some vaguely identified experts represent broad nonpartisan consensus, very loud alarms go off in my head. Not alarms that the substance is wrong, but alarms that consensus is less broad and less of a general consensus than claimed. This alarm should go off in EVERY critical thinker's head. When someone says "look, all the people who should know think such and such" I start doubting. This is a good thing. I'm willing to check 100 times in order to not get fooled once. Your mileage may vary. Posted by: bk at September 28, 2004 01:34 PMSusan, You are amazing; I can't fathom the depth of your ideological bias and your unwillingness to engage in rational argument. First, I acknowledge I made a mistake by not recognizing these analysts' partisan ties; but they are hardly left-wing Democrats, although I guess to you there's no difference. Even Tully acknowledges that these people have substantial credentials and know what they are talking about. You were the one comparing these guys to "Michael Moore and his ilk." Are you honestly comparing Jeffrey Record (who worked for Sam Nunn, a real dangerous lefty)to Michael Moore? I can't imagine even the most partisan Republican doing that. They are not remotely similar. That would be like me comparing William F. Buckley to Timothy McVeigh. Is it impossible for you to conceive that Democrats could actually have informed views on foreign policy and could actually present a position worth considering? Is it simply easier to impugn ill motives to people you disagree with? Or do you simply not understand arguments other than those you agree with? Moreover, I never said that these were universal views. Fallows did based on his interviews. He may be wrong. But he claims he talked to a number of people of nonpartisan or Republican persuasion who agreed with this view. You can argue whether he's lying or not, but it seems to me unlikely that he would simply lie about his sources. I repeat, Fallows did not say the United States was not safer with Saddam Hussein out of office; he said that overall the effect of the war was to increase the threats to the United States. That's got nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. I'm sure he thinks the US and the world are better off without Saddam Hussein. But he thinks that, ON BALANCE, our security was not improved by the war. You could see the difference if you weren't so intent on reading everything through an ideological prism and attributing bad faith to everyone that disagrees with you. Your comment about "centrist gospel truth" is silly. First, I never presented it as centrist gospel truth, whatever that is. I simply said here is an article worth talking about. I never even said I agreed with it. The Atlantic Monthly is known as being a relatively nonpartisan magazine that presents both conservative and liberal points of view. But even if it had been from The Nation, it might have still been worth talking about. I see the purpose of the posts as raising issues, not expounding some uniform centrist dogma. What is centrist gospel truth anyway? Only that which supports your point of view? There is no reason that you can't be a centrist and oppose the war. Or that you can post topics you don't agree with but think are interesting. I consider myself a centrist, but I am a somewhat left of center Democrat. I guess, in your mind, that makes me an ally of Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx (in fact, I despise all of them). Posted by: MWS at September 28, 2004 01:58 PMPropaganda is a word that should be reserved for a deliberate effort to deceive..."Spin" is just another way of saying "propaganda." Both are attempts to persuade the audience to a specific point of view. They're the same thing. Erasmus, I'm a skeptic. I have said this loudly and often. I have always been a skeptic. I even hope I will always be a skeptic. But skepticism is not obfuscation. The argument Fallows offers (from what we have to work with, and which Marc can't excerpt in full for obvious legal reasons) is multi-part, and those parts echo Democratic talking points. Very simplistically the argument goes "Experts say Afghanistan good war, Iraq shorts Afghan good war effort, overall this makes us less safe, therefore Iraq war bad, and stupid." There's a massive bundle of assumptions in there, and many counter-arguments that could be made. Making them is tougher without the entire article to work with. Among the assumptions is that military efforts should always lead in an uphill straight line to increased security, or they are bad efforts. That a greater commitment of military might to Afghanistan would have provided a better result in terms of American security than current Iraq/Afghanistan efforts (ask the USSR and British about that one). The biggest underlying assumption is that Iraq is an illegitimate war. All of those are Dem talking points. Not a single one of them is a "fact" in terms of being verifiably true. They're opinions. They're all worth debating. Fallow's conclusion is that overall the war has made us less secure. He may be right. But even if I were to agree with him, that doesn't automatically make the war a mistake. War involves risks, and we're not done with this one by a very long shot indeed, anymore than we were done with the Germans and Japanese in 1942. Fallows is making a short-term conclusion, but that doesn't mean that the long-term results will be bad. Posted by: Tully at September 28, 2004 02:22 PMMarc, remember Susan calling me out for saying "wingnut?" Perhaps it's time we admit to her that characterizations of people as wingnuts are just leftist propaganda efforts. I guess the real riddle is, how far right do you have to be before cenrists and leftists pretty much look the same. By the time you get to 530.... Posted by: bk at September 28, 2004 02:24 PMBK, please be honest enough to admit that *you* were the one who used the word "wingnut" in the earlier discussion about Andrew Sullivan. I criticised your use of the word. In that same discussion you repeatedly misrepresented my views. Are you dishonest as a rule? Posted by: susan at September 28, 2004 02:47 PMMWS, I am grateful that you presented this article. The author says the view that our Iraqi effort was a "catastrophe" is *universal* among experts. For that bit of dishonest propaganda alone, he is rightly compared to Michael Moore. Let's look at the example of Henry Kissenger, a famed national security expert who in several recent high profile and widely seen interviews, strongly disagrees with the notion that the Iraqi effort was simply a "catastrophe". He is highly supportive of it and emphasizes the need to follow it thorugh to a successful conclusion. That alone proves that the author's "catastrophe" statement is undisputably incorrect. I repeat, Fallows did not say the United States was not safer with Saddam Hussein out of office; he said that overall the effect of the war was to increase the threats to the United States. That's got nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. Saying the Iraqi war made us less safe, is the same thing as saying we'd be safer without the Iraqi war. Which is the same thing as saying we'd be safer leaving Saddam in power and skipping the war, then persuing the war that overthrew him. Here's what Kerry had to say on the subject to Howard Dean: "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgement to be president or the credibility to be elected president." Is it impossible for you to conceive that Democrats could actually have informed views on foreign policy and could actually present a position worth considering? Is it possible to admit that criticising a single author's fraudulent claims, does not impugn the views of all Democrats? Is it possible to admit that I did consider his views, and responded in some detail above? You assume that everyone that is not conservative (or doesn't agree with you) is serving up self-serving "leftist propaganda." Elevating the discussion by turning this into a debate about... me? Good job, MWS. No assumptions made, conclusion drawn from substantial evidence. Is it simply easier to impugn ill motives to people you disagree with? You seem to be impugning motives an awful lot for someone who supposedly objects to it. What was that you called me again in your initial response... "Embarassingly ill-informed"? Elevating the discussion indeed. Or do you simply not understand arguments other than those you agree with? Ah yes, my tiny tiny brain can only comprehend ideas I agree with. So much for rational discussion. Keep going with the personal attacks and insults MWS, this is great. What was the topic again? Posted by: susan at September 28, 2004 04:15 PMBK, You're right. All extremists regardless of their views are leftists by definition because only leftists can be extremists and anyone who is not a conservative must be a leftist extremist because if they weren't, they would be a conservative. I personally thought the article made sense. But this argument should have been fought heavier by Congress in 2002 instead of 2004. I mean, when i heard of Iraq being the next target on W's list, I was incensed. We had not stabilized Afghanistan yet and it sounded like a personal grudge to me. But I don't remember a lot of controversy until after the October vote when he was given the keys to the car. Posted by: Rachel at September 29, 2004 02:03 PMSusan, read my post again and then tell me you honestly believe that what I said doesn't make it clear that it was I who said "wingnut." For ease of retraction, here's what I said: Marc, remember Susan calling me out for saying "wingnut?" My point, which you perhaps missed, is that I was surpised to see someone who objected to the term "wingnut" talking so blithely about "leftist propaganda." Posted by: bk at September 29, 2004 02:04 PMMWS, thanks again for the all the personal insults, ad hominem attacks, and tantrums. I am flattered you feel so passionately about me. I do look forward to your continuing attempts to elevate the discussion, by turning each one into a debate about me. Posted by: susan at September 29, 2004 02:23 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
