{ Tuesday, July 15, 2003 }
David was arguing this weekend that Iraq is a better place now that Hussein is gone. Stewart and I were arguing that it is not, in fact, a better place now that Hussein is gone. That Hussein was/is a reptile is inarguable. But now people are afraid to leave their houses, afraid to go to work, because of the anarchy in the streets.
This article, Rape and Silence in Baghdad (NYTimes login: caterinanet/caterinanet), turned my stomach.
But at night, the memory of being raped by a stranger seven weeks ago pulls her into its undertow. She grows feverish and has nightmares, her 28-year-old sister, Fatin, said. She cries, "Let me go!"
... Sanariya's four brothers and parents beat her daily, Fatin said, picking up a bamboo slat her father uses. The city morgue gets corpses of women who were murdered by their relatives in so-called honor killings after they returned from an abduction — even, in some cases, when they had not been raped, said Nidal Hussein, a morgue nurse.
"A woman's father or brother, they feel it is their duty to kill her" if she has been raped, Dr. Younis said.
Nine years old.
LINK | 8:27 PM | TB
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/2003-07-15.html
Led by a charismatic husband-and-wife duo, Maryam and Massoud Rajavi, the Mujahedeen had transformed itself into the only army in the world with a commander corps composed mostly of women. Until the United States invaded Iraq in March, the Mujahedeen survived for two decades under the patronage of Saddam Hussein. He gave the group money, weapons, jeeps and military bases along the Iran-Iraq border -- a convenient launching ground for its attacks against Iranian government figures. When U.S. forces toppled Saddam's regime, they were not sure how to handle the army of some 5,000 Mujahedeen fighters, many of them female and all of them fanatically loyal to the Rajavis.
| July 15, 2003 9:27 PMLast year I went through a "reading books about Islam" phase. One of those I read was Nine Parts of Desire, a book about Muslim women by Geraldine Brooks. It's not exactly earth-shattering, but it's still a good read, very interesting, providing small glimpses into this strange world.
J.D. | July 15, 2003 10:09 PMre: Mujahedeen
just goes to show you that war creates fanatics out of everyone: whether male or female, left or right, up or down.
fanaticism is probably just as dangerous as the bombs.
Susan | July 16, 2003 5:43 AMWith the utmost respect for both Caterina and Stewart, I can find you stories that are equally repugnant from Saddam's reign (http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr/2000/hrnews/rape_blackmail.html). What was worse though was that they were premeditated acts by the government. Your thesis that Iraq is no better today may be true, but there was no hope for improvement of human rights and quality of life under Saddam. Whether the war was justified or not, such an argument is without human kindness or heart. With sincere regards, Scott
Scott | July 16, 2003 10:17 AMwhat does that story have to do with whether iraq was better off with hussein in power?
steven | July 16, 2003 1:14 PMIt's right there in the post Steven:
But now people are afraid to leave their houses, afraid to go to work, because of the anarchy in the streets.
And the rapes are part of the anarchy.
Tammy | July 16, 2003 1:17 PMoh.
here's an article (about a study) that makes that connection more explicitly, from human rights watch:
http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/07/iraq071603.htm
i guess i was being a little passive-aggressive with my post. to conclude from this article that it would be better if hussein were still in power is so...ideological. i mean, we invaded, we're there now; wouldn't in be better to read an article like this and say to people, see, the u.s. has to help create a viable police force in iraq. by saying, see, we shouldn't have gone in at all...it's such a huge conclusion to draw from an article like this.
respectfully,
steven
Debate on whether Iraq is better off today than a few months ago seems to me a minor issue. It would emphasize short-termism and be impractical from the point of view of deciding what's right and wrong in regard to the actions of our states and leaders.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concerned about the present situation. I am suggesting that we have to keep trying to make things better, knowing that war (usually) makes things worse in the short term. The war has been a tremendous success compared to what I had feared. To focus on remarkably horrific stories threatens to weaken our political will to do what is in our best interest and in the long-run interest of the well-being of Iraq's people.
People everywhere are potentially savages and the Iraqis are no different. That, to me, seems to be enough said about this rape and beatings case. It is an interesting and moving story but it's more a "human" story than a "political" one. Even if this happens often it fails to be a political story until we know that it didn't ever happen under Saddam Hussein. Even if it never did under Saddam, it still fails to be political until we know that the sum total (over time) of human misery in a world with the former regime is less than that without the regime. Since we can't measure these things, I would have to resort to pointing out that by and large Iraqi-Americans seem to be better off than those in Baghdad. The stark contrast is of course mitigated by many factors -- I wouldn't suggest that Iraq is going to be the next Puerto Rico or anything like Japan in 20 years. (The fact that the Japanese may suffer in guilt over how they pollute the environment more than the Iraqis is one mitigating factor). However, one can hope to help displace some of the idiotic mores of the Iraqis with something less stupid.
Brian | July 16, 2003 2:50 PMThis culture of blaming rape victims certainly predates the US invasion, but it brings up a point of whether we can coexist peacefully with Arab cultures in anything more than an uneasy stalemate. There is something very wrong with the mindset that produces this idea of "honor". And it is not unique to Iraq, existing in a number of Arab and other Muslim (Afghan, Turkish) cultures.
John | July 16, 2003 2:53 PMbefore one goes about passing judgement on 'the culture' as some monolithic abstraction, it is important to recall for one thing the distinction between arabs and muslims, and for another, the role the united states plays in radicalizing the arab world when it experiences secular progress. after all it is less seemly to invade, antagonize and steal from perfectly civilized people who listen to the same pop music you do. (but they do listen.) there is a real problem with constantly barbarizing these people, an element so often lacing stories like this, awful as they are. if you think you cannot happily share the same planet, go read the iraqi, salam pax at http://www.dear_raed.blogspot.com/. bit of a debabelizer, is he (who incidentally sounds a lot like a syrian friend of mine, whose mother is a maths phd, and whose father was her student.)
listen, if you are maimed and dead now then you are not better off. before sanctions began their devastation and made the populace utterly dependent on the dictatorship to meet basic needs, iraq was regarded amongst arabs as a pretty good deal, all told. so what are we even comparing here? to make a comparison not purely in the service of rhetoric, one would have to take an iraq prior to the aeon of american meddling with an iraq once the effects of american occupation have really become clear. we all hope things will get better for iraqis, but that remains to be seen. just lets not pretend the shrubbery went in there because hussein was a monster. i mean here's a guy who imagines he can hear the squeak off putin's soul.
I guess you didn't read carefully. I didn't say that Bush cares enough about the Iraqis to perform a humanitarian coup d'etat for that reason alone.
I said it was self-interest first and in the interests of the Iraqi well-being as well.
Complaining about the maimed and dead in the past 4 months is ridiculously short-sighted. Most of those killed where Hussein's soldiers and supporters, despised by those Iraqis not in a similar position of power or materially advantaged by Hussein's regime. How many did Hussein kill and torture in order to stay in power?
This news story on the growing insecurity of women in Iraq reminds me how I never think Iraq is like post-war Germany or Japan. Example: Blair mentioned our rebuilding of our WW2 foes last night in his speech, but isn't the comparison just wrong? Can we simply give Iraq 600 years of post-medieval history, or 200 years of post-theocratic/ post-monarchic history? What shape would that lesson take, exactly? Giving democracy to Iraq might be more like giving cars and airplanes to Papua New Guinea. Sure, they can learn to fly. But their violent crime rate --a social remnant of a millenia of constant, ritual, intertribal war -- remains extremely high.
Japan and Germany -- in defeat -- had already long been democratized, were industrial powerhouses, and highly unified nation-states. Sure, they can line up and vote, even Saddam held elections. But I just can't see how Iraq can digest our political values, any more than their fundamentalist Muslims will accept our social ones.
Um, sure Tim. Brown people just aren't smart enough to adopt pragmatism within a single generation.
Brian | July 18, 2003 2:07 PMWhy do you think of fundamentalist Muslim Iraqis as simply "brown people"? That is clearly dim and racist. I think of them as post-Stalinist, theocratic, tribal-feudalist, and patriarchal, with no history of democratic political compromise.
I was describing how Iraq is not at all (historically, politically or socially) like post-war Japan or Germany. But... point taken, pulling for democracy while at the point of American guns is quite pragmatic, whatever one's color.
P.S. When did we sign on to stay in Iraq for a generation and nation-build? I must have missed the memo.
tim | July 20, 2003 1:14 AMBush is being admirably long-termist. He needn't write a memo because it would be stating the obvious. From the point of view of political "capital" it never makes sense to state the obvious. Fools will continue to support you because they have failed to see the obvious. Others don't need to see a memo. As time passes, the small successes in the long process of transforming Iraq will generate support for the endeavour. Realistically it may take a whole lifetime, 70 years, say, or a generation, 25-35 years. Those who cannot or will not adapt and learn will have been largely displaced by younger people with new influence.
Tim, you seem to see race, history and culture to be hard to surmount obstacles. I see education as a means of overcoming these problems. Since I don't think young people are stupid, I think that Iraq will be a better place to live in 20 years.
Brian | July 20, 2003 6:10 PMI just don't care if Iraq is not similar in many respects with post-war Japan and Germany.
Those dissimilarities don't matter. It is a simplification to think that there is some sort of archetype case of nation-building that works or case that must fail.
Generalizations of that sort are fine when you have no alternative. I think the alternative at hand is analysis of cause and effect.
The obvious cause and effect analysis follows. The factors that matter are, first, Bush's will to transform Iraq (very strong) and second the will of the next president. Since Iraq is being transformed as an example for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others to perform coups d'etat via popular revolution (no memo; it's obvious), a series of American presidents will have the will to continue to support the process. The motivation is self-preservation. I'm not suggesting that the US will cease to exist due to terrorism, but I am suggesting lives will be lost and the nation changed for the worse if terrorism worsens.
You will probably doubt that having the will is sufficient. Of course it is, old Iraqis will die and the young will embrace new values and a minority of the young who are fundamentalist terrorists will be killed in large numbers (after taking a few American lives). The kill ratio has always been favourable for the Americans yet the leftist media forever whine about quagmire.
Brian | July 20, 2003 6:30 PMI just hope that those who today oppose nation-building in Iraq remember their pragmatism in the future. We spent most of the 90's dealing with those same idealists who now oppose rebuilding Iraq trying to rebuild countries throughout the developing world.
The problem, of course, is that democracy as a definition and democracy as the thing that we enjoy here in the West are very different. Long traditions of power-sharing evolved from even longer traditions of honorable combat and conquest to form complex social rules of government action. The more radical the change toward democracy, in most cases, the more difficult the transition proved. England's slow transition and America's remarkably conservative Revolution contrast with the century of French back-and-forth.
In the devloping world, despite any hopeful ignorance to the contrary, democracy's record is even worse. In Zimbabwe, 'elections' provide popular mandate for a reign of terror. In Nigeria, popular elections provide incentive for politicians to rely on ethnic and religious hatreds. The African simile is even more apt because instability throughout the region threaten to spill over into anything but a powerful and centralized Iraqi regime.
One hates to say so, but one has seen more development success from the undemocratic regimes in Pakistan and Singapore than from the new psuedodemocracies.
The major political threat is that those same idealists who whined for nation-building in the past decade will oppose the necessarily undemcoratic measures needed to transform Iraq.
Brian says that will is sufficient to transform Iraq and the Middle East. I am certain that the British Empire didn't get that memo.
Adam S | July 20, 2003 8:31 PMThe failure of the British Empire is one reason the Americans will do it differently. The motives are different and the objectives are different. Why do you expect history to repeat in a series of static patterns?
Brian | July 21, 2003 1:24 AMQuagmire doesn't bug me, killing doesn't bug me. The manipulation of insubstantial domestic paranoia as a justification for endless and cripplingly expensive violence bugs me. And the simplification about models for nation building ("it's like Japan! C'mon, we can do that !") is Bush's, not mine, and its falsity is what I am pointing out!
I like the idea of nation-building, sort of, but not when the nation to build in question most resembles Yugoslavia or Algeria! Those two are a decent and more recent metaphor for Iraq, not Japan. I don't believe in static historical patterns, Bush and Blair do. I believe that similar systems placed under similar stress react similarly. The so-called liberation of Algeria from colonialism into gang-land civil war -- and Yugoslavia from pragmatic, false federalism -- are ongoing current events, of which Iraq is only another chapter.
I am not an idealist. If I was, I might give Bush, Inc and his bullying pragmatists a break for thinking they can successfully occupy and re-make a concocted, half-medieval Muslim country into a democratic partner for global business, with only their will to power to recommend them for the job. That sort of bloodymindedness might win you a Florida recount, but falls rather short when seeking support for international, inter-civilizational war.
Both of you are right ( Brian and Adam) to point out the ugliness and kill ratios we will now unavoidably endure. But I'm the guy who never believed in this war, its leaders, its aims, its justifications, or its cost. I see the whole war as built on an increasingly byzantine combo of paranoia, guesses, and lies.
Any long-term cost-benefit analysis for Iraq seems entirely ex-post facto, the administration keeps moving the goalposts-- as paranoiacs and conspiracy theorists always do -- in order to remain unaccountable and undercut real debate. Bush's rationale for war never projected the commitments of money and manpower he is now forcing us all to make.
tim | July 21, 2003 1:24 PMNo sooner do I write it than he moves the goalposts again, to Syria and Iran. Whenever critical evaluation closes in on him, he cries wolf and points his finger.
http://nytimes.com/2003/07/21/international/middleeast/21CND-PREX.html?hp
tim | July 21, 2003 1:35 PMI believe it was Strategic Forecasting that best expressed the future of Iraq: America after a few years of occupation and unraveling of domestic violence, will find itself having opened a mysterious package. Inside will be one of two notes, either "Congratulations! You've found another Germany! A country with some democratic tradition and industrial history that can quickly be made into a modern nation." or "Sorry, please play again. You've found the new Yugoslavia, which despite some experience with modern institutions remains torn apart by ethnic groups unwilling to compromise."
Who knows? Pretending that we are sure one way or the other is the greatest danger. What if Bush & Co. end up right, and Iraq's transition succeeds? Suddenly the entire anti-interventionist side will be discredited.
Opposition to the Iraq war has had the unfortunate tinge of moral assuredness: "This will never work, it could never work, just watch and see." But no one is sure. What ever happened to old-fashioned conservatism? "It might well work, but the risks of war and occupation are not worth the chance of a future reward." What some would call fence-sitting is in reality the most anyone can know of the future in a land with so much promise that runs red with so much blood.
Adam | July 21, 2003 1:36 PMinsubstantial domestic paranoia Terrorist acts such as those on Sep 11 were not insubstantial. A nuke terrorist act will not be an insubstantial event. I find that people opposed to this war just don't understand how bad nukes are. So heed this info: nukes are kind of bad. Bad enough that we should disrespect the sovereignty of nations controlled by dictators who likely will not use nukes against us nor help in their spread to terrorists. The justification for war was the chance they will do those things. But I repeat, it is not likely. Say in the order of only 30% in the next 20 years, 40% in the next 50 years. In other words, there is a 60-70% chance that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and unjustified in my lifetime, which is low enough of a probability that we should feel fully justified in having done it. It makes no sense for the media and the left to point out that there was weak evidence to justify war! Some pro-war people saw it was a guessing game, some recognized earlier that the evidence was weak, regardless of whether they want to deny it or spin it differently. The kind of criticism we have been seeing on the case for war totally misses the point! The pro-war case is based on a risk assessment that is swamped by damage, dominating rather weak odds that are nonetheless scary.
cripplingly expensive The costs will not be in for a long time so how do you know it will be crippling? Estimates I've seen indicate the total commitment may be quite inexpensive compared to Vietnam, Korea, and WWI and WW2 and much can be offset by using the oil to pay for Iraq's needs. But I'm the guy who never believed in this war, its leaders, its aims, its justifications, or its cost. I see the whole war as built on an increasingly byzantine combo of paranoia, guesses, and lies. Everybody is guessing but at least some of us have some idea on the scale of nuke destruction and others of us don't. Some people estimate it is easy to build a fission bomb. Some have read Edward Teller's book (inventor of the H-bomb) on just how easy it is.
Any long-term cost-benefit analysis for Iraq seems entirely ex-post facto, the administration keeps moving the goalposts and I applaud when I see people are not afraid to show flexibility in light of new information or troubles in policing Iraq. If I am shown I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?
In other words, there is a 60-70% chance that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and unjustified in my lifetime, which is low enough of a probability that we should feel fully justified in having done it
Unfortunately this assumes that the invasion of Iraq somehow prevented or decreased the likelihood of the use of a terrorist weapon. The question is whether this is at all true given that: 1) the attack on Iraq has given new fuel to extremist groups who hate America and tie that hatred to future violent acts. In particular, the claim made by the Bush administration that Palestinean terrorists were working with Iraq, though almost certainly not true before the invasion, has become true now that their common enemy seems more pressing then the large ideological gap between them. In short: are you more afraid of a lone dictator whose actions can be watched and whose place of business can be found any time in the future? Or are you more afraid of a newly-integrated underground movement using sophisticated black market technology to communicate between autonomous cells of extremists who are difficult to track and impossible to deter?
Regardless, arguing about justification seems silly in the current environment. The more important issue is how to proceed to prevent terrorist attacks and provide some sort of stability in Iraq. All of which would be much easier if we had not alienated moderate Muslims in the region (Hindu peacekeepers, anyone?) and continued to support the extremist governments that create the economic differences that perpetuate the entire industry of terror.
The danger wasn't in Baghdad. It's still in Riyadh.
Adam | July 22, 2003 11:39 PMFrom what I've read, my impression is that the attack on Iraq is doing the opposite of what you suggest.
The Arab terrorists have, until the Afghanistan coup d'etat, been intent on killing Americans to the greatest extent possible. The Arab street felt that they can kill Americans with impunity.
Since incentives and disincentives matter, the military actions we have initiated since Sept. 11 should have the effect of making them reconsider their actions and plans. Most importantly: Arab nations are being humiliated. This is the essential ingredient in the plan. To deny that the actions of the US have increased our long-run safety is to deny that disincentives are relevant. We will not prevent all terrorist acts because people from the Arab street understandably kill Americans since that is their wish, however impractical it may be for everybody's well-being. However, we can provide disincentives to make it more obviously impractical. Killing individual terrorists is somewhat preventative but not a completely effective measure since it will not stop some suicide terrorists. Invading states, humiliating Arabs and then magnanimously promoting a higher, but secular, standard of living is what is needed to change psychology. It will not sway all Arab traditionalists so we will kill some of them but WE HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE BECAUSE OF THE LONG-RUN WMD PROBLEM.
That Iraq had supported Palestinian terrorism before the recent invasion seems to me uncontroversial. This I have gathered from reading the Economist.
In short: are you more afraid of a lone dictator whose actions can be watched and whose place of business can be found any time in the future? Or are you more afraid of a newly-integrated underground movement False dichotomy. The underground movement already existed. Now we have cut support for them in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now we can intimidate Riyadh and other centres of "leadership". It didn't make sense to invade Saudi Arabia (yet, if ever), because regime change is being effected by non-military means (so far). Saying there is a problem in Riyadh does not an argument against the strategy thus far, that is the Afghanistan and Iraq activities.
It doesn't matter what Bush or Blair say about WMD and uranium. If the UN can be persuaded to vote for res 1441 on Iraq's WMD then Bush and Blair gladly talk about Iraq's WMD. It doesn't matter if Bush talks about democracy. If the media want to hear the US will support democracy then Bush will gladly say a few words about it. If some people think humanitarian concerns matter then Bush will say that it matters. If people want to hear there's a near date for the return of American soldiers, then Bush will say that Iraq is for the Iraqi people and American presence is temporary. That doesn't mean that we're not going to stick it out for as long as it takes because he didn't say that we would idiotically pick a date. People who perceive "goalposts" moving are those who idiotically picked a date by reading into Bush's words their own wishful thinking.
Granted there was some change of focus in the first few months, partly because it took a while to put the plan together. First it was all about Osama bin Laden, then it was al Queda, then it was regime change to prevent terrorism.
People think the "goalposts" are moving because they weren't listening to the core message: "regime change to prevent terrorism". Most of the opposition to the war is just sniping about relatively little things. We have to forestall Arab traditionalist, WMD terrorism 20, 50, 100 years out regardless of whether we find WMD in Iraq (which is a different matter than the question of their existence), regardless the existence or nonexistence of an oil wealth motive, regardless of Iraqi women being raped. Only when coalition actions are not relevant to the objective is there meaningful criticism.
Brian | July 23, 2003 1:39 PMArab nations are being humiliated
The notion of incentives and disincentives is an interesting one, if you are dealing with rational economic-minded utility-maximizing beings. But here I think you have hit the nail on the head: will an attack do more to scare terrorists and established accomplices into submission, or will it incite further attacks?
Perhaps you could ask Israel how its disincentive program is working.
Working with rational states, such attacks may well produce compliance with American wishes. But realists also contend that actions of a hegemon inspire a more unified resistance. In short, if the safety of your state, your religion and your life are already at severe risk, the threat of death a little sooner doesn't make much difference. If you believe in a cause greater than yourself, the thread of death doesn't make much difference. Power differentials may ultimately determine the state of the world, but ideology can make people ignore these differences. No one was killing Americans in the belief that rationally such an attack would have greater benefits for their side than the potential risks. They were attacking because of hatred and the ingrained belief that the destruction of America was the only goal worth trying to achieve.
So, even if dealing with a rational being, disincentives may not much matter when there is no alternative choice. If we had worked toward sustainable economic development and political stability, those who might consider terrorism may have had another option, a better life to lead. But as long as war is the only option around, war it will be.
I'll be honest, I sat on the fence about justification of war, and I continue to do so. I think that Saddam likely did pose a threat, and that given time he could develop WMDs. But counterbalanced to that is the violent reprisal that regime change has brought about.
The question now is whether America will simply abandon Iraq to Afghanistan-style anarchy, or whether it will use a middle eastern foothold to battle for an end to the israeli-palestinean conflict, to support modernists against Islamist backlash, and to develop the sort of stable political and economic systems that are the only true way to eliminate the significant threat of terrorism.
Adam | July 23, 2003 3:15 PMNo one was killing Americans in the belief that rationally such an attack would have greater benefits for their side than the potential risks. On this point I disagree. For the most part, decisions aren't made for the benefit of "their side". It's an matter at the level of individuals. I believe most of an individual's big decisions are rational. I believe that it was rational for al Queda to do what they did. Upside: anticipation, dreams, 72 virgins each, a feeling of belonging to a group with an intriguing cause, a purpose to their lives, the excitement of preparations, pride as Arab people, pride as individuals, fame, gratitude, avoiding boredom. Downside: nothing much given America's track record before Afghanistan.
Well that is exactly my point, (though phrased differently) and it is exactly the point: with so much to gain (ideologically speaking) the threat of American reprisals is not likely to deter future terrorist acts.
Eternal bliss? An unmistakable statement for your cause? Fortune for your family? If the threat of death in a suicide attack wasn't enough to deter them, why would the threat of death through US military action do the trick?
Adam | July 23, 2003 9:01 PMwhy would the threat of death through US military action do the trick?
It won't. The strategy is to have Arabs seek to secularize. A disincentive for the continuation of the status quo is intimidation or action against non-cooperative governments, an incentive for the people is the possibility that they may develop beyond the welfare state that is Saudi Arabia. This is an attempt to suggest an alternative to the status quo that is not a theocracy. As for fundamentalists, if their influence is too great they will have to be displaced by the young, with time.
Displaced with the young? An interesting thought. Except that the younger generations are increasingly more violent. It is the older Islamists who remember American help against the USSR in Afghanistan and the promise of progress toward peace with Israel.
The newer generation has lived in a time where all they knew of was Israeli (and not American) agression.
We can hope that economic incentives may cause the next generation to consider a life outside of war, but just there was to be such a life worth considering.
AdamSolove | July 24, 2003 10:14 AMBrian -You protest too much, and in your boldness you only sound increasingly paranoid.
What you are proposing is fanciful: a wholesale rewriting of the Arab culture in Iraq, akin to our genocidal lockdown on the American Indians in the 19th c. But you can no more replace religious fundamentialism with appeals to attrition and the oncoming "young" in Iraq than the cavalry could displace religion among the Sioux, or the Russians could displace Islam from the madrassahs in Afghanistan, or the National Guard could displace racism from Mississippi, Texas or South Carolina. Force of arms cannot erase belief.
You've also offered that Bush should say whatever his friends or his opponents want to hear, always in order to maintain our economic and political power over the Arabs, if not his own presidency. In an aside, you offer us a broadening, religious, urban war for the next 25, 50, 100 years. That's not pragmatism, that's contemptuously unethical, jingoistic, bloodthirsty and insane.
tim | July 24, 2003 1:24 PMYes, it does sound I protest too much but I'm sorry. It just seems I have to explain the obvious and that makes me impatient with people. I realize that sounds arrogant, but if it's an honest expression, then perhaps it shouldn't be taken as an arrogant statement. akin to our genocidal Actually I didn't suggest genocide but more like a partial cultural reform. I think it's reasonable. I think fundamentalist Arabs would agree that it's reasonable since they are on-board with the idea of cultural reform (and genocide). That they proved on Sept 11. Not that it makes it right. However, I think a partial Arab-cultural reform is just after September 11. Don't you? Of course you do. So why debate disingenuously? Please, that's unethical. But you can no more replace religious fundamentialism with appeals to attrition and the oncoming "young" in Iraq Got any better ideas? If not then the idea I have described is the best way forward. I think everybody agrees, including you Tim, that it's a good idea because nobody ever seems to offer an alternative. (By good I mean best among alternatives, not necessarily good on some sort of absolute scale.)
You've also offered that Bush should say whatever his friends or his opponents want to hear, No that's not what I said. If the humanitarian reason is a justification for an invasion and if in fact Bush agrees that there is a justification, then why would he lie and say it is exclusively about WMD? Answer is that he wouldn't. you offer us a broadening, religious, urban war for the next 25, 50, 100 years. That's not pragmatism, that's contemptuously unethical, jingoistic, bloodthirsty and insane. No. As more destructive technology becomes easily attainable, more Americans will die. Perhaps more than a million on a single day. After this day, from the political left to the right Americans will become more bloodthirsty and will not tolerate a 100 year struggle. The only way it can last 100 years is for the Arabs to decline to take advantage of new technology. Obviously they will not decline to do that. You can say bloodthirsty, but actually the Bush plan probably results in the fewest deaths because it is pre-emptive. I support prophylactics (snicker). If that's unethical, then you've got bad morals. Jingoistic? Are you nuts Tim? If self-preservation is jingoistic, then you don't know what jingoistic means. Insane? Not a charge you've proven. In fact you didn't offer an alternative plan. If your plan is more reckless with respect to the long-run WMD problem, I would view that to be insane.
a wholesale rewriting of the Arab culture Disingenuous. You know I didn't say that. I just want to make them stop wanting to kill Americans because of the porno movies and other cultural differences. Since you would agree that is an appropriate thing, we are in agreement. If you must resort to being disingenuous I can understand why people can't seem to agree with me. I just become impatient with that kind of deceit.
Brian | July 24, 2003 7:29 PMBTW: don't bother telling me there is more to it than cultural differences, (army bases in Saudi Arabia, etc)... For a terrorist cultural differences alone are enough reason to attack the WTC so it doesn't matter what you want to say is the Arab cause.
Brian | July 24, 2003 7:31 PMLet us simply turn to the question of whether Brian's proposed cultural transformation will happen, and whether there is an alternative.
From the time of the fall of the Roman Republic, I roughly estimate 1800 years before the formation of another republican society. It took that span of time to take an entire region that had existed once in economic splendor and military power and turn it back to where it once had been, relative tot he rest of the world. From anarchy and high death rates to a structured echlesiastical society to regionalism and power politics through a process of secularization then into an economic revolution that heralded the middle class then to nationalism and conservative diplomacy then to national pride in free institutions.
Now, to create a stable free society requires (historically speaking):
- a history of free institutions
- a relatively stable economy not based solely on resources or with extreme wealth inequality
- the popular feeling of trust and goodwill that makes such an economy possible
- a feeling of national unity that unites the nation against tyranny, even of the majority.
- political institutions firm enough to prevent despotism but weak enough to change with time
If you can propose a way to accomplish such a thing in a generation or two (even with the military might and economic surplus of the entire developed world) I would like to see such a thing completed. Honestly, I would.
Because I agree: there is little else that can be done. To leave the region without stability would be to invite future problems.
But it won't happen. Bush has to be out of the region before election day (as he needed to be out of afghanistan before iraq) and his staff of conservative idealists and realists wanted enough to overflow saddam and establish freedom, but not enough to make the necessary sacrifices for the nation.
Is there another choice? Perhaps. There certainly are (or were, at least, before 2 Gulf 2 War) moderate secular muslims. There certainly are more stable countries in the region. And there certainly is a disincentive to terror through long term progress made outside of military occupation.
But neither political faction has the will to pursue either option.
Adam Solove | July 25, 2003 12:30 AMBush has to be out of the region before election day I don't think Americans voters are that disinterested in security as you seem to be suggesting. as he needed to be out of afghanistan before iraq) As far as I know US forces are still in Afghanistan and South Korea and whole slew of places. and his staff of conservative idealists and realists wanted enough to overflow saddam and establish freedom, but not enough to make the necessary sacrifices for the nation. I think Americans will gladly make the sacrifice and also support Bush. If Americans become unwilling, Bush will do it anyway. The next president will do it anyway, and the one after that. They simply have no choice. It should be an easy selling job. However, if they fail to sell the idea to the American public, they will still have to continue to change the the Arab nations.
Is there another choice? ... moderate secular muslims. ... But neither political faction has the will to pursue either option. I don't see why moderating Muslims is "another choice". I thought that was the only choice.
Brian | July 25, 2003 2:02 PMque te quiero mucho
flavio | October 18, 2003 7:30 AMfree ringtones ringtones ringtones
free ringtones | May 14, 2006 12:19 PMonline poker online poker
online poker | May 14, 2006 6:42 PMonline poker online poker
online poker | May 21, 2006 3:55 PMfree credit report free credit report
credit reports credit reports
credit score credit score
free credit reports free credit reports
free credit score free credit score
credit scores credit scores
annual credit report annual credit report
free annual credit report free annual credit report
free credit report online free credit report online
free copy of my credit report free copy of my credit report
free credit scores free credit scores
credit report repair credit report repair
trw free credit report trw free credit report
free instant credit reports free instant credit reports
annual free credit report annual free credit report
free credit report without a credit card free credit report without a credit card
free online credit report free online credit report
business credit report business credit report
equifax credit report equifax credit report
free copy of credit report free copy of credit report
online credit report online credit report
get loans online now - apply today get loans online now - apply today
get loans online now - apply today | May 31, 2006 7:50 AMsecured loans secured loans
secured loans uk secured loans uk
uk personal secured loans uk personal secured loans
secured personal loans secured personal loans
cheap secured loans cheap secured loans
bad credit secured loans bad credit secured loans
secured homeowner loans secured homeowner loans
secured home loans secured home loans
uk secured homeowner loans uk secured homeowner loans
low cost secured loans low cost secured loans
secured loans personal loans secured loans personal loans
best secured loans best secured loans
secured loans for home owner secured loans for home owner
fast secured loans fast secured loans
secured online loans secured online loans
fast secured loans uk fast secured loans uk
secured loans company secured loans company
un secured loans un secured loans
secured business loans secured business loans
consolidation loans secured consolidation loans secured
secured personal loans bad credit secured personal loans bad credit
secured loans rate uk secured loans rate uk
bank secured loans bank secured loans
secured loans for car secured loans for car
best secured loans uk best secured loans uk
home owner secured loans uk home owner secured loans uk
cheapest secured loans cheapest secured loans
secured loans rate secured loans rate
uk secured loans bad credit uk secured loans bad credit
debt consolidation secured loans debt consolidation secured loans
secured uk home loans secured uk home loans
secured loans adverse credit secured loans adverse credit
low secured loans rate low secured loans rate
compare secured loans compare secured loans
ccjs loans secured ccjs loans secured
cheap secured personal loans cheap secured personal loans
personal secured consolidation loans uk personal secured consolidation loans uk
non secured loans non secured loans
uk secured personal loans bad credit uk secured personal loans bad credit
secured loans approval secured loans approval
personal secured loans mortgage uk personal secured loans mortgage uk
uk secured loans consolidation uk secured loans consolidation
low cost secured loans uk low cost secured loans uk
secured loans no proof income secured loans no proof income
personal secured loans finance personal secured loans finance
home improvement loans secured home improvement loans secured
secured unsecured loans uk secured unsecured loans uk
lowest secured loans rate lowest secured loans rate
{ Post a comment }
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,998344,00.html
The general sentiment is: "Yes, of course we know it is not a real government, but it is a start." The mix is right; they just have to work more on the choice of characters, and they need a massive PR campaign. People just don't know who they are, especially the women.
| July 15, 2003 9:12 PM