by hilzoy
A few days ago, I noticed this story:
“BRITAIN is coming under sustained pressure from American military chiefs to keep thousands of troops in Iraq – while going ahead with plans to boost the front line against a return to “civil war” in Afghanistan.
Tony Blair was warned that war-torn Iraq remains on the brink of disaster – more than two years after the removal of Saddam Hussein – during his summit with President Bush in Washington earlier this month.
Scotland on Sunday revealed last month that Blair is preparing to rush thousands more British troops to Afghanistan in a bid to stop the country sliding towards civil war, amid warnings the coalition faces a “complete strategic failure” in the effort to rebuild the nation.
The grim prognosis was underlined last night by Afghanistan’s defence minister, who warned that Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network was regrouping and planned to bring Iraq-style bloodshed to the country.”
And now the Financial Times has this:
“The Ministry of Defence has drafted plans for a significant withdrawal of British troops from Iraq over the next 18 months and a big deployment to Afghanistan, the Financial Times has learnt.
In what would represent the biggest operational shake-up involving the armed forces since the Iraq war, the first stage of a run-down in military operations is likely to take place this autumn with a handover of security to Iraqis in at least two southern provinces.”
But all is not lost: there’s always diplomacy and persuasion, where the Bush administration is displaying its usual deftness:
“President Bush told British Prime Minister Tony Blair to expect no favors at this week’s Group of Eight summit of major industrialized countries in return for backing the war in Iraq. Blair, who has made tackling global warming and relieving African poverty the goals of his year-long presidency of the G-8, will host fellow leaders at the Gleneagles Hotel in Scotland from Wednesday to Friday.
“I really don’t view our relationship as one of quid pro quo,” Bush told Britain’s ITV1 television in an interview. “Tony Blair made decisions on what he thought was best for keeping the peace and winning the war on terror, as I did.” “
Really? I thought that Tony Blair gambled his political future on two propositions: that his alliance with us had to be protected at almost any cost, and that he might be able to influence our planning for the war in Iraq for the better. When it turned out that he couldn’t, he still stood by us at a time when very few people did. For his pains, we stiffed him on African aid last month, and now we’re stiffing him again on global warming. This is what we do when, to quote an LATimes headline, “Bush Tries to Remake Image as Team Player”. Think of what we might be doing if we were actually trying to be arrogant and high-handed. The mind boggles.
If Tony Blair wants out, who can blame him?
Moral clarity don’t need no diplomacy!
What has been underreported is the dismal state of Afghanistan. Instead, all we hear about is how wonderful the election was and how women are allegedly doing so much better. These things were nice, but end up being trivial in relation to the other problems. It’s unsettling to read that they are going to rush in more troops. It will probably be too little too late.
Afghanistan would have been a tough nut anyway, but it was hard to see anything rational about the Bush policy of dropping the ball in 2002 in order to rush to Iraq.
The biggest mystery is why we did next to nothing to deal with the country sliding into narco-warlordism, to be followed (in my opinion) with narco-terrorism. I have always wondered what the US rules of engagement are should troops happen upon a opium shipment or stash owned by the local “friendly” warlord.
1. Take them out because drugs are bad?
2. Ignore them because warlord support matters more than interdicting the drug business?
3. Help them if the Taliban attacks them?
More bad news. Only, it’s not actually “news” any more.
Anarch’s link contains pictures that are definitely not work safe, unless you work in a mortuary.
I don’t know what you want from Bush on Kyoto. The Senate voted against it 99-0 (or was that 98-1?). The advice and consent of the Senate is required to implement any treaty. If the Senate voted against a judicial nominee 99-0 would you want Bush to renominate the candidate because Blair wanted him to?
BTW, this story illustrates perfectly how we really should decide whether we want to fight the war on drugs or the war on terrorism. It is becoming clear that making drugs illegal has made it easier for terrorists to fund their dealings. I realize that some might argue that the terrorists have won if we abandon the war on drugs, but priorities please.
Also, I note again that Afghanistan–the allegedly clear case–is getting very little help from the same international community that I suggest is unreliable and at regular intervals get castigated for suggesting that we cannot rely on it. As we saw in the growing indifference to enforcing inspections in Iraq during the period 1998-2002, and with respect to nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea, if the US has a short attention span for such things, the international community has a far shorter attention span. If there is any terrorism case where the international community should have been fully committed to a long term solution, it should have been in Afghanistan. The international community doesn’t care about such things.
Sebastian, you do realise that you could search-and-replace “international community” with “United States” in your statement and be perfectly accurate?
Afghans were hoping for promised assistance from the US to rebuild their country since the first President Bush: the rise of the Taliban was made possible by the fact that between the US and the USSR, Afghanistan had been left a shattered country under control of warlords, with no central government at all. The US had, however, made sure that the largest and best-armed groups in the country were all the most misogynist Muslims.
These were the people who had been the ones most willing to take up arms and fight against a Afghan Communist government, that was performing such horrors as education for women and land reform. They were left well-armed by the US, experienced in combat, committed to the idea of a pure Islamic state in Afghanistan that the US had encouraged because it was a consistent means of opposing Afghan Communism… and all they needed was a leader.
Now the Taliban is back to being one warring group amongst many. Afghanistan is in the same state it was that made the rise of the Taliban possible. Maybe the Taliban won’t rise again… but given that the US is again walking away from its responsibilities in Afghanistan, odds are someone will. Whoever it is may be an improvement on the Taliban, or may be worse, or may be more of the same. The US is certainly not behaving as if it wants to have any influence over that.
Interesting piece from Guardian a couple of years ago: We are now a client state. Britain has lost its sovereignty to the United States
According to the authors:
Abb1: I discussed this with a British army officer friend at the time (well, an acquaintance: I know his wife rather better) and he has a rather different interpretation of this story.
He is an intelligent and well-informed person in his areas of expertise, of which this is one.
I am rather more concerned about Blunkett’s giving up UK sovereignity on extradition.
The thing about Afghanistan is that though it is worse today than it was several months ago in terms of security, we’ve got a pretty good asset over there that we lack in Iraq, namely, guys on our side that shoot back.
Also, I note again that Afghanistan–the allegedly clear case–is getting very little help from the same international community that I suggest is unreliable and at regular intervals get castigated for suggesting that we cannot rely on it.
Sebastian, go head continue denigrating the help the US gets in Afghanistan despite turning down all initial offers in 2001.
How many more allies do you want to piss off?
Anarch’s link also contains a shocking lack of whitespace and paragraph breaks. Watch out!
BTW, this story illustrates perfectly how we really should decide whether we want to fight the war on drugs or the war on terrorism. It is becoming clear that making drugs illegal has made it easier for terrorists to fund their dealings. I realize that some might argue that the terrorists have won if we abandon the war on drugs, but priorities please.
Agreed. However the Admin’s response to any suggestion of rationalizing the drug war is ‘just say NO.’
“I don’t know what you want from Bush on Kyoto?”
Would it be so tough, for the sake of diplomatic appearances, for Bush to at least offer a little public rhetorical quid in Blair’s (regardless of one’s opinion, there is a guy who came up some ideas and suggestions and wasn’t afraid to risk his political capital) direction to keep the quo coming?
Apparently the War on Terror and in Iraq is not quite so important as to actually soften any other principles, even rhetorically, with fingers crossed behind backs, just a little, around the edges, you know, to reach a ——g desired end.
What is Bush doing? Building the Bridge Over the River Kwai?
“I don’t know what you want from Bush on Kyoto?”
Would it be so tough, for the sake of diplomatic appearances, for Bush to at least offer a little public rhetorical quid in Blair’s (regardless of one’s opinion, there is a guy who came up some ideas and suggestions and wasn’t afraid to risk his political capital) direction to keep the quo coming?
Apparently the War on Terror and in Iraq is not quite so important as to actually soften any other principles, even rhetorically, with fingers crossed behind backs, just a little, around the edges, you know, to reach a ——g desired end.
What is Bush doing? Building the Bridge Over the River Kwai?
So now I’m repeating myself in precisely identical words.
Sorry.
“Blair was warned that war-torn Iraq remains on the brink of disaster …”
By whom? Surely he misheard. The words “last throes” must have been in there somewhere. Was Hilzoy invited to sit in?
Not 24 hours ago, someone or several people placed a note in Charles’ suggestion box on this very blog, suggesting a modest meal of crow for the Bush Administration as a starting point .. and here they are picking black feathers from their teeth in a meeting with Tony Blair.
Thank you, Charles, for forwarding our ideas to the President. He got right on it. 😉
I hope they snapped a wishbone, too.
Sebastian, have you written a post here or elsewhere that expands on your “choose between the war on drugs and the war on terrorism” statement? I’d really like to read more of what you have to say on the subject.
Otmar, if you think around 4,000 counts as a major commitment you are free to be wrong. If you think that turning down requests for expansion around the elections for months and then rushing to get soldiers in place days before counts as a major commitment you are free to be wrong. But you are wrong.
Your comment about pissing our ‘allies’ off sounds suspiciously like complaints that criticizing the war effort is unpatriotic or that reporting on torture is trying to help Al Qaeda win. That style of argumentation is rarely considered persuasive around here. But you may be right that when employed against the United States it holds more resonance for some.
Sebastian: I am not particularly interested in defending the international community in general, though I will note what Otmar said. I am more interested in us, because it’s my country; and just as I am more interested in figuring out where I go wrong than figuring out where someone else does (since I can try to change my own conduct, and since my responsibilities in the future maay depend on what I did wrong in the past), so here.
I thought it was shameful that we didn’t follow through on Afghanistan. I also thought it was enormously counterproductive. Here I think a lot turns on one of my major disagreements with Bush: as best I can tell, he is interested in attacking state sponsors of terrorism above all. I am interested in that, but I also think: what do states offer? Two things, mainly: money and a place to set up a home base without interference.
Al Qaeda (and other groups with access to Saudi money) is not hurting for money; what they need is a home base. The best countries for large-scale terrorist operations to use as a home base are failed states, or states that are so weak that they can, essentially, be bought. It is therefore really, really important to try to as it were un-fail those states; to do whatever we can to help them become normal countries.
ow: the opportunity to really do this right does not come along all that often: to move some country from the semi-permanent list of “horrible ghastly problems” to the list of basically OK countries once and for all.
(And I think it’s worth recalling, though this isn’t about failed states, that Europe really did step up to the plate, as far as lasting transformations achieved at considerable cost are concerned, with respect to Eastern Europe. It is now really hard to imagine a lot of the countries there sliding off into some Russia-like nightmare; and it didn’t have to turn out that way, at all. Likewise, Turkey owes an awful lot to the prospect of EU membership, which, if it happens, will also involve a lot of problems for Europe.)
Anyways: we had a chance like that, and we blew it. Whether other people did or did not step up to the plate is less my concern. It was crucial to the effort to deny terrorist organizations safe haven, and also to the war on drugs, not to mention being something that would have benefitted the Afghan people, and also not to mention its being the best thing we could have done to combat anti-Americanism in that part of the world, and instead we chose to go off to Iraq. Go figure.
I also don’t think we had to choose between the “wars” on drugs and terror. Breaking the hold of the warlords in the countryside and establishing the rule of law would have helped both, both directly and by allowing the local economy to get a lot stronger. Oh well.
And about Kyoto– I thought what was under discussion at the G8 was an agreement, not a formal treaty. What does Bush have to do on climate change? Almost any serious step would help. The big news now seems to be that he’s admitted that global warming is partially caused by human activity. That the US government accepts that proposition should have been news in the 80s, not now. Accepting the need for controls on CO2 emissions would be good. Proposing an increase in CAFE standards as part of his energy package: also good. Eliminating the SUV exemption: likewise. Admitting that one of the many causes of global warming is human activity, and insisting on the weakest possible agreement at the G8: not good.
And needlessly insulting our strongest ally: really not good.
“I don’t know what you want from Bush on Kyoto?”
An admission that climate change is a problem, that human activity is a major contributor to that change, and serious policy to address the issue.
Kyoto itself is a red herring. If Bush doesn’t think the treaty is workable then let him come up with other ideas, rather than just saying “no” to everything and being obstructionist.
I agree with the sentiment, especially since I don’t trust the international community to do much, but that doesn’t address the reason why I brought the issue up. A key portion of what you wanted the US to do in both Afghanistan and Iraq is rely far more on international help. That help is not available even in the clear case of Afghanistan. If what you are advocating is more unilateral action by the US, I suppose I won’t disagree. But Afghanistan seems to be a good case for what you have previously discussed—publically the international community professes to be on board yet the help you think is absolutely vital elsewhere has not substantially materialized even in Afghanistan.
Sebastian,
first of all, I’m not German, so my inclination to defend them is limited.
What I did notice during the last years is that much scorn was heaped on France and Germany for their refusal to help in Iraq. “They won’t help us in the fight against terror” was a common theme in US blogs and media. I haven’t seen polls but I guess that the “they won’t help us” meme has got much more traction in the public’s perception than any info about the help they do give.
This is not a healthy condition in any relationship.
Sebastian: in this case, I think the action in question would have to be unilateral. I mean: the good offices of others might help, if they were available, but we need to cut a deal, if we can arrive at a good one. (I share doubts about whether this can be done in the case of Iran.)
Also, I don’t think that ‘involve other nations’ has been the only, or even the main, thing I’ve said about Iraq in the past. But probably I’m just forgetting stuff. It doesn’t seem that relevant to this point, though I might just be missing something.
Eek! Sebastian: in what I can only interpret as a sign of incipient mental collapse, I forgot which thread I was on entirely. Please ignore that last comment, which belonged on the ‘I propose an idea thread’, or would have, had your previous comment been made on that thread, which of course it wasn’t.
Off to dunk my head into a bucket of cold water in the hope that sanity returns.
Otmar, if you think around 4,000 counts as a major commitment you are free to be wrong.
While I wouldn’t call it “major,” on a per-capita basis, it’s around half our committment, so it’s not exactly what I would call tiny, either.
Sebastian:
According to the BBC:
The DOD claims about 18,000 coalition troops. the same number listed in the BBC article, only more clearly labeled coalition, not US troops, so international forces in Afghanistan appear to be 8,500 out of 18,000 total. That is fairly significant.
No worrys, we’ve all experienced wrong thread syndrome. I understand that Merck is researching a treatment (but there might be side-effects like multiple recurring posts).
Regardless of what happens at G8, which I’m assuming is going to be not much, Bush shouldn’t be brushing off Tony Blair so carelessly. If not for Blair, Bush would have gone into this war more or less alone. For Bush to claim he owes Blair no favors is a bit harsh, even if Britain is ready to withdraw troops. Bush owes Blair more than he can ever repay him for all of his support over the years.
“The DOD claims about 18,000 coalition troops. the same number listed in the BBC article, only more clearly labeled coalition, not US troops, so international forces in Afghanistan appear to be 8,500 out of 18,000 total. That is fairly significant.”
It doesn’t do much good to suggest that much more needs to be done and many more troops are needed and then retreat to a percentage basis when discussing the international commitment. Even if we accept the higher number of 8,500 that is (as an absolute number) pretty much nothing, especially spread across all of Europe and many other countries who might be theoretically interested. We are basically talking about the total number of people in a smallish or medium sized university. 8,500 people. In Iraq we have more than 100,000 and people have been complaining that we needed more international support. So if we could get a full complement equal in every respect to that of the international commitment to the clearest case in the war on terrorism, that would be less than 10%. 8,500 just isn’t a lot of people. If that is the best the world can do, we are pretty much on our own–which is what I have argued all along.
I’m not against international help, I’m against the idea that we have to rely on it for important peacekeeping functions. We cannot rely on it for any large numbers in even the clear cases (as can be seen in Afghanistan). So spending huge amounts of time worrying about how to get the world ‘onboard’ for a trivial commitment isn’t serious. You are far more likely to be able to sell the American public on the need for a bigger commitment from a US force that can make a difference than you are likely to convince France to send a force which isn’t going to be very large in any event. I don’t argue with the focus on US action if we are going to be honest about why we need to focus on US action.
“The DOD claims about 18,000 coalition troops. the same number listed in the BBC article, only more clearly labeled coalition, not US troops, so international forces in Afghanistan appear to be 8,500 out of 18,000 total. That is fairly significant.”
It doesn’t do much good to suggest that much more needs to be done and many more troops are needed and then retreat to a percentage basis when discussing the international commitment. Even if we accept the higher number of 8,500 that is (as an absolute number) pretty much nothing, especially spread across all of Europe and many other countries who might be theoretically interested. We are basically talking about the total number of people in a smallish or medium sized university. 8,500 people. In Iraq we have more than 100,000 and people have been complaining that we needed more international support. So if we could get a full complement equal in every respect to that of the international commitment to the clearest case in the war on terrorism, that would be less than 10%. 8,500 just isn’t a lot of people. If that is the best the world can do, we are pretty much on our own–which is what I have argued all along.
I’m not against international help, I’m against the idea that we have to rely on it for important peacekeeping functions. We cannot rely on it for any large numbers in even the clear cases (as can be seen in Afghanistan). So spending huge amounts of time worrying about how to get the world ‘onboard’ for a trivial commitment isn’t serious. You are far more likely to be able to sell the American public on the need for a bigger commitment from a US force that can make a difference than you are likely to convince France to send a force which isn’t going to be very large in any event. I don’t argue with the focus on US action if we are going to be honest about why we need to focus on US action.
If that is the best the world can do, we are pretty much on our own–which is what I have argued all along.
Indeed. Bush & Co invaded Iraq against the will and advice of the international community, and on extremely shaky legal grounds. Having decided to go it alone (with a handful of exceptions, and that handful of governments generally acting against the public will of their people), it would have made better sense to acknowledge that the US simply would not get the additional 200 000 thousand international troops needed for a venture so thoroughly unsupported by the international community. Since those troops were needed, it would also have made sense for Bush & Co to hold off invading Iraq until those troops were available.
Given that Bush & Co decided to go ahead with the invasion/occupation even though they didn’t have enough troops to carry it through successfully, it would have made sense to do more planning, not less.
And once it was clear that Bush & Co couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery, it would have made sense to get rid of them last November and bring in a new administration.
But none of the things that would have made sense happened. So we have a completely senseless situation in Iraq – something that the Labour government is well aware of.
Blair got just enough support from his own party to win a vote in the House of Commons on joining the invasion of Iraq. Just enough. He had a major backbench rebellion. At least one Labour MP lost her seat at the next general election because she had voted for the war with Iraq, and Tony Blair’s reputation has fallen considerably since it became publicly known that he lied to the House of Commons and to the British public to justify joining the US invasion. He was planning to step down this term, and it is recognized that he is now an electoral liability, not an asset.
The relationship between the US and the UK has always tended to be that of the UK doing what the US wants because the US wants it. (With exceptions. To his eternal credit, Harold Wilson, Prime Minister from 1966-1974, always refused to send British troops to Vietnam.) What benefit the UK gets out of this has been arguable in the past: it’s not arguable now. What we give, you should know: and we get nowt.
I think most Americans are very much aware of how much Tony Blair risked to support us, and grateful to him. I’m not sure how much credence to give that WaPost story hilzoy links to, but if it’s true I’m disappointed in Bush.
Considering the holiday my country just celebrated, I think this is an excellent time to say (on my own behalf, at least) thanks to Mr. Blair in particular and the Brits in general, and express my hopes that (despite the occasional squabble) the friendship between our countries lasts as long as the planet does.
God save the Queen, y’all.
“Having decided to go it alone (with a handful of exceptions, and that handful of governments generally acting against the public will of their people), it would have made better sense to acknowledge that the US simply would not get the additional 200 000 thousand international troops needed for a venture so thoroughly unsupported by the international community. Since those troops were needed, it would also have made sense for Bush & Co to hold off invading Iraq until those troops were available.”
And in Afghanistan?
ThirdGorchBro: I’m not sure how much credence to give that WaPost story hilzoy links to
I didn’t see the Bush interview on Tonight With Trevor McDonald myself (it was broadcast yesterday evening) but Bush’s “I really don’t view our relationship as one of quid pro quo” comment about his relationship with Tony Blair has been widely reported in the British press. (Trevor McDonald apparently asked him if Blair could expect Bush’s “unstinting support” given Blair’s support for Iraq.)
but if it’s true I’m disappointed in Bush.
I don’t think anyone in the UK is: we don’t expect anything better from him.
thanks to Mr. Blair in particular and the Brits in general, and express my hopes that (despite the occasional squabble) the friendship between our countries lasts as long as the planet does.
Sebastian: And in Afghanistan?
Why yes: I think Afghanistan would be much better off if, instead of attempting to invade Iraq with too few troops and too little planning, Bush had focussed US resources on Afghanistan, instead.
Fifteen billion over five years was what was estimated Afghanistan needed. What has the US spent on Iraq, again?
I seem to remember that during the build up to the Iraq war there was a major diplomatic push by the Bush administration, to get other countries to pledge troops and support for the war, with some but not much forthcoming. Am I mistremembering? If not, consider: what if that push had been with regard to Afghanistan? Could we have gotten a larger commitment than the 8500 that are there now? It seems to me (with my quite limited understanding of international politics) like there was broader support for the war in Afghanistan and that a diplomatic effort to secure more would have been more successful. Was such an effort made? If so, how did the resources devoted to it compare to the Iraq case?
I seem to remember that during the build up to the Iraq war there was a major diplomatic push by the Bush administration, to get other countries to pledge troops and support for the war, with some but not much forthcoming. Am I mistremembering? If not, consider: what if that push had been with regard to Afghanistan? Could we have gotten a larger commitment than the 8500 that are there now? It seems to me (with my quite limited understanding of international politics) like there was broader support for the war in Afghanistan and that a diplomatic effort to secure more would have been more successful. Was such an effort made? If so, how did the resources devoted to it compare to the Iraq case?
“I seem to remember that during the build up to the Iraq war there was a major diplomatic push by the Bush administration, to get other countries to pledge troops and support for the war, with some but not much forthcoming. Am I mistremembering? ”
Jeremy, I strongly suspect that since large numbers of European troops were not available for Afghanistan throughout all of 2002, there is no reason to suspect they would have been available in 2003 either. If you have reason to believe otherwise, please let me know.
I also suspect you are misremembering about a push for troops. There was certainly a push for diplomatic support and probably monetary support, but no one I can think of (on the right that is) ever really believed that significant troops would be available from anyone other than the UK. They certainly would have been welcome, but I doubt anyone really believed they would be forthcoming.
That has really been my point all along. Trying to rely on the international community for a particularly useful number of troops is difficult in easy places like Bosnia, ridiculous in tough but clearly necessary places like Afghanistan, and impossible in the more ambiguous cases like Iraq. As such, the choices can and should be made independently of a reliance on foreign troop support. It isn’t available and it is a waste of everyone’s time to spend years and years talking about it as if it were. Most EU countries are not especially interested in helping out significantly in places like Afghanistan. Upthread, people want me to be excited about less than 10,000 troops from the entire non-US world. That shows how disconnected the rhetoric is from the reality. And you should remember that the low level of troop availability persists from BEFORE the Iraq invasion.
This is not directly apposite to your point, but in this context it is worth remembering that NATO participation in post-9/11 Afghanistan operations was opposed by some in the US military, on the grounds that there was nothing really for them to do that our own forces couldn’t do with better capabilities and without the hassles associated with organizing multinational forces.
Again, not especially relevant to your point that the numbers of NATO troops wouldn’t have been significant, but interesting to keep in mind when thinking about the desirability of international participation in these kinds of ventures.
Just to add something to Travis comment:
——
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/afghan/2001/1130pko.htm
Washington Post
November 30, 2001
“The U.S. Central Command, which oversees the war in Afghanistan, has put the brakes on the imminent deployment of thousands of international peacekeepers in areas freed from Taliban control out of concern that this could encumber American military operations, Bush administration officials said.
…
Though several U.S. allies have urged a quick response to help provide relief and stabilize a volatile political situation, administration officials said the deployment of peacekeepers would further complicate what is already a complex war effort. Offers by allied governments to dispatch soldiers to Kabul, the Bagram airfield north of the capital and the northern city of Mazar-e Sharif — considered a crucial hub for humanitarian aid — are now on hold.”
I think we and especially the right are doing a very poor job with our critics and the international community.
For example the prison(s) scandal(s). We’ve had some fairly nasty reports from some of them, people beaten to deathm, sodomization with night sticks, handing people over to rather nasty secret police (now in Iraq.)
Now some of this stuff is unacceptable. And the proper reply is that we know it, that most of the information has come from government reports, that a number of prosceutions are in place and while this may strike people as inadequete , that even imperfect responses do bring reform and are what distinguish us from our enemies.
This is rudimentary civics or at least one basic argument for the superiority of our methods. The right does not grasp it, they use the style of the USSR, deny any abuse, trivialize it to “panties on head by a few people in one prison” and then “they are terrorists, they deserve it.”
So we have the staunchest defenders talking like commies do. They can nebver grasp that our weak, limp, bleeding heart ways have defeated totaltarian regime after totaltarian regime. These are the big Bush defenders. They want us to be like Saddam because it’s “manly.”
Now we have this thing in Italy. The Italian claim is that we wrecked a police investigation. This seems plausible. Not good. We may have saved a terrorist network just so we could enjoy torture in Egypt.
So far so bad, but wait there’s more. Our brillian intelligence agents who evidently never read Smiley’s people but partied openly together in a real fancy hotel before the snatch announce, “the Italians or at least some of the Italians (not the guys running the investiagtion, but supposedly some spooks) said we could do it and we all agreed that if anythinmg happened we’d never tell!”
Whoops! We just told. Which means not only do we trash the concept of civic law which is ok with the right, but in order to “prove” something (I think that Italians are weak and we are strong at least that’s how the right wing blogs play it) we guarantee that no one in any intelligence service is going to cut a back door deal with us because despite our promises we will blow it.
On the right this is “good traderaft” because it let’s them say “I told you so” though exactly what they told us is in clear, it just shows those Italians…
Of course that it might undermine the rightwing president who helped us is irrelevant because the right doesn’t believe in the rest of the world, reality is therir blogs and talk shows. They live in the same kind of reality that their commie idols used to publish in Pravada. Rumor has it they’ve hired Comical Ali to guide them.
Who needs to be rational when everyone knows you are the toughest dude around?
It’s possible that European troop commitments might be better organised in places like Afghanistan if the USA didn’t keep mentioning that they really don’t like the idea of the RRF. Afghanistan is just the kind of place that a unified European force would come in handy, but oh no, it would “undermine NATO”. Waah wahh.
None of the European countries have populations large enough to commit a significant number of troops on their own, especially because our electorates generally prefer butter to guns. Pakistan and India have the soldiers, but unfortunately not the equipment. Same goes for Russia, which could have been some help in Afghanistan had ts military not been tied up kicking the shit out of Chechnya.
However, this is all by-the-by. If you’re going to go on an American Militarist Adventure, you’re damn right you’re going to provide your own blood. International Support comes in many little pieces, in token troop gestures but also in intelligence, in diplomatic assistance, in all those little things that make military adventures go that much smoother. But unless you’re going to ask China or India for help, there aren’t the troops around to do what you want to do.
We didn’t want to go into Iraq because we knew we couldn’t do it. Shame that the Pentagon hasn’t had its hubris beaten out of it yet, really. Spreading civilization by the sword is a grand idea, but, well, I guess some people have to make their own mistakes and just won’t learn from the mistakes of others.
Afghanistan is just the kind of place that a unified European force would come in handy
Apparently the US military didn’t agree.
Detlef, the quotes you offer don’t help the case you seem to be trying to build. The ‘encumber’ problem exists with those peacekeeping forces which are operationally constrained from fighting or which are not likely to fight in the event of a real battle. Think for example of Srebrenica. Of course the US isn’t thrilled about that kind of peacekeeping force. Also note the date of the first quote. You don’t deploy non-combatant peacekeepers in the middle of the war. But you might deploy them to help guard an election after the war. Furthermore the main reason that NATO was not wanted in the intial phase of the war is because the US did not want to give its one-hour target control slowed down to a 3 day process of taget by target authorization by the French as in Bosnia. All those stories you heard about calling in fire against the mobile Taliban units would be impossible in that scenario. In other words the things that made the initial war phase such a success would have been impossible. Non-US NATO forces would not have been very numerous in any event, so to slow down the targetting from an hour to multiple days so the French could feel included would have been militarily disasterous.
Once again we aren’t anywhere near that phase of Afghanistan. It is possible that NATO forces would be operationally useless even now, but then that is an argument about the general uselessness of international forces, which doesn’t help your argument that we need to rely on international forces in Afghanistan particularly.
Mcduff, you write: “It’s possible that European troop commitments might be better organised in places like Afghanistan if the USA didn’t keep mentioning that they really don’t like the idea of the RRF.”
It is the French that don’t want the Rapid Reaction Force in Afghanistan. They repeatedly said that protecting elections in Afghanistan is not the kind of thing it was designed for. Furthermore the reason that the RRF does not exist as a useful force (despite the fact that it has been politically authorized) is because no one wants to pay for it. That speaks directly to my lack of European will argument. Blaming Europe’s unwillingness to fund on America is a bit odd. (Now I heard rumors that the EU requested that the US fund the RRF with all of its technological gadgets, and the US said that the EU was rich enough to fund itself if it wanted to go outside NATO). If you want to interpret that lack of EU funding and the decision of the US not to duplicate funding in yet another European venture which ought to be funded by Europe I guess I can’t stop you. But it looks to me that it supports my understanding of European lack of will far more than it a more convoluted explanation.
“However, this is all by-the-by. If you’re going to go on an American Militarist Adventure, you’re damn right you’re going to provide your own blood.”
As usual you confuse Afghanistan with Iraq. The international community pays lip service to the idea that A) the war on terrorism is important and B) that it is important in places like Afghanistan and not Iraq and C) that they want to contribute to what they see as the war on terrorism but not American side-adventures. If this were a true explication of their position the difference between involvement in Iraq and involvement in Afghanistan wouldn’t be a number of troops as large as less than twice Texas’ largest high school. I tend not to believe that the problem is A) or B) but rather an unwillingness to actually be involved in fighting outside their borders even in clear cases like Afghanistan. They would prefer that the US do the fighting for them, but ONLY where they want the US to go. They would prefer that they get to make all the decisions and we get to do all the dying. You understand them perfectly when you say that we get to pay our own blood, but you don’t understand that it was supposed to be true even in Afghanistan.
Mr. Holsclaw:
From a pragmatic perspective the response to your points is “so what?”
Yes it is quite likely that the rest of the world has a limited committment. Our allies did during the cold war.
Our reality is that we need to take what we can get, be grateful and work for more. Indeed we’ve gotten quite a bit even if it is primarily police work, promises to forgive debt and some military effort.
Would we like more? The answer would seem yes, but the answer from the right is no, a loud clear no.
You see it on Limpbowel, you read it on the web, those dirty lazy Europeans, decadent and useless, we don’t need them!
People are projecting their dysfunctional families and neighborhood desputes into what is a matter of life and death, something which requires we use brains, and god forbid compromise (when we’re completely right!#$!!??) diplomacy (what’s that???!@@!!) and “soft power.”
China and Russia just told us we should get out of central Asia, and they see m to have the organization of relevant states including those were we’re based agreeing. this is how well we’re doing.
Over and over, we weaken ourselves in little subtle things, things which do add up. We’ve squandered a lot of good will and capital.
What for?
So no nothings can call in Limpbowel and company and talk about what a bunch of jerks the rest of the world is and how we’re the greatest nation in the world.
We’re playing this stupid game because of low self esteem on the part of the right that requires they drink six beers and spout to a group which totally agrees with them that they are better than anyone else.
In this view the rest of the world doesn’t really, exist, it’s only there as a topic of conversation. The right simply refuses to believe in 9/11 and to understand that we face real threats that require we work in the real world. They think those planes crashing into the WTC were just something they saw on TV.
Kyoto itself is a red herring. If Bush doesn’t think the treaty is workable then let him come up with other ideas, rather than just saying “no” to everything and being obstructionist.
Bernard, you say that like Bush was a Democrat or something.
In light of the fact that Bush refuses to give any quid for Blair’s quo, or a half-hearted reach around depending on your perspective, I submit that the next post in a similar vein be entitled, Bush: Dumb as a box of rocks or dumberer?
Observer, you’re not going to persuade anyone who needs persuading with abusive nicknames like “Limpbowel”. Does the presence of nicknames like “Hitlery” and terms like “feminazi” make you sympathetic to anything nearby? (And if by chance they do, have you noticed htem working on many other people who aren’t conservative?) Well, it works the other way around. There are a bunch of folks who either like Limbaugh or, more likely, really don’t think much about him at all but whose hackles go up in response to the cheap shot. If youd’d like to maybe influence anyone, set that particular trick aside and let the rest carry the weight it should.
Sebastian:
RRF hasn’t got funding yet because things take just as long to get off the ground in Europe as they do in America. Just think of all the things Bush has said he’d fund in the last four years that have conspicuously failed to materialise.
And, while I’m not speaking on behalf of the European Union here, on behalf of the UK I can say that we’ve been there all the time, stuck our necks on the line, backed you up and tried to fight the corner in Iraq, went to Kosovo, went to Sudan, and have generally been Your Pals In Europe.
For this, as has been said before, we’ve got dick-all in return diplomatically, and you went and started a bloody war in Iraq that rendered all the hard work in Afghanistan mostly moot. You can say that the French are obstructionist and Democrat-like in just staying the hell out of your way, but in all honesty it looks like they made the right choice.
See, I don’t personally think that “the War on Terror” is all it’s made out to be. Europe has been dealing with terrorism since long before 11/9/01, and has its own kind of low-intensity methods of dealing with it. Most people in Europe see tramping into a country — even Afghanistan — with all guns blazing as being a stupid idea for solving terrorism. Chirac and Schroeder may well be paying lip-service to the idea, but the electorates in those countries have been markedly cool to the concept of engaging in an American strategy which they see as being remarkably ineffective, mainly because it’s the kind of thing we used to do and it didn’t work then, either.
As is, we’re now, here in good ol’ blighty, doing what we should have done all along: concentrating on Afghanistan and leaving Iraq to you. Unfortunately, Iraq is now a big-ass problem and so we still have to deal with it eventually. But you can’t have it both ways. We don’t have the troops to commit. We don’t spend Crazy-American money on the military over here, because we like to think, as a rule, that we’re not in the habit of invading countries and sitting there any more.
Europeans are war-tired and pragmatic. They’ll go where needed, but they won’t go where it looks like it’s going to be futile. Everything under Bush II has looked like a disaster waiting to happen, and as it happens it has been. So the French were prescient. Is foresight and good judgement a heinous crime?
“There are a bunch of folks who either like Limbaugh or, more likely, really don’t think much about him at all but whose hackles go up in response to the cheap shot. If youd’d like to maybe influence anyone, set that particular trick aside and let the rest carry the weight it should.”
Posted by: Bruce Baugh
Like the right did? They got to where they are by lots and lots of demonization. The only thing was being cognizant of who was being demonized, and who wasn’t.
Maybe that’s what we need to do – express contempt for those who are, frankly, beyond salvation.
There are two posters on this blog, and a couple of commenters, who are clearly right-wingers who’d lop off their hand before voting for a Democrat. Courting them is at best futile, and at worst makes us look like people who won’t defend ourselves and attack our enemies.
Barry: there’s contempt, and then there’s pointless alienation of people who might otherwise be convinced. Nicknames are pointless because they tell you nothing other than that the speaker holds someone in contempt. In particular, they don’t tell you why, normally, and so can’t convince.
Barry: It’s true, the Right does it all the time. So? Do you want to have their souls? I don’t just oppose them because of the content of their policies but because of the content of their characters – I don’t want to be that sort of person, I don’t want to be governed by that sort of person. And I want to win away those I can. Which means not throwing unnecessary obstacles in the way of their sauntering over here.
I don’t get this right allt he time. In fact I often blow it. But I think it’s very important to keep our style and its meaning in mind along with the content.
Iraq is a deeply unpopular venture in the Labour party, on the otherhand the Afghan war is widely percieved as a just, so far fairly sucessful and mutually beneficial war. British politics is a devious game and L’Albion Perfide has paid a small price for honoring its alliance with DC. Tony Blair however is damaged goods. The prospects in Iraq look ominus and Blair has failed to sway US policy beyond seeking a disasterous second resolution in the UN. Gordon Brown is waiting in the wings to take over. With that in mind a continued UK deployment in Iraq probably isn’t politically sustainable.
The British do have a lot of units skilled in constabulary operations, like the French their army is based in a tradition of policing colonies. The US has lots of battlefield muscle but is pretty short of this sort of expertise. I’d also not under rate the French and British elite units. The numbers aren’t at all revealing of their worth as allies in this kind of conflict.
The areas the British skilfully police in Iraq are now fairly peaceful but will be handed over to Shi’ite militiamen, many of them trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Some say Basra already resembles an Iranian city. That may be the price DC pays for not valuing old alliances; the reality of even less comfortable bed fellows.
Ah, but many of you Europeans are underestimating the power of “looking tough,” especially when your base of support is rabid right-wingers.
Bruce, I don’t want their souls; I don’t even know why that topic came up.
What you claimed is that nicknames were counterproductive (I’m taking the liberty of condensing considerably; please forgive me if I’m wrong). What I pointed out is that the right-wing of US politics has thrived on derogatory nicknames, so that counter-productivity doesn’t automatically follow.
Bruce, I don’t want their souls; I don’t even know why that topic came up.
What you claimed is that nicknames were counterproductive (I’m taking the liberty of condensing considerably; please forgive me if I’m wrong). What I pointed out is that the right-wing of US politics has thrived on derogatory nicknames, so that counter-productivity doesn’t automatically follow.
Barry, the thing is that nicknames are demonstrably not working for folks opposed to the current regime. The reasons why they work for some groups and ot others is a tangled muddle of social and cultural history, but the facts seem pretty clear to me. They turn off folks we need to be persuading.
I’ll accept counter-evidence, though, since this is a purely pragmatic assessment. If I see signs of Limbaugh-esque rhetorical flourishes helping the cause, then I will still dislike them but will readily and openly acknowledge them as contributing positively. I’ll take what works, for this purpose.
This reminds me, I swore I’d register independent when I returned from vacation. Guess I can do that while picking up a replacement PC at lunch. I’m not sure whether to register “No Party Affiliation”, or “Other”; I’m thinking the former. Because I’m thinking I’m a small “i” independent.
For hilzoy and Bruce – I don’t want to put obstacles in peoples’ ways, to come over here. Which, please note, has little to do with nicknames, derogatory and otherwise (for an example, see the rise of the GOP, USA, Terra, old calendar 1968 – 2???).
However, I (a) have a bleaker viewpoint of who is a likely candidate, and (b) feel that liberals are presently biased towards non-aggression, to the point where defending our positions is uncertain.
On (a), there are a lot of people who’ve swallowed so much kool-aid that I wouldn’t get between them and the bathroom. By now, they’re invested in those beliefs. Using torture and the Iraq War as an example, I think that the reason that a lot of right-wingers aren’t amenable to criticism is that they **like** it. If the (Republicans) government decides to torture some foreigners (including ‘honorary’ ones such as Padilla and Hamdi, not white anglo’s), more power to it. If Bush decided to ‘through a crappy country against the wall, just to show that we can’ (quote from Ledeen), good – shows that we can’t get pushed around. If this contradicts the teachings of Jesus, who cares what a dirty long-haired unemployed hippie-type said, anyway?
Such people are not salvable, at least not before the point where we will already have a large minority. IMHO, it won’t be so much a matter of converting a lot of these people, as pusching them politically to the margins; making what they say ‘not polite’. Sort of like the Klan – they, and people who sympathized, got to the point where they had to keep it quiet.
On (b), the principle is that, for practical political purposes, the truth does not defend itself.
A recent sterling example of that is what was done to Kerry by the Swift Boat Liars. They attacked him, and he didn’t defend himself. In the end, a decorated and wounded Vietnam war hero was portrayed as a flaccid flip-flopping faker, compared to George ‘TANG’ Bush.
The last four years have been a concentrated lesson in such things. Liberals are going around expecting everybody to wake up, look around them, and shrug off this administration. We’ve told ourselves that things can’t get any worse. The administration, meanwhile, just pours on more propaganda. They trash this country as best they can, while accusing us of being unamerican.
Presumably, sometime, this will fail. But when? And how bad will things get?
– Barry
PS – This is well stated in the blog ‘Through the Looking Glass, post: http://thelookingglass.blogspot.com/2005/06/digbys-right-ive-been-reading-around.html, as well as in many other places.
For hilzoy and Bruce – I don’t want to put obstacles in peoples’ ways, to come over here. Which, please note, has little to do with nicknames, derogatory and otherwise (for an example, see the rise of the GOP, USA, Terra, old calendar 1968 – 2???).
However, I (a) have a bleaker viewpoint of who is a likely candidate, and (b) feel that liberals are presently biased towards non-aggression, to the point where defending our positions is uncertain.
On (a), there are a lot of people who’ve swallowed so much kool-aid that I wouldn’t get between them and the bathroom. By now, they’re invested in those beliefs. Using torture and the Iraq War as an example, I think that the reason that a lot of right-wingers aren’t amenable to criticism is that they **like** it. If the (Republicans) government decides to torture some foreigners (including ‘honorary’ ones such as Padilla and Hamdi, not white anglo’s), more power to it. If Bush decided to ‘through a crappy country against the wall, just to show that we can’ (quote from Ledeen), good – shows that we can’t get pushed around. If this contradicts the teachings of Jesus, who cares what a dirty long-haired unemployed hippie-type said, anyway?
Such people are not salvable, at least not before the point where we will already have a large minority. IMHO, it won’t be so much a matter of converting a lot of these people, as pusching them politically to the margins; making what they say ‘not polite’. Sort of like the Klan – they, and people who sympathized, got to the point where they had to keep it quiet.
On (b), the principle is that, for practical political purposes, the truth does not defend itself.
A recent sterling example of that is what was done to Kerry by the Swift Boat Liars. They attacked him, and he didn’t defend himself. In the end, a decorated and wounded Vietnam war hero was portrayed as a flaccid flip-flopping faker, compared to George ‘TANG’ Bush.
The last four years have been a concentrated lesson in such things. Liberals are going around expecting everybody to wake up, look around them, and shrug off this administration. We’ve told ourselves that things can’t get any worse. The administration, meanwhile, just pours on more propaganda. They trash this country as best they can, while accusing us of being unamerican.
Presumably, sometime, this will fail. But when? And how bad will things get?
– Barry
PS – This is well stated in the blog ‘Through the Looking Glass, post: http://thelookingglass.blogspot.com/2005/06/digbys-right-ive-been-reading-around.html, as well as in many other places.
Sorry, I was getting a typepad error message there (good thing that I decided to open a new window and check, or there’d be even more of it).
hilzoy, could you please delete the redundant one?
Thank you very much.
Bruce: “Barry, the thing is that nicknames are demonstrably not working for folks opposed to the current regime.”
Bruce, I haven’t seen any demonstrable non-working effect. I haven’t seen much working effect either, but we’re starting from a very depressed base.
Barry, do any of these observations look familiar?
——————–
In that sense too, fascism is more plausibly linked to a set of “mobilizing passions” that shape fascist action than to a consistent and fully articulated philosophy. At bottom is a passionate nationalism. Allied to it is a conspiratorial and Manichean view of history as a battle between good and evil camps, between the pure and the corrupt, in which one’s own community or nation has been the victim.
…
These “mobilizing passions,” mostly taken for granted and not always overtly argued as intellectual propositions, form the emotional lava that set fascism’s foundations:
Page 41
The Anatomy of Fascism
Robert O. Paxton
NeoDude, the first five could easily describe the reactionary left.
And where precisely are you going with your fascism thing anyway?
Should you avoid being banned for violating the posting rules simply because you blather on and on without tying it together at the end as Republicans are….?
I think American right-wingers are flirting with fascist impulses (if not straight-out embracing them)…and really have decided that, since they are blessed by God and are American, that its really OK…when America does it, it’s really liberty and democracy in action
By the way, I nabbed the abouve from Needlenose
The above, plus Daniel Drezner’s post:
posted by Dan on 07.05.05 at 10:53 AM
All this stuff got me thinking…how did Germany look during the 1920s…Spain?…Portugual?…Chile?…Argentina.
Then I read other things.
Michael Harrington is usually credited with coining the phrase “neoconservative”. He was the first person to use it to describe ex-Socialist, working on The Right, in the United States.
These “neoconservatives” maintained many of their leftist presuppositions concerning the role of The State, but striped most of the liberal/progressive/pluralistic beliefs, from the foundation replacing it with right-wing theories. (This is why, I suspect, libertarians called them Right-Wing Socialist). Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, accepted the label with a sense of irony–I guess.
As I did further reading, I discovered that there was a Neo-Conservative movement in Germany, after WW1 to about 1933. And I think this was Harrington’s motivation for using the word. (Harrington and Kristol, being the committed leftist they were(or is that was), would have certainly been familiar with latest stuff in sociology and all things pre-fascist).
From:
The Fichte Society: A Chapter in Germany’s Conservative Revolution
Nelson Edmondson
The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 38, No. 2. (Jun., 1966), pp. 161-180.
I have other articles written during the late fifties and early sixties, which describe a movement of Germans desperate to establish German exceptionalism and preeminence within Europe. Many thought the Nazis were just crazy…but they were better than liberals and leftists, this is clear in all the writings. The Nazis were first and foremost Good Germans, who would never betray the homeland.
I don’t know if it was Harrington or Irving Howe, but one of them, jokingly commented that Leo Strauss would have appreciated the Nazis more, if they were not so anti-Semitic. (It certainly drew lots of laughter) The Nazis were radical because they saw biology and culture as one-and-the-same. I’m assuming Harrington or Howe was also suggesting that Strauss would have no problems chucking the racial purity and striving, instead for cultural purity.
I think…I kinda think…I wonder if there were similar “neo-conservatives” during pre-Fascist Italy, or other Fascist-like societies. Would these “neo-conservative” groups’ act like canaries in a coal mine? Signs of things to come? A group of patriots who soften conservative groups up, for “a more robust state” (I think that’s what Irving Kristol called it).
Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his “The Man Versus the State,” was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today’s America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.
from:
The Neoconservative Persuasion
When I was in the Junior Statesmen of America, There would have never been that type of talk emanating from the right-wing members. Unheard of!! Really, the way the Right has embraced The State, now is unnerving. I still remember half of the activists arguing that FDR was really a socialist!!!
We have right-wing religious fanatics finding cause with mainline believers! (In American Protestant history; we see this on the build-up to The Civil War and the implementing of Prohibition.)
I’m hearing “moderates” and “traditional conservatives” always finding excuses for the fascist impulses of their far right.
America and her political right-wing looks very dangerous, right now. I think there are warning signs…again…what do most fascist society look like on the build-up to total facsism?
It doesn’t have to be just the Geramn Right-Wing, there have been many fascist societies who were brutal, with only rounding-up and jailing and executing their Left without a FINAL SOLUTION.
It is amazing that you can try, without apparent irony, to draw parallels between American neo-conservatives and this quote: “In general the conservatives revolutionaries-or neo-conservatives-were anti-Western, anti-Liberal, and anti-Semitic.”
American neo-conservatives are certainly not anti Western, and certainly not anti-Semititc. And there is a whole world of things that are anti-Liberal. And of course anti-American-Liberal isn’t anything like anti-1930s-German-Liberal. You are stretching definitions as much as an activist judge.
“It doesn’t have to be just the Geramn Right-Wing, there have been many fascist societies who were brutal, with only rounding-up and jailing and executing their Left without a FINAL SOLUTION.”
Give me a break. Jailing and executing citizens isn’t a hallmark of a right-wing government. If anything it would be quite easy to argue that Russia, China, Vietnam and Cambodia suggest quite the opposite. But in reality it is the hallmark of truly evil governments of either stripe.
Sebastion,
Jailing and executing liberals, leftist or anybody who questions the right-wing Party in charge—those are usually hallmarks of a Fascist government.
Rabid, nationalistic right-wingers (religious or secular) usually thrive in a fascistic society. (And fascistic leftist societies, as well). Liberals were/are targeted by Leftist Tyrants, as well, but it’s the American Neocons who keep reminding us that Communists governments were/are fascist as well.
And most Neocons (and most right-wingers in general) seem to love Western society, as long as it is Ancient Greek and not the Enlightenment. A right-wing German being anti-Western is very much like right-wing Americans being anti-European. “Anti-Western” was practically anything European but non-Germanic. Right-Wing Americans seem to believe history and civilization started with the Greeks (“Bible Times,” if you’re fanatically religious), stopped at the British Empire then the Puritans came and started America.
Technology and science were only valued as long they promoted the pristine culture of the Nation. A romantic and delusional view of its history, granted…but The Culture was to be pure and reality will bend to The Will of The People and their Virtue and Honor.
Oh, and that’s why I included the stuff from Harringgton/Howe. Leo Strauss, the Godfather of American Neoconseravativeism, is usually called the “Jewish Facsist” (I would never go that far), but he would be to the right of Schmitt on many issues.
The purity of culture and not pluralism are these dude’s priority.
NeoDude, I’m not going to defend the foolishness of the far right, nor will you find me demanding that you apologize for the excesses of the far left. But if you’re really going to suggest that American conservatives are actually closet fascists, then you don’t get to complain when people like Karl Rove say that all liberals are America-hating commie traitors.
No, they are not in the closet…they seem pretty open….except they call it political and national will.
The fact they use “traitor” so losely is a pretty good sign.
If they ain’t in the closet, they sure are flirting with that “lifestyle choice.”
More Asian pow-wows
About a month ago, on the occasion of a lecture by Donald Rumsfeld at a confab of defense minister types in Singapore, I wondered idly how one says “chutzpah” in Chine…
If you want to see what American fascism looks like, I suggest you read up on the careers of Oliver Morton and Huey Long (and even they were pretty mild compared to real fascism in Europe and elsewhere).
Nothing the Bush administration has done, including the Patriot Act (for all its flaws, and they are legion) comes even close to fascism. You cheapen the word by applying it so freely to your political opponents. You also shut down reasonable debate. You basically are putting yourself on the same level as Limbaugh, Buchanan, and all those you claim to despise. Pot, meet kettle.
ThirdGorchBro,
So what does fascism look like when it starts as a patriotic right-wing political party?
It’s best to not conflate Nazism with Fascism. Nothing in America has come close to Nazism. The ideology of certain, although by no means all, prominent Republicans, though, can certainly see Mussolini on a clear day.
There are many variations to dangerous philosophies, and while not all of them are as terribly genocidal as the most grevious, they are all damaging to the populations in which they are allowed to take hold.
I have faith in American liberalism, by which I mean the good bits, the “Red State” libertarianism which used to be called liberalism, the love of freedom from government and freedom to do what you want, to overcome minor setbacks such as the current “culture wars” that are causing such a frenzy. Give it ten years, and it will die down again.
The sad thing for us, is that from a historical point of view ten years is nothing, but from the point of view of us living it, it’s a long, long time.
“If Tony Blair wants out, who can blame him?”
Me, because he was stupid to ever be in.