Let’s take the argument at face value for just a moment…the argument that fighting “terrorism” (by which today we mainly mean terrorist actions by Islamist extremists) requires taking the offensive against an “ideology of hate.” What would be the best way to fight this ideology of hate?
Stuck in the Cold War mentality and still misunderstanding that a state-centric solution stands little chance if the real problem is contained in radical misinterpretations/perversions of a worldwide religion that’s spreading all the time, Paul Wolfowitz et al. dreamt up the highly experimental dominoes approach…the idea that injecting “democracy” into the heart of the Middle East will act like a virus of sorts, spreading stabilization and spurring grass roots rebellions. If injecting that democracy requires war (and the deaths of innocent civilians that would mean), so be it. There are moral, as well as practical, objections that must be ignored to endorse this approach, but the idea is that eventually states dedicated to freedom will be less likely to both harbor terrorists or provide a breeding ground for the hatred that fuels them. The Bush Administration has essentially put all its eggs in this basket. Really, they have…if it fails, the global situation will most surely be less stable than it was before we invaded Iraq.
But what else…what other ways would there be to fight an ideology of hate? Less risky ways?
Because I opposed the invasion of Iraq, I get asked that question all the time. My answer remains to focus on the moderate Muslim countries and leaders that exist…elevate them, celebrate them, support and reward them. Make them shining examples of the good that democratic societies provide all people…make Muslims in other parts of the world want to immigrate there…this will have the extra benefit of encouraging these moderate countries to double their democratizing efforts. Follow Margaret Thatcher’s famous recipe for success: “Accentuate the Positive.”
At least if this fails you’re guaranteed that you won’t have actually made matters worse. Nor will you have costs thousands of innocent civilians their lives.
But…but…but…we can’t wait…we have to go kill them before they kill us…we can’t let the evidence that Wolfowitz was right be a mushroom cloud…we…er…flypaper…Niger…9/11…uh…look over there…a funny French person
Does that about cover the uncontrollable urge to reject this without due consideration?
OK, back to my point.
Look at Turkey, which the European Union ruled today “had made enough progress in reforming its economy and judiciary and improving its human rights record to merit negotiations toward membership.” I know that there’s still a long way to go before the EU will be convinced to admit this Muslim nation into the so-far-all-Christian club, and that strikes me as prudent…truly it does. But look at the effect that offering the chance to join has had. A Muslim nation is systematically changing its laws to conform to Western ideals with regards to economic, social, and political standards. EXACTLY what Wolfowitz’s more radical, dangerous gamble is attempting to accomplish, but without all the bloodshed.
Think about the long-term effects this will have. During this period, Turkey will remain under close scrutiny. Any deviations from the standards could lead to the rejection of their application:
Negotiations will take more than a decade, and can be stopped at any time if Turkey falters on its road to democratic reform. Even then, Turkey might never become a full member.
This represents a powerful motivation…a powerful way to influence events there. It rightly puts the burden on Turkey to control its population and government. It is ideal. It both respects the nation and compels it to remain diligent against radical ideologies. And it does it by offering the really attractive rewards of democracy…the economic ones.
“My answer remains to focus on the moderate Muslim countries and leaders that exist…elevate them, celebrate them, support and reward them.”
Identify them.
As for Turkey, there seems to be much consternation that they could follow all the rules and still be told no. “Even then, Turkey might never become a full member.”
The problem is that this may be a strong disincentive to bother with all the difficult processes.
The problem is that this may be a strong disincentive to bother with all the difficult processes.
It hasn’t been so far….and if the hope in Iraq is that by living under more Western conditions, the people will realize the advantages for themselves and then actually work to protect them, why wouldn’t that also apply in Turkey?
Identify them.
I listed the Muslim democracies of the world once…it’s more than a dozen nations, including some in Africa, Asia, and Europe…you can do the homework yourself at the CIA’s World Factbook. For personal reasons, one I’ll single out is Kyrgyzstan, which needs a good dose of very public US support that we’re being a bit stingy with.
I like where you’re going here, but I don’t think Turkey entering the EU is the be all and end all of combatting the ideology of hate. Most Turkish terrorism has been left-wing or Kurdish, and Turkey’s democratic example has had little impact, it seems, on the Arab world. There are plenty of Arabs who actually live in the EU who have become terrorists. Mohammad Atta springs to mind.
An Arab example might be what has been happening in the Gulf states, or Morocco as it has made changes in order to get a free trade agreement.
I’m not sure how you can defeat an ideology. I’m pretty unconvinced that we can fix the muslim world to prevent AQ from being able to find converts to the cause, not just because I think redesigning other countries is an amazingly hard thing to do well, but because I’m not convinced that democracy, human rights, an improving economy, etc., will stop the ideology from spreading.
–John
Identify them.
Iran seems like a good example — it’s not exactly a real democracy but it will be someday with or without western encouragement. Iran poses a very serious and real threat to Israel (more so than Iraq really), and prior to the invasion of Iraq there was a great deal of popular support for democratic reform. Not no more. Imagine what could have been accomplished with a bit of careful propaganda… Certainly giving the opposition enough money to control the Iranian media and influence the schools wouldn’t have pissed the Iranians off any more than invading Iraq and would have been a lot cheaper. And contrary to what you might think, it wouldn’t even undermine the opposition’s credibility, because it could be done through Iranian-American organizations. The family-ties connections between Iran and Southern CA are like the ones between Cuba and Miami…
But nope, we can’t think in ten year increments because our election cycle is only four years. We have to do dumb things that bite us later. Wonder which of the dumb things we’re doing now… aw, never mind. I guess I know the answer to that question.
Edward, I like your ‘face value’ intro. Face value lasted almost a whole sentence. It could be argued that this ‘cold war mentality’ brought us to 9/11. Certainly no power in it’s right mind would risk being vaporized by murdering 3,000 on American soil in such a brazen cold hearted fashion. So much for detent. Are we ‘injecting’ democracy in the Middle East. We certainly decided to create a void and a void must be filled. As long as you’re filling a void, you might as well shoot the moon and try to take all the tricks. And I know the propaganda of the moment dances around a future presence in Iraq after stabilization. I honestly can’t imagine us not negotiating a military foothold there to keep one friendly arm around Iran’s shoulders. And look at Turkey all you want, but don’t lose track of those that don’t give a tinker’s dam about how nice you want to be. They want you dead. Period!
Iran poses a very serious and real threat to Israel (more so than Iraq really), and prior to the invasion of Iraq there was a great deal of popular support for democratic reform. Not no more.
If you are honestly implying that the invasion of Iraq has somehow defeated the reform movement in Iran, you should win a prize for the most comically partisan and wholly inaccurate narrative of the day.
They want you dead. Period!
And I want them dead…but I don’t want their numbers to grow, especially because of our actions…
What I’m essentially arguing for here is for us to walk the walk. To demonstrate via any example we can right now, whether it be Turkey or Indonesia or wherever, that a Muslim nation that democratizes will be treated with respect, will get support, and will be better off in nearly every way than they are today. It’s PR mostly, yes, but it’s sorely missing in our current approach.
What we’re demonstrating instead is that democracy is coming soon to a nation near you via the barrel of a gun or a missile or whatever…there’s not enough emphasis on the peaceful path and, more importantly, the respectful path.
Respect is the one aspect of Muslim culture we’re woefully underappreciating in all this. Muslims will reject our “democracy” if they believe it comes at the cost of their dignity (think Abu Grhaib). The hope that Turkey represents is a peaceful path to the table.
If you are honestly implying that the invasion of Iraq has somehow defeated the reform movement in Iran, you should win a prize for the most comically partisan and wholly inaccurate narrative of the day.
Perhaps it hasn’t defeated the reform movement; there’s little question it has harmed the progress of that movement.
Shirin Ebadi:
They want you dead. Period!
Deep. I think I’m figuring it out:
You want them dead because they flew airplanes into US buildings. They want you dead because your response to them flying airplanes into buildings was to torture their children and bomb their neighborhoods. You want them dead because their response to your response to them flying airplanes into buildings was to string you up on a bridge in Fallujah. Rinse, repeat, for no particular definition of “us” or “them” but don’t stop and think about it, because they want “you” dead and if you stop to think about it “they” will kill you.
Man, I’d hate to face you in a chess game,let alone a game of go.
implying that the invasion of Iraq has somehow defeated the reform movement in Iran
I think “set it back about ten years” would be more accurate, but we won’t know for a couple of years yet how bad it is. Speaking of comical, if you’d bothered to actually read my comment instead of looking for things to take offense at (strictly non-partisan offense I’m sure), you might have noticed the part where it says “it’s not exactly a real democracy but it will be someday with or without western encouragement.”
“The U.S. invasion led to the fundamentalists in that country organizing. It also made the work of human rights advocates in Iran harder.”
I would like to point out that the fundamentalists in Iran have been so darn organized that they have actually run the country for more than 20 years. Also, human rights advocates haven’t had much luck for decades in the land of ‘hang female rape victims’. Iraq was invaded by the US in 2003. That wasn’t 20 years ago.
I think “set it back about ten years” would be more accurate, but we won’t know for a couple of years yet how bad it is.
This assumes a world whereby the reformers would have been able to peacefully sieze real power from the mullahs, were it not for the invasion of Iraq. That’s absurd. Common sense tells you that autocratic rulers will crackdown on their opponents. That they may use Iraq as an excuse doesn’t change anything.
…you might have noticed the part where it says “it’s not exactly a real democracy but it will be someday with or without western encouragement.
I did read that part, and I agree completely. What was your point?
Naturally I find the prospect of Turkish entry into the EU to be an immensely bad one. I also think that Turkey is no bellwether for the rest of the Muslim world. Nonetheless, the notion that the process attendant to EU entry is the prime mover in Turkish secularization and modernization is an interesting one.
It’s false. The best that can be said is that it is an influence on that process. Which began, of course, at the close of the First World War, with the wars of national liberation against the Greeks, and various military standoffs against the British and French, and suppression campaigns against Kurds, Armenians, et al. Once the orgy of war and genocide — “population exchanges,” I believe they called it — was done, Ataturk established a secularist dictatorship and essentially waged a low-grade civil war on Islam, wiping out traditional religious establishments and sources of authority (the Caliphate, no less) in a manner that would make Cromwell in Ireland quite proud. The written language was forcibly changed, dress was forcibly altered, and an oppressive code of governance was instituted to make Ataturk’s vision irreversible. The net result? Decades of autocracy, multiple coups, a perennially shaky economy, and many periods in which Turks basically were on the threshold of actual civil war (the terror campaigns of the 1980s being the last). Military aggression in the name of this unifying vision, both against Turkish citizens (Kurds) and other nations (Cyprus) was engaged in with disturbing regularity.
The Turkish lurch to modernity has been, to say the least, a product of violence and repression — oh, and foreign aggression against Turkey by the Soviet Union, which brought Turkey into Western councils for the first time. Now, is this preferable to the likely alternatives? I think so, yes. But if the Turks are now dotting their democratic I’s and crossing their liberal T’s to satisfy the EU, they are only able to do so because of the dark and bloody years of wrenching change that came before. Because Ataturk and his successors decided that “[i]f injecting that democracy requires war (and the deaths of innocent civilians that would mean), so be it.”
Which brings us full circle: if you are suggesting a distinction between what you claim is the Wolfowitz model, and what you portray as the Turkish model, then you are of course correct. When you compare the former model with the actual Turkish model, though, the similarities begin to outstrip the differences by orders of magnitude.
Naturally I find the prospect of Turkish entry into the EU to be an immensely bad one.
Why – “naturally”?
As Edward pointed out, to join the EU requires that Turkey “systematically change its laws to conform to Western ideals with regards to economic, social, and political standards.” Why does this strike you as being “naturally” a bad idea?
Why naturally? Because I’m not eager to see demography and open borders accomplish what seven centuries of Turkish aggression — and eleven centuries of Muslim aggression — against Europe could not.
But this is a separate question from whether Edward’s argument has historical merit.
radish, so I take it you don’t believe there has existed for some time extreme fundamentalist jihadists that dispise our way of life and will not be satisfied until they have eliminated us and our children. Your stage faux argument starts way too late in the game. Let us play.
Edward, I want to believe you, and really for the sake of us all I pray you are mostly right. But I think we must draw a line in the sand first (sorry!), at least establish impasse and set the table for your theory to set seed. We’ve heard it before, how Saddaam ‘won’ the first war by simply surviving. We see it now with Sadr bluffing and withdrawing. The intitial force is necessary up to some point where the Muslim world will respect us enough to trust us.
Blogbudsman: I think we all accept that. The question is, what to do about it? Personally, I have never seen the appeal of the “attack someone else, causing lots of people who didn’t hate us before to hate us now, create a failed state where terrorists will be able to operate, and while we’re at it fail to respect our own principles so that the idea of human rights ends up being associated with Abu Ghraib” approach. I prefer the “take down the government that harbored the terrorists, help to rebuild it in a much more serious way than we actually did so that it can’t be used by them again, and then get serious with the countries that actually have ongoing connections to terrorists who want to harm us while also doing things like funding secular schools in Pakistan” approach. And I favor it, among other reasons, as being much more likely to solve the actual problem.
Why naturally? Because I’m not eager to see demography and open borders accomplish what seven centuries of Turkish aggression — and eleven centuries of Muslim aggression — against Europe could not.
What I actually asked you was: As Edward pointed out, to join the EU requires that Turkey “systematically change its laws to conform to Western ideals with regards to economic, social, and political standards.” Why does this strike you as being “naturally” a bad idea?
Your answer above doesn’t answer that question.
Re tacitus: some people, myself included, would argue that the difference of Turkey [largely] resolving its affairs internally over the last several decades vs. Iraq not being given that choice would constitute a difference that would outweigh any possible similarity.
he points out: “Because Ataturk and his successors decided that ‘[i]f injecting that democracy requires war (and the deaths of innocent civilians that would mean), so be it’. ”
Looking at the american, english and french trips to modern democracy, i see lots and lots of war and deaths of innocent civilians, not to mention one very successful genocide (US v. native americans). I also see that the wars which lead to the formation of the modern political system were [largely] fought internally.
odd, the way that people reject having an outsider tell them how to structure government. “No Taxation Without Representation” anyone? How about “We, The People” ?
should the iraq constituion start with the phrase “you, the people” ?
Francis
Nonetheless, the notion that the process attendant to EU entry is the prime mover in Turkish secularization and modernization is an interesting one.
And irrelevant to boot.
My point is that their current interest in joining the EU is a method through which without us having to threaten or invade them, going forward they will monitor the radicals in their midst themselves…and why? Because it’s clearly in their best interests…AND not because we’ll bomb them if they don’t. They win…and we win…and no innocents have to die.
I know a bit less than you perhaps* about the ruthless path that brought Turkey to this point, including the murderous actions of its secular military against its own people, but that doesn’t change what this represents here and now: an alternative to the domino theory, which regardless of how it plays out will be much much bloodier and arguably much less effective as well.
*But then again, I didn’t choose a historian as a psuedonym, so I’m off the hook.
I take it you don’t believe there has existed for some time extreme fundamentalist jihadists that dispise our way of life
No, I just favor sneaky over nasty. Arabs and Persians are openly and often rabidly anti-semitic. Why not kill them all? It would solve the problem would it not? The fact that you’re (presumably) not advocating that suggests that you realize it’s not only a bad idea but not ultimately practical. And yet you’re advocating a strategy which increases hostility. And as Edward said, “I don’t want their numbers to grow.”
Are enemies as a finite commodity? To return to the chess metaphor, does taking the queen mean that you need not worry about pawns? In go do you defend a shape by building walls or by preserving eyes?
I submit that you hope to engage in a battle where you (for some definition of “you”) cannot distinguish between sworn enemies, hostiles, sullens, neutrals, and would-be allies. As supporting evidence I present the fact that “you” (we? they?) have killed an enormous number of would-be allies in Iraq, tortured their children and families, and lied to them about our (your?) intentions. That is, as GW is so found of saying, “pre-9/11 thinking.”
Furthermore, it is a first principle of conflict that there is some inherent benefit to choosing strategies which afford you the most tactical flexibility after the fact. Your strategy rules out soft power. Edward’s strategy allows hard power.
Radish’s point about Iran makes me wonder about those organizations that started out with relatively middle of the road aspirations and ended up being radical. I hesitate to bring up any names because I’m sure there would be a nice food fight over the examples I bring up, but I believe that most of the radical organizations that have a longer history have been become radicalized over the course of time.
I would also point out that often times, organizations have ended up being caught up in the radicalization process even though they had nothing to do with it because of heavy handed repression. Over at Eric Muller’s blog, there has been a lot of discussion about the radicalization of Japanese-American internees during WWII following the publication of Malkin’s screed, and one point that has been rasied is the presence of groups shouting pro-Emperor slogans and paiting pro-graffitti. This is taken by pro internment critics as proof of Japanese-American disloyalty, but a cursory glance at the timeline and circumstances would reveal that this behavior was a reaction to treatment rather than an indication of true feelings. Isn’t that part of what we have here?
Isn’t that part of what we have here?
Yes…and it’s something every attempt to draw the line in the sand and make this a religious war will intensify.
Your answer above doesn’t answer that question.
Your second question is irrelevant, which is why you only received an answer to your first. My opposition to Turkish EU membership does not imply that I am dismayed at its adoption of civilized norms.
I’m not sure what your point is, Francis. Certainly no American Southerner, nor a German, nor a Japanese, nor a Filipino, nor a Boer, could seriously contend that outside rule is an unworkable means of altering basic sociopolitical premises or imposing some degree of liberalization.
Edward, if you choose to divorce your example from the history that made it possible, that is of course your choice. However, it reduces the utility of your example to something close to nothing.
“no American Southerner”
hmmmm
“Some states took decades to recover. A third of Mississippi’s 78,000 soldiers were killed in battle or died from disease. And more than half of the survivors brought home a lasting disability of war. Mississippi resembled a giant hospital ward, a land of missing arms and legs. In 1866, one-fifth of the state budget went for the purchase of artificial limbs.”
I don’t think this is a historical example we want to emulate…
[sigh — once more onto the breach, dear friends]
the point is really very simple. from iran to lebanon to somalia to haiti to vietnam to cambodia to central america to, well you get the picture, our record of establishing lasting pro-american democracies via overt invasion or covert operation is pretty poor.
On the other hand, Turkey, South Africa, the US, Great Britain, France, portions of central and south america and possibly even Algeria seem to have done a much better job of establishing a popularly accepted government WITHOUT outside interference.
yes, in every possible forum Tac raises the example of Japan and Germany [and, presumably, Italy and Austria, though the rest of the Axis is discussed less often] as countries brought to a pro-West liberal democracy through american occupation.
oddly, he never seems to go into detail on the criteria necessary to achieve those successes. it seems to me that if he did he would be unable to vote for either candidate. Because no candidate is advocating TOTAL WAR.
and it seems to me that the only way we can recapitulate our successes in Japan and Germany is to declare total war
[more to say, but clients are here. gotta go.]
Francis
FDL is dead-on target. Sebastian and the other total war advocates are deluding themselves if they believe Bush is going mount the war effort they think necessary.
Bush has already said no draft; well, that makes any imperialistic misadventures beyond Iraq highly doubtful. Moreover, Bush has ‘stayed the course’ in his insistence that more taxes be cut now and in the future. That means no big push on gearing up the war engine necessary to impose our will in the ME. Then, there’s that small thing about telling the American people we’re going to engage in a campaign spanning a decade or more, requiring the sacrifice of tens of thousands of US troops.
Ain’t gonna happen, boys–‘cept in a bad Tom Clancy novel.
I don’t think this is a historical example we want to emulate…
Apropos of you and Francis, suffice it to say that these are prices worth paying. Certainly I have never shied from acknowledging the inevitable price.
One can argue that they are prices worth paying only given two assumptions: first, that they can, in principle, actually achieve the desired result, and second, that they will not be carried out so ineptly that they fail to achieve it in practice. Like Francis and others, I would argue against the first assumption; that the second is false in this case is, unfortunately, pretty clear.
There’s a third assumption. That is the American people must overwhelmingly internalize the goal of a total war.
In WWII, FDR made it abundantly clear from the onset there was only one goal: the unconditional surrender of the axis powers. There was never question or equivocation as to what the ultimate goal was or involved. Everyone understood what this meant and, with very few exceptions, accepted this goal as their own.
Bush has steadily ratcheted down expectations and the goal changes as his poll numbers change.
My opposition to Turkish EU membership does not imply that I am dismayed at its adoption of civilized norms.
If Turkey adopts the civilised norms required for EU membership, what possible reason could you have for opposing Turkey getting EU membership?
Your question has already been answered, Jesurgislac.
Like Francis and others, I would argue against the first assumption….
You join them in being quite wrong. Historical examples have already been given; the counterargument is only made by ignoring them.
….that the second is false in this case is, unfortunately, pretty clear.
Not inevitably so; in any case, if you think Iraq is being botched, I submit that both the American Civil War and the Second World War were even more disastrously prosecuted in their opening phases — each of which lasted far longer than the entirety of the present war. Drawing a final conclusion from the present state of affairs is premature indeed.
If I recall we reward Egypt with $3B per year in aid. And, the factbook lists the US as Egypt’s largest import and export partner in 2003.
Is Egypt a success?
Historical examples have already been given; the counterargument is only made by ignoring them.
Your point is trivially true, and I don’t think anyone is really arguing with the notion that societies can be made to change through outside rule. Certainly I don’t think hilzoy was; I suspect she was arguing with the notion that those historical examples are applicable in this particular situation. That’s my objection to your bringing them up: I don’t think the situation in Iraq is at all comparable to the Civil War or WWII.
Obviously, we don’t want to refight the Civil War here (I think), but all of the examples you give have a very dark underside. The South didn’t really recover from the Civil War until after WWII. The Boer uprising planted the seeds of apartheid. As for the Phillipines, you must be getting your info from luisalegria. The examples of Japan and Germany, well, that debate has launched a thousand blog posts. Yeah, I’m happy to live in Japan now, but they’ve had 60 years to fix things up.
The example of Turkey and the ‘demography and open borders’, well, a commentator at your site puts that puppy to rest better than I can.
The South didn’t really recover from the Civil War until after WWII
You’re being optimistic. In what measure of civilization is the south up to the rest of the coutry? Health care, education, life expectancy, quality of life? Have they indeed recovered?
The Poor Man says it best:
Tac and those who agree with him:
“join them in being quite wrong”. I don’t understand; are you arguing that:
“our record of establishing lasting pro-american democracies via overt invasion or covert operation is pretty poor”
is NOT true? you think our record is pretty good? if so, tell me what are the characteristics of doing so, ’cause i want to forward that post to the Kerry foreign policy transition team.
Francis
p.s. concerning the 8:34 post, as to the American civil war, we were home; it was our fight. and as to wwii, i’ll compare fdr’s and churchill’s oratory against the bush/blair leadership any day of the week.
if cheney was correct in the debate that this is the fight of our generation, he and his boss are doing a piss-poor job of explaining why and asking for appropriate sacrifice. For the sake of comparison, according to http://liberalindex.org/top-rates.php, top marginal tax rates in 1942 were 88%, levied on income over $200,000.
pps. and as for making sacrifices, congrats to Tacitus for once again winning the Lord Farquaad “Some of you may die, but that’s a sacrifice i’m willing to make” award. Why don’t you, Tacitus, share the story of your military career on this thread. Ready to give it another try?
243,
I get a whiff of Northern ‘we’re so much better than the South’ with your post. I’d be willing to talk about this, but I don’t think that this is the thread to do it.
That’s my objection to your bringing them up: I don’t think the situation in Iraq is at all comparable to the Civil War or WWII.
How about the Philippine Insurrection? The Boer War? Et cetera. To assert there are no applicable lessons of history — to say nothing of parallels — is simply false.
LJ has some points, viz.:
The South didn’t really recover from the Civil War until after WWII.
Two points: First, much of that was due to a failure of the victorious North to fully “Reconstruct” the South. Once the task was pushed to its logical end, a century later, we see that the South is fully integrated into the broader economy, and catching up quite well in areas where it lags. Second, so what? A South destitute for a few generations is, again, a price worth having paid for the eradication of an evil society.
The Boer uprising planted the seeds of apartheid.
No, the Afrikaner experience of the 19th century — with the legacy of Cape slavery intermingling with the religious sense of destiny attendant to the Treks — planted the seeds of apartheid (which wasn’t instituted, I might add, till 1948). British rule and the British war against the Boers, unjust though it otherwise was, actually retarded this development.
As for the Phillipines, you must be getting your info from luisalegria.
Oh, please. He is inaccurate how? In any case, try Stanley Karnow as a source, yes? In the Philippines, you begin with a savage anti-American guerrilla war, and end, 40 years later, with a tenacious pro-American guerrilla movement springing up to oppose the next invader. A more vivid illustration of my point could hardly be imagined.
Yeah, I’m happy to live in Japan now, but they’ve had 60 years to fix things up.
Please, please don’t tell me you think Japan’s social transformation was something gradually arrived at over the past 60 years. It was abrupt, and decisive, and something drove and oversaw it….
The example of Turkey and the ‘demography and open borders’, well, a commentator at your site puts that puppy to rest better than I can.
Doug knows his stuff, but I don’t entirely agree with his methodology. First, he assumes that religion is wholly — and only — heritable. Discounting conversions is quite mistake: in a milieu of bland or absent faith, a vigorous, self-confident one will fill the void. Second, he assumes that the rates of population increase will remain constant. This is untrue. Third, he equates religious and cultural values with race in his examples, whereas their actual effects on a society are quite different. Fourth, he assumes that all religious adherence is created equal. But this isn’t so. Let’s take for granted that about half of the EU’s c.500 million people self-identify as Christian. Let’s take for granted that about 90% of Turkey’s c.70 million people self-identify as Muslim. So, we have c.250 million Christians and c.63 million Muslims at first glance. Let us further accept the oft-batted-about figure of only 10% of European Christians possessing an active faith in terms of visible participation in church, etc. We’ll have to make up a number for a similar figure for Turkish Muslims — let’s look to the Anatolian heartland, be generous, and say that 25% of them have similarly active faith lives. So, that’s c.50 million active Christians and c.17.5 million active Muslims — hardly a small minority. With the EU TFR at 1.5 according to Doug, and the Turkish TFR at 1.98 according to the CIA World Factbook, the latter is going to overtake the former sometime in the next century. Which actually validates Bernard Lewis’ prediction of an Islamized Europe by 2100AD, if we are only counting active faith communities. And that brings me to my final disagreement with Doug’s method and conclusion: the implicit assumption that faith doesn’t matter. To the contrary — a Europe without Christianity as the dominant religion would cease to be Europe. I agree fully with Cardinal Ratzinger:
The very idea of Europe — and indeed, the EU — is nothing less than a direct descendant of the idea of Christendom. For those of us with ancestors who fought and died to preserve that, and for those of us who benefit every single day from the ideas, values and institutions that erstwhile Christendom nurtured and created — which is to say, every one of us living in a liberal democracy — the idea that its inheritor might abdicate to a comparatively dominant Islam as an intrinsic component of its core identity is a bitter pill indeed. If Europe does not mean what Europe has meant — if Europe determines to mean everything — then it means nothing.
Francis, it may occur to you at some point that while you’re artificially restricting the sweep of history to American deeds (o irony), I am not.
Why don’t you, Tacitus, share the story of your military career on this thread. Ready to give it another try?
While I’m aware that this is quite against the posting rules — and Hilzoy appears to be seeking a reason — I will simply request that someone please educate this jackass.
How about the Philippine Insurrection? The Boer War? Et cetera. To assert there are no applicable lessons of history — to say nothing of parallels — is simply false.
Good thing I didn’t assert there are no applicable lessons of history — to say nothing of parallels — then, isn’t it? Rather the opposite, in fact.
I’m not informed enough about the Philippines or the Boer War to argue the specifics with you, but suffice it to say that given debates you and I have had about history, I’m not inclined to accept your simple assertion that they are applicable in this situation.
I get a whiff of Northern ‘we’re so much better than the South’ with your post. I’d be willing to talk about this, but I don’t think that this is the thread to do it.
Honestly, I would say that we (the North) are, at least, marginally better off (financially, health, education, life expectancy) (I didn’t google any of that so feel free to point out my misperceptions). OTOH, I don’t think that makes us better. I think that the US, in total, is better off in all of these categories than say the Iraqis — does that make us better, more civilized? Does well-being equate civilization?
No, this conversation probably doesn’t belong here, but my point was that it is at least arguable whether or not the south has made it back to being civilized (or at least as civilized as the rest of the country) some 100+ years after the civil war
No need to take my word for it, Josh. By all means, self-educate.
No need to take my word for it, Josh. By all means, self-educate.
You know, if you’re going to make an assertion, telling someone who doubts it to “self-educate” (a phrase you seem to love almost as much as “come now”) doesn’t do much to bolster your credibility. It makes it look like you’re more interested in point-scoring than honest debate.
you’re in luck: you can say a*s on TV, and that’s the posting rule I feel least strongly about, and while I would normally say even mild cursing at other posters is no good, I do believe provocation matters, there are worse things to say to people then calling them a jack*ss, & you gave less than you got. Don’t make a habit of it though.
fdl, Tacitus has served in the military and offered to re-enlist if his services were needed after 9/11. He has also worked in a public health position that involved serving AIDS clinics in Africa. He has risked more for this country than me and I would guess, though I would NOT assume, you.
Tac, I find it hard to argue the use of military force with you because you seem to have a near unfalsifiable hypothesis that more force is always more effective (as long as you’re not targetting civilians and they only get killed accidentally…even if your policies foreseeably kill many civilians per insurgent.)
Could someone explain to me what “total war” in the Mideast would look like and why it would work? I presume we’re not arguing for nukes or firebombing or otherwise razing cities–and I fail to see how those things would make us safer either. We’ve done the full scale conventional invasion thing. I’m all for more troops to establish order after the government is overthrown, but that’s not what is usually meant by “total war”.
It seems to me that is one thing to do what we did in Germany and Japan when they were the clear agressors, and had attacked us directly and/or were committing the worst war crimes in the history of the world against other nations at the time we attacked. There was also a common external threat that was clearly much worse than U.S. occupation.
Eh. A person who claims to not believe a thing based upon past experience with the interlocutor — with that past experience left unnamed, unmentioned, and clearly cited only for the purpose of insult in lieu of an actual counterargument — is himself at a low ebb in personal credibility. I have supplied facts and examples. You assert your refusal to believe them, based not upon their objective merit, but your subjective opinion of me. Very well. There truly is nothing left to do but urge you to self-educate, in the hopes that the same facts from a different source may convince.
what possible reason could you have for opposing Turkey getting EU membership?
Tacitus is right Jesurgislac, your question has already been answered, though he didn’t answer it. What he did was actually very zen and elegant — he created an empty space shaped exactly like the answer.
Because I’m not eager to see demography and open borders accomplish what seven centuries of Turkish aggression — and eleven centuries of Muslim aggression — against Europe could not.
What kind of things that can reasonably be substituted for the phrase “what seven centuries of [aggression] against Europe could not.” What kind of things can be accomplished by demography and open borders? ObWi is far too genteel a place and Tacitus far too tasteful a person to call these things by their coarser everyday names.
Katherine, you serve the nation in a manner I am not constitutionally capable of: I speak of law school.
If I’ve made an argument for “total war” in Iraq, it was inadvertant. I do believe that our key failing there has been one of insufficient violence; but the wholesale mobilization of national resources — and concurrent wholesale destruction of enemy society — implicit in “total war” is not something I perceive as necessary for Iraq.
Tacitus is right Jesurgislac, your question has already been answered, though he didn’t answer it.
Sometimes, taking the trouble to read the thread pays dividends.
ObWi is far too genteel a place and Tacitus far too tasteful a person to call these things by their coarser everyday names.
Speaking of opacity, eh? What would those names be, radish?
Tac: “While I’m aware that this is quite against the posting rules — and Hilzoy appears to be seeking a reason …”
If you can’t say what you want within the posting rules, it’s probably time for a walk around the block.
If you can’t say what you want without casting aspersions at your hostess, it’s probably time to call it a night.
If you can’t say what you want without getting into near-constant tiffs with fellow commenters, it’s probably time to consider whether a lighter tone or less combative stance is warranted.
Thanks, and ignored.
If I’ve made an argument for “total war” in Iraq, it was inadvertant (sic)
Eh. Come now. What part of “Fallujah Delenda Est” do you think we do not understand? Perhaps next time you should educate yourself before you use such phrase.
A lot of interesting points and one has to pick and choose, so please don’t take my doing so as proof that I can’t or don’t want to talk about those points.
I think one has to account for the fact that the rising up of the Filipinos against the japanese was not as simple as you set it out. Collaboration with the Japanese was also quite extensive, and ironically, it was the Huk movement that most vigorously opposed the Japanese, yet was kept out from power, which a rather nasty uprising that was only contained because of accidents of geography. It is also interesting that Muslim extremism has found a stronger foothold there than in other SEAsian countries. Perhaps they just hate our values, but it seems that the parallels of how people excluded from power react to American or gov cast in the image of American gov support Edward’s take.
As for the Boer/Apartheid seeds, all of the South African post war leaders were basically kept under house arrest by the Brits. When they had an opportunity to take the reins of power, they essentially created apartheid. I don’t know if the Brits could have done things differently, but I think it is disputable whether they actually retarded the development of apartheid.
As for Japan, I personally am not willing to see Iraq leveled to the degree that Japan was in order to provide a fresh start.
I truly appreciate you taking the time to lay out your points about Turkey that contrast with Doug. I don’t want to put words in Doug’s mouth, but I don’t see him as actively dismissing the question of active faith, but that this question is not something amenable to hard numbers. I would suggest that you seem to be making the assumption that active faith now means active faith in the future. Yet if there is anything that westernization does well, it is to reduce the role of religious faith in our daily lives, as any number of conservatives have pointed out. I do not think that Islam is immune.
Finally, 243, quality of living stats are interesting grist for the mill, but I don’t think they provide a one size fits all measure of being civilized. It would be easy to take umbrage at a suggestion that where someone lives (or lived) is not ‘civilized’, but I’m sure that you didn’t have that intent based on your first paragraph. But once we start moving down the slope of ‘who’s more civilized’, it becomes very difficult to separate out what points are merely luck of the draw.
In any case, try Stanley Karnow as a source, yes?
No. Or at least, not as an exclusive one.
What part of “Fallujah Delenda Est” do you think we do not understand?
You do not understand rhetorical hyperbole, and you fail to read threads you cite, which is a lack of understanding of sorts. QED.
Moving on to LJ’s points:
Collaboration with the Japanese was also quite extensive, and ironically, it was the Huk movement that most vigorously opposed the Japanese….
The Huks, though, began the war by issuing a proclaimation declaring support for the United States and Allied anti-Japanese war aims. They also sought US support for their efforts (which, admittedly, they didn’t get too much of). And my understanding, though you may have contrary and better figures, is that the majority of Filipinos involved in anti-Japanese guerrilla activities did so under the USAFFE aegis, not with the Huks. Finally, I’m not sure there’s an argument to be made that Laurel’s collaborationist government ever enjoyed popular legitimacy. This is not to say there wasn’t anti-American sentiment then or now in the Philippines (see the nasty events of the early 1990s, for example); it is to point out that the turnaround in less than two generations from an era of American butchery on Samar to Filipinos fighting willingly for the Stars and Stripes demonstrates the possibilities of what Edward describes as the Wolfowitz thesis.
It is also interesting that Muslim extremism has found a stronger foothold there than in other SEAsian countries.
I’m not sure that’s the case. The Moro movement is as much ethnic as religious (again, open to correction here); and Indonesia harbors far nastier extremists than they. At least the Moro Islamists limit their geographic scope.
….all of the South African post war leaders were basically kept under house arrest by the Brits.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Smuts and Botha traveled the world and were regarded as statesmen of the Empire.
….I think it is disputable whether they actually retarded the development of apartheid.
They botched their opportunity to actually forestall it, but they did hinder it a bit — as the Africans themselves who wished for a continuance of direct rule from London understood.
As for Japan, I personally am not willing to see Iraq leveled to the degree that Japan was in order to provide a fresh start.
I am if it comes to it, but I seriously doubt that it will. In any case, the bulk of the destruction wreaked on Japan was due to the need to firebomb to hit dispersed manufacturing facilities. With direct ground access to all areas, that need is not present in Iraq.
I would suggest that you seem to be making the assumption that active faith now means active faith in the future.
That’s true, and I hope you are right about Islam succumbing to Western secularization. Obviously time will tell; but it’s a heck of a gamble.
Re: your points about civilization to 243, I will note that when I was locked in my shouting match with Steve Sailer and racist paleocons, I received several e-mails detailing the inferior living standards and statistics attendant to blacks, Hispanics, et al., as proof of their lack of civilization, intellect, etc. While these measures are useful, we have to be very careful as to what road they lead us down. I don’t see the implicit demonization of the South as much different from these other, more vile errors.
If Europe does not mean what Europe has meant — if Europe determines to mean everything — then it means nothing.
Given that “Europe” has changed its meaning more times than I care to count since its creation as a concept, it must ipso facto mean nothing.
You do not understand rhetorical hyperbole, and you fail to read threads you cite, which is a lack of understanding of sorts. QED.
Eh. Come now. Words have meanings. You fail to understand the implications of the words you use, which is a lack of education on your part. QED.
I’m interested as to how you’re tracing the evolution of “Europe,” Anarch.
You fail to understand the implications….
Nah. What I failed to understand was the consequences — in your case, juvenile obstinacy in a desperate effort to score a process point. Though, given consistent experience, my fault indeed for failing to anticipate. The link provided wrecked your argument before you even made it. Up to you what measure of dignity you wish to salvage from this.
Tac: “… juvenile obstinacy”, “Up to you what measure of dignity you wish to salvage from this.”
Posting rules. But why bother.
Nah. What I failed to understand was the consequences
Eh. Come now. You failed to understand the implications of the words you used. Calling for the destruction of an entire city in bold type is not something to be done lightly, but that’s exactly what the phrase does. If you argue that you did not really mean that Fallujah must be destroyed, that there was only a need to “reduce” it, as you later said, well then I have won the point. You did not understand the implications of the words you used.
As for the rest of your nonsense, “nah-nah”!
There, I can argue at your level. QED.
Tacitus; When rilkefan wrote you a comment earlier, you replied: “Thanks, and ignored.” Just to clarify: did you mean that reply to cover the part of his/her comment that read: “”If you can’t say what you want within the posting rules, it’s probably time for a walk around the block”?
For the record, I am not looking for a reason to do anything. As far as I know I had no dealings with you at all before yesterday, and what I wrote then is no more than I would write to anyone when I thought things were getting out of hand, and have written to a number of people before. As I understand it, that’s something I am supposed to do. I did not write the rules, but I like them, especially since they seem to keep things congenial and civil, even when we are arguing furiously with one another. If you intend to follow them from here on out, that’s great. If not, just let us know.
Oh, you can ape the form well enough. Content proves elusive, though.
Here, this is easy. Perhaps diagramming will help. If you declare that X states and means A, and an instance of X specifically disavowing A’s meaning is presented, then you ought to consider that perhaps X only stated A, but did not literally mean it.
For example, every time in your life you’ve ever said, “Damn it,” or “I could eat a horse,” or “I hope Bush is crushed on 2 November.”
I can only wonder at your bottomless rage against the metaphor. And Faulkner.
Yes, rilkefan, why bother indeed. Wait, I know — it’s easier than working up an argument.
Lordy, Hilzoy. I’m the sole person in this thread you gripe at? Nice.
Tac: “Yes, rilkefan, why bother indeed. Wait, I know — it’s easier than working up an argument.”
Oh, I did work up an argument – verbum sap. Suspecting more words wouldn’t suffice I didn’t work up a longer argument.
hilzoy, hope you didn’t mind being referred to as “hostess”, which may have a whiff of the 1950’s – “host” didn’t seem right – perhaps you can suggest a suitable (and suitably-gendered) title/role description.
I have supplied facts and examples. You assert your refusal to believe them, based not upon their objective merit, but your subjective opinion of me. Very well. There truly is nothing left to do but urge you to self-educate, in the hopes that the same facts from a different source may convince.
Dude. You didn’t supply facts and examples, you supplied assertions. All I did was challenge you (in a rather less polite fashion than I would normally) to back up what you say. Cripes, if I’m as wrong as you obviously think I am, it should be a piece of cake to smack me down with an avalanche of cites. Or at least a few terms I might look up on Google.
(I have to admit that argument by assertion is a particular hot button for me. My Buddha nature runs off screaming into the distance when I see it.)
Tacitus: starting after fdl’s post a little over halfway down (the one that Katherine responded to, and thus that I felt had been dealt with), I thought that the following remarks were uncivil:
” I will simply request that someone please educate this jackass.” (you)
“juvenile obstinacy in a desperate effort to score a process point” (you)
“”nah-nah”!” (felixrayman)
“Oh, you can ape the form well enough. Content proves elusive, though.” (you)
“Yes, rilkefan, why bother indeed. Wait, I know — it’s easier than working up an argument.” (you)
Thus, my post.
radish: Tacitus is right Jesurgislac, your question has already been answered, though he didn’t answer it. What he did was actually very zen and elegant — he created an empty space shaped exactly like the answer.
Thanks for a very elegant way of putting it!
I can only wonder at your bottomless rage against the metaphor
Eh. Come now. “Fallujah must be destroyed” is not a metaphor. “Wholesale reduction of Fallujah” – that’s a metaphor. “Fallujah must be destroyed” in big bold type…not so much.
And there’s no rage here, bottomless or otherwise. Amusement, mostly.
Consider this the One Warning of imminent thread-closing. And, fdl? Katherine and hilzoy might have missed what you attempted to pull with that oh-so-subtle reference to the manner of Tac’s military service*, but I didn’t. This is your one warning. You very nearly didn’t even get that.
Moe
*Short version: Tac is a military veteran who was discharged for medical reasons – depression, IIRC – and was unable to re-enlist after 9/11. Which fdl knows damn f*cking well (as it was the subject of a Tacitus Movable Type post), which makes “Ready to give it another try?” absolutely intolerable to me.
Don’t you EVER do that again.
Noted, Hilzoy.
“Wholesale reduction of Fallujah” – that’s a metaphor.
No, that’s the literal part, Felix. Links, when read, may edify. As would knowing the meaning of “reduction.” Best of luck in your continuing struggle with English. Hey, I find it amusing too.
So, are we going to discuss the merits of Edward’s construct, or what? I think the last somewhat on-topic exchange here was between LJ and me.
Hmm, well, how about those Twins?
At any rate, trying to get back to Tac’s answer, I’m trying to make some sense out of how the Phillipines acts as a parallel to Iraq. Americans working to throw off the oppressive yoke of an occupying force. OK, but that point pulls the parallel askew from both sides. You argue that the Huks were pro American at the outset (as were the Viet minh, I would add) but well, Sadr’s father was killed by Saddam. It seems that we have simply gotten more efficient in turning people from pro American (or potentially pro-American) to anti American and are now doing it in record time.
I think it’s been at least 10 years since I read Karnow, so anything I said about that would probably be wrong. However, the title _In our image_ would probably draw very ironic, if not derisive, laughter if cited as a source for parallels. As for the number of Filipinos conducting anti guerilla activities and under what aegis, I am only beginning to read about that and working my way through Teodoro Agoncillo (unfortunately translated into Japanese). However, it seems that the among the land owning class, there may have been extensive collaboration. It also seems that Filipinos don’t really care to discuss it much, which is not really surprising.
As for popular support for the collaborationists, many of them were elected to the Senate, some even before they were pardoned by President Roxas. On the other end of the scale, you have the anti-collaborationist Democratic Alliance, which had 8 members elected to the Senate, but were denied their seats, which seems to demonstrate who had the upper hand.
As for Indonesia, the Dutch were particularly bad (or good if you want to look at it that way) imperialists and were able to generate quite a bit of anti western sentiment that continues to provide a fertile spot for muslim extremism, which further supports Edward’s point, I think.
About apartheid, both Smuts and Botha were members of the United party which was defeated by the National Party, which was opposed the war and was the primary instigator of apartheid policies when they took power in 1948 from the United Party. This from
n September 1942, Vorster was interned in a detention camp at Koffiefontein, Cape, because of his activities. He repeatedly demanded that he be brought before a court of law, and he even led a hunger strike in an attempt to pressure the authorities to charge or release him. He remained an internee until February 1944, when he was released and placed under restrictions. He refused to obey these restrictions, which included confinement to a particular district, but he was not punished or reinterned for doing so.
http://www.bookrags.com/biography/balthazar-johannes-vorster/
“In later years when Vorster had become an important figure in the National party, his opponents taunted him with his wartime activities. Vorster never tried to disavow anything he did or said at that time. He described his internment in a speech in Parliament in May 1960, saying that one possible reason had been that he was believed by the authorities to have harbored antiwar fugitives. He described also how, on being released, he had called on the minister of justice, Colin Steyn, to plead on behalf of those who were still interned. Steyn, he said, threatened to have him arrested unless he left the building immediately. The experience of internment had an embittering, searing effect on Vorster and increased his extremism.”
As for your desire not to see Iraq leveled to the extent that Japan was, I appreciate the sentiment, but I can’t believe that you say that the dispersed manufacturing necessitated fire bombing and by elision suggest (IMO) that somehow all our problems in Iraq are amenable to some surgical strikes. We had to totally defeat Japan to gain the kind of compliance that you tout, and that is simply not possible in Iraq.
As for the gamble of westernization trumping islam, Turkey provides the best bet, yet you don’t think it a good idea because of “demography and open borders”. If we cannot rely on civilization to civilize, what good is it?
Finally, let me say that I appreciate your opposition to Sailer’s ideas. I just wish that you could see that failure to appreciate the possibility of a truly humane Islam is also a problem.
The historical examples are all interesting, both pro and con, but it’s a different world. One can’t tell what would have happened in the Philipines in the CNN and internet era, but one can be certain that the cards would have played out quite differently.
Will there be American conservatives holding to the hope of a democratic Iraq 10 years from now — like Japanese soldiers in the jungle 10 years after WWII waiting for orders from Tojo — probably. The more likely reality, though, is something more like Egypt, or Pakistan, or Jordan. Can the US drive the process more towards a Turkish outcome, and away from a Lebanese? Maybe we could, but we are not going to do so. There is not going to be any total war to create a Western-style democratic Iraq. We don’t have the stomach for it, and no one running for election today is going to ask us to step up. Instead, once Iraq has a 200,000 man army (a matter of a very short time) we’ll stick to what we should have been doing for the whole WOT — targetted actions against actual individuals who would do us harm.
(I use Egypt, Pakistan, etc above as gross generalizations, on the assumption that most readers can understand what I mean. Of course none is better than a gross approximation of what I’m getting at — those who would waste their time arguing about Jordan-this or Pakistan-that are doing exactly that).
WRT Turkey and Europe: it seems to me that the last 500 years of European history is marked by the movement away from tribalism and exclusive identifications (like Christendom). Many of us regard this as a triumph. Sure there have been difficulties along the way, but we look back at Cromwell in Ireland, or the Paxton Boys on the Susquehanna, or Jim Crow, and say, with justifiable pride, that we are better than that now. We are not yet at the goal, but we’re making progress. Slowly. It seems to me that Turkish admission is exactly this kind of step.
On a lighter note, I don’t usually think about blogs, and the habit of commenting on them (a form of self-abuse, to my mind) as I go about my normal day. Yesterday, though, I was in a taxi, late for a meeting, in a traffic jam (for which colonialism was largely to blame), in a tropical downpour, reading Pericles’ funeral oration, and I looked up and there was a sign: “Charlotte Amalie High School — Home of the Mighty Chicken Hawks.” Then the driver, a Haitian, started to rave about what a liar Cheney was in the debate, and I had to wonder if I’d slipped through some kind of rabbit hole into blogworld.
So, are we going to discuss the merits of Edward’s construct, or what?
If you’re prepared to be civil about it, sure.
Why do you feel it’s intrinsically a bad thing to let Turkey into the EU, presuming that Turkey has reformed its laws and other social practices sufficiently to qualify for admission?
The notion that such things as (for example) the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are fundamentally a good thing, is something that (in theory at least) both President Bush and Jacques Chirac would agree on. What one might call the European method of getting countries to adapt their social conventions to fit this standard is the peaceful, decades-long method, of making it more desireable to be in than out. What one might call the American method, or the Bush doctrine, is the agonistic method of persuasion – to enforce “democracy” at the point of a gun and the drop of a bomb. While the peaceful method takes longer to show results than the warlike method, the peaceful method – so far at least – appears more likely to show effective results.
Incidentally, a history of centuries of war between Turkey and other countries in Europe is an absurd reason for opposing Turkey’s admission to the EU: the historical roots of the European Union lie in the Second World War, and there is not a single country presently in the EU that does not have a history of warring with at least one and usually more of the other countries in it. Not one. As I am sure you are aware.
However, both with the warlike method and the peaceful method, eventually the players have to ante-up. When invading Iraq, the Bush administration had to ante-up pretty damn fast: and it’s been coming clear over 18 months or so that they didn’t have any cards in their hand. Even leaving out the WMD issue, Iraqis are still subject to a regime that imprisons people unjustly, tortures them, kills them, and rules by military force – and can’t even get the power back on line when it’s needed.
The EU is subject to no such time constraints while deciding whether or not to admit Turkey. But, eventually, the EU will have to ante-up – and I don’t see why you think that they ought to show deuces.
Abandoning the poker metaphor now.
Sorry, left out the url ref for the apartheid quote
http://www.bookrags.com/biography/balthazar-johannes-vorster/
This is what I get for asking for a resumption of discussion. I beg forgiveness — it may be some hours before I can reply.
Back on topic…
Edward, if you choose to divorce your example from the history that made it possible, that is of course your choice. However, it reduces the utility of your example to something close to nothing.
Funny, that’s what I say about the West’s role in supporting the House of Saud and other oppressive governments in the ME all the time, just to be called a “blame America first” pinko. Apparently, citing history is only appropriate when it supports one’s own case.
Once again (with feeling this time), this new nonviolent carrot represents an alternative to the past and an alternative to the Wolfowitz domino theory. Moving forward, we now have another model. I’m a bit frightened by your immediate resistance to this (as opposed to a more violent approach) quite frankly, Tacitus. To me it suggests you feel Muslims must be beaten into submission. I can’t imagine that’s true, but that’s how it sounds.
Here’s what I know. Turkish people really, really, really want to join the EU. They don’t necessarily want to lose what makes them “Turkish” in the process, but they are so eager to join, to benefit from what it offers, that they’re willingly (non violently) changing. Coming up to Western codes, if you will, and totally on their own.
That’s new. As I understand the history of the region, change like this has never happened voluntarily there before. If Turkey succeeds, it will stand as a shiny example to Syria, who the Turks believe will be the next nation to follow their example. And then, who knows? We’ll get our dominoe effect without having to murder innocents.
Aaargh. Briefly.
Funny, that’s what I say about the West’s role in supporting the House of Saud and other oppressive governments in the ME all the time, just to be called a “blame America first” pinko. Apparently, citing history is only appropriate when it supports one’s own case.
Is this an example of my behavior toward you?
You see an alternative to past practice in a result of past practice. You know what? Both are true. Again, more later….
Is this an example of my behavior toward you?
You? No.
Some folks on your site? Yes.
I just found the idea of it amusing…off to get coffee now…
I would also note that similar discussions went on when Spain joined the EU. Obviously, the Muslim dimension was not there, but there was, IIRC a lot of doubt about Spainards’ ability to renounce their then recent fascist past as well as the abortive coup attempt in 1981.
Completely OT, I seem to remember a story about how Tejero, the coup leader, loosed off a number of shots in the ceiling of the Parliament and all the delegates but one dove under their desks. Can any give me a lead on who the one person was who didn’t dive and why he might be important? I’m googling, but can’t find anything.
Liberal Japonicus: the one sitting person who didn’t dive was Prime Minister Adolfo Suarez. There was also one standing person who didn’t dive: the Minister of Defense, Lieutenant General Manuel Gutierrez-Mellado, who was confronting Tejero.
Thanks, Marzo! There’s a story related to one of them, but I just can’t bring it up to the surface. I’ll sleep on it and see if I can remember it. Thanks again.
Moe:
Tacitus became a soldier, then washed out. he now wants others to die for his political beliefs. I believe that others on this thread should understand that this war hawk was found incapable to complete his own service. So i ask him to describe his service, and in return i get insults from him and a warning from you?
I am forbidden from making the point that a warhawk was himself a washout, using utterly neutral language?
no, i’m not particularly ready to die for my country. i’d rather spend the time making sure people have water to take a shower in the morning. but i’m not the one advocating for the reduction of Fallouja.
i will also note that the following question:
are the warhawks arguing that “our record of establishing lasting pro-american democracies via overt invasion or covert operation is pretty poor” is NOT true?
remains unanswered.
i also note that the foregoing history discussion is completely devoid of the CRITERIA by which various foreign occupations lead to pro-west outcomes. Since we are already in Iraq, and since discussions about invading Iran seem to be popping up here and there, it would be nice to know HOW to win the peace, especially since the crowd in charge seem to believe that “stay the course” is sufficient.
for example, how do we have any confidence that the troops we are training are loyal to the central govt, such as it is? i’ve read (at war and piece? elsewhere?) that the iraqi troops who served so well at Samarra were Kurds. but the Kurds have had an effective military force, the peshmerga, before we even got there. it seems to me that we’re doing a wonderful job of equipping and training the fighting force that the Kurds want to assert independence. Since a separate Kurdistan could control the northern oil fields (and since Turkey would lose its chance to join the EU if it invaded to prevent the formation of an independent Kurdistan), is it possible that US policy is actually to engender civil war and back the formation of a pro-west kurdistan?
what might be the price of such a policy?
Francis
“Tacitus became a soldier, then washed out. he now wants others to die for his political beliefs. I believe that others on this thread should understand that this war hawk was found incapable to complete his own service. So i ask him to describe his service, and in return i get insults from him and a warning from you?”
Yes. Deserved ones, in both cases.
Good-bye.
My military service record, inglorious, incomplete, and terminated by a medical — and honorable — discharge as it was, is no secret. Indeed, I revealed it on the old tacitus.org MT site specifically because I felt it a necessary caveat to my opinions on war-related issues. As I wrote:
The site and the post are no longer available online, but I will e-mail the text to whomever requests it.
Do I “now wants (sic) others to die for [my] political beliefs”? You may put it that way, contextually misleading though it is. Is my conscience on the matter clean? More or less — I served, and tried to again, as FDL so generously invited me to do. Indeed, this past summer, I took the trouble to inquire on my IRR status and alert PERSCOM (or ARPERCEN, or whatever they call it now) of my new address. Probably nothing will come of this, of course, but should the nation be in desperate straits, I am still comparatively young, not irredeemably fat, and my whereabouts are known.
So what about those others who do die in pursuit of my preferred policy aims? Am I unaware of the costs? When I was 15, I watched my father ship off to the first war with Iraq, and saw firsthand what that does to families. Every morning, the Hampton family wakes up to another day without their only child, my ROTC friend and classmate Kimberly, killed over Fallujah. Every day, the Paliwoda family sees another sunrise without their beloved Eric, my EOBC class commander, dead of shrapnel to the heart. Every day, my good friend Mark Rogers sits out mortar attacks at Victory South. These are not worthless people. In their own way, they are better men and women than I.
Yeah. I know the costs.
The idea that those who did not serve, or did not serve successfully (whatever that may mean), are unqualified or unworthy to participate in or advocate upon basic matters of war and peace is a malicious insanity peculiar to fascists, Robert Heinlein, and the modern American left. In this country, you have that right by virtue of being an American. That’s all it takes. And that’s all the answer the likes of FDL — and his many, many, many compatriots — deserves.
That he gets more is unwarranted privilege for the graceless, not merited goods for the righteous.
The idea that those who did not serve, or did not serve successfully (whatever that may mean), are unqualified or unworthy to participate in or advocate upon basic matters of war and peace is a malicious insanity peculiar to fascists, Robert Heinlein, and the modern American left.
HEY!
Not all of us on the left insist one must serve to advocate war. I know I had my “chickenhawk” moments back in the day, but that was during the height of the buildup to war and we were all a bit nuts. I’ve since corrected that error.
Besides, Clinton, the symbol of the modern American left, didn’t serve and he sent troops into battle without unified condemnation from his side, so some qualification of that seems in order.
None of which is to say Bush was right to invade Iraq, but let’s not generalize too much here…
besides…{stomping my feet and tossing my teddy}…can we get back to the actual topic of this thread?
I remember that well. Then, as now, you have my respect.
Best of luck in your continuing struggle with English.
My English is fine, thanks. Your Latin, on the other hand…well, keep trying.
can we get back to the actual topic of this thread
I tried a while ago Edward when I asked whether Egypt, to which we provide large amounts of aid and (at least in 2003) and act as the largest trading partner, is an example of the type of success you’re talking about. Is it?
Egypt would not seem a good example Crionna, so it’s a good question to raise. The difference is that we’re trading with them but have no means to enforce they improve their social or political structures.
We do — an aid cutoff would crush them.
That we don’t, well — it may or may not reflect well on us. Two schools of thought there, each with good points.
Cutting off aid isn’t the same type of motivation offering them membership is, and this is the key difference in the Turkey model.
One punishes them into doing something hard…not very positive…the other entices them…very motivational and positive all the way around.
What does Egypt get if it reforms? What’s the prize? To discuss this as a parallel that needs an answer.
What’s the prize?
Well, I guess that was my point. What, besides aid that we’re already giving and trade that we’re already, er trading them, do we have to offer?
“The difference is that we’re trading with them but have no means to enforce they improve their social or political structures.”
Isn’t that true of almost all Middle Eastern countries? It sounds like Turkey may be the sole exception.
What, besides aid that we’re already giving and trade that we’re already, er trading them, do we have to offer?
I’m hardly gonna solve this in the context of a blog, but remember “Membership has its priveledges…”
The genius of the EU is you get all these great benefits only AFTER you get your act together. It puts the burden and costs for modernizing where they belong…with the nation wanting to join.
What organization does Egypt want to join? If there’s not one, per se, perhaps creating one is a good idea.
NATO doesn’t make sense, G8 doesn’t make sense, but what about some US-Muslim organization. Clearly it would require careful political planning to not make it less attractive (no one wants to be seen as the US’s lapdog), and it would require a serious offer of equality within its context, but imagine the power it could have in getting Muslim states to modernize.
By joining, Muslim states could be privy to US protection, technology, prefered trading status, etc.
That’s the problem with our current relationships in the ME. We’re not treating those nations with enough respect…as equals…we’re condescending in our trade, military, and other relationships, playing nice with their leaders who have oil, but otherwise turning a blind eye to how they run things…
It’s time to switch models.
FDL and others —
Let’s be crystal clear: We do not accept ad hominem attacks on this blog. An ad hominem is an attack with attacks the man, not the argument. It is a logical fallacy, for it fails to address the points being made.
Ad hominem attacks are not appropriate in any case. Ad hominem attacks that are personal, vicious, or allege some sort of defect of conscience or mind are particularly vile. Your attacks on Tacitus fit easily into these categories. And another couple: They’re untrue and misleading. I’ll not stand for them here.
Moe, I believe, has banned you from this thread. I agree with that decision. The likelihood that we will un-ban you in order to allow you to participate in future threads is, I believe, fairly low. But I am open to persuasion otherwise.
Understand that the rules exist for a purpose: To foster honest debate, on the merits, between opposing political camps. This is not Daily Kos; this is not RedState; this is not Atrios. This is a middle ground, a neutral site. To keep it such, the rules must be enforced.
For the record, I support Moe and von’s decision on this. There are lines it’s simply in poor taste to cross. There are times when it’s better to step away from the keyboard, calm down, and think long and hard about whether or not your point is advanced via an ad hominem comment. It may happen often on other blogs, but we work hard to weed it out here.
Moe, I believe, has banned you from this thread. I agree with that decision.
Ahh, I see that Moe has been more charitable than I would have been. Fine.
liberal japonicus: But once we start moving down the slope of ‘who’s more civilized’, it becomes very difficult to separate out what points are merely luck of the draw.
Agreed, and perhaps I should be using Edwards term of “Western Ideals”. Regardless, I think we agree that warfare may not be the best way of achieving cultural changes towards said ideals.
Tacitus: I don’t see the implicit demonization of the South as much different from these other, more vile errors.
It is not my intent to demonize the south. Certainly, I don’t believe that southerns are less capable or more undeserving of civilized norms, to use your term, than other parts of the country. My basic point was that the jury was still out whether or not the civil war was a successful means of achieving such ends as the ends appear not yet to have been achieved. (granted what can be perceived as civilized norms is disputable and over time a moving target)
I’m hardly gonna solve this in the context of a blog
Well, I know that Edward, but I am Mr. “Tell me your plan” if nothing else so let’s flesh it out a bit.
My understanding of the true value of EU membership is:
1) Ability for one nation’s citizens migrate and work in another country without a lot of the annoying hassles that folks from non-EU nations would face.
2) No border stops, thereby easing trade and travel.
3) The use of the Euro as a montary unit, thereby stabilizing that country’s currency.
I guess my difficulty is that the EU model seems to be based primarily on proximity. Would EU-like benefits accrue to countries so far from us?
I guess my difficulty is that the EU model seems to be based primarily on proximity. Would EU-like benefits accrue to countries so far from us?
Good points, Crionna. We’re not going to move the US closer to the ME, so we have to look beyond those particulars.
My understanding is that Turkey was more ambivalent about doing the hard work to join the EU before their earthquake-induced economy collapse. Then it became more important…primarily because they had become accustomed to a better standard of living. It was their refusal to sink into the sort of poverty they see in other Muslim nations that drove the efforts. In a sense, pride.
Respect is what they want most. Membership in an organization that bestows the world’s respect…and, perhaps it should be a commercial space program or something like that…is the key, I’m convinced.
UPDATE: I understand, through backchannel communications, that FDL regrets the comments that prompted Moe, Ed, and I to (technical blog term) “get pissy.” Although we were not the wronged party in the above exchange, we consider the matter closed vis-a-vis the ObWi posting policy. FDL is not banned, although Moe warning to FDL remains in effect.
I understand that folks can, on occasion, allow their emotions to overcome their reason. Should you find yourself out on such a limb (as I, admittedly, have been myself), the best response is usually to take a deep breath.
A shot of tequila can work wonders, too.
Edward’s primary datapoint was about Turkey and EU membership. I’m a bit fuzzy on this, but when exactly did the EU morph from an ‘economic union’ into being the definition of ‘europe’ and how? Tac seems to conflate Europe with the EU, which would probably surprise Norway and Switzerland. I’m not saying that this is wrong, but if what was primarily an economic marriage of convenience can have such profound effects over the course of less than 30 years, then it is too big a chance _not_ to take.
….FDL regrets the comments that prompted Moe, Ed, and I to (technical blog term) “get pissy.” Although we were not the wronged party….
The wronged party awaits righting.
Tac seems to conflate Europe with the EU, which would probably surprise Norway and Switzerland.
Good point. I’m accepting the EU’s self-conception on this point at face value. And much as I may dislike it (oh, for the halcyon days of EFTA), I think that’s the accepted conflation among Europeans — EU and non-EU — as well.
Yow! Y’all gettin’ obstreperous!
For the record, can we put the “chicken hawk” meme or the converse “since you didn’t serve, you don’t know squat” to rest?
The merits of this war are independent of whether a proponent or opponent thereof served in the military or not.
Of course, my Honorable Discharge sits nicely over my desk……..:)
Tac, if you accept the EU’s self conception at this point, then don’t you also have to accept that the economic agreements (googling points out that the EU precursor was European Coal and Steel Community(!)) are profound influencers of a nation’s self opinion, (which is an idea that free market conservatives could easily get behind)?
I’d also point out that EU expansion has also been discussed for Tunisia, Morocco and Israel. I shudder at the response that will occur if at some point, Turkey is told to hit the road (or perhaps get told to form a Muslim club as we are all Christians here). It will be like printing up recruitment posters for Muslim extremism.
“The genius of the EU is you get all these great benefits only AFTER you get your act together. It puts the burden and costs for modernizing where they belong…with the nation wanting to join.”
That is the genius with respect to some countries. Not so with respect to Turkey. The problem with respect to Turkey is that France has made it clear that they may oppose entry to the EU even if Turkey does all that is asked of it. It isn’t: do A, B, C, and D and then we let you in. It is: do A, B, C, and D and we’ll talk about it then.
Notice the difference in approach with Romania and Bulgaria:
Turkey is at least as togther as Romania, and it has a much better functioning market system (one of the key components for EU membership) than Bulgaria.
But Bulgaria and Romania both have a “yes with reservations” by 2007 while Turkey gets a “if you work really hard we’ll think about considering a maybe” in 15 years from now. So as far as incentivizing change in Muslim countries, I’m not sure the EU is such a great model. It seems quite possible that Turkey won’t be willing to kiss the EU’s feet for 15 years on the hope to possibly be considered for the theoretical chance of getting in.
It is like all those movies where the mean girls put some poor fool through the a multitude of tasks while knowing all along that she is never going to be good enough to get into the clique.
It will be like printing up recruitment posters for Muslim extremism.
I doubt that. Being the contrarian here, I think transnational institutions rank rather low on the list of motivators for personal belief and behavior.
“I think that’s the accepted conflation among Europeans — EU and non-EU — as well.”
but
“I think transnational institutions rank rather low on the list of motivators for personal belief and behavior.”
What other events can you claim gave rise to the conflation?
I wonder if anyone has any stats on the number of EU Passport holders (excluding pets(:^))
Sebastian, I wonder if you’ve considered how the poor fools who get strung along feel toward the girl in question when they realize they have been strung along. And I would point out that the current situation we find ourselves in encourages those who are willing to ride the kind of racial appeals like the one in this story (Yes, I know Switzerland is not in the EU) Your argument seems to support rather than refute Edward. Too bad that Bush doesn’t have any respect among EU leaders…
Arrgh, that’s what I get for treating preview like Turkey. Finish is:
And I would point out that the current situation we find ourselves in encourages those who are willing to ride the kind of racial appeals like the one in this story (Yes, I know Switzerland is not in the EU) Your argument seems to support rather than refute Edward. Too bad that Bush doesn’t have any respect among EU leaders…
The wronged party awaits righting.
Can you get any more right? ;PPP
The problem with respect to Turkey is that France has made it clear that they may oppose entry to the EU even if Turkey does all that is asked of it. It isn’t: do A, B, C, and D and then we let you in. It is: do A, B, C, and D and we’ll talk about it then.
I’m not sure how this is any less genius? If Turkey is still going to work on their systems in hopes of getting accepted…AND…if there’s any validity at all to the idea that once people taste freedom they’ll fight to protect it…how could any of this be bad? I can imagine a momentary backlash within Turkey, but clearly we believe the changes they will have made will be improvments, no?
Edward, it depends how far they go before they decide it is likely that they are being strung along. I suspect that the Bulgaria/Romania situation will clue Turkey in pretty fast.
Liberal Japonicus, I’m not sure what you are saying about my metaphor. I admit it is a bit crude, but I suspect you might be misinterpreting it. EU=Clique, France=extra-mean clique leader, Turkey=patsy forced to play along with no real hope. So when you say: “I wonder if you’ve considered how the poor fools who get strung along feel toward the girl in question when they realize they have been strung along.” So I’m sure Turkey would be rather resentful.
Sebastian, what I am saying is that if what you say is true (and it very well may be), the EU is playing with fire, which then supports Edward’s point. Perhaps it is just living in Japan that makes me think this way, but making someone lose face is a really dangerous game to play.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position, but I was assuming that you think Turkey’s EU entrance is a bad idea. Do you agree with Edward, but just are pessimistic about their chances? If so, what do you think should be done to encourage Turkey’s entry?
There’s also a slight difference with Romania and Bulgaria, I think, in that there is a notion that the Iron Curtain prevented them from being a part. One could consider this a kind of affirmative action on the part of the EU (:^)
This also has me wondering about Turkey’s refusal to let the 4th ID (I think) attack from Turkey. IIRC, the discussion was that Turkey did not to upset its Muslim populace, but isn’t it also likely that they were also thinking about their EU chances as well?
IIRC, the discussion was that Turkey did not to upset its Muslim populace, but isn’t it also likely that they were also thinking about their EU chances as well?
I seem to recall comment in European media at the time that Turkey’s refusal to support the Iraq war indicated that they were thinking like Europeans.
Turkey’s entrance into the EU is unlikely to happen under President Kerry’s term of office, and might not even happen in President Edwards’ term. The EU can afford to think in terms of decades, not 4 or 8-year cycles.