Sleeping with Saddam, the lesser enemy?: realpolitik vs. the neocon agenda
Leftists often criticize our present intervention in Iraq by bringing up the point that the US supported Saddam back in the 80s against Iran in the ill-fated—and ultimately stalemated—war that cost many Iraqi and Iranian lives. For example, see this comment in a recent thread:
Are you [Neo} arguing that it’s ok if the US practically created Saddam and supported him throughout much of his reign of terror, and eventually had to spend billions and sacrifice thousands to undo the damage, because we are, after all, but mere “imperfect players in an imperfect world.”
First of all, I wonder at the logic of the point being made—obviously, if we really did create and support the monster Saddam, then we certainly have a deep obligation to take him out, and even to sacrifice thousands to undo the damage, regrettable though that would be. What’s the alternative? Say “Oops, sorry!” and let his regime fester, uncorrected, forever?
Of course not. If the critics were sincere about their argument, it would be used to justify our more recent intervention, not to blast it. But somehow, I’ve never seen it used that way—odd, isn’t it? It does me make wonder whether their argument might just be sophistry.
However, I’ll assume this commenter’s motivations were sincere, and respond to his/her argument on its merits.
The United States has choices about its actions in the world. The first choice is whether to act at all—not that total inaction is really possible, but relative inaction is. That’s the course isolationists have advocated for years, if not centuries. It used to be more possible back when the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans represented huge gulfs of space and time, but it wasn’t really possible even then.
And in the last century and this, it most certainly has become less possible. One of the reasons, of course, is that both action and inaction have consequences, although we are able to see the consequences of action more clearly. So, the US cannot help but act—even by refraining from action.
Initially, our attitude towards Saddam was largely shaped by the Cold War, and rightly so. Back then all third-world countries had a choice themselves—and that was, essentially, whether to ally with us, with the USSR (and/or China), or whether to play both sides against each other. In the real world—and that is the one in which we live (after all, we’re talking about “realpolitik” here, are we not?) those alliances mattered greatly, and third-world countries were somewhat like chess pieces in the power play of the large states that were struggling with each other for dominance.
The Soviet Union was rightly seen as an evil empire, not only cruel and repressive, but openly interested in amassing as many “satellites” (remember that word?) as it could. Rumor from those old retired CIA agents with the loose lips has it that Saddam was originally supported by the US in 1959 in attempting the assassination of Iraqi ruler Qassim, who was allying with the Soviets at the time.
Whether or not it’s true that the CIA recruited Saddam for such a plot—and again, let’s assume for the sake of argument that it is—it was the way of the world in 1959. I don’t like it at all, to tell you the truth. I wish the world were different. I wish we had found more of an Ataturk to support, someone who would reform and modernize the country with a strong but not an overwhelmingly harsh hand.
But would it have been better to have kept our hands clean, isolated ourselves from the world, and left the field to the Soviets? As I said, both inaction and action have consequences, and some of the consequences of either or both are always going to be bad. And nations must choose, given incomplete information.
What was the incomplete information here? Well, if you read that Wikipedia article on Saddam (and here it is again, in case you missed it the first time) you’ll see who Saddam appeared to be back in the early 70s, when he first amassed power in Iraq as right-hand-man to his cousin al Bakr, the President. Not unusual for that time and area of the world, they already had a repressive security apparatus in place to deal with their enemies.
But there seemed to be quite a bit of good, as well. During the 70s, the amount of repressive violence there wasn’t anywhere near the reign of terror it became under Saddam, who officially came to power in 1979. Saddam was Vice-President under al Bakr, whose regime in the 70s:
…was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the “National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy” and the campaign for “Compulsory Free Education in Iraq,” and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels…The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
To diversify the largely oil-based economy, Saddam implemented a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and developing other industries. The campaign revolutionized Iraq’s energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, and many outlying areas.
On the basis of this, I don’t think the US can be faulted for not having seen what was to come later, under Saddam’s own watch as head of the country. Yes indeed, the Baath Party under al Bakr silenced many opponents in various harsh ways, including killings at times. But it was, unfortunately, nothing so out of the ordinary for the time and place.
Saddam began to show his true colors and to stand out in this regard only after he became President himself in 1979. I’ve referred before to the video he made of his early chilling and Stalinesque move to nakedly stamp out anyone who threatened his power.
But shortly after Saddam was flexing his newly-acquired muscles, we had a much greater problem on our hands: Iran. In fact, we still have that great problem on our hands, over a quarter of a century later, and the problem has only grown.
From their ascendance to power in 1979, the mullahs made it clear that their goal was to war against us in any way they could, and to dominate the Muslim world with a new type of totalitarian regime, one based on religious fundamentalism rather than a secular worldview such as Communism. But the goal was the same: “We will bury you.
Iraq’s war against Iran started shortly thereafter, in 1980. At first we stayed out of it, but a few years later, when it seemed that Iran was actually going to win, we secretly helped Saddam with intelligence and facilitated Iraq’s acquisition of arms from other countries. And yes, we even winked at his use of chemical weapons against the Iranians, and later against the Kurds (one of our very darkest hours):
Washington was strongly opposed to chemical warfare, a practice outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. In practice, U.S. condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory.
It seemed a no-brainer at the time to back Saddam. Not only did he appear to lack designs on us (unlike the Iranians), but it seemed back then that his regime—bad though it was in many ways—was one of the better (or at least the less dreadful) ones in a region not known for its enlightened rulers.
Everybody was wrong in their assessment of Saddam,” said Joe Wilson, Glaspie’s former deputy at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and the last U.S. official to meet with Hussein. “Everybody in the Arab world told us that the best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior. History will demonstrate that this was a miscalculation.”
Yep.
We dumped Saddam when he invaded Kuwait; dumped him for good. The rest of the history is more familiar than the earlier years; I won’t bother to reiterate it here.
So what are we are left with? A messy business, the choices a country must make in the real world.
I’m not whitewashing how bad it was. But those who require moral perfection in our actions on the world stage are either hopelessly idealistic and out of touch with the consequences of what acting on that idealism would have wrought (in this case, the triumph of the Soviets, and later the Iranians), or they are cynically mouthing arguments they don’t even believe.
I wish the world were otherwise. But it’s not, and pretending the lion has already lain down with the lamb is an absurdity, or worse. There are plenty of lions out here, about to devour huge herds of lambs, and sometimes all we can do is back the lion who seems less voracious.
The funny thing about the whole thing (and I mean funny-strange, not funny ha-ha) is that it is the neocon philosophy that represents one of the only strategies offering a possible way out of the realpolitik dilemma. And yet those who criticize our realpolitik decisions to back dictators also criticize our neonconnish decisions to overthrow them and try to institute a better and more democratic form of government. Odd, isn’t it?
Make no mistake about it, however: the neocon notion that we should attempt actions designed to transform these countries into something better is not an easy one to execute, as Iraq has demonstrated (and, by the way, it does not always involve our waging war—sometimes it involves our supporting internal forces within the country itself, as suggested presently for Iran).
I’m disappointed in the missteps of the Bush administration while occupying Iraq (examples: not stopping the looters, not taking Sadr out, way back when). But I don’t believe any of these to be insurmountable even now—if we had the political will in this country to understand how important it is to succeed at the task.
This is the stark choice we face: (1) realpolitik business as usual, “he’s a thug but at least he’s our thug;” (2) inaction, allowing totalitarian Islamism (or Communism before it) to take over most of the world; or (3) trying to transform these regions into functioning democracies that protect human rights.
The latter is the neocon agenda, and I consider it the best alternative of the lot. But I don’t consider myself naive about how difficult it is to do this and how much of an investment in time, energy, money, blood, and will it would cost to succeed. But the alternatives would ultimately demand a greater human sacrifice, and entail even more suffering.
Take your choice.
We did not ‘create’ Saddam any more that we ‘created’ OBL.
It is true we supported both Saddam and OBL and one time, but in fact, they evolved into something a lot more malignant than they were, because of choice they made.
Saddam was never a nice guy, that is true. When we met with him, we came away with the impression that we could deal with him. As it turns out, we were wrong. We didn’t screw him over- he screwed us over.
We did not give Saddam poison gas. We gave Iraqi universities the precursors to gas as part of a US government program to study insecticides. In fact, those same precursors were given to dozens of universities all over the world. Saddam chose to develop WMD’s and use them.
We did not ‘wink’ at his use of gas. We were simply not in a position to be able to prevent the use of gas or do anything about it afterwards. We didn’t screw up- it was Saddam that screwed us.
The same applied to OBL. We supplied arms to the mujahadeen that were fighting the Russians. When that war ended, OBL and the Taliban made a conscious decision to use those weapons in ways that were never intended.
If there is any conclusion that can be drawn, one might believe we have more than ample evidence to conclude that we should in no way be supporting any kind of Arab regime, as they have in one way or another, all betrayed the trust we have extended to them.
For example, the US is proposing to give the Palestinian Authority 85 million dollars and arm them, as well.
You don’t need a crystal ball to realize that no matter how many assurances and promises are made, Palestinian militants will attack Israeli civilians and the interests of other nations. You also don’t need a crystal ball to realize that the Arab world will come to their defense, and in time, insist that the process repeat itself.
You are right to say, “that it is the neocon philosophy that represents one of the only strategies offering a possible way out of the realpolitik dilemma. And yet those who criticize our realpolitik decisions to back dictators also criticize our neonconnish decisions to overthrow them and try to institute a better and more democratic form of government. Odd, isn’t it?”
We are guilty of stupidity and no more.
Wow, you don’t have a job, do you? 🙂
Anyway, you left out the second half of my comment, in which my main point was made:
Yet for the MSM to have not provided daily reports on the [unknowable] number of bodies dumped from his torture chambers, and after we invade to report on the security situation there, is somehow unforgiveably shortsighted.
You quote:
Everybody was wrong in their assessment of Saddam,” said Joe Wilson, Glaspie’s former deputy at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and the last U.S. official to meet with Hussein. “Everybody in the Arab world told us that the best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior. History will demonstrate that this was a miscalculation.”
*This* was my point Neo – that according to you we can support Saddam, and even look the other way while Kurds are gassed with weapons we helped him obtain, and later we can say, “Oh, it was a miscalculation,” we should just accept that as part of how the world works.
Okay, that’s fine by me, be that way.
But then you criticize the media as “shortsighted” when reporting on violence in Iraq. But isn’t that how the world works too? (That part of the world fortunate enough to have a free press, anyway.)
The reports seem to be accurate, so I don’t see what the problem is. What do you want, a news blackout, only relying on official communiques from the Pentagon for status reports?
The only people I see saying that things are going great (or not as bad as all that, or better than living in California, we just need more willpower, less bad press, etc., etc.) in Iraq are bloggers.
EVERYBODY else—Senior Pentagon officials, DOD reports, Administration officials, even The President of the United States (!)—is saying that the situation there is unacceptable, grave, and in danger of getting much worse and destabilizing the entire region. ( I know, you neocons love instability, but hey…)
The problem is not with the reporting, it is with the mission itself, which is proving to be yet another miscalculation, poorly defined, badly executed, and with results anything but guaranteed.
If the Iraqi government had in fact been directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or even if we had uncovered the vast stockpiles of WMD, and we found ourselves in the same place, I think there would still be overwhelming support for this war.
‘I wonder at the logic of the point being made–obviously, if we really did create and support the monster Saddam, then we certainly have a deep obligation to take him out, and even to sacrifice thousands to undo the damage, regrettable though that would be. What’s the alternative? Say “Oops, sorry!” and let his regime fester, uncorrected, forever?’
I have always understood this argument not to mean “because we supported Saddam, we shouldn’t touch him now,” but rather something along the lines of “the support granted to Saddam by senior officials at the time – including Rumsfeld and Cheney – undermines their credibility now when declaring that Saddam is such a dire security threat that he must be overthrown.”
That is, it made it difficult (in 2003) to believe the Bush administration’s line that we had to do something or else Saddam would get us when, not that long before, important members of the Bush administration were shaking Saddam’s hand and giving him support against his enemies, both domestic and foreign. It was more of an argument that these people were two-faced and shouldn’t be taken seriously, rather than a critique of policy per se.
Are you [Neo} arguing that it’s ok if the US practically created Saddam and supported him throughout much of his reign of terror, and eventually had to spend billions and sacrifice thousands to undo the damage, because we are, after all, but mere “imperfect players in an imperfect world.”
I’m trying to get Neo to back my argument. Which was always that the United States has power, and this power gives unto us responsibilities that lesser nations do not have, and therefore it also gives us the ability to dictate to the lesser nations by which path they shall take. So it is okay. It is definitely okay. That which we make, we shall also unmake. That includes the decadent Westerners, btw, so beware.
obviously, if we really did create and support the monster Saddam, then we certainly have a deep obligation to take him out,
Neo, Neo, Neo. Hush little baby, don’t give a cry, for why would ever the Leftists believe that you or they had a responsibility of any sort, to do anything that would lose them personal cred and comforts?
Say “Oops, sorry!” and let his regime fester, uncorrected, forever?
They want you to do what Carter did to the shall. Depose him, help depose him, don’t give him aid because the Shah “pissed off Carter”. That’s the right way to exercise power, Neo, in the view of the Left. Revolution by the mullahs afterwards? Bah, local issues, not an issue of America. Ah, but my view is that it is an issue of America. We have the power, we have the responsibility, and we sure have the ability to unmake that which we helped make. The Left are irresponsible, to take a cue from Pat’s NASA psyche tests. They are arsonists, who reveal in destruction and death just for its own sake.
If the critics were sincere about their argument,
But they are sincere, Neo. They really believe that you should do what Carter did and damage people’s lives just because they pissed you off. If an entire generation of folks you don’t know gets wiped out by the Mullahs afterwards… the Left don’t care. why should they?
But somehow, I’ve never seen it used that way–odd, isn’t it?
I used it once or twice in response to their lame attacks. But their attacks were so lame, it just didn’t deserve my concentration at all.
In the real world–and that is the one in which we live (after all, we’re talking about “realpolitik” here, are we not?) those alliances mattered greatly, and third-world countries were somewhat like chess pieces in the power play of the large states that were struggling with each other for dominance.
One of the benefits of Limited War, that Total War didn’t have a problem with you see. The same folks who complain about proxy warfare on the US’s side, didn’t say jack about the Soviet sphere and they also screamed about Total War being bad while also screaming about Limited War’s badness during the Cold War. Being a fake liberal, Neo, is so liberating don’t y
ou think?
On the basis of this, I don’t think the US can be faulted for not having seen what was to come later, under Saddam’s own watch as head of the country.
But the US must be faulted, don’t you see. Because if it wasn’t the US’s fault, then that might mean it was the fault of the Left. And you can never, never, even consider that possibility, because it is a true Thought Crime. If the Islamic Jihad ever considered even for a moment that they might be the source of their problems and humiliation instead of the Jews and the Amis… why that person would be disappeared pretty fast. It must be fault of the US, Neo. It must. Lives are on the line here.
It seemed a no-brainer at the time to back Saddam. Not only did he appear to lack designs on us (unlike the Iranians), but it seemed back then that his regime–bad though it was in many ways–was one of the better (or at least the less dreadful) ones in a region not known for its enlightened rulers.
The Left has not changed, Neo. Not to repeat something that you already know of course. But the point must be made. The Left will not bat an eye at supporting Sunni oppressors. The Left are the ones talking about how the “iraqis must step up”. Notably, this basically means everyone will do the Left’s dirty work, like back during Iran-Iraq. And then when it is over, the Left can blame it all on their political enemies. The same “realpolitekers” are not on our side. They are on the Left’s, Neo. That is an important distinction.
Odd, isn’t it?
About as odd as someone with multiple personality disorder talking to themselves.
1. He is a pol, but at least he is our Pot.
“the support granted to Saddam by senior officials at the time – including Rumsfeld and Cheney – undermines their credibility now when declaring that Saddam is such a dire security threat that he must be overthrown.”
If that’s the argument, then it’s an incredibly silly one. One might as well point to the Hitler/Stalin pact as proof that Germany wasn’t a threat to the Soviet Union in the early 1940s.
Or, for that matter, you could just as easily say the fact that we were allied with the Soviets during World War II shows that the Soviets could have been a threat to us during the Cold War.
That is, it made it difficult (in 2003) to believe the Bush administration’s line that we had to do something or else Saddam would get us when, not that long before, important members of the Bush administration were shaking Saddam’s hand and giving him support against his enemies, both domestic and foreign.
It isn’t hard at all, Neo. If people can be made and coerced into believing in the Democrat’s line about race relations when not too long ago Democrats like Byrd was part of the KKK and voted against the Civil Rights Act, do you really think it would be hard to make people believe in the new line if you really wanted them to? Course not.Bush just doesn’t want to bend any arms. His and our loss, but not the loss of the Left, oh no.
If the Iraqi government had in fact been directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or even if we had uncovered the vast stockpiles of WMD, and we found ourselves in the same place, I think there would still be overwhelming support for this war.
The Unknown Blogger | Homepage | 01.18.07 – 4:31 pm | #
That just goes to show you Neo that propaganda works because everyone is susceptible to it. Especially those who think they are immune.
Or, for that matter, you could just as easily say the fact that we were allied with the Soviets during World War II shows that the Soviets could have been a threat to us during the Cold War.
Josiah | 01.18.07 – 4:52 pm | #
But the Soviets were good guys on the quest of utopia. You can’t blame them for failing. The Left don’t care. They. Never. Did.
“One might as well point to the Hitler/Stalin pact as proof that Germany wasn’t a threat to the Soviet Union in the early 1940s.”
Well, not really. Hitler said “Stalin is our friend, not a threat!” in part because he was a genocidal lunatic bent on world domination, and was willing to say anything if it suited his purposes, including lies like this. Unless you’re comparing Cheney and Rumsfeld to Hitler or Stalin, which I assume you’re not, the point is:
Either Rumsfeld and Cheney were willing to tell the American people whatever they needed to tell them to suit their goals (one day he’s great, the next he’s the worst threat since Hitler, OR they made a monumental miscalculation, giving military support to the worst threat since Hitler. Either way, neither should have been taken seriously.
“inaction, allowing totalitarian Islamism (or Communism before it) to take over most of the world”
Here, of course, is a fundamental root of a lot of rancor and hostility in debates over US foreign policy: people who know something about the Muslim world tend to doubt that “totalitarian Islamism” will take over most of the world, while other people believe it will. This isn’t the only root, but it’s an important one, and it means that a lot of bickering goes on over not much at all, when in reality, disagreement is happening because the issue is being approached from such radically different angles.
Here, perhaps, is a pretty succinct argument for while “totalitarian Islamism” won’t take over the world: they’re a small minority, even among other Islamists, and were so weak that they couldn’t even overthrow their own governments, leading them to attack the “far enemy” in an even lamer attempt to take over the world. Are they a problem? Of course. Are they a threat? Definitely. Are they a threat to our very existence? Hardly. They couldn’t even control all of Afghanistan, and were removed from power in a few months by the US. These guys are supposed to take over the world?
I can see how, if you really believed this, how many other beliefs must also follow, without their proponents being evil. Can you see how, if you really didn’t believe this, how many other beliefs must also follow, without their proponents being freedom-hating terrorist lovers?
For a little satire on all of this checkout http://www.beforeyouspit.com and http://www.spitforhumanity.com.
“…tend to doubt that “totalitarian Islamism” will take over most of the world”, this is just one example of this persons departure from reason. Neocons and Classical Liberals are not saying that Radical Islamism will take over the world.
A 9th century mentality doesn’t have the managerial skills for such an undertaking. They’ll do what they’ve done for centuries; lash out and lay dormant, lash out and lay dormant – like a duck nipping away at a hot pepper. Heheh!
“Neocons and Classical Liberals are not saying that Radical Islamism will take over the world.”
Actually…
‘This is the stark choice we face: (1) realpolitik business as usual, “he’s a thug but at least he’s our thug;” (2) inaction, allowing totalitarian Islamism (or Communism before it) to take over most of the world…’
“They’ll do what they’ve done for centuries; lash out and lay dormant, lash out and lay dormant – like a duck nipping away at a hot pepper.”
I’m confused; are you saying that jihadists alive today have been alive since the 9th century, or are you saying that the Muslim world has remained static for over a thousand years?
It was more of an argument that these people were two-faced and shouldn’t be taken seriously, rather than a critique of policy per se.
No, it’s commonly used as at least a component of a “critique”, however irrational, of our current policy. There is, however, an interesting aspect to this repeated meme that anon is suggesting, even if only inadvertently — it’s the willingness of much of the left, but particularly its more degraded segments, to place far more value on discrediting those they regard as their political enemies than on responding to present threats and opportunities that face us all.
“the willingness of much of the left, but particularly its more degraded segments, to place far more value on discrediting those they regard as their political enemies than on responding to present threats and opportunities that face us all”
After all that talk about credulity in the previous threads, I’m a bit shocked, Sally. I wasn’t talking about discrediting anyone; I said that, by their own actions, they discredited themselves. Again, it’s possible they were willing to say whatever was convenient about Saddam at the time – if he was a huge threat, then in the 1980s they lied and said he wasn’t; if he wasn’t a huge threat, then in 2003 they lied and said he was.
Alternatively, they seriously misread the situation – either he was a serious threat, and they gave him weapons, or he wasn’t a serious threat, and we started a costly war anyway.
Another possibility that should be considered is that Saddam wasn’t a threat when they said he wasn’t, but became a threat a few years later. However, considering that Saddam’s behavior was pretty clear and pretty standard for much of this time, I don’t know how much stock I place in this scenario.
Another possibility – this one just occurred to me! – is the notion that for you, credibility, that is, how a politician is regarded, is far more important than the actual substance behind that appearance – whether he’s willing to lie, the quality of his policies, etc, and you’re projecting that onto me. Hm.
But, in the end, it boils down to: they either lied when it was convenient, or they were very bad at judging vital security issues; in either case, I don’t see much reason to trust their ability to make good policy or tell the truth in other areas.
Can you see how, if you really didn’t believe this [that islamofascism will “take over the world”], how many other beliefs must also follow, without their proponents being freedom-hating terrorist lovers?
Certainly. Some who don’t believe this are both intelligent and decent, and with such it’s possible and reasonable to debate; some who don’t believe it are decent enough, but are simply unable or unwilling to think about long-term, or frightening, possibilites; and some, unfortunately, are freedom-hating terrorist lovers (to a greater or lesser degree). Ironically, one of the factors that makes the concern a plausible one is just the proliferation of the last two categories within the West.
It’s worth pointing out, though, that one of the ways deniers of the possibility comfort themselves, or attempt to allay the concerns of others at least, is by trying to focus on the great varieties of factions, sects, groups, parties, movements, etc., within the islamic world generally and even within the islamists themselves, insisting that only a “small minority” actually constitute a threat. But this is a classic example of seeing so many trees you miss the forest — it certainly wouldn’t be the first time that a sufficiently fanatical and vicious minority was able to impose its will on a faccid and complacent majority, and thereby on history.
Anon,
We did learn a few things about Saddam in the 20 years after 1980. One could argue that the 1980s approach to Saddam was the prefered position of the Europeans: build bridges through economic relations and hope that we can influence behavior on that basis. It didn’t work.
in either case, I don’t see much reason to trust their ability to make good policy or tell the truth in other areas
Fine. Don’t trust them. I don’t, no more than I “trust” Kerry or Gore. So let’s put that as decided, then — don’t trust any politician, period (end of issue). (Of course, unfortunately for you, anon, this just leaves you with your judgment, and as you’ve repeatedly both stated and demonstrated, that seems to leave you helpless — you have no idea how you know, or how you know you know, or how you … well, you get the picture. Or others will if you don’t.)
Meanwhile, back in the larger world, we also have a problem with islamist terrorism in general. We had a problem with Saddam Hussein but now we don’t; and now we have a problem with an Iraqi insurgency that’s fed by state enemies in the region. None of which would be of much interest to the left, I realize, were it not for the hoped-for potential of such events to tarnish their political enemies. Which makes the left in general largely either irrelevant or malignant, historically.
Btw, Anon knows the correct parallel. Which is Roosevelt’s alliance with Stalin, not Hitler’s alliance with Stalin. He just didn’t tell you because he wanted to keep you all in the dark.
The reports seem to be accurate, so I don’t see what the problem is.
The “reports” from the MSM aren’t “accurate,” they’re slanted propaganda and outright lies – the recent AP non-existent mosque burnings illustrate a bit of the problem and they are surely only the tip of an very large iceberg. From ineptly staged rocketed ambulances to the successfully faked Muhamed al Durah incident runs a gamut of propaganda legerdemain at various skill-levels.
Most of the bias and lying is unquestioned and not amenable to investigation but every once in awhile the depth of collusion is strikingly revealed. For example the repeated denial of various entities of the MSM and assurance by self-anointed do-gooder orgs that human shields are NEVER, NEVER, mind you, used by the terrorists. Then of course came the photos, videos, articles and finally recent confirmation by the shields themselves.
I believe questions that have surfaced in recent years about so-called “unnamed sources” and their wholesale use in newspapers to justify opinions being passed off as news, coupled with the fact that many are realizing that there IS no “source” other than the writer’s imagination, may have put a bit of pressure on the AP and others to assign names to these bogus ‘tales’ they pass off as news. The AP thirsts for credence because it’s realized they are endangered without it. But the folks on the other side of this argument will never “see” the problem. Oh, no.
If the Iraqi government had in fact been directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks
One wonders how the commentor would view WW2. What did Germany or Italy have to do with Pearl Harbor, anyway?
the support granted to Saddam by senior officials at the time – including Rumsfeld and Cheney – undermines their credibility now when declaring that Saddam is such a dire security threat that he must be overthrown.
But WHY? Why would support for Saddam when Saddam was relatively benign and harmless to the US undermine Rumsfeld and Cheney’s credibility after Saddam had become a threat? Were they supposed to be foretelling the future? My goodness, who knows which former ally might prove to be dangerous in the future? They are ALL bloody ruthless in that part of the world. Aren’t Rumsfeld and Cheney SUPPOSED to be warning us if they see someone is going around the bend – whether or not they had previously supported any particular regime? Was the US supposed to be supporting Iran instead of Iraq? Oh my.
Either Rumsfeld and Cheney were willing to tell the American people whatever they needed to tell them to suit their goals (one day he’s great, the next he’s the worst threat since Hitler, OR they made a monumental miscalculation, giving military support to the worst threat since Hitler. Either way, neither should have been taken seriously.
The comment above ignores a host of real alternatives that lie outside its false dichotomy, which is also tainted by hyperbole and dis
The comment above ignores a host of real alternatives its false dichotomy, which is also tainted by hyperbole and distortion. It’s difficult to parse the logic but it goes like this: The US is FOREVER to blame for any perfidy committed by a former ally. A specious argument, a silly argument.
that they(“Islamists”) couldn’t even overthrow their own governments
Here the ignorance of history is breathtaking. Someone should take the commentor aside and explain about the Iranian Islamists overthrowing the Shah. Whew!
Anon said: “I wasn’t talking about discrediting anyone; I said that, by their own actions, they discredited themselves.” Oh please. “I do not stab anyone. But sometimes unfortunate people lean on my knife while I am moving toward them.”
You create false dichotomies paragraph after paragraph, Anon. “either you must believe… or you must believe…” Yet the choices do not cover all possibilities. I would suggest, in fact, that they cover precious few real-world possibilities. You are hoping to find a reductionist equation to make a clear moral choice. Do you fear the moral choices of reality that much, that you have to misrepresent them?
Current day example: We are helping Ethiopia fight the Islamic Courts in Somalia. We do this because it meets our current objectives. But the Ethiopians are unsavory at times as well. We did not make them this way, we are not encouraging them this way, and if in five, ten, twenty, or thirty years we are fighting against them, there is not necessarily a moral contradiction. Groups change sides in the middle of a war, for crying out loud, and often for good reason.
I like Spank, so I’ll give Anon some free publicity here, since he graciously made some comments at my blog before. It exposes the hidden beast, you know.
Link
“I’m confused; are you saying that jihadists alive today have been alive since the 9th century, or are you saying that the Muslim world has remained static for over a thousand years?”
No, it was the obvious answer you omitted to provide.
Man, I knock ’em outta the ring and I’m a lightweight. I don’t get it 😀
Very cool discussion guys. Keep it going. I thought I knew Saddam’s history pretty well but you are educating me.
Mark of regimeofterror.com
Josiah, using the same reasoning, one could also say that, since we were at war with Japan, and allied with China during WWII, we shouldn’t support Japan against the Chicoms today.
(Yes, I know it’s silly; that sort of “reasoning” always is.)
Of course, the Serbs were our allies, as I recall, during WWII, but I don’t recall anyone on the Left arguing that, because they’d once been our allies we had no moral right to attack them.
That’s because the Left can kill or attack anyone they wish, it is automatically approved as being morally clean and righteous.
LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN LIBERATE AUSCHWITZ
This is the stark choice we face: (1) realpolitik business as usual, “he’s a thug but at least he’s our thug;” (2) inaction, allowing totalitarian Islamism (or Communism before it) to take over most of the world; or (3) trying to transform these regions into functioning democracies that protect human rights.
There is a fourth alternative, which is to stop supporting dictators everywhere. The Iran problem blew up in our faces because we used to support the dictator, Reza Shah Pahlavi — because he was “our thug”.
Why can’t we stop supporting Putin, Mubarak, the house of Saud and the sundry other dictators that we still support?
The Democrats supported the bombing of Serbia. The left. however, opposed it.
See: http://www.newyouth.com/archives/balkans.asp
“if we really did create and support the monster Saddam, then we certainly have a deep obligation to take him out,”
Wrong, because we didn’t accidentally or unintentionally create “the monster Saddam,” but rather chose to use him as our monster, a surrogate, a puppet of sorts to serve OUR interests—however monsterously. Then, when he got too big for his britches, and preferred to serve his own interests irrespective of ours, we conveniently and hypocritically demonized him, pretending that we, his enablers, were the soul of rectitude, and used some of the same crimes we supported or had ignored before to convict him. The Iraq war was sold to us not as penance, but as righteous crusade by some of the very people most responsible for the conditions they claimed made it necessary.
Leftists are alert to such moral hypocrisies, as is most of the rest of the world, even those portions of it whose support we temporarily buy. Of course the Arab/Muslim world is particularly alert to our hypocrisy. Thereby our hypocritical actions only further conflict with them and give them true moral ground to oppose us. You can’t find a better motivator for jihad than that. As a therapist you should be able to figure out that elementary political equation.
Second, Saddam, whatever his evils, was effectively neutralized as a force outside of Iraq. He was contained to an extraordinary degree. There was no need for further intervention. The containment was really a model of world law enforcement at work. And, as long as he remained in power he was the enemy of our enemy, Al-Qaeda, so it would have been circumspect for us to keep him contained there. So what did the neocons do? –they whip up a hypocritical war fervor, phony up the evidence for war, remove Saddam in a “pre-emptive attack” (the most severe of war crimes) and create a massive cause (our attack on a fellow Arab) for further anti-American sentiment—which means more terrorism directed our way.
The terrorism conclusion, you can note, is from the right wing American intelligence establishment, and a former Nuremberg prosecutor has stated that Bush should stand trial for war crimes.
If Leftists are so alert to moral hypocricies, why do they ignore Russia’s murder of hundreds of millions? Why do they idolize Stalin? Why do they ignore what happened in Vietnam, after we stopped sending aid?
And, again, why is the Left so quiet about Bosnia, and Kosovo these days? Our troops are still there, the fighting hasn’t stopped, the same arguments that have been made about Iraq could certainly have been made about that—America definitely had no interests in that part of the country, and, in fact, our intervention might have helped Al-Queda set up a stronghold there. Yet the Left still regards the bombing of the Serbs as some sort of great victory. How can we trust the Left, when it’s blind to its own moral hypocrisy?
And, again, you’re dodging Neo-Neocon’s question; even assuming we were responsible for Saddam (which we weren’t) is just keeping him “contained” (contained, where he can seek to build nuclear weapons, aid Palestinian terrorists, threaten the Kurds and murder his own people by the thousands) really the best practical, and moral, solution?
The self-justifying mythology of the pathological left: “We created Saddam Hussein … We created Osama …”
It is a bunch of horse s**t, there is no evidence whatsoever the the CIA or any other arm of the U.S. government “created” or supported Bin Laden.
As for Hussein, he was the Soviets’ and China’s son of a bitch, not the U.S.: he was armed by the Soviets, Chinese and France. The U.S. did not have diplomatic relations with the Hussein regime until 1984 (ie. more than sixteen years after the Ba’athists have taken power)…
The U.S. of course cynically pursued its interests in the MIddle East during the 1980s, double-dealing with both Iraq and Iran, in order to neutralize BOTH powers.
This was, of course, amoral: it is, also, an embodiment of the “realpolitik” that the establishment left is now so eager to embrace (like other concepts it condemned during the Cold War: like “containtment” and “deterrence”).
The left-wing elite is only intereted in power: it will change its basic principles at the drop of a hat, for this precise end…
thanks
Roundhead.
Dave the Rabbit, despite all your talk about how we should never support dictators, I somehow doubt you’d be in favor of, say, taking out Castro. And the Left adored dictator Arafat, the father of modern terrorism.
The Left adores Marxist dictators. And, despite the article you link to, the majority of the Left/Democrats/progessives were most enthusiastic about the bombing of Serbia.
grackle, again, making my point about shifting alliances—during WWII we fought Imperial Japan, and supported China. Now we support Japan, and are against China. Nations change, governments change, policies shift; we couldn’t be on the side of Imperial Japan in the 40’s; we can’t be on the side of the totalitarian Chi-coms now.
Realpolitik has been the name of the game in the 20th Century. (The Left practices it too; they support the dictators they agree with, wholeheartedly.)
As for “containment”, I don’t recall that was so popular with the Left while it was actually going on. At the time, they were all jabbering about how thousands of Iraqi children were starving, because of our (actually the UN’s) economic sanctions, and how our cruelty was destroying poor Iraq. (The Oul-for-Food scandal was uncovered later, as was France and Russia’s involvement in it, not to mention the UN’s. The Left didn’t have much to say about that.)
If the US tries to reach an accomodation with a dictator, either because we can’t do much about him or because we’re hoping for gradual reform, that’s WRONG. If the US tries to depose a dictator, that’s WRONG also.
Just remember the simple formula: America = WRONG. No thought required, which is why American liberals rely on it so heavily.
“Here the ignorance of history is breathtaking. Someone should take the commentor aside and explain about the Iranian Islamists overthrowing the Shah. Whew!”
Actually, this is incorrect. Certainly the Islamists were a major component of the revolution that overthrew the Shah, but were not the only component. Indeed, the revolution had wide popular support, as most elements of Iranian society took part in some way. It was only after the Shah was overthrown that Khomeini was able to consolidate power. It’s worth pointing out that the students who seized the American embassy were a separate faction from Khomeini’s followers, and that they did so without his knowledge. In other words, the situation is slightly more complicated than I think you realize. I highly recommend, as a good place to start, the updated version of Nikki Keddie’s “Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution.” Also, the International Crisis Group has done a number of good pieces on the differences between Shi’a Islamism and Sunni Islamism, as well as political dynamics in modern Iran, which indicate that the situation isn’t exactly as cut-and-dry as you believe. When talking about “totalitarian Islam” taking over the world, Iran and al Qaeda aren’t synonymous and are in many ways very at odds with each other – Shi’a Islamism is built around the Shi’a clerical hierarchy, which al Qaeda views as utterly apostate.
Well folks, it’s been fun, but I’m about to become incredibly busy and won’t have any more time for chatting with you all. It’s been…interesting. I highly recommend you step outside your comfort zone every now and then; it can be a horribly frustrating experience, but it’s good to do it every now and then. Don’t get caught up in echo chambers in which everyone agrees with you and confirms what you already believe.
Sally, I hope you’re terribly ashamed that you’re secretly reading everything I suggested, but are far too proud to admit it.
Ymarsakr, you’re fortunate in that what one says when one is very young is not, or at least should not, be held against one when one is older.
For anyone else who’s interested in more on the Middle East and have been getting their fix from the same sources, especially blogs, I highly recommend some of the following:
The Carnegie Endowment’s Arab Reform Bulletin
The International Crisis Group’s reporting on Islamism (scroll down for the reports; skip the op-eds) and
Well, haloscan apparently doesn’t like lots of urls, so let me try again with just a few:
The Carnegie Endowment’s Arab Reform Bulletin
The International Crisis Group’s reporting on Islamism (scroll down for the reports; skip the op-eds) and
Deepest apologies; last try:
The Carnegie Endowment’s Arab Reform Bulletin
The International Crisis Group’s reporting on Islamism (scroll down for the reports; skip the op-eds) and Middle East/North Africa
The Jamestown Foundations Global Terrorism Analysis
The Middle East Review of International Affairs
ISIM Review
The best blog on the region, that of Marc Lynch
For broader military issues, I recommend: Parameters, Strategic Insights, the Strategic Studies Institute publications, anything from the National Defense University’s Institute for Strategic and International Studies, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (especially Anthony Cordesman’s work on the Gulf/Iraq), the Institute for Science and International Security (good for nuclear proliferation issues), the journals “International Security,” “American Political Science Review,” and “Terrorism and Political Violence.”
Please remember that I have no personal investment in whether you read this, but would be pleased if someone did and found some of it enlightening; it doesn’t really matter whether I read this, or skim them, or understand them, but rather that they’re good sources. The only person harmed by stubbornly refusing to read them (cough Sally cough) is, well, you. Enjoy!
Yes, Trimegistus, I’d forgotten that simple formula: America = WRONG! Always, and forever.
If we depose dictators, we’re bad, because we’re reaching for empire and brutally conquering sovreign nations. If we don’t depose dictators, we’re tolerating evil, and not doing enough to succor the oppressed of the earth. If we work with dictators we’re bad. But if we’re isolationist, that’s bad too. If we don’t work with dicatators we’re bad, because our economic sanctions harm their innocent subjects.
Just as an aside—given the current situation in the world, working with dictators is sometimes going to be inevitable, if unpleasant, since very often the choice is between bad, badder and worst of all. Here, in the (imaginary) country of Basketkazia, you have three leaders contending for power: General Sy Kotik, who wants to wipe out one-half of the population, and install a Marxist dictatorship (badder); Ayatollah Ubu Roi, who wants wipe out three-fourths of the population and establish a religious dictatorship (worst of all), and strongman Ali Kapone, who just wants to wipe out his political enemies and put himself, and his cronies in power (bad). So, which one do you pick?
America would probably go with Ali Kapone as being the least obnoxious of the three—and the Left will be furious, because they were backing Sy Kotik (he’d Marxist). So America will be WRONG!
Or, America could just sit on the sidelines, and watch Sy, Ali and Ubu duke it out among themselves—but then it would be accused of heartless indifference towards a war-torn nation.
(The UN will strongly condemn Israel, and ignore the problem for as long as it possibly can; no help from that quarter.)
Of course, the US could go in and try and install a democratic government—but then they’d be denounced as warmongers. See how simple things are when you adopt the America = WRONG philosophy?
I find it ironic, by the way, that the Iranian people arenow rebelling against the very mullah-ocracy they supposedly deperately wanted back in the bad old days of the Shah. If we support them now, we’ll be WRONG—but if we don’t support them, that will be WRONG too!
See how easy it is?
If anyone “created” Saddam it was the Europeans, especially the French, and the Soviets. A more apt description is that the Euros and Sovs enabled Saddam to be more than a brutal provincal dictator.
Let us not forget that it was an Iraqi-flown but French-built Mirage that put two French-built Exocet missile into the USS Stark in March 1987. http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id344.htm
The Iraqis claimed it was a mistaken attack and reportedly paid some reparations.
The US Navy, at that time, was working hard to keep oil shipping lanes open and to prevent attacks on shipping by both Iraq and Iran.
The US might have been biased toward Saddam, but we knew what he was.
Actually, this is incorrect. Certainly the Islamists were a major component of the revolution that overthrew the Shah, but were not the only component. Indeed, the revolution had wide popular support, as most elements of Iranian society took part in some way. It was only after the Shah was overthrown that Khomeini was able to consolidate power. It’s worth pointing out that the students who seized the American embassy were a separate faction from Khomeini’s followers, and that they did so without his knowledge. In other words, the situation is slightly more complicated than I think you realize. I highly recommend, as a good place to start, the updated version of Nikki Keddie’s “Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution.” Also, the International Crisis Group has done a number of good pieces on the differences between Shi’a Islamism and Sunni Islamism, as well as political dynamics in modern Iran, which indicate that the situation isn’t exactly as cut-and-dry as you believe. When talking about “totalitarian Islam” taking over the world, Iran and al Qaeda aren’t synonymous and are in many ways very at odds with each other – Shi’a Islamism is built around the Shi’a clerical hierarchy, which al Qaeda views as utterly apostate.
Despite the commentor’s complicated denial, MY assertion IS correct.
To bring the reader up to speed: In his eagerness to deny the obvious threat to the West by the Islamists the commentor earlier stated hotly that … “they[“Islamists”] couldn’t even overthrow their own governments.” However, the commentor forgot(or never knew) the Shah’s government was overthrown by Khomeini – an ISLAMIST. My, how exquisite we get when we are caught in a glaring error.
In order to cover for his ignorance the commentor commits the laughable strategy of throwing up smokescreens comprised of long lists of books WE should read. Get that? HE screws up but WE have to read books to cure OUR ignorance. The arrogance of these folks is sometimes dumbfounding. Here’s the relevant quote from Wiki:
Khomeini rejected Dr. Bakhtiar’s demands fiercely and appointed an interim government on his own. Shortly after, with the military announcing their neutrality in the conflict, the dissolution of the monarchy was completed at the hands of the revolutionaries led by Khomeini.
Individuals who are devoid of self awareness and inflated egos are a sideshow, and that’s what the trolls are here.
Useful Idiots have mundane uses too – howling laughter 😀
(cough) Sally here (cough).
Everything has to be put in its context. If someone suggests a link or two to read in the course of a reasonably respectful debate, that’s one thing. But if some anonymous person appears on a blog and not simply provides a long list of their favorite papers, links, monographs, blogs, videos, etc., that they’ve collected over the years, but also insists — begs, pleads, and whines — that everyone else should take time from their lives to consume such a list, well, that’s another. Such people, of course, quite typically announce such lists by assuring everyone that it will illuminate their otherwise dark minds, and such people usually find it difficult to avoid an arrogant and insulting manner for very long, since in their own minds, only they are on the path of true enlightenment. But such people are really only one more sad member of the that tribe of obsessive hangers-on, trying to get some attention. I won’t mention any names (cough).
roflao
So, Anon:
Here’s something for YOU to read. One link. One soldier’s take on the war, shared, I’m sure by many, and ignored by the likes of you:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/
Scroll down to “Lt. Mark Daily, RIP”
Ten times—nay, a hundred million times the man you pretend to be.
Well, Sally (cough), I’ve skimmed through some of the links (cough) that (I mention no names, cough, cough!) have been provided, and it looks like the same ol’ same ol’, pretty much; whitewashing and apologies for Islamism, America is at fault, etc. (Cough, cough, kaff, hack, arrrgh, ptoooi!).
Just remember, America = WRONG. In the mind of the Left, that’s all you need to know.
grackle, thanks for reminding us of some real history.
Fact is, Khomeini overthrew an already established government, after the Shah was gone.
Y, given Carter’s cosy financial relationship with the Saudis, etc., could it be the Shah just didn’t offer him enough—ahem—financial incentive, to make it worth Carter’s while to help him?
“could it be the Shah just didn’t offer him enough—ahem—financial incentive, to make it worth Carter’s while to help him?”
TK: that’s the consensus among DC insiders.
When talking about “totalitarian Islam” taking over the world, Iran and al Qaeda aren’t synonymous and are in many ways very at odds with each other – Shi’a Islamism is built around the Shi’a clerical hierarchy, which al Qaeda views as utterly apostate.
The above is part of a common evasive tactic when the Islamist threat is debated. The commentors make quite a do about the various hostilities amongst the Muslim sects, as if all that means a hoot in hell when it comes to these Muslim frick and fracks’ enjoyment of murdering Westerners and anyone they see as friendly(or even neutral) toward the West and as if many readers don’t already KNOW the info contained in their little ‘lectures’ – and more. And it never seems to occur, never seems to percolate to the surface of their awareness, that these internecine differences in the Muslim world make little difference when the Jihad is on.
A gang could be mauling someone and these debaters would be standing around waxing starry-eyed about where each thug came from and what style of brass-knuckles and truncheons they were using on the hapless victim.
If other onlookers expressed concern they would hotly deny a beating is even taking place and would threaten to call the (International) police if anyone interfered with the carnage.
If THAT failed they could always resort to blaming the victim: The Islamists are ‘caused’ by the Great Satan, a mere reaction to Western Imperialism’s Conspiracy With The Vicious Jew.
Fact is, Khomeini overthrew an already established government, after the Shah was gone.
Another Wiki quote:
“The monarchy was abolished in 1979 when a revolution, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, pressured the last Pahlavi shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, into exile, and established an Islamic Republic.”
The fact is: Khomeini, an Islamist, overthrew the Shah. Details about the constituents of the event do not change this simple historical fact.
Thansforming regions to working democracies is yesterday’s problem. Current problem is getting ready to major conflagration, inevitable war with Iran and Syria and possible collapse of “moderate” Arab regimes as consequence of Arab street psychotic reaction on these developments. We live in pre-war situation, and this war will be worse than WWII. No use to analyse previous mistakes that are history now, when things are moving so fast.
Oh, I agree with you, grackle; it was the Islamists, who overthrew the Shah, and put themselves in power, in the process outing yet another, more moderate government that tried to take the Shah’s place. But the Islamists were ultimately responsible for the Shah’s fall.
I mentioned the interim government, only because so many on the Left talk as if Khomeini were somehow elected to lead the country, in some sort of democratic election. He didn’t. Basically, he seized power.
Sergey, I’m afraid you’re right.
Whu not invade and conquer Iran and be done with it. Where would Hamas and Jihad and the others be without the Bank of Islamic Republic of Iran? It would seem that Iran is the sole center of misbehavior in the region. It would be messy for awhile but fully mobilze te entire US then teach them and the rest of world a lesson they will never forget.
This business of fighting an enemy with one arm tied behind are back is stupid. It just fuels the liberal defeatist in the US.
I am sorry about my spelling in the above entry. But I am having supper and have to get back to the Pentagon!
Sergey,
What will be the position of your country in the war that’s coming, for it would come up to your borders.
For Russia, it must be tempting to see a humiliated USA and a weakened West; on the other hand ending up squeezed between a triumphant Islam and a gloating China wouldn’t strike me as brilliant statemanship.
Sergey– many people (Michael Ledeen included) believe the best way to deal with Iran is to strongly “encourage” (overtly and covertly) the people within that country to reverse the ill-fated 1979 revolution and overthrow the current regime.
I have no idea whether that’s possible, or a pipe dream, but many who seem to know the area well believe that it’s the former rather than the latter. This would fall under the rubric of encouraging democracy and human rights (short of our attacking Iran). If a government that is one of the main ringleaders of the war you predict is toppled (especially without our attacking), this would certainly help to possibly avoid the wider conflagration of which you write.
Again, whether it’s realistic to think that could actually happen, I really can’t tell.
Neo, unless you are willing to supply a couple of billion dollars, US military weapons and munitions, some tanks, training advisers, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, and some political support at the UN…. forget about inside counter-revolution in Iran.
You may or may not, I may or may not, but the US government Will Not.
Oh anything’s realistic with enough money and well trained soldiers.
Btw, very nice discussion by grackle and Talkin. Enjoyable and informative.
Anon, the vast majority of Germans weren’t “Nazis”, yet, they were cowed into submission by the minority who were willing to use violence and terror, and history shows the results. The vast majority of Russians weren’t “Communists”, yet, the same results. Now, a minority of “Muslims” practice the same tactics, yet, you say they can’t possibly be any threat because there are so few of them. Wishful head-in-the-sand thinking.
Dave the Rabbit, in regards to your post of 01.19.07 – 4:26 am :
you say “There is a fourth alternative, which is to stop supporting dictators everywhere.”
Are you SURE your #4 doesn’t actually qualify as #2 (inaction)?
Russia has 20 mln of Muslims of its own. Most of them are asimilated or integrated, but potential of their radicalization is fearsome, especially in North Caucasia. This was the main headache for Russian authorities, especially after several major terrorist attacks like Beslan. In most cases, this subversive activity is funded and supervised by foreigners, Arabs like Abu Khamsa and other Al-Qaeda linked professionals. So by political considerations Russian authorities would back US in clampdown on Islamists, but probably not openly, because anti-American sentiments are widespread in population and in some circles of military and bureaucracy. General balance of forces in Kremlin is hard to assess, and it is rather fluid.
I should add, that in Russian revolution so-called Bolsheviks were a VERY SMALL minority. There were less than 2000 of them in Petrograd in 1917, but they got upper hand by ruthless determination, total lack of self-restraint and readiness to any atrocity. And they toppled Interim Government of liberals and established tyranny over 150 000 000 strong population which could not even understand their ideology. So militant ideology of small group of crazy fanatics IS, indeed, a serious threat to any sick, gloomy society and destabilized government.
Btw, I heard it say that Lenin and his companions did one of those infiltration insurgencies in which they took over the government from the inside out. When they did their coup de tat, nobody could stop them because nobody had even realized that they were a danger.
One problem the Left has is that they have to see Iraq and it’s issues as a way of toppling Bush and the Republicans. For those further Left, Iraq is a tool for toppling the entire USA. As a result, the Left sometimes can’t see Iraq for what it is.
This leads the Left to adopt some nonsensical positions; “Let the sanctions work”, “The Sanctions are killing half a million Iraqi Children”, “The US created Saddam so should leave him in power”.
The deeper problem is that, with the Soviet Union down and Marxism discredited, the Left has few unifying principles or common goals. With the Working Class believing in Capitalism, all the Left has is anti-Americanism and Gay Marriage. This is thin gruel compared to the meaty “Workers of the World Unite!”.
Thanks, Ymar.
Whether Dave meant his #4 to actually qualify as #2, id, the sad fact is, given the world as it is today, that’s essentially what it would add up to—inaction.
Of course, if America doesn’t topple dictators this = WRONG! If America does topple dictators, however, this also is WRONG, since they’re embarking on a path of militaristic conquest. If actually do topple a dictator, it’s WRONG because they didn’t do it soon enough—or it’s WRONG because the dictator was a Marxist—or because he was once our ally, ten years or so ago.
Just remember: for the left, America is always WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
The exclusion factor, Talkin, is when the Democrats are in power. Then America is powerful, righteous, and Smooth. Jail as many Americans in re-location camps, nobody cares.
Yes, and kill as many Americans, as were killed at Waco, nobody cares either.
Democrats being in power does seem to be the exclusion factor.
Add this one to “Best Of” please
Is the Joe Wilson in the quote Valerie Plame’s husband? That’d be weird.