Neocons and Sowell’s vision of the anointed
I’ve been reading an extremely thought-provoking book by Thomas Sowell entitled The Vision of the Anointed. In it, Sowell attempts to describe the differences between the liberal/Leftist (“the anointed”) worldview and that of the Right.
The book is far too rich in thought to be summarized easily, and I’ve only just begun reading it. But I’ve read enough to know I recommend it.
Here’s Sowell’s main thesis:
The vision of the anointed may stand out in sharper relief when contrasted with the opposing vision, a vision whose reasoning begins with the tragedy of the human condition…The two visions differ in their respective conceptions of the nature of man, the nature of the world, and the nature of causation, knowledge, power, and justice….All these particular differences between the two visions turn ultimately on differences about human limitations and their corollaries….Clearly, those who assume a larger set of options are unlikely to be satisfied with results deriving from a smaller set of options.
In general, liberals assume that human capability to understand, correct, and therefore eradicate basic problems in society is vast, and that the only real impediment to their solution is will. Conservatives assume that many such problems are inherent in the human condition, and that at any rate our state of knowledge can never be complete enough to “solve” them without conjuring up unforeseen results that often cause more difficulties than the initial problems they set out to solve.
That’s why, for example, liberals focus on equality of outcome, which they believe to be both achievable and desirable, and conservatives focus on equality of process and opportunity, which they believe is the best way to justice. That’s why liberals believe in attempting to tackle vast social problem through governmental actions, and conservatives believe in smaller government and smaller changes.
In foreign policy, however, the lines between the two are far murkier. You would think, if both sides were consistent, that liberals would believe in widescale interventions—including military ones—to change other countries and/or our relationships with them, and that conservatives would be more isolationist. And this has sometimes been the case; liberals such as FDR and Truman, and even JFK, were not averse to such action, whereas the opposition to our participation in several wars of the past came in large measure from isolationist conservatives.
This state of affairs flipped to its reverse after Vietnam, when liberals became far more negative towards military operations that were designed to preserve freedom and oppose Communism, or that furthered American interests. This left the bulk of liberal support for only those actions that were seen as strictly humanitarian.
But this anti-interventionist state of affairs had a long tradition, as well, among those of the liberal persuasion, many of whom believed (and still believe) that humans are rational beings amenable to talks, neutrality, understanding, and reason, and that negotiations and diplomacy, if performed correctly, could eliminate war. In contrast, their tragic view of human nature leads many conservatives to concede that evil exists, that tyranny and power will always rise up in human life, that the irrational will continue to be with us despite our best efforts at the opposite, and that military force is sometimes the best way to fight these dangerous realities. Conservatives also believe that any such military victory and the resultant peace is only temporary, whereas liberals believe it possible to achieve the eradication of war as a permanent solution—that’s where the idea that “war is not the answer” originates.
In their foreign policy recommendations, neocons are a strange mixture of these positions. As such, they don’t sit well with many in either group, liberals or conservatives. I’ve written at great length about neocons and their agenda previously (see why neocons are so disliked by so many people, and the neocon stance towards promoting the spread of democracy). I therefore see no need to repeat that discussion here.
But in light of Sowell’s dichotomy, it occurs to me that neocons are also upsetting to people because—in some cases, at least—they appear to have adopted the liberal idea that it is possible to transform societies in ways that are extremely difficult to accomplish, and that some see as likely to cause more problems than they solve.
That’s one of the most valid criticisms of the war in Iraq and its aftermath. As I’ve written in the posts linked above, societies have been transformed for the better in the past by a war and its aftermath—World War II and the subsequent occupation of Germany and Japan. But the details of that conflict were considerably different, and at any rate those wars were not originally fought with that purpose in mind, nor with the idea of the imposition (or, in the case of Germany, the re-imposition) of democracy through a lengthy postwar occupation, although that’s in fact what did occur.
It is my contention that the war in Iraq was not fought only with that purpose in mind, either; it was multiply-determined. Saddam’s defiance of the UN and the terms of the Gulf War armistice, his flagrant human rights violations, and his history of aggression against neighbors were part of it as well. But another part was most certainly the desire to establish an ally in the region, and to have that country become an example of the fact that democracy and human rights are not incompatible with either Islam or the Arab world.
But nation-building of this sort is exceedingly difficult, just as paleoconservatives would always have told you. And it is also my contention that the present administration insufficiently estimated the extreme difficulty of the endeavor they were undertaking, and as a result they failed to plan adequately for it. In this, I’m joined by many on both sides, of course.
In this post I’m not going to revisit the question of whether the task of nation-building in Iraq can in fact succeed, or whether the impediments it faces are inherently insurmountable (it’s been done ad nauseum before; see this for my most lengthy effort to date). But in light of Sowell’s dichotomy, it occurs to me that those neocons who did in fact underestimate the difficulty of the task were falling prey to their susceptibility to the vision of the anointed about the ease of solution of complex societal problems. And it occurs to me that liberals, in criticizing the naivete of some neocons on this matter, are taking the classic position of the Right.
Wonderfully clarifying remarks, Neo. You (and Sowell) are talking about what I call “the torque”. On the deepest level, the neocon right and the anti-war left have essentially exchanged positions. My most powerful doubts about my own neocon leanings have to do with the very un-conservative interventionist impulse that informs my position, and I’m sure the same is true for anti-war leftists who are made uncomfortable by the tragic stoicism at the bottom of their belief. Maybe this is why the debate between the two sides (if you can call it a debate) is so vicious. Both sides have disconcerting doubts about their own good faith, and that makes them defensive.
It strikes me that one can find a simpler and more robust explanation for the liberal’s inconsistency: opposition to the United States of America. They don’t like America or anything about it. Hence their enthusiasm for massive social-engineering projects at home, intended to transform America into something more to their liking. This also accounts for their complete acceptance of media lies, election-stealing, and the use of courts rather than legislation by elected representatives. And in the foreign arena it explains why they are isolationist and pacifist: they don’t want America winning conflicts or transforming other societies. Since they loathe America, they view its protecting its interests and promoting its ideals abroad as criminal.
Nice, Trim,
What thread would be complete without the “they hate Amerca” flag being raised?
Allow me to counter with that idea with another classic:
Sowell is nothing more than a shill for corporate welfare.
If there were any justice, he would be forced to wear a Nascar-like jumpsuit covered with the logos of his corporate sponsors whenever he went out in public.
His idea of “equality of process and opportunity” is a corporate lobbyist spreading campaign donations, speaking fees and junkets around Washington to secure more welfare for his bosses.
Considering how many billions of dollars a month of “Iraq” money actually goes to the corporate backers of his Hoover Institution, there is no conflict.
Outcomes are determined in favor of those who pay for them.
Hehe — sounds like the time that I recommended that our Reference Librarians wear white jumpsuits littered with flare-like bits of useful informato — I was wildly joking but it was humorous.
It almost seems as if the current crop of lib/leftists are really closet monarchists, or at least supporters of aristocracy, in that they do indeed feel that the “anointed” should rule.
Why else would they advocate nanny-state policies; insist that the great unwashed are too unintelligent to provide for their own retirement; and mandate how we’re to speak and think (hate speech/crime laws)? The people who most purport to support “individual rights” are the people most likely to abridge them–through taxation, regulation, and legislation.
I don’t see the pro-war crowd holding bake sales and car washes to pay for their Middle Eastern social experiments, stumbley.
And as for right-speak, notice how we’re supposed to be calling everyone opposed to us in Iraq Al Qaeda now?
My thinking about both morality and the liberal/conservative dichotomy was seriously affected by Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist at UVA. His book The Happiness Hypothesis is an outstanding popular work in the field of positive psychology. His other work, however, is in the area of social morality. I wonder how his analysis would read neocons? Apparently some of it his work has just been published. Here’s something I found on it at http://tinyurl.com/2qm6pb.
Haidt argues that human morality is a cultural construction built on top of — and constrained by — a small set of evolved psychological systems. He presents evidence that political liberals rely primarily on two of these systems, involving emotional sensitivities to harm and fairness. Conservatives, however, construct their moral understandings on those two systems plus three others, which involve emotional sensitivities to in-group boundaries, authority and spiritual purity. “We all start off with the same evolved moral capacities,” says Haidt, “but then we each learn only a subset of the available human virtues and values. We often end up demonizing people with different political ideologies because of our inability to appreciate the moral motives operating on the other side of a conflict. We are surrounded by moral conflicts, on the personal level, the national level and the international level. The recent scientific advances in moral psychology can help explain why these conflicts are so passionate and so intractable. An understanding of moral psychology can also point to some new ways to bridge these divides, to appeal to hearts and minds on both sides of a conflict.”
Hmmm … didn’t do a good job of showing that everything after the url in my comment was from the article at that url. Sorry!
And what thread would be complete w/o some so-called “progressive” like alphie raising the flag of “shill for corporate overlords.” That is a tired old hackneyed accusation and a complete calumny. You may not agree with Sowell’s ideas but to denigrate a distinguished career in such a manner is the sign of a rather small weak mind.
Come join the troops and show your support at the Fred Thompson Forum. http://fredthompsonforum.com
I think Dave’s description of the process can be translated as “The Left are fake multi-cultis”.
Incapable of truly understanding another viewpoint, and thus instinctual fear results out of that ignorance. It is related to Terror Management Theory, people fear for the death of their culture and beliefs because they are aware that they as human beings will eventually die. Call it a need for legacy, immortality, or anything else you desire, but it exists strongly in the human psyche as both a constructed and an inherent impulse.
The Left has never understood what motivated America’s enemies, allies, their political opponents, or even the basic nature of the Left themselves.
When you do not undestand, you cannot cope except by lashing out instinctually to harm unknown threats.
They are as simple as a human being can be, distilled down to basic impulses, instincts, and desires. Unrestricted by morality or meta-ethics and the various capacities that sentience has provided humanity.
They are marvelous weapons; a tragedy that they were never used to their full potential.
To a certain extent, many people prefer a simplified existence, away from political undertones and shadows. However, if you just add all the 15% of the bottom of humanity into one group and have everyone from leader to follower be motivated only by the basic and most base impulses of the human soul, you are going to have some problems. Sometimes simple is too simple to solve the large problems we face.
The whole nuance issue was amusing, for nuance only ever meant that you fit within the limited perceptions of the Left. That’s not nuance, that’s a box.
Boxes are nice, up until you try to fit it through a small round hole.
A lot of true believers in human progress have found within themselves what is truly important, they are then capable of taking that inner core and molding it into another form. That way they can fit through all kinds of shaped holes, whether Democrat or Republican. Their basic natures never change, even though their superficial surfaces do.
And that itself, is another thing the Left refuses to understand about the Left, since true understanding requires that you modify yourself and use your will to manipulate your own shape to fit through the realities of our times. If you are unwilling to do so, then you’ll be born and raised a Republican and that is all that you will ever be, ala Alphie. A set of beliefs and ideologies that a person has no choice but to believe; eventually resulting in others controling your beliefs for you were too inflexible to change yourself.
And as for right-speak, notice how we’re supposed to be calling everyone opposed to us in Iraq Al Qaeda now?
When the Left’s propagandists speak, the Left’s slaves and allies follow and repeat. This is the destiny and fate of all that cannot face themselves and be willing to face and be flexible against greater powers than they. Their belief is in purity, ideological or otherwise. They believe strength comes from purity, purity of action and purity of belief. But that is not where true strength lies. Fluid is always more flexible and powerful than solids. Yet you need not change your core identity and beliefs to adapt to your situation, not if you are strong enough to return to what you were once originally. The Left cannot change, they cannot improve or evolve, for they believe themselves unto perfection itself. And perfection needs no improvement, least of all from flawed human hands where Gore’s purity may bring on a Golden Age instantaneously.
I prefer Sowell’s earlier book A Conflict of Visions to The Vision of the Anointed; the former contains much more analysis of the contrast, and much less polemical rhetoric, than the latter.
As for the “torque”: the Left, consistent with its belief in the possibility of humanity perfecting itself, was deeply fascinated by Communist theory, and has yet to recover from its refutation in the realm of practical politics. Since America was the chief opponent of Communism, and instrumental in that refutation, the Left has not forgiven America; and though their idol is destroyed, they are determined that at least it shall be avenged by the fall of its destroyer. And they will join hands with anyone who wishes America harm, even those who oppose all the old rationalists stood for, rather than admit that their vaunted insight into the workings of human society was in error. People who can take the jihadis for socialist revolutionaries don’t boggle at quoting isolationists.
Zhombre,
Sowell has had a distiguished right-wing career, not quite the same thing as a distinguished career.
And I don’t consider myself a “progressive,” but a “paleocon” like neos’s op reference.
Even in the time of St. Ronnie, I thought of Sowell as just an apoligist for the more boneheaded policies pushed by those who would soon morph into the neocon half of the Republican party.
Sowell’s defenses of Abu Ghraib and the Iraq war in general have been rather intellectually lightweight.
Putting the intellectual prostitute Sowell aside. I must admit you’re doing much better, your thinking process will eventually bring you back to reasonable humanity , away from naive Utopian fantasies of changing the world with the magic wand( magic wand transl. from neocon speak= bombs , armies , occupations), dear neo
So sashal. Are all conservative thinkers “intellectual prostitutes” or just the black ones?
Seriously.
But you see… the naive Utopian fantasies are liberal fantasies. Conservatives who think it’s possible to change the world for the better don’t think it takes a magic wand. They think it takes hard work and perseverance. Not just bombs and armies, but ideas and talking and negotiation… which the “liberals” have been sitting out on.
They are the Barbies of our modern age… “Math is hard.”
People who campaigned for women oppressed in Afghanistan are suddenly convinced that nothing can be done anyway, so why try. And besides, it’s just a different culture… misogyny or racism or genocide is their own business.
In the end, “conservative” means conserving the past… slow change… and what conservatives are conserving these days is classical liberalism… a belief in the value of every person and our responsibility to do something about it.
Sashal:
Here’s how the world is transformed (from Hugh Hewitt’s site on TownHall.com). It’s a portion of a satellite phone call that Hugh made to Michael Yon, who’s in Baquba (the city al-Qa’eda once called its “capitol” in Iraq). I urge you to, as they say, read the whole thing:
“HH: Now yesterday, Harry Reid said on the floor of the Senate that the surge has failed. Do you think there’s any factual basis for making that assertion, Michael Yon, from what you’ve seen in Iraq over the last many months?
MY: He’s wrong, he’s wrong. It has absolutely not failed, and in fact, I’m finally willing to say it in public. I feel like it’s starting to succeed. And you know, I’m kind of stretching a little bit, because we haven’t gone too far into it, but I can see it from my travels around, for instance, in Anbar and out here in Diyala Province as well. Baghdad’s still very problematic. But there’s other areas where you can clearly see that there is a positive effect. And the first and foremost thing we have to do is knock down al Qaeda. And with them alienating so many Iraqis, I mean, they’re almost doing it for us. I mean, yeah, it takes military might to finally like wipe them out of Baquba, but it’s working. I mean, I sense that the surge is working. Reid is just wrong.”
Of course, since Michael is only in Iraq, and not pontificating from behind a computer screen or editor’s desk in New York, it can’t possibly be true, can it? That would wreck your entire left/lib fantasy of Evil Neo-Cons and Fascist Republicans.
instapundit.comLinky for alph and the other internet-challenged out there:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/ (scroll down)
Although I got a link to the transcript from instapundit:
http://www.instapundit.com
But BEWARE!!! They’re right-wing, warmonger sites!! You might get COOTIES!
I’ve often reflected that Americans cannot agree on the threat the U.S. faces. Americans argue about implementation, without first agreeing on what the threat is. We argue, heatedly, about how to counter the particular threat we perceive; our opponent argues about how to counter the separate and different threat which they perceive. To steal from the movie 300:
“This is madness!”
“Madness?! THIS… IS… AMERICA!!”
I realized, while reading this post, that we perceive different threats partly because of our separate worldviews regarding human nature. Therefore, to argue about implementation:
1. we must first agree upon a standard regarding human nature
2. allowing us to secondly agree upon a standard regarding what is the enemy and what is the threat
3. allowing us, finally, to discuss/argue about how to counter the threat.
Whew.
stumbley,
Do you think you would find an interview between, say, Al Franken and Cindy Sheehan persuasive?
That’s how I view your link.
Yon may file some interesting slice-of-life reports from Iraq, but he has bought into the idea that backing fundementalist Sunni terrorist groups has a chance of suceeding in producing something other than yet another Taliban.
I can’t take him seriously anymore.
gcotharn:
That’s exactly the problem. al-Qa’eda hasn’t attacked us in 5 years so clearly they don’t threaten us. Kind of like the drunk driver who doesn’t matter until he crashes into you. Radical Islam may be in Europe and the ME, but those who say “I haven’t been to a mosque, or read memri.org, so I don’t see Islam as a threat” really don’t see Islam as a threat, even though the Q’uran explicitly states how infidels must be destroyed.
“But that’s just rhetoric. They don’t really mean it. The Bible has some pretty violent passages, too.”
“Radical Islamists are just a minority.”
“If they attack us again, we’ll deal with them at that time; there’s no need to go after them now.”
“Iraq poses no threat to the U.S.”
“So what if Iran has the bomb? Israel does, and we’re not complaining about that…”
There’s an excuse and a rationalization for inaction and surrender everywhere you look on the left…precisely because they will not or cannot see a threat.
Not biting anymore, A.
Synova, what skin color or philosophical identity of a person has to do with him/’her being a prostitute?
Do you think there are no white communist prostitutes ?-Plenty.
Yeah, that was obvious out of the blue attempt to smear me with the racism.
Now all the semantics and terminological talk about REAL conservatives and classical liberals( that’s me btw- how do you do ?) is very refreshing in a way to find it on the site proclaimed to be neoconservative ( no offence to the owner of this blog, she does not yet realize it) who are the cowardly the most belligerent, historically and diplomatically illiterate scum of American politics. I put them on the same level in intellectual integrity and righteousness as Bolsheviks.
gcotharn,
so convinced are we that we embody the Good, we believe we may invade anywhere and everywhere, whenever we declare our “national interests” are imperiled. Our “national interests” are intentionally and infinitely elastic: they enable us to “justify” any military incursion anywhere, at any time. Because we represent the Good, it is inconceivable that we would act in ways that are monstrous and criminal on a scale that defies comprehension.
In the winter and spring of 2002-2003, it was obvious to any basically well-informed lay person that Iraq constituted no serious threat to the United States, or to anyone else. An “ordinary” citizen had no need of “secret information” or government “intelligence” to reach the conclusion that was entirely accurate, a conclusion that over four years of futile, unforgivable havoc and death have proven over and over again to be true. Such “intelligence” is almost always wrong in any case; it is almost never relevant to foreign policy decisions at all.
Our unfounded and indefensible belief in our unquestionable moral purity thus renders us incapable of recognizing the most fundamental fact of the Iraq catastrophe: it is immoral and criminal in each and every respect. Because Iraq was no threat, the crime was committed when the first innocent Iraqi died as the result of the United States’ invasion and occupation.
Can we agree on this?
Sorry, alphie. Progressive, paleocon — I get the labels confused at times. And the labels are important — so that we know which houses to burn.
sash: Our unfounded and indefensible belief in our unquestionable moral purity thus renders us incapable of recognizing the most fundamental fact of the Iraq catastrophe: it is immoral and criminal in each and every respect.
sash is clearly speaking for himself and his little band of islamofascist terrorist sympathizers here (see, e.g., kadet), some of whom are in America, most of whom are outside but salivating at the prospect of getting in. Their actions are indeed immoral and criminal in each and every respect.
feeling intellectually challenged this morning, sally ?
That’s O”k . Go back to your neocon playground, play with a few more inventive words.
Enjoy your shrinking minority, mental midget.
You proved yourself incapable of any debate but a few talking points- slogans which are to your surprise or may be disappointment are not in the vogue any more with the majority of American public, who are clearly by your insightful definition are all islamofascist sympathisers.
… American public, who are clearly by your insightful definition are all islamofascist sympathisers.
So you wish, don’t you sash? No, there you’re the one in the small minority. The American public, unfortunately but understandably, is just tired of the issue. There’s a good chance now that, in the short run, given the machinations of American domestic politics, you’ll get what you’re aiming for, which is an American pull-out from Iraq. But in the longer run, after more terror and butchery perpetrated by your heroes, the American public will rediscover its courage and determination, and your disappointment will be much deeper than mine — and all your “unquestionable moral purity” won’t wash off a drop of the blood will be on your hands, not to mention the blood there already.
Stumbley wrote:
…[Some] really don’t see Islam as a threat, even though the Q’uran explicitly states how infidels must be destroyed…[but] There’s an excuse and a rationalization for inaction and surrender everywhere you look on the left…precisely because they will not or cannot see a threat.
Stumbley you seem to be making the the argument that we are at war with believers in the Q’uran.
If that is the case, what is your excuse/rationalization for not organizing anti-muslim pogroms in your local area? Why should you wait for your Q’uran-believing neighbors to attack you? Isn’t some pre-emption called for there as well?
“precisely because they will not or cannot see a threat.”
Thanks for proving the point, UB.
The point is that we all must draw the line somewhere to defend ourselves against threats, Stumbley.
You obviously think the threat posed by “Islam” is serious enough to advocate and support invading a country and engaging in violence thousands of miles away, but not so grave as to warrant advocating pre-emption to repress Islam in your own backyard.
Not sure how else to explain that other than that you don’t really take the threat posed by Islam seriously yourself.
fff.orgNeo,
I agree. From the start, the opposition to OIF has been a hard squeeze from the radical Left and the “realist” Right. In my opinion, the right-wing opposition to OIF has been far more damaging than left-wing opposition because the best recognized right-wing opponents generally hold or held positions of authority, hold legitimate resumes in national defense, and are held in high esteem – and deservedly so – as our Cold War champions. The voices of right-wing opponents are respected and, therefore, give credibility to the over-all anti-war position, despite its internal contradictions. While Bush has called out realists in speeches, nowhere has he mounted a vigorous defense against realist opposition. OIF defenders are reluctant to defend the mission against their Reagan-era heroes, which is tantamount to leaving a flank unguarded against the more dangerous attacker. The realists, our Cold War heroes, in turn, have empowered the weaker attacker, the radical Left. The integrity of OIF has taken a battering from a hybrid anti-war vehicle, indeed.
Neo: “It is my contention that the war in Iraq was not fought only with that purpose in mind, either; it was multiply-determined. Saddam’s defiance of the UN and the terms of the Gulf War armistice, his flagrant human rights violations, and his history of aggression against neighbors were part of it as well.”
As a reason to go to war, don’t forget our culpability for the mess that was the 1991-2003 Iraq mission, and our responsibility to change course there, with or without 9/11, for our sake and the sake of the Iraqi people.
Read Iraqi Sanctions: Were They Worth It? by Sheldon Richman.
Certainly, Saddam’s regime was the root cause, and our Iraq strategy from 1991-2003 was understandably anti-war, but we are not blameless for the consequences. Our President may be politically obligated to avoid blaming the US and UN for the state of Iraq in 2003 after 12 years and counting of indefinite sanctions and containment, and periodic bombing, but we don’t have to be.
The 1991 Bush admin made the assessment that it would be too difficult and costly to occupy and nation-build Iraq. Well, after 12 years of degrading Iraq’s infrastructure, resources and capital, breeding resentment and political alienation (which also encouraged illegal activity) among ordinary Iraqis, while overtly leaving Saddam in power from the start (see 1991 Shia uprising) for the sake of ‘realist’ stability, regime change and nation-building certainly wasn’t going to be easier in 2003 than 1991, given that those 12 years followed immediately upon a destructive 10 year war with Iran. Perhaps militarily, those 12 years helped degrade Iraq’s conventional military forces, but all the other conditions in Iraq made any regime change and nation-building much more difficult. (I agree that the Bush admin’s failure to recognize the degree of difficulty in OIF planning is an egregrious fault, but planning to capability rather than conditions is a systemic fault that precedes his admin. Doing so works for the careerists in peace-time, but it costs us big in war-time.)
Point being, as a “multiply-determined” reason to go to war, we should not overlook the harm of our pre-OIF mission in Iraq, both to our political situation and in real terms to Iraqis.
IMO, we needed to change course in Iraq by 1999 at the latest, let alone 2003. If not OIF, though, it’s up to debate what the better course for the US and UN should have been in Iraq.
sashal… it was an either or question. Do you think that all conservative commentators are prostitutes, or just the black ones?
If you make no special case (as many people *do*) for conservative gays, blacks or women, then it seems that you feel that all conservative commentators are prostitutes. Basically that *all* conservative commentators are illegitimate.
That says something too.
Please list conservative commentators that you feel are legitimate.
Otherwise, answer the question.
Eric Chen, you’re the first person I’ve seen bring that up since before 9-11. I keep asking people if they *remember* those years of sanctions. It’s like they ceased to exist. All the heated rhetoric about how terrible the US was to kill all those Iraqi babies… oh, how the world hated us! And suddenly it’s like… it was working… it was good.
No one remembers. They just revise it all to what they prefer.
I remember the sanctions, Synova. It is just that the Left never cared about sanctions in the first place, other than to tar American reputation for the worst, so they didn’t deem it important after it was made useless and I don’t deem it important because as a weapon against the Left, it is useless precisely because they do not care.
And since I wasn’t one of the Originals so to speak, trying to guilt trip my fellow Americans with Iraqi dead in order to force them under my Mastery,
Certainly you are right that it seems to be forgotten in the sense that nobody talks about it, but the reasons behind it should be told. I could have used it to guilt trip Reagan era Republicans against the war now, but I am not the Left. Their methods are not my methods.
Alphie: “Yon may file some interesting slice-of-life reports from Iraq, but he has bought into the idea that backing fundementalist Sunni terrorist groups has a chance of suceeding in producing something other than yet another Taliban.”
UB: If that is the case, what is your excuse/rationalization for not organizing anti-muslim pogroms in your local area? Why should you wait for your Q’uran-believing neighbors to attack you? Isn’t some pre-emption called for there as well?
Can I ask a serious question?
What do either of you actually believe? Should we view Sunni tribes turning against al Qaida and willing to work with us as enemies? Once an enemy always an enemy? Or are they supposed to be brought into the government in Iraq, somehow. Do you believe in just wiping them out, alphie? Is that what you think we should do?
And UB. What do you think we should do about our Muslim neighbors here? Should we be hopeful that a moderate Islam exists and support that and keep the door open for people to be on our side even if they weren’t always, or should we try to wipe them out?
Bush has, from day one, been pounding over and over that it is not Islam (thus pissing off a whole lot of people who think it is… dang uber right-wing Bush!)
So what solution do either of you have? What should we do to resolve these problems? Or are you both just about feeling clever and pulling apart other people’s ideas while having none of your own?
These little “well why don’t you do this?” arguments are nothing more than saying “why don’t you insist on creating, for the enemy, desperate ground?” The answer is because creating desperate ground for your enemy has been understood to be *stupid* as far back as Sun Tzu.
So why do you demand that those you oppose sign on to stupid policies? Do you think those are *good* policies? Or is this just about having a fight?
Synova,
We actually have two goals in Iraq:
1. Use enough chewing gum, baling wire and duct tape to stabilize Iraq just long enough for the U.S. to declare victory and make a face saving exit.
2. Ensure the long term stability of Iraq.
While allying ourselves with Sunni terrorist groups may help us reach the first goal, it almost certainly makes the second goal unachievable.
And if we’re willing to deal with such groups to create a facade of stability in Iraq so we can get out of Dodge, why the hell don’t we just make a deal like that with al Sadr instead of taking on his two million supporters?
Personally, I don’t think we should sell out Iraq’s long term future just to save face.
That includes keeping our troops there, which is most likely causing more problems than it solves, at a cost that is now three times Iraq’s annual GDP.
The money would be far better spent on direct aid to the citizens of Iraq.
If we really cared about the fate of the Iraqis, of course.
Do you think you would find an interview between, say, Al Franken and Cindy Sheehan persuasive?
That’s how I view your link.
Very intellectually weighted there, Alphinator.
Yon may file some interesting slice-of-life reports from Iraq, but he has bought into the idea that backing fundementalist Sunni terrorist groups has a chance of suceeding in producing something other than yet another Taliban.
No slice of life reports may ever go up against the majesty that is Alphinator’s pure views. Pure as him, right as him.
As Yuri said and Sergei would agree, only when the boot crashes down on their backsides will they ever agree on basic reality. Otherwise, their fantasies keep chugging along heedless of what Yon or anyone else that disagrees with them says.
Another slice of reality is that Bremer is Alphie’s hero because Bremer got rid of the Sunni Army and Baathists. That’s why Alphinator here sided with the Left, because the Left agreed with Alphie that the Sunnis had to go.
Alphie thinks everybody he dislikes in Iraq is a terrorist or part of a terrorist group. Including the Al Anbar tribes. Such is the fantastic world of our useful idiots. God, if only the Soviets had discovered capitalism, we might have been able to return the merchandise while the warranty lasted.
Yeah, that was obvious out of the blue attempt to smear me with the racism.
Synova’s got too many brain cells for you sas. Maybe that’s why socialism and equality of outcome appeals to you so much.
we may invade anywhere
We may but you aren’t allowed out of your box. You might shoot some poor American airman if you got out. The world and peace loving citizens must be protected from you, you must realize this.
If that is the case, what is your excuse/rationalization for not organizing anti-muslim pogroms in your local area?
We’ll do that after you assassinate Bush and Cheney, replacing them with PillowC and KKK Kleagle Byrd. Beware though, the Dark Lord of the Chen is hard to kill.
You obviously think the threat posed by “Islam” is serious enough to advocate and support invading a country and engaging in violence thousands of miles away, but not so grave as to warrant advocating pre-emption to repress Islam in your own backyard.
You obviously think, Unk, that your enemies are interested in oppression and security crackdowns. Your enemies are far more complex and competent than you give them credit for.
Not sure how else to explain that other than that you don’t really take the threat posed by Islam seriously yourself.
As with most of the Leftist leaders and fanatics, you believe that a threat can only be solved by violence and intimidation. You believe yourselves superior for having supposedly rejected violence and intimidation, while your enemies the Republicans are supposedly glorying in them. It makes perfect sense for a morally pure specimen of the Left that has truly transcended human violence as a solution to threats, to think that their enemies will only truly see threats when they go fascist on them. Caveman sees animal but goes to sleep, caveman must not think animal threat, eh? So easy a caveman can do it, the Left believes. After all, the world is their cup of tea and under their pearl of mastery.
Synova – Stumbley made a claim. I asked what I believed to be a valid question testing that claim. Very simple. That’s all that’s going on here.
alphie, your argument would seem to support our staying with long term stability in mind but am I wrong to think that what you actually said was that we should leave in the interest of long term stability?
Because our being there undermines it?
I’m a bit unsure how that works. Wouldn’t staying more long term… something like our staying in Germany or Japan long term… make more sense? Both for regular Iraqi people and for our strategic benefit?
It’s pretty much agreed that we leave and it will turn very ugly. How does this translate to long term stability? What Historical example do we have where stability is a natural result of genocide and blood bath and at what point did we decide that was acceptable?
Is this working for the sort of peace available in the grave?
Why do you think that violence will result in stability and peacefulness?
Or did I entirely misunderstand and you really do think we should stay and moderate things until people become confident in their new system and a pluralistic society?
For lack of a better term, social justice or just plain justice is utterly necessary for long term stability. We *used* to go for stability by ignoring tyranny and injustice but that doesn’t work.
So we try to do it right, and then the negatives of sticking around to influence stuff in a non-sectarian direction, and do our best to impose an equality in protection and law for minority ethnic groups are somehow greater than just letting them kill each other until a replacement for Saddam establishes order?
Synova,
The idea that Iraq would descend into chaos if we pulled our troops out is little more than a pro-war talking point.
The biggest war going on in Iraq right now, by far, is the war between our troops and insurgent groups.
That would end if we left.
What remains after we’ve gone might even resemble stability.
alphie… how is a car bomb in a market a war between our troops and insurgent groups?
Do you think if we leave Sadr will sit down and sing kumbaya with the Sunnis or that Sunnis will trust the Shia majority, even those moderate compared to Sadr, not to get their own back?
If you do think so, you’re… unique.
In other words, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
“If you do think so, you’re… unique.”
synova, most of us learned long ago, that “unique” is much too mild a term for the likes of alph, UB and sashal. “Troll” is too kind. I favor the phrase “waste of skin.”
They have no conviction that can’t be changed when it’s proven wrong; they have no stand that can’t be reversed; they have no intellectual rigor in their arguments. Mostly their comments are of the form, “Yeah, okay, I’ll give you X, but what about Y?” They refuse to read anything that might upset their fantasist worldview. I’m trying very hard to avoid feeding them.
Synova,
If you were honest, you’d admit al Sadr is already quite popular with the Sunnis.
He also ordered his militia not to fight our troops, btw.
But you knew that, too, right?
Why do you think we keep trying to provoke him?
“They have no stand that can’t be reversed;..”
Take Alpo, for instance:
Back when the 1920 Brigade was fighting us, they were the “noble savage freedon fighters”, poor, simple people outraged by the evil occupation of their country, fighting against tyrrany and injustice, as they say any of us woud do if the situation were reversed.
Of course, now that they’re on our side, the very same people are now the “inhuman, atrocity committing terrorists we’re(now he includes himself) fighting in the first place, waiting to stab us in the back!
Anybody remember his Old Man Pimp from Catch 22 story? He was giving us a clue about himself.
Ha, HA! Alpo.(a.k.a. “loser”)
At least sahsal’s good for laughs. His entire act resembles the “Punk Rock Magician” I once saw in a stand-up routine. When the audience would boo a bad or tasteless trick(in sashal’s case, having been refuted), he would scream(in thick Cockney accent) “F… YOU! I’m foolin’ you, you don’t like it!”
Love that tin foil hat, sash..
If only your straw men could be trained to fight, lee.
Maybe you could lend your moral expertise to this situation that happened today?
U.S. troops were shooting at Iraqi police officers and dropping bombs on their station in Baghdad:
http://tinyurl.com/2fcps8
In this case, which side was fighting for Iraq’s future?
I guess to answer your question, Alpo, I would have to preface that with a question: Which side were you rooting for, Alpo?
I’m sure, if those we align with act in a duplicitous manner, as the case you cite, they will meet a similar fate if discovered or caught.
So what’s your problem? A bit bigoted of you, don’t you think, that they are “all the same”?
Oh, wow,
I almost forgot..
So distracted by other things, I almost didn’t take notice.
Alpo actually used a source….for once….
The biggest war going on in Iraq right now, by far, is the war between our troops and insurgent groups.
So let me get this straight. Alphie thinks the main conflict there is between US forces and insurgencies.
Yon may file some interesting slice-of-life reports from Iraq, but he has bought into the idea that backing fundementalist Sunni terrorist groups has a chance of suceeding in producing something other than yet another Taliban.
And this is because he believes all the insurgencies are terrorist groups, and that is why US alliances with the Sunni Al Anbar insurgency is not going to work out.
And then Alphie says that the US military is the one making all the threats in Iraq about AL Qaeda.
# alphie Says:
July 12th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I don’t see the pro-war crowd holding bake sales and car washes to pay for their Middle Eastern social experiments, stumbley.
And as for right-speak, notice how we’re supposed to be calling everyone opposed to us in Iraq Al Qaeda now?
Interesting. The things you can learn after a few days of waiting until the experiment titrates.
If you were honest, you’d admit al Sadr is already quite popular with the Sunnis.
Every Baathist was popular with each other, to certain limitations, during Saddam. It was only after that they split into Sunni Thugocracy and Shia Thugocracy.
It would be logical for them to work together in order to excite violence and lawlessness, and then seize power. But you wouldn’t know anything about that of course. Coups and intrigues are best meant for those able to handle the complexities and various viewpoint differences amongst the factions.
One of the basic elemental fundaments of control is that you need an outside enemy. Hamas and Hizbollah have always had the Jews. And for the Baathist Sunnis and the theocrat thugocracy of Sadr, having each other as the enemy makes for a convenient alliance.
And if we’re willing to deal with such groups to create a facade of stability in Iraq so we can get out of Dodge, why the hell don’t we just make a deal like that with al Sadr instead of taking on his two million supporters?
The short answer is because you like Sadr, we don’t. He is your ally, not ours. The various deals the Iraqis tried to make with him by giving him political power and whatever State Department interventions on his behalf, weren’t our ideas.
Ymarsakar: “The various deals the Iraqis tried to make …”
The idea of what deals the Iraqis themselves would make if not influenced by others touches on a key point of contention about the long-term prospects of ‘organic’ (native) development versus (enlightened) intervention, or as a matter of balance, determining the right balance between the two.
Here’s an academic question/challenge. Your start point is Spring, 2003 and the sudden removal of the Baath regime in Iraq and its leader – disconsider how. From there, define the outcome you desire for Iraq. Then – this part makes it academic – consider only ‘organic’ Iraqi factors and suppose no ‘inorganic’ non-Iraqi factors interfere/intervene, whether the foreign influence is smuggled across a porous Iraqi border or projects from the other side of the world.
Drawing on what you know, or think you know, now about Iraq, how would a completely ‘organic’ Iraq evolve post-Saddam and what would the outcome look like? How does a completely ‘organic’ outcome square with your desired outcome for Iraq? Start considering non-Iraqi factors. Could you accept the difference in outcomes, if any? Would you allow water to find its own level or do you believe the risk of flooding the plains is too dangerous? Either way, what do you do about it?
Of course, the supposition of a completely ‘organic’ Iraq is unrealistic. Even if the US had zero contact of any kind with Iraq, we’re not the only non-Iraqi player with stakes in the Iraq outcome. Much of why Iraq matters to us, and others, is because of its regional geopolitical importance. Nonetheless, I think this exercise is a solid place to begin gaming out our strategy for Iraq and gaming out our – let’s call them – competitors’ strategies for Iraq.
* This idea comes out of a disagreement I had with one of my professors (poli sci, ME conflict class) who raised the point of whether our intervention in Iraq was an “organic” influence or not. She thinks not. I claimed that as long as we were there with real men and women – multi-national and Iraqi – working together, breathing and sweating together, smelling, hearing, seeing, feeling, tasting the same things side by side on the ground level, then it’s as human-to-human organic as we’re going to get. Second, I’m also a fan of Tom Barnett, who believes the initial OIF intervention was a successful ‘big bang’ that changed the regional calculus and gave us a necessary bargaining position in the region, but after we took Baghdad, our strategic direction should have become much more pragmatic, nuanced and diplomatic. In other words, once we occupied Iraq, we should have moved to cut deals with regional players, especially Iran. Essentially, draw down our footprint and make OIF into an ‘organic’ development within changed parameters, which to a large degree, we attempted locally but not regionally. Of course, if we’re cutting pragmatic deals with illiberal regional players, the likely trade-off is that the liberal ideological rationale for Operation Iraqi Freedom takes a hit.
Organic and inorganic have nothing useful to do with real solutions on the ground. And it is not just because of their academic origins, either.
Of course, if we’re cutting pragmatic deals with illiberal regional players, the likely trade-off is that the liberal ideological rationale for Operation Iraqi Freedom takes a hit.
About as much a hit as Jefferson took on the slavery issue for the US Constitution, making slaves parts of a man for voting purposes. Like I said, organic and inorganic are academic terms that have literally nothing to do with real solutions. The very premises and foundations it uses don’t exist, at all.
Academia themed subjects usually revolve around grand ideas in order to avoid specifics like Sadr. That is why they aren’t mentioned, since greater trends are prioritized over pesky facts and actual events. Greater trends may also be called “narratives” in which a certain direction is described as progressing or digressing towards a pre-calculated destination.
From there, define the outcome you desire for Iraq.
There is no use in defining the outcomes for one particular faction for Iraq, given that it is how these different visions and plans intersect and interact that results in the ultimate conclusion. Every outcome is determined or predetermined, by the causes.
Would you allow water to find its own level or do you believe the risk of flooding the plains is too dangerous? Either way, what do you do about it?
First you figure out why terrorists and their plans are related to the risk of flooding the plains.
but after we took Baghdad, our strategic direction should have become much more pragmatic, nuanced and diplomatic.
One of the benefits of having a classical historical education is that you don’t need to step into all the problems and mistakes people have made billions of times in our past. Everybody can talk about more pragmatic, nuanced, and whatever diplo speak deals. It is only the details that matter, and it is historical details that have included, precluded, and excluded certain variations on policy that is already known to never work in certain situations.
Sadr fits the classical portrait of an insider crafting political power and gathering followers to him by instituting regional chaos, and then planning a coup and seizing power at the end, with or without his buddies. What matters isn’t whether folks favor pragmatism; because the only thing that matters is whether they think pragmatism is making deals with Sadr. Their given reasoning and analysis will speak more of the truth and the historical models, than any diplo speak around.
Essentially, draw down our footprint and make OIF into an ‘organic’ development within changed parameters
It’s a war for survival and principles. Not a horticultural experiment with Iran as co-project leader.
The enemy will always hit you, it doesn’t matter what you do. One of the systematic problems, as opposed to simple human errors, inherent concerning Iran is that people expect it to be part of their narration concerning events in Iraq. However, the reality is that Iran and various factions like them have their own narratives, completely at odds and different than the narratives of Bush, the academics, Barnett, or anyone else really.
Operating under the assumption that you can make deals with Iran when you have no idea and will never have an idea just exactly who they are and what they are trying to accomplish, is going to create an eventual failure. The Founding Fathers had results and eventuall victory to prove that their actions were justified. There’s no point in making compromises without a grasp of all the different variables at play and how they factor into the deal making process.
There is also no point in making deals with oath breakers.
Ymarsakar: “One of the benefits of having a classical historical education is that you don’t need to step into all the problems and mistakes people have made billions of times in our past.”
This is why it’s important to do the exercise. Maybe because I was a poli sci major and not a history major, I see these things as patterns, not just events.
What goes into a pattern on such a scale and what does it take to change to a better pattern?
blackfive.netblackfive.netThe patterning you use is based upon organic or inorganic connections. Which are just arbitrary, they are not sourced from any historical bedrock. That’s what I mean by the classics of history.
It doesn’t synch.
The events in Iraq have occured billions and trillions of time in history. It is not new. It just tends to be true that the events in Iraq, if you go back into the past, are asynchronously connected. Meaning for Iraq things are going in a smooth time stream with a consistent flow, yet in the past all the same things occured but in different time streams and locations.
What goes into a pattern on such a scale and what does it take to change to a better pattern?
There is no better pattern. Humanity has been stuck in the same Knowledge of Good and Evil trap since the days of fire and using bones as clubs brain enemies.
If a person actually sees a better pattern, it better be happening now. And if it is happening now, then he should use that knowledge to create a better condition. These conditions are transitory, but they are nonetheless valuable for it, so long as it serves its purpose as a transition from chaos to order, from war to peace. There’s no point trying to create a better pattern of events, we don’t have 5000 years for that. The last success with Great Pattern Weaving was the United States. Don’t think that’s going to re-occur anytime soon.
If you want a specific proposal for what to do, if you favor action over analysis, then you can start here with Jimbo and Grim.
Jimbo
Grim
They got pretty much all you need if you want to make things better. That and Small Wars Journal. Whatever you are curious about in your comments here directed towards me, they answer far better than I.
Ymar,
Be sure to do the “whole” exercise. It’s just like the Lefties’ articles; you can’t come to the “proper” conclusion unless you read the “entire” article.
Eric, why don’t you just save Ymar the trouble and tell him the “conclusion” you’re trying to steer him to?
those neocons who did in fact underestimate the difficulty of the task
Can you name any neocons who didn’t underestimate the difficulties involved in invading Iraq?
Lee,
I deliberately tried not to steer to a conclusion. I described a way of thinking about the problem.
I believe a reason we’re being out-maneuvered is that our enemies think like this better than we do as they play the game and manipulate the players.
We need to be aggressive, but we need to become smarter, too. And not just our military leaders – all of us.
OUr enemies don’t have to play the game better than us. They just need to play it better than our fearless leaders.