…

I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….

Now you’re getting it.

Now you and Xan just sit there and relax. Don’t worry your pretty little heads and let the men folk do their jobs.

More seriously, either we are an alternative to the Evil Empire or new caliphate, supporting democracy, freedom and the rule of law at home and abroad over those who would rule by fear and oppression, denying freedom to their subjects … or we are in a perpetual existential struggle in which we must adopt the same tactics as our enemies if we are to survive. Or, as Patrick Henry (should have) said, “Give me security or give me death.”

Yeah, I don’t know, something about Soviet client state (cf. Warsaw Pact, SLBMs, etc.), Kuwait, international community, thousand points of light (sorry, joke) … I don’t know. I just feel something is missing from your recounting of the logic.

Chris:And all of this fits neatly into supporting liberty, extending democracy and advancing our national interests … how?

Well, if that’s what you think our logic is, no wonder you’re confused!

Try this: During the Cold War, the US was locked in an existential conflict with a rival, aggressive superpower. During this time, overthrowing some governments, or simply supporting the overthrow of some governments, to keep them from joining the Soviet side against us, seemed like a better deal than letting the enemy build a bigger and bigger alliance of states against us. However, there were some states the US couldn’t do anything about, and some against whom it was simply dangerous to try to move against. The Soviets played the same game, and were quite a bit more brutal about it.

After the Soviet Union fell (say, from 1989, ignoring the technical details of dissolution), the US was no longer in an existential conflict. We could breathe easier and address concerns a rung or two down from survival, like building a better international community through promoting law, order, and democracy. At that time, we thought promoting and enforcing international laws would reduce violence and bloodshed (now we would say ‘Tell it to Ruwanda, tell it to Bosnia, tell it to Darfur,’ but we were young and naive then … [flash scenes of Paris in the spring, a cafe, a young woman in a beret] ).

When Saddam fought Iran (what, 1980-88?), he was a Soviet ally (cf. Warsaw Pact, MIRV, etc.). When he invaded Kuwait, he wasn’t, and it seemed in the best interest of both the US and the international community at large to slap his hand and tell him to keep it on his own oil wells. This was when we believed strong international laws were in our best interests.

We all know how the next 12 years, 17 UNSC resolutions, and the perfidies of three UNSC permanent members along with dishonest bureaucracy (e.g. Oil for Palaces), dishonest journalism (e.g., Eason Jordan), and rising anti-Americanism and terrorist attacks worked out, so no need to go there again. Although, happy to do so if you want. That’s me, obliging to a fault.

Anyway, after that nasty experience with tying ourselves up in international law enforcement, and dreams of international peace went wafting up in cordite smoke, it was clear that the spread of democracy was more in our interests than the increased power of organizations where we were outnumbered by tyrants and those who would do anything for a few billion in oil field development contracts.

It was also clear that Saddam wasn’t going to allow peace: he did have dormant WMD programs, and once the sanctions were dropped (and hence the no-fly zones) he would have gone after the Kurds. After the Kurds were finished off, it would have been some other war. He needed enemies to justify his brutal regime, so there was never any chance of peace with him around. Naturally, he and Iran would be in an arms race for nukes right now, and my wouldn’t that have been exciting to watch? Plus his support for terrorists, yada yada yada, you know the rest (or at least you do if you’ve been listening to what the right’s actually been saying instead of just soaking up the horrendously simplistic versions they’ve been tarred with by lefty propagandists).

What the Left will do to Pakistan can be spelled out in one word.

Betrayal.

It is a specialty of subversive organizations.

Leftism and Communism creates the vacuum into which fascism steps and thereby reigns supreme. It is as simple as that.

Please read this for what they plan to do to Pakistan’s people, ag.

http://www.iranianvoice.org/article774.html

And speaking of the Cold War, Saddam’s Iraq was a Soviet client state right up to the fall of the USSR. And, no, what Saddam did was never OK with the US, but we were in no position to do anything about it (cf. Warsaw Pact, ICBM, etc.). Of course, what blood dictators shed within their own borders isn’t something the left is concerned with, or they would demand more unilateral action from the US. Building international consensus and great coalitions to carry out major goals requires mollifying a lot of dictators, unless you go all cowboy unilateralist on it.

But, the left does truly enjoy its rhetorical hypocrisy: If we deal with dictators, we’re condoning their bloody actions, and if we refuse to deal with dictators, we are rednecks destroying our international reputation with unilateral action. And they are excellent at selective forgetfulness: We didn’t like the socialist tendencies of some government, so we overthrew it to prevent Hillarycare … uh, never mind the threat posed by Communist imperialists armed with ICBMs, with a military requiring huge amounts of oil. Hmm, now where could the Soviets have aquired the oil they needed? What country, with a newly formed socialist-leaning government, might step under the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics umbrella and supply the Soviet military with the oil they needed? Gosh, I just can’t think of one. Oh well, I guess we did help overthrow the Iranian government to prevent Hillarycare. We are so MEAN!!!!

And the same for Pakistan, of course (which joined the nuclear club during which presidency? Starts w/ a ‘C’ …). Dealing with them in order to get what help we can in fighting our declared enemies is a Bad Thing. We should be more unilateral, go it alone or only with thoroughly vetted, morally upright governments, right? I mean, we’d never have anything to do with the Chinese government, certainly. Forget that whole diplomacy, international community, UN, multilateralism stuff. That’s for fascists.

Oh, and I guess the fact that Afghanistan is a landlocked country, with Iran and Pakistan between it and the ocean, and the fact that our major method of projecting military power is aircraft carriers, shouldn’t have any consideration? Sorry, of course not. We should just do all that Robert Heinlein stuff and build a spaceport in Kabul. Go Space Marines!