Chavez Takes New York

The UN General Assembly is in session this week.  For me, this means that I ride the subway home instead of the more efficient First Avenue bus.  For the world, it has meant fascinating political theater.

President Bush tried to talk directly to the people of Iran in his speech, but this is hard to do when you have no moral authority.  Later the same day, Iran's Holocaust-loving president addressed the assembly without wearing a tie.

These were both warm-up acts.  Yesterday Venezuela's Hugo Chavez capped off the proceedings by repeatedly referring to President Bush as the devil.  Following a sometimes comical speech, he made another address at the Cooper Union (where Abraham Lincoln once spoke.)  Here Chavez received a standing ovation, for accusing devil Bush of "genocide" in Iraq.

Chavez's moral clarion call becomes murkier upon closer inspection.  As many conservatives have noted, average Venezuelans have to think twice about calling Chavez the "devil" in public.  Yes, South America does not have the same level of freedom of expression as we do; this is like comparing apples and oranges. Even so, Chavez exploited freedoms that he is afraid to grant his own people.

Another trouble spot--At one point Chavez held up a night-time satellite photo, which shows lights burning in wealthy nations while most of the world is dark.  His point is that wealthy nations are wasteful consumers of energy. This is certainly true.  But since Venezuela's revenues depend heavily on oil, the reality is that Hugo wants us to keep on wasting that energy.  Behind the righteous ideologue lies an oil man, just like another president we all know.

A final sore spot--One of Hugo's fans is former attorney general Ramsey Clark.  Clark is now doing his best to defend the genocidal actions of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.  Whether Bush committed genocide in Iraq is at least debatable, but Saddam's crimes are not. 

I doubt that Clark and Chavez see the contradiction.

So I can't put Chavez up on a leftist pedestal. He doesn't deserve it.

But be that as it may, we shouldn't dismiss him altogether.  Chavez speaks what many people feel; our nation's worldwide stature has declined dramatically during the presidency of George W. Bush. We can ignore Hugo Chavez, but not the anger that he represents.

Comments

[Matt]

Marcus,
I loves ya... but the fact that Bush committed genoside in Iraq is NOT debatable.
Don't dishonor the dead, man.
His leadership and decisions are the main reason that tens of thousands of human beings who were once living, are now not.

and yeah, Chavez is no saint...
would I prefer that all the world's leaders were just and fair? sure. I'd also like my house to be made of soild gold and have lolipop trees in my backyard.

What I like is that someone in our hemisphere has the balls to get under the Cons' skin.

He's one of the only world leaders who stands up to the corporaocracy which is engulfing the globe.

And he may be an oil man, but if all oil men were like him, the world would be a better place. If you had to choose, who you rather have running your oil company... Chavez or Cheney?

(I know, I'd like to have Santa Claus run the oil company, too...but he's busy.)

[Phillip Bach]

In a sense, Chavez and Ahmadenajad are good spokesmen for the failed societies they "represent," although the individuals in those societies are not allowed to speak freely.

I don't dismiss the threat that their viewpoint represents, only its credibility. I won't even get into the substance of Chavez and Ahmadeinajad's speeches; they aren't worthy of a response.

I agree that the question of American "genocide" is not debatable. Not even the corrupt and anti-American Kofi Annan is alleging anything close to that.

[Matt]

You know... you're right.
Genocide is actually an incorrect decscription.
The Bush and the cons don't want ALL Iraqis dead. Just the ones that stand in the way of profit, or get caught in the crossfire of getting profit.

Bush din't commit "genocide"... he committed "Mass Murder" on a large and impresive scale.

Let's split hairs further... (Like on Law & Order) perhaps it's not all "Mass Murder", it's more like "Murder 2", some of it's "Manslaughter".

If you want to know anything about Chavez that isn't just right wing government spin, read "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast, or any of his articles for the Guardian.
Here's one.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,685907,00.html

Sorry, I'm not sure how to hyperlink this, you'll have to cut and paste.

:)

[Marcus]

Even I don't think President Bush has "committed" genocide. But his misbegotten war has increased the amount and severity of sectarian violence, and I have to think that many Shiites and Sunnis would kill each other off if they could.

Freedom may be on the march in Washington, but in Baghdad it hasn't marched very far.

[Bill Cash]

Good grief, Marcus, I leave your web site for two months and look what Communists take over. It is time for a purge.

To favorably compare South American dictators to North American vice-presidents, even lousy ones, is outrageous. Chavez presides over a country with the classic iron fist and the crucial and indispensable support of the military behind him. He has ordered the assassinations of several domestic enemies.

Richard Cheney and his government cronies can't even pass Alaskan oil drilling or Social Security reform, and even I'm sure he never ordered any domestic enemy dead. He only shoots friends, and does it personally, in the face, and they understand.

In all seriousness, it is a grievous insult to the United States to compare it to military dictators. The right to even have this discussion openly is something many people don't have. Marcus, your North American readership should pick its words with care.

[Mark D]

I remind everyone that the Chavez government was freely elected - twice. Glad to see you back Phillip. So back to my previous point - an Iraqi radical shia government freely elected does not mean that Iraq has progressed toward democracy.

The question isn't whether Chavez is right or not. The question we should be asking (my Republican friends) is; why has the Bush administration lost so much ground in their war on terror.

During the Bush administration there have been free elections in:

Afghanistan - now dominated by prewar militias and a resurgent Taliban

Lebanon - Hezbollah gained 1/3 of the vote and several ministries in the government

Iraq - the government is dominated by two pro-Iranian parties and a radical Sunni party

Palestine - radical Hamas defeated secular Fatah

Venezuela - Chavez wins not once but twice

Bolivia - A radical socialist Evo Morales wins power

Peru - A radical socialist populist comes within a hair's breadth of winning (he only lost because of Chavez's heavy handed attempt to sway the election)

Egypt - the Muslim Brotherhood would have won if Mubarak had not stolen the election

Pakistan - the sharia parties now represent the largest group in the pakistani parliament (the two secular parties that have dominated that government for a generation have been all but wiped out)

Ukraine - the orange revolution has fizzled the pro-Russian presidential candidate is now the prime minister

If this is progress, if this is victory, I would hate to see what would happen if we were loosing the war against totalitarianism.

[Wevbo]

I think it will be interesting, in the coming 2-3 years, to watch conservatives finally respond substantively to accusations regarding the behavior of American administrations abroad. The "I am outraged by the statement, sir, and refuse to dignify it with a response" becomes ironic in the face of sustained criticism from left, right, center, past administrations, future candidates, foreign governments--even that ol' "paper tiger" UN suddenly requires more than a wink and nod from Bush, Jr.

"Grievous insult," "unworthy of a response," "outrageous"--these words become diluted as knee-jerk responses. Identify the insult, expose the unworthiness, express the outrage. But don't hind behind the empty rhetoric of outrage. It's a lousy substitute for discourse.

[Phillip_Bach]

MarkD, this is an interesting paradox that we're faced with, that democratic elections may be harmful to U.S. interests in the short-term. But there's another way to look at this.

You said Chavez was elected twice, but it's also true that he represses political dissent in the country, so I'm not sure what conclusions can be drawn from that "choice." Iran's president, Ahmadinejad, is elected, but no one is allowed to run for election without approval from the radical Mullahs in control. And many thousands of people have been murdered, tortured and imprisoned for their peaceful religious beliefs since the "Islamic revolution" in Iran.

Democracy is about more than the mechanics of holding an election. When you give people the ballot, but simultaneously restrict access to basic liberties, especially information and free speech on political and social issues, you get what I call the "garbage in, garbage out" phenomenon.

It may be, however, that radical governments like Hamas in Palestine reflect the views of the electorate. While I wasn't happy about Hamas's victory, I think conservatives should think twice about automatically condemning and refusing to recognize this government. Likewise, liberals should not be quick to cite this as evidence that democracy is a failure in the Middle East. What we're seeing is the beginning of a learning process.

When a 16-18 year old moves out of their parents' home, they're suddenly faced with a new level of freedom, which many are not well prepared for. At first, they often make very bad choices. But the alternative to this learning process - coddling them in their parents house forever - is not in their best interests.

The Middle East is, in some social respects, in a similar state of infancy. We're trying to establish democracy in societies that are ready to riot and murder over some cartoons in a Danish newspaper, or some comments by the Pope. They haven't learned how to respond to offensive or different viewpoints in a civilized manner. This is not something that can be taught quickly or easily.

I'm hopeful that the Islamic world can learn to channel its anger through the democratic process, instead of through terrorism and war. They are angry with the West for a variety of reasons, some legitimate and some not. So it's natural that, if governments are truly representative, their leaders will inevitably say nasty things about the U.S. and Israel. But this is a dialogue that needs to begin, even if it's a heated one at first.

Some have argued for a "containment" policy against dictators like Saddam Hussein, and in the short-term, there is some strategic rationale to that. But ultimately we can never engage in a inter-societal dialogue with the Husseins and Ahmadinejads of the world, because their representative legitimacy is doubtful, to say the least.

In short, I'm convinced that working toward a dialogue between nations of free people will ultimately need to a more peaceful world. This dialogue will be more contentious in the short-term than it would be if we simply dealt with a dictator who was more favorable to our interests, but that is not a sustainable policy, or a moral one.

Before 9/11, I supported the overthrow of the Taliban, when most Americans had never heard of the Taliban. I supported President Clinton's military actions against Iraq and Afghanistan, and at the time I said the Republican "wag the dog" charges were totally irresponsible. For me, the connection between Hussein and 9/11 was besides the point, since I advocated killing Hussein for a decade. I still think removing him and creating an opportunity for democratic development was the right choice.

Reasonable people can disagree about the means by which our goal of advancing democracy is carried out. But I don't see an alternative to the basic goal: We have to work toward the creation of conditions for interaction between free societies.

By the way, the latest report I heard is that the Palestinians have agreed on a unity government that will implicitly recognize Israel. Who knows, this may fall apart tomorrow. What's important is the big picture; we get a distorted view by looking at a snapshot of the conditions on a day-to-day basis.

I don't think Iraq is "lost" - far from it - but I'm focusing on the long-term. Many other countries, under much better conditions, took longer than 3 years to "get it right." The U.S. floundered around in the dark for over a decade before agreeing on a Constitution, then sixty years later, the Civil War came. Of course, we've perfected democracy now, right? Except for the contested elections and hanging chads, impeachments, corruption and campaign finance scandals, and on and on. Even at its best, democracy is a mess. I'm not putting blinders on my eyes to the difficulties in Iraq, but neither am I willing to impose conditions and timetables on the Iraqs that we were not able to meet ourselves.

[MarkD]

Where to begin?

Phillip, you have written a very impressive statement representing the neo-con worldview. We do not differ in our view of the problems in the Middle East. Yes, in an ideal world all people would be free. In an ideal world, all governments would be freely elected. On these principles we can both agree. But in the interest of debate, let me focus on where we disagree.

You see, it is my view that the neo-con approach to spreading ‘democracy’ is seriously and fatally flawed. Because the neo-cons have failed to understand the fundamental problem and have failed to take into account the principles of the American Republic and its legal and political structures. I don’t know what you mean by saying that Iraq is not ‘lost.’ Lost to whom, lost to what? How can America lose Iraq? I don’t mean to cause offense, so if I cause offense please forgive me.

The implications of your worldview take my breath away. Do you realize what you have written? Have you thought through the implications of this worldview? Have you asked yourself this fundamental question; is the American form of government capable of sustaining and supporting the scope of the mission you have outlined here?

Marcus tells me you are studying the law. Having read the Federalist Papers, it is my belief that the founding fathers would have answered my questions in the negative. In fact, these are the times and this is the president they most feared. The founding fathers were students of the classics. Their project was to develop a new republic based on the the precepts of the Roman Republic before it. They were aware of the weaknesses of the Roman Republic and understood that it was the imperial ambition of Rome that lead to that Republic’s downfall. The great historical irony, it was Rome’s imperial ambitions in Iraq that set into motion the events that unravelled their Republic. Our founding fathers were in fact opposed to democracy, they feared it even. They feared that the American Republic would grow to an imperial power, and like Rome before it succumb to the imperial temptation. They feared that like the Roman masses (plebs) in ancient history that American masses would one day be lead by an American imperial general into foreign adventures.

The American government has no obligation to spread democracy. There is no burden on her to teach savages how to behave properly. Your entry reminds me of the old notion of the ‘white man’s burden.’ America had no choice to make about removing Saddam nor in providing an opportunity for Iraqi freedom. The American Government’s only duty and choice is to protect and defend American interests. You remind me of my European friends who often ask me why America does this or that or does not do this or that. My response to them and you is the same. America doesn’t do what Europeans think is right or wrong because the American system of government is designed to answer solely to the American people. The American Government is not designed nor is it capable of taking into account the interests of other people. It cannot answer to the French or the Germans because it must answer only to Americans. It this fact that will lead to the ultimate undoing of Bush’s project. Bush never asked if the system could sustain his project. He should have, because the answer is fairly straightforward. Our government is only answerable to us and not the people of Iraq. Therefore it is not capable of acting in the best interest of the Iraqis. That is not an indictment it is just a simple fact.

Therein lies the flaw in your logic. The interests of nations diverge, even the interests of two democratically elected governments. The fact that radical Islam is spreading via Bush’s ‘democracy project’ is not just a short-term problem nor is it just a step on a winding path to democracy and freedom. It is a legitimate reaction to the invasion of a foreign power. The people of the Middle East may misread Bush’s intent (it isn’t about oil, money, or control) but they are not wrong in their conclusion. America does not and cannot represent or defend their interests. The result, insurrection and turning to the anti-Americans was inevitable and all too predictable. Nothing has happened in the Middle East these past five years that could not have been foreseen. Nothing has happened in the Middle East that has surprized me.

Now for the larger problem. You see we even differ in our view of the goal. Again, I attribute this to the flawed view of the neo-cons. They see the root of the problem as a lack of democracy in the Middle East, though that is true, it is an incorrect assessment of the situation. The problem lies not in the lack of accountable government in the Middle East but to the lack of accountable government on a global scale. In reading your entry I cannot help but think; ‘here is an American who has not lived abroad.’ You see I do live abroad. I live in Australia, supposedly America’s most loyal partner in this project. I can tell you that loyalty only extends as far as Canberra. Australians, like most other people in the world feel powerless and alienated from the imperial corridors of power in Washington. Many Australian’s have expressed a desire to me to be able to vote in American elections because the actions of the American government directly effect their lives. They feel angry and frustrated that middle aged white men in Washington make decisions that impact how and where they travel, the price they pay for basic goods and services and with whom they go to war. They have no say no representation in Washington that can present the Australian interest. There are no Senators who think of the impact American duties on lamb will have on Australian farmers. And why should they? American Senators and congressmen answer to you and me, not some Aussie bloke shearing sheep in Mt Isa. In therein lies my point Phillip; to expect Senator McCain or Representative Lynch to act in the interest of Iraq is asking too much of the system. I oppose Bush because, in my view, he represents a far greater danger to the ideals of the Republic then Saddam or bin Laden. Bush is unravelling the very fabric of the Republic itself. He does not understand nor do I think he believes in the principles of the American Republic. He has asked the system to do that which it cannot – act in the interest of a foreign people. He is willing to trade core principles of the Republic for a false sense of security. In short, in my view, he is the American Sula (the man who in the interest of defending the nation began the process that ultimately undid the Roman Republic).

And for the record, Phillip. Unlike Marcus, I am neither a Democrat nor a liberal. I am just a student of history. My voting record is pretty evenly split between Republicans and Democrats – however I must admit that I have not voted for a Republican since 2000. Well that is not true, I did vote for Mit Romney.

[MarkD]

Phillip, I have been giving your comments about “loosing Iraq’ some more thought. Though I very much enjoyed your entry and respect your opinion, I notice that you didn’t address my specific questions. In fact, I have presented these questions to a large number of Republicans and no one has directly answered them. Just last week I was at a dinner party with the Surgeon General of Australia (it is a military post in this country). He has extensive experience in Iraq and even he could not answer my questions.

So I am going to post what I have observed. My observations come from extensive readings and discussions from all points of view. I also watch who says what and who takes which actions. You can read a lot into what people do. I admit that my analysis may be flawed. Because it is impossible to get the truth from anyone. That is particularly true of the Iraqi and US Governments, neither is a reliable source of information.

With that preface here I go.

There are only three possible scenarios in Iraq:
Negotiated settlement
Partition
Military victory by one side (or an alliance of parties) over the others.

Here are the players in the order of their military power:
United States armed forces (motive and objective - depends on who you ask)

The Kurdish Parties (PDK & PUC) they are secular Sunni, and wish to establish a Kurdish homeland, they are not democratic; they have the strongest and most disciplined militia, the Peshmerga.

SCIRI radical Shia funded and closely aligned with Iran, they control the most powerful militia (outside of Kurdistan) the Badr Brigade and the Interior Ministry (including most of the police) they are blatantly anti—democratic and wish to install an Iranian style Islamic republic.

DAWA radical Shia funded and also aligned with Iran. They control the Iraqi military (at least their actions would indicate that is so) there are reports that they control a scattered militia but I am listing them here by virtue of the fact that they are the most likely group in control of the military, they are anti-democratic but more subtle then SCIRI.

The Sadrist, radical Shia, but home grown, they seek to impose the Shia version of Sharia law and to create an Islamic Republic dominated by Shia. it is uncertain what they feel about the Sunni - they control the largest (but disorganised) militia the Mahdi Army they also seem to have a strong influence over the police, violently anti-democratic, their only saving grace - they are anti-Iranian.

Iraqi Islamic Party a combination of radical Sunni and former Ba’athist a scattering if disorganised militia (controlled by various tribes) they seek to continue the dominance of the Sunnis in Iraq and to impose Sunni Sharia law; violently anti-democratic.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq violently radical Sunni they seek to eliminate both Shia and American influence in Iraq, they are violent and dangerous but in the end, they are just a bit player.

With these three possible scenarios and the players listed above it is difficult to assess an American objective and strategy.

Should America aim for a negotiated settlement? With so many anti-democratic players it seems to me that it is unlikely that a negotiated settlement would lead to a free and open society. I can not imagine SCIRI, DAWA, and the IIP negotiating towards free and open elections and freedom of choice. None of these parties believe in what we would call democracy. I can see no American interest served in supporting any of these players. I know the administration likes to quote ‘improvements and progress’ in the readiness of the Iraqi military and police. You can debate whether or not this is true. However, that is not the point. I would submit that strengthening the Iraqi Police and Military may be construed as aiding and abetting the enemy. Did anyone stop to think that American tax dollars are being spent on weapons that may easily slip into enemy hands? Did anyone ever stop to ask where the militia get their weapons? We hear a great deal about desertions in the Iraqi army and police. Tell me, what do you suppose happens to the weapons that were provided to the troops that abandon their posts? The people who control the police and military are also aligned with various militia. Any dispassionate person would have to admit that the loyalty of these organizations to the legally constituted government is questionable. The arms supplied to these organisations are not secure.

What about partition. This too presents serious problems. An independent Kurdistan would most likely lead to a Turkish invasion. Why do you think the two Kurdish Parties are so keen to keep the American military in Iraq? Why do you think that they are keen to talk about a federated unified Iraq? For nearly fifty years these two parties have fought for independence. Why have they changed their stripes now? Because an American military presence and the fiction of a unified Iraqi state keeps the Turks on their side of the border. No, it is in the best interest of the PUC and PDK to keep things just as they are. American forces on the ground and an ineffectual government in Baghdad. The Kurds have done very well for themselves in the current situation. No need to change.

Partition would also most likely lead to an invasion of the Shia south by Iran and the Sunni center by Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Even if that did not happen, the result would be two new radical governments: one Shia and one Sunni. No American interest served here either.

Military victory by one party. But by whom? The most likely candidates are SCIRI and the Kurds. If SCIRI won, we would have in effect, supplied the weapons that allowed Iran to gain control of Iraq. If the Kurds won, it could possibly lead to an invasion by Turkey. This would indeed be a mess. But maybe it is the best scenario. Maybe we should stop arming the Iraqi army and police and start providing arms to the Peshmerga. The end result would be either a Kurdish secular dictatorship or a Turkish protectorate. On the other hand, this scenario could very well lead to a war involving the Turks, Kurds and Iran with Turkey and Iran carving up Iraq. Another problem, Kurdish interests are bets served by the status quo. The only way we could force this scenario would be to withdraw. Though the Democrats don’t know it, when they call for American withdrawal this is the most likely scenario. In any case, I am again left with the question; what American interest has been served?

Phillip, I invite you to lay out your scenario. You think Iraq can be ‘won.’ Please, layout a plausible scenario that demonstrates that outcome. No wishful thinking though Phillip. The players listed above are the ones you have to work with. What is their motivation in creating a Jeffersonian Democracy? What mechanism are used to draw them in that direction?

[Phillip_Bach]

Mark, the following is a reply to your Sept. 26 posting, though I just noticed you have since posted another response. I will read it, and reply to your specific questions soon. Take care.

------

I didn’t realize you were living in Australia. I spent several weeks in Sydney, and loved it. In some ways, it reminded me of a smaller (and much cleaner!) version of New York.

I have indeed lived and traveled outside the United States. I just returned from the Philippines, and over the last few months, I’ve been reading about the era of U.S. control over the archipelago after the Spanish-American war. The book I’m reading describes this as “America’s only experiment in colonialism.” In most people’s minds, the word “colonialism” suggests economic exploitation. American colonialism, if one can even call it that, has clearly been of a much milder form than that practiced by the British, Spanish, and other historical empires.

Of course, we have to be cautious about transferring the experience and lessons from the Philippine Insurrection to the Iraq war. But one thing that was striking to me was the tragedy of misconceived intentions. Some Filipinos supported an insurgency against the U.S. military that lasted for several years, resulting in thousands of civilian casualties, based on the belief that the U.S. would be another oppressive occupier like the Spanish. After the insurgency was ultimately defeated, the U.S. granted a large degree of autonomy to the Philippines almost immediately, establishing the first-ever democratic legislature in Asia, with full independence to follow (though delayed by World War II). This was a controversial war, and many people today and then can question the economic, strategic or moral grounds for U.S. involvement in the Philippines. But the parade of horribles that was feared by the insurgents never came to pass, and on balance, it’s fairly clear that the Philippines is better off today than it would have otherwise been without any U.S. intervention. The biggest achievements were building a system of public education – virtually nonexistent beforehand – and establishing a common language (English) that has allowed Filipinos to compete better in the international market.

Since achieving independence after World War II, the road to stable democracy in the Philippines has been a bumpy one, to say the least. One lesson that’s very relevant to the Iraq situation is this: It’s very easy to draw up a constitution, hold elections, and adopt the superficial formalities of democracy, but creating a civil society capable of implementing those forms is a much more complex process. The Philippines have endured a virtual dictator, and two “people’s power” revolutions. Corruption is still a huge problem (not uncommon in most Asian governments). I think they’re moving in the right direction, however, but societal changes are take time.

Similarly, South Korea was liberated by U.S. and UN forces about 50 years ago, but they’ve really only adopted true democracy in recent years. One observing the Philippines during the Marcos era might have concluded that the American experiment was a failure, but historical trends have told a different story.

You wrote, “It was the imperial ambitions of Rome that lead to that Republic’s downfall.” I think it’s questionable, at the very least, whether the United States has ever had “imperial” ambitions, as that term is popularly understood. We have a rather pathetic empire consisting of Puerto Rico, Guam and a few other islands of trivial value. No one seriously thinks of Puerto Rico as a “colony” as that term is traditionally understood.

Similarly, virtually no Americans – neocons like me included – want to occupy Iraq indefinitely, for economic exploitation or any other purpose. “Nation-building” is not synonymous with empire-building. To the extent that we are trying to establish autonomous democratic societies that will be friendly to other civil democratic societies (i.e. the U.S.), I don’t view that as imperialism. Is Japan part of the American “empire”?

My ex-wife, who is ethnically Chinese from Malaysia, once said to me, “When the U.S. is done in Iraq, I hope they invade Malaysia!” She was angry about the Malaysian government’s systematic discrimination against the Chinese, a minority in that country. Without taking a poll, I’ll stipulate that her sentiments are not the prevailing view in Malaysia (certainly not among the ethnic majority, Malays).

Still, I mention this because it’s not clear to me whether the U.S. is resented more because it meddles in other nations’ affairs, or because it doesn’t do enough to stop gross injustices when it has the power to do so. The systematic persecution and genocide of Jewish people was not a persuasive reason to enter World War II; it took an attack on the Philippines and Hawaii to rouse us to action. Americans were complacent about the Taliban, one of the most brutal regimes in history, until the World Trade Center was destroyed. And of course, we’ve done virtually nothing to stop the various genocides in Africa from the 1990’s to the present.

I lived in Cambodia for 3 months last summer – about as much time as I was able to endure. I was emotionally sick and shattered by the time I left that country. After the United States fled and the government fell to the Communists, the “world community” had no interest in stopping the insane slaughter of 2 million civilians that followed. Some 30 years later, the country is still badly struggling to recover from the damage done in just a few short years.

Even taking the experience of Vietnam into account, on balance I’m still more haunted by what we have failed to do, than by what we have done, even when those efforts yield unintended consequences.

You have argued that our government cannot “act in the interest of a foreign people.” But the United Nations system and 20th century human rights law is based on the theory that what happens within the borders of a sovereign state is very much the concern of others in the world community, in certain circumstances. I don’t think you need to worry about the U.S. acting in a purely benevolent fashion. Every government, including ours, acts primarily in its own interest.

There has been some blurring and confusion about the justification for U.S. action in Iraq. Strictly speaking, it was not an ideological war, but one based on the perception of imminent threat. I suspect that’s why so many Democrats initially voted for the war. Despite the historical revision currently underway, the world believed – almost unanimously – that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs. Even states that opposed the war, like Russia, France, and China, held this view. I know there’s a lot of suspicion among some today regarding the Bush administration’s “real” motivations. But suffice to say that Tony Blair, who is hardly a neo-conservative war-monger, reached the same conclusions based on British intelligence. He entered the war not to advance some neo-conservative worldview, but based on the fact that Hussein was in material violation of over a dozen UN Security Council resolutions, that international law needed to be enforced, and that Hussein’s breaches posed a grave threat to global security. This is essential the “liberal” justification for war.

I hope I didn’t give the impression that “spreading democracy” is a purely benevolent exercise, although I won’t deny a moral component to it. This is not merely the White Man’s Burden; civilizing the savages and winning souls for Christ. If that were the goal, we could have picked many other countries that would be much less of a headache than Iraq. Indeed, if that were the goal, we would have toppled the Taliban long before 9/11. Both Afghanistan and Iraq were linked directly to security threats to the American people – whether actual or perceived. Beyond the factual question of WMDs, Hussein was a model for defiance of international law. He perceived the UN Security Council as paralyzed, and filled the power vacuum with his own authority. Sadly, Iran is now following this example. Despite UN Security Council orders to cease uranium enrichment, they are plowing full-steam ahead, claiming some natural right to nuclear power.

Back to my point: Establishment of democracy has direct consequences on the security of the American public, undoubtedly a legitimate concern of the U.S. government. As a student of history, you know that true democracies have rarely gone to war against one another. The last time the U.S. went to war with a democracy was….well….ourselves, if you count the Confederacy. The problem is that most of the Muslim world is oppressed and exploited by their own people, but somehow, the U.S. and Israel have become the convenient scapegoat for all their problems.

The declassified National Intelligence Estimate that has caused such a stir in recent days notes, “More responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit….If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use political process to achieve their local objectives.”

This is exactly the point I’ve been trying to make. Societies that have responsive governments are less likely to resort to violence to vent their anger or achieve their objectives – violence that is usually directed against American citizens or interests.

Your point about the Australian government is curious. Obviously, there are many democracies that opposed and stayed out of the Iraq war from the beginning. Spain and Italy initially supported the war, but have since fled. Our influence was not even strong enough to persuade the UN Security Council to enforce the dozen resolutions it had previously passed! The U.S. has not compelled Australia or any other state to join a war against its will. To the extent that the Australian government’s policy does not reflect its citizens’ wishes, that is a political problem for the Australians to handle. Certainly, unlike the Iraqis, they are a free, developed sophisticated society capable of handling this on their own. But I’m not sure I accept the premise that the Australian government is really so out of step with public sentiment.

This is becoming rather long, so I won’t go through everything you said point-by-point. But I was struck by your statement, “Our founding fathers were in fact opposed to democracy.” By this, you must mean direct democracy, as opposed to our republican form of government. It is true that, as the Founder’s imagined it, only half of one branch of our federal government was to be directly elected by the general public (that is, by white men). Nevertheless, “We the People” was very much at the heart of our social contract, and it remains so today, even as certain institutional checks on the power of majority rule remain in place.

I too have read the Federalist Papers (more than once), and selected other writings from the Founding period. I am not so certain about what the Founding Fathers would have done today, regarding the “war on terrorism,” Iraq or anything else. George Washington’s warning against “entangling alliances” was undoubtedly solid counsel in the 18th century, to a weak developing nation. However, when Washington is quoted today by isolationists who want the world’s only superpower to withdraw from the United Nations and international treaties, I’m not sure that holds water. I’ve always loved Constitutional law, and I’m currently taking classes on First Amendment, and Gun Control law. I do think “original intent” and historical analysis is worthy of serious consideration. But it’s really not clear what the authors of the First and Second Amendments would have done with assault weapons, or virtual child pornography on the internet. Our fascination with “What would the Founding Fathers do?” is the secular equivalent of “What would Jesus do?” It’s a good starting point, but ultimately the real question is what would WE do, as a self-governing society, rulers of our own destiny. Jefferson once advocated writing a new constitution every 20 years. I don’t think that is necessary, but the Founders might be amused by the fact that we’re still struggling to read the tea leaves of their 18th century writings. I’m not mocking this – on the contrary, historical reflection is invaluable. But we can honor the Founders’ vision by, among other things, doing what we’re doing right now: Participating in political discourse and self-government, and doing the best we can to address the daunting challenges of the modern world.

It’s comforting to know that the Founders disagreed passionately with each other on almost everything, and partisan divisions developed very quickly, from the Adams-Jefferson race. Even among honorable and capable men, there are many hard questions and no easy solutions.

I’m glad to hear that you’ve voted for both Democrats and Republicans. Nothing wrong with either party, but blind partisanship is poisonous to democracy. I am a registered Republican, but I’m not opposed to voting for a Democrat. It’s sad that moderate-liberals like Joe Leiberman and Tony Blair are now despised by the Democratic establishment. I would be proud to have either of them as my president.

I’ve enjoyed this discussion, and have appreciated your thoughtful insights. Take care.

[Marcus]

Phillip selectively quotes from the recently declassified National Intelligence Estimate (http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf),
so allow me to do the same:

"We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and
operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the
struggle elsewhere.

• The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep
resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for
the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves,
and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry
on the fight.

We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate. [5 years]

• Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1)
Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western
domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the
Iraq “jihad;” (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and
political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US
sentiment among most Muslims—all of which jihadists exploit."

Just because jihadists can be dangerous is not a reason, necessarily, not to confront them. But any honest President would acknowledge the complexities of this situation rather than merely thump his chest. From trumped up allegations of WMD in 2002 to ridiculous claims that we are "winning the war on terror" today, the Bush administration's only strategy has been to deceive the American people.

Now that the New York Times refuses to cower (as they did in gullibly accepting the WMD lie), it is an easy Republican scapegoat for the administration's own failures. The paper of record is far from perfect, but I for one am glad that it is no longer a propaganda mill for the White House.

[Phillip_Bach]

I selectively quoted from the National Intelligence Estimate as it related to the point I was making on democracy. I object to the New York Times, the Newspaper of (Illegally Obtained) Records, leaking the contents of a classified document, and then summarizing it in such a grossly distorted way.

The President was forced to release a classified record, just to defend himself from malicious leaks. No one is asking the New York Times to be a propaganda mill for the White House. But obeying the law would be nice.

No one disputes that the Iraq war is the "cause celebre" for Al Qaeda. That's another way of saying, as President Bush always does, that Iraq has become the "front line" in the war on terror. Of course it has.

The Iraq war is the rallying cry for our enemies for one reason: Our troops are there. It's pretty simple. The 1991 Gulf War was also heavily exploited to recruit Al Qaeda members. Osama bin Laden ranted endlessly about the presence of "infidel" troops in Saudi Arabia. Now, instead of just blowing up our embassies and battleships abroad, they have something really big to fight for. I don't dispute that.

Of the four underlying factors contributing to the spread of jihadism, one of which is the "Iraq jihad." Actaully, the other three factors are broad enough to include many sub-factors.

The leading reason for "pervasive anti-U.S. sentiment among most Muslims" is, of course, our staunch support for Israel. Indeed, most of the factors that contribute to Muslim anger against the U.S. have been in place for a long time, and are not likely to change anytime soon; nor would that be desirable.

Both of us acknowledge that what we're doing in Iraq is making the bad guys really angry, and helping their recruitment efforts. The difference is, you give legitimacy to their rage. I do not.

The Intelligence report also underscores the stakes in this conflict:

"Perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere...should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

This assessment should give pause to those who want us to withdraw from the Iraqi "civil war." If you think Iraq is a recruiting tool now, imagine what it would be if we leave in failure, and bin Laden issues tapes declaring victory over the United States. "Black Hawk Down" times a million - the propaganda value would be enormous.

But let's end on a bright note. The NIE report begins, "United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of Al-Qaeda and disrupted its operations."

Translation: We're kickin' ass and takin' names. :-)

[Marcus]

Extremist Islam is a horrible menace, and I grant no legitimacy to it whatsoever.

Just a grant no legitimacy to a President who began an illegal war and keeps lying to this day. The New York Times has done a great public service in exposing the administration's deceits, and I am a proud subscriber.

[MarkD]

No Phillip, we aren’t kicking ass. In fact, we are losing. That is the point I have been trying to make all along. This strategy is fundamentally flawed because the neo-con worldview is flawed. It can only lead to one thing, victory for the enemy. God save us from any more Bush victories. The next domino to fall my friend, mark my words, Nicaragua.

Remember Daniel Ortega, he is back and he looks likely to win the next election. You focused on my point about Australians and translated that to dissatisfaction with the Aussie Government. Aussies aren’t dissatisfied with their government. The government, in fact, is very popular. John Howard is a master politician. It helps that the leader of the opposition, Kim Beasley, died 10 years ago and no one bothered to tell him. But that doesn’t take away from Howard’s success. What I said is that Australians are dissatisfied with the US alliance, and Australia is not alone. You can add Korea and the Philippines to that list as well (in my corner of the world). You see evidence of it every day. America becomes ever more isolated. The dominoes are falling my friend:

Palestine
Lebanon
Near miss in Egypt
Spain (Zapatero won on an anti-American platform)
Italy (the right out the left in)
Somalia
Bolivia
Venezuela
Soon Nicaragua
Mexico (saved by the skin of our teeth)
Watch Britain once Blair is gone
Ukraine (has anyone noticed that the pro-Russian candidate booted out in the orange revolution is now in charge of the government)
Peru (thank God for manipulated elections even with that we still ended up with Garcia, the conservative pro-American candidate came dead last)
Watch Abe in Japan he is no Koizumi and I am certain he will prove no friend of America
Iran spreads its influence through the Middle East (they virtually control the western sector of Afghanistan)
Then there is Pakistan. Philip don’t you find Musharraf’s behavior strange? Supposedly he is on our side. Yet, bin laden has remained at large in Pakistan for a longer time then his stay in Afghanistan. Why can’t they find him? It shouldn’t be that hard, it is a small country. The Taliban engages in daily raids across the border. Why can’t the Pakistani military stop them? Pakistan provides nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea. Musharraf writes a book and tells people that he was strong armed into supporting Bush. He hates Karzai and the feeling is mutual. Don’t you find this strange? Does this add up?
And then there is Iraq: Here are the results of a poll recently conducted in Iraq by the University of Maryland:

‘About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, a poll finds.

The Iraqis also have negative views of Osama bin Laden, according to the early September poll of 1,150.
The poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, found:

Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.
About 61 percent approved of the attacks — up from 47 percent in January. A solid majority of Shiite and Sunni Arabs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among Shiite Iraqis.
An overwhelmingly negative opinion of terror chief bin Laden and more than half, 57 percent, disapproving of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Three-fourths say they think the U.S. plans to keep military bases in Iraq permanently.
A majority of Iraqis, 72 percent, say they think Iraq will be one state five years from now. Shiite Iraqis were most likely to feel that way, though a majority of Sunnis and Kurds also believed that would be the case.’ (notice that I did include results the may call into question some of my observations – as I said I freely admit I am making assessments based on limited information)

Phillip, in 1996 Osama bin Laden outlined his objectives. At the time I thought he was a nut living in a cave. How wrong I was.

He stated these goals:
destabilise the pro-American governments in the Middle East
separate America from her allies
bleed America (literally and financially)
cause division and divide America against itself

I ask you Philip, which of these objectives has he not achieved? It astounds me that this could come to pass. I thought he was a mad man a raving lunatic. It never occurred to me that he would be aided by the US President in his objectives. Phillip, we don’t disagree on the objective: global self-determination, freedom and freely elected governments everywhere. Where we disagree is that you think George is an agent in achieving these goals. I think he is an agent for the other side.