February 1, 2010
Al Qaeda Attempts to Woo Useful Idiots
Last year in Lebanon, a left-wing American journalist tried to convince me that I’ve been too hard on Hezbollah’s Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, that I might like what I heard if I’d just listen more open-mindedly. “He’s trying to raise awareness of global warming,” he said to me earnestly over lunch. “Don’t you think that’s interesting?” I told him, no, I did not find it interesting, but the truth is I think it’s fascinating that anyone in the world would believe a terrorist and a fascist is concerned about the environment.
Osama bin Laden must be paying attention because now even he hopes to broaden his appeal by passing himself off as a green activist. “Osama bin Laden enters global warming debate,” reads the straight-faced headline in London’s Daily Telegraph, as if the Copenhagen Climate Conference organizers now have some rhetorical backup for their arguments against Republicans, Chinese industrialists, and Montana residents who set their thermostats to 70 degrees during the winter. Al-Qaeda’s founder and chief executive — assuming he’s actually still alive and recorded the most recent broadcast — even cites the latest anti-American diatribe in the Guardian by campus favorite Noam Chomsky.
Communists used to pull stunts like this all the time to get support in the West from what Vladimir Lenin called “useful idiots.” Even 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez manage to attract Western fans like Oliver Stone, Medea Benjamin, and writers at the Nation.
I’m slightly surprised it has taken al-Qaeda so long to figure this out. Hamas and Hezbollah are way ahead. They have far more sophisticated public relations departments. A few weeks ago, Hezbollah, Hamas, and leaders from what’s left of the Iraqi “resistance” hosted a terrorist conference in Beirut, which some of the usual subjects from the fringe Left attended — former Democratic party Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, and British member of Parliament George Galloway.
Less prominent American and European leftists also attended, including a Jewish blogger from Sweden who said his first trip to Lebanon was an “overwhelming experience” and described his slide into the political abyss in two sentences. “As a Jew I felt guilt about the treatment of the Palestinians because it is carried out in the name of all Jews,” he said to a Syrian journalist who asked what he was doing there. “I converted guilt into responsibility by taking up the political cause for the dissolution of the Jewish state.
Read the rest in Commentary Magazine.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at February 1, 2010 10:09 AM
Comments
1) Chomsky is a useful commentator. Almost his entire political work can be summed up: the rich and power use their wealth and power for their own interests, part of that power is the distortion of reality. Who could say this is not true?
2) There are Western Leftists who sympathize with Communist Cuba and "Bolivarian" Venezuela. Given the inglorious history of American interventionism and indigenous capitalist despotism in the the Third World in general, and Latin America in particular, perhaps that is understandable. There are virtually no Western Leftists that actually support Hamas or Al Qaeda. In that sense your piece makes an unbecoming conflation. To be opposed to Israeli or American policy is not to be for the Islamists. (And besides, to quote Stalin, "how many divisions" does the Left have? There are hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in the Long War, $3 billion of year in subsidies to Israel, the Left has nothing but its words. It is virtually an epiphenomenon.)
3) And, a word on Communists. 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the real question is why Americans believed that in fostering the deaths of Vietnamese, Nicaraguan and Angolan peasants they were somehow undoing Moscow. The same crusader ideology still governs the U.S. today, the "Islamist threat" having replaced the Communist one. Communist movements were certainly militaristic in nature to the point of despotism. Communists destroyed Nazism, Communists destroyed the French and Portuguese colonial empires, Communists fought for racial equality in South Africa while Reagan and Thatcher supported the Apartheid state underhand.
There is no point demonizing. All states are evil in their way, some worse than others of course, but the sins of others (which we can rarely affect) do not excuse those of our own governments (which we can).
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 1, 2010 10:28 am
2) There are Western Leftists who sympathize with Communist Cuba and "Bolivarian" Venezuela. Given the inglorious history of American interventionism and indigenous capitalist despotism in the the Third World in general, and Latin America in particular, perhaps that is understandable. There are virtually no Western Leftists that actually support Hamas or Al Qaeda. In that sense your piece makes an unbecoming conflation. To be opposed to Israeli or American policy is not to be for the Islamists. (And besides, to quote Stalin, "how many divisions" does the Left have? There are hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in the Long War, $3 billion of year in subsidies to Israel, the Left has nothing but its words. It is virtually an epiphenomenon.)
3) And, a word on Communists. 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the real question is why Americans believed that in fostering the deaths of Vietnamese, Nicaraguan and Angolan peasants they were somehow undoing Moscow. The same crusader ideology still governs the U.S. today, the "Islamist threat" having replaced the Communist one. Communist movements were certainly militaristic in nature to the point of despotism. Communists destroyed Nazism, Communists destroyed the French and Portuguese colonial empires, Communists fought for racial equality in South Africa while Reagan and Thatcher supported the Apartheid state underhand.
There is no point demonizing. All states are evil in their way, some worse than others of course, but the sins of others (which we can rarely affect) do not excuse those of our own governments (which we can).
Perhaps a better title: "Western Left Unresponsive to Islamist 'Green Wooing'"
(!)
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 1, 2010 10:36 am
(!)
I used to like Chomsky, long ago, even as I always thought his language was too harsh. I no longer find his analysis very compelling. What finally turned me was his insistence on writing about the morally troubling U.S. intervention in Latin America and elsewhere as though the Soviet Union was not also intervening in Latin America and elsewhere at the same time. That would be like writing about the firebombing of Dresden without mentioning Hitler.
Anyway, you might find, if you haven't yet read it, the famous essay Dictatorships and Double Standards worth a read. (Warning: it's long.)
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 1, 2010 10:36 am
Anyway, you might find, if you haven't yet read it, the famous essay Dictatorships and Double Standards worth a read. (Warning: it's long.)
It is especially entertaining that the Bin Laden gang are hyping global warming at a time that it is being exposed for the fraud that it is. Bin Laden and his cronies are clearly out of touch with reality. The guy you ran into in Lebanon is also similarly out of touch.
That global warming is a fraud has been apparent to me for some time.
Posted by: Lindsey Abelard at February 1, 2010 10:46 am
That global warming is a fraud has been apparent to me for some time.
That old inversion of moral equivalency does not work. Russia had never been a state capable of intercontinental "domination" and that obviously remained the case even in the Soviet incarnation. Soviet aid to Nicaragua or to Vietnam made those countries no less independent that the aid to Greece and Turkey under the Truman Doctrine.
In addition, Western intervention often preceded or caused the turn towards the Soviet Union. There was this magical tendency by Western security "analysts" to isolate and subvert Lumumba's Congo, Nasser's Egypt, Allende's Chile or any number of other countries, and then "naively wonder" why they then turned to the Russians for aid and weapons. (This, then, in turn "proving" the radicalism of said country, legitimizing the overthrow of the government, whether democratically elected or not.)
The Kirkpatrick essay is a famous one that underpinned a generation of Reaganite interventionism in the Third World. I for one don't think the Americans were any safer from "Moscow" for what they did in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Angola or Zaire (or, in a previous generation, in Vietnam and Chile). The peoples of those countries are obviously not better off for it either.
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 1, 2010 10:59 am
In addition, Western intervention often preceded or caused the turn towards the Soviet Union. There was this magical tendency by Western security "analysts" to isolate and subvert Lumumba's Congo, Nasser's Egypt, Allende's Chile or any number of other countries, and then "naively wonder" why they then turned to the Russians for aid and weapons. (This, then, in turn "proving" the radicalism of said country, legitimizing the overthrow of the government, whether democratically elected or not.)
The Kirkpatrick essay is a famous one that underpinned a generation of Reaganite interventionism in the Third World. I for one don't think the Americans were any safer from "Moscow" for what they did in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Angola or Zaire (or, in a previous generation, in Vietnam and Chile). The peoples of those countries are obviously not better off for it either.
I agree with you about Chile, but don't be naive about the crucial differences between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. I assume you remember Vietnam's "boat people," for instance?
From Kirkpatrick's essay:
---
Surely it is now beyond reasonable doubt that the present governments of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos are much more repressive than those of the despised previous rulers; that the government of the People's Republic of China is more repressive than that of Taiwan, that North Korea is more repressive than South Korea, and so forth. This is the most important lesson of Vietnam and Cambodia. It is not new but it is a gruesome reminder of harsh facts.
From time to time a truly bestial ruler can come to power in either type of autocracy--Idi Amin, Papa Doc Duvalier, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot are examples--but neither type regularly produces such moral monsters (though democracy regularly prevents their accession to power). There are, however, systemic differences between traditional and revolutionary autocracies that have a predictable effect on their degree of repressiveness. Generally speaking, traditional autocrats tolerate social inequities, brutality, and poverty while revolutionary autocracies create them.
Traditional autocrats leave in place existing allocations of wealth, power, status, and other resources which in most traditional societies favor an affluent few and maintain masses in poverty. But they worship traditional gods and observe traditional taboos. They do not disturb the habitual rhythms of work and leisure, habitual places of residence, habitual patterns of family and personal relations. Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in the society, learn to cope, as children born to untouchables in India acquire the skills and attitudes necessary for survival in the miserable roles they are destined to fill. Such societies create no refugees.
Precisely the opposite is true of revolutionary Communist regimes. They create refugees by the million because they claim jurisdiction over the whole life of the society and make demands for change that so violate internalized values and habits that inhabitants flee by the tens of thousands in the remarkable expectation that their attitudes, values, and goals will "fit" better in a foreign country than in their native land.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 1, 2010 11:06 am
From Kirkpatrick's essay:
---
Surely it is now beyond reasonable doubt that the present governments of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos are much more repressive than those of the despised previous rulers; that the government of the People's Republic of China is more repressive than that of Taiwan, that North Korea is more repressive than South Korea, and so forth. This is the most important lesson of Vietnam and Cambodia. It is not new but it is a gruesome reminder of harsh facts.
From time to time a truly bestial ruler can come to power in either type of autocracy--Idi Amin, Papa Doc Duvalier, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot are examples--but neither type regularly produces such moral monsters (though democracy regularly prevents their accession to power). There are, however, systemic differences between traditional and revolutionary autocracies that have a predictable effect on their degree of repressiveness. Generally speaking, traditional autocrats tolerate social inequities, brutality, and poverty while revolutionary autocracies create them.
Traditional autocrats leave in place existing allocations of wealth, power, status, and other resources which in most traditional societies favor an affluent few and maintain masses in poverty. But they worship traditional gods and observe traditional taboos. They do not disturb the habitual rhythms of work and leisure, habitual places of residence, habitual patterns of family and personal relations. Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in the society, learn to cope, as children born to untouchables in India acquire the skills and attitudes necessary for survival in the miserable roles they are destined to fill. Such societies create no refugees.
Precisely the opposite is true of revolutionary Communist regimes. They create refugees by the million because they claim jurisdiction over the whole life of the society and make demands for change that so violate internalized values and habits that inhabitants flee by the tens of thousands in the remarkable expectation that their attitudes, values, and goals will "fit" better in a foreign country than in their native land.
Ombrageux. You are re-casting events to suit a complaint that does not reflect what was going on.
(1) The Reagan Administration, as with previous Adminstrations, took the view that the consolidation of revolutionary socialist regimes was bad for the people ruled and dangerous for their regions. That they were also potential platforms for Soviet power (remember the Cuban missile crisis?) added to the issues but was not the only issue.
(2) The Reagan Administration in particular took the view that contesting with the Soviets anywhere it was practical put more strain on the Soviet Union than did on the US. This turned out to be true.
(3) Globally, it is perfectly obvious that the situation of the US, and of the world in general, is better now the Soviet Empire no longer exists.
(4) Postwar US Administrations have assumed a responsibility for "managing" the global system because the experience of 1914-1945 convinced them that the alternatives were worse. Again, it is clearly the case that post-1945 has been much better than 1914-1945.
(5) Particular elements of US policy are always up for moral and practical critique. But unless one understands the full framework, the point is being missed. Treating US policy as if the only thing that matters is *direct* threats to the continental US is precisely the attitude that US Administrations rejected because of the 19114-1945 experience.
(6) Given the importance of oil, all this applies particularly strongly to the Middle East.
(7) Jihadi terrorism is demonstrably a direct threat to the continental US.
This is without even considering the issue of the problems of selective moral concern.
Posted by: Lorenzo at February 1, 2010 11:40 am
(1) The Reagan Administration, as with previous Adminstrations, took the view that the consolidation of revolutionary socialist regimes was bad for the people ruled and dangerous for their regions. That they were also potential platforms for Soviet power (remember the Cuban missile crisis?) added to the issues but was not the only issue.
(2) The Reagan Administration in particular took the view that contesting with the Soviets anywhere it was practical put more strain on the Soviet Union than did on the US. This turned out to be true.
(3) Globally, it is perfectly obvious that the situation of the US, and of the world in general, is better now the Soviet Empire no longer exists.
(4) Postwar US Administrations have assumed a responsibility for "managing" the global system because the experience of 1914-1945 convinced them that the alternatives were worse. Again, it is clearly the case that post-1945 has been much better than 1914-1945.
(5) Particular elements of US policy are always up for moral and practical critique. But unless one understands the full framework, the point is being missed. Treating US policy as if the only thing that matters is *direct* threats to the continental US is precisely the attitude that US Administrations rejected because of the 19114-1945 experience.
(6) Given the importance of oil, all this applies particularly strongly to the Middle East.
(7) Jihadi terrorism is demonstrably a direct threat to the continental US.
This is without even considering the issue of the problems of selective moral concern.
Lorenzo - War makes countries poorer and more despotic. I do not think
(1) That they held this view doesn't make it any more accurate. It explains but does note excuse.
(2) Foreign aid always represented a tiny portion of the Soviet budget. You can make the argument that the costs in Afghanistan or the arms race bankrupted the Soviet Union, not so the scraps they gave to Nicaragua or Angola. One of the biggest fallacies is the notion that the devastation the U.S. promotes directly or indirectly in many parts of the world is somehow in its own selfish interest. More often than not, this is not the case.
(3) Eastern Europe is better off. The former Soviet Union is not. It has taken it 20 years to recover from the economic catastrophe that was the transition to capitalism. Nor can we cheer the discrediting of "socialism" in Yugoslavia where it meant the triumph of nationalism. If the rest of the world is better off, it is Americans could no longer justify their meddling in this or that corner of the world. The exception, of course, being Iraq. There we have had 20 years of catastrophe with war, sanctions and more war. The Soviet Union did place restraints on the U.S. in some ways. They no longer exist.
(4) It has been better for Europe, and for this the U.S. can claim a good deal of credit (although one shouldn't forget the Europeans reforming themselves as well). If things are better in the Third World, it is because they seized their independence. This was something the U.S. was often opposed to - Suez being the big exception - notably in Southeast Asia and much of Africa.
(5)(6)(7) All this proves that the Middle East is important for its oil and the terrorists it produces. None of this in and of itself makes American policies particularly towards Israel and Iraq any more justified. (And we can go back 20 years, it is not just the second Bush administration which is at fault.) There is a difference between successfully arguing there is "a need to act in general" and, ipso facto, "my particular (reprehensible) act is justified".
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 1, 2010 12:45 pm
(1) That they held this view doesn't make it any more accurate. It explains but does note excuse.
(2) Foreign aid always represented a tiny portion of the Soviet budget. You can make the argument that the costs in Afghanistan or the arms race bankrupted the Soviet Union, not so the scraps they gave to Nicaragua or Angola. One of the biggest fallacies is the notion that the devastation the U.S. promotes directly or indirectly in many parts of the world is somehow in its own selfish interest. More often than not, this is not the case.
(3) Eastern Europe is better off. The former Soviet Union is not. It has taken it 20 years to recover from the economic catastrophe that was the transition to capitalism. Nor can we cheer the discrediting of "socialism" in Yugoslavia where it meant the triumph of nationalism. If the rest of the world is better off, it is Americans could no longer justify their meddling in this or that corner of the world. The exception, of course, being Iraq. There we have had 20 years of catastrophe with war, sanctions and more war. The Soviet Union did place restraints on the U.S. in some ways. They no longer exist.
(4) It has been better for Europe, and for this the U.S. can claim a good deal of credit (although one shouldn't forget the Europeans reforming themselves as well). If things are better in the Third World, it is because they seized their independence. This was something the U.S. was often opposed to - Suez being the big exception - notably in Southeast Asia and much of Africa.
(5)(6)(7) All this proves that the Middle East is important for its oil and the terrorists it produces. None of this in and of itself makes American policies particularly towards Israel and Iraq any more justified. (And we can go back 20 years, it is not just the second Bush administration which is at fault.) There is a difference between successfully arguing there is "a need to act in general" and, ipso facto, "my particular (reprehensible) act is justified".
Understand something (as Obama says): The war on terror and the fight against climate change are two sides of the same coin. They are both anti-freedom and pro big-government. The right uses the war on terror to club free people on the head, the left uses the myth of global warming. Both the right and the left seek to expand the power of government to the detriment of individual freedoms. Both want to scare you to death to increase their power. They love nothing more than power!!
There is some terrorism and there is some climate change (maybe), but not nearly enough to justify the expansion of big government on both sides: wars, invasions of personal liberty, remote controlled murders overseas. And a fight against capitalism to fight 'global warming'.
Posted by: Joe Hayek at February 1, 2010 1:10 pm
There is some terrorism and there is some climate change (maybe), but not nearly enough to justify the expansion of big government on both sides: wars, invasions of personal liberty, remote controlled murders overseas. And a fight against capitalism to fight 'global warming'.
The global warming meme has been discredited:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/01/the-death-of-global-warming/
It turns out that there was never any reality to it right from the beginning.
I think its funny that Bin Laden would try to promote his ragtag islamofascist movement to the global warming fraud. He is obviously living in a cave somewhere in the Pastun region of Pakistan.
Posted by: Lindsey Abelard at February 1, 2010 1:22 pm
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/01/the-death-of-global-warming/
It turns out that there was never any reality to it right from the beginning.
I think its funny that Bin Laden would try to promote his ragtag islamofascist movement to the global warming fraud. He is obviously living in a cave somewhere in the Pastun region of Pakistan.
There may be beautiful and compelling arguments as to why the world would be a better place if I was killed or enslaved, by communism or Islam, but I just prefer not to be. Isn't that goddamned selfish of me? It may be but I don't care. The Latin American method of dealing with this is direct and effective. Viva D'Aubuisson!
Posted by: Thrasymachus at February 1, 2010 1:42 pm
Opposition to Communism - or Islamism for that matter - is not sufficient justification for Fascism.
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 1, 2010 2:30 pm
Ombrageux,
But it is a justification for temporary authoritarianism over enduring totalitarianism. I suspect you're ignoring Kirkpatrick's essay because you dislike its implications. That's fine. I ignored her essay for more than a decade for that very reason myself.
You have to acknowledge that Chile is in a hell of a lot better shape today than Cuba. I acknowledge that and I agree with you about Chile.
Allende, for all his faults, was not a totalitarian. Neither was Pinochet. Though I concur with you about Nixon and Kissinger's policy there, that doesn't mean it would have been a good idea to let communist guerrillas take over every country they set up shop in. You saw what happened to Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 1, 2010 2:43 pm
But it is a justification for temporary authoritarianism over enduring totalitarianism. I suspect you're ignoring Kirkpatrick's essay because you dislike its implications. That's fine. I ignored her essay for more than a decade for that very reason myself.
You have to acknowledge that Chile is in a hell of a lot better shape today than Cuba. I acknowledge that and I agree with you about Chile.
Allende, for all his faults, was not a totalitarian. Neither was Pinochet. Though I concur with you about Nixon and Kissinger's policy there, that doesn't mean it would have been a good idea to let communist guerrillas take over every country they set up shop in. You saw what happened to Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.
There are occasions where an "authoritarian" state is better than a "totalitarian" one. Kirkpatrick's argument, however, is well-known and little more than an ideological cover for Reaganite interventionism.
Bombing or fostering civil war in any country is unlikely to make the regime any nicer, totalitarian or not. So if we can agree that Taiwan is better off than China and South Korea better than North, that doesn't mean anyone in Nicaragua, Congo-Zaire, Angola or Vietnam is better off for American intervention in their country.
I do agree that, generally speaking, one should work with the existing regime and be wary of subversives. This cuts both ways however. America did not merely "contain" it also actively isolated and subverted existing governments.
Cuba, incidentally, has a standard of living comparable with the Latin American average. It achieved this without exporting half of its population as is customary in the Caribbean. It is substantially wealthier - and that wealth is more equitably driven - than many comparable countries historically under heavy American influence, including El Salvador, Haiti and Guatamala. That this was achieved despite the collapse of one superpower patron and the persistent economic warfare of the other is something to be proud of. This is no excuse for the dictatorship there, but there are worse places where have American boots have trod.
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 1, 2010 3:22 pm
Bombing or fostering civil war in any country is unlikely to make the regime any nicer, totalitarian or not. So if we can agree that Taiwan is better off than China and South Korea better than North, that doesn't mean anyone in Nicaragua, Congo-Zaire, Angola or Vietnam is better off for American intervention in their country.
I do agree that, generally speaking, one should work with the existing regime and be wary of subversives. This cuts both ways however. America did not merely "contain" it also actively isolated and subverted existing governments.
Cuba, incidentally, has a standard of living comparable with the Latin American average. It achieved this without exporting half of its population as is customary in the Caribbean. It is substantially wealthier - and that wealth is more equitably driven - than many comparable countries historically under heavy American influence, including El Salvador, Haiti and Guatamala. That this was achieved despite the collapse of one superpower patron and the persistent economic warfare of the other is something to be proud of. This is no excuse for the dictatorship there, but there are worse places where have American boots have trod.
Opposition to Communism - or Islamism for that matter - is not sufficient justification for Fascism.
I might have more respect for that statement if I wasn't picturing you sitting in front of your computer wearing a Che Guevara tee-shirt and a kefiyya. Just saying!
Posted by: Craig at February 1, 2010 3:23 pm
I might have more respect for that statement if I wasn't picturing you sitting in front of your computer wearing a Che Guevara tee-shirt and a kefiyya. Just saying!
There are occasions where an "authoritarian" state is better than a "totalitarian" one.
Are you implying there are occasions where a totalitarian state is better than one that is merely authoritarian?
Posted by: Craig at February 1, 2010 3:28 pm
Are you implying there are occasions where a totalitarian state is better than one that is merely authoritarian?
Craig - 1) The childish slur is unnecessary.
2) There are occasions where a person like Kirkpatrick would advocate arming death squads or organizing a coup against a government because the opponent is supposedly "totalitarian" while "our man" is merely "authoritarian".
I would like to cite the Big Three American coups against democratically elected leaders: 1953 against Mossadegh, 1960 against Lumumba, 1973 against Allende. In each case the Americans installed an "authoritarian" (the Shah, Mobutu, Pinochet) because of a supposed drift towards "totalitarian" Communism. In the case of Chile, the people managed to democratize peacefully. In Congo-Zaire, the corrupt dictatorship sucked the country dry before collapsing, leading to the Second Congo War (the worst since WW2). In Iran, the dictatorship paved the way for the extremely anti-American Iranian Revolution.
No, Americans had no right to imposing Fascism on other countries because of their neurotic fear of Communism. In the long run, it is not even in their selfish interest.
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 1, 2010 3:42 pm
2) There are occasions where a person like Kirkpatrick would advocate arming death squads or organizing a coup against a government because the opponent is supposedly "totalitarian" while "our man" is merely "authoritarian".
I would like to cite the Big Three American coups against democratically elected leaders: 1953 against Mossadegh, 1960 against Lumumba, 1973 against Allende. In each case the Americans installed an "authoritarian" (the Shah, Mobutu, Pinochet) because of a supposed drift towards "totalitarian" Communism. In the case of Chile, the people managed to democratize peacefully. In Congo-Zaire, the corrupt dictatorship sucked the country dry before collapsing, leading to the Second Congo War (the worst since WW2). In Iran, the dictatorship paved the way for the extremely anti-American Iranian Revolution.
No, Americans had no right to imposing Fascism on other countries because of their neurotic fear of Communism. In the long run, it is not even in their selfish interest.
Craig - 1) The childish slur is unnecessary.
Childish slur? I haven't insulted you. Yet. I'm sorely tempted, though. Especially when your method of argumentation seems to be issuing numbered bullet-points and attacking the character of your opponents.
You didn't answer my question. The way you worded your previous comments makes it seem as if you feel that there are times when totalitarianism is better than authoritarianism. Is that or is that not so? I'm not asking for your opinions about Kirkpatrick, I'm asking about your opinions totalitarianism. If you've got a spare moment or so I'd like to hear you clarify your opinions about communism as well, since I've seen you defend communism several times in the very same comments where you condemn fascism.
Posted by: Craig at February 1, 2010 4:03 pm
Childish slur? I haven't insulted you. Yet. I'm sorely tempted, though. Especially when your method of argumentation seems to be issuing numbered bullet-points and attacking the character of your opponents.
You didn't answer my question. The way you worded your previous comments makes it seem as if you feel that there are times when totalitarianism is better than authoritarianism. Is that or is that not so? I'm not asking for your opinions about Kirkpatrick, I'm asking about your opinions totalitarianism. If you've got a spare moment or so I'd like to hear you clarify your opinions about communism as well, since I've seen you defend communism several times in the very same comments where you condemn fascism.
There is not one word in the essay I recommended about arming death squads -- something I agree we should not do.
Though I want to see Khamenei overthrown, I would not want to arm death squads in Iran.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 1, 2010 4:18 pm
Though I want to see Khamenei overthrown, I would not want to arm death squads in Iran.
Neutoric fear of communism? Good grief. Communists murdered a hell of a lot more people than fascist have.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 1, 2010 4:20 pm
"Wherever there is a jackboot stepping on a human face, there will be a well-heeled Western liberal there to assure us that the face enjoys free health care and a high degree of literacy." -- John Derbyshire
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 1, 2010 4:22 pm
"I might have more respect for that statement if I wasn't picturing you sitting in front of your computer wearing a Che Guevara tee-shirt and a kefiyya. Just saying!"
That is a childish slur. Thank you.
I think I was clear on the totalitarian/authoritarian issue. There are situations where you would support the "softer" dictatorship. That you would not always do so. For example, I would not necessarily support the "softer" one if that meant fighting a (doomed?) war on its behalf (such as in Vietnam), nor would I purposely wage economic warfare on the place out of spite (Cuba). I also take issue with clean/cut definitions of "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" (with all due respect to Arendt and Kirkpatrick).
As to Communism... I long for the time when the most distinguished anticommunists were also experts on the thing (Raymond Aron, Leszek Kolakowski). I think there is a lot to be valued in Marxist philosophy and thinkers like Antonio Gramsci, Rosa Luxemburg, and others. None of this excuses the evils Stalinism or Third World communist states did in the name of Marxism-Leninism. Nor does their existence excuse the evils of the American-led arms race and horrors in the Third World in the name of the Cold war.
If you are asking me about my attitude to Communism as it is relevant today, then I can't say what existed in the Soviet Union was desirable or that Revolution is possible. I do have enough imagination to think of a society not driven by hyperconsumerism, without growing inequalities of opportunity and outcome, and indeed not steered by the institutionalized and irrational greed of the stock market. However, liberal triumphalism has gone a good way to atrophying our imaginations.
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 1, 2010 4:25 pm
That is a childish slur. Thank you.
I think I was clear on the totalitarian/authoritarian issue. There are situations where you would support the "softer" dictatorship. That you would not always do so. For example, I would not necessarily support the "softer" one if that meant fighting a (doomed?) war on its behalf (such as in Vietnam), nor would I purposely wage economic warfare on the place out of spite (Cuba). I also take issue with clean/cut definitions of "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" (with all due respect to Arendt and Kirkpatrick).
As to Communism... I long for the time when the most distinguished anticommunists were also experts on the thing (Raymond Aron, Leszek Kolakowski). I think there is a lot to be valued in Marxist philosophy and thinkers like Antonio Gramsci, Rosa Luxemburg, and others. None of this excuses the evils Stalinism or Third World communist states did in the name of Marxism-Leninism. Nor does their existence excuse the evils of the American-led arms race and horrors in the Third World in the name of the Cold war.
If you are asking me about my attitude to Communism as it is relevant today, then I can't say what existed in the Soviet Union was desirable or that Revolution is possible. I do have enough imagination to think of a society not driven by hyperconsumerism, without growing inequalities of opportunity and outcome, and indeed not steered by the institutionalized and irrational greed of the stock market. However, liberal triumphalism has gone a good way to atrophying our imaginations.
"Neutoric fear of communism? Good grief. Communists murdered a hell of a lot more people than fascist have."
And what were the prospects of Communism in America? Did that justify McCarthyism? Did fear of the Soviet Union - an impoverished state that lost a tenth of its population to Nazism - justify America's 17 to 1 lead in nuclear weapons by 1962? Did fear of Communism justify not recognizing the government of 1 billion human beings for 30 years? Are Americans less "scared" after they have promoted war and tyranny in Guatemala, Zaire, Chile, Vietnam, Iran, Nicaragua, Angola and many other countries?
No. If I were scared of drunk drivers the way Americans were scared of Communism, while driving late at night I would shoot the driver of every other car that passes near me, to be on the safe side. A rough equivalent in terms of efficacy and morality.
(And to nuance my point: the extent of legitimate U.S. cold war policy runs to NATO, the Marshall Plan, the first half of the Korean War, and that's about it. The rest is a young national elite that has never known power suddenly finds itself with more of the stuff than any other nation in human history, it is a surprise they didn't go *even more mad with it than they did*.)
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 1, 2010 4:33 pm
And what were the prospects of Communism in America? Did that justify McCarthyism? Did fear of the Soviet Union - an impoverished state that lost a tenth of its population to Nazism - justify America's 17 to 1 lead in nuclear weapons by 1962? Did fear of Communism justify not recognizing the government of 1 billion human beings for 30 years? Are Americans less "scared" after they have promoted war and tyranny in Guatemala, Zaire, Chile, Vietnam, Iran, Nicaragua, Angola and many other countries?
No. If I were scared of drunk drivers the way Americans were scared of Communism, while driving late at night I would shoot the driver of every other car that passes near me, to be on the safe side. A rough equivalent in terms of efficacy and morality.
(And to nuance my point: the extent of legitimate U.S. cold war policy runs to NATO, the Marshall Plan, the first half of the Korean War, and that's about it. The rest is a young national elite that has never known power suddenly finds itself with more of the stuff than any other nation in human history, it is a surprise they didn't go *even more mad with it than they did*.)
Ombrageux,
I used to think exactly like you do and make exactly those arguments. There isn't anything you can say on this topic that I haven't already thought myself and rejected--aside from the points I still agree with you on, and there are some. Chile was wrong, Guatemala was terrible, Vietnam would have been better off had we never set foot there, and some other things.
But you basically seem to be saying the U.S. should have let Soviet-backed guerrillas seize power everywhere with minimal or even no interference, and I cannot agree with you about that. The world would have been a much worse place with more North Koreas and Cambodias in it.
Latin American would be in much worse shape today if it were ruled from one end to the other by friends of Fidel Castro. Right-wing military dictatorships have been replaced by democracies, but the totalitarian leftist regime is still there.
Chile, by the way, is a wonderful place. You should visit if you haven't been there.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 1, 2010 4:45 pm
I used to think exactly like you do and make exactly those arguments. There isn't anything you can say on this topic that I haven't already thought myself and rejected--aside from the points I still agree with you on, and there are some. Chile was wrong, Guatemala was terrible, Vietnam would have been better off had we never set foot there, and some other things.
But you basically seem to be saying the U.S. should have let Soviet-backed guerrillas seize power everywhere with minimal or even no interference, and I cannot agree with you about that. The world would have been a much worse place with more North Koreas and Cambodias in it.
Latin American would be in much worse shape today if it were ruled from one end to the other by friends of Fidel Castro. Right-wing military dictatorships have been replaced by democracies, but the totalitarian leftist regime is still there.
Chile, by the way, is a wonderful place. You should visit if you haven't been there.
Foreign policy is a bitch, isn't it? There is no way to avoid choosing between terrible options, as this argument we're having demonstrates.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 1, 2010 4:47 pm
Foreign policy is a lot simpler than some people would have us think. While I don't claim the solutions are always obvious, I think the physician's motto is a good one: "First, do no harm."
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 1, 2010 4:54 pm
Although, the interesting thing with foreign policy is you never need the consent of the patient!
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 1, 2010 5:02 pm
Foreign policy is a lot simpler than some people would have us think. While I don't claim the solutions are always obvious, I think the physician's motto is a good one: "First, do no harm."
What if doing nothing does harm?
Posted by: Ted S. at February 1, 2010 6:01 pm
What if doing nothing does harm?
So all of this "wealth" in Cuba has had Cubans risking their lives to get to Florida so they could become even wealthier and "oppress" me with their economic power (not invest, hire, buy and spend in their communities)? International investors flocking to Havana, are they? I've read otherwise.
Lenin nailed it: useful idiots. With emotion-fueled belief as a shield and critical thinking as a threat, the left never learns. I tell Americans if you think California and Michigan have "progressed" to a good condition and are headed in the right direction, keep voting for liberals; maybe your home town will come to resemble Detroit. However, you might make some comparisons between California, Michigan and Texas, for example. Compare forces like debt, and in which direction businesses, investment capital and skilled talent are headed. Just a friendly suggestion.
Posted by: Paul S. at February 1, 2010 6:30 pm
Lenin nailed it: useful idiots. With emotion-fueled belief as a shield and critical thinking as a threat, the left never learns. I tell Americans if you think California and Michigan have "progressed" to a good condition and are headed in the right direction, keep voting for liberals; maybe your home town will come to resemble Detroit. However, you might make some comparisons between California, Michigan and Texas, for example. Compare forces like debt, and in which direction businesses, investment capital and skilled talent are headed. Just a friendly suggestion.
Ted S. - There are cases where this occurs. In which case it is not too difficult to get the approval of the people concerned if the intervention is truly altruistic. Unfortunately, the people concerned neither have a veto on U.S. policies nor can they vote in American elections. All the things that make the state despotic at home make it infinitely more so abroad. In the vast majority of cases, not all but most, military intervention has a negative effect. I note that in cases of American intervention, there is quite often massive opposition, hence why theories of "American imperialism" are so popular in Latin America, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. But evidently the opinions of the people in whose good name the U.S. is presumably acting are of little relevance to America's higher selflessness.
Paul S. - And how many economic migrants do capitalist states of the Caribbean produce? There as many Haitians, Jamaicans, Martinicans, etc. in Western Europe and North America than there are remaining in the home island!
It is also worth noting there is no evidence the term "useful idiots" was actually used by Lenin. It is mainly a cheap bit of rhetoric for the hysterically anticommunist to fall back when he has nothing of substance.
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 1, 2010 7:45 pm
Paul S. - And how many economic migrants do capitalist states of the Caribbean produce? There as many Haitians, Jamaicans, Martinicans, etc. in Western Europe and North America than there are remaining in the home island!
It is also worth noting there is no evidence the term "useful idiots" was actually used by Lenin. It is mainly a cheap bit of rhetoric for the hysterically anticommunist to fall back when he has nothing of substance.
"It is mainly a cheap bit of rhetoric for the hysterically anticommunist to fall back when he has nothing of substance."
No, it's a perfectly accurate description of well-meaning liberals who supported Stalin, etc.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 1, 2010 8:05 pm
No, it's a perfectly accurate description of well-meaning liberals who supported Stalin, etc.
Anti-commmunism is a subject no more lacking in substance than anti-fascism.
Communism practically is fascism when you get right down to it. There are differences, sure, but both are totalitarian.
As Robert Kaplan wrote in Balkan Ghosts: "A thought then occurred to me: if Yugoslavia was the laboratory of Communism, then Communism would breathe its last dying breath here in Belgrade. And to judge by what [Slobodan] Milosevic was turning into by early 1989, Communism would exit the world stage revealed for what it truly was: fascism, without fascism's ability to make the trains run on time."
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 1, 2010 8:10 pm
Communism practically is fascism when you get right down to it. There are differences, sure, but both are totalitarian.
As Robert Kaplan wrote in Balkan Ghosts: "A thought then occurred to me: if Yugoslavia was the laboratory of Communism, then Communism would breathe its last dying breath here in Belgrade. And to judge by what [Slobodan] Milosevic was turning into by early 1989, Communism would exit the world stage revealed for what it truly was: fascism, without fascism's ability to make the trains run on time."
Ombrageux,
Ask Venezuelans what their economy used to look like. Or a reporter who had to go to Soviet Moscow late in the month after quotas were met. And the extra suitcase of bribes he had to bring along, to get a cab, to get him to a restaurant table, where the service and the food still sucked. Soviet grocers came to my hometown in California and complained that product variety---that is, choice---was "inefficient." Different worlds.
If you're under age thirty I'll cut you thismuch slack; I didn't wake up until I was around 28. Otherwise, goodbye.
Posted by: Paul S. at February 1, 2010 8:46 pm
Ask Venezuelans what their economy used to look like. Or a reporter who had to go to Soviet Moscow late in the month after quotas were met. And the extra suitcase of bribes he had to bring along, to get a cab, to get him to a restaurant table, where the service and the food still sucked. Soviet grocers came to my hometown in California and complained that product variety---that is, choice---was "inefficient." Different worlds.
If you're under age thirty I'll cut you thismuch slack; I didn't wake up until I was around 28. Otherwise, goodbye.
Ombrageux, I think I'll bypass your false allegation against me for the "childish slur" thing. It's interesting you take that kind of accusatory tone against anyone who scoffs at your words of wisdom, though. Or maybe I'm unfairly stereotyping you as a mean-spirited leftist. In any case, on to the substance.
I think I was clear on the totalitarian/authoritarian issue.
You framed all of your arguments in the form of accusations against people you don't like. That may be a clear statement of ideology to you, but it isn't to me. If a member of Hezbollah was ranting against attacks on Shia in Iraq would that mean he opposes terrorism? Not so much, right?
There are situations where you would support the "softer" dictatorship. That you would not always do so.
Me? No, there are no circumstances where I personally would support dictatorship. You? Yes, you already have several times in this thread alone.
For example, I would not necessarily support the "softer" one if that meant fighting a (doomed?) war on its behalf (such as in Vietnam)
Do you think JFK thought the effort in Vietnam was doomed?
...nor would I purposely wage economic warfare on the place out of spite (Cuba).
I notice both of your examples of "I wouldn't oppose" involve communists. Coincidence? Or you couldn't think of a good example of a non-communist dictator that you wouldn't bother trying to put a leash on? What about Syria? Or Iraq? Or Jordan & Egypt, for that matter? Was the US in the right all those years where we preferred working with them as best we could rather than trying to topple them?
I also take issue with clean/cut definitions of "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" (with all due respect to Arendt and Kirkpatrick).
Why? Totalitarian is authoritarian++. It's the ultimate of authoritarian systems. That's why I was so baffled by your implication that the extreme form might be better than the more moderate form in some cases.
As to Communism... I long for the time when the most distinguished anticommunists were also experts on the thing (Raymond Aron, Leszek Kolakowski). I think there is a lot to be valued in Marxist philosophy and thinkers like Antonio Gramsci, Rosa Luxemburg, and others.
That's what I thought. A typical "communism is pretty good on paper if only everyone didn't keep doing it wrong" guy. Fine. Whatever.
None of this excuses the evils Stalinism or Third World communist states did in the name of Marxism-Leninism.
No! Of course not! Wouldn't want that!
Nor does their existence excuse the evils of the American-led arms race and horrors in the Third World in the name of the Cold war.
Saw that coming a mile away. You telegraphed your moral-equivalency argument when you made sure to criticize (mildly) some of the worst monsters of the 20th century.
Posted by: Craig at February 1, 2010 9:54 pm
I think I was clear on the totalitarian/authoritarian issue.
You framed all of your arguments in the form of accusations against people you don't like. That may be a clear statement of ideology to you, but it isn't to me. If a member of Hezbollah was ranting against attacks on Shia in Iraq would that mean he opposes terrorism? Not so much, right?
There are situations where you would support the "softer" dictatorship. That you would not always do so.
Me? No, there are no circumstances where I personally would support dictatorship. You? Yes, you already have several times in this thread alone.
For example, I would not necessarily support the "softer" one if that meant fighting a (doomed?) war on its behalf (such as in Vietnam)
Do you think JFK thought the effort in Vietnam was doomed?
...nor would I purposely wage economic warfare on the place out of spite (Cuba).
I notice both of your examples of "I wouldn't oppose" involve communists. Coincidence? Or you couldn't think of a good example of a non-communist dictator that you wouldn't bother trying to put a leash on? What about Syria? Or Iraq? Or Jordan & Egypt, for that matter? Was the US in the right all those years where we preferred working with them as best we could rather than trying to topple them?
I also take issue with clean/cut definitions of "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" (with all due respect to Arendt and Kirkpatrick).
Why? Totalitarian is authoritarian++. It's the ultimate of authoritarian systems. That's why I was so baffled by your implication that the extreme form might be better than the more moderate form in some cases.
As to Communism... I long for the time when the most distinguished anticommunists were also experts on the thing (Raymond Aron, Leszek Kolakowski). I think there is a lot to be valued in Marxist philosophy and thinkers like Antonio Gramsci, Rosa Luxemburg, and others.
That's what I thought. A typical "communism is pretty good on paper if only everyone didn't keep doing it wrong" guy. Fine. Whatever.
None of this excuses the evils Stalinism or Third World communist states did in the name of Marxism-Leninism.
No! Of course not! Wouldn't want that!
Nor does their existence excuse the evils of the American-led arms race and horrors in the Third World in the name of the Cold war.
Saw that coming a mile away. You telegraphed your moral-equivalency argument when you made sure to criticize (mildly) some of the worst monsters of the 20th century.
From Jay Nordlinger last year: "József Szájer, a Hungarian, said that his country had experienced both Nazism and Communism — and, really, there was nothing to choose between them. Both were “evil totalitarian” systems of the 20th century, and if Europe is to anathematize the one, it should anathematize the other. Jan Zahradil, a Czech, decried a “double standard” in Western Europe, whereby Nazism is rightly and roundly condemned while Communism is often excused, or even defended. This tends to burn those who know Communism."
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 2, 2010 2:11 am
Paul S. - So one country was poorer than the West. Was that new in Russian history? Did the 1989-1991 transition to capitalism improve the situation?
Craig - You are also twisting my words. I say "support a dictatorship" in the context of an autocratic South Korea or Taiwan, as against a Communist China or North Korea. There are occasions where it is justified, though a lot depends on the means used. Moral equivalency in *foreign policy* is obvious during the Cold war. And are you one of those people who would stop reading Adam Smith because of something unpleasant like the Irish Potato Famine?
Totten - It is not a question of excusing Communism, but its demonization and exaggeration was used to do a hundred evil things, notably in terms of domestic repression, the arms race and Third World interventionism. I don't recall anyone using Nazism's to forget their own sins.
I repeat:
"And what were the prospects of Communism in America? Did that justify McCarthyism? Did fear of the Soviet Union - an impoverished state that lost a tenth of its population to Nazism - justify America's 17 to 1 lead in nuclear weapons by 1962? Did fear of Communism justify not recognizing the government of 1 billion human beings for 30 years? Are Americans less "scared" after they have promoted war and tyranny in Guatemala, Zaire, Chile, Vietnam, Iran, Nicaragua, Angola and many other countries?"
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 2, 2010 4:07 am
Craig - You are also twisting my words. I say "support a dictatorship" in the context of an autocratic South Korea or Taiwan, as against a Communist China or North Korea. There are occasions where it is justified, though a lot depends on the means used. Moral equivalency in *foreign policy* is obvious during the Cold war. And are you one of those people who would stop reading Adam Smith because of something unpleasant like the Irish Potato Famine?
Totten - It is not a question of excusing Communism, but its demonization and exaggeration was used to do a hundred evil things, notably in terms of domestic repression, the arms race and Third World interventionism. I don't recall anyone using Nazism's to forget their own sins.
I repeat:
"And what were the prospects of Communism in America? Did that justify McCarthyism? Did fear of the Soviet Union - an impoverished state that lost a tenth of its population to Nazism - justify America's 17 to 1 lead in nuclear weapons by 1962? Did fear of Communism justify not recognizing the government of 1 billion human beings for 30 years? Are Americans less "scared" after they have promoted war and tyranny in Guatemala, Zaire, Chile, Vietnam, Iran, Nicaragua, Angola and many other countries?"
Chomskyites see the world differently.
(Usually, as they pad their bank accounts.... As, of course, why shouldn't they?)
There is no point arguing with them.
Perhaps they'll grow up.
Perhaps they won't.
The world doesn't change to suit their views. And only in the West can they hold those views without fear, generally speaking.
(Whenever I'm feeling a bit down, I can still chuckle when I recall how Chomsky lambasted Vaclav Havel.... Only in the West.... Sigh....)
Posted by: Barry Meislin at February 2, 2010 5:33 am
(Usually, as they pad their bank accounts.... As, of course, why shouldn't they?)
There is no point arguing with them.
Perhaps they'll grow up.
Perhaps they won't.
The world doesn't change to suit their views. And only in the West can they hold those views without fear, generally speaking.
(Whenever I'm feeling a bit down, I can still chuckle when I recall how Chomsky lambasted Vaclav Havel.... Only in the West.... Sigh....)
As a small apropos, its interesting to see that the swedish blogger you mentioned, Lasse WIlhelmson, got thrown out of The Al Quods demonstration of 20 september by the Chomskyites of AFA, due to his racist comments about Jews.
Posted by: Fnord at February 2, 2010 5:55 am
I don't recall anyone using Nazism's to forget their own sins.
Really? So you never heard about allied carpet bombing of German cities? You never heard of the firebombing of Dresden? You never heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Did fear of the Soviet Union - an impoverished state that lost a tenth of its population to Nazism - justify America's 17 to 1 lead in nuclear weapons by 1962?
The fact that the Soviets had us grossly outclassed on the ground at the end of WWII did.
How do you justify trying to analyze historical events when you seem to have little familiarity with the status of the respective military forces at the time, and seem to be forgetting that the USSR swallowed up half of Europe at the end of the war?
Sympathy for the devil, while you accuse the opposition of villainy. Seems familiar.
Posted by: Craig at February 2, 2010 8:46 am
Really? So you never heard about allied carpet bombing of German cities? You never heard of the firebombing of Dresden? You never heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Did fear of the Soviet Union - an impoverished state that lost a tenth of its population to Nazism - justify America's 17 to 1 lead in nuclear weapons by 1962?
The fact that the Soviets had us grossly outclassed on the ground at the end of WWII did.
How do you justify trying to analyze historical events when you seem to have little familiarity with the status of the respective military forces at the time, and seem to be forgetting that the USSR swallowed up half of Europe at the end of the war?
Sympathy for the devil, while you accuse the opposition of villainy. Seems familiar.
I say "support a dictatorship" in the context of an autocratic South Korea or Taiwan, as against a Communist China or North Korea.
So when challenged, you went with the no-brainers. The cases where the US clearly did the right thing, and is above reproach. You didn't want to discuss any cases where the US made a tough call, and arguably the wrong call.
I would have gone with Marcos in the Philippines, myself. I never met a Filipino who liked him, and even as an outsider I could see the fear he caused in that society. There was no reason for Reagan to prop up Marcos, yet he did it anyway. But that wouldn't really prove your point, would it? Because dumping Marcos would not have done more harm than good. I'm somewhat surprised you don't use US "support" for Saddam in the 1980s and 1990s as your example.
Posted by: Craig at February 2, 2010 8:55 am
So when challenged, you went with the no-brainers. The cases where the US clearly did the right thing, and is above reproach. You didn't want to discuss any cases where the US made a tough call, and arguably the wrong call.
I would have gone with Marcos in the Philippines, myself. I never met a Filipino who liked him, and even as an outsider I could see the fear he caused in that society. There was no reason for Reagan to prop up Marcos, yet he did it anyway. But that wouldn't really prove your point, would it? Because dumping Marcos would not have done more harm than good. I'm somewhat surprised you don't use US "support" for Saddam in the 1980s and 1990s as your example.
Craig - You are are right on strategic/atomic bombing. They should not have been done, at least not to excess. If states had still been using the specter of Fascism after 1945 to pursue imperialism or militarism, no doubt I would counter that hyperbole as well.
No one will defend the actions of the U.S.S.R. in Eastern Europe. They imposed friendly regimes there as surely as the West did in Iran or Congo. But the creation of a Soviet Empire between 1945 and 1948 if not excusable is understandable given that this was the path to destroy Russia taken by the West on three occasions, and that it had only been secured at the cost of 20 million deaths. How could you expect the Russians to give up Berlin - the prize of the Second World War - after what the Germans had done to them? Again, it is understand, not excuse. It also obvious that Soviet foreign policy was conservative in the extreme outside of the Warsaw Pact. In East Asia, China was by far the most important contributor to Vietnamese and Korean Communism. There were no Soviet military intervention beyond the spheres of influence agreed by the infamous percentages agreement with Churchill until the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. There was no evidence the Russians were going to invade Western Europe, and certainly, a 17 to 1 nuclear advantage is gratuitous overkill. Certain legitimate safeguards like NATO and a nuclear deterrent may have been justified, but certainly not the mad pursuit of atomic apocalypse led by the Americans.
"You didn't want to discuss any cases where the US made a tough call, and arguably the wrong call."
There are very few genuine tough calls. I think the decision to fight in Korea was one (it led to a disastrous war with China and the deaths of 1 million Koreans). I think the Kuwait War was also a tough call (it was the moment Americans decided it was easier to be an empire than be frugal with their oil, it locked Saddam and America in an unending struggle which has led to perpetual human catastrophe).
There were a few easy calls (NATO and the Marshall Plan).
The rest (Chile, Congo, Iran, Vietnam, Guatamala, Nicaragua..) were not "hard" but purely gratuitous exercises in power.
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 2, 2010 10:00 am
No one will defend the actions of the U.S.S.R. in Eastern Europe. They imposed friendly regimes there as surely as the West did in Iran or Congo. But the creation of a Soviet Empire between 1945 and 1948 if not excusable is understandable given that this was the path to destroy Russia taken by the West on three occasions, and that it had only been secured at the cost of 20 million deaths. How could you expect the Russians to give up Berlin - the prize of the Second World War - after what the Germans had done to them? Again, it is understand, not excuse. It also obvious that Soviet foreign policy was conservative in the extreme outside of the Warsaw Pact. In East Asia, China was by far the most important contributor to Vietnamese and Korean Communism. There were no Soviet military intervention beyond the spheres of influence agreed by the infamous percentages agreement with Churchill until the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. There was no evidence the Russians were going to invade Western Europe, and certainly, a 17 to 1 nuclear advantage is gratuitous overkill. Certain legitimate safeguards like NATO and a nuclear deterrent may have been justified, but certainly not the mad pursuit of atomic apocalypse led by the Americans.
"You didn't want to discuss any cases where the US made a tough call, and arguably the wrong call."
There are very few genuine tough calls. I think the decision to fight in Korea was one (it led to a disastrous war with China and the deaths of 1 million Koreans). I think the Kuwait War was also a tough call (it was the moment Americans decided it was easier to be an empire than be frugal with their oil, it locked Saddam and America in an unending struggle which has led to perpetual human catastrophe).
There were a few easy calls (NATO and the Marshall Plan).
The rest (Chile, Congo, Iran, Vietnam, Guatamala, Nicaragua..) were not "hard" but purely gratuitous exercises in power.
Craig - I don't know why you bring up US support for Marcos and Saddam. I think my opposition to that would have been obvious from my other posts.
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 2, 2010 10:01 am
If states had still been using the specter of Fascism after 1945 to pursue imperialism or militarism, no doubt I would counter that hyperbole as well.
Didn't the USSR and China both do just that? Where are your counters? Atcually, it seems to em you've used the "specter of fascism" to frame some of your anti-imperialism and anti-western rhetoric in some of these blog comments.
No one will defend the actions of the U.S.S.R. in Eastern Europe. They imposed friendly regimes there as surely as the West did in Iran or Congo.
*sigh*
Are you incapable of stating your opinions without accusing both sides of being equally bad, or of doing the exact same thing, even though the differences are clear?
There are very few genuine tough calls. I think the decision to fight in Korea was one (it led to a disastrous war with China and the deaths of 1 million Koreans).
It was a tough war, and one that the US was unprepared to fight. It was not, however, a tough call. In my opinion.
I think the Kuwait War was also a tough call...
I don't think that was a tough call, either. I recall hearing on the radio while I was at work that Iraq had invaded Kuwait and I looked at my buddy across the room and said "we're going to war".
(it was the moment Americans decided it was easier to be an empire than be frugal with their oil)
I think that was decided after gas prices tripled in 1973 and Americans were waiting in lines at the gas pumps, daylight savings was introduced, the speed limit was capped at 55, economy cars replaced muscle cars, and etc. Followed by the same thing happening again in 1978 and 1979, only in the second iteration people ended up spending the night in gas lines instead of just a couple of hours.
...it locked Saddam and America in an unending struggle which has led to perpetual human catastrophe...
So, you do argue that the US was on the right track supporting Saddam in the 1980s. Was that a tough call? I saw you mention Mossadeq and the 1953 against him. Was it the right thing to do for the US to support the Shah against somebody we saw as a potential Soviet puppet, at a time when the Soviet Union was aggressively expanding its borders in the region? Was it a tough call when Carter decided to stop supporting the Shah in any meaningful way in the late 1970s? Was it a tough call when the US, realizing what a mistake had been made allowing Khomeini to seize power in Iran, decided to just try to contain the IRI rather than trying to do something more concrete to bring it down? And do you see any relation between the way the US handled Saddam in the 1980s and the rise of the IRI in Iran? You seriously think these were easy calls that the US either got right or completely dropped the ball for no apparent reason?
And what about the USSR in Afghanistan? US right or wrong? Obvious, or not so obvious?
Posted by: Craig at February 2, 2010 10:39 am
Didn't the USSR and China both do just that? Where are your counters? Atcually, it seems to em you've used the "specter of fascism" to frame some of your anti-imperialism and anti-western rhetoric in some of these blog comments.
No one will defend the actions of the U.S.S.R. in Eastern Europe. They imposed friendly regimes there as surely as the West did in Iran or Congo.
*sigh*
Are you incapable of stating your opinions without accusing both sides of being equally bad, or of doing the exact same thing, even though the differences are clear?
There are very few genuine tough calls. I think the decision to fight in Korea was one (it led to a disastrous war with China and the deaths of 1 million Koreans).
It was a tough war, and one that the US was unprepared to fight. It was not, however, a tough call. In my opinion.
I think the Kuwait War was also a tough call...
I don't think that was a tough call, either. I recall hearing on the radio while I was at work that Iraq had invaded Kuwait and I looked at my buddy across the room and said "we're going to war".
(it was the moment Americans decided it was easier to be an empire than be frugal with their oil)
I think that was decided after gas prices tripled in 1973 and Americans were waiting in lines at the gas pumps, daylight savings was introduced, the speed limit was capped at 55, economy cars replaced muscle cars, and etc. Followed by the same thing happening again in 1978 and 1979, only in the second iteration people ended up spending the night in gas lines instead of just a couple of hours.
...it locked Saddam and America in an unending struggle which has led to perpetual human catastrophe...
So, you do argue that the US was on the right track supporting Saddam in the 1980s. Was that a tough call? I saw you mention Mossadeq and the 1953 against him. Was it the right thing to do for the US to support the Shah against somebody we saw as a potential Soviet puppet, at a time when the Soviet Union was aggressively expanding its borders in the region? Was it a tough call when Carter decided to stop supporting the Shah in any meaningful way in the late 1970s? Was it a tough call when the US, realizing what a mistake had been made allowing Khomeini to seize power in Iran, decided to just try to contain the IRI rather than trying to do something more concrete to bring it down? And do you see any relation between the way the US handled Saddam in the 1980s and the rise of the IRI in Iran? You seriously think these were easy calls that the US either got right or completely dropped the ball for no apparent reason?
And what about the USSR in Afghanistan? US right or wrong? Obvious, or not so obvious?
Craig, I salute your energy and persistence, but Ombrageux's stock in trade is isolationism, or perhaps geopolitical passivity, justified as needed by moral equivalence. Your arguments will move him/her not one bit.
He/she might even call himself a realist, though I doubt any serious realist would react quite so passively to naked territorial grabs like Korea in 1950 or Kuwait in 1991.
Posted by: Gene at February 2, 2010 10:54 am
He/she might even call himself a realist, though I doubt any serious realist would react quite so passively to naked territorial grabs like Korea in 1950 or Kuwait in 1991.
Perfectionists of the world, unite!!
Posted by: Barry Meislin at February 2, 2010 11:28 am
Craig -
1) You are correct that the Soviet Union abused the term Fascism to legitimize its empire and foreign policy. This was reprehensible and if I were a Russian dissident I may have gone through the motions of pointing out (say) that a form of democracy does exist in America and even the Fascists of Franco's Spain are pretty peaceful after all.
2) How exactly are the Iranian or Congolese coups morally different than the Prague coup of 1948? I recognize all evils, including those of my own side (which, incidentally, I might have an indirect responsibility for and have a much stronger ability to stop).
3) Why are you willfully misrepresenting my opinions? I say "I don't know why you bring up US support for Marcos and Saddam. I think my opposition to that would have been obvious from my other posts." Yet you write that I would approve of the policy of supporting Saddam in the 1980s. Absurd.
Gene - From a realist (as opposed to moral) perspective, what difference did it make who ruled Korea? An impoverished peninsula which MacArthur himself said had no strategic value until the war began being fought there. A Korea united under Pyongyang would be about as inoffensive as Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh. (Remember, they would remain as independent from Moscow or China as any other really existing country.) A better case can be made for the Kuwait War.
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 2, 2010 12:48 pm
1) You are correct that the Soviet Union abused the term Fascism to legitimize its empire and foreign policy. This was reprehensible and if I were a Russian dissident I may have gone through the motions of pointing out (say) that a form of democracy does exist in America and even the Fascists of Franco's Spain are pretty peaceful after all.
2) How exactly are the Iranian or Congolese coups morally different than the Prague coup of 1948? I recognize all evils, including those of my own side (which, incidentally, I might have an indirect responsibility for and have a much stronger ability to stop).
3) Why are you willfully misrepresenting my opinions? I say "I don't know why you bring up US support for Marcos and Saddam. I think my opposition to that would have been obvious from my other posts." Yet you write that I would approve of the policy of supporting Saddam in the 1980s. Absurd.
Gene - From a realist (as opposed to moral) perspective, what difference did it make who ruled Korea? An impoverished peninsula which MacArthur himself said had no strategic value until the war began being fought there. A Korea united under Pyongyang would be about as inoffensive as Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh. (Remember, they would remain as independent from Moscow or China as any other really existing country.) A better case can be made for the Kuwait War.
Ombrageux: From a realist (as opposed to moral) perspective, what difference did it make who ruled Korea?
Why would you want to remove morality from foreign policy?
Obviously foreign policy cannot be entirely based on morality and denuded of realism, but a foreign policy entirely stripped of morality would look like the foreign policy of today's Chinese Communist Party. There are worse things in the world (Stalin's and Mao's foreign policies for example), but we can do better.
Today Beijing props up North Korea and Burma, and for what? It's not like the Chinese are helping those regimes stave off fascist insurgencies.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 2, 2010 12:53 pm
Why would you want to remove morality from foreign policy?
Obviously foreign policy cannot be entirely based on morality and denuded of realism, but a foreign policy entirely stripped of morality would look like the foreign policy of today's Chinese Communist Party. There are worse things in the world (Stalin's and Mao's foreign policies for example), but we can do better.
Today Beijing props up North Korea and Burma, and for what? It's not like the Chinese are helping those regimes stave off fascist insurgencies.
I answered it in realist terms because the other poster posed it in those those terms. We should have a moral foreign policy:
1) Do no harm.
2) Intervention should generally be with international checks (so that the people you are supposedly helping have a say and it doesn't degenerate into imperialism).
3) Recognize the limits of altruism, that there needs to be strong checks on the state and there is no such thing as a selfless state.
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 2, 2010 1:18 pm
1) Do no harm.
2) Intervention should generally be with international checks (so that the people you are supposedly helping have a say and it doesn't degenerate into imperialism).
3) Recognize the limits of altruism, that there needs to be strong checks on the state and there is no such thing as a selfless state.
Yet you write that I would approve of the policy of supporting Saddam in the 1980s. Absurd.
I agree it seems a bit absurd you don't realize your latter statements regarding Iraq/US contradicted your earlier ones. Especially after you've gone on record stating that you think there aren't many difficult foreign policy decisions. If you can't even make up your own mind about whether it was proper for the US to have a policy of confrontation with Saddam rather than one of containment, then how compelling to you figure your arguments are to other people?
Posted by: Craig at February 2, 2010 1:50 pm
I agree it seems a bit absurd you don't realize your latter statements regarding Iraq/US contradicted your earlier ones. Especially after you've gone on record stating that you think there aren't many difficult foreign policy decisions. If you can't even make up your own mind about whether it was proper for the US to have a policy of confrontation with Saddam rather than one of containment, then how compelling to you figure your arguments are to other people?
I'm a trifle confused because in the early comment by Ombrageux the two countries he cited are examples of the impoverishment of a nation, Cuba, as a catspaw for the Soviets in the Western Hemisphere and Africa. And Venezuela which has managed to destroy its standard of living in a decade when it took Argentina more than 100 years to do so. And the countries in South America that are growing the fastest are doing so because of American intervention not the reverse.
As to the rest it was fairly obvious from FDR to Eisenhower that US policy was to let the empires fall and not really provide moral support or military material. The US can never win in these types of discussions because whether we did too much or too little the same critical opinions will be heard.
Also what are the chances of a international system that doesn't include among the voting members the very people who are killing their own citizens and anybody near their borders. And likewise why would a disinterested totalitarian state approve of collective action when ultimately that action came be mounted against them.
Posted by: Pat Patterson at February 2, 2010 3:05 pm
As to the rest it was fairly obvious from FDR to Eisenhower that US policy was to let the empires fall and not really provide moral support or military material. The US can never win in these types of discussions because whether we did too much or too little the same critical opinions will be heard.
Also what are the chances of a international system that doesn't include among the voting members the very people who are killing their own citizens and anybody near their borders. And likewise why would a disinterested totalitarian state approve of collective action when ultimately that action came be mounted against them.
Craig - Can your brain fathom the notion that there can be a happy middle between helping Saddam Hussein kill Iranians in the 1980s and blockading his people into poverty in the 1990s? I stick by my maxim: first, do no harm. Only then you can ask whether one should do actually do good.
PP - You are exaggerating on Venezuela. Cuba is close to the continental average. Over the past 200 years, there is only *one* state in the Americas under U.S. influence which can be said to be economically successful. Do you know which one?
You are totally incorrect on U.S. policy towards colonialism. The U.S. bankrolled the French War to control Indochina, it worked with the Belgians to kill the independence of nascent Congo, and it supported Portuguese and apartheid South African domination of Africa. Americans sentimental anticolonialism meant little in practice. The big exception was the Suez War, at which the Americans to their credit forced the British, French and Israelis to halt their war of aggression.
You are right in pointing out the difficulty in identifying genuine consent. All I would say is that many American actions were committed despite the opposition of most of the people and legitimate governments of the region concerned, notably Panama (overwhelmingly opposed by Latin Amreicans), Vietnam (opposed by all the genuine postcolonial states, notably India) and the Iraq War (opposed overwhelmingly by Middle Easterners, not to mention the Europeans whose governments the Americans enlisted). The fact is American governments are not answerable to foreigners. Therefore the Americans will always meddle in foreign nations in their own perceived interest, which may or may not coincide with those of the locals.
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 2, 2010 3:48 pm
PP - You are exaggerating on Venezuela. Cuba is close to the continental average. Over the past 200 years, there is only *one* state in the Americas under U.S. influence which can be said to be economically successful. Do you know which one?
You are totally incorrect on U.S. policy towards colonialism. The U.S. bankrolled the French War to control Indochina, it worked with the Belgians to kill the independence of nascent Congo, and it supported Portuguese and apartheid South African domination of Africa. Americans sentimental anticolonialism meant little in practice. The big exception was the Suez War, at which the Americans to their credit forced the British, French and Israelis to halt their war of aggression.
You are right in pointing out the difficulty in identifying genuine consent. All I would say is that many American actions were committed despite the opposition of most of the people and legitimate governments of the region concerned, notably Panama (overwhelmingly opposed by Latin Amreicans), Vietnam (opposed by all the genuine postcolonial states, notably India) and the Iraq War (opposed overwhelmingly by Middle Easterners, not to mention the Europeans whose governments the Americans enlisted). The fact is American governments are not answerable to foreigners. Therefore the Americans will always meddle in foreign nations in their own perceived interest, which may or may not coincide with those of the locals.
It's sad my comment supporting "national reorganization" as it were does not survive moderation but instead the comments are a forum for a supporter of mass murder several magnitudes worse.
Posted by: Thrasymachus at February 2, 2010 9:02 pm
Thrasymachus: "It's sad my comment supporting "national reorganization" as it were does not survive moderation"
I don't know what happened to that comment. I never saw it.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 2, 2010 11:15 pm
I don't know what happened to that comment. I never saw it.
Looking at the title of this thread, I would say Al Qaeda has succeeded in at least one case.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at February 3, 2010 1:19 am
Thrasymachus,
Is it possible that you tried to leave the comment on another (already closed?) thread?
Posted by: del at February 3, 2010 9:50 am
Is it possible that you tried to leave the comment on another (already closed?) thread?
Chomsky is the guru of a cult. Apparently Ombrageux is an acolyte, or perhaps an under-leader, in the cult.
When I was in graduate school in the mid 1990s, I once decided to attend a small event, advertised around campus with posters, which consisted of watching a videotaped speech by the fearless leader Chomsky. I was curious about why Chomsky had such a heroic status for so many. I knew he was considered a brilliant linguistician (my madeup word -- I don't believe "linguist" is the correct word to describe him, as, although he is considered an expert in "Linguistics", I don't believe he knows many languages fluently). The speech turned out to be a rant about US meddling in Indonesia. For a while back then, that was Chomsky's pet topic.
There were about a dozen others there, in the audience, in a classroom, mostly female social science graduate students. There was also a cult under-leader who introduced the speech, and enforced conformity in the cult.
The black and white videotape consisted of over a half hour of Chomsky's face, in close-up. The effect was fascinatingly big-brother-like. The audience seemed mostly entranced. I was quiet and inoffensive in the rear. One unfortunate woman in the front row, who was clearly an acquaintance-friend of several others (she chatted with them before the speech) was unfortunately not entirely entranced, as she asked a substantive question about the speech. The result was odd and telling. The under-leader spoke sharply and harshly to here, criticizing her personally for asking the question. Her erstwhile friends literally got up from their chairs and moved to sit elsewhere in the room. She was literally ostracized and shunned while in the room, for daring to ask a politely worded naive question.
Congratulations, Ombrageux, on your membership.
This one'sferyou:
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=4437
Noam Chomsky's Love Affair with Nazis
By: David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, May 15, 2006
"Rarely has the world been afforded such a clear glimpse into the unholy alliance between Islamic extremists and secular radicals in the West. That’s exactly what it got last week when the foremost Imam of the radical Left, Noam Chomsky, bestowed his blessings on the world’s largest terrorist army, the Shiite jihad outfit sponsored by Iran and known as Hezbollah (“Party of God.”)
Following a meeting with Hassan Nasrallah, the Lebanese terrorist group’s “secretary general,” Chomsky announced his support for Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm. Then, in an echo of Nasrallah’s recent declaration that President Bush is the world’s top “terrorist,” Chomsky pronounced his own fatwa on the United States, calling it one of the “leading terrorist states.” It was a meeting of murderous radical minds..."
Posted by: del at February 3, 2010 10:29 am
When I was in graduate school in the mid 1990s, I once decided to attend a small event, advertised around campus with posters, which consisted of watching a videotaped speech by the fearless leader Chomsky. I was curious about why Chomsky had such a heroic status for so many. I knew he was considered a brilliant linguistician (my madeup word -- I don't believe "linguist" is the correct word to describe him, as, although he is considered an expert in "Linguistics", I don't believe he knows many languages fluently). The speech turned out to be a rant about US meddling in Indonesia. For a while back then, that was Chomsky's pet topic.
There were about a dozen others there, in the audience, in a classroom, mostly female social science graduate students. There was also a cult under-leader who introduced the speech, and enforced conformity in the cult.
The black and white videotape consisted of over a half hour of Chomsky's face, in close-up. The effect was fascinatingly big-brother-like. The audience seemed mostly entranced. I was quiet and inoffensive in the rear. One unfortunate woman in the front row, who was clearly an acquaintance-friend of several others (she chatted with them before the speech) was unfortunately not entirely entranced, as she asked a substantive question about the speech. The result was odd and telling. The under-leader spoke sharply and harshly to here, criticizing her personally for asking the question. Her erstwhile friends literally got up from their chairs and moved to sit elsewhere in the room. She was literally ostracized and shunned while in the room, for daring to ask a politely worded naive question.
Congratulations, Ombrageux, on your membership.
This one'sferyou:
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=4437
Noam Chomsky's Love Affair with Nazis
By: David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, May 15, 2006
"Rarely has the world been afforded such a clear glimpse into the unholy alliance between Islamic extremists and secular radicals in the West. That’s exactly what it got last week when the foremost Imam of the radical Left, Noam Chomsky, bestowed his blessings on the world’s largest terrorist army, the Shiite jihad outfit sponsored by Iran and known as Hezbollah (“Party of God.”)
Following a meeting with Hassan Nasrallah, the Lebanese terrorist group’s “secretary general,” Chomsky announced his support for Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm. Then, in an echo of Nasrallah’s recent declaration that President Bush is the world’s top “terrorist,” Chomsky pronounced his own fatwa on the United States, calling it one of the “leading terrorist states.” It was a meeting of murderous radical minds..."
Ombrageux
Do no harm.
Very difficult to differentiate. A seemingly helpful policy may have disastrous consequences years later. Sometimes you end up supporting what seems like the good guys only to have them turn to the dark side later on(and then you get blamed). Every ‘helpful’ policy has some negative side effect, large or small. You cannot predict everything with 100% accuracy. And sometimes your only choices are dealing with a bad government or a worse government, a bad choice or worse choice. Roosevelt allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler. That doesn’t make the US responsible for the gulags.
Do no harm doesn’t work in an imperfect world because you will never have complete knowledge.
Posted by: Toady at February 3, 2010 12:07 pm
Do no harm.
Very difficult to differentiate. A seemingly helpful policy may have disastrous consequences years later. Sometimes you end up supporting what seems like the good guys only to have them turn to the dark side later on(and then you get blamed). Every ‘helpful’ policy has some negative side effect, large or small. You cannot predict everything with 100% accuracy. And sometimes your only choices are dealing with a bad government or a worse government, a bad choice or worse choice. Roosevelt allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler. That doesn’t make the US responsible for the gulags.
Do no harm doesn’t work in an imperfect world because you will never have complete knowledge.
del - You only degrade yourself with your slurs.
Toady - I agree that given imperfect knowledge, it can be difficult to determine whether a policy will be harmful. People need to recognize however that the U.S. government doesn't answer to foreigners. It answers to its own people - after a fashion - with a quadrennial media circus. No one in the White House, Pentagon, State or Langley has *any* reason to do anything except in the interest of the U.S. as they see it. As a result, they often don't even attempt to follow my maxim. American people need to recognize this, and understand that their suspicion of "government" at home is even more valid abroad.
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 3, 2010 1:56 pm
Toady - I agree that given imperfect knowledge, it can be difficult to determine whether a policy will be harmful. People need to recognize however that the U.S. government doesn't answer to foreigners. It answers to its own people - after a fashion - with a quadrennial media circus. No one in the White House, Pentagon, State or Langley has *any* reason to do anything except in the interest of the U.S. as they see it. As a result, they often don't even attempt to follow my maxim. American people need to recognize this, and understand that their suspicion of "government" at home is even more valid abroad.
Ombrageux,
Slurs? No. You should be proud to be a follower of Chomsky. Your first sentence on this comment thread is a general endorsement of Chomsky with no qualification. Nowhere subsequent do you make or acknowledge as accurate any criticism of Chomsky. You should therefore be, and likely are, proud of following and believing in Chomsky. This is surprisingly apparent even in his endorsement of Nasrallah and hezbollah, as you make no comment on the fact that Chomsky wholeheartedly supported and still supports hezbollah in your own dismissive comment following my comment.
So why not take some time and detail to other readers where and why you disagree with him? That is of course if you do. Explain how and why Chomsky would make a trip, at the invitation of hezbollah, and then loudly support them. And then explain why you support him. Good luck.
As for my description of my experience with Chomsky cultists: I guess you had to be there. If you had been, it is certainly obvious that I expect you would have taken the position of the under-leader in that room.
Posted by: del at February 3, 2010 5:41 pm
Slurs? No. You should be proud to be a follower of Chomsky. Your first sentence on this comment thread is a general endorsement of Chomsky with no qualification. Nowhere subsequent do you make or acknowledge as accurate any criticism of Chomsky. You should therefore be, and likely are, proud of following and believing in Chomsky. This is surprisingly apparent even in his endorsement of Nasrallah and hezbollah, as you make no comment on the fact that Chomsky wholeheartedly supported and still supports hezbollah in your own dismissive comment following my comment.
So why not take some time and detail to other readers where and why you disagree with him? That is of course if you do. Explain how and why Chomsky would make a trip, at the invitation of hezbollah, and then loudly support them. And then explain why you support him. Good luck.
As for my description of my experience with Chomsky cultists: I guess you had to be there. If you had been, it is certainly obvious that I expect you would have taken the position of the under-leader in that room.
Ombrageux,
You wrote in your last comment: "No one in the White House, Pentagon, State or Langley has *any* reason to do anything except in the interest of the U.S. as they see it."
That is quite naive. I would rewrite that sentence to allow the possibility of self interest. It is not unusual for politicians and foreign service officials to follow up their "public service" with a trip through the revolving door of consulting and lobbying firms. It sometimes appears that their decisions while in "Public Service" may have been influenced by their salivating for a highly paid consultancy afterwards. In other cases, they merely provide access, a necessary precursor to influence. Individuals of both major political parties have done this.
Look up "Chas Freeman former Ambassador" , "ex-ambassador Walter Cutler", "Edward (Ned) Walker"
The revolving door phenomenon applies in non-foreign policy situations as well: ex-high ranking public servants can be fine choices on corporate boards-of-directors where they receive $50-$100 thousand a year for little work (beyond the access to their former colleagues they provide).
C'mon. Chomsky must have decried this somewhere. You must be aware of the revolving door.
Posted by: del at February 3, 2010 10:16 pm
You wrote in your last comment: "No one in the White House, Pentagon, State or Langley has *any* reason to do anything except in the interest of the U.S. as they see it."
That is quite naive. I would rewrite that sentence to allow the possibility of self interest. It is not unusual for politicians and foreign service officials to follow up their "public service" with a trip through the revolving door of consulting and lobbying firms. It sometimes appears that their decisions while in "Public Service" may have been influenced by their salivating for a highly paid consultancy afterwards. In other cases, they merely provide access, a necessary precursor to influence. Individuals of both major political parties have done this.
Look up "Chas Freeman former Ambassador" , "ex-ambassador Walter Cutler", "Edward (Ned) Walker"
The revolving door phenomenon applies in non-foreign policy situations as well: ex-high ranking public servants can be fine choices on corporate boards-of-directors where they receive $50-$100 thousand a year for little work (beyond the access to their former colleagues they provide).
C'mon. Chomsky must have decried this somewhere. You must be aware of the revolving door.
del - I said Chomsky was "useful thinker" and you call me a cultist. His work teaches people to think critically about the propaganda governments *always* produce about themselves. His own work should be approached just as critically. Generally, Chomsky limits himself to fairly modest claims, so it is hard to argue with him. One would be his "anarchism," which while well-meaning strikes me as Utopian.
You take an even more radical interpretation of U.S. foreign policy than the one I have presented here. But indeed, often U.S. foreign policy is not even done in *American* interests, but the narrow selfish interests of national security, political and corporate elites. (Let alone the interests of foreigners, whose lives are expendable and opinions non-existent.)
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 4, 2010 12:37 am
You take an even more radical interpretation of U.S. foreign policy than the one I have presented here. But indeed, often U.S. foreign policy is not even done in *American* interests, but the narrow selfish interests of national security, political and corporate elites. (Let alone the interests of foreigners, whose lives are expendable and opinions non-existent.)
First "Chomsky is useful commentator".
Now he's "a useful thinker" whose works "teaches people to think critically..." about practically everything...
...except Chomsky himself.
Well, here's someone who provides a bit of, shall we say, "balance"?
WARNING: Those who believe that Chomsky is a "useful commentator" or a "useful thinker" (or both) may find that the above link contains all kinds of "slurs" or even perhaps (horror!!) "slights" or other (gasp) "indecencies" that should have absolutely no place in rational, adult discussion. PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! (You have been warned....)
Disclaimer: In the spirit of "Does objectivity really exist?", I feel it necessary to admit that I believe the Great Man to be a pathetic, pathological liar (but, heh, maybe that's just me being me, etc....)
Posted by: Barry Meislin at February 4, 2010 2:35 am
Now he's "a useful thinker" whose works "teaches people to think critically..." about practically everything...
...except Chomsky himself.
Well, here's someone who provides a bit of, shall we say, "balance"?
WARNING: Those who believe that Chomsky is a "useful commentator" or a "useful thinker" (or both) may find that the above link contains all kinds of "slurs" or even perhaps (horror!!) "slights" or other (gasp) "indecencies" that should have absolutely no place in rational, adult discussion. PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! (You have been warned....)
Disclaimer: In the spirit of "Does objectivity really exist?", I feel it necessary to admit that I believe the Great Man to be a pathetic, pathological liar (but, heh, maybe that's just me being me, etc....)
Hi -
On the "useful idiots" quote:
Lenin never said the words because Lenin (duh) wrote in Russian, not in English.
The phrase, in Russian, would be "полезные идиоты", which Lenin didn't use.
Instead, he used the phrase "чрезвычайный простак", or "utter simpleton".
In the context of its first use by Lenin in 1920, he refers to President Wilson as being the "utter simpleton" in Versailles, where Clemenceau and Lloyd George manipulated him into agreeing to both French and British goals while ignoring the effects on Germany. The context is quite clear that this is what is implied by the phrase "useful idiots": someone who through ignorance can - and is - manipulated to take a position that is actually, objectively, in opposition to his own beliefs and political goals.
Lenin also used the term "либеральные дебилы", or "liberal blockheads", but that was usually in a pejorative sense when dealing with Menshiviks and their ilk.
The fact that Lenin "never said it" doesn't mean that it isn't what is meant when Michael uses it in this context. Lenin said plenty about using bourgeois sentimentality as a weapon to destroy bourgeois society from within: this is what is meant by "useful idiots", people who, for whatever misguided and vain-glorious motives, act against their own interests.
What is interesting, of course, is that one could tie this in with the Marxist concept of "false consciousness", that the proletariat is being actively misled by capitalist institution and processes such that they fail to understand the pre-revolutionary situation, fail to perceive the historical necessity of the inevitability of communist triumph. It behooves the Party to make use of sentimentalists within the society that needs to have a revolution in order to help create the pre-revolutionary situation (defined as a state where political compromise is no longer considered an option and extremism is to be welcomed as it moves society to the point where the Party can initiate revolution at the proper moment). Those who can be pushed and prodded to further the interests of the Party without realizing that they are creating the seeds of their own destruction are the utter simpletons of Lenin's intent...
And hey, these aren't my opinions...just to be clear. :-)
Posted by: John F. Opie at February 4, 2010 2:38 am
On the "useful idiots" quote:
Lenin never said the words because Lenin (duh) wrote in Russian, not in English.
The phrase, in Russian, would be "полезные идиоты", which Lenin didn't use.
Instead, he used the phrase "чрезвычайный простак", or "utter simpleton".
In the context of its first use by Lenin in 1920, he refers to President Wilson as being the "utter simpleton" in Versailles, where Clemenceau and Lloyd George manipulated him into agreeing to both French and British goals while ignoring the effects on Germany. The context is quite clear that this is what is implied by the phrase "useful idiots": someone who through ignorance can - and is - manipulated to take a position that is actually, objectively, in opposition to his own beliefs and political goals.
Lenin also used the term "либеральные дебилы", or "liberal blockheads", but that was usually in a pejorative sense when dealing with Menshiviks and their ilk.
The fact that Lenin "never said it" doesn't mean that it isn't what is meant when Michael uses it in this context. Lenin said plenty about using bourgeois sentimentality as a weapon to destroy bourgeois society from within: this is what is meant by "useful idiots", people who, for whatever misguided and vain-glorious motives, act against their own interests.
What is interesting, of course, is that one could tie this in with the Marxist concept of "false consciousness", that the proletariat is being actively misled by capitalist institution and processes such that they fail to understand the pre-revolutionary situation, fail to perceive the historical necessity of the inevitability of communist triumph. It behooves the Party to make use of sentimentalists within the society that needs to have a revolution in order to help create the pre-revolutionary situation (defined as a state where political compromise is no longer considered an option and extremism is to be welcomed as it moves society to the point where the Party can initiate revolution at the proper moment). Those who can be pushed and prodded to further the interests of the Party without realizing that they are creating the seeds of their own destruction are the utter simpletons of Lenin's intent...
And hey, these aren't my opinions...just to be clear. :-)
Seems like Barry forgot to close an HTML bracket!
Posted by: John F. Opie at February 4, 2010 2:39 am
Indeed I did. Sorry about that....
Posted by: Barry Meislin at February 4, 2010 2:47 am
...always did wonder what would happen if I forgot to close them....
Posted by: Barry Meislin at February 4, 2010 2:49 am
Ombra: Of course you simply must be a cultist, a brainwashed acolyte without any individual intelligence. Dontcha know thats all we leftist folk are? Just wait til you disagree here on the subject of Israel.
Seriously, there is one problem to the "Do no harm" agenda of international policy, it leaves states nearly impotent. In the end it comes down to cost/benefit analysis, cynical as that may seem. Better guidelines would propably be "Do more good than harm" and "Beware of Greed".
Posted by: Fnord at February 4, 2010 6:33 am
Seriously, there is one problem to the "Do no harm" agenda of international policy, it leaves states nearly impotent. In the end it comes down to cost/benefit analysis, cynical as that may seem. Better guidelines would propably be "Do more good than harm" and "Beware of Greed".
Better guidelines would propably be "Do more good than harm" and "Beware of Greed"
Even better is "Let people in other countries solve their own problems."
Posted by: Toady at February 4, 2010 7:51 am
Even better is "Let people in other countries solve their own problems."
The anti-Chomsky literature you present has apparently no value.
The first "lie" cited:“in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise.”
Besides not providing any context, one can be fairly clear what is being referred to is:
1) The grey, oppressive peace that settled into Eastern Europe after World War II, notwithstanding occasional uprisings.
2) The "tyranny and violence" of American wars in Southeast Asia and Central America.
In the 1970s or 1980s, day to day life may have been grey and poor. But it was predictable and "life went on" in Eastern Europe. You would not be better off being a Nicaraguan or Vietnamese peasant caught in the crossfire of the Americans, seized by their made crusade.
These critiques of Chomsky are likely to remain at this misleading, "gotcha" level, than criticism that might involve serious engagement with his work. Again, I contrast the no-nothing unthinkers of the American Right today with the distinguished anticommunists of the 20th Century - Hannah Arendt, Raymon Aron, Lezsek Kolakowski. These were thinkers who could critize the thing - and draw good elements from it - because they had actually taken it seriously and thus really understood it.
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 4, 2010 1:33 pm
The first "lie" cited:“in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise.”
Besides not providing any context, one can be fairly clear what is being referred to is:
1) The grey, oppressive peace that settled into Eastern Europe after World War II, notwithstanding occasional uprisings.
2) The "tyranny and violence" of American wars in Southeast Asia and Central America.
In the 1970s or 1980s, day to day life may have been grey and poor. But it was predictable and "life went on" in Eastern Europe. You would not be better off being a Nicaraguan or Vietnamese peasant caught in the crossfire of the Americans, seized by their made crusade.
These critiques of Chomsky are likely to remain at this misleading, "gotcha" level, than criticism that might involve serious engagement with his work. Again, I contrast the no-nothing unthinkers of the American Right today with the distinguished anticommunists of the 20th Century - Hannah Arendt, Raymon Aron, Lezsek Kolakowski. These were thinkers who could critize the thing - and draw good elements from it - because they had actually taken it seriously and thus really understood it.
"1) The grey, oppressive peace that settled into Eastern Europe after World War II, notwithstanding occasional uprisings."
You, like Chomsky, ignore the massive repression and violence by which Communist Rule was brought about and sustained in Eastern Europe. If you read the quotations cited you will find the relevant bodycount. Only a blinkered ideological fanatic would contrast this favorably with "US Tyranny and Violence".
Posted by: mzk at February 4, 2010 3:58 pm
You, like Chomsky, ignore the massive repression and violence by which Communist Rule was brought about and sustained in Eastern Europe. If you read the quotations cited you will find the relevant bodycount. Only a blinkered ideological fanatic would contrast this favorably with "US Tyranny and Violence".
Ombrageux,
I still haven't seen any criticism from you about anything from Chomsky, beyond the biting suggestion that he is sometimes, maybe, "utopian". What gives? You do manage to congratulate yourself by recommending to others your own "critical" thought, supposedly taught to you by Chomsky. So share some of that critical thought about Uncle Noam.
You assert: "Generally, Chomsky limits himself to fairly modest claims". The assertion is plainly false upon reading this thread.
This complete unwillingness on your part to write anything substantively critical of Chomsky is a demonstration that he is not merely some writer whom you believe should be consulted and considered on various subjects. You treat him as if he is a prophet, above criticism,...and therefore demonstrate my point.
I am also impressed that you so easily change your earlier *emphatic* assertion, "No one in the White House, Pentagon, State or Langley has *any* reason to do anything except in the interest of the U.S. as they see it." to: "But indeed, often U.S. foreign policy is not even done in *American* interests, but the narrow selfish interests of national security, political and corporate elites.", without acknowledging that this contradicts your own previous assertion. You have the intellectual dishonesty of an ideologue.
Further, your incorrect observation that my mention of the revolving door phenomenon is part of a "radical" interpretation of US foreign policy also demonstrates your unfortunate tendency to project your own assumptions upon others. I do not see the "revolving door" as part of some "class struggle" of "elites" against the "common man". I see the "revolving door" as the demonstration of individually repeated greed and stupidity.
Posted by: del at February 4, 2010 11:14 pm
I still haven't seen any criticism from you about anything from Chomsky, beyond the biting suggestion that he is sometimes, maybe, "utopian". What gives? You do manage to congratulate yourself by recommending to others your own "critical" thought, supposedly taught to you by Chomsky. So share some of that critical thought about Uncle Noam.
You assert: "Generally, Chomsky limits himself to fairly modest claims". The assertion is plainly false upon reading this thread.
This complete unwillingness on your part to write anything substantively critical of Chomsky is a demonstration that he is not merely some writer whom you believe should be consulted and considered on various subjects. You treat him as if he is a prophet, above criticism,...and therefore demonstrate my point.
I am also impressed that you so easily change your earlier *emphatic* assertion, "No one in the White House, Pentagon, State or Langley has *any* reason to do anything except in the interest of the U.S. as they see it." to: "But indeed, often U.S. foreign policy is not even done in *American* interests, but the narrow selfish interests of national security, political and corporate elites.", without acknowledging that this contradicts your own previous assertion. You have the intellectual dishonesty of an ideologue.
Further, your incorrect observation that my mention of the revolving door phenomenon is part of a "radical" interpretation of US foreign policy also demonstrates your unfortunate tendency to project your own assumptions upon others. I do not see the "revolving door" as part of some "class struggle" of "elites" against the "common man". I see the "revolving door" as the demonstration of individually repeated greed and stupidity.
fnord, I'm still waiting for the link to the Hamas website where you condemned their terrorism and antisemitism as you claimed. C'mon, old buddy, where is it?
Posted by: Gary Rosen at February 4, 2010 11:27 pm
"The grey, oppressive peace that settled into Eastern Europe after World War II, notwithstanding occasional uprisings"
One of the first things that led me to the right was watching the fall of communism. The captive nations' regimes all collapsed like a house of cards and it was so obvious that the people living under them just loathed them. It utterly gave the lie to the excuses made by the likes of Ombrageaux which I had previously and foolishly fallen for myself.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at February 4, 2010 11:31 pm
One of the first things that led me to the right was watching the fall of communism. The captive nations' regimes all collapsed like a house of cards and it was so obvious that the people living under them just loathed them. It utterly gave the lie to the excuses made by the likes of Ombrageaux which I had previously and foolishly fallen for myself.
del - Ill will and babbling incoherence do not merit any more of a response.
FR - I did not claim Eastern Europe was a paradise. I claimed you were personally better off (as in, both wealthier and less likely to die) living in a typical Soviet satellite in Eastern Europe (Hungary or GDR) than in an American warzone (Vietnam, Nicaragua). That was the point Chomsky was making. One can accept it without endorsing Soviet imperialism.
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 5, 2010 5:19 am
FR - I did not claim Eastern Europe was a paradise. I claimed you were personally better off (as in, both wealthier and less likely to die) living in a typical Soviet satellite in Eastern Europe (Hungary or GDR) than in an American warzone (Vietnam, Nicaragua). That was the point Chomsky was making. One can accept it without endorsing Soviet imperialism.
"I claimed you were personally better off (as in, both wealthier and less likely to die) living in a typical Soviet satellite in Eastern Europe (Hungary or GDR) than in an American warzone (Vietnam, Nicaragua)."
Dishonest cherry-picking. Ever hear of Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge?
Posted by: Gary Rosen at February 6, 2010 1:36 am
Dishonest cherry-picking. Ever hear of Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge?
Post a comment
