Infrequently Noted

If you (dis) like politics you might enjoy (or be horrified by) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_Noam_Chomsky_and_the_Media.

Good stuff. .I'd say I don't know anything about politics but being that I live where I live I can't seem to escape these discussions.

Wow, great writeup. Well spoken.

Damn, kudos.

The only thing more painful than paying attention to the sprawling trainwreck of our foreign policy is not paying attention and allowing this to perpetuate.

There is an excellent review of a book on military history in the current New Yorker (Feb 12) which makes a comparison between colonial wars and the war in Iraq. I Can't resist digging this tidbit up from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

Texas Republican congressman Ron Paul alleged that part of the reason for the war was to maintain "Dollar hegemony." Before the war, Hussein had planned to require Euros for all petroleum sales. That was bad for the dollar, since it lacks the backing by gold or silver which it had historically, and demand for dollars to purchase oil helped to support its market value. After the war began, the Americans quickly returned Iraq petroleum sales from Euros to "Petrodollars."

Hear, hear.

As a UK resident it's hugely embarassing to me to have to see Blair, pretty much alone in the world, up BushAdmin's collective ass on this one again.

Unfortunately, though, hypocrisy, doublespeak and downright malevolent intent are the way pretty much all governments play the foreign policy game. Bush et al are just a lot more brazen about it.

Agreed with Ryan -- do whatever you can. Write to your representatives, blog about the situation, whatever. There are two global superpowers: the US gov and public opinion.

 

I must say I agree with you.  The only question in my mind is: What foreign policy?   Today we have no unifying principles from which we act as a nation.  We lurch from one set of crises to another, with half-hearted stabs  at 'democracy' without seriously preparing other societies to understand the foundations of the rule of law and other 'liberal' democratic ideals.  When peoples do yearn to be free, and try to work in civil ways, we tend to turn our backs on  the indigenous democrats ( see Egypt and China).  They go to jail while their radical counter-parts get more recruits they can turn to violence.  Worst of all is the sheer waste of time, treasure and blood, when people are still dying of AIDS, straving and in need of clean water.  The planet's oceans are neglected while the coral reefs fail.  The litany is too long to list. And you are right about the waste in Iraq itself. We failed gravely to bring order, which is the simple but always neccesary pre-requisite to law.  The whole of Baghdad has been reduced to a kind of pre-WW 2 level of services ( not to even try to count the human and familial costs) from which it well may take 50 to 75 years to recover.   Sarajevo is still blighted and forgotten.  The shame of all of this is that we, Americans, seem not able to have a serious, non-shouting discussion about what to do now.  I hope this election cycle will produce a high level of introspection and discourse.  The world needs humble and generous leadership, not our greed and selfish ambition.      

Good post...

A few days ago I replied to a blog by Miguel de Icaza from the Mono fame on the same topic, i.e. Iran, the country in which I live! I think it's worth linking to it here.

If you think Bush is the only bad guy in this conflict you're absolutely wrong. You can't find any moral/national "causes of Iranian intransigence toward American foreign policy dictates", as you put it. The nuclear issue for the Iranian regime is simply a means for prolonging the existence of their undemocratic and trouble making regime! For the people of Iran it's a matter of short term national pride, caused by propaganda!

Now don't get me wrong, I don't approve of war, and I believe it won't happen (read my reply to Miguel), but what I approve of is to feel responsible and to push Iranians for change, to get rid of this regime. I even view Mr. Bush with some respect (although he messed it up completely after the war!). At least he wanted to do something about this messy region! Although he fucked it up completely. But he did something, at least. I love this "fuck war" attitude, I hate this "fuck war, leave those horrible people alone in their misery, just don't mess with us" attitude. Believe me, you can "cause" change. Do it! Be responsible! Use the powers you have! Use the diplomatic/economic/... powers! There's no need for a war....

Btw regarding Dollar hegemony and what Saddam did to threaten it as noted by David, it's totally bullshit of course! Totally exaggerated! Ask any credible economist! Or just research on wto.org and compare the few billions of dollars of Iraq's oil revenue to the total amount of international trade. Now if I recall correctly 1/14 of international trade is energy. That's something, but consider Iraq's share in that, not considerable. Now if you think Bush attacked Iraq to empty Iraqi pockets and get rich think again, because it does not make sense to spend 300+ billions (and counting) to conquer a country which won't be able to make as much money in two decades!! It only makes sense when you want to fix a volatile and troubled region like middle east... alas it didn't happen.

Cheers!

AE:

I think you're mis-representing my point of view on this. No one is under any illusions that the current Iranian regime is anything but a dictatorial theocracy. That, however, does not justify breaking international law and provoking a war of choice, which is what is being discussed. Of COURSE the US should be using any and all diplomatic means at its disposal to reduce hostilities in the region and encourage democratic reform in Iran. I don't think you will have found statements made by me on this blog saying that war is never an option. Yes, it is always wrong, but it may also be justified. It is that calculation which the Bush Administration either willfully or through incompetence screwed up in Iraq and I fear that they will again fail to make in the case of Iran.

From what I've read of the lead-up to the Iraq War, I think that at the highest levels of US government there really was a sense that the invasion of Iraq would be quick, cheap, and mostly bloodless. And that's to say nothing of the reconstruction. Of course, anyone who had actually paid attention to the situation knew that couldn't possibly be true, and that's where the Administration will be found wanting by history: it simply didn't care to know. That ignorance combined with a world-view which completely ignored the region's history led the US into an un-winnable occupation. To make the argument that the only way the US's actions make sense is in the context of some larger plan to democratize the middle east might seem attractive, but that's only because it's the only way left to draw the lines from point A to point B. It seems that many of the primary actors in this story weren't acting rationally. Given that backdrop, it also seems foolhardy to assume that they are currently acting sensibly or will do so in the future.

I know that it seems completely ludicrous to think that ideology and ignorance could drive the world's only super-power to this point, but what else could? Were region-wide change the goal, one can imagine hundreds if not thousands of ways in which past and current Bush Administration policy is flawed and failing. Simply put, it's no longer possible to chart the Administration's policy on the axes of rational explinations.

Sadly, this sounds much like many of the region's other actors.

Regards

Alex, I wasn't misrepresenting you. What you have written makes complete sense. My words were about the trends I see, not your point of view exactly.

You see, the trends I see now are:

• We were a foul to think democracy would fix this region. These people simply are not ready for it. It's become even dangerous to deal with democratically elected volatile and hard line governments of this region. You know what, actually it is correct! To make it work you have to teach and protect it! I welcome this pragmatism/realism that I currently see. What I have great fear of is to give up completely and revert back to the old malfunctioning status que. But there are many people who think that's what should be done. Those who advocate talking to Iran and accept it as is are among this group. It's this sissy "give up, we can't fix it, leave them alone" attitude/trend that I hate!
• Another trend I see is the war trend. Some people say we can't prevent Iran from getting the bomb unless we go to war with it. I don't subscribe to this point of view, but I do agree that a nuclear theocracy is a complete disaster and utterly dangerous. But remember, those who advocate this war advocate it to just "prevent" the regime to get the bomb. In the end it won't cause any change for the Iranian people. This prevention won't bring democracy or human rights for them. In other words it's a "give up, we can't fix it, leave them alone, but prevent them to get the bomb by bombing them" attitude, which is not much different from the first one above!

You see both camps have given up to some extent and want to preserve some kind of status que! That's horrible dude! Imho even worse than what Bush has done!! I'd like to see a more pragmatic yet more responsible attitude. Both of these extreme attitudes are dangerous. Hopefully we won't fall to these extremes and I'm positive we won't....

Cheers!

OTM FOR EVAR!  On The Media is also one of my favorites (although its hard to beat This American Life and Wait Wait.)  I like it when Brook Gladstone beats up on a guest just because she can.  It makes me feel like there's someone in journalism that still has a damned spine.

Re: AE's comments Finding the middle way, will involve ignoring both those voices that call for a larger war with Iran and those who want to throw in the towel in Iraq.  I think that there is no turning back the clock to the status quo.  Our presence in Iraq has forever changed the region's politics.  We need to see how to create a vibrant Dissaggregation strategy as advocated by George Packer, in his seminal New Yorker article, " Know The Enemy" 12-18-06. David Kilcullen's idea is to sort out who is radical from who is not, and address these groups differently.  In Iran there are still many moderates who could be peeled away from the Ayattollahs.  The NYT is reporting that we are  quietly talking to reasonable elements in Iran.  We need much more of this kind of thinking.   Today's sad headline in Iraq has to do with the heated sectarian reaction  to a rape case, allegedly of a Sunni woman by three  Shiite policemen, who was rescued by American soldiers.  Our overly meek response, that we are "investigating" the incident, once more gives the radicals a field day.  America needs to firmly stand up for justice (not snap judgments, but the rule of law).  Letting radical media and sectarian charges time and time again take hold of the information battlefield will ultimately lead to our defeat by the insurgents around the globe.   We need to get a backbone and find our voice.  Our past horrendous mistakes must be acknowlegded ( Abu Gharib and revenge slayings by US soldiers), BUT they must not keep us from trying to establish lasting justice today, one day at a time.