Comments on: Debating Grand Strategy

By: Don Quijote

Don Quijote — Fri, 18 Feb 2005 03:25:35 +0000

Wow, Luminous Beauty. Do mean to say that even in the great old US of A there is not economic or civil freedom? What the US does within it’s borders and what it does outside of them are two different thing. If you don’t believe me, study Central America, that region has been under US control for over a hundred years, is it industrialized? are the inhabitants wealthy? is it free? are the regimes in power put there by the US and overthrown when they stop acting in accord with US interest? do the goverment we back commit atrocities? do we call them on it? do we call the goverments we don’t like on it?

By: contrary

contrary — Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:05:01 +0000

“I’m sure there are many theories as to what happened to the WMD’s, but the fact is they were there a decade ago and now they are not.” My point exactly. My concern now is what happens when they turn up again, which, if they haven’t really been destroyed, we know they will. Who will have them? Who knows. Maybe Saddam buried them, and they’ll be accidently uncovered by some Iraqi child 30 years from now. There’s a tragedy just waiting to happen. Too bad that this case has been hard to pin down definitively. But I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised.

By: scout29c

scout29c — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:26:29 +0000

contrary at none@doc.com The proof is we are in Iraq and the weapons are not there. I was against the invasion but was surprised that no WMD’s were found. I for one was shocked and awed. We know he had them; he used them on the Kurds. The stories of Judith Miller running all over Iraq with her “special” contacts looking for WMD’s and mobile labs would have been funny if it were not so tragic. If there had been anything the Bushies could have hung their hat on, we would have heard about it. Of that, you can be sure. I am aware that the weapons in question could have been spirited away and are being held in Syria. If that’s true, they are the Syrians’ weapons now, Saddam’s people will never get them back, nor any terrorist group either. As Stephen Walt mentioned in his essay, any country, in this case Syria, will do what is best for Syria. Another strange coincidence is the disappearance of the high explosives, which we know were there and may or may not have been seen after the Americans arrived. Perhaps they are with the WMD’s – that’s one theory. I’m sure there are many theories as to what happened to the WMD’s, but the fact is they were there a decade ago and now they are not. The sanctions with all its questionable verification and corruption in the Oil for Food program worked. The theory that Saddam no longer had WMD’s but was acting like he did is the simplest and therefore the most plausible one. We don’t get proofs like this very often, and we’ve paid a heavy price for it. How will we use it?

By: abb1

abb1 — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:46:57 +0000

The WMD are simply not there. Where they are is anyone’s speculation. No, not speculation. There was a year and a half long billion dollar effort undertaken after the war to trace the Iraqi WMD. People were interviewed, industrial sites inspected, warehouses, labs, roads, vehicles examined and so on. The conclusion: proscribed weapons and materials didn’t exist. That’s a fact – they didn’t exist. Programs to manufacture proscribed weapons and materials didn’t exist. That’s a fact. However, some weapons of mass destruction program related activities have been indeed discovered. We got ‘em!

By: contrary

contrary — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:58:20 +0000

“While we may wonder and ague whether international institutions are working, in the case of Iraq, we have proof. It was working; we just did not know it.” Would you please show me the proof? I think we only have conjecture, based on appearances. I don’t think Saddam has cracked under questioning (?) to let us know what he did with his WMD that we know he had. He certainly didn’t document that he had disposed of any. The WMD are simply not there. Where they are is anyone’s speculation. If the international institutional sanctions were really working, we would be able to account for all these things. They would be verifiable. Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.

By: contrary

contrary — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:33:53 +0000

“The view that American interests are merely the desire to see the spread of civil and economic freedom is pure horseshit. I’d personally like to see the spread of civil and economic freedom in the US.” Wow, Luminous Beauty. Do mean to say that even in the great old US of A there is not economic or civil freedom? What are you looking for – that everyone gets the same economic stipend for life, and that everyone gets to see their pet politician elected, and that everyone gets to do anything that enters their mind to do, without bound or consequence? Are you sure that these are not just sour grapes? What alternate societal framework gets these things for you, and for everyone else, too? Oh, and have the society still be functional (other than just being self-absorbed)? Never mind that there may be competing ideas of what is fair and just and right – at both the personal and societal level.

By: scout29c

scout29c — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:43:03 +0000

Appearing strong worked so well for Saddam.

By: scout29c

scout29c — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:39:38 +0000

I do find it interesting that so many people want to trust international institutions when they have failed so dramatically with respect to North Korea. They also failed dramatically with respect to Saddam’s nuclear program in 1990. They are currently failing with respect to Iran. While we may wonder and ague whether international institutions are working, in the case of Iraq, we have proof. It was working; we just did not know it. Our intelligence fail to detect that Saddam had no WMD and certainly no nuke program and Saddam’s intelligence fail to convince him that the U.S. would call his bluff in the extreme. Saddam blocked the inspectors because what he had to hide was the fact he had nothing to hide. One can guess at his reasons, but the results are the same: the U.N. and the sanctions were working. He could rattle sabers all he wanted, he was no threat. We should remember that in our future dealing with Iran or North Korea – that is, if we ever have any future dealings with Iran or North Korea. For the current administration to use international institutions would be to admit they were wrong to abandon them before, and this groups feels admitting you are wrong is a sign of weakness. It is better to appear strong than right.

By: luminous beauty

luminous beauty — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:11:55 +0000

What is the working definition of “realism” in the field of IR. It seems from some of the posts here that it refers to interpretation of world events consonant with one’s self-interested ideology rather than any attempt to be objective. The view that American interests are merely the desire to see the spread of civil and economic freedom is pure horseshit. I’d personally like to see the spread of civil and economic freedom in the US. The reality of US hegenomy is in the furtherance of global corporatist control of resources of all localities, via the establishment of client regimes willing to ignore the civil and economic liberty of their own citizens for the “bargain” of accumulating corrupt wealth for a few, in exchange for capitulating to neo-liberal restructuring of their economies. Any country unwilling to submit is isolated and branded as “rogue” or “failed” states. Realism would seem to require understanding that the US is no more a liberal democracy than NK is a socialist paradise. It’s telling that no mention is made of the political movement towards reconciliation and social integration of NK and SK. That would seem to me to be the primary “success” of the Bush regime. They would rather have an irreconcilable enemy with whom they can refuse to negotiate in order to reinforce the domestic domination of the US gov. by the corporate/military elite than promote regional peace.

By: luminous beauty

luminous beauty — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:10:13 +0000

By: luminous beauty

luminous beauty — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:05:18 +0000

What is the working definition of “realism” in the field of IR. It seems from some of the posts here that it refers to interpretation of world events consonant with one’s self-interested ideology rather than any attempt to be objective. For example: The identification of anti-zionism with anti-semitism. The gruesome irony of this view is that the Arabic people are much more semitic than the majority of Israelis. The assertion that any criticism of reactionary tendencies in Israeli politics is the same as hating Jews en masse is on its face irrational, despicable sophistry. The view that American interests are merely the desire to see the spread of civil and economic freedom is pure horseshit. I’d personally like to see the spread of civil and economic freedom in the US. The reality of US hegenomy is in the furtherance of global corporatist control of resources of all localities, via the establishment of client regimes willing to ignore the civil and economic liberty of their own citizens for the “bargain” of accumulating corrupt wealth for a few, in exchange for capitulating to neo-liberal restructuring of their economies. Any country unwilling to submit is isolated and branded as “rogue” or “failed” states. Realism would seem to require understanding that the US is no more a liberal democracy than NK is a socialist paradise. It’s telling that no mention is made of the political movement towards reconciliation and social integration of NK and SK. That would seem to me to be the primary “success” of the Bush regime. They would rather have an irreconcilable enemy with whom they can refuse to negotiate in order to reinforce the domestic domination of the US gov. by the corporate/military elite than promote regional peace.

By: luminous beauty

luminous beauty — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:03:32 +0000

What is the working definition of “realism” in the field of IR. It seems from some of the posts here that it refers to interpretation of world events consonant with one’s self-interested ideology rather than any attempt to be objective. For example: The identification of anti-zionism with anti-semitism. The gruesome irony of this view is that the Arabic people are much more semitic than the majority of Israelis. The assertion that any criticism of reactionary tendencies in Israeli politics is the same as hating Jews en masse is on its face irrational, despicable sophistry. The view that American interests are merely the desire to see the spread of civil and economic freedom is pure horseshit. I’d personally like to see the spread of civil and economic freedom in the US. The reality of US hegenomy is in the furtherance of global corporatist control of resources of all localities, via the establishment of client regimes willing to ignore the civil and economic liberty of their own citizens for the “bargain” of accumulating corrupt wealth for a few, in exchange for capitulating to neo-liberal restructuring of their economies. Any country unwilling to submit is isolated and branded as “rogue” or “failed” states. Realism would seem to require understanding that the US is no more a liberal democracy than NK is a socialist paradise. It’s telling that no mention is made of the political movement towards reconciliation and social integration of NK and SK. That would seem to me to be the primary “success” of the Bush regime. They would rather have an irreconcilable enemy with whom they can refuse to negotiate in order to reinforce the domestic domination of the US gov. by the corporate/military elite than promote regional peace.

By: Boronx

Boronx — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:06:11 +0000

Good ideas…four years ago. This really seems like closing the barn door to me.

By: MFB

MFB — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:56:50 +0000

You know, if the United States could commit to a no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons, that might also help. I know that policies are subject to change every few months. But couldn’t the Americans get it into a Constitutional Amendment? God knows it makes more sense than a constitutional amendment on gay marriages or budget balancing.

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:11:28 +0000

cw has mastered a new and extra-delusional form of anti-semitism. Sebastian: You do realize that the United States also failed to keep any of its promises to North Korea in that same deal. I’m not sure it would have made any difference (this is North Korea we’re talking about here, after all), but it’s not surprising that they didn’t uphold their end of the bargain.