Hobbesian hegemony’s not perfect, but it’s better than what we have now

I call footnote 2. Of course in a predatory environment it’s your vital interest to show that you mean business. Watch The Sopranos.

Surely the US administration expected that the invasion of Iraq was going to be worth it prior to going in based on their cost benefit analysis.

You see, I wish I believed that, but what I actually believe is that Daniel is on the money. These people are just insane. They really do “think” like Tommy Airmiles and Doughy Pantload. I hate to admit that even to myself because it makes the world a truly scary place between now and January 2009, but I fear it is so.

Well they might be insane in thinking that it would be worth it, but that is something different that attacking when you not it is not going to be worth it. When you know that it is going to be a huge economic and political fiasco. That latter is a different kind of insane.

At any rate there is nothing here at all to give us a reason to think that more US hegemony is going to lead to better policy decisions.

Get serious.

It would also set limits (probably not terribly binding limits but not nothing) on the ability of American politicians who are partisans of foreign countries to talk the USA into wars which are not in the interest of the USA but popular with well-organised political constituencies.

Ah, yes, what we need are [I have mentioned in the past that an informal extension of the comments policy is that this blog is “Not At Home To Mr And Mrs Insinuated-Accusations-Of-Anti-Semitism”. The quoted paragraph means what it says and no more and is if anything more applicable to the blockade of Cuba than anything in the Middle East – dd]…Sheesh. [Shoosh -dd]

Steve LaBonne: You see, I wish I believed that, but what I actually believe is that Daniel is on the money. These people are just insane.

Aw Christ, it’s not complicated. The Bushies invaded Iraq because, following the amazingly quick, easy (as it turns out deceptively easy) rout of the Taliban, they thought they had a historical opportunity not only to get rid of Saddam (who’d been a thorn in the side for a long time) but to revolutionize the Middle East. I don’t know why people insist on other motives, since the idea of achieving greatness on an historical level is plenty intoxicating enough on its own. Presidents are forever worrying about how they’re going to be ‘remembered by history’. Why do you think Bush is fascinated by how much abuse Lincoln took before the Civil War finally turned in the North’s favor?

“US hegemony administered by rational people is definitely not a good thing but it’s got to be marginally better than US hegemony administered by lunatics.”

And that is a domestic issue which is not improved by more hegemony as far as I can tell. But Danial seems to say that more hegemony helps somehow.

As for what the administration was really thinking I don’t know. But I do think it is reasonable to say that they expected to ‘come out on top,’ whatever that entailed in their little fantasy worlds.

By the way

“Hegemony is a given – in a Hobbesian world, the strongest man can do what he likes”

That is both theoretically and empirically false, a point Hobbes plainly made.

The strongest man is the strongest man, but he is still just a man and can’t do whatever he likes. No man has such power on his own, and even the weakest man can harm or kill the strongest despite his superior defenses. That is why the state of nature is so violent.

I was actually thinking over this last night, despite my fearful ignorance of Hobbes: The US is the sovereign, unaccountable but nevertheless the guarantor of a harsh-but-stable neoliberal order. Compare, say, Russia, who is only pursuing her national interest (read: the interest of the Kremlin oligarchy), often at the expensive of international stability.

I’d certainly prefer a social democratic order, but I’m inclined think the hegemonic role of the US is unavoidable — enlightened imperial rule and all that. On the other hand, I’m sympathetic to those to my left who claim imperial rule is inherently exploitative, and cheer on anti-systemic revolts by the Venezuelan government, South African trade unions, etc.

Daniel, Isn’t ‘preemptive strike’, and pre-emption under the rubric of defense, the US’s excuse, though.

Not to side with Tom Friedman or Bill Kristol, but the principle of doing something that doesn’t make sense from a relatively short-term point of view is sometimes necessary. That’s why unions have to strike from time to time, although they essentially always come out worse off at the end of the strike than they were before it. A weapon that’s never used is essentially useless.

Which is why I’ve been shitting my pants since the invention of nuclear weapons, and hoping that the memory of its one-time use stays sufficiently green.

¨Isn’t the problem with this formulation that it eliminates the possibility of intervention in cases where “we liberals” would actually want it¨

Daniel may wish to correct me if I’m wrong, but his view of humanitarian intervention is that it is almost always not in the interests of those it seeks to help.

Perhaps it is a good thing that America has done badly in Iraq. If it had been successful as it had wished there would be no telling what it would do next.

The fiasco of Iraq has contained the US from other similar stupid adventures. Imagine, the US has contained itself, in a manner like it contained the USSR during the Cold War. It has tied its own hands so that it is not so capable of doing the “preemptive wars” of its choosing.

The fiasco of Iraq has contained the US from other similar stupid adventures.

More or less true. (Never underestimate the power of stupidity, though.) Note that this will also preclude potentially-smart adventures; at this point I don’t think the US would repeat its involvement in Kosovo, which many or most of Iraq War II’s opponents supported. Admittedly, smart adventures are scarcer than stupid ones.

Stripped of all hyperventilation and ad hominism, the decision to invade Iraq and topple Saddam was a policy/political decision, and the reasoning underlying the decision is at least arguable and compelling (see for example, Ken Pollack’s definitive 2002 book, “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.” Pollack, now of Brookings, was a veteran CIA middle-east analyst and a member of the NSC staff twice under President Clinton).

OK. I’ll bite. What is “compelling” or even “arguable” about the case for invading Iraq in 2002? How does Pollack’s position with Brookings or the Clinton administration count as an argument for its reasonableness?

I do, however, think that Pollack’s connection to the Clinton White House, as well as Bill Clinton’s (and Hillary Clinton’s) enthusiastic support for this war suggests that Steve Labonne’s hope that the US will stop making the world a very scary place in January 2009 is wildly optimistic.

That was supposed to be “clintonistas”, for those with dirty minds.

Josh Marshall, Very serious person

“I confess that I have a much greater tolerance for these sorts of creative approaches to national sovereignty and democratic change when I have any confidence the puppeteers have a clue what they’re doing.”

I’m shocked, shocked etc.

Isn’t the problem with this formulation that it eliminates the possibility of intervention in cases where “we liberals” would actually want it

not really because one would hope that any genuine humanitarian intervention worth supporting ought to be able to get a UN resolution behind it.

¨one would hope that any genuine humanitarian intervention worth supporting ought to be able to get a UN resolution behind it.¨

Hardly likely if the constituent nations of the UN have Hobbesian foreign policies based on ¨vital interests being at stake¨.

one would hope that any genuine humanitarian intervention worth supporting ought to be able to get a UN resolution behind it

Do you have any examples in mind?

Ad #26 Steve R:
“Bear in mind that even the Euros did nothing in Bosnia and Kosovo until Clinton got so frustrated that he led the military efforts in those two cases.”

My recollection is that it was first Jacques Chirac who broke the sitting-on-your-hands consensus when the Serbs besieging Sarajevo kidnapped French soldiers, and ordered them recaptured by force, short-circuiting the UN. Then the Brits and French stationed forces in brigade strength on Mount Hindman with artillery, snipers, etc and robust rules of engagement, which rapidly punctured the myth of Serb military prowess, along with NATO -that is, American – air strikes. Meanwhile the Americans had been training the Croat Army as the lesser of two evils. The Croats defeated the Serbs, who basically sued for peace. At no point were US forces in action in Bosnia on the ground.

And what’s the evidence for Clinton’s political leadership?

abb1,

Are you suggesting that France does not intervene in Palestine? Or that the US should be upset about it? I think you’re basing your comment on slocum’s France/Hutu reference, rather than China/Tibet, but it’s not clear. In any event, given China’s active outreach programs in South America, I’d be surprised if they don’t have game in Colombia.

“Clitoristas”. Heh

@40 …for obvious self-interested reasons…

Incidentally, the same applies to the US, Slocum.

No, the same does not apply. In China’s case the ‘obvious, self-interested reasons’ are that because china is a non-democratic state that oppresses ethnic (Tibetan) and religious (Falun Gong) minorities and because it does everything it can to avoid having these issues raised in its international relationships, therefore, it has (China-specific) reasons to oppose humanitarian interventions in general — as these are aimed at preventing authoritarian governments from abusing their own citizens. These considerations do not apply to the U.S. and other liberal democracies.

Palestine, Colombia – should China, Russia and France go ahead and intervene there?

Huh? The question concerns the willingness of countries on the U.N. security council to vote for interventions to prevent or stop humanitarian catastrophes (e.g. Rwanda, Darfur).

Hmm, it’s been fifteen years since I’ve read the Leviathan, but I can say with a fair amount of certainty that Daniel misses the point here: the state of nature simply isn’t feasible for any prolonged period of time and even the strongest can never feel safe in it, contractual agreements aren’t some sort of peacenik ueberbau but rather an expression of mankind’s primal need for security.

Slocum, 49: …to prevent or stop humanitarian catastrophes (e.g. Rwanda, Darfur)…

Chris Hedges, (…foreign correspondent for nearly 20 years, working as the bureau chief in the Middle East and the Balkans, as well as in other assignments, for The New York Times from 1990 to 2005. He previously worked for The Dallas Morning News, National Public Radio and The Christian Science Monitor. He has reported from over fifty countries in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Europe.) writes in his Gaza Diary:

…Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered – death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo – but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.

That’s not some redneck paramilitary, that’s soldiers, official government soldiers, most probably college educated. And this has been happening for decades, day after day, and is happening now, as we speak, read a newspaper.

Now, in 1999 Tom Friedman wrote: “Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverizing you.” Explain to me why China and France shouldn’t bomb Israel into the stone age right now. Or, for that matter, to intervene in the US for what it’s done in Fallujah and elsewhere in Iraq.

Here’s something from Colombia:

Around 400 paramilitaries took part in this “caravan of death” against civilians accused of supporting leftist guerrillas, Cifuentes said in his Bogota office.

“The remains of a woman were exhumed. Her abdomen was cut open with a chainsaw. A 17-year-old girl had her throat cut and both hands also amputated,” said the ombudsman, providing details of “the cruelty and extreme abuse of the paramilitaries.”

“They carried a list of names around. The would kill many for insignificant reasons, like not explaining where they got their cellular phone,” he said.

[…]Some 200,000 people have been killed since 1964 in Colombia’s civil war.

How is it different from Darfur? It’s different, of course, because it’s on a different continent and because Colombia’s government is a friend of the US government.

will: sovereign, unaccountable but nevertheless the guarantor of a harsh-but-stable neoliberal order.

You’re joking, right? Putting aside the invasion and occupation of Iraq, purely a war of choice, what’s “stabilizing” about the fight we’re now picking with Iran?

And what’s Russia doing that’s a tenth as destabilizing?

“but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.”

Corroboration for this implausible, inflammatory accusation can be found … where? Confirmation that it is Israeli government or military policy to kill Palestinian children for sport can be found … where? (And are you unaware of how close this accusation is to the ‘blood libel’)?

Given that China, itself, is non-democratic and has a very poor record with respect to human rights, it is not a good candidate for humanitarian interventions. But even at that, there is a country where China really should intervene — North Korea.

In general, I would prefer to see more rather than fewer interventions. It is simply appalling that people continue to live as prisoners in countries with brutal, murderous, unelected regimes. Democracy and human rights are fundamental rights.

But given the political divisions between and within liberal democracies (as one can see in microcosm on CT), I see very little prospect of humanitarian interventions in the foreseeable future. “Never again” is B.S.

BillCinSD, nell: I was actually thinking of earlier administrations, particularly Clinton. I think Bush foreign policy is aberrant, but I suppose you might argue that it is the logical and inevitable outcome of our hegemonic position. I hope not — Dems in ’08 for sane imperial management!

Chris Hedges’ numerous errors and falsehoods about Israel “killing children for sport” have been documented.

J Thomas,

How could you miss the statement from Palestinian Water Commissioner Nabil A-Sharif who says that Hedges’ charges about Israel piping water from Gaza to Israel are false?

The general rebuttal to Hedges’ claims about “shooting children for sport” is that although Hedges was there, he acknowledges not seeing the child shot, nor seeing the shot fired, nor interviewing Palestinian or Israeli officials to learn more details. He has acknowledged that he wasn’t using standard reporting techniques:

“The article was written… in first person, present tense; it was done on purpose. Had I written for The New York Times I would have requested a comment, but I wrote journal-style… nothing other than what I saw. I did not interview officials of the [Palestinian] Authority or of Israel.”

So naturally, he doesn’t report what he hasn’t personally witnessed: the violence the previous day, the attempted suicide bombing earlier in the day elsewhere in Gaza, Palestinian parents who encourage their children to throw stones at Israeli troops and become “martyrs.”

Is Hedges’ testimony more credible than that of the Israeli military spokesperson who said “soldiers had been under attack with stones and bottles” when they opened fire on “a crowd trying to tear down surrounding Jewish settlements in Gush Katif.” I don’t see why, given Hedges’ admittedly limited viewpoint, and his numerous demonstrable errors in the same article.

Ragout – Ever heard of self-serving testimony? Ceteris paribus we assume that the testimony of a military spokesman, who speaks on behalf of the organisation which is implicated in the crime under investigation, is less reliable than that of an independent witness to it.