Posted on 03/02/2004 1:37:42 PM PST by Chapita
The Marines have landed, and the situation is not well in hand, nor will it ever be. I am speaking, of course, of Haiti, that boil on the Western Hemisphere's posterior which no plaster can ever cure. In the 18th century, Haiti was so rich, thanks to the sugar trade, that it alone provided two-thirds of the value of France's overseas commerce. Today, Haiti is so poor that the average American dog probably lives better than the average Haitian.
But I forget: just ten years ago, we solved all of Haiti's problems. Applying the neo-cons' prescription for the whole world, we sent in thousands of American troops, overthrew the "undemocratic" Haitian government and installed Haiti's Mr. Chalabi, Monsieur Aristide - the same savior who just departed, with Washington's encouragement, to the universal anthem of the Third World's elite, "I'm Leavin' on a Jet Plane." For some incomprehensible reason, democracy backed by American bayonets failed to turn Haiti into Switzerland. It's probably because we forgot to teach them how to make cuckoo clocks and put holes in cheese.
Haiti is in fact a fair test of the neo-cons' thesis, a thesis we are now putting to further trials in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their core argument is that history and culture simply don't matter. Everyone in the world wants American-style "democratic capitalism," and everyone is also capable of it. To think otherwise is to commit the sin of "historicism."
The argument is absurd on the face of it. History and culture don't matter? Not only do the failed cultures and disastrous histories of most of the world argue the contrary, so does our own history and culture. Democratic capitalism first developed in one place, England, over an historical course that goes back almost a thousand years, to the Magna Carta. America was born as an independent country to guarantee the rights of Englishmen. If England had possessed the culture of, say Mongolia, can anyone with the slightest grasp on reality think we would be what we are today?
While the neo-cons' thesis says nothing about reality, it says a great deal about the neo-cons themselves. First, it tells us that they are ideologues. All ideologies posit that certain things must be true, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. That evidence is to be suppressed, along with the people who insist on pointing to it. Sadly, the neo-cons have been able to do exactly that within the Bush Administration, and the mess in Iraq is the price.
Second, it reveals the nature of the neo-con ideology, which has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism (as Russell Kirk wrote, conservatism is the negation of ideology). The neo-cons in fact are Jacobins, les ultras of the French Revolution who also tried to export "human rights" (which are very different from the concrete, specific rights of Englishmen) on bayonets. Then, the effort eventually united all of Europe against France. Today, it is uniting the rest of the world against America.
Finally it reveals the neo-cons as fools, lightweights who can dismiss history and culture because they know nothing of history or culture. The first generation of neo-cons were serious intellectuals, Trotskyites but serious Trotskyites. The generation now in power in Washington is made up of poseurs who happen to have the infighting skills of the Sopranos. If you don't believe me, look at Mr. Wolfowitz's book. Or, more precisely, look for Mr. Wolfowitz's book (hint: he never wrote one).
Perhaps it was America's turn to have its foreign policy captured by a gang of ignorant and reckless adventurers. It has happened to others: Russia before the Russo-Japanese War, Japan in the 1930's. The results are seldom happy.
Before we get ourselves into any more neo-con led follies, we should apply their thesis to a simple test: send them to Haiti and see if they can make a go of it, after the U.S. Marines pull out. If they can, I'll put my money in a Haitian bank.
William S. Lind is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation
Why is it bad when other nation do premptive attack but not when US does so?
The US will not be "leaving" Iraq for a long, long time.
Last I checked, US troops were still in Japan.
The US will not be "leaving" Iraq for a long, long time.
Last I checked, US troops were still in Japan.
Who said it was always bad when other nations do pre-emptive attack? My own opinion is that it depends on the circumstances. Ok?
Clinton's whole rationalization for threatening the use of American military might to force General Cedras--who had rescued Haiti from Aristide the first time--into exile, was that Aristide had been Democratically elected. It is Frum, who has suddenly pushed himself forward as the champion of the idea of our using our military to impose Democracy on other peoples. I have long opposed that idea. See Democracy In The Third World, where I recently pulled together threads of an argument that I have been making for over 40 years.
I am not fixated on Mr. Frum. He is a convenient subject, to illustrate the absurdity of the dangerous ideas that he has chosen to advocate. Frum and Haiti come together in today's news, and I choose to exploit that confluence to make a point: David Frum To Haiti Project.
William Flax
But where is ideology? Hell where is truth to people...so for oil you sacrafice how many more peoples and soldiers of own country who die directly or indirectly of Saudi monies? Guess this War on Terror is 1984 perpetual war....since real enemies to important to attack.
Who said anything about "most"? We don't have "most" of our military in Japan.
Anyway if you really believe that "no one else need ever worry of US" then that's great. Does that mean people will stop complaining and whining about our belligerent unilateralism?
of course if US currency keep dropping, Iraq become very expensive...also with what I read of drain on Reserves/Guard of US military, let us see how long deployment of 120k last....not to mention if locals get tired of it.
Yes, everything is going just horribly.
You can keep telling yourself that, if it's that important for you to believe it.
1. The Washington/Jefferson foreign policy was based upon treating others with respect. The idea of our imposing our values on others is a repudiation of the American way.
2. Trying to force our values on others is hardly a way to make terrorism fail. It is the surest way to aid Terrorist recruiting.
3. Under Dean Rusk, we created a lot of misery in the Third World, by trying to force "Democracy" on multi-tribal, multi-cultural Third World Nations. It is a cruel, not humane idea. It is also an oxymoron, suggesting that you can impose a system, supposedly based upon the will of a people, on that people from outside.
Instead of such pious nonsense, let us instead put an advocate for imposing Democracy to the test, much nearer to home than the Middle or Near East: David Frum To Haiti Project.
If David can deliver, I will even agree to treat him with respect. If not, maybe we can be done with his pipe dream.
William Flax
Ahh Turkey, is that same nation who in 1974 invade and exterminate 100,000 Cypriot Greek? And still occupy land? Is that same one who butcher 58,000 Kurd? Or same one who is second highest member of jihadi killed in Russia, after Arabs of course? Or same one who almost daily threaten Greece and South Cyprus with invasion and extermination?
Kuwait, where to be citizen must prove that birth of great grandfather in Kuwait...where after Gulf War I, even nobles council dismiss for sole monarchy rule...yes liberal Kuwait...or Qatar, who house known Chechin terrorist, who not only on Russian list but also on US & UN lists and Interpol...yes democratic Qatar, home of government owned Al Jazzir.
When has ever any arab islamic government defended self with anything but Koran? Never. Some accomplishment...thinner then desert marage.
2) Actually a lot of the countries you're referring to aren't Arab, they're Persian (such as Iran and, I believe, Pakistan), and they're suffering the same maladies.
Wrong, I refer only to Arab country, there are 22 of various size. Persia and Turkey and Pakistan are other deal, each with own problem...but all to some degree elected government, which no one Arab, with exception of former Lebanon, ever was.
However, the Japanese culture was no more likely to accept democracy post-WWII than the Iraqis are.
Japanese like German have elected government prior to WW2 and free press, both hijacked by militarists/socialists...so after defeat only matter of returning to previous balance. How is Iraq in position for anything but break up and civil war? Unlike all other lands, Iraq 3 equal parts, one not even Arab: Kurd, other two dispise each other: Sunni and Shiete...most other Arab lands totally Sunni or close so easier to rule. If any, it is Libya or Algeria...Lebanon too.
Christian? Welcome to reality...Christian would be to bring Christ to them, not allow Shari. You must change culture to enact something better (what US not doing) only two ways: fast...along with shooting many right off bat, or slow...but that take much time and energy and monies.
What I said was that it depends on the circumstances. Do you understand?? I would evaluate all of these things on a case by case basis. I would probably think some of them are ok, and others are not ok. That's different from saying "that all ok". Ok?
For example: Russia certainly has a legitimate grievance against Tbilisi regarding the border/bandits issue. So I might (might) indeed be ok with a Russia "build up effort and attack" against Georgia on those grounds. It would depend on the circumstances involved. (In particular it would depend on how confident I was that a Russian attack against Georgia would lead to a better situation than currently - and frankly I am skeptical.)
On the other hand: a claim by China that Taiwan is a "threat" to China, and an invasion of Taiwan on that basis, would probably be dismissed by me out of hand as absurd.
Some cases are different from other cases. I do not endorse a general rule "all preemptive attacks ok" or "all preemptive attacks not ok". NO GENERAL RULE. Do you understand???
Why for each it may seem as reason of life and death, regardless US opinion...
That may be true. It doesn't change anything I said. If China really thinks invading Taiwan is a matter of life and death for them, I would most likely simply disagree. What is your point?
so soon back to geopolitics of 1800s.
What do you mean "back"? Geopolitics has always been like this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.