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
Yup, you are right sir!
The Muslim religion demands submission of the faithful to the prophet and the mullahs speak for the prophet.
To go against them is to go against "god"
They will stone you to death for that in a Muslim paradise under the brutal boot of Sharia Law.
My point goes to two basic concepts. One, I would deny that Democracy, whether home grown or not, is even suitable for the government of most peoples. It has only worked--and then only for a time--historically, among those having a common culture and a very high level of comparative intelligence.
Two, it is absurd to risk your youth, to experiment with the society of other peoples. I respect some of the great empires of the past. But generally, where they did not respect the basic characteristics of those whom they conquered, their influence was short lived. (Oh, the may have influenced the language; but there is a lot more to the historic path of a nation than their linguistic similarities to another people.)
But it is not just that it is impractical. It involves the sort of arrogant assumption that peoples are interchangeable; which while it may be consistent with some Socialist theories, flies in the face of the complex American experience; where the manifest differences in the values of even closely akin peoples is very evident--albeit glossed over by our Socialized educational systems.
The Washington/Jefferson foreign policy treated others with respect, not such arrogant presumption. That did not mean we didn't influence others by example. But influencing, by example, is a very different proposition from that advocated by that portion of the Left, reflected in Frum's theories.
Again, I would challenge Frum to go down to Haiti, and offer a demonstration of his proposals. (David Frum To Haiti Project.)
An unpopular government that goes against important interests of a strong power will find it's opposition supported by that power and it will fall, to be replaced by a more representative government with a better attitude towards that power's interests.
Uh oh! So if my wife is from Russia, does that mean I am in danger of imminent Russian missile attack??? ;-)
I was thinking same of yours...how funny. Have a fun ideological day.
He he! At least this time Herr Lind is sticking with a topic where he has an argument. When he gets into analyzing military operations all I can think is "puleeze leave that to a professional!"
Ahh but this is same theory that hold up globalist free traitor philosophy...and communism...hmmm interesting.
Ok, that's a fascinating opinion.
Two, it is absurd to risk your youth, to experiment with the society of other peoples.
The advocates of the actions in question would probably not say that the risk is "to experiment with the society of other peoples" but, rather, to alter those societies to render them less threatening to us. There is a difference. You can choose to characterize our motivations however you want, but be prepared for people to call you on your straw-men where applicable.
It involves the sort of arrogant assumption that peoples are interchangeable;
I'm not sure where you see this assumption manifested. Can you cite a reference for the "peoples are interchangeable" point of view? You can do it in the same post in which you cite your reference for the "creating a democracy in Iraq entails No Problems Whatsoever" view you were arguing against earlier, presumably.
The Washington/Jefferson foreign policy treated others with respect
Who exactly do you think you have observed not treating others with respect? I speak only for myself but I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Iraqian people. (Not so for Hussein and his thugs, of course. But I'll not apologize for that sort of disrespect.)
You seem to be operating from the principle that to "respect" a group of people is to leave their dictator alone, while to "disrespect" a group of people is to take steps to get rid of that dictator. I'm sorry but that's just looney-tunes. You can call opposition to ousting the Hussein regime a lot of things, but "respect for the Iraqian people" is NOT one of them.
Again, I would challenge Frum to go down to Haiti,
I don't give a rat's ass about Mr. Frum, why do you keep bringing him up?
Ah yes, I have heard about the pan-to-forehead attack. I am very careful to avoid it ;-)
U.S. Oil Imports - Top 10 Countries of Origin
The 8-month average for 2002 shows that the United States has imported less oil from OPEC nations (shown in red type on the graph) than in the previous 2 years. The "Top 10" account for nearly 80% of all oil imports in each year shown.
2002 Top 10 Countries from which the United States Imports Oil (thousand barrels per day)
*Eight-month average for 2002.
Source:
Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, October 2002, Table 3.3.
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.