Home | Hegemony | Archives | Blogroll | Resume | Links | RSS Feed | subscribe by email    


to Reason


blog roll

    Damned if you do, damned if yo..., 2002-11-20 02:00:00 | Main | "We believe that Peter Jackso..., 2002-11-20 02:00:00

    Despite lofty talk, aid is nowhere to be seen outside Kabul. They add some irrelevant comments from George Kennan at the end:

    "Our government is technically incapable of conceiving and promulgating a long-term consistent policy toward areas remote from its own territory," he wrote. The problem, he added, is that "our actions in the field of foreign affairs are the convulsive reactions of politicians to an internal political life dominated by vocal minorities."

    It was that lack of a long-term policy that led us to walk away from Afghanistan in the early 1990s, after we had pumped the country full of weapons to defeat the Soviets...

    We didn't walk away from Afghanistan, we kept fueling the conflict, for one thing, and for another foreign policy is dominated by the executive branch: that's one guy, and from here it looks like our policies have remained long term and consistent. Oh the vocal minorities! The crisis of democracy again? Or am I to take this seriously and posit that the only vocal minorities dictating policy are the ones the man in charge is actually listening to? Someone point out the "vocal minorities" that are demanding we refuse aid to Afghanistan.

    If I'm supposed to believe that Bush's lofty rhetoric about how all we want is peace then why is it that I hear him rant on every day about how this or that is the last straw, all systems GO? These are the dickheads that foisted Saddam into power and then kept him there, there's no demonstrated evidence offered to show in what way our present B-52 delivery system of "liberation" will be any different than the "liberation" we were bringing to our client-states in the past. The Hitchens pro-war neo-left is off their rocker if they think we can fix our cold war fuck ups by following exactly the same strategies of the past: utilizing proxy armies, arming third parties to the teeth, reducing third world countries to rubble, and "regime change".

    You cannot, in essense, terrorize fanatic terrorists out of their desire to terrorize, and this is essentially what the pro-war crowd proposes at present, or more generally they propose terrorizing civillians out of their lack of desire to terrorize. As we have seen in Afghanistan it is far too easy for the enemy to melt away in the chaos of full-scale invasion. What is logically called for is active, aggressive policing, better intelligence work, and undermining the grievances and policies that bring about fanaticism in the first place. Not that an Iraq war would have anything to do with fighting terrorism, as both Hitchens and Bush essentially concur, but that the problems they wish to solve via invasion - the product of our past atrocities and our need for oil - will not be solved by war. The solution to our past atrocities is building our own nation's institutions into an accurate representation of ourselves, essentially, and the solution to our energy dependencies is in building new energy infrastructures that we are capable of providing to ourselves. So far as I can speculate this is all just a mass distraction anyway, whether or not we go in, to hide what the other hands are doing.

    Am I supposed to believe that we're sending 1,100 marines to Columbia to battle the US supported terrorism there?

:: posted by buermann @ 2002-11-20 02:00:00 CST | link

    go ahead, express that vague notion

    your turing test:

journals, notes,
other curmudgeonry

- A Timeline -

Oil for Nothing:
US Holds On Humanitarian Supplies
Iraq: 1997-2001

the good book
and other cultural

The Autobiography
Mother Jones

Contact Info: