What He Said
Greg Djerejian writes:
Read the whole post here.
Call us skeptical realists, perhaps. . . . [W]e understand that
a moral dimension has its place, and always will, in the
prosecution of U.S. foreign policy. We realize too, as security
hawks, that the spread of democracy typically has the effect
of reducing the specter of war and conflict. Which is to say,
we like democracy, and are happy to see it spread. But we
are not fanciful adventurers--and we want to ensure
requisite resources are brought to bear, and utopic outcomes
are not breezily assured, and we suspect the effort will take
place in gradualist fashion, via economic liberalization as
much as political reform, and certainly not under the barrel
of Israeli (Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon) or American (Iraq
and, for some of the dimmer neo-cons salivating away,
prospectively 'Syran') guns. We realize that democracy is
more than a 'ballot-cracy', more than waving purple
fingers in what was mostly a national census showcasing
the rise of Shi'a revanchism in Iraq. We realize too that
Bush's clumsy attempts to spread democracy in the Middle
East are failing rather dismally (see, again, the 30-day carte
blanche to Israel to engage in a fanciful expedition to
'eradicate' Hezbollah, which helped put another nail in the
coffin of America's repute in the region, or the emptily
quixotic exercise that were the Palestinian elections, swiftly
met with aid cut-offs which predictably have spurred on a
grave humanitarian situation, and most of all, an Iraq
adventure that has unleashed, in the face of our inability
to provide for basic order, national furies that most
Americans don't even begin to understand, not to mention
great skepticism about America's policy objectives in the
region), and that in the face of such debacles, we must not
curl up like bovine Pavlovians and ask for more of the same
--but demand strategic changes. To do so, we must face
reality square-on, learning from our mistakes and
re-appraising our strategy, rather than rushing blindly
towards the next misadventure.
Read the whole post here.



6 Comments:
A.L. --
Where's your writing? We're missing it lately.
One question: is there any evidence that "democracy" is a recipe for peace? Isn't this a controversial statement? After all, who invaded Iraq? Who invaded Mexico? The Phillipines? Which democracies have been constantly at war since the second war that was supposed to end all wars? As Juan Cole has pointed out, Iran has not launched a war of aggression in 100 years. I don't mean to make a simplistic argument in contradiction to another simplistic one -- meaning these examples are only meant to complicate the discussion, not prove that the USA is an evil imperialist aggressor, and Iran a peaceful, perfect example for us all. I just imagine it is surely not so simple.
Best,
JLB
JLB,
Sorry for the lack of substance lately. I've been either out of town or working for most of the last week. Hopefully I'll have some time to write tonight.
I think you have a point about Democracy and war. The correlation isn't always clear. That said, I think--all things being equal--democracies are less likely enter large, sustained wars. When leaders depend on popular support, it is very difficult to maintain support for conflicts that require real sacrifice from the citizenry. That's the difference between Vietnam and the first Gulf War. There are exemptions to this, but do think it's fair to say that democracies, on average, are less threatening then dictatorships.
Understood A.L. - guess it is easy to get used to checking a blog regularly and expecting to find something interesting. Not really fair to expect so much from non-professional bloggers.
I am just grateful that you at least provided an analysis from and link to someone other than the usual circle-jerk. If people wanted to read atrios, greenwald, fdl, and the rest of the faux "advertise liberally" circle of links, they would just visit their site.
That group (1) is not liberal, (2) manufactures expertise just like the MSM - constantly parading some moron out as having something to say whether they do or not - creating the illustion of expertise based on repetition instead of substance.
AL -
Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense. So our problem is that the administration seems to have no concern whatever for "popular opinion," a phrase they use derisively, like "political correctness." They seem willing not only to continue their "war," but to ratchet up the conflict. As the Ambassador says in Strangelove: "The fools, the mad fools."
Also, is there some way to get this guy to stop repeating the word "circle-jerk"? WTF?
Best,
JLB
Also, is there some way to get this guy to stop repeating the word "circle-jerk"? WTF?
WTF is right. That said, I don't plan on banning any commenters, even the anonymous "faux advertise liberally" guy. But anonymous, if you're reading this, could you please cease and desist with the "circle-jerk" comments. Your point is duly noted. Maybe it's time to make a new point, or at least make the same point using less crass language. I'm been getting hits lately from google searches for the term "circle-jerk" because you've left so many comments with that phrase in it at this site. I suspect the people doing that search were sorely disappointed when they came to my site, and frankly, I'd prefer not to have that sort of traffic here anyway.
You are right about facing reality. The current administration's "stay-the-course" philosophy is just another way of saying "Cover your eyes, hit the gas pedal and hope you don't crash, and never ever admit you made a mistake. Seems to me that the learning curve is pretty flat in Washington.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home