The Terror of Ambition Realized

Tharan · Post by **Tharan** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:57 am

What is the world's lone superpower to do with it self, when all equal competitors have been vanquished? Is it a recipe for corruption?

It reminds me of the American boxer Roy Jones Jr. He was a generation ahead of his competitors in terms of his fighting style. He tended to spread his legs, lowering his center of gravity, and wait for his opponent to step forward. This "unorthodox" stance allowed for a more stable base with which to rotate the torso both for defensive purposes and to attack from unusual and unexpected angles by squating and springing. It is common jiu jitsu stance but was generally unknown in the world of "The Sweet Science, which outside of fundamental, straight-legged footwork, tended to focus on the waist upward. Combined with Jones' overall athletic prowess, in his prime he made otherwise traditional good boxers look like unschooled children.

But what happens to you when your ghosts and usurpers are gone? What can motivate you to train? What are you so afraid of that could get you into the gym sweating and exhausted? The answer: not much. And as a result, so many observers of are disapponted with the history of his career. He lacked challengers, until the point in time when the young crowd of fighters figured out his weaknesses; namely, age.

And thus we have the USA, so paralleled to the languishing of the final third of Jones' great career.

Normally, I dislike the Wall Street Journal for their tendency toward right wing punditry, but this article makes some fine points. I disagree with the conclusion that drawing down forces is outrageous and immoral, those outrages and immoralities were thrust forward at the behest of this adventure. Now is the time for humility, not hubris.

--------------------------------------------------

Our Unceasing Ambivalence
Why it's so hard to define victory in Iraq.

BY SHELBY STEELE
Friday, December 8, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

Possibly the most confounding feature of the Iraq war, from the very opening of hostilities to the present day, has been the American government's utter failure to define what victory would be in this war. "Victory" has been a conjure word for the Bush administration, a Churchillian allusion meant to evoke the heroic perseverance shown in the great wars of the past. But no one in the administration has ever said what victory would actually look like. And, lacking this description, even those of us who have supported the war have seen trouble coming for some time. Without a description of victory, a war has no goal.

Historically victory in foreign war has always meant hegemony: You win, you take over. We not only occupied Germany and Japan militarily after World War II, we also--and without a whit of self doubt--imposed our democratic way of life on them. We took our victory as a moral mandate as well as a military achievement, and felt commanded to morally transform these defeated societies by the terms of our democracy. In this effort we brooked no resistance whatsoever and we achieved great success.

But today, as Nancy Pelosi recently put it, "You can define victory any way you want." And war, she said, was only "a situation to be resolved." If this sort of glibness makes the current war seem a directionless postmodern adventure, it is only because those who call us to war have themselves left the definition of victory wide open. And now, as if to confirm that this is a "relativistic" war meaning everything and nothing, there are at least three national commissions--the White House, the Pentagon and the Baker committee--tasked to create the meaning that will give us a dignified exit. Of course America is now quite beyond any possibility of dignity in this situation save the one option all these commissions have or will likely dismiss: complete military victory.

Why don't we know the meaning of this war and our reasons for fighting it? I think the answer begins in the awkward fact that America is now the world's uncontested superpower. If this fate has its advantages, it also brings an unasked-for degree of dominion in the world. This is essentially a passive dominion that has settled on a rather isolationist nation, yet it makes America into something of a sheriff. Whether the problem is Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea or Darfur, America gets the call. Thus our youth are often asked to go to war more out of international responsibility than national necessity. This is a hard fate for a free and prosperous citizenry to accept--the loss of sons and daughters to a kind of magnanimity. Today our antiwar movement is essentially an argument with this fate, a rejection of superpower responsibility.
And this fear of responsibility is what makes us ambivalent toward the idea of victory. Because victory is hegemonic, it mimics colonialism. A complete American victory in Iraq would put that nation--at least for a time--entirely under American power and sovereignty. We would in fact "own" the society as a colony. In today's international moral climate this would both undermine the legitimacy of our war effort and make an ongoing demand on our blood and treasure. If we are already a good ways down this road, complete victory would only take us further.

Is it any wonder, then, that we have failed to completely win this war? Since World War II, American leaders--left and right--have worked out of an impossible double bind: They cannot afford to win the wars they fight. Thus the postmodern American war in which the world's greatest power deconstructs its own motives for fighting until losing becomes a better option than winning. And yet the end of the Cold War has made these wars between the West and the Third World inevitable. When the world was clearly divided between the free West and the communist East, Third World countries could play the ingÃ©nue by offering their alignment to the most generous suitor. At the center of a market in alignment, they could extract financial support and enjoy a sense of importance.

But after the Cold War, these countries suddenly became crones without appeal or leverage in the West. And it was out of this sense of invisibility, this feeling of having fallen out of history, that certain Middle Eastern countries found a way to play the ingÃ©nue once again. They would not compete with or seduce the West; they would menace it.

Islamic extremism is an ideology of menace. It empowers those who, but for menace, would languish in the world's disregard. The dark achievement of bin Laden, Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad, names we know only because of their association to menace, is that they have used menace to make their people visible in the world, to bring them back into the scheme of history. And they are greatly loved for this. If their achievements follow from evil rather than from good, this is a small thing. Worse than evil is invisibility.

So, in the Middle East, America has gone to war not against Islam but against menace as a formula for power--menace as the force that brings the First World in toe to the Third, and that makes bargaining between the two inevitable. Whether the issue is an obsession with nuclear weapons or terrorism in London or assaults against Israel, menace is the power that draws the West backwards into engagement with otherwise forgotten parts of the world. Iran cannot produce a digital camera or a Ferrari but, through menace, it can affect the balance of power in the world. We in the West, and especially America, then, are at war with menace--the indulgence of evil for strategic advantage--because today it is the power that most compromises us.

And yet Americans are also at war in the Middle East with our own fate as the world's singular superpower. Our sacrifice is more in proportion to our responsibility as a superpower than to our survival as a nation. We fight menace in Iraq and yet we know that complete victory there will only make us into colonialists, and thus expand our level of responsibility even further. So we fight a little against victory even as we fight for it. At the beginning of this war we delivered the "shock" but not the "awe," and then as the insurgency developed, we made a kind of space for it, almost as if we believed it had a right to fight us. Victory threatens us with the obligations and moral stigma of empire.

Only reluctant superpowers go to war with a commitment to fight until they can escape. So today the talk is of "draw-downs," "redeployments," etc. But all these options are undermined by the fact that we simply have not won the war. We have not achieved hegemony in Iraq, so there is no umbrella of American power under which a new nation might find its own democratic personality, or learn to defend itself. We have failed to give "peace in the streets" to the people we are asking to embrace the moderations of democracy. Without American hegemony, these "draw-downs" and "redeployments" are acts of outrageous moral irresponsibility, because they cede hegemony to the forces of menace--the Sunni insurgency, the Shiite militia, the Islamic extremists, the wolfish ambitions of Iran. It was America's weak application of power that made space for these forces to begin with. To now shrink the American footprint further would likely offer the country up as a killing field and embolden Islamic radicals everywhere.
For every reason, from the humanitarian to the geopolitical to the military, Iraq is a war that America must win in the hegemonic, even colonial, sense. It is a test of our civilization's commitment to the good against the alluring notion of menace-as-power that has gripped so much of the Muslim world. Today America is a danger to the world in its own right, not because we are a powerful bully but because we don't fully accept who we are. We rush to war as a superpower protecting the world from menace, then leave the battle before winning as a show of what, humility? We confuse our enemies, discouraging them one minute and encouraging them the next.

Could it be that our enemies are really paper tigers made formidable by our unceasing ambivalence? And could it be that the greater good is in both the idea and the reality of American victory?

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:17 am

Tharan,

What do you think about all of this? What do you think the best option would be? Pull an Israel on Iraq and seem to have no mercy...or just leave the place (either immediately or gradually) since it seems that we can get nowhere with the way we're running things now? What do you think the consequences of either option would be?

That style of writing isn't for me, in the part that Shelby Steele wrote. I like things terse. Writing just for the sake of sounding cool doesn't really accomplish much, does it?

Anyway, I've gained a little bit of insight into the minds of stupid people by going through basic training. I was recently watching a youtube video of a drill sergeant talking, and he said the first day is the most important day of training because it can determine whether the cycle goes well or very poorly. The idea is to shock and awe first thing...to instill a sense of discipline...no, more of a sense of fear right off the bat. That way the recruits know what they're dealing with. They know their boundaries, and training goes a lot better.

If on the first day, drill sergeants don't instill that sense of fear, the recruits will forever not have the sort of respect and discipline that they're supposed to come out with.

I think the same thing can be said about the Middle East people as a whole...the article you posted, Tharan, said we shocked but we didn't awe. I think that perhaps that is right. I think it's partly due to the open policy our government has had with the media and the American public. People are so free to voice their opinion, and the administration must listen to it all.

This causes a lot of people to just talk for the hell of it...just to be another smart ass, kind of like this Shelby Steele. But this openness also causes the administration itself to seem weak, and the administration is the voice of the people. It's supposed to represent who the people are.

Normally, when the administration doesn't allow room for people to voice their "opinions" (I put quotes around that to question whether these people are actually thinking, or just talking) then pretty much whatever the administration says IS the people's voice. But when people are allowed to question, and the administration listens, it becomes an enemy against itself.

Is that point making sense? I am having a hard time explaining it. I want to make clear that I don't support some form of communism. I love democracy...but I also see the flaw in democracy, in that people are stupid. If they are allowed a choice, most will make the wrong one. If the administration seriously considers wrong choices, that doesn't reflect well on the administration.

In other words, dumb people need to be led.

What I'm saying is that we, as a country, are too pious...if that's the right word. We try to do everything the right way. I would say "by the book" but we've just written an entirely new book. A wussy book. A book of rules, which when pinned against the lawlessness of the Middle East, can't stand up to it. Even with our billions of dollars, proper training, and high tech shit...we can't stand up to the threat of terrorism.

At least not with this need to do it without offending anyone.

Thinking back to what I learned as a recruit in basic training...what would be the consequences of pulling a Day Zero on Iraq now that we've been there for so long?

It's probably too late.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:55 am

It's way too late to use any kind of shock tactics.

Terrorism is just the next step of guerilla warfare, and what has really amplified it is that it is now the tactic of vigilante armies.

This is a radical idea, but it's the best I can come up with. Peace has to be made with the people. Damn all the governments - they're not the ones getting blown up, losing limbs and family members - they're just sending human beings to do their dirty work for their own greed and illogic (the war did actually start over the oil in Kuwait). Governments just threw all this media frenzy in, used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to get in, then the religious fundamentalists got in is, and now it's just one big mosh pit.

Set it up so that individuals can interact with individuals over the internet about it. Hash it out with words and keystrokes. Just people on people - words on words. Work it out based on what's really important and what is reasonable. Terrorism has taken this to a grass-roots vigilante army war, so make it a grass-roots, vigilante peace process.

The government can set up a way for everyone to communicate like that, but are they willing to give up their power to the people yet?

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:00 am

Elizabeth,

Set it up so that individuals can interact with individuals over the internet about it. Hash it out with words and keystrokes. Just people on people - words on words. Work it out based on what's really important and what is reasonable.

Do you think that people who drag burnt bodies through the streets behind cars are capable, at this point, of being reasonable?

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:08 am

sschaula wrote:Do you think that people who drag burnt bodies through the streets behind cars are capable, at this point, of being reasonable?

Reason can be attained through a process. With words it can be done. Give me a chance at it -if there is any way to do that.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:11 am

I can't comprehend what you're saying. What process? What do you mean by "give me a chance"?

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:13 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Set it up so that individuals can interact with individuals over the internet about it. Hash it out with words and keystrokes. Just people on people - words on words. Work it out based on what's really important and what is reasonable. Terrorism has taken this to a grass-roots vigilante army war, so make it a grass-roots, vigilante peace process.

The government can set up a way for everyone to communicate like that, but are they willing to give up their power to the people yet?

I don't know if you've noticed this, but we can't even get people to agree on a message board when there is nothing at risk beyond "pride" in having "won" an argument. Now if there was national pride or security or something on the line? Not a chance. You'd have the world's biggest flame war.

Or you'd only have the participation of those already looking for peace while the others would be continuing to bomb eachother.
Whatever you hammered out would be completely unenforcable.

It's not like some terrorist is going to go checking a message board to see if it would hurt anyone's feelings for him to go blow up a busload of israelis. It just won't happen. Nor will it happen for someone to go check and see if it will hurt someone's feelings to join the army. There are a million and three forums out there where people can talk to people all over the world. We do it here.

One more won't help anything

Please, if you're going to try to call something rational, actually spend 30 seconds thinking about it. Your little unconscious wishes that everyone would love one another and share all their toys is childish at best.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:31 am

sschaula wrote:What process?

First is a matter of de-escalating the anger. Hearing the people out and letting them know that you are hearing them, not just waiting for your turn to present your side. Usually there is a lot of irrationality in the first phase, but understand this is more venting of hurt, anger, and frustration than actual expression of what the matter really is.

Next they will say what the matter really is, and this is where a reasonable negotiator can see what the real problem is, and there has to be a reasonable enough solution.

There would be a lot of bouncing between the first stage and the second stage, but as long as people are still either fighting or negotiating with words, progress is being made.

sschaula wrote:What do you mean by "give me a chance"?

I volunteer to help with negotiations. I'm a nobody, but if this is grass roots, then it's all amongst the "nobodies." I bet there are plenty of other people who would be willing to help with negotiations, too.

As long as everyone can agree to various solutions to various problems - and obviously everyone understands that a lack of agreeing or a lack of following through with the agreement would lead to more losses of loved ones and more war, then people will go along with what they agreed to in negotiations.

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:38 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: As long as everyone can agree to various solutions to various problems - and obviously everyone understands that a lack of agreeing or a lack of following through with the agreement would lead to more losses of loved ones and more war, then people will go along with what they agreed to in negotiations.

Everyone who? All 6 billion of us are supposed to sit online and individually agree to this? Grassroots efforts don't work like that. They work because people collectively convince their governments to work together and then governments make enforcable laws.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:43 am

Katy wrote:I don't know if you've noticed this, but we can't even get people to agree on a message board when there is nothing at risk beyond "pride" in having "won" an argument.

I managed to bring a lot of peaceful solutions to a pro-ana website wehre I moderate (and anorexics tend to have an unusually high tendency to either be oversensitive or really mean, so it got darned interesting at times), and taught a lot of people there about how to come to peaceful solutions. In turn, they also taught me how to phrase things a whole lot better.

I actually cried with pride one day when a girl who used to be really nasty to everyone came out with some words to settle an argument that I could have sworn I typed to her a few years ago. I had to make a few pleas to keep her from being banned a long time ago, and eventually she became a moderator herself. Compared to what it was for awhile, the whole board is really mild now. Yeah, a few things flare up on occassion - but actually it is pretty rare considering there are over 14,000 members there.

It can be done Katy, I promise. I've seen it.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:49 am

Katy wrote:Everyone who? All 6 billion of us are supposed to sit online and individually agree to this?

No, not all 6.6 billion of us are actually fighting in the Middle East, nor are terrorists. This is about those who are involved - those who are displaced, getting their families and their homes blown up, running off to join a terrorist regime - you know who I meant.

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:56 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Katy wrote:Everyone who? All 6 billion of us are supposed to sit online and individually agree to this?
No, not all 6.6 billion of us are actually fighting in the Middle East, nor are terrorists. This is about those who are involved - those who are displaced, getting their families and their homes blown up, running off to join a terrorist regime - you know who I meant.

Well, the problem is that you cant enforce it. I mean those 14,000 anorexics want to belong to that community, or else they could just leave. That's the wonder of the internet. People who live in Palestine can't really just leave. No one really wants to take them in. They also don't have to join your peace talks since there is no government compulsion. Even if you get 99% of them to sit down and talk, there'd be an awful lot of terrorists. And those terrorists aren't really looking for permission - quite the opposite; they're looking for surprise.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:01 am

I'll repeat:

As long as everyone can agree to various solutions to various problems - and obviously everyone understands that a lack of agreeing or a lack of following through with the agreement would lead to more losses of loved ones and more war, then people will go along with what they agreed to in negotiations.

By the way Rory, why did you change user accounts?

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:02 am

Sorry but the WP article is idiotic, as seems the whole question. The US is quickly getting as isolated and ultimately irrelevant as a schoolyard bully. The other major nuclear powers in the world are just waiting for the US to run out of steam. What do you think the US forces can really do if the majority of the people will stand up and walk to them, armed or unarmed? You tell me. It could happen soon, they are only restrained by their leaders right now in Iraq.

From the WP article

Historically victory in foreign war has always meant hegemony: You win, you take over. We not only occupied Germany and Japan militarily after World War II, we also--and without a whit of self doubt--imposed our democratic way of life on them.

Germany was already a well established democracy until somewhere in between 1933-1939 and the Japanese already had a relevant parliament and an emperor and they kept both after the war, so this whole paragraph shows how even American top journalists should go back to high school, if they don't want to become even more the laughing stock of the world.

I noticed, unware of the 1984-ish (or is it 1938-ish) situation their country is in, US/UK politicians and journalists are mumbling about this war being "a situation to be resolved", or the bloody invasion actually being "a conflict" with the best intentions.

All political conscious warmongers and aggressors talk like that at first you know, but really, never in history the crimes are being covered up and being paved over with good intentions and moral superiority as in this surreal day and age. And it can only be done by people who believe their own fairy tales.

You know what, people (the Iraqi people to start with) are beginning to realize that Saddam Hussein was more beneficial to its people, overall, than those whole "g'damned" 150,000 occupiers ever can be. And that's a bitter pill to swallow for the naive moral knights in shining armor, thinking they were liberating something, or 'just doing some job'. No, you are the same guys as those who were marching into Poland in 1939. There's no difference and there might not be a way back either without complete defeat and undoing of the leadership that sent them.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:31 am

Diebert,

What do you think the US forces can really do if the majority of the people will stand up and walk to them, armed or unarmed?

Kill them. Easily.

The freedom fighters, or whatever the hell they are, over there...for the most part they're doing the best they can right now. You think they actually have something under their sleeves? I'm talking about the ones laying IEDs, and attacking contractor trucks. The majority. I know there are quite a few individuals which actually pose a serious threat. But the way you put it makes it seem like there is actually a serious danger lying in wait for us.

Think about it for a second: if another country has, lets say, nuclear weapons and they hate the US...why haven't they done anything about it yet?

Overall, I don't get the tone that you have, Diebert. It's as if you haven't seen things clearly...but then you could say the same thing of me. It just shocks me when people have such a negative view of the whole thing. It reminds me of Marsha Faizi, with her pointless ranting...trying to sound like Hunter S Thompson. Having a stick up your ass about the whole situation, yet not suggesting anything useful or realistic.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:34 am

Elizabeth,

The enemy doesn't care about anything besides victory. That's what makes reasoning with him impossible...he has no care for truth. No care for life, or loved ones, like we do.

It's called fanaticism.

I think it'd be good for you to go visit Iraq. I'm sure there's a way. It'd be essential for you to see what the people are like.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:54 am

sschaula wrote:The enemy doesn't care about anything besides victory. That's what makes reasoning with him impossible...he has no care for truth. No care for life, or loved ones, like we do.

You don't realize it, but you have been indoctrinated. Please don't respond to me here; you don't have to trust me that I know that they are people, and I recognize that I'm leaving a loose end by not backing myself up this time, but it can't be helped. Common sense should tell you that they are people though.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:56 am

Actually I haven't been "indoctrinated". All you have to do is research and learn...which is what I've done. I don't listen to people who say things like "sand niggers" or anything like that.

Like I said, go over there for yourself and see. Interact with the indoctrinated human beings in the Middle East, and learn what it means to be raised in the midst of a violent culture.

Have you ever really been around people from some of the worse neighborhoods in the US? The ghetto, scum of the earth, kind of people? Yes, they are human beings a capable of reason...but in their dealings with you, they'll rarely actually use it. They value survival over truth.

Get some more experience, E.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:10 am

sschaula wrote: Have you ever really been around people from some of the worse neighborhoods in the US?

Yes, many; and I've been shot at in one of those neighborhoods, too.

sschaula wrote:Get some more experience, E.

I have a lot more experience than I can tell you about.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:19 am

Yes, many; and I've been shot at in one of those neighborhoods, too.

One of the first ideas in philosophy that I heard about was that a wise person can look at a tree and see something entirely different than a fool, when the fool is looking at the same tree.

We are seeing different things, although apparently being in similar environments.

You see, even with our common experiences, we still disagree on the simplest of things. And you think you can change the world with your methods? Go for it! I hope it works...but to be realistic of course I'm going to tell you that it's not going to. Especially with the plan you laid out here.

I have a lot more experience than I can tell you about.

Funny...the people that say that are usually the ones who shouldn't have been put in such a role. Don't worry...I'm not actually interested in where you've been. Keep it a secret.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:07 pm

sschaula wrote:to be realistic of course I'm going to tell you that it's not going to. Especially with the plan you laid out here.

Of course not. The governments are not willing to give their power to the people, no matter how many people get killed. They don't care how many people get killed, because it doesn't hurt the govenment.

Put another way, x will not yeild to y even if it kills y because x won't get hurt by y getting killed and x wants to keep its power.
Duh.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:09 pm

Ah, another conspiracy theorist.

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 1:56 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I'll repeat:
As long as everyone can agree to various solutions to various problems - and obviously everyone understands that a lack of agreeing or a lack of following through with the agreement would lead to more losses of loved ones and more war, then people will go along with what they agreed to in negotiations.
By the way Rory, why did you change user accounts?

Does it matter?

Tharan · Post by **Tharan** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:06 pm

sschaula wrote:Tharan,

What do you think about all of this? What do you think the best option would be? Pull an Israel on Iraq and seem to have no mercy...or just leave the place (either immediately or gradually) since it seems that we can get nowhere with the way we're running things now? What do you think the consequences of either option would be?

I think there is going to blood spilled with us there or with us not there. We shoud retreat to bases, let the chips fall. The international community will complain, but FUCK the international community. It is not like they have done anything to help. When the Iraqis have complained long enough and loud enough, we can venture out and save them, to some extent. We might even get lucky and everything will magically become peaceful. That would be the best case scenario. At that point, we just leave.

That style of writing isn't for me, in the part that Shelby Steele wrote. I like things terse. Writing just for the sake of sounding cool doesn't really accomplish much, does it?

His style is really not that verbose. There are plenty of examples of what you describe on both sides of the issue, but he does not seem to me to be one of the more annoying ones, based soley on this article.

If on the first day, drill sergeants don't instill that sense of fear, the recruits will forever not have the sort of respect and discipline that they're supposed to come out with.

I think the same thing can be said about the Middle East people as a whole...the article you posted, Tharan, said we shocked but we didn't awe. I think that perhaps that is right. I think it's partly due to the open policy our government has had with the media and the American public. People are so free to voice their opinion, and the administration must listen to it all.

I agree we shocked but did not awe. But who really cares about that anyway? We are not dealing with 18 year old children who need to weaned from momma and their hometown grilfriend's teat in the same way the drill sargeants are.

Competence is pretty awesome. Seizing an area, holding it permanently, then buidling around it is pretty awesome. People see it and love it. The build businesses around that stability. That is the only way it works, in fact.

Thinking you could do this adventure on the cheap and then the people would rise up and throw flowers at you and rebuild for themselves is just plain stupid and very near negligently criminal, IMO. What recent experience do the Iraqis have except being oppressed and humiliated? What institutions do they rely on? Not seeing that vaccum is what fucked our soldiers. But please don't say this administration was not warned of this outcome.

American men and women don't spend decades in war planning and inteligence to suck this bad. Not at their salaries. It is Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and the neocon feedback loop that fucked it up (and us) and we and the world should have their heads for it. Enough blood has spilled because of it, why not theirs? Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld will retire in oppulence and comfort. That is sickening not only to me, but to most of the world.

This causes a lot of people to just talk for the hell of it...just to be another smart ass, kind of like this Shelby Steele. But this openness also causes the administration itself to seem weak, and the administration is the voice of the people. It's supposed to represent who the people are.

It is quite easy to silence the critics. Be effective. You bask in the glory when you are effective, and you damn sure should be a man and accept the responsibility when you are not.

Normally, when the administration doesn't allow room for people to voice their "opinions" (I put quotes around that to question whether these people are actually thinking, or just talking) then pretty much whatever the administration says IS the people's voice. But when people are allowed to question, and the administration listens, it becomes an enemy against itself.

Criticism is a hallmark of an open democracy. Policy should be able to withstand criticism. If an administration begins to wither under the same criticism, then that tells you volumes about the effectiveness of it's policy. And even if you can't always be right, you can still be good by being flexible. The administration has neither foresight nor flexibility.

Is that point making sense? I am having a hard time explaining it. I want to make clear that I don't support some form of communism. I love democracy...but I also see the flaw in democracy, in that people are stupid. If they are allowed a choice, most will make the wrong one. If the administration seriously considers wrong choices, that doesn't reflect well on the administration.

In other words, dumb people need to be led.

Humans have survived quite well historically by making the correct choices. It is a function of having the correct information. And this administration, along with the Rovian tactics of short term gain through falsehood and emotionalism, did not do itself any long term favors. Those bills on credit are now past due.

What I'm saying is that we, as a country, are too pious...if that's the right word. We try to do everything the right way. I would say "by the book" but we've just written an entirely new book. A wussy book. A book of rules, which when pinned against the lawlessness of the Middle East, can't stand up to it. Even with our billions of dollars, proper training, and high tech shit...we can't stand up to the threat of terrorism.

You are correct in that Americans are too pious and self righteous. Example; a spot on the radio showed Bush talking about dialogue with Syria and Iran. He said, I paraphrase, "I can tell you what the dialogue with Iran and Syria would be. It would be stop allowing fighters over there borders. Stop interfering in Iraq's political situation." Bush says these things without realizing that these are his bargaining chips. His moral bluster gets in the way of achieving pragmatic results. If someone cannot stifle their emotionalism and achieve tangible concessions, then they need to be moved aside and someone who can acheive results needs to take their place. It happens everyday in business. Good negotiators are the ones who achieve something, not the ones who sit in the background whining about what "should be."

At least not with this need to do it without offending anyone.

I am not sure that has been a significant obstacle for this administration. America is pretty much been at each others throats ever since he took office.

Thinking back to what I learned as a recruit in basic training...what would be the consequences of pulling a Day Zero on Iraq now that we've been there for so long?

Bloodshed. Just like it is now. Welcome to reality. Someone will pay for this shithole, but now is not the time.

Tharan · Post by **Tharan** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:46 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Sorry but the WP article is idiotic, as seems the whole question. The US is quickly getting as isolated and ultimately irrelevant as a schoolyard bully. The other major nuclear powers in the world are just waiting for the US to run out of steam. What do you think the US forces can really do if the majority of the people will stand up and walk to them, armed or unarmed? You tell me. It could happen soon, they are only restrained by their leaders right now in Iraq.

I am not sure what you are saying here. America can still rock this earth if necessary. Basically, we are currently weak in the send-a-bunch-soldiers-to-fight-a-hubristic-war department. Our Navy and Air Force are currently twiddling their thumbs.

And to think of the US as "isolated" is silly. We give away more international aid than the GDP of most countries in this world and this Iraq adventure alone has cost more than the GDP of your country, The Netherlands. We can afford plenty of "friends." Our country is not economically as strong as it could be because of this, definately, but it is by no means a death knell for America.

I understand the feeling though. But please don't forget that America is not homogenous in attitude about all of this. In fact, it is fair to say that the right wingers here are fighting two wars. No doubt.

From the WP article
Historically victory in foreign war has always meant hegemony: You win, you take over. We not only occupied Germany and Japan militarily after World War II, we also--and without a whit of self doubt--imposed our democratic way of life on them.
Germany was already a well established democracy until somewhere in between 1933-1939 and the Japanese already had a relevant parliament and an emperor and they kept both after the war, so this whole paragraph shows how even American top journalists should go back to high school, if they don't want to become even more the laughing stock of the world.

Right. I like you Diebert, so I won't go overboard. But it is not like the Dutch did much to defeat the Germans. Oh, I forgot about "the underground." Yes, that was very nice of you. I know you only did what you could. But please refrain from preaching.

We crushed them both in a two front war and DID impose ourselves competely. We called the shots, got them on their feet, and then left. And historically speaking, our profiteering and exploitation at that time was minimal. That is almost unheard of after great battles. Too bad we have lost that sense of community and magnanimity.

I noticed, unware of the 1984-ish (or is it 1938-ish) situation their country is in, US/UK politicians and journalists are mumbling about this war being "a situation to be resolved", or the bloody invasion actually being "a conflict" with the best intentions.

All political conscious warmongers and aggressors talk like that at first you know, but really, never in history the crimes are being covered up and being paved over with good intentions and moral superiority as in this surreal day and age. And it can only be done by people who believe their own fairy tales.

I don't disagree. Let's have their heads. I'm all for it. We could humilate them completely. But our main problem still remains.

Then what, Mr. European? What next. There are certainly more "Van Goghs" to be killed. Please lead for once. I wait with baited breath. Show me ANYTHING.

You know what, people (the Iraqi people to start with) are beginning to realize that Saddam Hussein was more beneficial to its people, overall, than those whole "g'damned" 150,000 occupiers ever can be. And that's a bitter pill to swallow for the naive moral knights in shining armor, thinking they were liberating something, or 'just doing some job'. No, you are the same guys as those who were marching into Poland in 1939. There's no difference and there might not be a way back either without complete defeat and undoing of the leadership that sent them.

"You?" Who is this "you" shit? I can play that game too.

WTF has The Netherlands ever done for the world community except for get us all stoned and teach us lessons about sticking fingers in dikes? I know you like that tourist money, regardless of how you mumble when our backs are turned. Oh, you think we didn't notice? We just don't much care, really. Just pass the joint and STFU.

You certainly got my money after college. Hell, if I couldn't get good British Columbia bud here, I might return. But guess what, I can get BC bud here. Thus there is no other reason for me to see the pretty girls on bicycles and the pretty tulips and windmills. Now, I have an internet connection for that if I wanted it. Too bad.

So don't sterotype me with your "you" because you don't understand what it means to be an American right now. It pretty much sucks. And the reason it does is because I, and at least 49% of the people who live here, love this country and its short history and feel shame for where we are at the moment. We are better than this.