« Secret Sins | Main | Art And Whatever »
Meanwhile...
...much as I would like Democrats to get serious about national security, in a pinch I would settle for the Republicans getting serious. But look which headlines faced me when I clicked over to The Los Angeles Times:
Well, then.December 5, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83436dcec53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Meanwhile...:
Comments
Bush is probably waiting for a way to turn it into a political issue to use in battering the Democrats.
Posted by: cleek | Dec 5, 2004 1:53:02 PM
Matt,
Alright, I gotta get back to writing for tomorrow. But you're biting at ankles here. The biggest problem facing the world is the civil war within Islam. We are, as you and others have pointed out, not a credible voice yet to support the moderate liberals in this debate. In large part it is because we are the benefactors of corrupt elites that run roughshod over Arab lands. The preservation of this constellation of strong men and sheikhs for years was heralded as stability by both parties. A fair argument can be made that we need the friendly muhabbarats as proxies in a war against ngo Islamic lunatic terrorists. I'm all for the extralegal capture and assasination bin Laden. But this is not the liberal position. The liberal position is one most associated with the neoconservatives, which is to support the opponents of both friendly and unfriendly regional despots. Regime change. Mind you, regime change need not and should not be more invasions. Besides being infeasible, it has proven impractical. But the isolation of repressive governments that give cover and cut deals with our enemies is desirable. You and other Kosovo democrats have spent the better part of the last two years calling the neocons deceptive amateurs, howling that they have failed to listen to the counsel of our intelligence bureaucracies. At no point have I read an honest hawkish democrat explanation that the CIA and foreign service indeed have their own political agenda and it is largely a conservative one to preserve the current international system. Besides which, regardless of the neocon analysis, the professionals have screwed up so many times it's amazing to read Fred Kaplan and Jason Vest defending their job performance. Anyway, look at the other comments on the blog here. On the very big strategic questions Cliff May is not so different than Ken Pollack. They differ only in strategy and on their opinion of the united nations. But neither question for a minute America's obligation to shape the world. The Nation magazine and the American Conservative on the other hand favor the retreat of America from the world. At the end of the day which tent accomodates Samantha Powers? Chomsky/Buhanan or Wolfowitz/Hitchens. By the way if the mindless quibbling continues between the two sides of the robust American power coin, Scowcroft/Kissinger wins and we're back to where we started.
Eli
PS: Related to another thread. I don't write for Campus Watch. Like many websites, they pick up some of my work.
Eli
Posted by: Eli Lake | Dec 5, 2004 2:37:55 PM
We're on the case. Musharraf had damn well better get serious about shutting down Khan's network and finding bin Laden, or else we'll just have to invade Iran. Musharraf knows that. So have some goddamn faith in your government.
You "reality-based" motherfuckers make me wanna nuke Clinton's library.
Posted by: Tougher than my Dad | Dec 5, 2004 2:42:55 PM
Is Mr. Lake's point really that centrist-liberals shouldn't criticize Bush's failures and strategic errors because after all we're closer to the neoconservatives than the isolationists? That's kind of funny though also atrocious.
Posted by: Toadmonster | Dec 5, 2004 4:30:48 PM
Tougher Than My Dad is pulling our leg, right?
As for further evidence that this administration does not know its ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to Pakistan (or to much else), see http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=ackerman120304 -- in which it turns out that Bush's latest bright idea in fighting Megaterrorism is to destabilize the India-Pakistan situation, by giving Pakistan a large new supply of weapons that are useless for fighting al-Qaida but ideal for fighting India.
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Dec 5, 2004 7:03:16 PM
Yeah, I was just kidding. I like to kid, as long as I'm doing the kidding.
But I'm serious. If Pakistan doesn't...get it together...on terrorists and -on nukyalur waepons, we will have to go after Iran.
We must show our resolve. We must show that we mean business when it comes to a peaceful and democratic Middle East.
Posted by: Tougher than my Dad | Dec 5, 2004 7:47:34 PM
Tougher,
May I respectfully suggest that we go after Venezuela instead of Iran? It's closer, smaller, a lot of oil, and we actually have a clue about their religion. Just a suggestion.
Posted by: Vaughn Hopkins | Dec 5, 2004 10:55:10 PM
The CIA may indeed have conservative policy goals, but facts in the service of an agenda are still facts, and the facts were that Iraq had no nukes and no connection to al-Qaeda.
The liberal position is one most associated with the neoconservatives, which is to support the opponents of both friendly and unfriendly regional despots.
No. Does anyone actually associate this position with the neoconservatives? Have the neocons even lifted a finger to promote democracy in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Pakistan? Their rhetoric in this regard is plainly insincere.
I would, however, be interested in hearing a little of Eli's freestyle rap.
Posted by: JP | Dec 5, 2004 11:05:31 PM
"At no point have I read an honest hawkish democrat explanation that the CIA and foreign service indeed have their own political agenda and it is largely a conservative one to preserve the current international system."
It's worth noting that the foreign service has roughly zero actual influence on American foreign policy, which is driven by the CinCs, the civilians in the Pentagon, and the NSC.
Posted by: praktike | Dec 5, 2004 11:47:42 PM
... and several committees in Congress.
Posted by: praktike | Dec 5, 2004 11:48:13 PM
Eli is right. History loves irony above all else. Who would have ever thought that "liberals" would embrace Kissingerian "realism" and oppose the promotion of democracy in the Middle East? In so many ways the left and right have changed sides. Today the right is in its dominant faction internationalist and pro-democracy, while the left is inward looking and isolationist in foreign policy. My guess is that the left, having lost all the big debates (crime, welfare, education), has become bitter and angry and no longer believes in traditional American democratic ideals. Howard Dean? Al Sharpton? Michael Moore? John Kerry? FDR, Truman, and JFK must be turning over in their graves.
Posted by: Joe Willingham | Dec 6, 2004 12:23:52 AM
Eli is right. History loves irony above all else. Who would have ever thought that "liberals" would embrace Kissingerian "realism" and oppose the promotion of democracy in the Middle East? In so many ways the left and right have changed sides. Today the right is in its dominant faction internationalist and pro-democracy, while the left is inward looking and isolationist in foreign policy. My guess is that the left, having lost all the big debates (crime, welfare, education), has become bitter and angry and no longer believes in traditional American democratic ideals. Howard Dean? Al Sharpton? Michael Moore? John Kerry? FDR, Truman, and JFK must be turning over in their graves.
Posted by: Joe Willingham | Dec 6, 2004 12:26:13 AM
Joe's comment shows the essential unseriousness of the right on the war on terror. It's less about actually doing anyone any good, and more about scoring political debating points against liberals. He comes up with a zinger against his imaginary enemies, while his actual enemies get away with their crimes against us. But hey, if you think the real enemy is Howard Dean, and not Osama bin Laden, then you got your man in the White House.
Posted by: Walt Pohl | Dec 6, 2004 1:06:28 AM
Eli Lake (The national security advisor?) wrote:
The liberal position is one most associated with the neoconservatives, which is to support the opponents of both friendly and unfriendly regional despots
In a commebnt to a MattY post on GWB's embarce of despot Musharraf. If the neocon position is to support the opponents of Musharraff's despotism, why the bear-hug? Why isn't GWB insisting that Mshurraf resign fromt he army, like he promised. Or repeal laws that jail people who 'defame the military'.
If the neocon position is to oppose despots, GWB is not a neocon, and its time for real neocons (like Lake) to come out agaisnt the President of the USa for his dictator-lovin'.
Posted by: Ikram | Dec 6, 2004 9:40:38 AM
Because, god knows, the biggest problem in the world right now isn't Islamic Terrorism, it's the guy in the White House.
One wonders why Kerry didn't get 60% of the popular vote!
Posted by: Jaybird | Dec 6, 2004 11:54:10 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
