Illogic from the President

[andyfox]

Today, President Bush said that "ending this direct and growing threat" from Saddam Hussein would pave way for peace in the Middle East and inspire democracy throughout the Arab world.

How would the United States changing a government by force inspire democracy? How has it inspired democracy before? Hasn't it most usually, instead, inspired a distrust and even hatred of our country for interfering in others' affairs?

How does war pave the way for peace? Isn't this Orwellian logic?

Bush also said that "the safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." What direct threat? Haven't all the threats been issued by our country? What direct threat did Saddam pose to us before we started massing troops around him and threatening him with war, with nuclear weaponry, with war crime trials?


"The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people," Bush told the American Enterprise Institute. "Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another."

If we have no intention of determining the form of the next government, how can we ensure who will be the leader, or what kind of leader he will be? I suppose the important word is "precise," insuring that Bush's statement is imprecise.

"A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom to other nations of the region," Bush said. How can he know this if we have no intention of determining the nature of that regime?

Please, Mr. President, tell us that you have more than this. Explain to us how overthrowing a government and starting a war in Iraq will keep the Palestinians from engaging in terrorism and convince the Israelis to build no more settlements in the occupied territories. Explain to us how war in Iraq protects us from the madness of Osama Bin Laden, when Bin Laden himself considers the Iraqi regime illegitimate. Explain to us why we don't have Bin Laden "dead or alive" yet, or even Mullah Omar. Explain to us why those regimes which no one denies have more to due with exporting terrorism (Saudi Arabia, for example) pose no threat to us or their neighbors.

Please Mr. President.

[adios]

To be honest Andy I have some problems with a unilateraly imposed solution by the US as well. As I posted before Lieberman brought this up today as well and stated that he had problems with Bush's plan for post Saddam Iraq. In my reprint of the WSJ column by an Iraqi regarding the establishment of a constitution and democracy for Iraq enumerated many problems with the US plan post Saddam. Hopefully Bush will heed the advice.

"The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people," Bush told the American Enterprise Institute. "Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another."

I interprest this to mean that the intent is for free elections in Iraq. Bush is assuming that a brutal oppressive thug will not be the peoples choice in a free and open election. That seems to be a reasonable assumption if the elections are open and free.

"A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom to other nations of the region,"

I think it's fair to say that almost unanimously people prefer freedom to oppression. You tell me if people in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are oppressed. I don't think Bush has ever claimed that removing Saddam will end the conflict between Israel and the Palestiniams. How did our incursion in Afganistan further those ends? How effective the USA campaign in Afganistan was in damaging al Qaeda is open to debate. Apparently you believe it hasn't helped much if this is what you believe you may be right I don't know. As far as I know there are no UN resolutions calling for Saudi Arabia to disarm. I don't believe that Saudi Arabia has invaded Kuwait or lobbed Scud missles at other countries resulting in a UN resolution calling for disarmerment.

[andyfox]

Free elections supervised by an occupying power? "Free" elections would be a better description. Our record in securing free elections after removing a regime is not a good one.

Bush certainly indicated today that getting rid of Saddam would go a long way toward ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said that Saddam's removal will give both sides a chance to bury their differences in a more stable environment and that "ending this direct and growing threat" from Saddam Hussein would pave way for peace in the Middle East. He said there would be a "new stage for Middle East peace" once Saddam loses power.

By the President's own logic, the campaign to damage al Qaeda in Afghanistan must have been a resounding failure, since he has argued continually that we are in grave danger from Saddam's help to al Qaeda.

There is ample evidence of Saudi support for the Palestinian terrorists.

[Zeno]

"Illogic from the President"

What were you expecting from a Politican? Rational thought? A president can not be logical and expect to be very popular or remain in office very long. You obviously know this. So why the puzzlement? Just a small jab; I could not resist.

By the way, thank you for the book recomendation you made in a previous post. I plan on buying it (the James C. Scott book).

-Zeno: The Misanthrope

[MMMMMM]

"How would the United States changing a government by force inspire democracy? How has it inspired democracy before?"

Does Afghanistan count? What about Japan?

"How does war pave the way for peace? Isn't this Orwellian logic?"

War defeated Hitler and his Nazi thugs, and paved the way for peace and a better future for both Germany and Japan.

"Bush also said that "the safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." What direct threat? Haven't all the threats been issued by our country? What direct threat did Saddam pose to us before we started massing troops around him and threatening him with war, with nuclear weaponry, with war crime trials?"

On Christmas Day 2000 Saddam called for jihad against the USA and Israel. If Saddam provides (or sells) biological WMD to terrorists (and I believe he has probably done so already), I think that's something we should be worried about and it would be a direct threat to us. Also, if he has stored WMD in Syria and Lebanon, from there the weapons might easily find their way into terrorist hands.


""The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people," Bush told the American Enterprise Institute. "Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another."

It seems we managed to do that in Afghanistan somehow.

""A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom to other nations of the region," Bush said. How can he know this if we have no intention of determining the nature of that regime?"

He said the US has no intention of determing the precise form...clearly the US has an intention of determining the general form: democracy.

"Please, Mr. President, tell us that you have more than this. Explain to us how overthrowing a government and starting a war in Iraq will keep the Palestinians from engaging in terrorism and convince the Israelis to build no more settlements in the occupied territories."

Overthrowing (an illegitimate and tyrannical) government and starting (or finishing) a war will be much appreciated by the average Iraqi, both those in Iraq and the 4 m,illion exiles in Europe. Iraq will also be a nice location from which to swat various terrorist groups. I'm not sure how it will impact the Isareli/Palestinian situation, but at least Saddam won't be funding what has become the cottage industry of suicide bombings for cash payments.

"Explain to us how war in Iraq protects us from the madness of Osama Bin Laden, when Bin Laden himself considers the Iraqi regime illegitimate. Explain to us why we don't have Bin Laden "dead or alive" yet, or even Mullah Omar."

It won't cure bin-Laden's insanity, but it may mean that al Qaeda won't gain access to WMD from Saddam either directly or by intermediates.

"Explain to us why those regimes which no one denies have more to due with exporting terrorism (Saudi Arabia, for example) pose no threat to us or their neighbors."

They certainly do--and they will have to be dealt with either diplomatically, militarily, or by some combination such as a carrot/stick approach. However, this war on terrorism must be prosecuted one step at a time. Removing the Saddam's WMD proliferation threat and potential oil-field blackmail is just one big step. From there we will exert appropriate pressure on other regional sponsors of terror. Having the oil flow secured will reduce our dependence on the Saudis, freeing us up to speak with them more plainly about the need for them to cease their export of Wahhabist Death-Cultism (even to our country: most mosques in the USA are funded by the Wahhabis)--and their need to reform their system and teachings of this virulent Islamist hard-line philosophy of aggression and intolerance.

"Please Mr. President."

Please attack Iraq ASAP, and speedily free the Iraqis from the monstrous Saddam/Baath Party, and help them rebuild for a brighter future. Please do what is necessary to help the people of Iran overthrow their hard-line, unpopular, Dark Ages religious government too, and to replace it with some sort of democracy as well.

[MMMMMM]

"Free elections supervised by an occupying power? "Free" elections would be a better description. Our record in securing free elections after removing a regime is not a good one."

As in my post below, what about the examples of Japan and Afghanistan?


"By the President's own logic, the campaign to damage al Qaeda in Afghanistan must have been a resounding failure, since he has argued continually that we are in grave danger from Saddam's help to al Qaeda."

andy, I know you are smarter than this. Look at what you are saying. Isn't it possible to damage al Qaeda without [/i]eliminating[/i] the threat it poses? Let's pick a number out of the air--say 40%--let's say we damaged al Qaeda by 40%. Wouldn't al Qaeda still pose a grave danger? Yet the campaign wouldn't be classified as a resounding failure; rather, it would be evaluated as progess having been made, with much work left yet to do.


We can't eliminate all of al Qaeda in one fell swoop--they're somewhat scattered--it's not like defeating a country. Yet progress is progress--assuming we made some, that is. I just don't see how or why anyone would expect that routing al Qaeda, capturing some of their leaders but not all, and killing some of their men should remove the threat. It's a process, and as Bush plainly said, the war on terror will take a long time.

[Rick Nebiolo]

"How would the United States changing a government by force inspire democracy? How has it inspired democracy before?"

Uh....Germany? Maybe Japan? I mean after 1945.

Also another link for you Andy /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

http://tinyurl.com/6j3f

~ Rick

[nicky g]

1945 was a very very long time ago. The vote is stil out on Afghanistan; it's still controlled in large parts by war lords, most women still wear the burqa ,and the reconstruction efforts have been utterly pathetic. The shura which chose Karzai was nominally democratic at best (noone really belives that all those representatives were elected by their regions; half of them were just Northern Alliance generals)and I don't know of any guarantee of future democratic elections, though perhaps there is one.

I've asked this before: if the US is so keen on fostering democracy in the Middle East, why does it continure to prop up Mubarak in Egypt? Let's be very clear: Mubarak's regime could simply not survive without the massive aid it receives from the US: Egypt is the 2nd largest recipient of US aid. The US has huge leverage over Egyptian policy. Yet it is quite happy top let this brutal, unelected dictator remain in power without any serious reforms.

Mubarak is certainly not as brutal as Saddam. But he is an unelected dictator (unless you believe 98% election results, which curiously got no coverage over here, while the Saddam election where he won 99% of the Iraqi vote was ridiculed round the world). If the US wants to create an "inspiring" democracy in the Middle East, why doesn't it start with its client dictatorship, Egypt, instead of wasting billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives in this war?

[adios]

You wrote:

"Free elections supervised by an occupying power? "Free" elections would be a better description. Our record in securing free elections after removing a regime is not a good one."

I made the following caveat to my interpretation of what Bush meant:

"To be honest Andy I have some problems with a unilateraly imposed solution by the US as well. As I posted before Lieberman brought this up today as well and stated that he had problems with Bush's plan for post Saddam Iraq. In my reprint of the WSJ column by an Iraqi regarding the establishment of a constitution and democracy for Iraq enumerated many problems with the US plan post Saddam. Hopefully Bush will heed the advice."

Your point illustrates exactly why I believe multilateral participation is vital to that process.

"Bush certainly indicated today that getting rid of Saddam would go a long way toward ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said that Saddam's removal will give both sides a chance to bury their differences in a more stable environment and that "ending this direct and growing threat" from Saddam Hussein would pave way for peace in the Middle East. He said there would be a "new stage for Middle East peace" once Saddam loses power."

Ok your interpretation of his remarks is different from mine but I'll concede that you're right.

"By the President's own logic, the campaign to damage al Qaeda in Afghanistan must have been a resounding failure, since he has argued continually that we are in grave danger from Saddam's help to al Qaeda."

I don't think he's ever claimed that the Afghanistan campaign would eliminate al Qaeda. It think it's obvious that it was good place to start though. So no I don't think that Bush is tacitly admitting failure.

"There is ample evidence of Saudi support for the Palestinian terrorists."

There sure is. Have I claimed otherwise?

[adios]

Yeah 1945 was a long time ago so I guess you'd say that US foreign policy since then has been a disaster more or less.

I don't think our reasons for removing the Taliban are very clear and it wasn't on a pretense to establish a democracy.

I've read a few things where the Iraqis themselves want to establish a democracy.

Yes Mubarak is a dictator and Egypt does not have a democratic government. I certainly wouldn't want to see yet another dictator propped up by the USA either.

[MMMMMM]

"If the US wants to create an "inspiring" democracy in the Middle East, why doesn't it start with its client dictatorship, Egypt, instead of wasting billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives in this war?"

I don't think anyone said that our reason for being there is primarily to establish democracies in the region. Our first concern is security.

[andyfox]

Well, compare Mr. Blair's speech, posted, I believe, by M, a while back. While I disagree with much in it, it was a much more logical exposition. Of course we know politicians are primarily interested in making themselves look good and getting reelected, but I would have hoped for more solid information and logic in such a serious circumstance.

[MMMMMM]

I think Blair's speech was better. Also, it seemed more tactful than Bush's speeches--it elicited empathy--whereas Bush, in another speech, said Castro "took a beautiful island and turned it into a prison." That's typical of Bush's style. He may be right on many things--and that's just what Castro did-- but his style of presentation is confrontational and judgmental, which tends to elicit resistance rather than agreement from many.

[andyfox]

Mr. Bush said a change of regime in Iraq would inspire democracy throughout the middle east. How has changing a governemnt by force in Afghanistan inspired democracy in neighboring countries? How did occupying Japan inspire democracy in the far east?

Of course peace follows war. This doesn't mean war paves the way for peace. One might as well say that peace paves the way for war.

The direct threat to Americans is, according to our government, by al Qaeda. Certainly we have direct evidence of this, the 9/11 attacks. We have no evidence of Saddam selling biological weapons to terrorists. The President specifically said, in his State of the Union address, that the threat from Saddam was not imminent.

It seems our difference on foreign policy, M, stem from your assurance that we are always in the right, that it is our business and duty to right the wrongs in other countries, and that we can assure things will be better in other countries after we take events into our own hands.

My reading of our recent history makes me less sure of these things. We often have little or no understanding of the history of the countries in which we interfere; it is certainly not our right to overthrow other governments because we do not approve of them; it is our duty to consider such actions only when there is a direct threat to the safety of our country; and things often get worse in other countries after our interdiction.

I fail to see Iraq as a threat to our national security that requires a preemptive war. I fail to see how the war will accomplish the things President Bush said they would in his speech yesterday.

[andyfox]

Inspire democracy, not create democracy. The President said is would inspire democracy in the other countries of the Middle East. This is ridiculous. It will inspire contempt for the United States.

[andyfox]

Thanks for the link, Rick. As you may know the WSJ is among my favorite political publications. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

The logic of containment works much better, I think, in the current situation, than in the Cold War. The Soviet Union was much more powerful vis-a-vis the U.S., and showed a much greater willingness to use that power, during the Cold War. Iraq is in nowhere that postion of power compared to the United States today. Containment would work much better, and in fact, has worked much better since 1991, than it did against the Soviets.

Regards,
Andy

[nicky g]

He neglected to mention that, prior to being a prison, Cuba was a US brothel AND a prison. So some progress there. Though his time should have passed long ago, Castro was a VAST improvement on Batista. May the flaming begin. (No jokes about being imprisoned in a brothel, please /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif ).

[andyfox]

The jury is still out on Afghanistan.

There are many counter-examples to Japan. The overall record for democracy, post United States directed regime change, is an abysmal one. Vietnam, Guatemala and Chile come readily to mind, all more recent examples than Japan.

We were told al Aqeda operated in Afghanistan and that the Taliban had to turn them over at once. Is the President saying that they now operate in Iraq? Didn't Bin Laden himself say the government of Iraq is illegitimate and that the enemies of the United States must now pull together solely for the reason of defeating the Great Satan? Al Aqeda may still pose a grave danger, but to think that Saddam was the source of this danger doesn't make sense. Or at least it didn't until we united the two madmen.

I agree with the pursuit of the war on terror. Al Aqeda should be target #1.

[andyfox]

"There is ample evidence of Saudi support for the Palestinian terrorists."

There sure is. Have I claimed otherwise?

No. My point was that Bush is claiming, among his many reasons for warring on Iraq, that they support terrorism, and that a change of regime in Iraq, because of this factor, would make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians more achievable. There is much more evidence, as you and I agree, that the Saudis are much more culpable in the instigation and support of Palestinian terrorism which subverts the peace process. The logic of Bush's argument, then, would support regime change in Saudi Arabia, more than it would in Iraq.

[MMMMMM]

Not just peace following war, but a better future too was my point about Afghanistan, Japan (and Germany).

I believe the threat from Saddam's WMD is growing. Also I think, as John Howard pointed out, that containment was a Cold War doctrine, whereas the war between terrorists and civilization is borderless--and allowing terrorists to gain WMD would eventually lead to immense human catastrophe.

You are oversimplifying my beliefs about how often our country is right or what I think our duty is---and you are extending it beyond what I actually do think.

I think you are wrong if you categorically state there is no right to overthrow certain governments "because we do not approve of them." How about if NOBODY approves of them...except the band of thugs themselves who are ruling that country by force? To state that no outside power ever has the right to intervene is tantamount to saying that any government which seizes power in a coup should automatically be immune from outside intervention.

You say it is certainly not our right to overthrow other governments because we do not approve of them. Well, if Japan had never attacked us and Germany had never declared war on us, would we have had the right to attack Nazi Germany? And what of Serbia/Bosnia?

One point on which we agree is that the outcomes cannot be foreseen with certainty. Also, I am definitely not advocating attacking every country we do not approve of. However a country which fits these three criteria is highly worthy of being considered as a candidate: 1) a totalitarian system which abuses its own people horrifically and on a widespread scale 2) which has demonstrated naked aggression against other countries 3) which poses a potential and serious threat to us and our allies--as in the scenario of Saddam's WMD even potentially getting into the hands of terrorists.

I know you largely discount number 3, but I don't--and neither do the leaders of quite a number of countries. The intelligence services of many countries have stated that Saddam poses this emerging threat--even German intelligence has said that left unchecked they expect Saddam to have a nuke by 2005.

[MMMMMM]

Regarding al Qaeda being the # 1 target: Hizbollah has announced its intentions to attack America directly--and many experts consider Hizbollah to be better trained and organized, and in many ways a more serious danger than al Qaeda.

[MMMMMM]

Well as Kasparov said, Riyadh will have to be dealt with too. What that will mean only time will tell.

[Zeno]

You are right, bad judgement on my part. In fact, I posted that Blair's speech was well done in a follow up to M's post. Bush may not have the capacity to grasp all the implications of what he says or how he states it.

-Zeno

[IrishHand]

You can't seriously think that either Nazi Germany or the Empire of Japan were given better futures when they lost WWII, can you?

Also, what "naked aggressions" do you think were commited by Afghanistan or Iraq?

[Chris Alger]

"How would the United States changing a government by force inspire democracy? How has it inspired democracy before?"
Does Afghanistan count?"

How could it? It's governed by a warlord elected by 4 other warlords. It has no legislature, no independent judiciary, no elections.

"What about Japan?"

The U.S. didn't introduce democracy to Japan.

"War defeated Hitler and his Nazi thugs, and paved the way for peace and a better future for both Germany and Japan."

This is absolutely true, and that's the problem. Since WWII the U.S. has supported despotism and tyranny in the name of defending democracy, and has been able to get away with it because Americans view WWII as the model for U.S. foreign policy: defending a relatively free world against the threat of totalitarianism.

"On Christmas Day 2000 Saddam called for jihad against the USA and Israel."

You sure he hasn't done this every Christmas? And this is supposed to set him apart from the U.S.-armed Gulf sheiks lining their pockets with petrodollars from the oil companies? In any event, so what? You can't trace a single bad event to anything he's ever said.

"If Saddam provides (or sells) biological WMD to terrorists (and I believe he has probably done so already)...."

There isn't a shred of evidence suggesting that Saddam has done anything of the sort despite ample opportunities for over a decade. On this score, the plain evidence suggests no "growing" threat but one that barely exists and on the decline still. As for his WMD finding their way into the wrong hands, you could say the same for Pakistan, but your government continues to turn a blind eye because it doesn't care as much about proliferation of WMD as it does about the vast wealth of the Middle East.

Arguing that the US will likely use war to spread democracy, freedom and self-determination to Iraq and the Middle East regardless of the vast interests of the most powerful U.S. institutions amounts to advocating the mass murder of the defenseless to vindicate a fantasy.

[MMMMMM]

Of course I think that--they ended up with bettert governments and eventually with more prosperity, etc. as well.

Iraq attacked its neighbors...isn't that naked aggression? And Afghanistan harbored and assisted the terrorists who attacked us...but I really wasn't referring to Afghanistan.

[MMMMMM]

First, your're presuming that we will "mass murder" the defenseless...right now I'll bet that we end up killing fewer Iraqis in the coming war than Saddam himself kills every single year.

I tire of hearing about how this or that isn't "proven" about Saddam. The man is far more guilty than OJ, more deadly than Dahmer, more ruthless than Machiavelli, and more sadistic than the Marquis de Sade. I wish you would argue even half as eagerly about how the Iraqi people deserve to be freed from his Perpetual Shop of Horrors, but I guess there's no reason to expect that.

[AceHigh]

I agree that Bush has been grasping at any straw to convince anyone and everyone that we need to attack IRAQ. He has even gone so far as to argue one point one day and then argue a point that seems to counter his speech from the day before. Logic often goes out the window, and I think that is a large reason for him getting so much resistance to his plans.

"How would the United States changing a government by force inspire democracy?"

Bush had made some comments earlier, that he would leave much of the current government in place to reduce the amount of time that American forces would have to remain in IRAQ. So, he tried to clear up concerns about these statements at the urging of England and Spain. Others have concerns that Bush has not really followed through with implementing democracy in Afganistan.

Obviously the USA has been very succesful with setting up democracy's in the past.

"A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom to other nations of the region"

Again this is another case of Bush trying to have it both ways. He needs to emphasize, nation building to other democracies to gain there support.

OTOH, the Arab countries around IRAQ do not want to see an Arab democracy, especially a successful one. That's probably a part of the reason his father didn't follow through and remove Saddam when he had the chance.

Bush has invested an enormous amount of political capital in starting a war with IRAQ. So it's coming whether the UN wants it or not.