PNAC

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Freedom...capitalism...a good Constitution...voting...building up of infrastructure, development...these are the things that will eventually bring hope and progress to the troubled parts of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. And it is also the case that many lefties are prone to silly knee jerk reactions.

But three more things are true, which makes everything very complicated.

1) If the history of failed "development" initiatives and ideas has taught us anything, it is to be very, very wary of any school of thought that proposes that "all good things go together" - that democracy, economic development, freedom, etc are mutually complementary and if we could just get the rest of the world on this benign track, all would be good. In fact, it is unclear how and whether these things support each other. Scholars have looked for a long time for a connection between democracy and economic growth, sometimes positing a negative relationship and sometimes a positive one. But the only convincing thing that has ever emerged is the idea that if a democratic country reaches a certin level of wealth, it is very unlikely to revert to authoritarianism. No other relationship has ever been convincingly demonstrated.

2) That there is also very little historical evidence of democracies being successfully "created" by outside powers. While this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to support democracy, having an intelligent policy means acknowledging the severe limitations that history seems to teach us about. Without some kind of embedded political institutions and a history of at least half steps toward democracy, it is unfortunately very unlikely a democracy will just spring up. Look at the former communist world. Those countries in eastern europe that had some history of democratic governance have managed to stabilize democratic regimes (the EU has helped tremendously too). But those in Central Asia and the Caucases have just become authoritarian fiefdoms with democratic trappings.

3) It is also time to start calling a spade a spade when it comes to the international economy. First, the system is basically rigged against developing countries and this generates a tremendous amount of ill will and frustration on their part. Lefty reactions against globalization are stupid, but so is naive righty support of American trade policy. Second, the unfortunate reality is that world economic growth has been very sluggish over the last twenty years. Some Harvard economist does some math, scratches out a model and declares that Capital+Human Capital+Technological Innovation-Transaction Costs is the magic formula. But let's get real. That is just some scribbling on a piece of paper. Sit back for a second and think about what an unbelievable stretch it is to think that you could accurately model a global social-economic system. Impossible? No. But we should be skeptical about any proposed authoritative "answers" to the problems of the world. And we should weigh everything against the empirical evidence, which is that very little seems to be working these days when it comes to inducing growth in most places (with the exception of China and America during the 90s boom - two places which teach very contradictory lessons about the "right" answers!).

[player24]

After reading this essay (referenced by Wacki):
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm

I don't believe the PNAC is being apologetic or evasive.

The PNAC merely seems to be setting the record straight as to the timeline of events and opinions which led up to the war. Within the US there was broad governmental support for overthrowing the regime of Sadam Hussein, even prior to GW taking office.

To my knowledge, the PNAC as a whole does not seem to be involving themselves in the creative notion that the Bush administration falsified intelligence in order to justify the war (although the PNAC representatives on the Bush administration have strenously denied such allegations, along with Colin Powell and other very credible insiders).

[tolbiny]

"Holy cow. Odd you say this because from a US casualty point of view the invasion might very well be one of the most successful in history. It is easily the most successful in history when you look at how long it took to invade."

Come on wacki- you know perfectly well that the support for the war and Bush's approval ratings are what will be the short term measuring stick for this operation.

[MMMMMM]

Hi Kurto,

I should have qualified my remark by saying "some" Leftists. Of course it is not true of all Leftists, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

[kurto]

The quotes he posted are overly-simplistic stereotyping and are misrepresenting positions people take.

His premise is nothing more then the Left wants a weak America. That's just poor propagandistic crap.

To argue against the US doing something specific (we'll say 'X') which may make the US strong, does not mean that the person(s) arguing against X want the US to be weak.

You can want your country to be strong AND not exploit the less fortunate. They are not mutually exclusive.

[ QUOTE ]
Hard core lefties hate McDonalds in other countries and big coorporations.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with MMMMMM stating that all lefties want the US to be weak?

For the record, many lefties may work for/have leadership in corporations. To criticize policies of a corporation doesn't mean one has to be against all corporations.

This is the heart of Limbaughisms.... over-simplify or outright misrepresent your opponents positions and then rail against them.

Like the question of bases in other countries-- A Lefty can want the US to have bases in other countries. But they can NOT want the US to engage in a war whose express purpose is to get a foothold in a country they are currently not welcome. (If I recall correctly, that was one of the goals of going to war in Iraq. Excuse me if I'm remembering things a little off... its been a while.)

If you take MMMMMM's statement, he would imply that lefties don't want bases anywhere outside the US because they want the US to be weak. I find it hard to believe anyone doesn't think that statement is hyperbolic BS.

Re: Your original question: The problems with PNAC, as I see it, is that they had an agenda of a war with Iraq prior to Bush taking office. They took the 9/11 as an opportunity to push for the war they wanted, and had to lie to America to get there.

I'm sure there's plenty of good stuff coming out of PNAC. But the fact that they clearly wanted to take the US to war in the Middle East on used 9/11 to their own ends is the problem.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I should have qualified my remark by saying "some" Leftists. Of course it is not true of all Leftists, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt any 'leftist' out there wants the US to be weak. I think you are misrepresenting their views.

I don't think anyone thinks that way. I just reread it again when replying to Wacki and thought it seemed more ridiculous when I reread it.

This fits thematically into the "the left hate the US" propaganda. It's dishonest, unconstructive and just builds partisan rancor.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe the PNAC is being apologetic

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't think the PNAC will ever be accused of that

[ QUOTE ]
or evasive

[/ QUOTE ]

They are evasive of relevant facts if they don't promote it's vision

[ QUOTE ]
The PNAC merely seems to be setting the record straight as to the timeline of events and opinions which led up to the war

[/ QUOTE ]

From June '97 till Dec '99! What about after, what about since 9/11. The PNAC are trying to suggest that War was inevitable because of a path Clinton was on, and you think this is a reasonable explanation. What happened to hiding, supplying and training terrorists? What about the WMD's? What about all of Bush's reasons? Are you people really so dumb you'll believe any Bullchit they put in front of you?

[ QUOTE ]
Within the US there was broad governmental support for overthrowing the regime of Sadam Hussein, even prior to GW taking office

[/ QUOTE ]

By any means? Not til Bush.

[ QUOTE ]
To my knowledge, the PNAC as a whole does not seem to be involving themselves in the creative notion that the Bush administration falsified intelligence in order to justify the war

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. They spin for the neo conservative view. Of course they aren't gonna put any doubt into the empty heads they educate

[ QUOTE ]
(although the PNAC representatives on the Bush administration have strenously denied such allegations, along with Colin Powell and other very credible insiders).

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh wow really. Oh maybe you have a point then. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
"Holy cow. Odd you say this because from a US casualty point of view the invasion might very well be one of the most successful in history. It is easily the most successful in history when you look at how long it took to invade."

Come on wacki- you know perfectly well that the support for the war and Bush's approval ratings are what will be the short term measuring stick for this operation.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, I am well aware of that. Popular opinion in 1943 Germany was that the Jews were bad for the country and deserved to be exiled or dealt with in a harsh maner. That doesn't make it right.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone thinks that way. I just reread it again when replying to Wacki and thought it seemed more ridiculous when I reread it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the hardcore left feels that way either. However, if they did feel that way, much of their foreign policy wouldn't change.

[PITTM]

wait, how is this war possibly successful? what have we accomplished? to make three different rationale's for going to war, only to have all of them turn out incorrect and to occupy a country with no real goal of what we or they want to do does not strike me as a successful war. if you think the fact that we forced elections in iraq was worth the casualities and that is what made this a successful war i am amazed.

for months we heard about how pressing the need to attack iraq was, now that we know that these threats wasnt pressing in the least bit, now that we know that the administration is on their fourth round of rationales for why we are fighting there, its clintons fault!!!

good god this is disgusting, please administration, you made a mistake, everyone knows it, just fess up, dont get your conservative friends to write articles placing the blame for your obvious misjudgements on other presidents. the fact that they would actually blame clintons threats aimed to get weapons inspectors back into iraq as cause for this war is astounding. If this was the case why this administration not chose to go to war with iraq before 9/11 if these needs were so pressing? because there wasnt the climate necessary for a group like PNAC to start writing inflammatory articles on why we needed to invade iraq and then writing about how its someone elses fault many months later, very admirable! this group is great for america in that now we all have a way to read propaganda before it is told to us by the president. i imagine bashing clinton will become the trademark for Bush's last couple years in the white house.

rj