~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
Friday, August 22, 2003
Divergences
In response to yesterday's Aftermath Update, Fredrik writes, via e-mail:
The discussion between you and Nelson Ascher is fascinating.
As additional support for Nelson's assertion that the Euro governments have given up on the traditional defense/police role of protecting the citizens, I would point to the Euro crime rates and Euro unwillingness to deal with rising lawlessness.
I also note that there is a theme to Europe here: opposition to the US criminal justice system. US features such as the death penalty, long prison sentences, additional penalties for recidivists, and three strikes are all roundly condemned.
Furthermore, the US generally acknowledges that individuals have the right to defend themselves and others, and constitutionally provides them with the means to do so effectively.
Europe generally takes the opposite approach.
All of this seems to tie together with your and Nelson's observations; there seems to be some kind of pervasive defeatism in play here, an aggressive pacifism. The Euro government attitude could be summarized as "We're not going to do anything to defend ourselves, and we're not going to permit you to defend yourself either", where "you" would apply both to the Euro subjects and to the US.
Thoughts?
I'm pretty sure you're right, but I will note that France, at least, has a fairly long record of even rather vicious intervention, frequently not only "unilateral" in how they're defining it now but objectively unilateral, when it pleases them.
I think, regarding crime, the underlaying matter has to do with their elites: if the crime problem was infesting the neighborhoods of the right sort of people, it would be treated as a more grave manner than it is. Indeed, most Continental European countries have paramilitaries whose purpose is to keep civil order, which are unknown in the U.S. - the closest we have are comparatively small SWAT teams.
These contain the problem, and then the common run of the populace should just deal with it, while the elect are insulated from the consequences of their policies (see here and here). That certainly has an international aspect because the insulated views of the EU mandarins are similarly removed from the consequences; others (the U.S., Israel, even their own citizens) will be left with problems their ideology generates. Also, it's easy to understand why certain American elites have an affinity for their counterparts in Europe - not only because of shared inclinations but also because they share an insulation from consequential feedback: if their vision doesn't work in the real world, it's simply because the rest of us are unenlightened and screwed it up in implementation and we are in need for more remedial guidance to eliminate our simplistic methods of handling things - they have no need to rethink anything except how to get us to properly enact their vision.
That's why, to highlight a recent example, they take no lessons from how the UN operated in Iraq in keeping on staff Ba'athist agents, to learn that this might not be the wisest course and perhaps they need to rethink some things. Instead they simply repeat their former instructions to us, hoping that the fact that the UN compromised its own security will make us realize that the UN, and they, should be put in charge of handling such things on an even greater scale and we should be humbled by comparison and accept the need to take their instruction and operate under their "legitimate" (vs. our "illegitimate") authority. They hope that maybe this time we'll finally "get it".
Note the fact that the UN personnel who were targeted clearly were not, in that case, insulated from the consequences of their policy doesn't really affect the overall argument; these folks are clearly still living in their dream palaces and refusing to face the empirical results of what they promote, choosing instead to shift the blame for the consequences of their own decisions, and they want to expand their policy over others who will then have to live with the consequences while they remain in New York or Paris or the Hague, living on expense account.
A cement truck laden with explosives plows into the Baghdad headquarters of the United Nations and, presto-chango, there are "terrorists" in Iraq. That's right, not "guerrillas," not "resistance fighters," but "terrorists." And the press is appalled at their wickedness. Suddenly journalists and pundits who could scarcely bring themselves to utter the T-word now find themselves compelled to use it. Strange how when a U.S. serviceman is killed while guarding a hospital or when Israeli women and children are obliterated on a city bus, the perpetrators are often referred to as "militants," "extremists," or simply "bombers" and "gunmen." But when U.N. officials are the victims... Pardon me. Considering who does the talking, it isn't strange at all.
The UN and countries that are neutral between the fire brigade and the fire, impartial between the perpetrators of the attack and those trying to root out said perpetrators, would have made things worse, were they given the role that France (our "ally" in the sense of "neutral") demands they be given. The fact that they have learned nothing from the bombing of the UN facility, as evidenced in the asserted implication that things would be better if those who had decided that Saddam's intelligence operatives made suitable guards had been given even greater decision-making authority over the whole of Iraq, simply proves that they are not competent to be given the authority sans responsibility that they yearn for.
The fact that they are demanding acceleration of everything also tends to show that, if given the authority they want, they would rely upon Ba'athists to staff everything rather than take the time to cultivate alternatives. Not exactly an unexpected policy from those who opposed the entire idea of removing the Ba'athists they had close personal ties to, but not something that we should accept. When the French envoy says this:
"Iraq unfortunately has become a theatre of operation for terrorists."
it shows that he's being deliberately deceptive - he of course knows that Iraq was a theater of operation for terrorists under Saddam, they trained at facilities Saddam provided and were paid and encouraged by Saddam.
Note: This post took a lot longer to write than it may seem. That's because I went from site to site, Yahoo news, Washington Post, Financial Times, Sky News, Fox News, LA Times, various France-oriented Blogs, goggle searched, and everything looking for a full and accurate account of what various French officials said; BBC World News Service ran clips this morning where they were full of the usual gas about the need for UN power in control in Iraq, their refusal to work with the U.S. (yet people continue to insist France is an "ally"), "multilateral" vs "unilateral" arguments, and the like. But not even the BBC's web story (linked to, above) included a full and accurate account of the official French statements on the subject. So I've made do with what I managed to collect, for now.
Additional: Joe Katzman makes a good point. I hope no one was confused by this post and thought that my attitude was that the UN deserved to be attacked, or that it serves them right.
But the attack is not a proof that the UN is doing things right and the U.S. is doing things wrong and we need to bow to their superior expertise and let them take over. I was honest about my reaction including the fact that I did not truly put concern over those who died and were injured first, and also honest that I was not proud of that reaction.
That everything is proceeding exactly as I have foreseen does not really make that reaction any better; concern over the people in the building should have been first in everyone's mind. That so many have been blasé about it, while on the other hand many of those people get incensed when people are indifferent to those who die in other terror attacks - such as ones affecting us - is nothing to be proud of.
We need to pray for the souls of the dead, and that the Lord comfort their family and friends, and also that the injured recover quickly and completely - just as we would for our own. The fact that they worked under the color of the UN banner does not lessen that. These were people on the ground, trying to do good as they saw it. They may be wrong, and I will and have argued that and will not retreat from my principled position on such issues. But that does not warrant being dismissive of their deaths or the suffering of their loved ones - they have loved ones, too you know, and I should know.
I do grieve for them as much as for the Israelis that were killed and injured. But I honestly acknowledge that, lamentably, it wasn't the first thing that entered my thoughts. There should be shame in that, not glee.
I can see clearly now, the rain is gone
I can see all obstacles in my way
Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind
It's gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright)
Sun shiny day
I think I can make it now, the pain is gone
All of the bad feelings have disappeared
Here is the rainbow I've been prayin' for
It's gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright)
Sun shiny day
Look all around, there's nothin' but blue skies
Look straight ahead, nothin' but blue skies
I can see clearly now, the rain is gone
I can see all obstacles in my way Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind
It's gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright)
Sun shiny day
Grey Davis gave a speech acknowledging responsibility for the fact that the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy is trying to topple him. The speech was given before a throng of members of special interests (the Government organized as a Special Interest) who he has enriched over the last several years. He blamed the Bush Administration for California power shortages that began before Bush was elected, and vowed to rectify his mistakes of not fighting the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that is to blame for all of California's woes.
What does this really mean? It means that Davis has given up on beating the recall effort. He has instead been convinced to be a kamikaze, promoting a line (meme) useful to Democrats nationally in whipping up their base. No doubt he has been given assurances that if he does so, he'll be taken care of ($$$ - some sort of post-Governorship sinecure) after the next Governor is inaugurated (while if he doesn't, he'll be let hung out to dry). That is probably what Clinton was in California to convey - a Message Davis Could Not Refuse.
Meanwhile, Ahnold gave a decent speech outlining his policies, one at least as detailed as what has been offered by Bustamante so far. But of course, being a Republican rather than a MECHista, Arnold got slammed for lack of specifity ("vague" seems to be Newspeak for "said won't raise taxes"). Never the less, the speech does indicate that Arnold may make a good Governor - some day.
But my endorsements stand. It certainly isn't love of either Davis or Bustamante that caused me to come down where I did, but, rather, larger principles. I will smugly point out the "Porphyrogenitus Effect" - after I made my endorsements, Bustamante went ahead in the polls (at least for a time) and Arnold dropped back into the pack. Coincidence?
In related news, the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy is now trying to recall another hero of the Left, a man who orders protestors to be shot down and shares Bustamante's racial views - Hugo Chavez. In this case, though, I support a Recall. A political office-holder responsible for ordering the shooting of protestors and jailing of opposition leaders should be recalled.
Europeans know that America’s standard of living exceeds their own by a very substantial margin. They know this not because they have pored over arcane statistics about output-per-man-hour, or investment in research and development, or other indices on which economists rely. They know it because they have seen with their own eyes what a modest Holiday Inn at Disneyland offers by way of accommodation, service and food; they know it because they see on television how Americans live, or hear it from relatives living in Florida, or even Detroit; they know it because their policymakers, many of them viscerally and violently anti-American, are always trying to devise programmes that will enable their economies to match the performance of America’s. When EU policymakers are shielded from public view in the safety of a seminar room, they concede that the American economy is the gold standard when it comes to producing the material good things of life. . .
The good news for the EU is that serious European policymakers understand the problem. The bad news for Europe is that they so far prefer to hide behind talk of the advantages of not working, rather than to implement policies that make work more attractive. Gordon Brown lusts after America’s productivity performance, but continues to raise taxes so as to make work less remunerative.
Read the whole article, and then read this one, which is close to a companion piece:
the EU struggles not to be the least competitive economy in the developed world. . .
Labour markets in Europe are rigid. Some countries have taken steps to make labour regulations more flexible, but the biggest economies, namely Germany, France and Italy are far from getting ahead here. Perhaps the accession of new member states will push the economic constitution of the EU towards significant change.
Indeed, the mentality of the societies in most accession countries is very much Anglo-Saxon. These peoples are far more eager to accept necessary liberalisations compared with the citizens of the 15 EU states. But a lot depends on the political weight these countries will assume. Because the strength and the hardcore of European integration is in the rules, not in the money. It is in the way some processes are led, not so much in the financial backing these processes enjoy. . .
Europe must deepen the internal market and be less socialist to be at the economic forefront again. We should address Lisbon as a benchmark. It is just a question of not forgetting that this aim still exists. And the everyday word in Europe should be: flexibility. This will make competitiveness the engine of growth for generations to come, which won't happen in today's socialist-style, egoist system.
Parts of that article are the usual FT pap about having to be "more European" (give Brussels more authoritah) and assertions that the U.S. is doomed. But the above at least recognizes that "Europe" is the one with the problem.
So after writing the update to yesterday's post, I was off the net for the rest of the day. That being the case, not a lot of posts this morning, either; contrary to that article comparing and contrasting Limbaugh and bloggers, there is some "show prep" involved even in my posts.
But I do have an update to what I wrote yesterday. I'll also likely have a post or two on other topics later today.
As I've mentioned a couple times, I listen to the BBC World Service News on the way in to work. Yesterday morning they had rather scanty mention of the attack in Israel that killed twenty people. Today they had a very lengthy and hand-wringing series of segments (plural) on the killing of a Hamas leader by Israel. You see, now the "cease fire" is over. I guess that blowing up a busload of Israelis isn't something that indicated the end of a cease fire (only Jews, after all, so it doesn't count), but kill a senior official in the group that admitted guilt (none of that "claimed responsibility" pap here), that's the last straw.
Abbas said the right things following the attack but, again, did nothing and various PA officials are again hemming and hawing about whether they're actually going to take the steps they committed to in the "Road Map" or not, since Israel hasn't done some things that weren't in the "Road Map" but which the PA and their apologists are insisting be done.
In Madrid, the daily El Pais called for a new Security Council resolution that would "transform the occupation (of Iraq) by the Americans into a collective enterprise at international level that would legitimize the reconstruction of the country."
Again, there are already two post-war resolutions legitimizing the reconstruction of the country and legitimizing the interim Council. But those don't count because they don't put the people who decided they didn't need security around their building in charge of the effort.
A similar view was expressed by Vieira de Mello's predecessor as UN human rights chief, Mary Robinson, who said: "The world must rally -- and not just the coalition and occupation forces that are in Iraq at the moment."
Calling for a new UN resolution on Iraq, she told BBC radio that there had to be "a real desire to change the terms on the ground in Iraq and I believe it can only be done by a strong leadership UN mandate and a wide presence on the ground."
Repeat my comments above.
Walter Schwimmer, secretary general of the Council Europe, said Iraq's future "could only be constructed under the authoritah of the United Nations, the cornerstone of international legitimacy."
Repeat my comments.
In Paris, the ironically named "Liberation" (which opposes liberation and prefers dictatorial regimes) opined that
the attack was "a warning to the international community at a time when the Americans may be tempted to discharge some of their burden on the shoulders of the United Nations, which until now has been limited to managing humanitarian aid."
It took me a second to understand what they meant. But I soon realized that this was another example of the Left projecting its own views onto terrorists and acting as their propaganda arm. "Liberation" has, of course, been warning the "international community" not to shoulder any of the burden in Iraq, either.
Munich's Suddeutsche Zeitung pronounced that
the attack showed "that anarchy rules in Iraq, no less today that on the day that American troops entered Baghdad,"
I suppose that Sept. 11th likewise proved that anarchy ruled in New York City no less in 2001 than it did back in the reign of David Dinkins. I'll keep Suddeutche Zeitung's quip in mind if and when there is another terrorist attack in Germany. Which, speaking of that, in response to yesterday's post, Nelson Ascher wrote, via e-mail:
You say: “Lets say someone blew up a busload of Germans - would we expect them to negotiate with leaders who refused to take strong action against the organizations behind the attacks?”
My answer would be: actually yes. German tourists were burnt alive in the Djerbah island in Tunisia. What did Germany’s government actually do? Nothing. German (and other) tourists were kidnapped by Islamicists in Algeria. What did Germany do? Paid the ransom. France forgot the downing of its own UTA plane by the Lybians in exchange of a couple of millions of which many victim’s families received nothing. Now that the US and the UK forced the Lybians to pay more, even the French want to “renegotiate” a deal they had already closed, but they are not really moving troops to the South Mediterranean. They’re doing guess what: threatening to use their veto in th UN.
The Euro countries gave voluntarily up the thing that in the ends legitimates any
government: the protection of their citizen’s lives or, in case of failure, the
capacity to exact revenge and/or justice. In this way, though their citizens
don’t seem to know it, they’re not anymore legitimate democratic governments.
For the time being they’re but buying some extra time through diplomatic
manipulation, through “blame America and the Jews first” or through the payment of Danegeld (of which they have less and less: not enough in France, for instance, to pay the terrorists off and to install air-conditioning in the
hospitals). What I think they want is the following: every country must follow their example, the US and Israel included, because in such circumstances it will be easier for them to justify their modus operandi to their own populations and because they think that, at this corrupt game, if everybody else plays according to their rules, they’ll benefit from this as the terrorists will prefer to attack or blackmail a defenceless US or Israel and will leave them, the Euros, alone for a
while.
I guess that's true. I was writing out of a volcano of rage, rather than thinking, or I might have remembered that most (continental) European countries think that a sufficient response to terrorist attacks is to provide government-funded grief counselling to the family members of victims and "free" medical care to the injured survivors. It is certainly true that governments so decadent as to not feel an obligation to safeguard their own citizens can hardly be expected to have much sympathy when the citizens of other countries die. Unless, of course, the slain are Hamas leaders.
The only other thing I didn't get right in yesterday's post is the the degree to which the Bush Administration would seem to be accepting the line that this proves the UN should be in charge, that we were wrong and they were right. I really hope that whatever they do it doesn't involve ceding to the UN and those behind the push for giving it a commanding role in Iraq the authoritah they seek. If they can get more countries to send more troops, under the current command structure, that's one thing. But now isn't the time to go all wobbly and grant those who opposed the entire thing from the beginning the ability to undermine what we're trying to achieve.
It's fair to now ask what any of that would have done, had it been in place, to prevent this sort of attack.
Update: One of the annoying things in the first day and a half or so was that there was a combination between asserting that the UN was "neutral" (between the fire brigade and the fire) in Iraq, but on the other hand puzzlement over why the U.S. is less than enthusiastic about giving an "international community" that is neutral between the coalition on the one hand and saddistic dictatorships and terrorists on the other hand authority over the whole thing.
People often romanticize when others bare their souls and open themselves up, as if it's a good thing. But deep down we can be ignoble as well as noble, and sometimes rather ugly.
I didn't write about yesterdays attacks. My initial reactions weren't pretty or noble but they were honest.
Peace Processors and Body Bags
When I first heard of the attack on the UN facility in Baghdad - well, it may come as a shock to some of you that my initial reaction wasn't glee. But neither was I fixated on the suffering of those inside. My first reaction was *groan* - they - the sanctified "World Community" will blame America for this. That's not a reaction I'm proud of, given that people inside, doing jobs they were committed to, following their principles - however much I may disagree with how they carry them out - suffered and many of them died. From what is being said about him on TV, Sergio Vieira de Mello seemed like a particularly noble person, worthy of respect, whose presence in many areas - such as East Timor - did make some difference.
My groan, however ignoble it may have been, was an honest one. America will be and already is being blamed for not providing security, even though the UN rejected security measures, in the interest of appearances - appearing more "friendly and open". They didn't think such were necessary.
Of course, for many the thing that came to mind when this happened was that, well, we shouldn't let attacks aimed at murdering Jewish children get in the way of the peace process. Stuff like this happens, but we shouldn't let it derail the peace process. As if the killing of Israeli Jews was, well, just something that had to be accepted and not in and of itself a obstacle to peace - only how those intemperate Jews might react to it and scuttle things is a worry.
Is that a dark reaction on my part? Yes. But, again, it's an honest one. Lets say someone blew up a busload of Germans - would we expect them to negotiate with leaders who refused to take strong action against the organizations behind the attacks? Somehow, I doubt it. And somehow, I doubt the Germans, among others, would hold themselves to the same standard that the sanctified "World Community" is holding Israel to. Or if you think the German analogy is inapt for whatever reason, think the French instead. Lets say an Algerian group blew up a bus in Paris and Algeria knew the groups behind it but said "well, see, we really can't try and disarm them" - would the French take it laying down, as such attacks persisted, and say to themselves "well, we really can't let it get in the way of peace with Algeria, especially after our colonial occupation and all gives them grievances against us. What's a few schoolchildren compared to the peace process?"
I doubt it. The "international community" would support whatever action France felt they needed to take to prevent future attacks.
Now, loathsome as this may sound, I'm beginning to believe that two thousand years of history has made many people think that yes - the Jews should just accept whatever is in their lot. I never felt much sympathy for such a viewpoint, I'm a Christian myself. But there does seem to be an attitude, especially in the more "enlightened" among us, that, well - the death of children matters less if they're Jewish children, and Jews shouldn't react the same way we would if it were our children whose blood soaked our streets. It shouldn't get in the way of normal relations, and isn't something worth fighting over. Thus, let the "peace process" continue, even though there is no peace for the Jews in sight - as long as it doesn't disturb *us* - that is, the civilized (non-Jewish) people, then it's business as usual, what passes for peace.
Dark thoughts? Unfair thoughts? Maybe. In any case, I'm in a state of seething rage at the moment, barely controlled. I doubt I'm going to post much of anything today and it's probably a good thing. A little soul-baring goes a long way.
Update: I suppose now wouldn't be a good time to express my utter contempt and loathing for the sort of people who have made Rachel Corrie their Patron Saint but are dismissive of the death of Israeli Jews, spending their time praising the "Palestinian resistance", or my contempt for those who said Israel should cease work on and tear down the defensive wall they are building, because it's a "provocation" and an obstacle to peace, but the murder of Jews isn't to them a provocation and obstacle to the peace process.
Somewhere between Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, conservatives may have lost the battle against big government.
Yah; so much for "the era of big government is over", in Clinton's famous phrase.
The president has shown no discomfort with big government or increasing federal spending. In his first two years in office, Bush increased spending on schools by 40 percent. He's proposed a prescription drug benefit for Medicare that will cost $400 billion over 10 years. On both education and prescription drugs, Bush's top Democratic ally has been the icon of congressional liberalism, U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). . .
Americans have grown comfortable with big government, a legacy of the 1960s. As a culture, we have bought into the notion that adults can be as irresponsible as they choose in lifestyle decisions and government will construct a safety net to catch their consequences. In some cases, it's not irresponsibility; it is that adults have changed behaviors to conform to government incentives. In Georgia, for example, 73 percent of undergraduate students receive state grants, giving parents incentives to spend the money their parents saved for the children's college. Government has built a dependency and, since 25 percent of the nation's taxpayers pay 84 percent of the cost of government, there's no incentive to go back.
Bush grows government, but activates it for conservative ends, just as the Great Society programs of the 1960s did for liberals. Roles now are reversed. Conservatives push for change; liberals defend the status quo.
Liberals scoff at programs such as those promoting marriage or encouraging teen abstinence as foolish conservative activism by government. Maybe. But when was the last time you saw somebody smoking on television? No one thing works. But if liberal activism used government as a vehicle to drive society in one direction, conservative activism can use it to take society in another.
Maybe. I tend to think the direction it should take society in is promoting the idea that people should be able to make their own choices and control their own resources, not have things directed by the State. But that's just me, I guess. We could use a bit of fiscal restraint. We're not going to go back to pre-FDR days, but that doesn't mean we have to throw open the doors to spending on everything, either.
What is an ally? Were NATO brothers like France and Germany allies — whose U.N. performances made China's seem friendly? Is Greece an ally — whose mass anti-American demonstrations were larger than those in Cairo or Damascus? Perhap it's Mexico, which opposed our efforts in Iraq and exports 1-2 million of its own people illegally across the border as a means to prevent much-needed radical reform at home. In this context, the current meaning of "ally" too often reads as a state benefiting from American friendship that in turn expresses its thanks by gratuitous expressions of hostility in times of crisis.
That may be a harsh way of putting it, and claiming that China seemed more friendly is a little bit of rhetorical excess. But otherwise that describes reality.
What is the United Nations? It cannot stop slaughter in Liberia, as it did not in Rwanda or Serbia. It asks the United States to preempt in Liberia to prevent chaos — but not in Iraq, when our security and the world's stability were in far greater danger. The only time many of its members ever approve of the idea of democracy is when voting in the General Assembly; horrific regimes like Libya, Syria, and Iran sometimes chair committees on humane causes. France claims it is a powerful nation worthy of a veto on the Security Council, but it is also a mere one state in a new European Union that as yet has no collective voice at the U.N. A better definition for the current body is something like the following: an international organization where Western liberal states seek to ingratiate themselves with tyrannies, theocracies, and tribes — appeasement winning accolades of justice, while principles earn slanders of racism, colonialism, and imperialism.
People might claim that's rhetorical excess - but this time it isn't; it just accurately describes a reality that is rife with excess. The part about Korea in the paragraph that follows seems to go too far and generalize from the behavior of some Koreans. But this paragraph is pretty apt:
We should also accept the notion that neutrals are not allies, and thus should not pillory them for their triangulation. We are angry at France only because it is a duplicitous ally; once we cease seeing it as a close friend, we will be no more angry with it than we are with Sweden or New Zealand — which both have at times expressed their anti-Americanism, and expect nothing from us should they find themselves in crises. Germany's behavior now grates on us, but only because we expect it to be a Britain — rather than a Belgium, to which it is far more closely attuned. We should never be angry with Canada, simply because we should never expect anything from it — inasmuch as it has long ago decided to emulate the European Union model. Let us respect its status as a neutral and pacifistic state that neither wishes nor deserves cooperation with the United States in defense matters.
A lot of people in America, for political reasons, like to talk about "our allies" where they mean not Britain or Australia, but neutral or even antagonistic countries. It's important to recognize realities - that there are nations that we can trade with and conduct business with, but which are not allies in any meaningful sense. This is also very true:
Most Americans would rather give 600 tanks to Australia than sell one to Cairo; or prefer to work closely with the democracy in India than with the dictatorship in Pakistan. . .
At least it describes my attitude accurately. We may need to work with Pakistan's dictatorship for now, but we shouldn't confuse that with alliance and friendship. While America's relationship with India has been strained over the years, I see far more potential in relations with them.
This too seems sound:
Because Europe uses the United Nations to restrain American initiatives, it is precisely there we also must quietly turn, with principled reforms rather than bluster and invective. As part of a broader initiative with democratic India, we need to insist on the latter's membership in the Security Council, along with Japan. France should share its veto with the entire European Union. And any nation that wishes to enjoy a vote in the General Assembly must first prove that its own citizens enjoy the same privilege at home.
Future military alliances should not be predicated on large bases, which ultimately encourage insidious relationships, where the dependent party resents the troops, chafes at paternalism, and develops a naive view of the world.
No, this isn't Part V. But if you're interested in the topic, David Adesnik at Oxblog has a three parter (via Winds o Change): starting here, continuing here and concluding with this post. It's organized and everything!
sometimes, the rumors in an information-starved society such as Iraq's under Saddam were far more accurate than the line broadcast by the government. The people have been conditioned to skepticism.
Thus, when Paul Bremer claims in good faith that we hope to return Iraq to its citizens as swiftly as possible, Iraqis hear the words as they have always heard official pronouncements: with cynicism and suspicion.
Another aspect of this deficient realism worked against us in the first days of the occupation and still troubles us today: Iraqis were disappointed that gold-plated manna failed to fall from the heavens immediately after the arrival of our troops. Their sense of America's wealth and capabilities had been formed by fabulous legends, by Hollywood films and by expectations exaggerated in the re-telling.
It seemed impossible to Iraqis that we couldn't bring electricity, clean water and winning lottery tickets to every one of them overnight. When services lagged or the lights failed to come on, it had to be a conspiracy. America, the all-powerful, could do whatever it wanted. Power shortages meant that America wanted to keep Iraq poor.
Aggravating this elementary distrust and lack of objectivity is the universal, still unexplained human tendency to find comfort in believing the worst. . .
The situation in Iraq remains encouraging - a vast improvement over the recent past - but we need to acknowledge the society's demoralization.
Likely to be little posting today; busy at work (loading for a show). There may be some stuff later, but who can say?
In the meantime, in between time, it's really unfortunate that this country, America, has not caught up to other developed countries in providing national health services.
Mainly for my own records, two Spinsanity posts (via Glenn), here and here on the deceptions and manipulations of Bush's critics.
