Some Big Ifs
So given that Iraq had largely peaceful provincial elections this past weekend, in which voter turn out was much higher than in 2005, where a certain proportion of the seats up for grabs were allocated to women who ran in the election, and where no one seems to be disputing the results, let me propose a highly contingent hypothetical.
If this is a trend that continues and increasingly results in a lowering of violence that both adds to the stability of Iraq and enables American troops to come sooner rather than later, and if the democratic process in Iraq presents the conditions under which a greater degree of civil society is able to take greater hold better integrating Iraq into the global economy and thereby raising the general quality of life for Iraqis and imporiving the degree of stability in the region, would we not count that as a positive development for Iraq and the world generally?
Now, let me say that in posing that question I’m not intending to be an apologist for the Bush administration and its decision to invade Iraq. It remains clear that the decision was based on the manipulation of information and the public, that it was accompanied by significant infringements of civil liberties, that it has contributed to dire economic consequences, and that the most heinous interrogation techniques and treatment of enemy combatants have been utilized in the overall “war on terror”. There is much that has been wound up in the invasion of Iraq and the corresponding war on terror that is despicable and to be condemned.
However, some time ago I made an argument for a sort of developmentally based interventionism wherein said intervention should only seek to remove undue barriers to the development of nations,
To my mind, the key in formulating an acceptable approach to interventionism is to decouple notions of modernization and evolution from ideas of westernization. It seems relatively evident to me that cultures and nations do in fact go through a process of evolution: these entities are dynamic and change over time. I would also be willing to suggest that the deeper structures of that evolution are the same across cultures and nations – which is to say that cultural and national evolution is, in fact, a teleological affair: it has a directionality. But I’m also inclined to suggest that each unique instance of culture and nation will instantiate that evolution in different surface structures. The evolution of China will not look the same as the evolution of America, or India, for that matter–though the direction of their evolution will roughly approximate one another. It is in regard to these surface structures that I think we need to pay the most attention when talking about intervention.
The break from neoconservative interventionism, then, is a move away from remaking nations in one’s own image. Rather, responsible interventionism is action directed at removing unwarranted impediments to the deeper forces of evolution. I say unwarranted because, of course, there are challenges that any culture or nation will face in manifesting its own evolution. But it is also the case that there are often brutal and corrupt forces that stand in the way of such a natural evolution, often against the will and desires of peoples within those cultures and nations. Such impediments seem to stand out in terms of their overt use of force and suffering to impede an evolution against which they stand to lose power and influence.
While it is true that the Bush administration’s foray into Iraq is perhaps a text book case of how not to do this, I have to wonder if the potential evolution of Iraq demonstrates that, even accidentally, such interventionism can achieve its end goal.
Related posts...
Tip o’ the Hat
Gifts of Gab
- Is this a test? GS noted ...
- Transplanted Lawyer: Wher...
- But certainly we can't al...
- Or does being held in cap...
- All this makes sense to m...
- If my government is going...
- Pardon. In the Sarah Pali...
- The emphasis is on "claim...
- I don't have any particul...
- Sarah Palin!Seriously. On...
-
28 comments
Increased Iraqi mortality rates alone made this war bad for Iraq–no matter how much things get better, those folks ain’t coming back.
But putting Iraq aside and regarding the general principle, I’d have two objections. The first is opportunity cost–there are some countries in which a brutal dictator represents the impediment to evolution, and there are some in which lack of infrastructure, sanitation, medicine, food or water represents the impediment, and I kind of suspect that, today at least, the latter would give us more bang for our impediment-removing buck.
The second is that a lot of murderous regimes were themselves preceded by states that we might call “impediments to evolution”. The Soviet Union, Castro’s Cuba, or even the French Reign of Terror, and a number of dictatorships arising in post-colonial governments have repeatedly shown that just because things are bad doesn’t mean they can’t get worse–perhaps even more often than not.
In nature the whole purpose of evolution is the construction, not the elimination, of impediments to change. Organisms must somehow dam up the flow the entropic flow of energy from order to disorder. Animals must regulate their metabolism to keep enough energy in reserve to stay alive. Adaptation tends to be a slow process of trial by painful error while disaster tends to be rapid. A policy of removing impediments to evolution–in other words, a policy of disrupting order–might tend to produce revolution rather than evolution.
A policy of containment–of making sure that reasonably open, adaptable societies don’t fall while closed societies don’t spread–might be a wiser path. And it would be analogously closer to the position of naturalists with regards to biological diversity–while they praise evolution in the long run, they’re more focused on preservation of existing complexity in the short run.
Containment is sensible but often leads down the very road to interventionist policies we are trying to avoid. We used a broad containment strategy against the USSR, for instance, or against communism in general, and this lead directly to intervention in Korea and Vietnam, not to mention the countless South American and Middle Eastern interventions that pock our history. Can we establish a containment for individual players without falling into similar traps?
Scott,
I’m going to focus on this. You write, “Rather, responsible interventionism is action directed at removing unwarranted impediments to the deeper forces of evolution.” No, I can not even remotely accept a foreign policy biased on such a nebulous criteria. Questions.
1. What is an “unwarranted” impediment? And closely related, who will determine the “unwarranted impediments”? Academics from across the country?
2. Once we determine that “unwarranted impediments” exist what is the form of intervention? Diplomacy? Military? Covert operations, perhaps the old CIA tricks like funding opposition student groups, financing opposition news papers?
3. Will our national interest be a factor in determine how we define “unwarranted impediments”? And, again closely related, will we be able to afford interventions especially if the military is involved?
4. Is it realistic to expect public support for an intervention, again, especially a military intervention, executed on some airy-fairy notion of “unwarranted impediments”? Could a president go before the public and say, “My fellow citizens, today I have sent your sons and daughters into AfPakastan to remove unwarranted impediments to the cultural evolution of that great nation. The fight will not be easy nor short, but we see it as our duty. May God bless our undertaking!”
Now this is going to be an interesting series! I’ve meant for awhile to revisit the discussion we started on this at your old site. I guess this is opportunity knocking.
Indeed, Mark. The realpolitiker in me is itching to get something typed up…
Your hypothetical situation doesn’t look all that hypothetical anymore. This trend didn’t begin with last weekend’s elections; it began over a year ago, in case you haven’t noticed.
The answer to your question is “yes.” I honestly can’t see how anyone could possibly argue otherwise. But you forgot to mention enhanced US national security, which was in general the reason we invaded back in 2003. I know it’s tough to admit it but you should start now. It will only get tougher as time goes on.
I’d rather not go into this here, but let’s just say that the above is itself based on the “manipulation of information.” It’s a half-truth. What if it was this way?
It doesn’t matter that the promises of the Reconstruction era were betrayed later by political hacks. One hopes that the Obama administration won’t play this role in Iraq. Doesn’t it sound petty and disconnected from the real meaning of the Civil War? Well, it sounds petty and disconnected from the real meaning of the war in Iraq as well.
It really is a distortion of what you call “neoconservative interventionism” to say that the goal was “remaking nations in one’s own image.” There’s a lot more to it than that and it shouldn’t be reduced to such stock phrases in an intelligent debate.
This sounds great until you realize that modernization and evolution are in themselves Western ideas. This isn’t to say that other cultures don’t change. All it means is that these are positive values for the West, while they are not in other cultures. In fact, for Islamic culture they are certainly negative values—heresies in most cases punishable by death. In the case of China, which you mention in passing, there was no modernization and evolution at all until the nineteenth century, when European powers forced it onto them.
The modernization and evolution of the West is based on pluralism. To take one example, the Chinese sent a fleet of ships across the Indian Ocean to Africa a hundred years before Columbus—a much more arduous sea journey than crossing the Atlantic. They went back and that was all there was to it. The emperor couldn’t see any sense in colonizing Africa. In Europe, although most people thought it was just as senseless to cross the Atlantic, Columbus was able to shop his idea around to different powers. Pluralism meant that he could do that, plus that the individual powers would have an interest in getting an advantage of the others if the risk panned out. What a coincidence that this led to the eclipse of China as the world’s most advanced nation by the West!
Is accepting pluralism an unacceptable “making nations in one’s own image” according to your views?
The Iraq situation is interesting but not really to the point. The Iraq adventure, the military part of it seems destined. The Status of Forces Agreement signed before Bush departed pretty much settles that. As I recall SOFA calls for the exit of military by a set date. Is it by the end of 2011?
Any way, the question asked by Scott looks to the future, our next intervention.
Will and should we look to history for guidance? Yes,yes,yes! And E.D. brings up unintended consequences, a topic worthy of it’s own discussion but something not to be ignored in any discussion of policy, foreign or domestic. Thank you E.D.
The Afghanistan situation plays right into Scott’s hypothetical. President Obama had better keep in mind history and culture as he contemplates our continuing adventure there.
My response is up Scott. Ball is in your court… ;-)
Busy day ahead of me, here. Thanks for the great comments, folks. Will attempt to get some responses up later, as well as a possible response to you, E.D.
Alrighty, let’s go through this one question/comment at a time:
Consumaptopia: in terms of the death in the invasion of Iraq, excellent point. That this invasion had no plan whatsoever following the toppling of the regime was one of the biggest factors in that death toll and a major flaw (aside from all the flawed reasons for going in in the first place). This is, again, how I think the invasion can be seen as a text book case of what not to do.
As regards, dictatorships vs. lack of infrastructure: agreed, particularly in the short term.
Re: going from bad to worse, I think you’re quite right here and any intelligently formulated interventionism can’t just target the “bad guys” and start firing. There needs to be a very nuanced and comprehensive calculus of likely outcomes. If the outcome looks like a bad to worse situation, then that woudln’t serve the developmental elements of the region in question and intervention ought to be ruled out. Such a calculus will be very difficult to conduct accurately, but that difficulty makes for an even more cautious interventionism, which is in part my end goal.
While I use the term evolution, I’m not basing my ideas here on any kind of naturalism.
I’ll let E.D.’s comments on containment suffice.
Bob: fair point on the terms of the interventionism being a bit sparse and nebulous. In writing this I wasn’t so much aiming for a finished product as throwing an idea out there that required more sketching out. I can’t promise, therefore, to have pat answers to all your questions, but I’ll take a stab at each.
What is an ‘unwarranted impediment’?
When I wrote the original piece and in my mind when I wrote this one I had primarily a minority of a given society who possess an asymmetrical degree of power and utilize that power to stifle the ability for the larger portion of society from equally participating in the outcomes of that region by extreme and brutal uses of force. As Consumatopis notes, this might not be the only kind of impediment facing a given region in evolution, but as pertains to interventionism this is what I primarily had in mind.
Who will determine the ‘unwarranted impediments’?
I definitely don’t have a ready answer for this question and I think it is a major component of any kind of responsibly formulated interventionism. I’m certainly not envisioning a uni-lateral decision making process, but I’m not sure what bodies exist that could fairly engage in this determination process. The UN brings up obvious concerns around effectiveness and fairness (particularly the Security Council). And saying the “international community” is equally nebulous and trite, so I won’t go in that direction, but I just don’t feel like I have the full answer here. Any thoughts you might be able to provide would be greatly appreciated.
Once we determine that “unwarranted impediments” exist what is the form of intervention?
I think that depdends on the situation, Part of what I’m suggesting, and I didn’t make this explicit, is that we recognize the universal right of regions/societies/countries to evolve in a direction of stability, equality, plurality, but that we don’t tag a universalized notion of how to approach those areas where more developed nations might be of some assistance and where people are being oppressed and murdered in the attempt to maintain a certain power base.
My personal preference, and the direction that I think makes the most sense in terms of first steps, is always going to be the use of soft power in its various forms. But neither am I naive enough to believe that the use of hard military power can be taken off the table.
Will our national interest be a factor in determine how we define “unwarranted impediments”?
I actually think that national interests should play as little a role as possible. The focus here is on the region in question and whether there is some use of brutal force that is inhibiting its development. This also means looking at what the situation is on the ground and determining whether, as I mentioned above, intervening is going to result in a net positive for the region, to the best of “our” ability. Again, that such a determination is difficult is a benefit in my eyes, it results in a more cautious approach to interventionism — which I take to be a good thing.
And, again closely related, will we be able to afford interventions especially if the military is involved?
No, not in all cases. And that means practically speaking there will be times where intervening might be desired, but not feasible.
Is it realistic to expect public support for an intervention, again, especially a military intervention, executed on some airy-fairy notion of “unwarranted impediments”?
Certainly not in the short term. But y’all (Americans) approached the first Gulf War with the righteous indignation that one nation ought not to take over another for its own gain. I think an interventionism that is informed by a sense of what is “right” is better than any other alternative. It will take a long time to get back to a place where anyone feels okay with formulating such a notion and that, in my mind, is perhaps one of the most saddening outcomes of te invasion of Iraq because a lot of horrible things will occur in the interim and no one is going to do anything about them for fear of being labeled “the new United States”.
Hope you found those answers at least somewhat satisfying.
Roque: you’re a bit more optimistic than I am, I think there is still plenty that coudl wrong. But neither of us is willing to dismiss that things are on the upswing in a dramatic fashion out of hand.
I’ll agree to not going into a debate about the merrits of invading in the first place here. We’ll agree to disagree.
It really is a distortion of what you call “neoconservative interventionism” to say that the goal was “remaking nations in one’s own image.” There’s a lot more to it than that and it shouldn’t be reduced to such stock phrases in an intelligent debate.
Fair call, but I think the notion that if troubled nations were just more like us/developed nations is at least an element of the neocon vision and that it fails to take into consideration that while there may be deep structural similarities between different nations, there will be many more surface level differences — many of which will be very structural and not merely cosmetic. My idea here is to work to remove impediments to the deep developmental similarities and leave well enough alone on the more surface level elements.
This sounds great until you realize that modernization and evolution are in themselves Western ideas.
I’m still chewing this over. Suffice to say, I think that is a big point and I thank you very much for bringing it up.
Is accepting pluralism an unacceptable “making nations in one’s own image” according to your views?
I’m probably just tired and obtuse right now, but I’ve read this over a couple of times and I don’t grok what you’re getting at. Could you reformulate for me?
Hope this comment, which could be a post on its own, clarifies a bit where I’m coming from. Look forward to more responses and further discussion.
E.D. a response to your post will have to wait for another day, I’m afraid. But perhaps there is some stuff in here that speaks to what you wrote.
Cheers all.
Scott Payne:
Thanks for such a thoughtful response. I wasn’t expecting it given the shit your comrades give me all the time.
Are you aware that “decoupling modernization from westernization” was tried in the nineteenth century by the Ottoman authorities. Needless to say, this effort failed. At least some of the books I’ve read say that this was a huge factor in their collapse. You might want to look into it and if you already have, you’re obliged to say how this can be operated today so as to avoid the failures of the Ottomans. Aside from that, Attaturk tried a version of it after the war and this is absolute anathema to the Islamists—he abolished the caliphate, even if it was just a symbolic power by then. These are just some reason why I think you should keep thinking about it. Modernization is what they’re fighting. I think they identify modernization with the US and that this is why we’re their enemy. We have never intervened in their world in the arrogant and clumsy way we have in other regions—unless your comrade ED Kain can come up with the examples that elude me (which he can’t). But we have brought modernization. So even if it’s decoupled from westernization and evolution in our minds, I don’t think it ever can be in theirs.
Pluralism: You characterize the neocons with wanting to remake other nations in our image, which you further say is irresponsible. This “image” is very vague, as I’m sure you recognize. So I’m asking you what are the limits on responsible interventionism so that it wouldn’t fall into the trap of trying to remake other nations etc etc.
We can agree that there are limits, but what are they? For instance, we’d agree that intervening and imposing our own constitution on anyone else will be futile and counterproductive. Even McArthur didn’t do that to the Japanese—and he could have if he’d wanted to.
Assuming that we did have a legitimate reason to intervene in the first place, what is the basic goal?
I say it’s to establish pluralism, which derives from the Westphalian system of national sovereignty. It’s the most basic political value I can find in our system. So that’s why I ask you if this would be acceptable according to your views, or if it would count as remaking other nations in our image or not. Just to take a stab at being more concrete, I’d say that if another nations wants to threaten us or our allies, our response should be to knock their heads together until they agree to recognize that other people have the right to form groups and do their own thing as long as they don’t violate some other overarching authority. In this case the overarching authority is us and all we’d demand is that they stop threatening us and let us sell them stuff, which they don’t even have to buy if they don’t want to. Then they can believe that the whole world will someday be Muslim and we get to sell them stuff in peace. Pluralism.
Oh Roque. Let’s see. You’ve already mentioned the Iranian debacle. Then let’s see, two Iraq Wars. Beirut. Assistance to Israel since 1967 that has not included a demand for the end of settlements. Financial aid to despotic regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Assistance to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. And that’s just off the top of my head. All of this, of course, following two major events–the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and the end of colonial rule.
So, where this level of meddling in say, South America, would seem very minute, you have repurcussions that are much, much greater due to the rampant Arab and Persian nationalism that followed these events, the ongoing conflict with Israel that inflames these nationalist passions, and so on and so forth. And into this we hope to plant the seed of democracy???
Hell, Roque, I agree that if this all worked out–if we could actually establish pluralism etc. in the region, this would be a good thing. Undoubtedly. But I don’t think we can. At least not in any meaningful way, and not in a sustainable time span.
Better to use cultural influence, trade, and political support of moderates and reformers than to use this sort of arrogant military force.
Roque:
I am working on a new addition to this series, and would like to discuss some of your points, which I think are quite fair. However, I’m having a hard time pinning down your definition of pluralism in this context, as it typically admits of several slightly different connotations. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism.
Could you please clarify how you are using the term in this context?
In addition (and speaking for myself only), I would like to make an observation that you may find helpful. It is very clear to me that you have a lot of very worthwhile knowledge and things to say in the arena of foreign policy. When you stick to arguments along those lines, you typically have quite a bit to contribute to our conversations. However, it seems that you have a tendency to make assumptions about our motives or about the bases for our arguments when you have fundamental disagreements with one of our conclusions. This tendency is particularly apparent in your shorter-form responses, I think. When it includes outright accusations of dishonesty or ignorance, it is doubly problematic.
The reason this is such a problem is that it immediately puts the object of your response on the defensive, causing them to tune out even in the relatively frequent situations where you are providing some really worthwhile information and thoughts. Additionally, as we are all human here (despite our conscious desire for civility), this defensiveness may result in equally inappropriate vitriol being sent back at you.
I’m aware that you have a certain chip on your shoulder because you think that you were the original object of vitriol going back to some discussions at Culture11. I am not aware – nor do I care to become aware – of the history of that situation. But regardless, “he started it!” doesn’t really get us anywhere, which is to the detriment of all involved.
In conclusion (and remembering that I am speaking for myself only here), I think you would quickly become one of our most valuable commenters if you would be more consistent at keeping assumptions of bad faith or ignorance out of your rhetoric. There may be times when this is difficult simply because of the problems inherent in finding common ground when we are starting from such incredibly divergent viewpoints on a lot of these issues. But I think you’d be just fine as long as your first couple forays into a thread avoid any assumptions of bad faith or ignorance.
Roque, I’m with Mark on this one. You do have a great deal of knowledge and some pretty damn good comments. If I call one of them simplistic, that does not mean I’m calling you simplistic or an idiot or anything of the kind. No bad faith intended.
Oh ED Kain. Maybe you should keep your eye on the ball before you go for the sarcasm? All we need here is a little bingle so you get on base.
Wasn’t it me who was supposed to “have such a cut and dry, simplistic, one-sided perspective with which to rationalize and condense all the world’s nuance?” Now it turns out that the rise of Islamist enmity against us is due to our “meddling,”
which consists of defending Kuwait from Saddam Hussein (with the support of most of the world along with most Arab/Muslim regimes), supporting Muslims in fighting off foreign invasion by the Soviets, and giving financial aid to Muslim regimes. Yes, they’re despotic. But if we withdrew our aid on that basis, wouldn’t that be “meddling” too? That’s a pretty thin gruel, don’t you think? How can this possibly explain jihadists declaring Holy War on us? Isn’t financial aid supposed to be a cornerstone of the “soft power” you advocate? If this kind of thing summed up our history in Latin America, we’d be heroes down there. The US is in a real double-bind if we want to gain your approval: if we support Muslim regimes with financial aid, you’ll accuse us of irresponsible meddling; if we don’t and if we support the “moderate reformers” of these regimes, you’ll accuse us of the same thing. I’m starting to think that all you want to do is accuse us, no matter what.
Then let’s see: our Lebanon debacle was in support of a UN mission, and as part of a negotiated truce in the civil war, not to aggrandize our own influence, which is why Reagan pulled us out of there right away. Should we have stayed to finish the job? No, that would have been meddling. Should we have declined to support the UN and negotiate a truce? That would have been go-it-alone cowboy arrogance. I just can’t see this as meddling, much less anything that would justify declaring war on us—after twenty years, no less.
The “rampant” Arab nationalism you refer to happened way before the events you note. And it ended for practical purposes in the ‘67 war against Israel. I’ve noticed this theme in your posts. In all good faith, and with all due respect, I say you’re applying a Western template to non Western phenomena. Scholars of the Arab/Muslim world treat nationalism as just one more attempt to overcome Arab and Muslim dependency in a long line of attempts. Like the rest, this is an attempt to use Western ideas as instruments without accepting the values that underlie the ideas. I think most scholars say that this is the reason for their failure. It’s as if they were learning phrase-book westernization. You can’t speak a language with a phrase book and you can’t adapt to Westernization piecemeal. In any case, nationalism is over in the Arab/Muslim world. It just isn’t part of their culture as it is ours. It’s such a basic part of our culture that it’s difficult to realize this. They just have another idea about how globalization should work. It’s an Islamic idea, based on Islamic law. That’s why there’s a war.
What the hell do we have to do with the fall of the Ottoman Empire or the end of colonial rule? We had no colonies over there to decolonize. What on Earth are you talking about? How can you first attribute “some rogue elements’” declaring war on us to our meddling and then say that this consisted in the fall of the Ottoman Empire? Maybe you should throw in the Battle of Lepanto for good measure or the Song of Roland. That must have created some “backlash” too. See what I mean about keeping your eye on the ball?
Now we’re “meddling” because we support Israel? Israel is our ally. We’re supposed to support our allies, aren’t we? Should we withdraw our support because Muslims get mad about it? Wouldn’t that make us look unreliable to the world at large, including to our other allies? Do you want us to withdraw from world politics altogether and just organize international badminton tournaments? Wait. We tried that with Iran and they said they don’t want to play badminton with us. Isn’t “using cultural influence” and trade meddling too? That’s what the Arabs say, at any rate. That’s what the Europeans and Latin Americans have been saying for decades. The problem is, you’re a citizen of the world’s greatest power, maybe the greatest power the world has ever had. “Meddling” is inevitable if you’re going to define it like you do.
You’re always on about the Israeli settlements, as if this was blocking world peace. But in fact, our assistance to Israel has always included a demand for the end to settlements. If I remember correctly, we were close to a breakdown with them over it during the first Bush administration. Also, did you know that the US, Israel, and the Palestinians have actually reached an agreement about the settlements? It was contained in the 2000 Camp David talks. It’s kinda complicated and I can’t pretend to know enough about it to even write this with any confidence, but from what I can remember nobody is insisting on a return to the ‘67 borders. Some settlements will stay for a number of reasons, among which are Israeli security requirements. You may not think this is fair, but it was agreed to by Arafat and whatever settlements were to remain, the Israelis ceded other land to Palestine. I think that the total territory we’re talking about is under five percent of all the land on the West Bank.
Besides, all this talk about settlements is just another Arab red herring. Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005. There are no settlements, no soldiers, no nothing. They even left valuable infrastructure in place for the Palestinians to use. They got rocket attacks in response. Why? Why did they continue the attacks on Israel even after complete withdrawal? Why continue to smuggle weaponry? Why do they continue to indoctrinate their children with hatred for Jews? It can’t be because of settlements because there are no settlements in Gaza. I’ve got my explanation for this. What’s yours?
You should know by now what a complete falsity the withdrawal from Gaza was. It’s a ploy for sympathy, when in fact Israel settled even more Israelis in the West Bank than they pulled out of Gaza. Then, let’s see, after years of blockades, suppression, restriction of movement you expect the Palestinians to what? Just submit? Just accept their fate?
What’s the point of arguing this with you, though? You have your talking points all in a line. I’ve heard every single one of them before. Hell, I used to believe them myself. I’m sorry, I’ve already existed in your frame of thinking and rationale, nothing you say will convince me that Israel doesn’t bear responsibility for this continued mess by not dismantling settlements. Until that day–a complete withdrawal from occupied territories–Israel has my best wishes, but not my support.
And to say that “nationalism is over in the Arab/Muslim world” is one of the most ludicrous things I’ve ever heard. Yes, it’s “over” in some parts, but in Palestine? The fact they’ve been denied a State has led to its continuation. Obviously.
And I simply have no desire to continue discourse with someone who treats the settlements issue as an “Arab red herring.” That’s a flat out lie.
Roque:
In case you missed my question above, I really would appreciate a response: in what sense are you using the word “pluralism,” which admits of several different meanings depending on whether you are using it to describe a country’s internal politics or its relations with the rest of the world.
Well, Mark Thompson, see my problem? ED Kain goes into a hissy fit over the settlements and won’t talk to me anymore. He thinks the Israelis want sympathy, but they won’t get it from him since he sees to the bottom of this thing.
If he thinks that saying nationalism is over in the Arab/Muslim world is ludicrous, then he should write a book challenging Adeed Dawisha, for one, who said just that in his own book, Arab Nationalism in the Twentieth Century. There are other books that say more or less the same thing, but this one looks like the burner to me. In any case, ED Kain could set a lot of scholars straight here, not just me.
So let’s see, after years of attacks, which have killed and wounded as many or more Israeli innocents as the Gaza invasion did Palestinians, he expects the Israelis to do just what, exactly? Hand them their head on a platter?
He’s been there, done that. Now he knows that the settlements are the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East. It’s interesting that in the aftermath of the 2000 Camp David talks, when Israel and Palestine reached an agreement on the settlements, people were saying that the “right of return” was the main obstacle to peace. Does the fact that there is no agreement, no policy, no nothing that supports his “complete withdrawal” idea make any difference to him at all? Everybody—the US, the EU, the Palestinians—have agreed that this is not possible. The phase is, “defensible borders,” not “complete withdrawal.” The point is, “complete withdrawal” won’t happen. To insist on it is equivalent to supporting the most radical Islamist agenda.
Aside from that, do you notice that this is just a side point on this thread? Do you notice that ED Kain cannot support his ideas other than by flinging infantile sarcasm my way and then by going into a hissy fit over a side point? There’s no way I’m going to get into the details of the settlements question here. But it’s just simplistic to say that Israel has built more settlements in the West Bank than they withdrew from Gaza. It’s just a complicated topic, which I doubt even diplomats could handle in such a forum as this one.
As you correctly note, the thread is about the limits of US interventionism, not about Israel/Palestine. ED Kain brings up US support for Israel as an example of unwarranted meddling, which in his mind has caused radical jihadists to declare war on us. My point is that this is false. Arab regimes use Palestinian suffering and US support for Israel as a weapon against us. This problem could have been solved decades ago if it were otherwise. That’s why it’s a red herring. It’s disgusting to see and it’s disgusting to see people like ED Kain fall into line thinking he’s being critical.
Hey, Mark Thompson, it’s me again. I decided to make a separate post on the idea of pluralism. I hope that’s OK with you. Before I do that, though, I’d like to tell you that you’re right about my style. I’m way too abrasive and polemical for my own good. I don’t want to hurt people and it will surprise you to know that in real life I’m a really sweet peaceful guy. I can control myself but if people take off on me, then I figure that if they can dish it out they should be able to take it too. This can turn these discussions into a game in the best of cases, which is not very productive. In the worst cases, it creates bad feelings. I’ll take all the blame for it that you want, but you can do what I do: figure out what the hell I’m trying to say and then either agree or not. Make sure that if you don’t agree you make me look like an idiot, because that’s what I deserve if I’m going to act like that. I can take it and I’ll come back for more because it’s all a learning experience for me. But I don’t learn anything from hissy fits. Plus, I think it’s so great that your photo shows you with your baby girl (I guess it’s a girl from the pink. Sorry if I’m wrong). You just look so happy and proud that it makes even me happy and proud to look at it. So, congratulations on that. It might seem natural and easy to you, but it certainly is not.
As for the pluralism—I looked at the Wikipedia page you linked to and it looks like I got myself into a mess with this one. I can’t really say which of the ten or so definitions I’m thinking of. Now I wish I’d seen the Wikipedia thing before I stuck my foot in it. But anyhow, I’ll just try and explain what I’m thinking, since you asked.
The basis of the Western idea of globalization continues to be the Westphalian system of national sovereignty. This happened in the early seventeenth century in Europe, just to give you an idea of how new it is and how Western it is. Before that, even in Europe, there was no “national sovereignty” to start wars over because the idea didn’t even exist. Today the whole world is mapped out according to the Westphalian system of national sovereignty—even the Arab/Muslim world. In fact, this is one of the causes of such instability there, as Europeans literally mapped out the Middle East after WWI with red pencils and a map on a table at Versailles or wherever. This cut across ethnic groups, which should have been included in one or another nation-state and divided others. Decolonization left this as a legacy, willy-nilly.
But what’s the basis of the Westphalian nation-state? It means that nation-states in the system should be just left alone to decide their own affairs insofar as religion (which was the original problem in Europe), government and so forth as long as they respect the rules, which can be summarized in the doctrine of non interventionism. It’s pretty much a way to achieve peace, if this is defined as simply “no war.” It’s the basis of so-called realist philosophy in foreign relations.
This is how I derive the idea of pluralism: it just means that nation-states should be left alone as long as they respect the rules that everyone else respects, first among them is to respect everyone else’s right to be left alone. I’d say that the Wikipedia definition that comes the closest is, “the acknowledgment of a diversity of political systems.”
I say that this is the problem in today’s war: the Arab/Muslim world does not accept this, which is the most basic idea we have of our own political system. The whole idea of sovereign nation-states was imposed on them by Europeans (not the US!). If it were up to them, there would be an entirely different world order today, one based on Islamic law, not agreements between sovereign nation-states.
This relates to this discussion of US military interventionism because it’s just not enough to have a system with all its treaties and laws if you don’t have a way to enforce the treaties and laws—even if the system has such deep roots in our thinking. So I say that our interventionism should be to establish pluralism as a basic value, wherever it’s challenged and above all if it’s challenged by a direct declaration of war against us, as in the present situation. Anyone who does so is declaring themselves to by our enemy in the most basic sense—they’re challenging the world order that we uphold, not just demanding stuff like more rights or whatever. That we can deal with quite easily since any demand for more rights by definition falls within the system that we uphold.
It’s not about exporting democracy or remaking the world in our image. It’s just about the most basic political value we have. In the case of today’s war against jihad, it means that they can have an Islamic state, if that’s what makes them happy. I have no problem with the government of Iraq making Islamic law part of their constitution, as anti democratic as that may be. They’re Islamic after all, so they should have the right to an Islamic state. I don’t see how this could hurt us in the least since we have so many businessmen who can figure out how to sell them stuff under Islamic law or any other law. We get to sell them stuff in peace, they get to have Islamic law. If they don’t want us to sell them stuff, then it’s simple: just don’t buy it. But if they want to stop us from selling them stuff by blowing up our buildings with thousands of people inside, then we intervene. Does that sound like pluralism to you?
Roque–
I can be a bit abrasive myself, and I apologize for calling your stance simplistic. I can be a bit short-tempered, I admit. My apologies.
What really comes off as overly combative in your post above, though, is your bringing my name into it what five, six times? I mean, it’s just a lot of focus on me.
But in any case, I was wrong to dismiss you in that fashion, and I hope to have more amicable, and thereby productive conversations in the future. I admit, I’ve had a bitch of a cold the last couple days, and my own toddler has NOT been sleeping, and it has caused me to fall into a rather persistent gloominess…
Now, to address your points, yes I do think Israel should give back the land to the Palestinians without condition. It will empower moderates across the board.
No, I don’t think the settlement issue is an “Arab red herring” I think it is very real, and causes parts of Israel, a country I admire greatly, to be little better than apartheid. Israel needs to save itself from itself.
No, I don’t think the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was intended to make peace with the Palestinians. If they had truly wanted to achieve peace, Israel would have withdrawn from the West Bank as well. The subsequent blockade has impoverished Gaza. They are now an isolated enclave. And while I completely take issue with those who liken said enclave to a “concentration camp” I don’t think that it’s right either.
I do think that nationalism exists very strongly and is at the center of the Israel/Palestine conflict, but not necessarily the larger jihad. That does indeed have to do with US meddling, but also with a barbaric worldview that we in the West have little understanding of, and certainly did not anticipate when we first enmeshed ourselves there.
I actually think you’re on to something with the whole notion of plurality etc. etc. but I think the worst way to go about this is with large scale invasions the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan, or with such backward ideas as sanctions which only empower dictators and impoverish populations.
Hey ED Kain,
This thing is moving too fast for me. I put in one comment then there’s another one before that etc etc. Then stuff comes in my inbox and I can’t find it here. I’ll just go do some drugs for a while until I calm down.
Anyway, since we’re both abrasive mother-fuckers, I’m glad to have the chance to let bygones be bygones. I don’t disrespect you in the least—to the contrary. You must know what I mean because you’re an abrasive mother-fucker yourself.
I have no hard feelings and never did. I get a lot out of debating with people, especially if they don’t care about being abrasive. It just means that you really care a lot about what you’re saying. That’s something to admire. I’m not trying to convince you—that would be arrogant, wouldn’t it? Meddling, anyone? It’s just a way to learn stuff for me.
And one last thing—you showed up here to make an effort to bridge this divide and I certainly did not. Means you’re a better man than me.
PS: I know that toddlers are a pain in the ass. You’re probably holding up better than most. They say down here, “little kids, little problems.” The more you invest in the little kids is like money in the bank when they get older and can cause you real problems.
Roque–
Heh. Well said!