Okay, first off, what the hell do you mean by that? Our side of the war? the govenrment already is.... Our side as in Democracy? Funny, as we're supporting the leader of the coup that overthrew the democratically-elected government in the first place. And what influence are we exerting exactly? Clarify please.
If you consider 'the war' to be the War on Terror, then yes, we're doing a decent job of keeping them on our side. Eventually, I'd certainly like to see Pakistan return to democracy, but that makes more sense here as a last step, not a first one. Right now, Pervez is presiding over a country that he does not have full control over; there was a significant risk of a fundamentalist uprising to overthrow him in response to the Iraq war (And we did less than the bare minimum to prepare for that contingency... we sent them a few riot control shotguns, and said 'good luck'. Luckily, the threat didn't pan out), which would give Islamic fundamentalists access to nuclear weapons. Having a strongman is never an ideal solution, but if it keeps the Islamic extremists at bay for now, that's our number one priority.
Most recently, he's shut off all foreign access to Pakistan's madrassas, a good starting step towards clamping down on global jihad.
Our number one priority is coming as close as possible to eradicating the extremist sects of Islam, such as the Wahhabists. Once that's handled, then we'll talk about democratic reform... but it's hard to have democratic reform in a country like Pakistan if the populace would just elect anti-Western fundamentalists.
Sometimes, this means curtailing freedom, too -- The peace is kept in Lebanon by the fact that public agitation for religious supremacy by any faction is banned, and oftentimes grounds for expulsion.
We (or at least, I) have an ultimate goal in sight: The eradication of extremist branches of Islam that resort to terror and violence, and bringing the global Muslim community to the same consensus that the West has reached over the past hundred years or so -- religion must be subordinated in the public sphere to secular government and secular progress.
Once you have this consensus among the population, then it's time for the move forward into democracy.
I think that this consensus is already present in Iran, and at least to some extent in Iraq; I don't think it's there in Pakistan yet. But Pakistan's current path is concurrent with our long-term goals for them.
Is Saddam the only one that was a threat? Are we invading N. Korea? Saudi Arabia? Myanmar? Sudan?
We can't invade them all at once, can we? Not enough troops for that. (In hindsight, you could probably make a strong argument for a delayed humanitarian intervention in Iraq, first dedicating all our troops to pacifying the various Afghanistani warlords.)
And since we had air supremacy and weapons inspectors on the ground (not to mention 300,000 US forces in surrounding countries) before the invasion, where was there a threat to the people that we couldn't handle if we wanted to?
The threat is smaller scale; the crushing of dissent, the murder of political dissidents or anyone who got in the Baathist's way. We're not talking about responding to a large-scale military mobilization, as with the first Gulf War.
Didn't we already know where Zarqawi's camp was before the war--why didn't we take care of that 'threat to the millions of innocent people?'
Rank incompetence in the Bush administration, that's why! :)
Remember, I'm defending the principle behind the war; that doesn't mean I find the Bush Administration's execution of it to be optimal or even adequate in any given case.
(Not to mention, open warfare and guerilla warfare constitute pretty damn big threats to innocent people, and it seems like you've neglected that in your rationalization).
They're temporary threats -- once they've been overcome, a domestic peace can reign. The threat to innocent lives from living under a dictator is more permanent (Though all dictators are not created equal; Saddam's a lot worse than Pervez, for instance. Uzbekistan is similarly bad.)
Christ, I have nothing to add to that: it's the death of diplomacy you've called for.
Diplomacy is not a be-all, end-all; it's a tool that has its uses and its faults. It is not necessarily, in any given case, a "first best" solution.
Interesting, as you, in trying to argue that this isn't tied to DPT, just ignored a huge fact that is prominent in DPT: the bloodshed mostly comes from democracies. Really. I wish I was kidding. You're talking about China, but I'd argue we should be much more worried about India starting a war in Asia than China.
This is the part where you're missing it. It's not just about 'who starts a war'. Unless we reach some sort of utopian world-government state, the goal is not necessarily 'less war', at least in the short term. it's about for what ends war is fought.
I'm sorry--ANY FUTURE OCCUPATION?!! Do you not yet grasp what an enormous cost this war carries? Occupations are expensive, in human and monetary terms, and you're talking about MORE? Knowing that no allies will come with us for another go-round, you still think this is a workable doctrine?
Of course the costs are very high, though they're less so if we do it right; the amount of money lost to sheer inefficiency at every level in Iraq (from inept military planning to poor contract management) is absolutely staggering.
If anything were worth a tax increase for, occupation would be it.
I am, as you understand, arguing for a significant expansion of the military-industrial complex, albeit in a different direction.
And, again, your solution to end bloodshed is pretty damn bloody itself--so where's the overall benefit? It's not altruism if the folks you're 'helping' end up worse off in the end (i.e. death by intervention).
It is what I'd consider a 'least worst' solution. As for the people who die in what I'd term the liberation: Yes, for those who die, they might have been better off living under Saddam's boot. But for their children and grandchildren, the future is much brighter. I look at it as a sacrifice the current generation makes for the betterment of future ones.
What do you think the Rwanda example proves, if not that the road to hell is paved with altruistic intentions? (And I culled the account from an interview with Dele Olojede)
It proves, to me, that the UN is not an effective means of preventing genocide, that Clinton seriously got the issue wrong (In IR parlance, I'd say there was some serious buck-passing going on), and that the Belgians were ultimately culpable. They hand-crafted Rwandan society (and created the hard-and-fast Hutu and Tutsi distinctions on ID cards, for what had previously been a much more fluid arrangement) in a way that was perhaps to the benefit of a select few, but certainly not to the benefit of all. Such arrangements always break down in the end, usually with violent consequnces. The lesson, to me, is that in building a society from the ground up extreme care must be given not only to establish structures of government that benefit the people, but also to inculcate values among the populace that lead to lasting stability and progress. Otherwise, the execution of a flawed attempt can end up leaving a country far worse-off than it previously was (i.e. Rwanda befor the Belgian conquest).
On a side note, I'm interested in reading that interview if you've got it.
Evening everyone, I’m sorry it took me so long to get a blog up. There were torrential rains overnight and into this morning all over Central Texas, especially around Crawford. We literally thought a boat was going to be needed to go to the front lines of a new war, but come hell or high water we were going to go down to stand with Cindy Sheehan. We ventured out about 11AM, a 3 hour delay from our original planned departure time this morning. It’s about a 2 hour drive from Dallas/Fort Worth, not far at all. As you can imagine, Wi-Fi isn’t exactly something you find in the country, but I was hoping that I would pick up a wireless signal from some aides computer in the “Western White House” enough to blog, but no such luck. Because of the rain, I didn’t take my laptop anyway.
When we arrived in Crawford all interested parties check in at the Crawford Peace House. It is a cool little home, decorated in peace flags, signs, and more. A Dallas artist purchased the old home shortly after the 43rd president moved into town. Right now it is full of flowers being sent from other families of fallen soldiers, widows, veterans, and proud Americans all over the world who can’t physically be with Cindy. The house is buzzing with activity, phones ringing, packages of donated water, food, and materials stacked everywhere. It is basically the staging area for the Meet With Cindy effort, Code Pink, Veterans for Peace, Gold Star Families for Peace and the countless other allied organizations that are meeting before heading out to where Cindy is waiting to meet with Crawford’s most famous resident. The town itself has 705 residents, very prairie like, stuck in the middle of rolling hills, and surrounded by corn fields, cotton farms, creeks, oak trees, farm houses, hay bails, and cattle. The actual drive out to Cindy’s tent starts on Prairie Chapel Road, and winds through central Texas farm land for a good 3 miles.
You know you’ve reached Cindy when you begin passing lines of cars leading to a small fork in the road, with a triangle shaped break off the main path to the presidents home. About 75-80 cars altogether by the time we left. Signs, tents, camera crews, and people line the ditches of this triangular patch off of the main road. She is about 10 miles from his door step, but her voice is louder then any 61% of the Americans who are dissatisfied with the Iraq War; a voice that is keeping the president up later these nights. This is the new front lines in the war to break the culture of lies that have surrounded the run up to, and the execution of, a neoconservative democracy installation project. Remember the flowers in the house? They are being delivered to Cindy out in the road too. Two vans pulled up and delivered baskets of them while we were there. One of the mothers’s who joined our ride today delivered two yellow Texas roses, from one grieving mother to another.
It was then my opportunity to meet Cindy. She is hard to get to through the countless calls of support she is receiving, the demands for interviews, and the many well wishers and admirers like me who helped deliver supplies to the camped out demonstrators. I introduced myself as a Campus Progress blogger (wore my shirt and promoted the site too) and concerned Texan who proudly stands side by side with her as she questions for what “noble and selfless cause” that her son, and his comrades in Iraq have died for. Her grief is genuine and her demands are real. She isn’t doing this for show, publicity, or anything else. She wants answers; she wants to understand why her son died on the seeming basis of lies. When you want the truth you look someone in the eye. I did, and her grief is real, and so are her demands.
At that point I was overwhelmed and gave her a very close hug and we both wept a bit. I could really feel her pain at that moment. This is very personal to her, she is astounded the president of the United States would allow a grieving mother of a fallen patriot sleep in a ditch not far from his door step then answer a simple question. I told her how proud I was of her for standing up and demanding answers that ALL Americans want to hear. It really was a visit for me to the front lines of a new war right here in my own state. Cindy is doing something that so many Americans have been wanting to do and that is to question the commander in chief in a time of war. You just don’t know how much I admire her strength.
There would appear to no longer be a threat that Cindy Sheehan will be arrested, as she repeated this numerous times to all of us. That being said, she still isn’t taking anything for granted. The crowd was growing as we were there standing in the rain, people from all over the country. A can of worms have been open, and I don’t see Bush’s people allowing this to go on much farther. There are literally hundreds more on the way, we were lucky to arrive before the real flood came. As I type, fellow grieving military families wishing to have the same answers from the president as the rest of America are flying in to stand with Cindy. Many more from across Texas, including many of my friends and fellow activists are on their way down too and literally going to camp with her. I will be receiving reports from them until I hopefully return to Crawford on Sunday with more supplies. I have many pictures but not sure how to get them on my blog for you to see (help?). No matter where you are, take heart that this is no vacation for the president anymore. He has grieving military families, as well as fellow veterans sleeping in tents on the road to his Prairie Chapel Ranch who are demanding the answers that all of us sorely wish to hear.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
!
If you consider 'the war' to be the War on Terror, then yes, we're doing a decent job of keeping them on our side. Eventually, I'd certainly like to see Pakistan return to democracy, but that makes more sense here as a last step, not a first one. Right now, Pervez is presiding over a country that he does not have full control over; there was a significant risk of a fundamentalist uprising to overthrow him in response to the Iraq war (And we did less than the bare minimum to prepare for that contingency... we sent them a few riot control shotguns, and said 'good luck'. Luckily, the threat didn't pan out), which would give Islamic fundamentalists access to nuclear weapons. Having a strongman is never an ideal solution, but if it keeps the Islamic extremists at bay for now, that's our number one priority.
Most recently, he's shut off all foreign access to Pakistan's madrassas, a good starting step towards clamping down on global jihad.
Our number one priority is coming as close as possible to eradicating the extremist sects of Islam, such as the Wahhabists. Once that's handled, then we'll talk about democratic reform... but it's hard to have democratic reform in a country like Pakistan if the populace would just elect anti-Western fundamentalists.
Sometimes, this means curtailing freedom, too -- The peace is kept in Lebanon by the fact that public agitation for religious supremacy by any faction is banned, and oftentimes grounds for expulsion.
We (or at least, I) have an ultimate goal in sight: The eradication of extremist branches of Islam that resort to terror and violence, and bringing the global Muslim community to the same consensus that the West has reached over the past hundred years or so -- religion must be subordinated in the public sphere to secular government and secular progress.
Once you have this consensus among the population, then it's time for the move forward into democracy.
I think that this consensus is already present in Iran, and at least to some extent in Iraq; I don't think it's there in Pakistan yet. But Pakistan's current path is concurrent with our long-term goals for them.
We can't invade them all at once, can we? Not enough troops for that. (In hindsight, you could probably make a strong argument for a delayed humanitarian intervention in Iraq, first dedicating all our troops to pacifying the various Afghanistani warlords.)
The threat is smaller scale; the crushing of dissent, the murder of political dissidents or anyone who got in the Baathist's way. We're not talking about responding to a large-scale military mobilization, as with the first Gulf War.
Rank incompetence in the Bush administration, that's why! :)
Remember, I'm defending the principle behind the war; that doesn't mean I find the Bush Administration's execution of it to be optimal or even adequate in any given case.
They're temporary threats -- once they've been overcome, a domestic peace can reign. The threat to innocent lives from living under a dictator is more permanent (Though all dictators are not created equal; Saddam's a lot worse than Pervez, for instance. Uzbekistan is similarly bad.)
Diplomacy is not a be-all, end-all; it's a tool that has its uses and its faults. It is not necessarily, in any given case, a "first best" solution.
This is the part where you're missing it. It's not just about 'who starts a war'. Unless we reach some sort of utopian world-government state, the goal is not necessarily 'less war', at least in the short term. it's about for what ends war is fought.
Of course the costs are very high, though they're less so if we do it right; the amount of money lost to sheer inefficiency at every level in Iraq (from inept military planning to poor contract management) is absolutely staggering.
If anything were worth a tax increase for, occupation would be it.
I am, as you understand, arguing for a significant expansion of the military-industrial complex, albeit in a different direction.
It is what I'd consider a 'least worst' solution. As for the people who die in what I'd term the liberation: Yes, for those who die, they might have been better off living under Saddam's boot. But for their children and grandchildren, the future is much brighter. I look at it as a sacrifice the current generation makes for the betterment of future ones.
It proves, to me, that the UN is not an effective means of preventing genocide, that Clinton seriously got the issue wrong (In IR parlance, I'd say there was some serious buck-passing going on), and that the Belgians were ultimately culpable. They hand-crafted Rwandan society (and created the hard-and-fast Hutu and Tutsi distinctions on ID cards, for what had previously been a much more fluid arrangement) in a way that was perhaps to the benefit of a select few, but certainly not to the benefit of all. Such arrangements always break down in the end, usually with violent consequnces. The lesson, to me, is that in building a society from the ground up extreme care must be given not only to establish structures of government that benefit the people, but also to inculcate values among the populace that lead to lasting stability and progress. Otherwise, the execution of a flawed attempt can end up leaving a country far worse-off than it previously was (i.e. Rwanda befor the Belgian conquest).
On a side note, I'm interested in reading that interview if you've got it.