The free world and the un-free world are pitted against each other; as elaborated in the book "Breaking the Real Axis of Evil", written by the Vice Chairman of freedom house, nations with low freedom ratings continuously work to butress each others' authoritarian control systems -- countries like Pakistan and Libya supporting the One China policy, for instance, or trading in arms and material support.
This is tripe. Even by realist standards this is tripe. Putting aside the fact that we're working alongside Pakistan (are they buttressing our authoritarian control system?), this is tripe. And I think you missed Palmer's point.
I just have to point out that when Todd is talking about "remaking the world in a liberal democracy," he's talking from the perspective of someone who sees this being done excusively through unprovoked war against a nation that poses no threat to our own. And Mark Palmer approaches it from the perspective of someone who saw firsthand how citizen-led uprisings can rid nations of the yoke of tyrannical rule without military involvement from the West. His book is about how to nurture democratic seeds withing authoritarian states, not how to impose American military strength on other states to reshape them to our needs.
What we have here is somoene who is too firm a believer in Democratic Peace Theory. Sure, liberal democracies don't fight wars against each other (except for that big one in the 30s and 40s where almost everyone had elected their leadership), but that doesn't mean they don't fight wars along the way: your concept of a "true peace" is going to involve a hell of a lot of bloodshed, something which you seem to overlook in favor of the utopian vision of a nonviolent Democratic world. I think if you're going to throw the theories out there these guys will help you understand the stakes beyond the sentimentalist screeds:
-Mansfield and Snyder's "Democratization and the Dangers of War." A must-read. Guess which nations start more wars, autocracy or democracy? Which nations have the most frictions with their neighbors? Now, abstract that a little and ask yourself: why would we or anybody else want more volatility in the Middle East?
-Stephen Krasner, Compromising Westphalia. Of all the Administration appointees from the Stanford School, this guy is my favorite. You don't seem to like the notion of imperialism, so Krasner approaches international involvement from a different perspective: every nation is in some way involved in the affairs of other nations, and mostly these involvements are considered Kosher by the world community. Even after the taboo of screwing up another country's government is removed, the question still remains as to whether or not what is done will help or hurt in the long run.
-John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics Mearsheimer practically invented neorealism as it exists today. This is a gripping text (if you can believe such a thing exists in PoliSci) about the consequences of great powers like the US becoming involved in the affairs of other states, when viewed from a realist perspective.
-Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, "An Unnecessary War." A better piece about the questions raised by invading Iraq has not been written. And it serves as a great Period piece, since it was written on the eve of war, yet for some reason seems to focus heavily on the Administration's desire to stop Saddam from using WMDs. I mean, surely the Bushies weren't talking up a military threat when considering the war--this has always been about freedom, right?!! And President Bush says the war is a "very noble cause," so there.
Beyond that, try to understand that what you're repeating are arguments that were mostly created to justify 'humanitarian' wars that were fought with little or no human cost to the 'humanitarian' state while causing widespread destruction and death to the 'assisted' state. When people focus on the ostensible goals of war, as you're doing, they tend to ignore the realities of war--broken stuff and dead people--because it makes the war seem less noble.
After the Rwandan genocide, foreign aid workers rushed to the surrounding countries to set up refugee camps for the Rwandans fleeing their home country. Victims, right? Well, most of the victims were dead, and a huge percentage of those fleeing to refugee camps were the ones who had committed the genocide. So why did the aid workers stay? Did they like the idea of helping butchers (some of whom continued their grizzly work from the camps themselves)? Or was it that they had set out with a noble goal, to make a real difference, and were unwilling to accept that their actions, while well-intentioned, were actually making things worse?
We can't let pretty rhetoric disguise facts: the occupation of Iraq is not bringing peace or stability to that country, and our soldiers continue to die needlessly. Remember Einstein: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
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.
!
This is tripe. Even by realist standards this is tripe. Putting aside the fact that we're working alongside Pakistan (are they buttressing our authoritarian control system?), this is tripe. And I think you missed Palmer's point.
I just have to point out that when Todd is talking about "remaking the world in a liberal democracy," he's talking from the perspective of someone who sees this being done excusively through unprovoked war against a nation that poses no threat to our own. And Mark Palmer approaches it from the perspective of someone who saw firsthand how citizen-led uprisings can rid nations of the yoke of tyrannical rule without military involvement from the West. His book is about how to nurture democratic seeds withing authoritarian states, not how to impose American military strength on other states to reshape them to our needs.
What we have here is somoene who is too firm a believer in Democratic Peace Theory. Sure, liberal democracies don't fight wars against each other (except for that big one in the 30s and 40s where almost everyone had elected their leadership), but that doesn't mean they don't fight wars along the way: your concept of a "true peace" is going to involve a hell of a lot of bloodshed, something which you seem to overlook in favor of the utopian vision of a nonviolent Democratic world. I think if you're going to throw the theories out there these guys will help you understand the stakes beyond the sentimentalist screeds:
-Mansfield and Snyder's "Democratization and the Dangers of War." A must-read. Guess which nations start more wars, autocracy or democracy? Which nations have the most frictions with their neighbors? Now, abstract that a little and ask yourself: why would we or anybody else want more volatility in the Middle East?
-Stephen Krasner, Compromising Westphalia. Of all the Administration appointees from the Stanford School, this guy is my favorite. You don't seem to like the notion of imperialism, so Krasner approaches international involvement from a different perspective: every nation is in some way involved in the affairs of other nations, and mostly these involvements are considered Kosher by the world community. Even after the taboo of screwing up another country's government is removed, the question still remains as to whether or not what is done will help or hurt in the long run.
-John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics Mearsheimer practically invented neorealism as it exists today. This is a gripping text (if you can believe such a thing exists in PoliSci) about the consequences of great powers like the US becoming involved in the affairs of other states, when viewed from a realist perspective.
-Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, "An Unnecessary War." A better piece about the questions raised by invading Iraq has not been written. And it serves as a great Period piece, since it was written on the eve of war, yet for some reason seems to focus heavily on the Administration's desire to stop Saddam from using WMDs. I mean, surely the Bushies weren't talking up a military threat when considering the war--this has always been about freedom, right?!! And President Bush says the war is a "very noble cause," so there.
Beyond that, try to understand that what you're repeating are arguments that were mostly created to justify 'humanitarian' wars that were fought with little or no human cost to the 'humanitarian' state while causing widespread destruction and death to the 'assisted' state. When people focus on the ostensible goals of war, as you're doing, they tend to ignore the realities of war--broken stuff and dead people--because it makes the war seem less noble.
After the Rwandan genocide, foreign aid workers rushed to the surrounding countries to set up refugee camps for the Rwandans fleeing their home country. Victims, right? Well, most of the victims were dead, and a huge percentage of those fleeing to refugee camps were the ones who had committed the genocide. So why did the aid workers stay? Did they like the idea of helping butchers (some of whom continued their grizzly work from the camps themselves)? Or was it that they had set out with a noble goal, to make a real difference, and were unwilling to accept that their actions, while well-intentioned, were actually making things worse?
We can't let pretty rhetoric disguise facts: the occupation of Iraq is not bringing peace or stability to that country, and our soldiers continue to die needlessly. Remember Einstein: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
'Iraq' is Arabic for 'Vietnam'.