Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

60 years of faulty logic

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 60 years of faulty logic

    One has seen a whole lot of cross court battles on the WAB about who has messed up the US foreign policy - the Republicans or the Democrats.

    Even the 'surge' has become a more acrimonious battle between the two parties that are consuming much time instead of Iraq.

    But here is the bombshell.

    Is this a truism that the logic is faulty?




    JAMES CARROLL

    60 years of faulty logic

    By James Carroll | March 12, 2007

    SIXTY YEARS AGO today, Harry Truman went before a joint session of Congress to announce what became known as the Truman Doctrine. "At the present moment in world history, nearly every nation must choose between alternative ways of life." With that, an era of bipolarity was inaugurated, dividing the world between forces of good and evil.

    The speech amounted, as one of Truman's advisers characterized it, to a declaration of religious war. In the transcendent struggle between Moscow and Washington, "nonalignment" was not an option. Truman declared that the United States would actively support "free" people anywhere who were resisting either internal or external threats to that freedom. The "free world" was born, but so, eventually, were disastrous wars in Korea and Vietnam.


    The occasion of Truman's pronouncement was his decision to militarily support one side in the civil war in Greece, and with that, the deadly precedent of American intervention in foreign civil wars was set. Fear of communism became a driving force of politics and a justification for vast military expenditures.

    Nine days after announcing the Truman Doctrine, the president issued an executive order mandating loyalty oaths and security checks for federal employees, the start of the domestic red scare. The "paranoid style" of American life, in Richard Hofstadter's phrase, was set.

    That style lives. Democrats are lining up to attack the Bush administration's catastrophe in Iraq -- not because that war was wrong to start with, but because it has turned out so badly. The administration, meanwhile, has repudiated its go-it-alone militarism in favor of nascent diplomatic initiatives with North Korea, Syria, and Iran -- not because the virtues of diplomacy are suddenly so evident, but because everything else it tried led to disaster. Bush's failures are prompting important shifts, both by his critics and advisers. But no one is asking basic questions about the assumptions on which US policies have been based for 60 years.


    More than adjustments in tactics and strategy are needed. What must be criticized, and even dismantled, is nothing less than the national security state that Truman inaugurated on this date in 1947. The habits of mind that defined American attitudes during the Cold War still provide consoling and profitable structures of meaning, even as dread of communism has been replaced by fear of terrorism. Thus, Truman's "every nation must choose " became Bush's "You are with us or against us." America's political paranoia still projects its worst fears onto the enemy, paradoxically strengthening its most paranoid elements. The monstrous dynamic feeds itself.

    The United States has obviously, and accidentally, been reinforcing the most belligerent elements in Iran and North Korea, but it is also doing so in Russia and China. Last week, for example, alarms went off in Washington with the news that China is increasing its military spending by nearly 18 percent this year, bringing its officially acknowledged military budget to $45 billion. Yet who was raising questions about massive American military sales (including missiles) to Taiwan, whose defense build up stimulates Beijing's? Speaking of budgets, who questions the recently unveiled Pentagon total for 2008 of more than $620 billion? (Under Bill Clinton, the defense budget went from $260 billion to about $300 billion.) Even allowing for Iraq and Afghanistan, how can such an astronomical figure be justified?

    When the United States announces plans to station elements of its missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, why are Russian complaints dismissed as evidence of Vladimir Putin's megalomania? On this date in 1999, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic were admitted to NATO, in violation of American assurances to Moscow that NATO would not move east from the unified Germany. Now NATO looks further east still, toward Georgia and Ukraine. And Putin is the paranoid?


    Last week, the Bush administration announced plans for the first new nuclear weapon in more than 20 years, a program of ultimately replacing all American warheads. So much for the nuclear elimination toward which the United States is legally bound to work by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Washington simultaneously assured Russia and China that this renewal of the nuclear arsenal was no cause for them to feel threatened. Hello? Russia and China have no choice but to follow the US lead, inevitably gearing up another arms race. It is 1947 all over again. A precious opportunity to turn the world away from nuclear weapons, and away from war, is once more being squandered -- by America. And what candidate running for president makes anything of this?

    James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.
    © Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.
    60 years of faulty logic - The Boston Globe


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  • #2
    Ah yes, James Carroll, hater of America. In any other country, he would be charged for treason and executed. Only in American do we allow freedom of expression to that degree.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

    Comment


    • #3
      Carroll also repudiates what is known in Academia as Neorealism -specifically, the Neorealism articulated by Kenneth N. Waltz in his landmark 1979 work The Anarchic Structure of World Politics. In fact, the approach to International Relations, as Carroll rightly asserts, had prevailed the previous thirty years as the Truman Doctrine.

      As with Iraq, the debate over Neorealism often focuses on why states war, not why they don't. Carroll is right: there is an assumption that now more than ever, almost 20 years since "bi-polar" could be used to accurately describe the world, that we need to ditch -or at least question.

      When the stakes were nuclear (MADD), and there were two clear teams, things were simple, and the Neorealist approach could be employed to yield safety (or at least the absence of nuclear war, vis a vis nuclear retaliation capabilities). But having left an international arena where the teams were two clear dominators, questions of foreign policy (You're either with us, or you're with them) must shift in favor of approaches that are more sustainable and fitting to the state of the world in 2007.

      Its obvious the Truman Doctrine is not valid today. But in what ways should the US shift its foreign policy in order to achieve both greater stability and prosperity than what the outdated Truman Doctrine has produced in the 21st century?
      That's a toughy.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by gunnut View Post
        Ah yes, James Carroll, hater of America. In any other country, he would be charged for treason and executed. Only in American do we allow freedom of expression to that degree.
        I guess the expression, "Only in America" would make much sense out of that.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Timeseer View Post
          I guess the expression, "Only in America" would make much sense out of that.
          Good catch. My finger slipped. Problem with typing too fast at work with coworkers trying to carry on a conversation with you.
          "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

          Comment


          • #6
            OK, so this Carrol or whatever is his name is an oddball and a Neorealist!

            Thanks for the info.

            True, all countries seem to have these type of goody two shoes journalists!

            The "Only in America" it happens may not be true. In India we have chaps who go overboard to trash India even when there is no reason or fact to support it. We have a chap, apart from many others, called Praful Bidwai, who some prefer to call "Pro Fool Bid Good Bye"! In fact, one wonders why he is in India, if he loved Pakistan with such ardent passion!
            Last edited by Ray; 13 Mar 07,, 10:21.


            "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

            I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

            HAKUNA MATATA

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by gunnut View Post
              Ah yes, James Carroll, hater of America. In any other country, he would be charged for treason and executed. Only in American do we allow freedom of expression to that degree.
              James Carroll is one of many commentators who have who have well informed opinions that the foreign policy of successive postwar administrations has often worked against the best interest of America, as well as the world,(-including Israel).

              Only on WAB can these people be dismissed as “America haters”.

              If they were suddenly charged with treason and executed it would at a stroke turn America into a repressive fascist state.

              Note that the Truman doctrine has not been the only salient determinant of US foreign policy. Dismiss Carroll if you must, but it’s harder to dismiss other accounts, such as that of Prof. Stephen Zunes’ in his non-partisan book “Tinderbox” written in 2002, before the war. He's another “America-hater” (not).

              Comment


              • #8
                OK, since I know nothing about this Mr Carrol, I take back my remark and take his article for what its worth!


                "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                HAKUNA MATATA

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bandwagon View Post
                  James Carroll is one of many commentators who have who have well informed opinions that the foreign policy of successive postwar administrations has often worked against the best interest of America, as well as the world,(-including Israel).
                  How much do you want to bet all of them work for the likes of the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, while none of them work for the Wall Street Journal or Fox?

                  Originally posted by bandwagon View Post
                  Only on WAB can these people be dismissed as “America haters”.
                  And only America haters consider Carroll to be unbiased in his assessment.

                  Originally posted by bandwagon View Post
                  If they were suddenly charged with treason and executed it would at a stroke turn America into a repressive fascist state.
                  There's that word again, fascist. Would you like to call Bush a Hitler? I bet you do. Go ahead. It's ok. We know your type.

                  Originally posted by bandwagon View Post
                  Note that the Truman doctrine has not been the only salient determinant of US foreign policy. Dismiss Carroll if you must, but it’s harder to dismiss other accounts, such as that of Prof. Stephen Zunes’ in his non-partisan book “Tinderbox” written in 2002, before the war. He's another “America-hater” (not).
                  I don't know who Zune is.

                  The Boston Globe is a notoriously leftwing newspaper.

                  James Carroll works for the Boston Globe, and not for op. ed.


                  Note: it's ok to have a slant on your opinion. I know I do. I just have a problem with the mainstream media proclaiming to be impartial while they really are extremely leftwing. The Wall Street Journal and Fox never claim to be neutral. Fox says it's balanced and they try to bring as many liberals as conservatives to do their shows.
                  Last edited by gunnut; 13 Mar 07,, 20:04.
                  "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                    Originally posted by bandwagon
                    If they were suddenly charged with treason and executed it would at a stroke turn America into a repressive fascist state.
                    There's that word again, fascist. Would you like to call Bush a Hitler?
                    As soon as he starts executing people for dissenting views.


                    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                    I don't know who Zune is.
                    Stephen Zunes is professor of Politics at USF. He took a year out to write "Tinderbox". Whilst he is no doubt a "lefty", his book is impressive. It concentrates on the underlying pressures, dynamics and consequences of America's ME policy and its effects on America itself without referrence to party politics (he criticises policies under Carter and Clinton as much as under Reagan and the Bushes) and, unlike Chomsky, gives off no hint of America-hate. Nor is there any of the moralising of Carroll (Ok -some). That leaves accuracy; well the book is acclaimed by a long list of ME studies experts.

                    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                    James Carroll works for the Boston Globe, and not for op. ed.
                    I've got a book which is a collection of his Globe columns and they're said to be op-eds. But, sure he attacks from the left. What columnist do you find unbiased? Steyn perhaps? or Krauthammer? It doesn't make everything any of them say nonvalid.

                    And you don't need to be a lefty to be critical of America's ME policies, or a peacenik to be critical of the the Iraq invasion.
                    Last edited by bandwagon; 13 Mar 07,, 23:21.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by bandwagon View Post
                      As soon as he starts executing people for dissenting views.
                      What has given you any impression that he would do something like that?


                      Originally posted by bandwagon View Post
                      Stephen Zunes is professor of Politics at USF. He took a year out to write "Tinderbox". Whilst he is no doubt a "lefty", his book is impressive. It concentrates on the underlying pressures, dynamics and consequences of America's ME policy and its effects on America itself without referrence to party politics (he criticises policies under Carter and Clinton as much as under Reagan and the Bushes) and, unlike Chomsky, gives off no hint of America-hate. Nor is there any of the moralising of Carroll (Ok -some). That leaves accuracy; well the book is acclaimed by a long list of ME studies experts.
                      USF as in University of San Francisco? Again, I don't know about Zune so I can't comment.

                      Originally posted by bandwagon View Post
                      I've got a book which is a collection of his Globe columns and they're said to be op-eds. But, sure he attacks from the left. What columnist do you find unbiased? Steyn perhaps? or Krauthammer? It doesn't make everything any of them say nonvalid.
                      All columnists are biased. I love Steyn's columns because of his humor. Sometimes I do find him to be long winded.

                      Originally posted by bandwagon View Post
                      And you don't need to be a lefty to be critical of America's ME policies, or a peacenik to be critical of the the Iraq invasion.
                      Yes, I agree. They are called isolationists. I actually agree with their point of view to a certain degree. We do muddy up the water around the world. But the problem is there's no guarantee that the islamists won't come after us if we stay behind Fortress America. Bush's plan is to go after them rather than to wait for them to come after us. Some don't agree. I agree with him on this one. I'd rather go on the offensive than to wait for the butcher to come.
                      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                        What has given you any impression that he would do something like that?
                        Nothing whatsover. By invitation I was just describing the (unlikely) circumstances under which I would regard Bush as a Hitler.


                        Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                        Yes, I agree. They are called isolationists. I actually agree with their point of view to a certain degree. We do muddy up the water around the world
                        Ok -good old fashioned conservativism, But I didn't mean that. It's quite possible to be internationalist, even interventionist, and establishing a true benign hegemony without "muddying up the waters" so much. And this is where I think Carroll is right in the article at the top.

                        Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                        But the problem is there's no guarantee that the islamists won't come after us if we stay behind Fortress America. Bush's plan is to go after them rather than to wait for them to come after us. Some don't agree.
                        Zunes convincingly makes the case that the islamists wouldn't be coming after you had America's ME policy over the past 60yrs been different in places. -and before you jump to conclusions and dismiss it, it wouldn't harm to read it.

                        Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                        I agree with him on this one. I'd rather go on the offensive than to wait for the butcher to come.
                        Anything that actually works.. (how is it working out so far on the whole) Was invading a bullwark against islamism part of that great offensive? (no). So what is it that Bush is doing that you agree with.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by bandwagon View Post
                          Ok -good old fashioned conservativism, But I didn't mean that. It's quite possible to be internationalist, even interventionist, and establishing a true benign hegemony without "muddying up the waters" so much. And this is where I think Carroll is right in the article at the top.
                          What does "internationalist" mean? How do you suggest we go about achieving this "internationalist" model?

                          Originally posted by bandwagon View Post
                          Zunes convincingly makes the case that the islamists wouldn't be coming after you had America's ME policy over the past 60yrs been different in places. -and before you jump to conclusions and dismiss it, it wouldn't harm to read it.
                          OK. Let me ask you this. What have the Europeans done to piss off the islamists? France was against the Iraq war, yet still caught flak for their comprehensive ban of religious symbols in public schools, by...islamists. Danes were exercising their right to free speech, you know, the favored word of the ACLU, and thousands of muslims demonstrated in Denmark and the Danish artists were forced into hiding from death threats. What have they done? German was against the Iraq war. French "youth" protests spilled into Germany. Who were these "youths" you ask? Muslims.

                          The central difference between a liberal internationalist and a conservative is that the liberal believes he can talk his way out of trouble while a conservative believes he needs to fight his way out. There are people who aren't interested in talking. That's why we have the police. We can't talk to muggers out of robbing us. We can't talk to murders out of killing us. Some people are simply evil. You don't seem to understand this

                          Originally posted by bandwagon View Post
                          Anything that actually works.. (how is it working out so far on the whole) Was invading a bullwark against islamism part of that great offensive? (no). So what is it that Bush is doing that you agree with.
                          The US has not been attacked by islamists since 9-11. Thanks to Bush.

                          The invasion of US by illegal immigrants has only increased since Bush took office.

                          Stark contrast in policies produce the exact results we expect. Actively fighting the islamists has kept them from coming here. Tacitly admitting illegals has produced a surge in law breaking activity.
                          "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Gunnut,

                            I think everybody in the world like a peaceful life and without strife. And yet, like it or not, everybody wants to have that blissful existence as per their desires. That is the dichotomy and the reason for clash.

                            Therefore, the bottomline is that there WILL be clash. The only way to still maintain some bliss is by rounding off the corners so that it does not hurt!

                            [QUOTE]
                            Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                            What does "internationalist" mean? How do you suggest we go about achieving this "internationalist" model?
                            If one is looking at the issue from the US standpoint, where the US rules supreme and yet does not tread on corns, I think that there is no better an example than John F Kennedy. Even in those times, the US was not the flavour of the world, but JFK was always treated as a revered and respected figure inspite of the US policy being nothing too fantastically in favour of the poor nations or the downtrodden.

                            The Cuban crisis was as self aggrandising as the Iraq War, and yet it did not revolt the rest of the world, be it the third world nations or the first world or the second world nations. To the best of my knowledge, there was no condemnation of the US as one sees these days over the Iraq War.

                            JKF did have an international appeal, even though he pursued with vigour as any other US President to pursue US world goals!



                            OK. Let me ask you this. What have the Europeans done to piss off the islamists? France was against the Iraq war, yet still caught flak for their comprehensive ban of religious symbols in public schools, by...islamists. Danes were exercising their right to free speech, you know, the favored word of the ACLU, and thousands of muslims demonstrated in Denmark and the Danish artists were forced into hiding from death threats. What have they done? German was against the Iraq war. French "youth" protests spilled into Germany. Who were these "youths" you ask? Muslims.
                            Could we look at it this way that Europe is the reason why the rest of the third world appears so 'pissed off' (to use your words) at whatever appears to be highhanded (rightly or wrongly) of the West. Had the not been colonialists and spread racial disharmony and inequality in the very colonies they occupied, and if all people were of the same status, then would there be anything called 'racism'?

                            So apart from inherent subconscious 'revolt' in the mindset against the perceived 'arrogance of superiority' of the colonialist nationals, the aggressive Islamic psyche prompts the Moslems to be obtuse out of spite! It possibly also gives them inner satisfaction of having given it back to the whiteman who has kicked them around the deck for centuries!

                            The central difference between a liberal internationalist and a conservative is that the liberal believes he can talk his way out of trouble while a conservative believes he needs to fight his way out. There are people who aren't interested in talking. That's why we have the police. We can't talk to muggers out of robbing us. We can't talk to murders out of killing us. Some people are simply evil. You don't seem to understand this
                            If a liberal can talk him way out and a conservative has to fight his way out, it proves that the conservative has lacks the substance of his cause! If one has facts on his side, he does not have to fight. He defeats his opponent with the moral high ground that he occupies since the facts given for his side of the issue are irrefutable and of sterling silver!

                            The US has not been attacked by islamists since 9-11. Thanks to Bush.
                            And at what cost in men and women, economy and international prestige?

                            The world that once shook when the US spoke, today are backchatting and totally disregarding even threats!

                            The invasion of US by illegal immigrants has only increased since Bush took office.
                            Because it helps the US economy and so none is interested in catching the bull by the horns! Money making apparently is more important to the US citizens and its Senators. A very shortsighted manner of looking at the future of the US.

                            Stark contrast in policies produce the exact results we expect. Actively fighting the islamists has kept them from coming here. Tacitly admitting illegals has produced a surge in law breaking activity.
                            Why take the trouble of going to the US, when the US comes to them and the same result is achieved, if not more?!

                            I have played the Devil's Advocate, because it is time that all this wooly wolly talk is given short shrift, even if they appear great to hear and talk, and instead some hard thinking be done, before all is lost!


                            "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                            I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                            HAKUNA MATATA

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                              OK. Let me ask you this. What have the Europeans done to piss off the islamists? France was against the Iraq war, yet still caught flak for their comprehensive ban of religious symbols in public schools, by...islamists. Danes were exercising their right to free speech, you know, the favored word of the ACLU, and thousands of muslims demonstrated in Denmark and the Danish artists were forced into hiding from death threats. What have they done? German was against the Iraq war. French "youth" protests spilled into Germany. Who were these "youths" you ask? Muslims.
                              These rioting youths present a problem separate to the radical Islamism that threatens the US and UK (although continental Europe obviously also has its radical Islamist problems).


                              Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                              The central difference between a liberal internationalist and a conservative is that the liberal believes he can talk his way out of trouble while a conservative believes he needs to fight his way out. There are people who aren't interested in talking.
                              That’s too black and white. (Don’t tell me FDR and Truman were conservatives at heart. And what about Carter’s (failed) military action to get the hostages back. OK maybe half-assed doesn't count. Note they were eventually released through negotiation). The world is not black-or-white. It has all colours, it is multidimensional, polypositional. The alternative is not necessarily the opposite.


                              That's why we have the police. We can't talk to muggers out of robbing us. We can't talk to murders out of killing us. Some people are simply evil. You don't seem to understand this
                              The bottom line is that it has to be effective. If talk/ diplomacy is effective so much the better. You would need a reasonable level of confidence that military action will be effective both in its immediate objective and in its ultimate goal before embarking on a killing exercise. So (and this is me moralising) military action should not be decided on a suck-it-and-see basis, (apart from the situation where immediate defence is necessary of course). What I understand and utterly reject is that some people see the action itself as the moral issue and not its predicted consequence.


                              The US has not been attacked by islamists since 9-11. Thanks to Bush.
                              Thanks to internal security services and international cooperation between intelligence services. Not thanks to the Iraq invasion. Even the Afghanistan invasion, although a reasonable reaction, has not had the impact it could have had.

                              The notion that "We're fighting them in Iraq so that we don't have to fight them over here" is a fallacy. There is a huge pool of jihadists fighters willing to fight the enemies of Islam in the ME, which was OBL raison d'etre, with further willing recruits appearing as a reaction to the invasion. The attack on the mainland US was a specific policy. There are many possible reasons there has not been a repeat, and the fighting in Iraq is not one of them. Recruits might be willing but it would be much tougher to organise, as intel and security is much better, plus signs are taken seriously and acted on. Also OBL may feel his job is partly done, -radicalisation is happening in Western societies.


                              (Damn. I can't believe I've got into another Iraq/ WOT discussion. Its like a vortex that keeps sucking at you)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X