McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

[krakknisse]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

Woa - that's a lot of opinion right there. I'll try to answer briefly. Well, I certainly sympathize with Israel. Just read about Zvika Greengold's account during the Yom Kippur War - that is a real hero. There really wasn't an anti-Israel slant to the piece. You may have objected to the exclamation point behind Israel in the list of "new" super-NATO countries. Well, I question the decision to put Israel into a large, relatively fragmented, super-NATO. Collective security means just that - _collective_ security. An Arab attack would then see Brazilian, Indian and forces from all over Europe called in. I see this as an unstable arrangement.

I have no solutions for peace in the Middle East. Clearly, there are bad guys around. The main point, macro-economically, is that the particular viewpoint that McCain represent would, if implemented, probably lead us inexorably towards some major regional or global conflict, which has obvious investment implications. Believe me when I say I really wish you could whack and smack the dictatorships and theocracies all over the world, and see a spontaneous flowering of democracy. Maybe it would be worth it - a few million civilians dead, and a million soldiers? But there is a reason the Cold War was never won militarily - no decisive attack through the Fulda Gap. It would have had staggering human costs.

I'm a little exasperated. I've met so many nice people from around the world: Arabs, Israelis, Americans, Germans, Singaporeans, Brazilians, Brits, Finns, Russian and a lot of others. All most of them want to do is to have productive lives. They don't want to be (military) heroes. If only we could tone down military conflict and excessive taxes, the world would be very much richer place in a couple of generations. Yes, there will be some nasty regions. But let people vote with their feet instead, and you will outcompete the nasties economically.

So, my $0.02 for ITulip: keep your ass and assets safe, and adapt to the situation as it evolves. The debate between "realists" and "neocons", "tradists" vs. "militarists" is ongoing.

[Guest]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

The main point, macro-economically, is that the particular viewpoint that McCain represent would, if implemented, probably lead us inexorably towards some major regional or global conflict ... .

You put your finger squarely on the "$64,000 question". There is a viewpoint, which is only a tiny fraction or nuance of distance away from your observation above, that there are other regional actors in the ME, who's viewpoints, "if implemented, would lead us inexorably towards some major regional conflict". This viewpoint suggests it may be not only McCain's views which lead to that eventuality?

This is really where I'm scratching my head in puzzlement at this thread's thesis, which I've seen repeatedly quoted out of the EU. You look at the ME and see a place where if only the "restlessness" of the US, and from people like McCain were abated, things would subside.

I wonder at the extent this is so accepted in other parts of the world ex-US, where the idea has gained such legitimacy as to appear self-evident. The viewpoint is that the mere removal of American involvement with ME instability would act as a "balm" upon the region. Yes, in some respects it would because America's attempts have been rash and inept, but this fact has become curiously jumbled and confused, to the point of the rationally unintelligible or a-historic, with the notion that this region relapses naturally back into peace, when all powers step aside and let them merely "do their own thing". What does the past 50 years tell us?

It would appear that many parts of the world, in the process of becoming so severely disilusioned with US meddling (and here you have my solidarity on that 100%) conclude as a matter of faith that problems for places like Lebanon and Gaza would be greatly relieved if we simply leave them all to their own devices. What is (dis)ingenuously overlooked is that the apparently "spontaneous" problems in Gaza and Lebanon are curiously linked with the fact that these tiny countries are right smack on Israel's border. Curiously "spontaneous" unrest going on there, no?

The point being, these tiny nations and geographic fragments are the perfect locations from which other players can quietly conduct open proxy wars with Israel. This is why they are a tinderbox regardless of US meddling. And this is where Europeans, (and others!) might climb one or two steps out of their complacency, referring reflexively to people like McCain as "the source of the problem" and ask themselves what they would do about it, if preventing another regional conflagration there were left entirely up to them.

After all, this is right on Europe's doorstep, not ours. Yet the EU for the past 50 years has left the active involvement on trying to keep this bonfire from growing entirely up to the US. Why? Some kind of complacency? And some of the regional mischief makers are now building intermediate range missiles and displaying a vigorous national pride about their newfound arsenals, while they vigorously stoke the arsenals of those little proxy-entities on Israel's border? ?

What plans exactly does the EU have for the eventuality that one or two of these "stray missiles" don't wind up on an EU city? If we remove people like McCain from the equation, according to the gist of your thread, these problems will become more, rather than less manageable? I must not be understanding the general appraisal of this ME region. Seems to me laissez fair opens the EU up to some significant risks on it's southern flank.

Maybe the US should leave it up to Brussels to keep this all under control.

[krakknisse]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

You put your finger squarely on the "$64,000 question". There is a viewpoint, which is only a tiny fraction or nuance of distance away from your observation above, that there are other regional actors in the ME, who's viewpoints, "if implemented, would lead us inexorably towards some major regional conflict". This viewpoint suggests it may be not only McCain's views which lead to that eventuality? This is really where I'm scratching my head in puzzlement at this thread's thesis, which I've seen repeatedly quoted out of the EU.

Well, I'm sticking to my original point - protecting your ass and assets. That McCain speech is a harbinger of a foreign policy that is more interventionist than the other candidates. The original speech is here, and it opens slam-bang with Pearl Harbor.

Just to give you a quick lowdown on what the "I hate war" means, this is out of Townhall.com:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said his opposition to a premature withdrawal from Iraq is based on his hatred of war and criticized his Democratic opponents in a major foreign policy address Wednesday.

.

I hate war, therefore we must continue it. Welcome to Newspeak. Lukester, we should disagree to disagree on how to solve world problems. But investment-wise we should both be able to predict with some level of certainty the effect of future developments. Another war, more inflation.

[Guest]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

Krakknisse -

With full respect for you personally - here are more observations on just who it is, that is heedlessly leading us all into another war: I'm interested in your reporting to us what the mainstream view is within Northern Europe (obviously there are multiple views, but which is the most popular) regarding whether Iran and it's Mullah theocracy represent any "danger" to any other countries in the area.

Does anyone lend any credence at all to the reports that the Iranians are actively providing materiel (e.g. high tech lethal shaped-charge bombs) and advanced trainining to Shia groups in Iraq? If that were so, given there is a massive civil war going on there, could the Iranian intervention and transmittal of this materiel and training to the Shia then directly be construed as "aiding and abetting" the continuance of civil war?

Are the Americans actively pursuing the "aiding and abetting of yet more civil war" there as well? Given one side is expending a trillion USD to end the fighting, and the other party has a vested geopolitical interest in prolonging the fighting, which party is bearing the brunt of all the criticism and which party is receiving virtually no criticism in the EU press? Aree we trapped in some sort of cognitive dissonance here? Is this worthy of even a passing comment or acknowledgement in the EU press in order for it to "refurbish" it's credentials for "objective reporting"?

What do Northern Europeans think about the ongoing massive smuggling of arms to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, right under the noses of the current UN "Peace Keepers", in direct contravention of the UN brokered and supervised armistice which the Hezbollah signed expressly to end the 2006 incursion into Lebanon by the Israelis? What do torn up pieces of armistice-paper represent? Abrogation of legally binding peace treaties by any chance? Is that worth any news comment at all? What happens when nations abrogate their peace treaties. It's called "breaking a critical contract" and means "all bets are off", no?!

What do the Northern European press think of the Hezbollah "telling the UN peacekeeper troops where they could go and could not go in Southern Lebanon" in the pursuit of their peacekeeping duties, while these same Hezbollah were blatantly re-arming and rebuilding their networks of underground bunkers? The Israelis even brought satellite photos to Ban Ki Moon who acknowledged this was ongoing and "must be stopped", after which the initiative promptly fell into a black hole among the UN's busy schedule of other duties?

Or what about the constant Lebanese government complaints that the pro-Syian factions are systematically sabotaging attempts to install a new Government there (something like 12 attempts to nominate a new Premier have been sabotaged by Pro-Syrian factons), or the Syrian attempts to derail the UN investigation of the assassination of Lebanese Premier Rafik Hariri?

You cited Sarajevo as the spark which started a world war, and ask me to weigh the significance of such small events being able to trigger such horrific global mayhem. I fully agree, these sparks are immensely dangerous. Meanwhile in the "here and now", we know that Southern Lebanon's Hezbollah are intensively bankrolled AND personally trained (in rocketry among other things) by Iran with Syria's active participation. Is this worthy of any newscoverage at all, on the topic of "who is leading us into another war"? I look for the newscoverage in the largest EU papers but other than the International Herald Tribune (a newspaper with some US nput from the Washington Post and the New York Times) I strain to find any mention anywhere else.

So what coverage is there in the Northern European press of the assassination of the Lebanese President, and the ensuing (ongoing and long) UN investigation of the Syrian involvement by the UN? Given the ME is a tinderbox, the assassination of Lebanon's premier Haririri would appear to be a singularly close parallel to the assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand at Sarajevo.

My beef is that you can look for detailed, concerned discussions of these things in the EU press, and you simply won't find them. There is a collective, anti-US inspired "amnesia" at work in Europe, where the blatant and highly dangerous machinations of Iran and Syria in the ME - all of which are quite obviously directed at sticking constant thorns in the Israelis via direct shelling and small incursions into Israel - these things are not just equivalent to a Sarajevo provocation - they are on-going, multiple Sarajevo scale provocations, and yet we are supposed to regard the EU press as giving the entire scope of the problem an objective coverage?

Krakknisse, my point here is to advise you that as far as I can discern, and I have interest in the topic and have followed it, they don't do anything remotely adequate to cover the implications of that.

There is extensive coverage of the plight of the stateless Palestinians, and most of that is entirely legitimate. But when it comes to the re-armament of the Hezbollah by the Syrians, in a direct contravention of international law, or the direct channelling of Iranian arms not only into Iraq but also to Hezbollah, barely a year after the cessation of a "hot war" with Israel - there is little or no serious coverage in Europe. It's like a continent wide phobia, or a blind spot, and this obscure anomaly has contributed greatly to the rift between the EU and the US. I think it's very real. And there seems little trace of self-doubt, by the EU public, that their "news coverage" is objectively covering these events. I know it. I've lived half my life there, and I've seen this bias going on for decades.

This is the "gap" I am pointing out to you - it's a very real gap - and along with the admission of so many problems within the US (we are turning into a "banana republic" etc. etc. which we Americans all freely acknowledge) it's high time that Europeans also frankly acknowledge that the above very serious destabilizing actions by the Syrians and the Iranians are indeed occurring! Why are Europeans so singularly reluctant to even acknowledge there is a quite evdent blanket of silence on these issues in the EU press? You don't read the tiniest squeak of complaint in the EU about the UN "Peace Forces" abject submission to the Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. Not even a squeak of protest, as they are sitting there presumably "enforcing" the terms of the peace armistice from the last Israeli - Hezbollah war!

I am not by any means an uncritical "Israel booster". They'e done some very bad and stupid things, and they have blood on their hands. But in the face of this kind of continent-wide bias in the EU press, and the EU public, I'm disgusted. Please understand, this is not being expressed against you personally - I am pointing out why I personally believe that the EU public (just as you point out how Americans are manipulated by our own press) is being led around by the nose by the EU press, which by it's glaring omissions of impartial news coverage, is merely indulging it's visceral reaction to the US, whom they artfully describe to all their readers as merely engaged in "gratuitous militarism" in the ME.

I would respecfully suggest that You Europeans need to become more aware of your own "institutionalized blind spots", and in case you are not sure where to look, take a glance at the history of the Hezbollah drumbeat for war Vs. Israel, or the involvement of the Syrians and Iranians in vigorously fostering that. Hezbollah were allowed a parliamentary foothold by a weak Lebanese government, and they've now grown like a virus to entirely subvert the most democratic country in the ME outside of the Israeli State. Lebanon was a jewel of prosperity and democracy before the opportunistic "Syrian Virus" stepped in there 30 years ago.

All the condemnation of Israeli wars with Lebanon in the EU press is almost comical in it's contortions, to discuss the horrible wars ad infinitum while elaborately skirting the Syrian Finlandization of Lebanon which has decimated that country and turned it into a staging area for Syrian machinations against the Israelis. Covering Israeli - Lebanese wars without covering the "Syria / Lebanon three decades long problem" is tripe news coverage of the worst sort. It is garbage news analysis.

The mainstream EU press which omits all this stuff are losing massive credibility in my view, by systematically ignoring the issues I have only very sketchily pointed out above. All the noise about "scarily militaristic US neocons" may be well and true, but without an equally conscientious examination of these very dangerous events committed by the "falsely vilified" states of Iran and Syria, any critique of the US is dangerously slanted. Slanting ones analysis serves no good purpose - it only widens rifts further, which is hugely dangerous itself.

And you won't find many Europeans who are even prepared to acknowledge any of the above observations have a good deal of truth to them. Instead, far too many Europeans will eagerly point out how disappointed they are in the US intervention, and how "misunderstood" Iran is. Please - we need more seriousness than that to lend some critical balance to these debates. I very much appreciate your posts Krakknisse, and consider you generally a fairly balanced observer. I merely point out what I've noticed is a large "split of perceptions" between a lot of Americans and Europeans, and the only winners from it eventually will be the Iranians who are keen on squeezing a ruthless advantage from all this. The rest of us will only lose from these misunderstandings.

[krakknisse]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

I appreciate you taking the time to write an interesting piece. I think you are quite right that there are systematic differences between the EU and the US, both in policy makers, media and the general public (aka "the sheeple". Some of these could rightfully be called blind spots, on both accounts. There are significant heterogeneities within Europe - witness France's "Francafricque" policy which recently led it to prop up a not so nice government in Chad, or historically the Suez Crisis. I simply can't answer for all of Europe. But suffice to say that I think the US has lost a lot of support all over Europe. The rational and "do good" explanations simply drown in in civilian casualties and "no exit" Iraq, and the Banana Republicization of the US. I hope you will come back, but I think it will take a generation. I mean, the "Don't tase me, bro" incident alone will make non-US residents think twice about sending their offspring for what has traditionally been held to be a world-class education, regardless of foreign policy differences.

I don't know quite what to say. There are many like me - "we who loved America". There's even a book about it and a sometimes famous essay by that title. There is a lot of trans-Atlantic misunderstanding and ignorance. Some of it is opportunity cost, but it does actually introduce unnecessary friction. I still love the Republic. But the Republic seems to be fading. If you could really trust EU and US governments to do some good, albeit with a significant human costs, then the support would be forthcoming from both the EU and US sheeple and intelligentsia.

My take on this is that the debate will soon take a different tone. It will no longer be "Is the US or the EU way right". It will be "why are governments failing". The foreign policy discussions will be of less relevance as people struggle with the economy. Unless some major regional or global conflict takes place, in which case people will loyally line up - "more meat for the grinder". I'm afraid that what we will see is in fact a resource war, more than a war of liberation. And both the EU and the US could be fading somewhat, as China and India gain their historical pre-eminence. Take a look at Paul Kennedy for a long term view:

"He compares the Great Powers at the close of the twentieth century and predicts the decline of the Soviet Union (the book was originally published on the cusp of the Soviet collapse, the suddenness of which Kennedy did not predict), the rise of China and Japan, the struggles and potential for the EEC, and the relative decline of the United States. He predicts that continued deficit spending, especially on military build-up, will be the single most important reason for decline of any Great Power."

[Guest]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

Krakknisse - Nowhere do you offer an acknowledgement of the points raised about Iran and Syria.

When talking about triggers for "new Sarajevo's" in the ME, how could you overlook the assassination of Rafik Hariri, a very popular democratic premier of Lebanon who fought for Lebanon's freedom from Syrian meddling - Freedom from Syria, one of Bush's (much derided) "axis of evil" countries, who's own army had occupied Lebanon for 15+ long years, osgtensibly to "stabilize" Lebanon, while in fact they very much de-stabilized Lebanon - liquidating not just the democratically minded and immensely popular Hariri, but dozens of other high ranking but "troublesome" Lebanese patriots. Isn't that somewhat relevant to "war and peace"? And if it is, why does Syria not make it into your PANTHEON of countries contributing to future war in the ME, while the US gets all the "honors" for that accomplishment?

This was after all the central question of your own thread here. You asked: "What is contributing to the potential for war (presumably in the ME)"?

Your reply skirts any direct response to the question. Iran and Syria are quite manifestly stirring things up, in Basra through Al Sadr, in Gaza through the wildly intransigent and war-hungry HAMAS, and in southern Lebanon through the equally rabidly war-hungry Hezbollah. That is fully THREE (3), hot, shooting, bombing, kidnapping, rabid insurgencies ongoing, which they are right in the thick of. Your comment?

We both agreed already - the ME is another potential Sarajevo. You cited "Sarajevo potentials" in the context of John McCain's campaign speeches, and I agree, it seems that Mr. McCain is subject to a few brain-farts here and there. Not very reassuring. Yet when I mention two nations in the region, who are premiere candidates for attribution of all the above regional mayhem, you don't even mention them by name in your reply? Eh? :confused:

Where is your direct response to the regional, live issues raised? - Iran and Syria - are they working for peace or for more WAR? If they are really the promoters of the above refewrenced three local scenes of ongoing shooting, bombing, kidnapping and general mayhem, how does that translate into your vision for peace in this region in the blessed absence of the Americans?

Seems when you try to get down to "brass tacks" with someone observing events from your side of the pond, there is a curious lassitude - a sense that "it will all work itself out if we adopt a little old fashioned "laissez faire". The question was: What is to be done about Iran (with Syria as the on-border transmitter) bankrolling, training and arming fully THREE (3) rogue militias, in THREE (3) different countries? Do you have a position on that? If you don't factor that into your vision for possible roads to peace, are you being sufficiently realistic?

[krakknisse]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

On McCain, from Bloomberg. Seems I'm not the only one.
``The question is whether he can convince people that he will not only keep us safe but also be cautious in using military power.''

Listen Lukester, let's agree to disagree. You won't convince me. Well, one way I should hope for McCain and war - it is good for gold.

[Guest]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

Listen Lukester ... You won't convince me. Well, one way I should hope for McCain and war - it is good for gold.

A surprising answer. I have such high regard for the caliber of all your other remarks around here, this one seems quite weak in it's conceptual grasp in context.

What won't I convince you of? That what I've mentioned about Iran and Syria is 'fake news'? It's not really going on according to you? Or will you conclude instead that while these reports about Iran and Syria are indeed factual, they are still only "minor news", and the overwhelming contributor to ongoing or widening war in the ME is the US presence? That would be a peculiarly contorted view of Iran and Syria in my opinion.

I assumed so far without question, given the very astute and starkly honest quality of all your other commentary, that you would not "duck" my observations (which are embarassing to those who propose "laissez faire" as a solution in that region), but find some way instead to incorporate what I'm pointing out about these two countries into your understanding of what's at stake in the region. When you are looking at a monumental tinderbox, the rest of the world unfortunately does not have the luxury of being mere bystanders. Or do we? Is that your argument? Good luck to the Israelis, Palestinians and Lebanese in that mess then, as their nations will get chewed up in the inevitable conclusion of the present snake-pit of inter-country machinations.

Iran and Syria are causing mayhem in this area, playing with hot firecrackers in a playground flooded with gasoline. That you offer in reply no acknowledgement of their actions other than an obscure sounding and obfuscated "you won't convince me" does not make your own arguments very convincing - but maybe that's just my own view.

The US is arguably causing some grave problems over there. We can leave that on the table as an intelligent topic of discussion. What would be patently absurd, would be to solemnly declare that Iran and Syria are not contributing some highly cynical, bloody, and extremely dangerous meddling in Iraq, the Palestinian Territories, and in Lebanon. Their (now quite bloody) hand-prints are all over these areas. In case you entertain the idea of denying that, Ban Ki Moon, the head of the UN, freely acknowledges this as well.

I think you need to realise that for you to make good counter arguments, you need to approach the things I've brought to your attention head on, not simply refuse to mention them while putting a lid on that topic by vaguely saying "you won't convince me". Convince you of what - may I ask? That Iran is not paying to arm anyone in the region? Or convince you that these facts, while real, have any significance to your world as well as mine? What? Do you think their meddling is a minor detail?

And another thought. "It's good for gold" - this does not appeal to me. I keep my investments, and my search for profit well separate from my humanitarian or civic impulses. The fact that another bloody war breaking out there may be "good for gold" seems to me to be frankly a slightly obscene association. I respect you Krakknisse. I am only gently suggesting that introducing that consideration in this topic may be "inappropriate".

After all, this was a discussion about potential new Sarajevo's, and the profit motive is not that noble that it can surmount all the potential horror that is spring loaded by a multi-nation war flaring up in the middle east. Look at how Iran is acting with Al Sadr, with Hamas, and with Hezbollah, and tell me they are not acting wildly irresponsibly. These Mullahs have blood on their hands. A lot of blood, and you don't wish to look at it.

Think about it.

[krakknisse]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

A surprising answer. I have such high regard for the caliber of all your other remarks around here, this one seems quite weak in it's conceptual grasp in context.

What won't I convince you of? That what I've mentioned about Iran and Syria is 'fake news'? It's not really going on according to you? Or will you conclude instead that while these reports about Iran and Syria are indeed factual, they are still only "minor news", and the overwhelming contributor to ongoing or widening war in the ME is the US presence? That would be a peculiarly contorted view of Iran and Syria in my opinion.

I assumed so far without question, given the very astute and starkly honest quality of all your other commentary, that you would not "duck" my observations (which are embarassing to those who propose "laissez faire" as a solution in that region), but find some way instead to incorporate what I'm pointing out about these two countries into your understanding of what's at stake in the region. When you are looking at a monumental tinderbox, the rest of the world unfortunately does not have the luxury of being mere bystanders. Or do we? Is that your argument? Good luck to the Israelis, Palestinians and Lebanese in that mess then, as their nations will get chewed up in the inevitable conclusion of the present snake-pit of inter-country machinations.

Iran and Syria are causing mayhem in this area, playing with hot firecrackers in a playground flooded with gasoline. That you offer in reply no acknowledgement of their actions other than an obscure sounding and obfuscated "you won't convince me" does not make your own arguments very convincing - but maybe that's just my own view.

The US is arguably causing some grave problems over there. We can leave that on the table as an intelligent topic of discussion. What would be patently absurd, would be to solemnly declare that Iran and Syria are not contributing some highly cynical, bloody, and extremely dangerous meddling in Iraq, the Palestinian Territories, and in Lebanon. Their (now quite bloody) hand-prints are all over these areas. In case you entertain the idea of denying that, Ban Ki Moon, the head of the UN, freely acknowledges this as well.

I think you need to realise that for you to make good counter arguments, you need to approach the things I've brought to your attention head on, not simply refuse to mention them while putting a lid on that topic by vaguely saying "you won't convince me". Convince you of what - may I ask? That Iran is not paying to arm anyone in the region? Or convince you that these facts, while real, have any significance to your world as well as mine? What? Do you think their meddling is a minor detail?

And another thought. "It's good for gold" - this does not appeal to me. I keep my investments, and my search for profit well separate from my humanitarian or civic impulses. The fact that another bloody war breaking out there may be "good for gold" seems to me to be frankly a slightly obscene association. I respect you Krakknisse. I am only gently suggesting that introducing that consideration in this topic may be "inappropriate".

After all, this was a discussion about potential new Sarajevo's, and the profit motive is not that noble that it can surmount all the potential horror that is spring loaded by a multi-nation war flaring up in the middle east. Look at how Iran is acting with Al Sadr, with Hamas, and with Hezbollah, and tell me they are not acting wildly irresponsibly. These Mullahs have blood on their hands. A lot of blood, and you don't wish to look at it.

Think about it.

Well, sorry that I'm being cynical. I really am cynical. The world is an ugly place. I was trying to avoid getting in to a proscriptive debate on "what should we do". My point was, and still is, that McCain has "war issues". If McCain is elected, the likelihood of another war increases. If the other world leaders were holding flowers in their hands, would it still be so? No. So clearly there is a counterparty here.

Clearly, the Middle East could be a new Sarajevo. But remember, without the collective security pacts, the gunshot in Sarajevo wouldn't have been the start of WW1. Which is why I question the expansion of collective security to include one of the tinderbox countries. I'm not saying that there aren't bogeymen in the ME. But as the good guys, you still have to weigh carefully the costs and benefits of your actions. Sometimes it is best not to do so much, even if the cost is to leave someone like Saddam Hussein in power. The Bush doctrine is an abysmal failure. If you insist on continuing the debate, I have one poignant question: what would have happened if Operation Ajax hadn't happened? Watch Ron Paul scorch war-monger Guiliani about "blowback". I conjecture that Iran would have been a moderately socialist country. Yes, nationalization of oil would have happened. Yes, oil might have been somewhat more expensive. But the world is paying the price in unintended consequences. Nationalizations happen. The road to hell really is paved with good intentions. The policy of US non-interventionism has been around for hundreds of years, for good reasons.

Ron Paul: So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the founders and following the constitution. And my argument is, that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. When you do that, the wars don't end.
Wendell Goler (FOX News panelist): Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?
Paul: What changed?
Goler: The non-interventionist policies?
Paul: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East. I think Reagan was right: we don't understand the irrationality of Middle-Eastern politics. So right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican, we're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.
Wendell: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks, sir?
[muted applause]
Paul: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. And they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They've already now since that time have killed 3400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.
Rudolph Giuliani: Wendell, may I make a comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11.
[15 seconds of loud applause]
Giuliani: And I would ask the Congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that.
Wendell: Congressman?
Paul: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah, yes, there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages. And that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

With regards to protecting your assets, I don't think it is out of place to consider the possibility of war. For significant portions of the 20th century, it would have been a very important option. Of course, I'd rather live in a peaceful world than have gold soar because of war. But with the rise of the Bush-McCain doctrine, you have to be prepared. You won't convince me that non-interventionism is still not a good policy to follow. Or at least, the Powell-Weinberger doctrine.

[Guest]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

... McCain has "war issues". ... If the other world leaders were holding flowers ... would it still be so? No. So clearly there is a counterparty ... I'm not saying that there aren't bogeymen in the ME. ... Sometimes it is best not to do so much, even if the cost is to leave someone like Saddam Hussein in power. ... Of course, I'd rather live in a peaceful world than have gold soar because of war. But with the rise of the Bush-McCain doctrine, you have to be prepared.

Kraknisse -

I think Ron Paul's "universal theory of foreign policy" would go into a serious funk when confronted with the bewildering behavior of Syria. He just would not "get" why his obsequious foreign policy did not pacify Assad.

Unfortunately Syria does not fit in well with Ron Paul's understanding of foreign affairs. Syria is a nasty little police state which has outlived a half dozen US administrations of varying stripes. And our present (still juvenile and still quite vigorous Bashar Assad), and his slimy little tin pot PAPA Hafez, have been occupying, chewing up, and messily digesting pieces of Lebanon for going on 30 years.

This is just one example of where Ron Paul's grand unifying theory that everything is a result of "blowback" represents the most imaginative interpretation of US foreign policy since President Carter.

Syria's audacious pupetteering in Lebanon, has directly triggered two (2) bloody wars with the Israelis, each one of which came within a whisker of drawing in other players and spinning into "the big one". Israel rose to the Assad family bait twice, when they finally got sick and tired of Hezbollah lobbing high explosives into their civilian areas. An understandable momentary foreign policy weakness on their part.

That was two (2) potential Sarajevos in the past scant 30 years, due to one tin-pot, PAPA-Hafez Assad, who would have been immeasurably more emboldened if he'd had an inkling of your, or Ron Paul's new "universal blowback doctrine".

Your hero Ron Paul's thesis of international affairs (blowback explains all thorny problems of stronger tin-pot states gobbling up weaker adjacent states) is simplistic rubbish. His ass would get slung over a barbecue pit so fast he'd not have time to issue a foreign policy fireside chat as new president before he had to sit down with the Joint Chiefs to untangle the mess of crumbling global alliances pursuant to his implementing the cockamamie "unilateral withdrawal you endorse.

You can walk away from the global obligations, but that does not mean the others walk away. Instead, they "eat your lunch". I very much enjoy reading history, and have never come across a utopic period in history where as one power withdraws other powers don't step in intent upon checkmating the retiree. It must exist in a world utterly at variance with the cynicism you profess to follow.

It may seem perfectly feasible if you are the premier of a Scandinavian country, but your nation has unwittingly enjoyed other grittier protagonists protecting it's broader global interests on a great deal more occasions than simply WWII. (try freedom from strangulation of global energy supplies by politically malevolent cartels, or protection from Finlandization for thirty years by a nuclear umbrella in the West).

This is the "lacunae" which emerge every time talking with late 20th Century Europeans (Some British and some Eastern Europeans are different). Europe are growing to become a global power, but after two world wars and then 70 years under a North American nuclear umbrella, they have a blissful sense they can maintain a position in the world unencumbered by any political encroachment by others, as the North Americans regroup under "Ron Paul's Doctrine".

In a nutshell, my view after having lived there half my life, is that the fantasy that some Europeans (not all!) believe is that the world they have emerged into in the early 21st Century (where Europe still has a lot of room to manoeuver) happened spontaneously.

It also appears you are concluding I am a "US apologist". This is missing the points I've tried to make, turning your attentionmomentarily away from the US to look at the potential for mayhem from other quarters. I don't apologise for the US. I think your point about the wisdom of having left Saddam Hussein in power to buttress the prior geopolitical order is in fact supremely sensible.

But it is also supremely cynical - towards the people that were under his boot, while the UN was administering the fatally corrupt oil for food program - which dragged on with no diplomatic breakthrougbh for ten long years. Some entirely rational people were wondering whether after 10 years of failed diplomacy, diplomacy might have arrived at it;s own bankruptcy. Of course "diplomatic bankruptcy" is infinitely preferable to us rich Western nations than trying to resuce wretched minions of Saddam - full circle to that "cynicism thingy" which you apparently admire.

See, the underlying moral issue you skate over is that if the rest of the world had employed that same supreme cynicism in the preamble to WWII, Scandinavia may very well have remained a province of a fascist Germany, or equally fascist Russia. Of course we all shrug impatiently at the moral lesson now, because that all happened "ages ago" and it's "boring" now.

But there is a lesson tucked away in there - that the cynicism which you place such a high premium upon can quickly become a very ugly thing, if you are situated in one of those spots in the world which your cynicism prescribes we "sacrifice for peace" people or entire small nations other than ourselves. You can fill in the blanks as to who those sacrificial lambs are this time, but to my mind the Israelis, the Palestinians, and the Lebanese are definitely looking "sacrificial-lamb-like" to my view (what? 1000 rockets a month raining in from Gaza and Southern Lebanon goading the Israelis to respond, and Europe merely yawns?), and the Syrians and Iranians are most definitely not looking like part of the sacrificial lamb flock.

I think someone who has grown this comfortable in such a classically European (Old World - I know it well) jaundiced cynicism, which looks in the mirror and sees itself as the face of the "New World March for Peace", might benefit from feeling the flames of the incoming barrages of Iranian purchased and Syrian delivered Katyushas, under your own feet, just for an instant - just to "tenderize" your complacency a bit, so to speak, about who is to "pay" for that "world-peace born out of the laissez faire" which you describe.

I find myself cycling right back to Starving Steve's observations on this. That whole "Peace in Our Time" thingy? Arguably the world was dealing with "blowback" in the rise of Adolf Hitler, but what earthly use would that insight have been in 1938? And who do we sacrifice this time to accomplish "Peace in Our Time"? Let's let the Syrian's and the Iranians "play" a bit over there eh? Sponsoring Al Sadr, Hamas and Hezbollah? Heh! Sooner or later their skittishness will subside of it's own accord! After all, if the Syrians have been sucking the life out of Lebanon for thirty years it's only due to "blowback".

[Guest]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

I would love to witness Lebanon's (probably last) truly democratic Premier, Fouad Saniora, thank newly elected president Ron Paul for his far seeing vision in pulling all US efforts back and away from Lebanon, in the interests of his "new disengagement" policy wisely directed at eliminating "blowback" in the Middle East.

Meanwhile Lebanon's last vestiges of democracy would go down in ashes, in about 24 hours, while Krakknisse sighed with regret, but insisted this casualty was the "cost of winning the peace" in the Middle East.

Seen from Saniora's eyes, and from the eyes of all the pro-Western and pro-Rafik Hariri democrats in Lebanon, all that would be left of their feelings for the Western world whom they wished to follow in secularism and prosperity would be a feeling of betrayal. This is what enervated EU "peacenicks" turn a blind eye to in their otherwise entirely justifiable and admirable yearning for world peace.

The other side would be laughing at your retreat and moving hastily to consolidate it's victories. Don't kid yourselves. The Syrias and Irans of this world most definitely would - Syria has been at this for decades, while some readers here were still riding around on trycicles. They intrude like thorns, upon your bucolic visions of a newfound US enlightenment leading the rest of the world to equally enlightened non-interventionism. You are dreaming.

Yes, it's an ugly world, and the US by no means created all this ugliness. To believe so is to regard the world from a still childlike perspective. History simply does not bear you out, as not a trace of such an idyllic Wilsonian international order has ever existed.

_______________

Iran Incites Cold War With U.S. in Lebanon Roiled by Hezbollah

By Janine Zacharia




April 1 (Bloomberg) -- When David Welch, the U.S. State Department's top Middle East envoy, wakes each morning, he asks himself, "Is everything OK over there?''

"Over there'' is Lebanon, caught in a political stalemate that is putting American officials and much of the Arab world on edge.

During six months of paralysis in electing a Lebanese president, Iranian and Syrian support for the Shiite Muslim party, Hezbollah, has flourished while the U.S. has tried to keep its Sunni ally, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, from being ousted.

In this contest is the danger that Lebanon may turn into a full-fledged battleground in the ongoing conflict between the U.S. and Iran, which is allied with Syria to derail Lebanon's fragile democracy.

The possibility of bloodshed within Lebanon's sensitive patchwork of Sunnis, Shiites and Christians recalls the civil war that savaged Beirut from 1975 to 1990, killing thousands of Lebanese and hundreds of Americans, too.
Syria and Hezbollah "are all Iranian cards in the cold war with the U.S.,'' Mouafac Harb, a Beirut-based Lebanese- American political consultant, said in a Washington interview.

Iran is arming Hezbollah with long-range missiles that are being trucked across Syria's border, according to U.S., British and Israeli officials. Iran has also funneled at least $50 million to Hezbollah-linked organizations "that support acts of violence,'' Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt said in a Feb. 8 speech.

Warships, Humvees

The Bush administration has been pushing unsuccessfully for Hezbollah to be disarmed in accordance with a United Nations resolution that ended the group's 2006 war with Israel. It has positioned American warships off Lebanon's coast and is delivering U.S. Humvees and ammunition to the Lebanese army.

"Lebanon is the battlefield'' in a "fierce struggle'' says Fawaz Gerges, an expert on Islamic militancy at Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, New York. "The country stands at the brink of another major conflict.''

The 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah illustrates how quickly one violent incident -- a cross-border attack by Hezbollah on Israeli soldiers -- might escalate. Hezbollah fired Iranian-made rockets into Israel during the conflict.
Oussama Safa, director of Beirut's Lebanese Center for Policy Studies, says Iran's influence in Lebanon ``is part of a conflict with the U.S. across the region,'' and in Lebanon, ``Iran plays the role of spoiler without much cost.''

Syrian Dominance

The dispatch of American warships was meant to signal to Syria and Iran that their interference in Lebanon won't be tolerated, U.S. officials say. Syria dominated Lebanon during a 29-year occupation that ended in 2005 amid protests over the murder of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.

To combat Iranian and Syrian influence in Lebanon, the U.S. has made some unusual allies. One is Samir Geagea, a Maronite Christian aligned with Siniora who was sentenced to death for crimes committed during Lebanon's civil war and later pardoned. He now runs Lebanese Forces, a party with its roots in the militia he headed. Last month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice welcomed Geagea in Washington.

U.S. assistance to the Lebanese military soared to more than $320 million last year from less than $1 million in 2005. The Bush administration pledged an additional $770 million at a Paris donors' conference to rebuild Lebanon following the 2006 war.

`Score Political Points'

Still, the U.S. has made little headway in isolating Syria and Iran, Gerges says. "The opposition, led by Hezbollah, has used the deployment of U.S. warships to score political points against the pro-Western governing coalition,'' he says.
Arab allies of the U.S. are also concerned. Saudi Arabia and Egypt sent lower-level officials rather than heads of state to the March 29 Arab League summit in Damascus to reflect their discontent with Syria for helping Iran grow its foothold in Lebanon. Syria invited Iran to the gathering.

To keep Lebanon in a state of political disarray, Syria is working with Hezbollah -- Party of God in Arabic -- to prevent a vote for president in Lebanon's parliament, U.S. officials and analysts say. Balloting has been postponed 17 times and is now scheduled for April 22.

The Bush administration is concerned that if the presidential stalemate goes on, Lebanon will begin to fracture.

"We're trying to organize it so everybody will be supportive of the current government, so there's a new president and so that the political crisis'' doesn't escalate, Welch says. "It's already grave enough as it is. We don't want to see an economic or social crisis, and by social, what I mean is sectarian.''

Deadly Bombing

In an echo of Lebanon's past violence, an American embassy car was targeted in a January bombing that killed three Lebanese bystanders.

Whether Lebanon again descends into chaos might depend on whether Iran and Syria retaliate against U.S. and international sanctions imposed to thwart Iran's nuclear program. "If the Iranians and the Syrians feel the heat, then the chances of a major confrontation in Lebanon are higher,'' Harb says.
For Welch, the worry of Lebanon becoming a battlefield again is intertwined with personal experience. In 1983, as a young diplomat in Washington, he was in charge of monitoring the country.

There are still "two opposing forces in the region,'' he says. The U.S. and its allies "would propose to resolve their conflicts'' through negotiation, while Iran, Syria and Hezbollah favor resistance and believe "patience in combination with violence will win out.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Janine Zacharia in Washington at jzacharia@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: March 31, 2008 20:13 EDT

[Jim Nickerson]

Does Anyone Remember?

Recently some poster was touting his belief in either gold or PM's here and as I remember he wrote that he had 75% percent of his allocation and family members in some form of PM's. It could have even been 85%. I've tried searching various words, but cannot locate his posts. Does anyone happen to remember his name? I'd like to reread his posts.

[Guest]

"Calling Krakknisse - come in please Krakknisse"

"Calling Krakknisse - come in please Krakknisse"

Krakknisse -

In case you found our exchange on this topic a little too "pointed", I just wanted to "point" out a couple of things.

One. (most important) I really do find your posts excellent, very smart and on-the-ball. And I am certainly not so boring of nature that differences of opinion about politics, religion or any other damn thing leave me in the slightest bit unfriendly to people I disagree with. Look at Rajiv - I vehemently disagree with lots of stuff he believes, (sometimes I think he's plain nuts) but I find him a very worthy contributor here and enjoy reading all his stuff. Same goes for you.

Two. (this is a little 'thorny') If anyone posts opinions about a political entity, person or government, which states things like 'they are out of control, bordering on unscrupulous war-mongers' or anything to that effect - I fully respect their right to make these arguments, but they should not expect that all the ensuing replies would be entirely gentle, because their posted thesis could hardly be considered gentle itself.

Fair, no? Therefore if one posts scathing condemnations of anyone, it's only fair that one should be prepared to defend one's views 'vigorously' - and that is exactly what we've done on this thread.

It's my privilege meantime to discuss anything with you Krakknisse. And BTW, your avatar's 'headgear' is quite striking. He's very distinctive around here - a very long, tall 'bright red' and 'sharply pointy' hat! Good for making sharp points with!

[krakknisse]

Re: "Calling Krakknisse - come in please Krakknisse"

"[SNIPPED]Calling Krakknisse - come in please Krakknisse"...
1. (most important) I really do find your posts excellent, very smart and on-the-ball. ... that differences of opinion about politics, religion or any other damn thing leave me in the slightest bit unfriendly to people I disagree with. ...
2. (this is a little 'thorny') If anyone posts opinions about a political entity, .. but they should not expect that all the ensuing replies would be entirely gentle, because their posted thesis could hardly be considered gentle itself.
3. avatar's 'headgear'

You certainly had a lot of arguments, and it came a little out of left field to "smack me on the head". As I said repeatedly, this is what I came here for. So though I may seem a little desperate to defend myself against your onslaught - I asked for it. Thanks for the headsmack.

I will not give up my central assertion that if McCain wins, war is more likely. That speech is going down in the history books if he gets elected. I'm not as adamant, but still pretty adamant, that there are various options for major player's foreign policy, including the Bush-McCain doctrine, but also variants such as the Powell-Weinberger doctrine, and - my particular favorite - the "Jeffersonian" policy. All have advantages and disadvantages for the various players (and the sheeple involved, getting shafted in various ways under the different policies). The central point of my criticism of McCain's foreign policy is that he doesn't give adequate weight to:
1) The likelihood of success of a military intervention, including an exit strategy
2) The dire straits which the US economy and international goodwill finds itself in now
3) The possible instability of collective security
4) The general feasibility of promoting "democracy"/"good government"/"a better world" at gunpoint.

We disagree on the weightings. But there is no "philosophers stone" in foreign policy that will turn the world into a Garden of Eden. This is a more proscriptive debate than the observational "if McCain wins", but as you've noted repeatedly I made my bias clear early on. It will be interesting to revisit this thread in a year! I have to get some work done... Can we wrap it up for now?

The "nisse" is a fun way of seeing bearishness, a celebration of the minority status that bearishness currently has. Look up the nisse on WP, Originally a "crash nisse" was a pejorative (which spawned a counter-pejorative, "debt nisse"), now a term of endearment. On the particular local "nisse" blog I visit, we greet each other with "More porridge now" - a hint towards the frugality and sacrifice which "nisse-ness" requires. Yes, the nisse can be quite pointed and grumpy (like Jim's "contrary old fart"). But in the end, the nisse will withstand hardship, hide under the hay in the barn, and whatever, and come back to always taunt the powers that be. Quite ITulip-like, I think.

[Guest]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

I have to get some work done... Can we wrap it up for now?

Yes of course Krakknisse. I appreciate the time you took to discuss this issue, and even more your sportsmanlike conclusion, which wins my admiration. That is one of the very best attributes of all the most free thinking iTulip contributors. Not all contributors necessarily adhere to it in full measure, but when we do this place is functioning at it's best!

I fully understand it's difficult for many well informed readers here who disagree with my expressed viewpoints (probably percieved as merely "pro-American" which would be simplistic) it's difficult for them to look beyond the questionably forceful US intervention in Iraq and notice that the sabotaging efforts of other players have played a major part in the US efforts having come to such a heavily compromised end.

There are some extremely cynical other players actively sabotaging the best intentions in the region. They have a tremendous amount of blood on their hands, and that blood was shed a great deal more cynically than it has been by any US military. The occasional scandals of war crimes are found in every single war in history. To single out those committed by US troops is merely seizing on single issues to sharpen the axe of a preconceived agenda.

Without a full acknowledgement that there are other players in the region who's notions of the value of human life in the pursuit of their regional aims make the US troops on the ground look exemplary in comparison, there can be no rational or even fully ethical "meeting of the minds" to discuss the US's full culpability for the present mess. True objectivity heals a great deal in disagreements, and when employed in discussions such as this one, objectivity vaults the quality of Itulip discussions about "politics" (that's the "electrified deathly third rail" of all topics here) to a high and admirably constructive level.

We'll certainly pick it up again in a year and follow up conclusions will be interesting.