- culture follows culture
- there has been a shift in Saudi domestic political involvement with their women and I read where cosmetic surgery is becoming real popular over there and it won't be long until the women are allowed to drive in that wealthy society and more of them are getting more education - granted, it's a downward trickle but real, not that they are going to be erecting Thomas Jefferson statues any time soon. These are essentially trappings, vague, of Democracy but some regard it as a waning of Patriarchal power as well.
Political handsprings to attract attention -- or deflect it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
I don't see how a theory can help or hurt us... actions based on that theory would be another story, and in that event we'd have to assess the impact of the actions.
Political rhetoric. Not worth assessing.
Quote:
Are we striving for stability in the Middle East, or democracy? They are not the same thing, and trying to force democratic transitions is hardly going to promote stability... quite the opposite.
In order, No; No; Only a few Ideological oddjobs even tried -- and that only briefly. The object was to send a message that attacks on American interest worldwide emanating from the ME would no longer be tolerated as Afghanistan was a message to the world not to attack American soil; two different things in two very different areas. Needed to do all that without disrupting world oil supply. The 'democracy bit was an afterthought in an attempt to replace the flawed WMD rationale.
Quote:
The Gulf States are not democratic, but what business of ours is that? ... We've more than enough problems elsewhere...
True and you'll note that we've made no noise to them -- or the Saudis -- and very little to Pakistan about democracy...
I don't pay much attention to domestic politcs because it's so predictable
and boring, so I'm not at all sure -- nor do I care - who wears what tags but my perception is that the Neocons were former liberals who became conservative and got, through Cheney, various positions in the last Administration. Perception is also that they made no noise about the Saudis but that those who opposed the previous administration and the Neocons were noisy about our failure to 'tackle' the Saudis or Pakistan and instead making the mistake of attacking Afghanistan -- until that worked, then they switched to the mistake of attacking Iraq. They are now quiet and will likely remain so until Iraq erupts than it will be someone else's fault.
Everyone seems to have an idea about Iran...
Thanks for the corrrection
I thought I recalled scanning the left leaning blogs over the past few years and seeing a great deal of froth about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan being ignored as friends of the Bush family while poor Afghanistan was attacked and we went to Iraq for the oil...
Not of any great interest to me then or now so my recall could be off. Blog chatter and pundits don't know or say much of note. Yes, including me :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
Does anyone have a good idea on what to do in Iran? I hope so, because I don't.
My vote would be to resume diplomatic relations -- or try; that would put them in a put up or shut up position. They want the Persian Empire back but know that's not likely; they want International respect but on their terms because they are the Persian Empire who rule from the Bosporus to Samarkand -- except they don't...
They're conflicted and have delusions of grandeur and the leaders are really rather happy with their own little world, demanding things from the west, tweaking the nose of the great Satan. So my solution is, as it is for North Korea, play the game as we have been doing since 1979 and 1953 respectively. Certainly cheaper than most alternatives. :wry:
But then, I'm not a nuke worrier, whether has the the capability or not I believe makes little real difference.
Back to jcustis' original post...
jcustis - any answer to your question(s) relating to why the US (or the Bush admin) invaded Iraq is complicated, not least as most if not all of the main Bush admin decision makers almost certainly had several justifications of equal relevance for taking down Iraq. Indeed, no state, no group of policy makers ever (well, maybe on rare occasions somewhere in history) commits to war for one reason. In other words, there no short answer. My view, for what it is worth and which broadly accords with Ken White’s, is as follows as shortly as I can make it given it is well past midnight and my bedtime (and I am out of single malt):
A) The rationale of Iraq becoming nuclear state was more about providing legitimacy for the invasion of Iraq in the eyes of the American public and garnering international legitimacy as well (ie, Husseins violation of UN Sec Council resolutions, so UN support, which provides more internal legitimacy). But some of the principles, probably Rumsfeld and Cheney, believed this the main, or at least a principle, casus belli.
B) The neocons, as well as agreeing with the publicly articulated need to remove a putative threat (which they had wanted to do since 1991!), perceived the source of terrorism was, well, the Middle East itself. 9/11 posed a conundrum: 50 or so years of US policy towards the Middle East resulted in three airliners smashing into buildings on American soil (with a fourth thwarted by the heroic measure of that plane’s passengers) plus 15 of 19 of the hijackers were Saudi’s. So, do you continue with the same policies as before (which is what the Europeans were arguing at the time) or do you do something different? Possibly radically different? We know what the Bush admin decided…..
C) Take this and think about 15 Saudi nationalists as the hijackers. Saudi is a problem. Well, not really ‘the’ problem, The problem as the Bu####es saw it, it seems to me, was the why behind what these 15 did what they did. The Euros at the time argued it was about poverty, lack of education, etc and so on, except the 15 were all at least middle class, looking at a future as professionals with a comfortable life style (you know, 2.3 wives, 3.4 kids, 4.1 cars, etc and so on). So, the answer for the neocons was that these 15 (and the other four) did what they did because they were politically disenfranchised – that is, they were not free, did not live in democracies. The Neo Cons were as, I term them, messianic democrats – a foundation of their view of how to ensure US security was to transform the world into democracies (and yes, seriously long term goal – and imperialistic goals at that). So, to generalize, the source of terrorism in the Mid East for them was (is?) the systems of governance – they are not democratic.
D) So, the solution to terrorism, long term at least, is to transform the governance in the Mid East. For the Neo Cons believed, as Wolfowitz publically argued, that Islam and Arabic culture were not incompatible with democratic governance, contrary to what many argued (including many on the left who made this politically incorrectly argument).
E) There is clearly a central problem in Saudi A, yet US cannot attack and overthrow the House of Saud. Heck, the US cannot really even pressurize it too much, because a) the US receives about 10% of its oil from Saudi [I likely have the percentage wrong, but not far off], and b) you need the House of Saud on side to sustain the King Fahd [sic?] Airbase, a forward US military base. Which the US needs why? To deter Hussein’s propensity for adventurism. Interestingly enough, within 3-4 months of the toppling of Hussein the US had reportedly mothballed the airbase and removed all US personnel (well, I think all). [Hmm, what did Osama demand in his 1996 declaration of war against the US? – right, the removal of all American personnel from the Islamic Holy Land.] Oddly enough, thereafter the House of Saud started to take the threat of AQ more seriously. And yes, in part as AQ elements started to attack the Saudi state, but there is a bit of a chicken and egg question here – which came first, increasing pressure by the House of Saud on supporters of AQ - and likely quietly pressured by the US to do this - with the AQ elements responding with violence (no more safe haven!) or the other way around?
F) It was argued that Iraq had, under Hussein, was the most educated and middle class society, and so was most amenable to democracy (there are hints of Marxism in this assessment!). Plus of course that Chalabi and other external dissidents saying the US would be greeted as liberators (telling the neo cons what they thought was true). And if Iraq becomes democratic it serves an exemplar for the rest of the population that their countries, Islamic and Arabic though they may be, could be democratic too. So, yes, there was as a rational the view (hope) if the US destabilized the Mid East and established a democracy in Iraq, a democratic domino theory would come to pass. Topple, topple, topple…..
To be cont....
