check this (LINK) and remind me again why the UN deserves respect...
Oh, mildly off thread but could someone
check this (LINK) and remind me again why the UN deserves respect...
They're still POed at the US because we cut off the bribes from Saddam.Originally Posted by Ken White
If the UN Human Rights Council had an ounce of integrity, it would recommend disbanding itself because of its threat to human rights.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
If you want to hear my most cynical side, I would say that they were blindsided by Iraq because they could not possibly imagine the US would lob them such a gimme. I've never prayed so much in my life as I did between October 2002 and March 2003 that we would not go into Iraq. I firmly believed that it would not work out so well as we hoped it would. I remember being mocked in April, May, and even June of that year, because it seemed to be going so splendidly. But I am firm believer that Humpty Dumpty originated as a true story, a bit of military history taught to children as a nursery rhyme, and I just knew that once broken, Iraq would pose nearly insurmountable problems in its reconstruction. And these would be especially difficult problems unlike those posed by Germany and Japan, because we would not have the mandate to do as we wished as the victorious can over the bad guy aggressors. But if you really look closely at the post-war history of those two countries, at the end of the day we gave them most of what they needed and had clumsily sought in war.Ken White wrote: Possibly. I suspect they realized that our ability to go heavy in Afghanistan was limited and therefor trounceable. Note that in Iraq, they (AQ et.al.) had almost as much trouble and took almost as much time getting militarily organized as we did. Saddams loyalists and the local crimianl gangs were better prepapred but were not a part of "them" (AQ et.al.). The different approach than they expected also took a toll on them in Afghanistan and I suggest that it took them longer to get organized there than it took us. As I said, they are more agile and flexible than us; therefor I think their slowness in adaptation in both theaters is a sign of some weakness. Saddam's folks just got worn down and were running low on money.
I wish I had been wrong. But unfortunately I don't think I was. And I do not fear to say that the Iraq intervention was the worst mistake of American foreign policy.
There, I've bared the depths of my historian's soul.
Regards,
Jill
Because it's a noble idea. Furthermore, it's a noble idea that we promulgated. If it has gone awry, then we should treat it as one might his child who has lost his way.Ken White wrote: check this (LINK) and remind me again why the UN deserves respect...
Furthermore, even if the UN has lost its way, even if we don't think that it serves the purposes for which it was established, even if it does not serve our needs, even if it is beyond the redemption we think necessary, what we ought to recognize that the weak and many states of this globe find it valuable, and if only for that we ought to respect and support it.
Regards,
Jill
How would that work, exactly? I am not sure if that is a helpful way of thinking of the problem.
He cloaked himself in a veil of impenetrable terminology.
It's a philosophical answer to Ken's question. If you have a child, and that child goes off the rails, do you stop loving that child? You may realize and acknowledge the errors, but you don't stop loving the child, you don't renounce him, you don't abandon him. The UN was our idea, we brought it into this world, we believed it in it, and we worked very hard to get the other states of the world to believe in it as well. It would be petty to forsake it because it hasn't become exactly what we want. If we believe it has gone wrong, then we must work to reform it. But again, even if we can't, go back and read my second paragraph - for the pragmatic reason that the small and weak states of the world believe in it it is valuable.Stevely wrote: How would that work, exactly? I am not sure if that is a helpful way of thinking of the problem.
Regards,
Jill
Unfortunately, that child is now a smelly unemployed adult who still lives over the garage. He raids the fridge, borrows money, and argues a lot but constributes almost nothing other than dirty laundry. Plus, he has been hanging out with some pretty unsavory people lately. Still loving him is fine but it might be time for some tough love.
SFC W
I don't think it's appropriate to anthropomorphize the problem like this. I would always love my child, regardless of how bad he went, because that's a natural and normal response of a parent for his child. The child is flesh of my flesh, after all. But the relationship between a nation of 300 million people and the international organization it helped found a couple of generations ago is far too abstract for feelings like that, there is nothing actually there to love. It is a mistake to treat organizations as if they were people, they exist only to serve people, so the feelings should be directed to those the organization serve. Thus an organization can and should be scrapped, bent, radically reformed, and so on for the sake of the served if the situation requires it. It's just a tool, really. Directing affection to a tool is misplaced, and may only end up doing no service to the people the tool was supposed to help.
Yes, it would be great to reform it, but UN reforms have never gone anywhere in the 60+ years of its existence. What happens when reform doesn't work out? I am also skeptical about its value to the many and weak states of the world - who is it really valuable to, the downtrodden and suffering who make up the bulk of the people in those states, or the kleptocrats who lord it over them? I am not calling for it to be disbanded or for us to withdraw, it probably still useful on the balance, but I would never regard it now as anything other than something we stay in for cold, pragmatic reasons, it is long since ceased to be anything like noble, really it's just a den of corruption.
He cloaked himself in a veil of impenetrable terminology.
I get so tired of hearing about how we should respect the UN. As far as I am concerned we have already shown more repect than the UN has earned.
Certainly the UN has done some fine charitable work around the world but so do Doctors without Borders and UNICEF and while I certainly appreciate the work that these organizations do I wouldn't consider subordinating US foreign policy to them. That is precisely what we are being asked to do by getting UN approval for our actions. Pardon me if I can't get behind the idea of France, China and Russia getting a vote in our foreign policy. Maybe it's the cynic in me but I just don't feel like they have our best interests at heart.Furthermore, even if the UN has lost its way, even if we don't think that it serves the purposes for which it was established, even if it does not serve our needs, even if it is beyond the redemption we think necessary, what we ought to recognize that the weak and many states of this globe find it valuable, and if only for that we ought to respect and support it.
SFC W
Valid premises and understandable emotions.
That too is possible but I'm not at all sure they now look at it as a gimme. I have little doubt they'd say they do but I suspect the reality is they're still nonplussed by the Iraq incursion. They ran it out and they aren't gone but their prognosis isn't good.Not being a praying type, I was merely incensed that it was being done so clumsily. I agreed with a need to do something in the ME; Iraq made strategic sense but the fumbling in the doing was apparent. He should have said nothing about Iraq, waited until his second term and gotten a better handle on things. My guess is that he feared if he did not get a second term, he was afraid his successor might not do something he thought needed doing. In any event, I wouldn't have done it the way it was done but I do believe it or something very near it was both necessary and overdue.I've never prayed so much in my life as I did between October 2002 and March 2003 that we would not go into Iraq.Me too, at least as it was being touted -- I gave it a 60:40 shot at success, decided Bush was a risk taker (he's also a an inveterate smart ass and since I'm both those things, I'm a little more receptive to him than many -- even though I disagree with much he's done) and figured it'd take three or four years. After Bremer fired the Iraqi Army and Police, I upped that to five years. 2008. I also think we're up to a 70:30 shot or thereabouts. We'll see...I firmly believed that it would not work out so well as we hoped it would.I'm not sure one can compare the post war WW II / Iraq situations in any meaningful way for many reasons; not least that Iraq does not feel beaten; that gives a different mind set as you noted. That and the religion angle plus the interplay of other States in the Region mean a very different environment. Add in todays mass and instant communication capabilities and parallels are difficult to discern. Of course, you did not compare them, noting the difference but to even use them as a corollary or a starting point is, I think, perhaps a bit misleading to one's own thought processes.I just knew that once broken, Iraq would pose nearly insurmountable problems in its reconstruction. And these would be especially difficult problems unlike those posed by Germany and Japan, because we would not have the mandate to do as we wished as the victorious can over the bad guy aggressors. But if you really look closely at the post-war history of those two countries, at the end of the day we gave them most of what they needed and had clumsily sought in war.
I also think our (well, some -- not you or I, obviously and among others) initial idea of 'victory' and a democratic highly secular Iraq have run into the wall of reality. No 'victory' in insurgencies, an acceptable outcome is all that's possible (and I hope we relearned that). Still, we could leave today and most of our strategic aims will have been achieved; it'd give the opponents a propaganda scream but the myth of "America won't fight, they'll leave when it gets tough" has been sort of put to bed -- that is totally unimportant to western thought; it is extremely important in the minds of those in the ME. Very different thought processes.Too soon to tell but I see the half full side...I wish I had been wrong. But unfortunately I don't think I was.On that, I disagree; there were many blunders in the process but the strategic issue, a response to and continuing presence in the ME, was going to be necessary at one time or another. It would have been easier in 1991; not easy, just easier. It was easier in 2003 than it will be later -- and if we leave too soon and too completely or on the wrong terms; we'll be back within ten years or so and it will be harder...And I do not fear to say that the Iraq intervention was the worst mistake of American foreign policy.And made sense doing it. Thank you for the good response. I understand where you're coming from, we may disagree on some issues and I'm very much aware there are probably more people who agree with thee than with me but we're all products of where we've been and age makes a difference.There, I've bared the depths of my historian's soul.
My defining moment was Pearl Harbor; my wife's was the Kennedy assassination, my second son's Desert Storm (or maybe OEF/OIF, he just says the ME?), my daughter's was 9/11. "My war" was Korea, after it Laos, Viet Nam and the other places were easy. Point being that age skews your historical perception. My pick for the greatest foreign policy fiasco of my life would be Viet Nam. It cost the US more in every respect (including respect...) than have the last seven years and it still reverberates 46 years later. My belief is that Iraq will be looked much differently and more favorably in all respects in another 40 years. Again, we'll see. In any event, being a historian, I expect you to write the definitive book on it!
Thanks again for the response.
Drop it like its bon mot
J Wolfsberger quoted:Let us say the following claim:"Not all uses of tu quoque arguments involve logical fallacy. They can be properly used to bring about awareness of inconsistency, to indirectly repeal a criticism by narrowing its scope or challenging its criteria, or to call into question the credibility of a source of knowledge."
(p1) "A's reputation is declining."
(p2) The counter claim is "well B, C, D, and so on are worse."
How does p2 make us aware of an inconsistency or contradiction? The original claim, and issue on the thread, was P1. P2 is irrelevant to refuting anything inherent to P1's claim. For it to show us "an awareness of inconsistency" it would need to show that P1 and P2 couldn't both be true and couldn't both be false, which is clearly wrong as they both are true. America's reputation is declining (p1) according to that report. There are also countries far, far worse than America (p2), as other posters here have pointed out. But that doesn't refute the truth of P1.
You might be able to argue that P2 narrows the scope and criteria of P1. Which I would agree with. However, that doesn't refute the original claim. It only calls into question the crappy measurements to which P1, or the report, used.
patmc said:Touche. It was an ad hominem on my behalf. It won't happen again and I will strike out the offending sentence. However, I haven't run out of facts. I was calling into question the irrelevant arguments that were being presented. Facts don't win arguments when the individuals use them fallaciously.Snapperhead, when people run out of facts, they resort to name calling, so thanks for showing your cards.
Respectfully,
A psuedo-intellectual juggernaut
Ken White said:Incorrect. I pointed out a species of red herring fallacy many of the posters have displayed. Refute his claims (as you have done) not address the irrelevant claim of whether or not other countries are worse than the U.S. The issue on the thread are claims about America's reputation yes? Not the reputation of other countries.To include Fuchs' (but not snapperhead who has contributed nothing other than pseudointellectual bon mots).
EDIT: It appears I'm either clueless at editing on this particular forum, or you can't edit old posts. Either way my preceding post, which include the ad hominem, stands for all to see as a signpost of my idiocy.
Last edited by snapperhead; 06-14-2008 at 10:03 AM. Reason: couldn't edit other comment
There's a time limit of approx. two hours for editing your posts.
BTW, as time permits you, please go here and introduce yourself.
Regards, Stan
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Thank you for totally validating my assertion.
AhhhhPossibly true but how pertinent is it?Touche. It was an ad hominem on my behalf. It won't happen again and I will strike out the offending sentence. However, I haven't run out of facts. I was calling into question the irrelevant arguments that were being presented. Facts don't win arguments when the individuals use them fallaciously.My point was that lectures on academic debate technique are pointless and add little to a discussion of the topic at hand which as you say pertain to the reputation of America.Ken White said:
Incorrect. I pointed out a species of red herring fallacy many of the posters have displayed. Refute his claims (as you have done) not address the irrelevant claim of whether or not other countries are worse than the U.S. The issue on the thread are claims about America's reputation yes? Not the reputation of other countries.
EDIT: It appears I'm either clueless at editing on this particular forum, or you can't edit old posts. Either way my preceding post, which include the ad hominem, stands for all to see as a signpost of my idiocy.
I was referring to the idea that our intervention in Iraq, as a whole, was a gimme. That AQI has managed to shoot itself in both feet with its intervention is a piece of luck we could not have relied upon. They were entirely too brutal with the general population -- perhaps they ought to have read a bit more of Mao. It does, however, speak to the fact that there are not nearly so smart (and thus, not nearly such a formidable enemy) as we give them credit for being. On the other hand, AQI is not the only source of trouble in Iraq, so that even if we've managed to reduce that problem to a manageable size, we are still left with the fact that the our intervention unleashed a whole host of other radicalized forces and factions. We could still have major problems with the domestic forces who aren't particularly keen on our intervention or continued presence. (See below re chances for success viz. the SOFA.On the point of OIF as an AQ gimme, Ken wrote: That too is possible but I'm not at all sure they now look at it as a gimme. I have little doubt they'd say they do but I suspect the reality is they're still nonplussed by the Iraq incursion. They ran it out and they aren't gone but their prognosis isn't good.
Ken, I'm a devout agnostic. What amounts to prayer in the rest of my life are the occasional conversations I have with whatever might be out there about the state of things in general. I suppose this piece of background ought to have been provided with the original comment, in order for you to understand the extent to which I did not want us to go into Iraq in the manner we seemed to be. The last time I was so prayerful was during the Reagan administration, as a young teenager, when the prospect of nuclear war seemed quite large.On my comment about pre-OIF prayer, Ken wrote: Not being a praying type, I was merely incensed that it was being done so clumsily. I agreed with a need to do something in the ME; Iraq made strategic sense but the fumbling in the doing was apparent. He should have said nothing about Iraq, waited until his second term and gotten a better handle on things. My guess is that he feared if he did not get a second term, he was afraid his successor might not do something he thought needed doing. In any event, I wouldn't have done it the way it was done but I do believe it or something very near it was both necessary and overdue.
And yet, every time things seem to be getting better, we seem almost to want to screw them up again. In this case I am referring to the SOFA discussions. 50+ bases, immunity for our personnel (military and contract), and control of airspace up to 29K feet, to name a few, seems a bit in excess. I mean, if I only consider the basing issues, almost 60 bases is just incredible to me -- we are BRACing the US and proposing a near profligate number of bases in Iraq. It also doesn't really make sense to me from a logistical point of view -- so many bases just requires that many more people to service them. I would love it if someone could explain the thinking on this to me -- or point me to a source that explains it.On the prospects for success in OIF, Ken wrote: I also think we're up to a 70:30 shot or thereabouts. We'll see...
My exact point was that we could not compare what we did in Germany or Japan to Iraq. In the former we had the victor's mandate, which we most assuredly do not have in Iraq. Thus, how we can act there is far more constrained, and we must tread very lightly and differently. Furthermore, we can't justify our future presence in Iraq on the history of our presences in Germany and Japan (or Korea).On the question of post-war occupation, comparing WWII and OIF, Ken wrote: I'm not sure one can compare the post war WW II / Iraq situations in any meaningful way for many reasons; not least that Iraq does not feel beaten; that gives a different mind set as you noted. That and the religion angle plus the interplay of other States in the Region mean a very different environment. Add in todays mass and instant communication capabilities and parallels are difficult to discern. Of course, you did not compare them, noting the difference but to even use them as a corollary or a starting point is, I think, perhaps a bit misleading to one's own thought processes.
One thing that kept us in Vietnam so long was that we feared that our allies and enemies would doubt our credibility if we gave up the cause. What we didn't realize was that after a certain point our credibility was being damaged for not recognizing that the cause was irremediable. The point is, credibility cuts both ways.Ken wrote: I also think our (well, some -- not you or I, obviously and among others) initial idea of 'victory' and a democratic highly secular Iraq have run into the wall of reality. No 'victory' in insurgencies, an acceptable outcome is all that's possible (and I hope we relearned that). Still, we could leave today and most of our strategic aims will have been achieved; it'd give the opponents a propaganda scream but the myth of "America won't fight, they'll leave when it gets tough" has been sort of put to bed -- that is totally unimportant to western thought; it is extremely important in the minds of those in the ME. Very different thought processes.
Perhaps. But I believed (and still do, though now it would be so much more difficult to do -- perhaps under a different administration) that if we really wanted to do something of value in the ME, our much better choice would have been to settle the Israel-Palestine problem. My wild-eyed optimist's, American military can do good, utopian idea was for the US to broker a peace guaranteed, particularly on behalf of the Palestinians, by a military presence. That is, we could have helped to settle things down by serving as the Palestinian defense force. (Sort of how the UN provides forces to sit in the Sinai.) This would have provided both sides with a sense of security, and would have been such a huge boon to our standing in the region. It also would have snatched a huge piece of AQ's propaganda and recruiting energy right out from under them.On the need to do something in the ME, Ken wrote: On that, I disagree; there were many blunders in the process but the strategic issue, a response to and continuing presence in the ME, was going to be necessary at one time or another. It would have been easier in 1991; not easy, just easier. It was easier in 2003 than it will be later -- and if we leave too soon and too completely or on the wrong terms; we'll be back within ten years or so and it will be harder...
Vietnam was a colossal error. The differences between Iraq and Vietnam revolve around two points which, from a foreign policy perspective, are significant to me: Vietnam had an extant conflict which we did not create and there was a putative ally which had asked for our intervention. Neither of these obtained in Iraq. It goes back to my point about not being the party to cross the line of departure first. I just think it's bad, bad in just about any case I can imagine, and a rule we ought to just consider inviolate. If we ever come to a point where it ought to be broken, it will be so obvious as to be of the character of the exception that proves the rule. Bottom line, I do not believe in preemptive war. It's just war with an excuse. And recent history hasn't been kind to those who have started wars.On the magnitude of the error in deciding to interven in Iraq, Ken wrote: My defining moment was Pearl Harbor; my wife's was the Kennedy assassination, my second son's Desert Storm (or maybe OEF/OIF, he just says the ME?), my daughter's was 9/11. "My war" was Korea, after it Laos, Viet Nam and the other places were easy. Point being that age skews your historical perception. My pick for the greatest foreign policy fiasco of my life would be Viet Nam. It cost the US more in every respect (including respect...) than have the last seven years and it still reverberates 46 years later.
I am not so partisan that I want Iraq to fail simply to be proven right.Ken wrote: My belief is that Iraq will be looked much differently and more favorably in all respects in another 40 years. Again, we'll see. In any event, being a historian, I expect you to write the definitive book on it!
I do worry that eventual success in Iraq might give people the idea that preemptive war is something to give serious consideration to. It would be bad enough if we started to think this way, but such a development in thinking would be hugely dangerous if our potential enemies came to the conclusion that preemption was a good idea.
As for the historian comment, don't make me get all "aw shucks" on you. After I finish the dissertation, I would like to take a crack at a social history of the officer corps -- turns out it's fairly virgin territory. I'd also like to do something with my husband about his advisory deployments -- I just think it would be really cool -- how often in history can you put that sort of thing together, a husband-wife team of officer and historian. It's like a perfect storm. By the time all that's done it might be a good time to take a crack at a real historical analysis of the decision to intervene in Iraq. I promise to do my to keep an open mind.
No, no, thank you!Ken wrote: Thanks again for the response.
Seriously, this is where these sorts of fora work best -- when differing points of view can be hashed out seriously and without dopey rancor. Let's pat ourselves on the back!
Regards,
Jill
Thanks for the comments and the link
First: Ken thanks for the link, the absurdity of it all made me laugh so hard that I nearly fell off of my chair.
Jill: Thank you for your informative comments- they were dead on and absolutely correct. I am afraid that I used a poor choice of words. What I was really trying to focus on was public support for US military involvement. As you have said, we were already engaged in supporting one side and American intervention would not have altered the policies of Japan or Germany. Certainly what we face today is totally different. But I must admit to some "what if" ponderings. "What if" back then the American public was exposed to the instantaneous media blitz and worldwide access to global communications that exist today? Would it have changed the any of the events?
I agree with you that the AQ 9-11 attack was a provocation. There is no doubt that AQ has waged a magnificent PR war. I would also add that just by carrying out a large successful attack on US soil, they empowered and recruited quite a few followers.
Iraq: I must confess that I never believed that WMD's were the reason we went into Iraq, I always believed it was to create a new dynamic in the ME and we know how well that went. You are right- it definitely has been a foreign policy nightmare.
That said, it seems as if we have a second chance to turn things around, stabilize Iraq and do some Foreign Policy damage control- if there is public and political support for the opportunity to do so. How can we not be encouraged when we hear that AQ is losing the battle for "hearts and minds" in Iraq (if they ever really had them to start with).
I am less hopeful about the media war/global communications blitz and how it will effect American public opinion and our willingness to engage in diplomatic or military intervention in the world.
Goodnight, Brenda
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks