Robert Kagan and Muslim Democracy
Robert Kagan’s new book, The World America Made, argues with a straight face that an anti-American Egypt is good for the United States, as long as it is democratic. This remarkable assertion encapsulates the trouble with most foreign policy thinking on the right wing of American politics. I review the book today at Tablet Magazine; in a nutshell: ”Kagan’s purpose in defending U.S. foreign-policy activism here is to deflect criticism of America’s unpopular engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is no easy task, and to perform it, Kagan adopts the two-stage approach to persuasion made famous by Prof. Harold Hill in The Music Man: Establish first that there is trouble in River City, and then propose a solution, namely a marching band. Kagan also offers a marching band, but with 40 divisions behind it.”
Hardest to fathom is Kagan’s enduring faith in the efficacy of Muslim democracy. He writes:
The inevitable victory of Islamist parties in some Arab states will probably bring governments to power that are less accommodating to some American interests than the previous dictatorships had been….Americans’ enduring interest in a liberal world order generally transcends other, more narrow and temporary interests. The United States can lose an Egyptian ally but still gain a healthier world order.
Like many of his colleagues in the conservative foreign policy establishment, Kagan believes that the democratic process must lead to desirable content, no matter who is voting or for what reason. He believes that “devout Muslims” are the key to democracy in the Muslim world, and that the democratization of the Arab world will inaugurate a new “fourth wave” of democracy around the world. As I observe in the Tablet review:
In 2004, Kagan lauded in the New York Times the “small but growing movement among scholars of Islam, a group diverse enough to include Gilles Kepel of France and [fellowWeekly Standard contributor] Reuel Marc Gerecht of the United States, that believes the real promise of democracy lies with devout Muslims.” And he continues to believe that the world revolves around the prospects for Muslim democracy. After the second great wave of democracy that followed World War II, and a third wave from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, Kagan writes:
it is possible that in the Arab Spring we are seeing a continuation of the Third Wave, or perhaps even a fourth. The explosion of democracy is about to enter a fifth straight decade, the longest and broadest such expansion in history.
He has no illusions that Muslim democracy, should it materialize, will be friendly to America:
Americans, having helped topple dictators in the Middle East, are not sure how they feel about what may follow. The inevitable victory of Islamist parties in some Arab states will probably bring governments to power that are less accommodating to some American interests than the previous dictatorships had been.
But Kagan thinks this is a good thing rather than a bad thing: “Americans’ enduring interest in a liberal world order generally transcends other, more narrow and temporary interests. The United States can lose an Egyptian ally but still gain a healthier world order.” Indeed, he lauds the Obama Administration for helping to topple erstwhile Arab allies: “America found itself withdrawing support from longtime allies like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak. … American power became a decisive factor shaping the regional and international environment in which the Arab political turmoil unfolded.”
Spengler: “Like many of his colleagues in the conservative foreign policy establishment, Kagan believes that the democratic process must lead to desirable content, no matter who is voting or for what reason… American democracy brought forth good as well as evil, and the defining event in our history was the conflict between them. Surely there must be something greater than democratic procedure that informs the American character.”
Yes, and that would be our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Democracy is not a good form of government because majorities are prone by vote to rob their domestic minority of property, or to wage war against neighboring nations to rob them of property. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and that is why they created a Declarational/Constitutional Republic instead of a Democracy.
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.” Thomas Jefferson
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” Benjamin Franklin
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” John Adams
“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.” James Madison
“We are a Republican Government, Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy…it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny…” Alexander Hamilton
Our Declaration and Constitution forbid the violation of anyone’s natural God-given rights to life, liberty and fruit of labor in pursuit of happiness.
It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass [Electoral process of our Constitution]. They are inherently independent of all but moral law [Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights]…” Thomas Jefferson
Good thing that one of our Jewish Justices of the Supreme Court went over to Egypt a week ago and advised the Egyptians not to look to the US Constitution and its foundational documents for guidance in creating a new Egyptian constitution, heh?
Ruth Bader Ginsberg = Fail on multiple levels
It boils down to choosing between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison vs Ruth Ginsburg.
It looks like we’ll get to see whether Kagan is ultimately right or wrong, given that the experiment is already well past the point of undoing. If he’s wrong, at least revisionist historians won’t be able to say credibly that we didn’t reach out to Islam first, before things got really nasty. We’ll have acted according to our national beliefs, though it has and will cost us.
I think we should hedge this made bet by keeping our military strong, vigorously expanding domestic energy production, and staying close to our Israeli ally.
Well said. The only caveat I would add is in controlling our borders. We have a right to determine who is and is not allowed in this country. That being said, I also believe that since islam is anthithetical to our republic that all muslims should be strongly encouraged to leave our country.
But this won’t happen either. Obama is doing another “Clinton” and “Carter” number on the military. The Army alone is being drawn down by 80,000 troops. All services are experiencing the same massive shortages of spare parts they did under that last two Democrat administrations. And despite what Obama said about boosting our Intelligence capabilities, the fact is all agencies are seeing their budgets slashed by a considerable margin. One of my agency’s offices saw their five divisions reduced to two and 130 billets were eliminated. Of this, 48, who were just moved to Charlottesville, VA from Washington D.C. not more than a year and a half ago in the BRAC are now out of a job. Several people I know sold their homes at a major loss to move down there and their new homes have lost even more value since they’ve been there, and yet now they’re expected to sell at a loss a second time and move back here if they want a job. Their moves are covered, but not their losses.
And we’ve lost 50 billets in my new office. So, that’s 180 jobs gone just in two offices. Others are taking hits too.
How is it in our interest to have the Suez Canal in the hands of those who consider us enemies.
And to go there, Hitler didn’t gain power through a putsch, but through an election.
and a few hundred assasinations…
Democracy is more than just voting for one fool over another every 4 years. Real democracy involves individual rights, the rule of law and belief in civil society.
I wish Egyptians luck. I really do. But I fear the Islamists will lead them to catastrophe.
We do have a model to look to, actually wa have two, Gaza, and the Weat Bank, One man, one vote one time!
Kagan is not very informed on the subject of Islam. If he were to delve into the Koran, Sira and Hadith he would find ample evidence that DEMOCRACY is not in the Islamic lexicon. Muslims, in their use of taqiyya, will say what the gullible western elites want to hear, democracy, freedom, elections etc. in their effort to keep western civilization asleep.
Of course, our leadership is buying the blather hook, line and sinker. Will we in America wake up in time to keep Islam from taking our country away from us?
Spengler: “American democracy brought forth good as well as evil…”
Even though the Old South was in compliance with the Constitution, it was in violation of the Declaration of Independence. Our Constitution, as good as it is, is not always good enough. All Federal laws – including the Constitution its self – must first be in compliance with our Declaration of Independence – the supreme un-amendable natural/moral law of the United States. That is why the 3/5 clause of Article I, Section 2 required correction via Amendment 14, because Article I, Section 2 was in violation of the Declaration of Independence: “All men are created equal – that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights – that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” This is also why Amendment 16 must be revoked or amended – because excessive taxation of an individual’s income also violates the Declaration of Independence – it violates the individual’s God-given unalienable right to keep the fruit of his/her own labor in pursuit of happiness.
I am always surprised when otherwise knowlegeable people infer that the 3/5 rule defined slaves as less than fully human, as if it was a statement of racism. It was nothing of the sort. It had nothing to do with the philosophy of what constitutes “humanness.”
The 3/5 rule was a compromise that weakened the Southern states very dramatically, and I’m surprised the South agreed to it. It was not a statement about the degree of humanity possessed by black slaves, but a method of reducing the number of representatives (and thus also of presidential Electors) the slave states would be sending to Congress. It was the Northern states’ way of reducing the power and influence of the South.
Imagine, if you will, the early years of the republic, were every slave to have been counted in the census, 1-1 with whites. What a difference it would have made. It would in effect have given the slave states a permanent effective veto over the North. America would have developed in a dramatically different way than it did. I’m certain that those who denounce the 3/5 rule would be horrified by such an America.
Real humans are always counted equally – one for one – irregardless of the prevailing political and social circumstances; only someone considered “less equal than others” would be counted as a fraction. Imagine, if you will, the early years of the republic, where every human being, black and white, was counted in the census 1 to 1. What a difference it would have made. It would have ended the immoral and irrational idea that some people are more equal than others. Counting human beings as a fraction is immoral on its face, and should not be considered a legitimate way of reducing the number of representatives that a state would be sending to Congress; I’m disgusted that the North suggested it. The 3/5 rule amounted to an elitist method of social engineering for nefarious political purposes. No doubt the Pigs of Animal Farm would approve of the 3/5 rule; they might even count the “little animals” as ½ in order to further reduce their representation. Do I hear ¼?
Me again. Somehow I badly misspelled my name last time.
For a guy who seems to be pretty smart, your reply is awfully silly. You come across as historically informed, but this item is obviously a blind spot you can’t examine rationally.
You insist on characterizing this as a moral issue, which it was not, but even if it were, you see the morality exactly inside out. The 3/5 rule WAS IN BLACKS’ FAVOR. It was a blow to the slaveholders. A crippling blow.
Your insistence on believing the oft misinterpreted surface meaning that 3/5 meant blacks were only seen as 3/5 of a person betrays a real ignorance of the situation. We had a wonderful, perfectly well functioning constitution at the time of the Constitutional Convention. The Congress, under the Articles of Confederation authorized a Convention to recommend certain small, defined, alterations to the Articles. The delegates to the Convention decided to throw out the Articles and start from scratch. In effect, launch a legalistic coup détat.
We, today, might feel quite well disposed toward the Constitution those conspirators cooked up, but the people of the states certainly were very skeptical when it was presented to them. Ratification was anything but a certainty. It was, in fact, unlikely. Thus, the Federalist papers, and the Antifederalist papers. It was damned hard work dragging that thing across the finish line.
So, in that world, not your dream world, a 1-1 counting of black slaves and free whites would simply be a non starter. The Northern states (actually, in those days they were called “the East”) simply would not have ratified the switch. That the Southern states were willing to cripple themselves voluntarily is a testament to the will and desire on the part of its delagates to switch constitutions. (By the 1860s they were wishing it had gone differently.)
It boils down to this: if you had gotten your way, there would never have been a switch away from the Articles, and the whole conversation becomes moot. Trying to shoehorn morality into histories where it was not a factor is a great way to miss the entire point.
Counting Blacks as 3/5 was not in their favor because it stigmatized them as “less equal than others.” Both the North and the South were guilty in adopting the 3/5 rule. Despite your repeated protestations the 3/5 rule directly related to human slavery, and was thus primarily a moral issue which underpinned the economic and political issues of the day. The Articles of Confederation was not a wonderful, perfectly well-functioning constitution because it allowed states to have slaves in violation the Declaration of Independence. Don’t get me wrong; I understand that allowing slavery to persist under the Articles of Confederation was a necessary evil at the time because we had a bigger fish to fry – the most powerful authoritarian military force in the history of the world at the time – the British Empire, and I understand that there was great pressure on both sides (North and South) to adopt the 3/5 rule in order to create the new Constitution. In hindsight it would have been the right thing to do, and far less costly, had the Founding Fathers faced up to the slavery issue after winning the War of Independence, rather than kicking the issue down the road for their children and grandchildren. The North could have economically assisted the South in phasing out slavery rather than taking the demanding, belligerent approach, and thus the 3/5 clause could have been written to phase out in parallel.
Respectfully disagree. The 3/5 rule actually gave the white Southerners greater representation because they received 60% representation of the slave populace but controlled 100% of the vote for that populace. The argument was that the slaves were childlike and incapable of rational thought at this level, so they politically became wards of their owners whose voting stock was thus increased. Had the South forced 100% representation for slaves, then they would have been forced to allow their slaves to vote.
I always love respectful disagreement. And I hope I can get you to respectfully hear why what you say is wrong.
When you write “The 3/5 rule actually gave the white Southerners greater representation because they received 60% representation of the slave populace but controlled 100% of the vote for that populace,” you seem unaware that black slaves were not citizens, and thus not voters. It was a body count, for purposes of apportioning seats in congress (and thus also the Electoral College).
You compound this error when you write “Had the South forced 100% representation for slaves, then they would have been forced to allow their slaves to vote.” No one could be forced to allow slaves to vote, because they were not citizens.
People in our time for some weird reason tend to think that people in the past held the same world view that dominates our era. But thinking that way does not make it so.
The reality is that a decision was made in London to introduce african slavery in Britain’s American colonies, and many decades later we Americans had become hopelessly entangled by the repercussions of that decision. The blacks were obvious victims, but so were we all. We can properly blame the decision-makers in London, but we can hardly blame the poor saps who inherited the situation, many decades later. And it is simply wrong to accuse the actors in the Revolutionary generation of acting in bad faith. They were doing the best with a situation they were born into, and I think they got it a lot better than anyone could expect. In this light, the 3/5 rule was as good as anyone could have hoped for.
ACraigs was on the right track, but it is more accurate to acknowledge, as you pointed out, that the 3/5 rule gave white Southerners greater power because they received a 60% boost in Congressional representation due to the slave populace. ACraigs corrected you erroneous statement that “The 3/5 rule was a compromise that weakened the Southern states very dramatically…” when in fact it increased their representative power in Congress. You did a good job pointing out that our Founding Fathers inherited the evil of slavery – which was foisted on our forefathers by European Monarchies. I agree with you that our Founding Fathers did the best they could under the circumstances. If our States had not united to defeat the British Empire, the slavery issue would have never come up at all, because the European Monarchs believed in slavery, because they benefitted from slavery. Without the American Revolution Black slaves in North America would likely have been kept in slavery forever.
Liberty-Clinger, this makes no sense. To say that ACraigs “was on the right track” because “the 3/5 rule gave white Southerners greater power” is ridiculous. One could only argue that slave states “received a 60% boost in Congressional representation due to the slave populace” if one first assumes that black people would not have been counted in the census at all. No one was proposing that at the time. It was assumed that they would be fully counted, and the compromise had to do with diminishing the census count, not raising it. I’ve never heard such a silly argument in this regard.
Why do I have to keep repeating that it all has to do with the prospects of ratification? Why would the slave states have agreed to abandon a constitution that was working very well for them for a new one that made them essentially powerless in a new Congress? They walked into the Convention with a huge population, the majority of which was black slaves, and they did not walk in assuming none of those blacks were going to be counted. Somehow, the Northern states convinced them to bargain away a huge percentage of those blacks (2/5 of them, to be exact).
Next, you weirdly state that ” ACraigs corrected you erroneous statement that “The 3/5 rule was a compromise that weakened the Southern states very dramatically…” when in fact it increased their representative power in Congress.”
He did no such thing. Again, you are assuming that the South would have agreed to not count any blacks, and was given back 3/5 of them, which is simply crazy. They already had them all, under the Articles of Confederation, and had no motivation to weaken their position vis a vis the rest of the Confederation.
The 3/5 rule did in fact severely weaken the slave states. As I say, the Congress did not authorize the destruction of the United States’ government; it only authorized the proposal to make minor alterations. The delegates to the Convention broke that authorization, and they did it in secret. Why do you suppose that is? I’ll answer that question for you: the situation was not dire, or urgent. Some tweaks were required to the U.S. government, not a complete replacement.
That is to say, the slave states had nothing to gain and lots to lose by only counting 3/5 of their blacks.
“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” Article I, Section 2, U.S. Constitution
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section1
Black slaves were not “free persons,” so it is self-evident that the 3/5 rule gave free people in Southern States greater congressional representation than free people in Northern States – because there were far more Black slaves in the South than in the North. The 3/5 rule was a way for the North to limit the South’s excess of representation in Congress, compared to the North, due to the great number of Black slaves living in the South. Without the 3/5 rule there would have been even greater numbers of Southern Congressional representatives based on total population, but Northern and Southern states settled for the compromise because there was a bigger fish to fry – the British Empire – which was breathing down our forefather’s necks – North and South. This is not not really a complex problem, yet you have failed to grasp it, and you insult others like me who have it in hand. In any event counting an individual as a faction of another individual is immoral. I think we can agree that the original sin hangs on the British Monarchy, and not our Founding Fathers; men who were born into a world of Black slavery which dated back to a British King lording over their grandfathers and great-grandfathers.
“Black slaves were not “free persons,” so it is self-evident that the 3/5 rule gave free people in Southern States greater congressional representation than free people in Northern States – because there were far more Black slaves in the South than in the North. The 3/5 rule was a way for the North to limit the South’s excess of representation in Congress, compared to the North, due to the great number of Black slaves living in the South. Without the 3/5 rule there would have been even greater numbers of Southern Congressional representatives based on total population, ”
This is simply a restatement of my argument. How can you say “This is not not really a complex problem, yet you have failed to grasp it”? Weird.
“but Northern and Southern states settled for the compromise because there was a bigger fish to fry – the British Empire – which was breathing down our forefather’s necks – North and South. ”
We had won the war almost a decade prior to the Constitutional Convention. We had a very fine constitution at the time. There was no such need to compromise, because the Convention was not authorized to replace the Articles of Confederation. The decision to start from scratch was taken in secret, because it was illegal. The Convention was not called because “the British Empire – which was breathing down our forefather’s necks.” It was called to work out some minor amendments to the Articles. The proposal to compromise on the census only came up in the context of the decision to overthrow the existing United States government. If the delegates to the Convention had done what they were authorized to do, we’d still be living under the Articles (presumably), and the South would never have had to give up any of its power.
“In any event counting an individual as a faction of another individual is immoral.”
Well, defying one’s commission is immoral, too, so consider the source. If the delegates had simply done what they were tasked to do, and left well enough alone, the issue would never have come up. A coup détat is a political act, and politics is a dirty business, filled with compromises. All politics is to one degree or another immoral.
The point is, once those guys decided to defy the Congress, the question became how to sell the scheme they hatched? Ratification. Getting the slave states to relinquish any portion of its black population, thereby empowering the Northern states is quite a remarkable achievement, and if there is any moral issue involved here, it is a positive one, from the point of view of the slaves, not a negative one, as you keep insisting. Sheesh.
If I seem insulting, it’s not intentional.
The 3/5 rule helped the South if the alternative was not to count slaves. That was what I had in mind because the end result of the 3/5 rule was to give free Southerners greater Congressional representation than free Northerners. It was in the North’s interest not to count slaves, and in the South’s interest to count all slaves; thus the compromise. In any event, it was immoral to count some individuals as a fraction of other individuals.
Your point about the war ending prior to the Constitutional Convention, and thus prior to the 3/5 rule is well-taken. The pressure to compromise at that point was apparently related to a perceived need for a new Constitution with a more powerful Federal government. You believe the Articles of Confederation was superior to our current Constitution, whereas I believe the opposite. The problem we have, in my opinion, is not a bad Constitutional federal government, but an un-Constitutional federal government. I believe our States must come to the rescue via nullification of all un-Constitutional federal laws, executive regulations, and Supreme Court decisions; and then to amend our Constitution along the lines outlined @ comment 12 below.
Just to clarify: As a point of moral rectitude, if you were a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, you would have argued that each and every slave be counted in the census, not just 3/5 of them.
Assuming I have that right, and I think I do based on your previous comments, I’d like you to explain two things.
1) How would this be in any way at all good for the slaves, and
2) Do you think that any Northern state would have ratified the Constitution in that case?
As for the notion that in the census any class of human beings could conceivably be ignored, well that’s just preposterous. No one even thought of leaving out the slaves, just as no one thought of leaving out women, or children.
The idea of a census is to count everyone, to know how many people live in a certain place. (And, they obviously ended up doing just that, otherwise they wouldn’t know how many blacks made up 3/5 of the total.) In a republic, you use that information to determine proportional representation. If you’re going to create a powerful federal government, as the delegates to the Constitutional Convention schemed to do, it’s admittedly a strange idea to artificially pretend some people don’t actually exist, because population count is a state’s basis of political power. Every state wants every soul counted. It must have seemed awfully rude when some Northern dandy piped up with the suggestion that the South ignore some of its people, for the sake of empowering Yankee assholes like himself. I wonder if he got punched in the nose.
This raises a third question: whoever it was at the Convention that first came up with the proposal that some percentage of blacks be ignored in the census, was that guy being openly racist, or was his proposal intended to improve the condition of blacks in America in the course of time?
What exactly do you think excise taxes are paid with if not your income?
What about tariffs?
Sales taxes?
Endless fees?
It is nothing but pretense that an income tax is a tax on some different form or source of wealth than any other tax, tariff, or fee, all of which were included in the Constitution as first written and ratified.
As for the 3/5ths compromise, let us understand that other people were counted in full yet had limited, ultimately denied, rights to vote and participate in government, and indeed still do.
Do we consider that women were properly treated being counted in full yet not allowed to vote?
And what of children?
In fact the 3/5ths compromise did not diminish those being kept as slaves, it diminished those keeping them, reducing the number of subordinate votes they would otherwise have control of.
Liberty-Clinger,
That is a very precise and powerful way to put the matter. Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, the director of the new Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University, made essentially the same point in an inaugural lecture for the center: the Constitution is a legal document whereas the Declaration is covenantal. But I am not sure that Amendment 16 is wrong: we have public as well as personal requirements, and the question of where rights are violated is not so clear cut.
When you get a chance, I’d love to see an essay from you on this.
Spengler,
I believe amendment 16 is wrong because it is unlimited. We need to amend it so that there is a limit – I would say 10% – that way .gov is not greater than God. While we’re at it we should amend our State Constitutions so that the total of State/local/sales/property taxes are also limited to 10%. When Federal government is placed back into its smaller non-God-like box – when Federal government gets only 10% – the States (empowered and limited by their own 10% taxation) would find themselves positioned to take over (or share with individuals themselves, and private charities) all social programs now un-Constitutionally administered by Federal government: Social Security, Healthcare, Education, etc., etc. Limiting Federal taxation to 10% would have the effect of resurrecting the 10th amendment – resurrecting State government.
No wonder you don’t show up at the AIPAC dinner! Dont even try telling anyone there that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was destructive folly! As you have said on more than one occasion, the purpose of institutions is to protect its leaders from suffering the consequences of their incompetence. I think as it becomes more and more clear and likely that we will get four more years of the same idiot in chief, the conservative dead enders have to up the rhetoric in defending the folly of the Republican adventures in nation building. It will have the opposite effect. God save America!
The neocon agenda was promising at the time of our invasion of Iraq. There are few on the right these days who buy into the idea of voting as some sort of magical treatment for the ills of a dysfunctional culture anymore.
AIPAC as an organization is not very prominent among American Jews, even those like myself who are staunchly pro Israel and involved with that. There are better places to put your efforts to promote Israel security and advancement.
I am worried, to be honest, once again Israel is supposed to deal with Iran, after they have been given red lights to the point where Iranian defences are much more formidable. Then where do this missiles go? Indianapolis has nothing to worry about.
I agree completely. This current round of politicians in the race should not defend the Bush/GOP handling of Iraq and Afghanistan-they were bungled affairs. The neo-cons were wrong. As a conservative I would concentrate on force protection and get the hell out. Afghanistan is simply not worth one more american life!! The entire middle east (not Isreal) is a hell hole that we need to stay out of. Let islam have it to themselves.
Drill here and do it now would solve all of those problems and put islam back in to its right size. Kagan is another dreamer, if islam does not undergo a reformation of the Koran itself…it is all a mute point. Reforming islam to be at least compatible with civilised man will take 100 yrs at least.
Lots of AIPAC people agree with me. But I would not call the Iraq or Afghan wars “destructive folly.” Nation-building was folly. Punitive expeditions against our enemies are a different issue.
Incompetent nation building is always a folly.
Competent nation building can be of great benefit to all involved.
I remember an article that you wrote for AT about Serbs and Kosovo some time ago. If I’m not mistaken (it was long time ago ) your predictions regarding the brake-up of Kosovo on northern serbian part and southern albanian were wrong, at least for now.
Mr. Goldman,
You wrote:
“The South fought until nearly a third of its military-age men had fallen. Except for the Serbs in World War I, no people in modern times sacrificed more than the South”
I remember reading McPhereson’s history of the Civil War in which he used the example of Paraguay in the 19th Century War of the Triple Alliance as an example of a maximum effort, in order to show that the South still had some margin for increased effort. I believe he stated that Paraguay suffered a mortality rate of close to 70% and I have seen scholarship cited that placed the post-war male population at 28,000 out of a pre-war population of 450,000.
Not that this negates your basic thesis written above and elsewhere but did you consider Paraguay as well as the 1914 Serbs and Civil War South?
Paraguay was a very strange case, less a country than Francisco Solano López’ colonial fiefdom. It is also very hard to get accurate data, and to separate battle casualties from those caused by disease and starvation. I don’t fully understand what happened, and tend to treat it as a one-off event. That said, if the Confederate army had resorted to guerrilla resistance like the Paraguayans, who knows what the final casualty count would have been?
Had the South resorted to asymmetrical or guerilla warfare rather than surrendering, they would most likely have won at some point. Here’s how I see the scenario: Without a consolidated central government, the US would not have gotten into World War I, which would most likely have ended with a negotiated settlement rather than a humiliating surrender, so that there would have been no trigger for the rise of the Third Reich and the Stalinist Soviet Union. The worldwide body count, over the long term, would have been much lower.
What the South was really fighting for was not slavery, which was pretty much a dead issue at that point, but freedom from ruinous central government taxation and tyranny. In pretending to go to war to free the slaves, the North succeeded only in making slaves of us all, as we remain today. Medieval serfs had to pay a smaller fraction of their earnings to their feudal lords than we do today. And their private lives were no one’s business but their own.
I say the South was right, and at some point in the near future the US will break up on account of the insupportable level of tyranny, debt, and enslavement.
Liberty-Clinger, I wish it were that simple. But the limit is slightly misplaced, the limit needs to be on what the federal government spends (including unfunded mandates), not merely how much it taxes.
The 16th amendment also allows redistribution, another reason I want to repeal it.
I also think the 17th amendment was a mistake.
LarryD,
Agreed. We need to limit federal (and state) taxation via constitutional amendments; but, as you said, it should occur in conjunction with balanced budgets – also via constitutional amendments. Here is how I envision Amendment XXVIII:
Section 1. The Declaration of Independence is the supreme un-amendable natural/moral law of the United States of America
Section 2. Term limits for Congress (shorter) and the Supreme Court (longer)
Section 3. Federal taxation under Amendment XVI shall not exceed 10% for any individual, nor shall Federal taxation under Amendment XVI exceed 10% of the nation’s GDP. Federal Taxation under Amendment XVI may be a Federal income tax or a Federal sales tax or a combination of both.
Section 4. Federal income shall only consist of 10% domestic taxation as per
Section 3 regarding Amendment XVI, plus foreign tariffs, plus the sale of domestically purchased bonds by U.S. Citizens
Section 5. Federal spending shall not exceed federal income. Federal income shall not occur through borrowing, except for the sale of domestically purchased bonds by U.S. citizens; nor shall Federal income derive by fiat creation of money.
Section 6. Amendment XVII is hereby revoked
Section 7. Supreme Court decisions shall be revoked by Congress with 2/3 or greater vote in both houses.
Section 8. Article I, Section 8 shall be changed to: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States and in total shall not exceed 10% taxation of any individual (or the nation’s GDP) as per Section 3; and provisions for general welfare shall be uniform throughout the United States and innumerated herein this Constitution; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and to regulate disputes of commerce among the several states…”
“…the limit needs to be on what the federal government spends (including unfunded mandates), not merely how much it taxes.”
Unfortunately, in order to accomplish that you need to jump into a time machine and prevent John Maynard Keynes from becoming an influential economist. His principles have been the bane of every spendthrift politician of the past 80 years (whether they are actually in compliance with Keynes’s philosophy is another matter; I strongly believe they are not). Add up treasury borrowing power and the printing press at the Federal Reserve and spending capacity is effectively unlimited.
“The South went democratically to war for the evil goal -”
No, sir. For a generation before the Civil War a number of Southern states violated democratic norms by outlawing Abolitionist propaganda. The prohibitions extended to jailing Negro sailors on ships in Southern ports and what I think of as oppression against Southern citizens suspected of harboring anti-slavery sentiments. The anti-Abolitionist attitude quickly progressed to anti-Union sentiments – how else to justify the opinions against the South’s “peculiar institution”?
Ulysses Grant alludes to this in a letter to his sister in April 1861:
“The conduct of eastern Virginia has been so abominable through the whole contest that there would be a great deal of disappointment here if matters should be settled before she is thoroughly punished. This is my feeling, and I believe it universal. Great allowance should be made for South Carolinians, for the last generation have been educated, from their infancy, to look upon their Government as oppressive and tyrannical and only to be endured till such time as they might have sufficient strength to strike it down. Virginia, and other border states, have no such excuse and are therefore traitors at heart as well as in act.” [Grant, Ulysses S. (Ulysses Simpson) (2009-10-04). Letters of Ulysses S. Grant to His Father and His Youngest Sister,1857-78 (Kindle Locations 265-269).]
Without democratic norms such as freedom of speech and minority rights democratic forms of government become oppressive and tyrannical. (Note that Athens was similar to S.C. in this regard.)
The key to Egypt’s future lies with ruling the street. The democratic liberals and socialists made this revolution there. They may not be able to win power at the ballot box but perhaps they can use street power to force the establishment of democratic norms. The Egyptian military probably sees this – that’s why they’re so keen to disrupt the operation of pro-democracy NGOs.
The best thing the U.S. can do, then, is to weaken the Egyptian military’s ability to control the street: withhold even riot-control gear and urge other countries to do the same. Sadly, this Administration with its demonstrated pro-tyranny attitude reinforced by a State Dept. whose personnel often find career advancement by being nice to crooked gov’t officials doesn’t seem very interested.
Solomon2: You are spot-on sir. It’s sad that no one else challenged Goldman on this point, but the nature of the South has been romanticized so much that this has been lost. I think U. S. Grant can be taken as representative of Lincoln and other Republicans (and even literally as Republican president) when he said in his memoirs that the Confederacy was an “armed camp.” Translation: a dictatorship. That is exactly what the Republicans thought. Goldman doesn’t know his history, or doesn’t accept the parts that don’t fit his narrative.
So the Republicans did not think, pace Goldman, that the Confederacy was Democratic. He ambiguously says they “went democratically to war,” but this phrasing obscures the fact that they weren’t a democracy after secession. They didn’t have elections, they didn’t have a free press, and the entire culture had become arranged on a militia type system where common citizens served as prison keepers for blacks at a moments notice. Why were so many Southerners called a Colonel? And not a few have wondered afterwards if Sherman’s march would have even been necessary had a free press told the real situation to the public after the fall of Atlanta rather than operated as a government propaganda organ. The Union Army marching unopposed in the South was the retort to the “we’re still winning” propaganda. There were certainly democratic aspects of Southern culture, but they were secondary and being increasingly polluted in defense of the institution of slavery. So sad that no one knows this now.
Mr. Goldman — “Conservatives” refuse to recognize the profoundly broken nature of Muslim society. As you’ve written, Muslim society makes ill use of its women, keeps them in semi-slavery, has an aggressive attitude towards non-believers, is congenitally schismatic in violent ways, and so on.
“Conservatives” want to believe happy-clappy nonsense of all peoples being the same, yearning to breathe free, being nice, sedate suburban middle class people. They have drunk deeply from the well of Western debased liberalism in this regard, which seems to think hatred, bigotry, violence, and oppression only emanate from White Southern racists.
I don’t believe this, since I’ve seen with my own eyes abroad the hatred for most things Western and Westerners. And at home too, obviously. But this doctrine is deeply attractive to a fundamentally lazy people who cannot intellectually handle the fact that great swaths of the world wants to annihilate them just for being who they are. And no groveling, apologies, or anything else will change it.
The key is the people. Not all are the same. Some are far worse than others. Recognizing this requires making a judgment about a people, either negative or positive. This “conservatives” who are really just liberals in play-clothing, are unwilling to do. Because it labels one racist, or bigot, or hateful, or what-have-you. But when people say they really want to kill you, believe them.
Intentionally “broken” societies are engineered to produce a great surplus of conquerors and refugees, ready to spread the misery to all lands of the earth. When everyone has submitted, then the Peace Of Islam will be known. So far, it has been a highly successful strategy, better than drones or nukes or blockades or anything else. Serbia proves that the West acknowledges the inevitability of demographic warfare.
Even if Palestinians (and Turks and Iranians, for that matter) can be tamed, the fecundity of the Muslim world is overall still poised to overwhelm anything that stands in its path.
The over-population of the Muslim world is potentially a great lever to use against Islam. If the West would wise up, and begin to drastically reduce Muslim access to emigrate to our Western sanctuary, a great blow would be struck against the Jihadis. Restricting their access to western medicines and technology would strike another huge blow to Jihad. The Muslims completely rely on American military police enforcement to secure their oil revenue – and they require access to Western money markets and institutions to utilize their undeserved and I’ll gotten wealth. Begin charging for the police servce in the form of massive oil payments, and begin highly regulating their commerce and access to Western banks. Last, we must cultivate and enhance all their natural, completely Islamic internal schisms, and force them to expend their treasure and their blood on fighting each other indefinitely. Siphon off their wealth, siphon off their excess population, and siphon off their hatred against us and focus it on the only proper target: Islam and fellow Muslims.
Really, we hold all the necessary tools to bring them to their knees and to subvert their religion of hatred. We just lack the vision and balls to act in the necessary manor to subvert this enemy and to hobble their myriad jihad-breeding programs. Without our help, our loot, our technology, and our protection, they are an Islamic sewer and little more.
“10. Nestor
I remember an article that you wrote for AT about Serbs and Kosovo some time ago. If I’m not mistaken (it was long time ago ) your predictions regarding the brake-up of Kosovo on northern serbian part and southern albanian were wrong, at least for now.” Not wrong, simply premature. The war against Serbia set a horrible precedent, which made U.S. and NATO objections to Russia fighting to defend its passport holders in South Ossetia, separatists or not, all the more hypocritical. Kosovo was half a world away, S.O. was right on Russia’s border next to North Ossetia.
As for Kosovo, some sort of partition is inevitable. I wasn’t sure if David knew this, but the Serbian Orthodox liturgy in America prays for the suffering Serbian land and its people at every service, much like the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia used to pray for the Church under the Bolshevik yoke. The language in fact is almost identical.
The crux starts with equating islam with Western norms, whatsoever.
Big mistake. Islam is ENTIRELY anti-Judeo-Christian in creed and function.
————
The political nexus of all islamist thought is that it is ENTIRELY anti-pluralist.
This is why you never see functional pluralism in ANY muslim polity.
It is axiomatic to the creed that ALL views contrary to the mandate of allah are to be crushed — with medieval ‘justice’ if necessary.
So it’s the Inquisition — every day and in every way within the ummah.
——–
Even the ‘liberals’ want all of the marbles in their laps.
——–
And then there’s the IQ gap.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/g.htm
And the connectivity of advanced society.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft2.htm
Muslim lands simply do NOT have enough men with IQs past 106 to make their societies function in a First World manner.
The brutal statistics are laid bare, tabled, at the second web link.
The correlation is sobering.
——–
Until cousin-marriage is stopped and pre-natal care ( particularly nutrition ) improved IQs are going to stay right where they are: a full standard deviation below Western norms.
——–
We see the impact in southern Iraq: where Saddam deliberately starved Shi’ite populations.
The result is a groundswell of idiots — dumbed down in the womb by pre-natal starvation.
Such vast evils take generations to pass.
——-
Any notion that Araby can leap-forward, greatly… is but a pipe dream.
Indeed, the west has forgetten an ancient enemy in Islam.
Speaking of Egypt, I would enjoy having Spengler’s comments on another article in Tablet:
Hostage Crisis
The Egyptian government is preparing a show trial for 19 American pro-democracy organizers. Is this what life after Hosni Mubarak looks like?
By Lee Smith|February 8, 2012
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/90549/hostage-crisis/
I’d be interested in hearing that too. Lee Smith presents it as a choice between the Egyptian Army buying from us, or buying from someone else, but I just can’t understand where the money comes from. Isn’t it more of a case of us subsidizing the military in the hopes of keeping a lid on events? I mean, I can’t imagine the Army has the money to pay for stuff from the Russians or Chinese – not without us subsidizing them, anyway…
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/NB10Ag03.html
David,
I think if one of the objectives of putting U.S. military intervention in Syria ‘on the table’ is to get a post-Assad government that will remove the Russian naval base at Tartus, the wily Russians will simply make Athens a very generous loan offer in return for a twenty year lease on docking Russian ships at the Pireaus. Makes sense in a way, doesn’t it, what with two historically Orthodox Christian countries. That would of course invite enormous pressure on Greece from NATO, but if they default, that pressure won’t matter anyway.
Just something to watch for a year or two down the road if Assad is indeed forced to decamp Syria.
Viktor,
I very much doubt that the Obama administration cares about the Russian refueling station (NOT a base) at Tartus. The Bush administration probably would have cared, but they’re gone. Personally, I’m really not that worried about Russia’s Mediterranean fleet. I see the West limping after events in Syria, trying to make sense of them. At first, Obama didn’t want to dump Assad (he still had illusions about a comprehensive peace settlement). Now that Assad is slaughtering large numbers of civilians, he looks like a hypocrite for having used force to remove Qaddafi, but not Assad. The Saudis and/or Qataris probably are helping the opposition. The Turks can’t be happy; they’re terrified that if the disintegration of Syria shakes the Kurds loose, it will redound on them.My guess — and this is just a guess right now — is that Russia fears (quite sensibly) that if an Islamist government comes to power in Syria, it will encourage Islamists in the Caucasus, as well as Turkish Islamist ambitions. There are 10 to 12 million Turks or Turkic peoples in Russia as guest workers and a lot of restive locals. I won’t say precisely what I would do if, for example, I were DDO. But I would be busy.
Mr. Goldman:
I’m a big admirer of your work and analysis. I hope this doesn’t
take the thread too far off topic but I wanted to ask you a question
about your prediction of Egypt going the way of Somalia.
I think the per-capita GDP of Egypt is on the order of USD 6,500.
This is well above the per-capital GDP of nations that are in
danger of not being able to pay for food.
I’m not trying to dispute your contention. My guess is that you
are familiar with the Egyptian per-capital GDP number and already
figured that into your analysis.
Perhaps Egypt’s reported per-capita GDP is grossly inflated.
(I’m sure who assembles these sorts of statistics and how reliable
they are.)
Perhaps the income or wealth distribution is so skewed that a minority
at the top has almost all the income & wealth and that the vast
majority of the population would not have enough to feed itself without
government subsidies.
Perhaps your view is that Egypt’s GDP will crash to well below $6,500
in the coming months. (This seems unlikely to me. GDP is relatively stable.
Even severe downturns only push it down moderately.)
Perhaps you have about reconciled Egypt’s reported per-capita GDP numbers with
the “Somalia on the Nile” prediction in some other way.
If you have a moment to provide your thoughts on this, I am sure
I will gain from reading it.
The question about Egypt’s GDP is, whose? The usual number is that half the population lives on less than $2 a day. I’m sure there are some billionaire generals. That money’s probably overseas by now.
I would want to know (and I don’t; maybe Mr. Goldman does) how much arable land Somalia does. Depending on how much there is, perhaps a Somalian too poor to buy food could still grow something and thus not starve. Egyptians, however, at least those not living by the Nile, obviously don’t have that option. And when a Somalian does buy food, I wonder how much is imported and how much domestic.
Let’s be honest with ourselves for a moment. Spengler’s facts are downers. In an upside down like ours, even conservative elites yearn for some quality time in Mayberry.
http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/08/10354553-israel-teams-with-terror-group-to-kill-irans-nuclear-scientists-us-officials-tell-nbc-news
This is also a downer. As the most famous Jew who ever lived once said in 1st century Palestine, “A house divided against itself cannot stand. Satan cannot drive out Satan.”
“Except for the Serbs in World War I, no people in modern times sacrificed more than the South,…”
Paraguay in the War of the Triple Alliance. Lost 60-70% of their total population.
Why was Iraq war such a disaster? Because that war destroyed the moral superiority of and the strategic rationale for the liberal world order that the US herself had built with blood and treasure for forty years. The war gave the rest of the world a reason to pause and ponder the commitment of the US to the liberal order. Even NATO members moved to realign because they were suspicious of the motives of the US. They did not think Saddam was threatening the West. So to most Europeans America was in Iraq to establish military hegemony.The US as the leader of the western world, cannot afford to be seen as looking after only her own national interests, she would loose legitimacy as a leader. In the matters of warfare, as the major producer of collective security, it can not be casual in its use of force. Its use of force should be defensive and perceived as such by the rest of alliance.
There are a number of reasons why Iraq was such a disaster, as much as it was (and I don’t think it’s entirely clear that it was a disaster yet; our perspective is too close to the event to be certain) but one I see as crucial, which doesn’t get mentioned much, is that of national morale. Arab countries tend to have very fragile egos, collectively. They’re immensely proud of whatever national accomplishments they have, with this pride covering an even larger inferiority complex. They tend to be incredibly jealous of Western accomplishments, and especially of Western achievements and acquisitions. In Asia, no amount of ostentatious display is over the top, for a wealthy person, so when a wealthy American is seen driving a big car or wearing outrageous jewelry, we think it’s bad taste; others see it as something to be imitated.
Thing is, the Arab world also is imbued with a really strong sense of their own prowess as soldiers. This is why Israel is so hard for Arabs to accept. It’s tiny, in their midst, and if you do the math the place should have easily been overrun any number of times in the first 30 years of its existence, and yet there it is, willing and apparently able to whip 10 times its weight in Arabs. This is incredibly humiliating for Arab men, on a personal level that’s hard for most Americans to understand. Egypt managed to make peace with Israel (though that may be unravelling) largely because Sadat managed to sell the populace on the idea that they’d partially defeated Israel during the Yom Kippur War. Of course he left out the part where the Israelis crossed the Suez Canal and were perhaps going to Cairo, but they *did* give the Israelis a shock in the first phase of the war, certainly. Most other Arab countries haven’t got this sort of “victory” to celebrate, so they have to just accept that they’re militarily inferior to the Jewish state, and this acceptance is very hard for them. Things are of course exacerbated by the Arab propensity for believing every weird conspiracy theory that comes down the pike, the confusion and rivalry between various Arab leaders (all of whom see themselves ultimately as *the* leader of the Arab world), and of course a troublesome clergy seeking an outside “other” to blame for the woes of their country.
Point is this: the United States defeated Sadam Hussein’s military too easily. I understand that if we’d had more trouble, it would have meant more casualties, and I understand that a soldier’s job is to minimize his own casualties and maximize his opponents (I too saw the opening of the movie “Patton”). The problem is that when we overran Iraq so easily, and essentially slapped aside their army almost without any effort, it was a real, serious humiliation for the country. They need to think we left because they ultimately defeated us, even if it’s not true.
Was nation-building a bad idea? Well, if you invade a country looking for enemies, shoot the place up, and then leave without doing anything to clean up after the mess you made, you’re not going to win any friends. I know that some will essentially argue in response that Arabs and Muslims aren’t our friends, and won’t ever be, but either you kill every last single one of them, or you figure out a way to coexist with them that involves more than just “punishing” them by invading their country periodically. Trying to “teach” a fanatic something, if fanatics is what they are, is counterproductive: all you’ll do is waste your own time annoying them. If there isn’t another solution, we’re in deep doo-doo.
Left out of the discussion is that pesky little problem of sharia. Democracy in an Islamic state means you can vote for the sharia party or the sharia party.
Dear Dr. Bones,
’Tis always enjoyable to watch knaves fall out with one another. But this morning we have not only that comparatively plain
cake, we are treated to some scrumptious icin’ on top.
Unlike the good–¡so ‘good’ he’s alleged to be a gullible sucker!–Rear-Colonel, _M. le baron de ‘Spengler’_ has no trouble whatever seein’ whight through any an’ all cheapjack pious baloney about Democracy.
Mostly this is an intramural food fight of interest only to whightists, but I must say it cheers me up to encounter even a false an’ malignant accusation of somebooby being still so Aristotelean in our decadent age as to venerate Form.
Happy days.
–JHM
Sharia law is mainly promoted by Al Saud, or House of Saud in Saudi Arabia. The Global Wahhabi school system including those existing within the USA are funded and supported by Saudi Arabia. These Wahhabi schools teach and educate Sharia Law is the only true system of Government, and Saudi Arabia is strictly Governed by Sharia law.
The Invasion of Iraq in part to deflect growing suspicion of Saudi Involvement in global terrorism through funding of Wahhabism, their involvement in 9/11, heavy promotion of Sharia Law and funding of Hamas by Saudi Arabia. Invading Iraq was incredibly shortsighted and tipped the balance of power in the Middle East towards Saudi Arabia, and against US interests.
We commit grave mistakes in the Middle East by pretending those we call friends are actually friends, and those we term enemies are actually enemies. Pakistan has never been our friend, thousands of American Soldiers killed in Afghanistan are due to double dealing by Pakistan ISI / Al Queada coordination and protection.
Iraq could have continued to serve as the counter balance to Iran and Saudi Arabia. Instead thousands of american soldiers gave their lives to do Saudi Arabia’s dirty work.
The Bush administration could never face the fact Pakistan was protecting Al Qaeda and actively involved fighting alongside them, and Iraq should have been left as the counter to Saudi and Iran power grabs.
The invasion of Iraq was heavily promoted within Bush Administration by PNAC war bunnies with their own agenda. As soon as the invasion of Iraq went south they ran for cover under the nearest rocks….but it was the Bush Administrations failure to understand Middle East power structures that was the underlying problem.
None of this blather really matters. Anyone that has read Goldmans book on the death of civilizations and Steyns book on the subject of the middle east knows that the islamists only have a short window of time to screw things up ‘over there’. They aren’t breeding above replacement levels in most of those places. Also, the money is running out in Egypt and nobody in their right mind is going to lend them more. When the money runs out the food runs out. Islamic ‘governments’ and sharia-based ‘democracy’ have so many inherent structural faults that, without huge amounts of petro-bucks ala saudi arabia etc, they will starve within a relativly short time span. These ‘democracies’ will generate their own internal enemies and they will spend most of their time fighting among themselves. Let’s just leave them alone and they will kill those that don’t starve.
Isn’t “Muslim Democracy” an oxymoron and the very nature of Islam top down directives, i.e. undemocratic ?
Given its election successes post Mubarak, Egypt’s Brotherhood feels more and more entitled to demand complete power & is insisting the military cede remaining power.
Can you imagine the new Constitution the Brotherhood would concoct in the event it had full sway in Egypt ?
The realities of the Islamic mindset seem far more potent than academic speculation.
Egypt does not want our money anymore. Actually they do not want anything to do with us.
That is good. I think we should let them know that we will be transferring the funds to Israel from now on. They will need it to deal with the decreased security in the Sinai and hostility coming from the new Egyptian government.
Is it good for the Copts in Egypt? Is it good for the women in Egypt? Is is good for peace in the region?
Robert Kagan, another in the West that has terminal cognitive dissonance disease.
It IS true that democracies have seldom fought with other democracies. It is NOT true that the Confederacy was a democracy (unless of course you define slavery as an attribute of democracy). Do you really believe that secession over the election of Lincoln would have been approved if black males had been permitted to vote freely in the referenda conducted by most of the seceding states? Most of those referenda had sizable minorities of white voters against secession.
There are VERY good arguments against Wilsonianism. It does not help advance those valid arguments to make obviously fallacious ones. To me, the best argument against Wilsonianism is that imposing democracy on societies without indigenous cultural support for it is an exercise in futility.
Excellent article as always.
But since I am a stickler for statistical details, I quibble with one fact you stated. You wrote, “The South fought until nearly a third of its military-age men had fallen. Except for the Serbs in World War I, no people in modern times sacrificed more than the South, showing that democracy can unite a people behind an evil cause.”
The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in World War II both lost at least a third of their manpower in their prime military age groups according to more recent and thorough analyses. I suspect there may be other examples as well as the full extent of losses in wars beyond just immediate combat tallies are added up. The Vietnamese come to mind.
Steve is correct — even today one still notices more females than males in Russia, even in the cohorts born well after WWII. Perhaps this is partly Mother Nature’s way of correcting the massive wartime loss of males (and to a lesser extent, since Soviet women did fight and/or starved or were bombed in places like Leningrad and Stalingrad) in the gene pool.
While polygamy is banned in Russia, if you watch Davai pa zhemimsa (Let’s Get Married) on the First Channel one notices lots of starter marriages or even two time divorcees by thirty, with the main difference being that professional women have children at a younger age (more help from Mom and Dad, usually, than in the more detached, spread out U.S.)
Goldman states that Kagan believes an “anti-American Egypt is good for the United States”. That’s a shameless caricature. What Kagan believes is that it is impossible to oppress people forever and the explosion when you rip the lid off the can sooner rather than later is a bit less that it will be when it gets ripped off with the weight of the US keeping it on, and it is immoral to try to do this long-term. It is an impossible goal to try to keep people in oppressive societies forever, but this is the illusion presented by Goldman. That isn’t to say it is a good idea to hold an election always and everywhere. But statecraft that believes that some people are fit only to be ruled by oppressors is a destestible worldview.
The Western world went through its violent catharsis, and the Muslim world has yet to do it. Goldman pretends that this violent catharsis can be avoided in some way, but it can’t. Better the Muslim world fight each other like free men to decide how they’ll live than dictators keep a lid on it and let off steam by vented hatred at Israel and the US. Isn’t that how 9/11 happened? Down the memory hole for Goldman. His tagline of “Spengler” shouldn’t be forgotten. “Decline of the West” is what he believes, and he thinks the US is a lost cause, but somehow he can tell us how to manage the decline.
I think it’s sad that Goldman presents Kagan this way. It’s unfair. There are either universal principles, and then human aspirations, or there aren’t. That’s the real question, and that’s what Goldman should be arguing about. Instead we get some rhetoric borrowed from the Left about body counts of war, which are astonishingly low by any standard and a modern miracle in itself. And because of Goldman’s disbelief that America and the West is built on universal principles, or at least good ones, he believes that the democratic opposition in the Muslim world should just get over it and accept that oppression will always be their lot. He should go join Pat Buchanan and argue that WWII wasn’t necessary.
If you read what Kagan actually wrote (quoted at length in my Tablet review), it is neither a caricature, nor shameless.
What on earth do you mean by “universal principles”? A procedure for societal success that can be taught, as you can teach a country how to build a bridge or a dam? Democracy is a better system than any other because it gives people the kind of government they deserve, but that does not mean that it always results in a good outcome. The most frequent outcome in history (an all-but-universal one) is that societies tire of living and destroy themselves and leave nary a grease spot behind them. Of the 7,000 languages now spoken, perhaps 6,500 will be extinct in the next 150 years (and that might include some from industrial nations). The majority of the world’s peoples aspire for extinction, and that is manifestly true of Persians and Turks, whose fertility rate is about the same as that of the Germans and Italians.
Fortunately this “universal principle” has some exceptions, for example, the United States of America. (India is another, as is the State of Israel. China is an open question). My argument is that America cannot prevent peoples from destroying themselves if their hearts are set on it; at best, we can ensure that the flying debris doesn’t hit us.
As for the notion that the Confederacy wasn’t democratic — that’s the True Scotsman fallacy (if a democracy starts a war it can’t be a “true” democracy). In most of the Confederacy, deliberations among elected representatives were prolonged and passionate over secession. You are misconstruing Grant’s remark. Lincoln threw out habeas corpus, imposed a draft, debased the currency and violated peacetime constitutional norms frequently. Does that make the North less than democratic? This is nonsense. The South fought heroically and at unimaginable sacrifice in large measure because the decision to secede was taken democratically.
My position is that the Good comes from God, that is, from the revelation at Mount Sinai (of which we read this morning in synagogue, in Parsha Yitro); it cannot be conjured up out of mere process. Democracies can produce odious results, and free markets can produce lousy results (the Internet bubble of the 1990s being an example). I am for democracy and free markets because I believe in freedom, but freedom is NOT a universal aspiration (Kagan is quite aware of this, by the way). Some people prefer a collective identity. Many of them are called “Muslims.”
I have been arguing these points for years; sorry if you’re late to class.
>> What on earth do you mean by “universal principles”? A procedure for societal success that can be taught, as you can teach a country how to build a bridge or a dam?
Of course not. What a caricature! Wow. I’d refer you to the Declaration. BTW, no one ever thought the Declaration or anything contained within was a procedure in any way, let alone a procedure that would guarantee a good outcome. Principles don’t work that way do they? You ask me what I mean when you don’t know the difference between a procedure and a principle? You see why I call your spelling out of your opponents views a caricature? You can’t even paraphrase them, which is the bare minimum standard for academic debate! Caricature.
>> The most frequent outcome in history (an all-but-universal one) is that societies tire of living and destroy themselves and leave nary a grease spot behind them.
So this is your universal principal? Malarkey. It is a cautionary tale, which you’ve blown whole cloth into a universal principle. What bizarre law of averages philosophy is this? How do you explain Israel, Japan, Germany, or Taiwan for that matter at least until China attacks it and tris to absorb it.
>> As for the notion that the Confederacy wasn’t democratic — that’s the True Scotsman fallacy (if a democracy starts a war it can’t be a “true” democracy). In most of the Confederacy, deliberations among elected representatives were prolonged and passionate over secession. You are misconstruing Grant’s remark.
No I’m not misconstruing Grant’s remark. That is what he said, and that is what he meant. I think you are ham-handedly referring to a “‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy”. Namely, reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. That is absurd. Grant was not a theorist, and called it as he saw it based on his evidence gleaned from trooping through the South on campaign. He said in the last chapter of his memoirs:
“. . . the South had rebelled against the National government. It was not bound by any constitutional restrictions. The whole South was a military camp. The occupation of the colored people was to furnish supplies for the army.”
Where is the fallacy? Grant had to face a Congressional commission to account for the “Battle of the Crater.” Where was the accountability/oversight for Confederate commanders? They never had to face any, and knew full well they wouldn’t! Where is the fallacy you are referring to?
>> Lincoln threw out habeas corpus, imposed a draft, debased the currency and violated peacetime constitutional norms frequently. Does that make the North less than democratic? This is nonsense. The South fought heroically and at unimaginable sacrifice in large measure because the decision to secede was taken democratically.
I already said, and you’ve handily ignored, that starting a war democratically, if that was what happened, and conducting it democratically are two different things. You have no answer for this obviously, and repeating that the Confederacy was democratic on this basis is absurd.
>> My position is that the Good comes from God, that is, from the revelation at Mount Sinai (of which we read this morning in synagogue, in Parsha Yitro); it cannot be conjured up out of mere process.
Goodness doesn’t come out of process! Only in your caricature world does anyone think it does! But in your world you seem to imply that an expanding birthrate will continue US greatness alone. It is necessary, but not sufficient. That is why these nations aren’t great. http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=25 No, greatness requires an expanding population and principles to live by. On the latter, you just spout the Buchananite Paleo nonsense that most of the country doesn’t believe in.
>> . . . freedom is NOT a universal aspiration (Kagan is quite aware of this, by the way). Some people prefer a collective identity. Many of them are called “Muslims.”
Same old tripe. Did NY prefer organized crime in its heyday? Or did evil men seize the reigns and exploit the cracks in our system to cow the weak into acquiescence until they were overpowered through long labor by diligent men? The latter wouldn’t you say? Who speaks for those who will be killed if they speak the truth? And poisoned minds are not confined to the ME. The idea that Muslim girls really want to be mutilated is absurd. They don’t have a choice.
The Western world didn’t arrive where we are because everyone “preferred” the same thing, or had the same view of freedom. Far from it. We fought it out through violence! I’d love it if there were another way, but there isn’t. Those who thought freedom included owning some folk fought it out with those who thought it didn’t, and couldn’t. On your way of telling, some of us “preferred a collective identity”, now didn’t they? But we fought it out and decided that matter with violence. But you want to pretend we always knew this, and present oppressive Muslim societies as consensually governed? That is fallacious. That’s why in Palestine they hang dissenters at regular intervals, not that you’d notice. What is next? Are you going to assert that rape victims really wanted it?
>> My argument is that America cannot prevent peoples from destroying themselves if their hearts are set on it; at best, we can ensure that the flying debris doesn’t hit us.
No argument there at all. I think this too. But how do you intend to “ensure that the flying debris doesn’t hit us”? Let me guess. You’ll advocate using US power to prop up oppressive dictatorships to keep the lid on what you seem to want to imply are consensual governments where the citizens prefer a collective identity? This is incoherent in the extreme. US power will be used in any case. Either to keep the lid on in oppressive regimes, or to try to support democratic activists in these nations. Spengler, as the former camp yours is a ghastly view and no amount of painting the others as the activist side will do. These oppressive nations don’t have enough power to hold back the popular tide, no matter how misguided it is at the outset. You pretend that our hands won’t get dirty but they will, and the attempt is futile to boot. But I’m sure you’ll keep acting like yours is the only sane path and by your pseudo-history and scholarship. But its philosophically and morally bankrupt. And it isn’t new. It’s called foreign policy “realism”, or realpolitic, and it brought us the “flying debris” known as 9/11. Rinse, wring, repeat.
I propose neither to keep the lid on oppressive regimes, nor to support democracy activists, as a general rule. I expect something like the 30 Years’ War, whatever we do. In some cases I would support democracy activists, in some cases dictatorships, and in other cases both of them, and at the same time. I would use special forces, drones and irregulars, not regular troops. My exemplar is not Metternich (a boring fellow, pace Kissinger) but rather Richelieu. He was the victor of the 30 Years War, because he persuaded others to fight it for him. It would have been less terrible for Egypt if we had not pulled the rug out from under Mubarak, but no matter. Egypt is going to die. It will be the most horrifying thing any of us have seen in our lifetimes. Iran is going to die, although somewhat later. And we are going to stand back and watch it happen. China and India will do quite well, thank you.
As for Muslim girls: It is the women who do the actual mutilating. The girls might not want it, but their mothers do. Spengler’s Universal Law of Gender Parity states that the men and women of every time and place deserve each other.
The West failed. “Europe is the faith, the faith is Europe.” The Church failed ultimately to integrate the barbarians, who turned on their mother, the Church, and crippled her; the founding of America is a radical rejection of the Western synthesis (Roman governance and Hebrew religion). See Eric Nelson’s “The Hebrew Republic.” Or read my book “How Civilizations Die.”
>> I propose neither to keep the lid on oppressive regimes, nor to support democracy activists, as a general rule. I expect something like the 30 Years’ War, whatever we do.
I agree.
>> It would have been less terrible for Egypt if we had not pulled the rug out from under Mubarak, but no matter.
I agree. What we did spooked our allies and was unwise. Look you support bad guys when you have no other choice, but our principles dictate that these guys are on notice that they throw dissenters in jail at peril of losing our support, and that if they aren’t on the path to gradual improvement they’ll end up in a very bad place.
What I oppose is the cynical realism school of foreign policy where we cynically chase after the god of stability, which always betrays us for good reason. This is where we treat dictators who we have to live with as equal with our democratic partners.
>> Egypt is going to die. It will be the most horrifying thing any of us have seen in our lifetimes. Iran is going to die, although somewhat later. And we are going to stand back and watch it happen. China and India will do quite well, thank you.
I agree. Egypt and Iran are going to die. The latter is in demographic collapse. But it wouldn’t be the first time cultures have died now would it? What matters is how they die. It may or may not be horrifying, and we have a role to play in how that works out. Many cultures are dying, and you aren’t worried about them. The question is whether or not radical Islam can feed off the carcass or not and launch waves of terror at us.
>> As for Muslim girls: It is the women who do the actual mutilating. The girls might not want it, but their mothers do. Spengler’s Universal Law of Gender Parity states that the men and women of every time and place deserve each other.
Women do it because they are convinced their daughters can’t marry if they don’t. And they are mutilating girls younger and younger because they are getting wind of what is happening and running away to avoid it! Do you really not see that this practice is inherently coercive? What truly bothers me about you is that you can’t seem to acknowledge the difference coercion makes. And you think America is a radical rejection? Maybe you are. If you were a student of history as you present yourself, you’d distinguish between coercive and non-coercive “wants”. Did a young African boy of nine years old who is forced to beat his mother to death want to do it on your understanding because he thought he’d be killed? This stuff actually happens in case you don’t know. And did the rape victim want it? In your world, you seem to think whatever happens was wanted in a majoritarian way. Truly a bizarre way of thinking, but not unknown to me. This type of obvious non-sequitur comes about when folks like you can’t accept universal principles and aspirations. The Founders believed it, but you don’t. They were right, and you’re not.
>> The West failed . . . the founding of America is a radical rejection of the Western synthesis (Roman governance and Hebrew religion). See Eric Nelson’s “The Hebrew Republic.” Or read my book “How Civilizations Die.”
Yeah, yeah. They don’t call you Spengler for nothing. And did your book they answer any of the blindingly obvious non-sequiturs and in-principle problems I just pointed out of the top of my head? Nope.
Oops, I misspoke. I do think we should support democracy activists, as a general rule. It is the right thing to do.
>> The Church failed ultimately to integrate the barbarians, who turned on their mother, the Church, and crippled her; the founding of America is a radical rejection of the Western synthesis (Roman governance and Hebrew religion). See Eric Nelson’s “The Hebrew Republic.” Or read my book “How Civilizations Die.”
BTW Mr. Goldman, I’m a devout Christian and not a secularist. But you “declinists” are all alike. These types always point to some event in the past as the point when some poisonous idea took root and is decisive today. It’s a conspiracy theory. The US has always been one generation from collapse, and we may or may not make it this time. But it doesn’t have anything to do with a supposed church failure to integrate the barbarians.
The classic Christian view is that a sinful world is the point that is decisive today. It is folly to toss out just-so causal stories about wrong turns in political history or public expressions of philosophical understandings of reality, without which we’d supposedly not need to be constantly on the alert for those who wish to rule over us or dominate us. There has never been any such system, nor could there be. This faith in abstract systems isn’t wise. You mock others’ belief in universal principles, but you have a very strong faith in something that is elusive and you don’t seem able to specify. Your nominalism doesn’t buy you anything.
And your assertion is heretical as well from a Christian perspective, and shows itself as simply politics. So the “gates of Hell shall not prevail against [the church]“, yet it went corrupt over fifteen centuries ago because of it’s own inefficacy? Curious that. If you’re a Christian, you’re not a theologically orthodox one. And how is it everything went corrupt except for you? How did you avoid it?
Mark,
You’re coming into this discussion rather late. Of course I’m not a Christian. I’m a Jew, and I daven at a Modern Orthodox shul. My view is that the Jewish concept of Covenant is the source of the “inalienable rights” in the Declaration, and that this is the spiritual power that animates the machinery of the Constitution. Countries that share this concept will be our friends; those who don’t will be trading partners, competitors, friends or enemies of convenience, depending on circumstances. In that sense my views are closer to the Calvinism of the America’s founders (or Lincoln) than to Catholicism. See
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/05/the-morality-of-self-interest
Jihad is in the air it’s so inviting….. (sung to the tune of Strangers in the night)
Never under estimate the hatred of Muslims for other Muslim sects. Shia’s hate Sunni’s and VS VS. The Arab Spring is possibly the start of a period of unprecedented sectarian violence/terror in the Mid East. The plans of 1919 have been trashed thoroughly in the last ten years.
The Turks want their empire back and the secular govt that stopped the army from using it’s toys on the Kurds and Arabs is gone and replaced by would be Muslim radicals.
The Persians want their empire back (startng with Shia majority southern Iraq) but are surrounded by other Sunni states (except for Shia majority Bahrain and Iraq) that are heavily armed.
Saudi’s are a wild card newly refreshed and HEAVILY ARMED by America and they love terror as long as it doesn’t affect them. Bahrain is our fleet’s headquarters there but it is Shia majority with a Sunni govt and riots have been suppressed with live gunfire there recently with Shia on Sunni.
The Arabs as a whole unfortunately live where both the Persian and Turk Empires used to exist. Sectarian and even tribal hatreds are ripe and ready to rock folks. Violence may occur as Arab on Arab and Persian on Arab and a reinvigorated Turkish army on both….
I would say our phony nation building since 9-11 has gone EXACTLY how we wanted it to go. When Obama said he wanted to make the Arab nations Important his teleprompter actually said Impotent. Bush and Obama Administrations did EXACTLY what they needed to do to render the Mid East impotent on the international scene.
Is Goldman the one responsible for moderating comments? If so, that would explain why my critical comments have not been approved, while comments after the time my still unapproved comments were made that weren’t critical have been approved. Sad.
I don’t moderate on Shabbat, which ended 10 minutes ago on the East Coast of the United States. The Good has a source, and He requires me to abstain from electronics until after sundown on Saturday. If you want PJ Media to appoint a substitute moderator for Shabbat, write to them.
My apologies. I never should have said this.
Mark @ 37, I have no problem waiting for comments submitted here on Fridays to be approved Saturday nights or even Sundays, and I’ve been sharply critical of David for joining PJM’s near-hysterical ranting against Ron Paul and for thinking the swift overthrow of Assad will do Israel or the last remnants of indigenous Christians in the Middle East any bit of good.
If you want to see real ‘censorship’ of critical comments, go over to Bryan Preston’s page (if anybody actually reads it) where all Ron Paul friendly comments are banned. I’m not kidding.
David briefly jumped on the anti-Paul hysteria bandwagon when it looked like Brother Ron was going to win Iowa, but then calmed down about Ron Paul and has been so far silent on Rand who’s going to have to pick up the pieces with the Tea Party if the Establishment GOP goes down in flames versus Obama (what David believes is simply impossible, but I believe is quite likely).
Fortunately for PJM and the mainstream media’s nerves, the Iowa GOP bosses got together with Karl Rove and decided their were plenty of ways to nip a Paul win in the bud (no voter ID much less actual proof of Iowa residency required to participate, and ‘driving vans to deliver’ vote tallies instead of calling or faxing them in as state GOP procedure required, and simply failing to tally any valid results from three Iowa counties). So they pulled Rick Santorum out of their rabbit hat. But at least his win was semi-plausible since he’d been camped out in Iowa for a year, compared to the frankly padded tallies for Romney who never polled above Paul in the two weeks prior to the vote in early January. As Karl Rove said on Fox News, the Romney and Santorum camps ‘had a gentleman’s agreement’. And if I were among the ‘Ronulans’ in Maine where Paul lost by a whopping 200 votes, I’d be calling for a recount too.
If George Soros backed Ron Paul, we’d have had to have had an ‘Orange Revolution’ with all the disenfranchised kids from Iowa State and Iowa marching on the state GOP with favorable press coverage.
Ron Paul is Lindbergh without the airplane, an old-style isolationist with a huge paranoid streak, a magnet resentment. If Ron Paul is the nominee, I will vote for Obama.
No-one pulled Santorum out of a hat — what do you think this is? Russia? I’ve met Rick Santorum and I know a little about him, and he’s getting a lot of the religious vote because of the kind of guy he is. That’s how politics works: people who might expect Romney to get the nomination nonetheless send a message.
“No-one pulled Santorum out of a hat — what do you think this is? Russia?” Let me respond to you this way David — when was the last time a GOP primary just ‘lost’ or ‘couldn’t verify’ the results of FOUR counties in a state not known for cheating like Iowa? Seriously David? You have to sort of turn your head away from that one to avoid seeing things you’d rather not see, like Rove’s discourse on Fox News that night from 1,000 miles away discussing how the delegates were split in a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ between the Romney and Santorum people in one precinct.
If things keep getting screwy in every state were Ron Paul is close to winning anything that should tell you something. I fully expect some ‘irregularities’ to be announced in Maine post-facto too, by which time no one will care anymore than people seem to care about who’s going to get Iowa’s delegates.
And the Lindbergh comparison without an airplane is a disservice to both men. Who do you think gave the War Dept. the specs on what Hermann Goering was up to? I make no defense of Lindbergh’s anti-Semitic remarks but he deserves better than that. And considering that Dr. Paul’s idol is Ludwig Von Mises, a Jew who fled Nazi Austria, I think Dr. Paul suffers in the comparison as well.
Last of all, any Republican Party that continues to rely on the votes of elderly whites (see Romney’s big win in Florida for an example of the ‘just give me my Social Security/Medicare benefits for another ten years and let me die in peace’ status quo voting) and sneer at the candidate or candidates who can bring in younger voters is doomed. Period.
But I give you credit for this — unlike some of your PJM ‘colleagues’ you don’t engage in the stupid denial that Paul supporters exist or that the Republican rank and file is not seriously sick and tired of nation building in the Middle East. You don’t play the childish game of blocking ten pro-Paul comments from multiple folks and then seeing, “See? Nobody supports Paul in our comments thread.” Which oddly enough, is exactly what the most furious denouncers of the ‘Ronulans’ and ‘Paulbots’ often accuse Paul supporters of doing…i.e. showing up and voicing support for their man when others are indifferent is ‘gaming’ online polls that count IP addresses.
In conclusion, here at PJM in the past six weeks, I have seen FAR MORE FURY directed against Ron Paul than against President Obama, at least in certain threads. Seriously. While I do not believe that every denouncer was a paid flack (though there has been some of that going on) there is clearly something about the crumbling Status Quo that is exposing the insecurities of not only the ‘Left’, but many on the so-called ‘Right’ as well.
P.S. The Iowa GOP did cough up the county results — three weeks later, and claimed in their final tally that ten precincts went kapoof.
DPG wrote @39: “Ron Paul … a huge paranoid streak, a magnet resentment”.
Viktor (not that Victor) then replied @40: “If things keep getting screwy in every state were Ron Paul is close to winning anything that should tell you something. I fully expect some ‘irregularities’ to be announced in Maine post-facto too, by which time no one will care anymore than people seem to care about who’s going to get Iowa’s delegates”.
“Ask, and Ye shall receive”.
Viktor also noted @40 concerning certain rumors of RoPa’s anti-Semitic inclinations that, “Dr. Paul’s idol is Ludwig Von Mises, a Jew who fled Nazi Austria, I think Dr. Paul suffers in the comparison as well”. I may agree with Viktor on this one. I also think it’s high time to dispel those rumors that Stalin may have been anti-Semitic. After all, he was a disciple of Karl Marx.
Nikita Khrushchev declared Stalin an anti-Semite of the First Water.
That trumps your take.
Cheers.
“Viktor also noted @40 concerning certain rumors of RoPa’s anti-Semitic inclinations that,” that’s because rumors and innuendo is all you have, and all PJM’s articles contra Paul have had since the whole anti-Paul blitzkrieg started on the eve of the Iowa caucuses.
They’ve put words in his mouth simply because he refused to be rude to a ‘truther’ and said he never takes official government explanations at face value (hell, as you’re well aware MarcH polls show a majority of Americans are Kennedy assassination ‘truthers’ if asked about that event — which is not to say they deny Kennedy was shot or even shot by Oswald).
And one more thing MarcH – go ask Preston why he never bothered to denounce Paul’s views back when he was just ‘Dr. No’ and Bryan Preston worked for the Texas Republican Party in the early 2000s. It wasn’t as if Paul’s views changed between now and then, as any YouTube search will attest. No, all that changed was Paul decided to run for President and Preston’s employers were suddenly interested in destroying his reputation, rather than debating him on merits.
I can’t ask him, because my comments — or for that matter any comments in the slightest sympathetic towards Dr. Paul — appear at Preston’s blog anymore, or for that matter at any PJM blog besides this one and Wretchard’s. Which are probably the only ones anyone reads anyway.
I can’t ask him, because my comments — or for that matter any comments in the slightest sympathetic towards Dr. Paul — [sic] don’t appear at Preston’s blog anymore, or for that matter at any PJM blog besides this one and Wretchard’s. Which are probably the only ones anyone reads anyway.
At a certain point the NY Post and the Murdoch ‘apparat’ is turning into a self-parody on the subject of Western sponsorship of Islamist terror, so long as it’s directed Syria or Iran’s way, for example here:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/02/11/how-terrorism-becomes-entirely-defensible-ii/
and here;
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/02/10/the-hawkish-embrace-of-the-double-standard-on-terrorism/
And I see Claudia Rosett says Obama’s Reset has given all sorts of outrageous concessions to Russia, like letting them veto a resolution on Syria in the Security Council (last I checked Russia can veto any Security Council resolution, that doesn’t depend on Obama).
Perhaps in a parallel universe where Russia is setting up a missile defense system in Cuba and sending advisors to Guatemala while overthrowing the Honduran government this might be true. Neocon land is turning into a giant pit of warmongering insanity, and I’ve warned David enough times in the end Israel is going to get burned by some of its noisiest friends in D.C. when the Muslim Brotherhood post-Assad starts lobbing rockets at the Golan Heights. But he’s so worried Achmadinnerjacket is going to go ballistic with nukes he doesn’t have, he dismisses my scenario of Iran just buying a nuke from Pakistan as ‘far fetched’. The Times apparently thinks Pakistan selling a nuke to Saudi Arabia at least is not so far fetched.
To flip your ‘Stalin’ reference right back at ya MarcH, Stalin thought he was pretty damn clever when he cut his deal with Hitler. The neocons of course have been denouncing Islamists as the new Hitler but think they’re a-ok so long as they can be directed against Gaddafi, Assad and Achmadinnerjacket. They’re about to discover just like Stalin did in June 41′ that they weren’t so clever after all.
I thought the point that I was trying to make by citing Stalin was clear: just as Stalin’s apparent admiration for Marx doesn’t rule out Stalin being an anti-Semite, RoPa’s admiration for a dead Austrian-Jewish economist doesn’t indicate that he’s not an anti-Semite.
You are the guy who first invoked von Mises @40 to absolve RoPa of possible anti-Semitism. I think bringing Stalin and von Mises into this thread was a bit OT.
By the way, von Mises wasn’t buried in a Jewish cemetery. I know very little about his private life, but if that was his wish, it indicates that he was very estranged from Judaism.
Anyone who thinks democracy will ever flourish in a muslim country is living in la-la land. While I’m conservative, the nation building done by the Bush admin in Iraq was purely stupid as was/is the efforts in Libya, Egypt, and Syria. True democracy is not in their makeup. Going after Bin Laden on the other hand was an ace well played. If attacked, which we were, you respond with the country’s might, period, which Bush did. Once Bin Loser was dead, we should have walked away. “Walk softly but carry a big stick”.
I ran out of thread depth above, so I’m responding to Spengler’s comment on February 13 at 4:34 am
>> You’re coming into this discussion rather late.
Mr. Goldman: I may be late to the party, but I’ve challenged you on a number of points that stand alone, and you aren’t defending them but referring me to extraneous things. Does Kagan think, as you claim, that Islamisist ascendance in places like Egypt are “a good thing”, or the lesser of two evils? Because that is a different thing. The choices are bad and worse, not good and bad. Thinking things will get worse before better isn’t the same as thinking what is bad is good. This is why I strongly suspect until I read the book (shortly) that you’ve caricatured him. Remember, you are strongly hinting that Kagan is akin to Harold Hill in The Music Man, who was a conman! Is this the mark of a fair review? No. And block pasting quotes from his book doesn’t automatically interpret themselves as thinking Islamicist ascendance in Egypt is a “good thing”, and this should be obvious. That is likely your unfair caricature of his position.
Look, I’ve been hard on you, but please at least answer this before I come to my own conclusion by reading the relevant material. And this is my problem with your review. How does Kagan’s view differ from, say, your fellow PMedia blogger Victor Davis Hanson? Or any other of his VDH view of whom there are quite a few? Are you just using Kagan as a representative of those such as VDH who support substantially the same thing? And why do I need to ask this after reading your review? I still don’t know from your review whether you lampoon all those who support the Iraq and Afghan wars with the same brush or not? How about Faoud Ajami? If not, why not? Your review had very little nuance, and I may be late to the party, but my critique has not changed and need not change whether you are Jewish or a Covental-whatever or not. I read a lot of book reviews, and this is the sort of thing I normally learn by reading them. Why I’m having to ask you in comments on something this basic is troubling.
>> Of course I’m not a Christian. I’m a Jew, and I daven at a Modern Orthodox shul.
I didn’t say you were a Christian, or assume it. I said I was. I said your view was heretical on the Christian view. That’s why an non-heterodox Christian ought to have trouble believing your view. You are free to believe whatever you want.
This would be a reason to stop acting like all reasonable people ought to be sympathetic as your tone suggests. Many aren’t, and shouldn’t be. I think this is where you reply that you are one of the few that get this obvious truth, and how that is evidence the world has corrupted itself as you say. You know you want to do that, so go ahead. I may be late to the party, but it doesn’t mean I can’t see where you’ll go and how you’ll get there. Because your’s is only a Jewish variant of something very common, and anti-democratic Christians have a position not substantially different from yours relevant to the matters we’re discussing. So please, don’t keep repeating how late I am to your party. I understand the party well enough, and the main points are not new or unique.