Justus For All

Dave, I would not have expected more - it is after all still a political document.

That fact does raise questions about the face value of the words and the content as a whole. Like you I think that there is little point in going there. I will leave it to the self-annointed political pundits to bicker while they tip their coffee dregs into their keyboards, or their tea into their trousers, over what has been apparent from the very start.

The report will have no impact on GWB or the administration. There is not enough time - nor I suspect, will in the Democrats camp - for there to be any meaningful fallout. And, as I think you would agree, that is not really going to cure the problems created in Iraq and the world at large.

Leading (loaded?) question for you -

What do you think should be the broad policy planks for Elections 2008? How do you see them shaping up? Forget who the candidates might be - what policies do you think the GOP or DP should be running to win office and then to put America right with ROW?

I don’t think you can back up that the NIE is a political document, unless you mean that in the very broad sense that anything done by a government (or people for that matter) is a ‘political document.’ It is an intelligence estimate preformed by the CIA and was originally intended for a select audience of the leaders of the nation, rather than the public. Certainly it is a very different animal than Republican (or Democratic) talking points.

Clearly the leak was a political maneuver, and the declassification was a respons to that maneuver, but the document itself isn’t particularly political. The very fact than any side can cherry pick things that they like shows this.

As for your question, I would expect that the broad policy planks for 2008 will be pretty much as they have been. I suspect that domestic issues will overshadow foreign policy and security in 2008, although 9/11 will continue to have some impact.

As for putting America right with the ROW, pesonally that is not a huge priority of mine. Bottom line is that I would rather be right than popular.

In my personal expirience, it is seldom that the right thing to do is the popular thing to do. When facing difficult problems (and I think we can at least agree that the war on terror and Islamic radicalism is a difficult problem) the easy, popular solution is seldom the correct one. There is also the tendency of people to want to ignore a problem that is hard, to pretend that it doesn’t exist so they don’t have to deal with it.

And of course, the rest of the world is a diverse place. I certainly don’t want to be right with the likes of Kim Jung Il or Ahmadjahadin. I don’t particularly want to be ‘right’ with Iraqi insurgents who kill their fellow countrymen at Mosques or a Syrian government that supplies rockets filled with ball bearings to Hezbollah.

So convince me that the ROW is right, and I will try to get ‘right’ with what is right. Telling me I am unpopular is probably merely going to convince me that the course I am on is probably correct.

Out of curiosity, what do you think America should do to be right with the rest of the world?

OK, “political document”. It has been - as you rightly point out - written solely for the eyes of politicians. That does not mean that it has been slanted in any way to political ends; far from it! But (in my part of the world) anything written for political consumption rather than public has to be read very carefully. Hence my comment that the face value of words and intended nuances give rise to questions.

You hedge on my question - that is no surprise.

I note your comment making the distinction between “popularity with ROW” and the “right” thing to do. When I asked the question, I was not thinking in terms of “popularity”. It was more in the nature of taking a leading part in a team rather than trying to be the solo star quarterback - you know, the one who believes he can beat any defensive line and keeps getting himself sacked as a result.

“When facing difficult problems (and I think we can at least agree that the war on terror and Islamic radicalism is a difficult problem) the easy, popular solution is seldom the correct one.” I agree. Totally. But, I submit, the attack on Iraq was “the easy, popular solution” - if for no other reason than it continued the blood-lust desire for revenge that the stronghold Bush electorate were demanding for 9/11. Far more difficult, but I submit more lasting and effective, might have been to continue the dialogue with Arab states particularly, and the Islam world in general on how to limit the increasing dangers of non-national, religious terrorism.

I know full well that it is a “trouser-leg of time” debate; futile and impossible to support. We have the history, we have the current position; how do we handle it. The same applied after 9/11. Right/wrong? We only have determined giving new choices.

You will have read no doubt the quote from Eisenhower and perhaps that was resonating when I wrote my previous comment. I also have come across just recently (someone else in a comment) a quotation attributed to Winston Churchill - “You can rely upon America to do the right thing - after they have exhausted all of the alternatives”.

I am not going to try and tell you or the US what to do or not to do. That was not the purpose of my question.

The parts of the document released are not the totality and this document even when complete is informational, not factual.
It is an estimate - a best guess by those involved based on what they know and believe.
Accepting it is in general a better idea than ignoring it.
If it’s done well then arguments for both sidees of issues exist in it.

The NIE is a tool, not a political documents, and not a Cannonical reference of detailed facts.

Not trivial, incomplete - if you want answers see the majors (not as in rank).

NIE is not for public eyes for a good reason.
Bush 41 gets a copy, I don’t know if Clinton has put himself on the list or not - he can if he wants it.
NIE is more or less a ‘casual’ brief.

Probligo,

I didn’t intend to hedge on your question. Putting out all of things I should personally like to see is too long of a list for a blog comment. By reading my blog, I imagine that you have a fairly good idea of where my political desires lie. I attempted to answer the specific part of your question, which was how the U.S. should act to be right with the ROW and the answer I gave was that really shouldn’t be a concern of ours.

I won’t deny that some people probably approached Iraq with a desire for bloodlust and revenge, but I was a close follower of the debate on blogs and in politics during the run-up to the Iraq war, and that wasn’t the primary reason. Different people had different reasons, and different prioritizations of reasons, ranging from establishing a democracy in the Middle East to effect change on the reason, pure humanitarian intervention, Saddam’s support for terror groups, and the potential for WMDS. These issues were seriously debated, as well as the different possible negative effects, some of which have happened and some of which have not. Relegating this to a desire for blood either betrays your ignorance or your prejudice. As it happens, I am still absolutely convinced that Iraq was the right thing to do.

If we persue you football team analogy, I would submit that some of the ‘players’ are on the other team. Iran and North Korea being primary examples but their are certainly others as well. Also there are of course many in the ‘rest of the world’ who simply don’t want to play at all, they wish the game would just go away. We have of course tried to build a ‘team’ but we can’t force anyone to join with us.

I find it amusing and disturbing that you are perfectly willing to tell us that what we are doing is wrong, but unwilling to tell us what would be the right thing. That, in my opinion, betrays a fundamental lack of seriousness on the issue. Sure it is always easy to snark and naysay. Coming up with an alternative is hard, and apparently you are unwilling to do so.

“Coming up with an alternative is hard,”

Right!

” and apparently you are unwilling to do so”

Wrong! “Unable” would be a better word.

OK, but I am dumb enough to try.

When I put the question to you, I was thinking broad-brush, not minute detail. I think too that in the context of this topic we are talking external and not internal policies.

Eisenhower might be a very good place to start - the quote I linked to a good reflection.

So, think of a different approach rather than different outcome. It might take longer, but if the US were to act more cooperatively than in continuous opposition there would be fewer “enemies”

I know that a re-examination of the relationship with Israel must be at top of the list. I also realise that would be total anathema to the US electorate so my ideal candidate would be lucky to reach the ballot, let alone get elected.

So at that point I stop and ask - I know nothing, what do you think…

Probligo,

But I expect that you know what I think.

I believe that we should support Israel, and that Israel has a right to defend themselves against attack. Sometimes ‘defense’ involves taking out offensive capabilities (rockets, bomb factories, terrorist leaders) outside of it’s territitory.

I think we should support those in the Middle East, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere who want to build functioning democracies. In particular, I think we should help them kill the bastards who are trying to impose their own view through violence and terror.

I think that we should try and help the Palestinians have thier own state, but I don’t think that they can do that until they acknowledge the right of Israel to exist and end their war against Israel. I also think that we don’t have any particular need to support the establishment of a totalitarian Palestinian state. The Palestinians are working imperfectly toward a Democracy, so some support is justified, greater successes will deserve greater support.

I think almost any cost is worth being born to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear capability. The negatives that will result from such a thing will almost certainly outweigh any cost to prevent it. We have tried to play on Europe’s team in this, but so far they seem to be stopped at the line of scrimage on forth down, to continue to football analogy. Perhaps it is time for the ’star quarterback to give it a shot, but they seem unwilling to change strategies, even though what they have done hasn’t been successful at all.

I think we should support the Government of Lebanon in building the institutions it needs to be successful and stable. This includes supporting them against militant Hezbollah.

I expect that you know all of this though, you have read this blog long enough that nothing above should be a surprise. I suspect you also disagree with it, but will continue not to offer a different approach.

Dave, I argue not against what you say about Israel, and it is in some way regrettable that I inserted that in this debate. It plays a large part in the strife that the US has gotten itself into. It is primary in the rationale used by Islamic terrorists to justify their actions.

So if the heat is to be taken out of the WOT, a goodly part of the solution must involve the relationship between Israel and the US; NOT what Israel does… NOT what the US might think of Palestine’s democracy.

It would be more productive perhaps, if we want to further this discussion, to concentrate on my quote from Eisenhower; whether the application of that form of diplomacy might further the interests of the US more than the present approach.

Probligo,

You seem to find some deep meaning in that quote that I do not. Obviously you think it should enlighten us in some way, but I believe it is failing to do so. Perhaps if you could explain what you think it means, and how you think it should apply, we could discuss it, as it is, it seems to me to be an interesting peice of history, nothing more.

I don’t believe that the ‘root cause’ of Muslim discontent is Israel, or even the occuppied territories. I believe that the root cause is failures within their own societies, and Israel has been made a scape goat, in the most original sense of the term, by authority figures throughout the Muslim world to direct anger at an outside, instead of an internal, target. As such, I believe that even if all the Jews left Israel tomorrow, we would face the same issues the next day. Israel is not a reason, Israel is an excuse.

I am also not sure what you mean by taking out the ‘heat’ in the war on terror, you seem to think that a desirable thing to do. I am not so sure. During the 90s the ‘heat’ was out, and terrorists used that time to build up infrastructure and resources and plan devasting attacks. Keeping the ‘heat’ up is to our benefit, not theirs, as we can sustain a higher rate of operations than they can.

1. For as long as US pursues its “war on terror” in its present form, there will be terrorists to fight. Whether the US decides to “fight terrorism” in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Sudan, there will be terrorists to fight.

I think that what I am trying to suggest is that a “war on injustice” might be more effective.

2. The importance of Israel I have taken from early translations of OBL press releases early 2001 through mid 2002. Now the translations may be faulty, my recollection may be faulty; I will face that.

What is certain is that if you want a focal point for all of the strife in the Middle East (Mediterranean to Iran) then Israel would be the primary candidate.

Like I keep saying, it is not a matter of abandoning Israel. Israel must be kept to the same standards as are expected of its neighbours.

3. “Taking the heat out” is based upon the experience of the “war” between Britain and IRA. For 60 years, there was war. An enlightened Irishman, and a British PM who was prepared to listen, took the heat off the IRA and dealt with incidents as they arose rather than trying to “win”. Read the papers the past two days - where is the IRA now, only ten years later?

While I am against injustice, there is a lot of it everywhere. While I am all for ending injustice when and where we can, I don’t think we can ‘war’ on it everywhere.

As for Israel, since it is a democratic nation, as well as a nation-state, I hold it to a different, and higher, standard than its enemies. I would be terribly upset is Israel adopted the tactics of its enemies. Also, Al-Qaida has mentioned Palestine and Israel, but that hasn’t historically been their primary focus, that was the pressence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and the effects of the embargo in Iraq. Al-Qaida also frequently mentions the need to liberate Al-Andalusia from infidel hands.

Perhaps after 60 years of having ‘the heat’ on, an enlightened member of Al-Qaida will arise and we can listen. Right now, I am not sure what we would negotiate on. Thankfully, the IRA has given up its weapons and renounced violence as a means. I welcome any who would do the same as an ally in the war on terror, and would certainly support (as best we can) dealing with any injustice they percieve as best we can. That would not extend to returning Spain to Muslim rule, but certainly would extend to helping ensure that any Muslims in Spain are full and equal citizens.

Dave, thanks for your patience.

Your first sentence, I think, says it all. There is a lot of injustice about. That, rather than where The Ugly American (remember Greene?) might be standing, is in my mind the true fertilizer of the terrorism crop. How long might it be before Zimbabwe, or Congo, or Nigeria, or Liberia starts growing its own version of AlQaeda, growing in the fertile soils of suppression and poverty? How long before that small seed grows to a pan-Africa organisation with connections to the leading countries of the west?

We (the west) can only do so much, that is acknowledged. With that limitation, we must be certain that we tackle the right injustices rather than the easy. As we two can show (just within this brief discussion) there can be major differences not only on how to resolve an injustice, but where the injustice may actually lie between two opposing factions.

Oh that we had leaders with the wisdom of Solomon (or is it Suleiman?)!

I have wondered myself is terrorism isn’t more of a failed state phenomenon than anything else. So far, it seems that failed states allow terrorists to take root, but don’t drive terrorism so much themselves, other factors seem responsible for that.

Still, I think that their are plenty of good reasons to be serious about Africa. I expect though that the UN and other organizations won’t approach that project with any great vigor (given past history) so either America will have to continue doing very little, or we will have to ‘go it alone’ earning the wrath of the ROW.

The single greatest problem with Africa is thuggish dictatorial governments with no protections for individuals and rife with corruption. It is extremely unlikely that many (any?) of these governments will embrace meaningful reform without violence.

Until the UN paradigm changes from protecting the rights of nation-states to protecting the rights of individual citizens of the world, I don’t think that there is a lot that can be done in that part of the world. This is a huge tragedy, whose cost in blood has been, and will continue to be, huge, but I don’t see a solution at this time.

I submit that being right with the rest of the world as you would have us be, and fighting injustice are mutually exclusive goals. For example, Saddam’s Iraq was certainly a place that was far from just. Even with other reasons for invading, fighting that injustice was hardly popular.

Which, I think, is where we started.

The UN has this “strange” limitation that protects the right of a nation to govern itself without interference from external powers.

It comes down to “who is right”?

Are you “right” because your champion the cause of universal individual freedom? Or is (was) Ghandi “right” because he created Hindu Nationalism?

Now Ghandi’s “right” might not be the same as yours. Does that make it “right” for him to impose his beliefs on you? Similarly, what right have you to impose on him?

When I look at the world there are many instances where we would agree - “this is wrong, that is right”. But there are probably equally as many where we do not.

So, in those instances where we do not agree, whose “right” should prevail?

I think Ghandi and myself would be exactly on the same page, both advocating the right of the Indian People to rule themselves, because of their individual rights.

I strongly believe that individual human beings have innate rights, and removing those rights is an act of injustice whenever and however they are removed. If Ghandi disagreed with me on that (and from everything I have read about him he would not) then indeed I would oppose him.

Ghandi and I would of course disagree on means. I do not believe that non-violence is the answer to violence and I think Ghandi was quite lucky to have a reletively moral opponent in the British. Ghandi would not have done so well were he a fighting against Stalinist Russia or Moaist China (or any number of other totalitarian regimes.)

I do not think that fundamentally you and I disagree on what is right and what is wrong, our fundamental disagreement is that you do not believe there is such a thing as right or wrong.

I am quite sure that because of this, your philosophy will fail, because a philosophy that has its core principle of not believing in its own justice will have no ability to prevail against those who are willing to sacrifice for their beliefs.

The question that really remains is which believers will triumph, those like myself who believe in the rights of individuals, or those who have other beliefs. Your beliefs can survive under my worldview, they will not fare so well under others.

“I do not think that fundamentally you and I disagree on what is right and what is wrong, our fundamental disagreement is that you do not believe there is such a thing as right or wrong. ”

You are correct from the POV that we share a common moral base. I suspect that if we were to sit down and write out any number of “check lists” that the major fundamentals would be close to identical. The fact that I am atheist and (I think) you are not would not make too great a difference, other than in matters religious (such as nomenclature, philosophical terminology etc). You might rely more upon belief than I might, though that is a tentative statement rather than definitive.

Au contraire, I do have VERY strong views on what is wrong, what is right. The taking of a human life, for any reason, is totally wrong. The taking of another’s property, for any reason, is totally wrong. I can make exceptions to both - self defence to killing; taxes to a government; for example.

Where we do fundamentally disagree is upon how that moral base should be applied, most especially over cultural (including religious) boundaries.

It is at that point I suspect that so many people like to label me as a “relativist”, and that label is probably correct. I object to the label, mainly because I see it not as a matter of “relative morality”, but of realism.

I am happy with the values that my moral base supports. I will argue that they are worthy of consideration by any other person.

The other side is that I can not, with honesty or conviction, tell another that his moral code is wrong without bringing my own morals into question.

THAT I suspect is where we would differ the most.

You would not hesitate to tell another person that your moral code was “right”, and that his was “wrong”, simply because it differed from your own or came to dissimilar consequences to actions. You would not give thought to the possible moral validity of the alternate conclusion unless it coincided with your own.

Now, if my philosophy means I am likely to join the dinosaurs then I really have nothing to worry about. That is a logical conclusion in any and every case, moral or otherwise.

Would my beliefs fare as well in a different moral code? Probably not, as you have suggested. But then, consider that first I would have been raised within that alternative moral code so its application would be natural to my life. Would I have the courage of a Christian Saint, or Luther, or Copernicus or Galileo, or Ghandi or MLK, or a serviceman in the US Army? I can not tell, simply because I have not faced, nor do I anticipate ever having to face, the kind of moral choices that they made.

You are absolutely correct that I would not hessitate to tell another human being his moral code was wrong, if his moral code violated the basic principles that I believe in.

Those principles are include freedom of conscious and expression, freedom of self rule and equality of rights, and the use of violence only in self defense or the defense of others. Break those rules, and I will happily tell you that you are wrong.

There are also a number of areas where morality is not so black and white. Charitable giving would be a good example. While I think it is a good thing to do, I would not say someone was ‘wrong’ because they did less of that then me, or even didn’t do it at all. That would be a matter for their own conscious. Similar principles apply with sexual morality, religious beliefs, and a variety of other things. I might would attempt to convince someone that the way I saw things was better, but I would not presume to judge them for it.

I don’t base my principles on any religious text or sext, although I am fascinated by religion and find a lot of good in all the major (and many minor) religious movements. Christianity in particular seems to be have a well developed philosophical base, and admittedly I am most familiar with it, but I do not call myself a Christian or attend formal worship services of any kind regularly. Reason, coupled with humility, is what I strive to use to inform my principles.

In the end though, you either believe in your principles or you don’t. If you only believe in them if no one disagrees, then I don’t think you believe in them at all. I don’t know that I would call that moral relativism, rather a lack of courage in convictions.