Tuesday, September 05, 2006
FOR EXAMPLE
This is a thread from The Atlantic Monthly magazine. I'd love to see y'all have an ongoing discussion like this one!
September Issue: "Declaring Victory"
Foreign Affairs Host - 12:48pm Aug 1, 2006 EDT
In “Declaring Victory” (September 2006 Atlantic), James Fallows suggests that contrary to pessimistic conventional wisdom, the U.S. is actually winning the war on terrorism. Al-Qaeda, Fallows explains, has been crippled to the point that it can no longer organize complex, large-scale attacks against Westerners. And while there is always a concern that sleeper cells in the U.S. might be engaged in nefarious plotting, in fact, Fallows points out, most Arab and Muslim immigrants to the U.S. are very well assimilated and tend to feel strong loyalty and patriotism toward the U.S. Moreover, as insurgents in Iraq and elsewhere continue to perpetrate violence, they invariably end up killing and injuring fellow Muslims, thereby turning the tide of public opinion in the Arab world against themselves.
Fallows contends that the primary danger lies not in what al-Qaeda can physically do to harm us, but in what we might do in the name of proctecting ourselves against them. If we continue to declare ourselves "at war" and take provocative, ill-considered actions, then we will continue to make enemies and find ourselves in a hostile relationship with parts of the Muslim world.
What we ought to do, Fallows argues, is "declar[e] that the 'global war on teror' is over, and that we have won." By easing out of our perpetual state of hostile alertness, then we can begin to move our efforts and resources away from defensive and destructive projects to constructive efforts that forge bonds and foster goodwill.
What's your take on this? Is it time to declare the terror war over? Or is it better to maintain an agressive stance in the face of unknown dangers?
Also see Fallows's follow-up in light of the foiled bombing plot.
-------------------------
geode2k - 03:29pm Aug 29, 2006 EDT (#154 of 183)
War on metaphor?
Do we incite violence by just by using the word war? Why not declare victory over metaphor? Or adopt the more popular jihad? Funny that jihadists have no reservations about declaring war on us. Another problem with declaring victory is that many politicians and most of the press has been continuously declaring our ignominious defeat in Iraq for several years now. How do we suddenly declare victory now? I doubt that this will reduce pressure on those responsible for ensuring national security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
batondor - 10:04pm Aug 29, 2006 EDT (#156 of 183)
Two Responses and a Completion...
pdan:
... regarding "balancing":
I largely agree, especailly the World War One example because all the Great Powers (and not just the British and French) led themselves to believe they could dance their way through shifting alliances only to trip over the traps of commitments and the fear of change that they had set up in the first place. Layne, on the other hand, seems to think that the US can be a "superbalancer" with no real "exceptional" peer, which is also wishful thinking (read "China", at the very least...).
His point about "hegemony" however, needs to be seen as an "classic" (as compared to "neo") conservative's critique of the liberal internationalism that, in his mind, was the hegemonic vision of Wilson passed on to FDR and his offspring: "Making the world safe for democracy (whether or not they are ready for it or even want it...)". I'm not sure I agree with Layne, and I find your arguments compelling, but I do think this was his intended target (and it does explain, for example, why the US sided with the Nationalists in China against Japanese imperialism...).
... regarding "pipe dreams":
In the first degree, I would agree that the "benevolent administration" of another people's assets in a postwar environment is inherently laudable, and I believe that it should have been the core of any post Iraq regime change plan: it's one of the great mysteries to me how they bungled that part of it so royally...
The problem, of course, is that it just doesn't work that way anymore: there are just too many experienced people from these countries who are able to defend their country's economic interests (though often with a parochial or self-serving interest that does not benefit the larger nation...); for example, what happens when the Adminstrator's interests are in direct contradiction to the Administrated's? (... such as OPEC membership, for example). I do agree that an credible international management of the oil assets of Iraq is now an indispensible step, but how can such an institution be formed after offsetting experiences of Oil-for-Food and the botched postwar Halliburton-managed reconstruction effort?
... regarding my truncated response:
I don't know how that happened, but here's a synthesis: I believe that coordinated international action on a broad and comprehensive scale is needed... and that obviously goes well beyond crypto-unilateralism with a dusting of multilateralism and includes far more than "regime change" and "democracy" as objectives. It also involves a unimaginable degree of deference by the current Bush-led bunch to an international consensus that would be far more comprehensive and transparent than, for example, the narrow example of the fait accompli that is Lebanon today...
PS: to geo2k - with whom I have found little to agree in the past - I was tempted to say that the critique of the semantics of declarations of victory is compelling... but then I thought of counterexamples that I think are central examples of Fallows' core intent:
- at the end of World War II, "we" simply stated that we had defeated Fascism and in the process delegitimized all the explicitly fascist movements that have since developped (or endured) since that terrible era.
- at the "end" of the Cold War, we arbitrarily conflated the implosion of the Soviet sphere with the End of Communism as a system, making it possible to deal with the PRC and smaller actors such as Venezuela without the baggage of ideology (though I would submit the legacy is still alive and well... such as in Nicaragua's upcoming elections).
But now that I have seen your last comment, pdan, I am inclined to think again because you are attempting to conflate the "War on Terror" with the particular struggles for power in places like Northern Ireland, Iraq, and Lebanon. I fully embrace your interpretation of the history of The Troubles and wish something like the mothers' movement could occur in Jerusalem (with Palestinians and Israelis together) or Baghdad (with Sunni and Shia hand-in-hand); however, that's a prerequisite but no guarantee that reconciliation will prevail...
... then again, both Malread Corrigan and Betty Williams have been vociferous opponents of the sanctions and use of military force to reverse Saddam from power, so you have to be careful what you wish for...
I think Fallows' central scheme is that we should not be hung up with grand, open-ended schemes such as GWOT but rather should make judgements over whether to "stick it out" or to "cut our losses" on a case-by-case basis... I guess the only way the vision of the British commitment to Northern Ireland can be transposed to Iraq is to make the latter a full blown American territory (how about "The Fifty First State"?... and would Iraqis have to embrace English as their primary language first?).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pdan - 11:01pm Aug 29, 2006 EDT (#157 of 183)
What is victory?
I am not sure exactly what I was trying to say except that sarcasm aside I agree with Fallows in as much as to say that the general war on terrorism is winnable, and indeed we are doing well, although we are not quite there yet. I am not sure what would be the clincher. Finding Bin Laden?, or just a rejuvenated Interpol (remember them?) with a general agreement of all countries to co-operate with it. Perhaps we already have that.
Neither Iraq nor Iran, not even the Palestine/Israel issue are part of that war. These are serious regional problems that may inspire terrorism world wide but do not necessarily have to. Perhaps we have won when everyone accepts that these regional problems have to be contained within the region where they occur.
This is not to say that Hamas and Hezbollah attacks on Israel for example are not terrorism. They are. So are attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan in Sri Lanka etc. They don't constitute world terrorism but regional terrorism. Responsible authorities in each region need to be given some leeway by recognizing that no matter how legitimate the grievance, terrorism can not be accepted as a legitimate answer. We should never accept the glorification of terrorism, or allow the celebration of terrorist "victories", especially by the media.
OK, there it is. The fulfilment of the last sentence above would perhaps mark the "clincher".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Procter - 01:16pm Aug 30, 2006 EDT (#158 of 183)
What is "victory"? What is "war"?:
Neither Iraq nor Iran, not even the Palestine/Israel issue are part of that war. ("pdan")
A clarifying "GWOT" definition which Bush & Co. would accordingly (i.e. definitively) reject.
But try this on for size:
What War? Welcome to the One-Party Police State http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff08292006.html
Re: the "Shock-and-Awe Express":
Former CIA analyst Ray Close explains why it's speeding toward Teheran:
Close: Why Bush will choose war against Iran http://www.counterpunch.org/close08262006.html
And (staying on theme) what the Fallows' recommended real diplomacy:
to move our efforts and resources away from defensive and destructive projects to constructive efforts that forge bonds and foster goodwill.
would mean in real practice:
5. I believe that Iran wants very much to be accepted as a respected member of the community of prosperous and influential modern states. And an Iran that was indeed a trustworthy member of that community would be an enormous benefit to America and to the world. That should be the objective of American policy, therefore --- accommodating and eventually modifying the legitimate national aspirations of a self-interested and pragmatic Iran --- not launching a potentially catastrophic preemptive war against a potentially powerful and influential Muslim nation of seventy million people. Coaxing Iran down a path leading toward successful achievement of international respectability and acceptance is the single most important "carrot" that we have to offer the Iranian leadership today. The potential value of that positive incentive has been completely squandered, however, by the pointless hostility and belligerence of American "diplomatic" language --- starting with the "axis of evil" and proceeding downhill from there to the most recent offer of patently unacceptable ultimatums. This has greatly diminished our own bargaining power while making the job of arriving at a reasonable accommodation with Iran infinitely more difficult in every way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Norman - 10:33pm Aug 30, 2006 EDT (#159 of 183)
just a rejuvenated Interpol (remember them?)
Heh, I see in The Economist, Interpol has a help wanted ad for "Payroll Clerk".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Powell - 07:36am Aug 31, 2006 EDT (#160 of 183)
Media War Must Be Won
The "war" phase of the War on Terror has been over for some time now, marked by the fall of Baghdad and Kabul. We'd be well advised to declare victory, organize some nice parades, create a non-profit organization to start raising money for a monument in Washington, and call it a day.
The hard work of dealing with the assorted ongoing threats to our security like environmental degradation and chronic under-development, as well as religiopolitical extremism and the misbehavior of rogue states, will continue as before. It is predictible that those with a vested interest or a psychological profile that requires endless posturing as saviors of the world against the depredations of liberal democracies will continue to find fans in the media and in segments of the population relieved of the necessity for contact with normal people by the bureaucracy, trust funds, tenure, or other forms of parental subsidy. We will know we've won the "War on Terror" when mainstream media stops calling terrorists "militants", criminals "insurgents", fascists "fundamentalists", tribal mafias "liberation movements", and enemy states "dysfunctional Third World nations".
This is a thread from The Atlantic Monthly magazine. I'd love to see y'all have an ongoing discussion like this one!
September Issue: "Declaring Victory"
Foreign Affairs Host - 12:48pm Aug 1, 2006 EDT
In “Declaring Victory” (September 2006 Atlantic), James Fallows suggests that contrary to pessimistic conventional wisdom, the U.S. is actually winning the war on terrorism. Al-Qaeda, Fallows explains, has been crippled to the point that it can no longer organize complex, large-scale attacks against Westerners. And while there is always a concern that sleeper cells in the U.S. might be engaged in nefarious plotting, in fact, Fallows points out, most Arab and Muslim immigrants to the U.S. are very well assimilated and tend to feel strong loyalty and patriotism toward the U.S. Moreover, as insurgents in Iraq and elsewhere continue to perpetrate violence, they invariably end up killing and injuring fellow Muslims, thereby turning the tide of public opinion in the Arab world against themselves.
Fallows contends that the primary danger lies not in what al-Qaeda can physically do to harm us, but in what we might do in the name of proctecting ourselves against them. If we continue to declare ourselves "at war" and take provocative, ill-considered actions, then we will continue to make enemies and find ourselves in a hostile relationship with parts of the Muslim world.
What we ought to do, Fallows argues, is "declar[e] that the 'global war on teror' is over, and that we have won." By easing out of our perpetual state of hostile alertness, then we can begin to move our efforts and resources away from defensive and destructive projects to constructive efforts that forge bonds and foster goodwill.
What's your take on this? Is it time to declare the terror war over? Or is it better to maintain an agressive stance in the face of unknown dangers?
Also see Fallows's follow-up in light of the foiled bombing plot.
-------------------------
geode2k - 03:29pm Aug 29, 2006 EDT (#154 of 183)
War on metaphor?
Do we incite violence by just by using the word war? Why not declare victory over metaphor? Or adopt the more popular jihad? Funny that jihadists have no reservations about declaring war on us. Another problem with declaring victory is that many politicians and most of the press has been continuously declaring our ignominious defeat in Iraq for several years now. How do we suddenly declare victory now? I doubt that this will reduce pressure on those responsible for ensuring national security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
batondor - 10:04pm Aug 29, 2006 EDT (#156 of 183)
Two Responses and a Completion...
pdan:
... regarding "balancing":
I largely agree, especailly the World War One example because all the Great Powers (and not just the British and French) led themselves to believe they could dance their way through shifting alliances only to trip over the traps of commitments and the fear of change that they had set up in the first place. Layne, on the other hand, seems to think that the US can be a "superbalancer" with no real "exceptional" peer, which is also wishful thinking (read "China", at the very least...).
His point about "hegemony" however, needs to be seen as an "classic" (as compared to "neo") conservative's critique of the liberal internationalism that, in his mind, was the hegemonic vision of Wilson passed on to FDR and his offspring: "Making the world safe for democracy (whether or not they are ready for it or even want it...)". I'm not sure I agree with Layne, and I find your arguments compelling, but I do think this was his intended target (and it does explain, for example, why the US sided with the Nationalists in China against Japanese imperialism...).
... regarding "pipe dreams":
In the first degree, I would agree that the "benevolent administration" of another people's assets in a postwar environment is inherently laudable, and I believe that it should have been the core of any post Iraq regime change plan: it's one of the great mysteries to me how they bungled that part of it so royally...
The problem, of course, is that it just doesn't work that way anymore: there are just too many experienced people from these countries who are able to defend their country's economic interests (though often with a parochial or self-serving interest that does not benefit the larger nation...); for example, what happens when the Adminstrator's interests are in direct contradiction to the Administrated's? (... such as OPEC membership, for example). I do agree that an credible international management of the oil assets of Iraq is now an indispensible step, but how can such an institution be formed after offsetting experiences of Oil-for-Food and the botched postwar Halliburton-managed reconstruction effort?
... regarding my truncated response:
I don't know how that happened, but here's a synthesis: I believe that coordinated international action on a broad and comprehensive scale is needed... and that obviously goes well beyond crypto-unilateralism with a dusting of multilateralism and includes far more than "regime change" and "democracy" as objectives. It also involves a unimaginable degree of deference by the current Bush-led bunch to an international consensus that would be far more comprehensive and transparent than, for example, the narrow example of the fait accompli that is Lebanon today...
PS: to geo2k - with whom I have found little to agree in the past - I was tempted to say that the critique of the semantics of declarations of victory is compelling... but then I thought of counterexamples that I think are central examples of Fallows' core intent:
- at the end of World War II, "we" simply stated that we had defeated Fascism and in the process delegitimized all the explicitly fascist movements that have since developped (or endured) since that terrible era.
- at the "end" of the Cold War, we arbitrarily conflated the implosion of the Soviet sphere with the End of Communism as a system, making it possible to deal with the PRC and smaller actors such as Venezuela without the baggage of ideology (though I would submit the legacy is still alive and well... such as in Nicaragua's upcoming elections).
But now that I have seen your last comment, pdan, I am inclined to think again because you are attempting to conflate the "War on Terror" with the particular struggles for power in places like Northern Ireland, Iraq, and Lebanon. I fully embrace your interpretation of the history of The Troubles and wish something like the mothers' movement could occur in Jerusalem (with Palestinians and Israelis together) or Baghdad (with Sunni and Shia hand-in-hand); however, that's a prerequisite but no guarantee that reconciliation will prevail...
... then again, both Malread Corrigan and Betty Williams have been vociferous opponents of the sanctions and use of military force to reverse Saddam from power, so you have to be careful what you wish for...
I think Fallows' central scheme is that we should not be hung up with grand, open-ended schemes such as GWOT but rather should make judgements over whether to "stick it out" or to "cut our losses" on a case-by-case basis... I guess the only way the vision of the British commitment to Northern Ireland can be transposed to Iraq is to make the latter a full blown American territory (how about "The Fifty First State"?... and would Iraqis have to embrace English as their primary language first?).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pdan - 11:01pm Aug 29, 2006 EDT (#157 of 183)
What is victory?
I am not sure exactly what I was trying to say except that sarcasm aside I agree with Fallows in as much as to say that the general war on terrorism is winnable, and indeed we are doing well, although we are not quite there yet. I am not sure what would be the clincher. Finding Bin Laden?, or just a rejuvenated Interpol (remember them?) with a general agreement of all countries to co-operate with it. Perhaps we already have that.
Neither Iraq nor Iran, not even the Palestine/Israel issue are part of that war. These are serious regional problems that may inspire terrorism world wide but do not necessarily have to. Perhaps we have won when everyone accepts that these regional problems have to be contained within the region where they occur.
This is not to say that Hamas and Hezbollah attacks on Israel for example are not terrorism. They are. So are attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan in Sri Lanka etc. They don't constitute world terrorism but regional terrorism. Responsible authorities in each region need to be given some leeway by recognizing that no matter how legitimate the grievance, terrorism can not be accepted as a legitimate answer. We should never accept the glorification of terrorism, or allow the celebration of terrorist "victories", especially by the media.
OK, there it is. The fulfilment of the last sentence above would perhaps mark the "clincher".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Procter - 01:16pm Aug 30, 2006 EDT (#158 of 183)
What is "victory"? What is "war"?:
Neither Iraq nor Iran, not even the Palestine/Israel issue are part of that war. ("pdan")
A clarifying "GWOT" definition which Bush & Co. would accordingly (i.e. definitively) reject.
But try this on for size:
What War? Welcome to the One-Party Police State http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff08292006.html
Re: the "Shock-and-Awe Express":
Former CIA analyst Ray Close explains why it's speeding toward Teheran:
Close: Why Bush will choose war against Iran http://www.counterpunch.org/close08262006.html
And (staying on theme) what the Fallows' recommended real diplomacy:
to move our efforts and resources away from defensive and destructive projects to constructive efforts that forge bonds and foster goodwill.
would mean in real practice:
5. I believe that Iran wants very much to be accepted as a respected member of the community of prosperous and influential modern states. And an Iran that was indeed a trustworthy member of that community would be an enormous benefit to America and to the world. That should be the objective of American policy, therefore --- accommodating and eventually modifying the legitimate national aspirations of a self-interested and pragmatic Iran --- not launching a potentially catastrophic preemptive war against a potentially powerful and influential Muslim nation of seventy million people. Coaxing Iran down a path leading toward successful achievement of international respectability and acceptance is the single most important "carrot" that we have to offer the Iranian leadership today. The potential value of that positive incentive has been completely squandered, however, by the pointless hostility and belligerence of American "diplomatic" language --- starting with the "axis of evil" and proceeding downhill from there to the most recent offer of patently unacceptable ultimatums. This has greatly diminished our own bargaining power while making the job of arriving at a reasonable accommodation with Iran infinitely more difficult in every way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Norman - 10:33pm Aug 30, 2006 EDT (#159 of 183)
just a rejuvenated Interpol (remember them?)
Heh, I see in The Economist, Interpol has a help wanted ad for "Payroll Clerk".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Powell - 07:36am Aug 31, 2006 EDT (#160 of 183)
Media War Must Be Won
The "war" phase of the War on Terror has been over for some time now, marked by the fall of Baghdad and Kabul. We'd be well advised to declare victory, organize some nice parades, create a non-profit organization to start raising money for a monument in Washington, and call it a day.
The hard work of dealing with the assorted ongoing threats to our security like environmental degradation and chronic under-development, as well as religiopolitical extremism and the misbehavior of rogue states, will continue as before. It is predictible that those with a vested interest or a psychological profile that requires endless posturing as saviors of the world against the depredations of liberal democracies will continue to find fans in the media and in segments of the population relieved of the necessity for contact with normal people by the bureaucracy, trust funds, tenure, or other forms of parental subsidy. We will know we've won the "War on Terror" when mainstream media stops calling terrorists "militants", criminals "insurgents", fascists "fundamentalists", tribal mafias "liberation movements", and enemy states "dysfunctional Third World nations".
