Status check-- the Middle East

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Iraq has held their elections, Syria may finally be withdrawing her troops from Lebanon, and Israel and Palestine seem to be playing nice (at least for now).

I think we can all at least agree that the three above mentioned things are at least potentially good, right? I realize Iraq has regional issues that they need to resolve, and then there's of course those darn insurgents, but progress can take time.

Is it a domino effect? Granted, the assassination of Hariri was the catalyst for this anti-Syrian surge in Lebanon, but would the outburts have been as vocal and as determined had we not invaded Iraq? Would Syria be capitulating if President Bush weren't throwing his weight behind it?

A lot of people seem to be writing about whether or not the Neo-cons were, dare I say it.......right? Have the prospective ends justified the means? Internationalism, multi-lateralism, international law, etc. etc., they've all taken a hit in light of our recent heavy-handed presence in the Middle East.

Good or bad?

[El Blanco]

I wouldn't call it a domino effect, but they are deffinatly related.

I also think Lybia should be included, even though thats technically North Africa.

I think we'll also see some major prgress in the European negociations with Iran.

I'd say the thinking goes a little along these lines "We can negociate now and stay in power with Europe's terms, or we can take our chances with lunatic in the Whitehouse who doesn't have problem swinging the big stick."

I think the neocons were sort of right. Good things are happening, but not neccisserily the way they planned.

And has anyone been watching the Daily Show latley? Stewart is in actual physical pain admiting that maybe Bush was right.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

I also think Lybia should be included, even though thats technically North Africa.

Yeah, I'd like to avoid a tangent, but I don't know if Libya should get included in the bunch. The IAEU, following inspections, concluded that Libya was many years away from being in position to start up WMD arsenal.

In "giving up" these weapons, Qadaffi has opened his country up to trade and economic benefits. Now, this isn't a bad thing, but you can still look at repression and censorship in what is still an undemocratic Libya.

I think this actually raises a good point, so forgive my tangent accusation. Is Bush cherry picking the places he decides to push his Wilsonian doctrine of freedom...? Why is he pressing on countries like Syria and Iran to liberalize and democratize, yet he hasn't been quite so ardent when it comes to Saudi Arabia, and has basically been silent on places like Uzbekistan, where they boil peoples limbs.....?

I think we'll also see some major prgress in the European negociations with Iran.

I'd say the thinking goes a little along these lines "We can negociate now and stay in power with Europe's terms, or we can take our chances with lunatic in the Whitehouse who doesn't have problem swinging the big stick."

I almost wish they had done this the other way around. Getting Syria out of Lebanon has at least been of some interest to Chirac, and this is now (in light of Hariri's assassination) something that our two nations can work on together. This might have been a better first step in the Middle East, rather than starting with WMDs in Iraq, no?

And has anyone been watching the Daily Show latley? Stewart is in actual physical pain admiting that maybe Bush was right.

Yes. He played a tiny role in me raising the question here. My favorite line came last week, when he said something like "Shit, I know my kids gonna go to a school named after this guy now!"

[ItalianStereotype]

now let's go shit on China.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You need a new hobby.

[El Blanco]

Why is he pressing on countries like Syria and Iran to liberalize and democratize, yet he hasn't been quite so ardent when it comes to Saudi Arabia, and has basically been silent on places like Uzbekistan, where they boil peoples limbs.....?

That could easily have as much to do with logistical and strategic concerns as it does with moral outrage. Uzbekistan is a bitch to move troops and supplies to compared to Iraq. And Saudi Arabia was the closest thing we had to a friend in that neighborhood.

"Shit, I know my kids gonna go to a school named after this guy now!"

I really laughed hard when he said that. At least he seems willing to eat some crow about it and keep his sense of humor.

[ItalianStereotype]

no way, kev. I'm totally on top of what's going on.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

That could easily have as much to do with logistical and strategic concerns as it does with moral outrage. Uzbekistan is a bitch to move troops and supplies to compared to Iraq. And Saudi Arabia was the closest thing we had to a friend in that neighborhood.

Well, pertaining to Uzbekistan, we also actually send accused terrorists there to get interrogated.......hmmm.....

As for Saudi Arabia, I guess your point makes sense. If we can have bases in Iraq, maybe we can pull out of Saudi Arabia. But what happens when the Shiite majority in Iraq fulfills its platform promise, and votes us out? What then of strategery....?

[Ant10708]

Back to Afghanstan? They are fairly friendly to international troops.

[Abcdxxxx]

Well I'm not sure you can say the neo-cons were right.... but I do think a lot of the Leftist logic in dealing with the Middle East was... well... wrong. Though, if you really want to be a die hard, you can take comfort in knowing that the Middle East has always functioned better under colony!

Had we gone into Syria first, it would have resulted in a full out war involving Israel, and Saddam would have jumped into the tangle anyway. Syria would have become a puppet government, and Saddam would have controlled three strategic countries. So this made more sense. Removing Saddam was a positive for the region. That's the blunt truth of the matter. It also puts the Saudi's in a more transparent position to be on good behavior.

What you're overlooking is that Arafat is gone too. That's HUGE. So let's take a real tally: Saddam, Arafat, Taliban, and the foundation of Hamas, are all gone. There have been leadership that died in Syria, and Saudi. Mubarak in Egypt isn't in great shape.

Then we have: Libya in financial straights working overtime for good press, the first talk in 30 years of a liberated Lebanon, Qatar and UAA making progressive moves, women photographed voting (mock election or not) in a Muslim nation, a natural disaster in a Muslim nation, Sharon giving Gaza back and releases prisoners, the infrastructure for the old line of terrorists is being challenged, overt funding for criminal acts is blocked, Russia is making power plays our of desperation...there's plenty more....and all the while, a new nation of liberal Iranian youth watch on in hope of change. Very little of that can be credited to Bush & Co.

Uh, but it's still a serious mess over there.

[mburbank]

Even if the Neocons were right, (and I don't think they were, and even if I thought they might be I'd have to say that it's way too aerly to tell) look at the costs to get just these baby steps accomplished.

1,500 American lives and counting. Uncounted thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis dead, amounting to a US sponsored recruitkment drive for terrorists. An official state policy of agression. Unprecedented presidential power up to an including doing away with habeus corpus, allowing the executive branch to simply make people disapear. A plunge from a huge surplus to a record defficit. The declaration, and worse yet, acceptance of a war on a concept, commiting us to a permanent state of war and permanent war powers to the executive branch. Vital damage to the system of checks and balances. The rejection of the geneva convention. Refusal to officially reject torture. The exportation of uncharged prisoners to countries we know will torture them, including official enemies like Syria. A free pass for for the man most responsible for the black market in nuclear weapons technology. etc. etc. etc.

[Ant10708]

Come on you have to atleast admit Afghanstan is doing better. Its now above five African countries on the world poorest list. And they had a successful vote which included women. I mean their country was in terrible shape before we came(unlike Iraq) so we honestly didn't destroy their country. They don't have daily attacks by the Taliban like Iraqis do by insurgents in their country. Once they get rid of all that opium and start building more infrastruture they'll be on their way. I think what we did will end up being alot more than a baby step for Afghanistan.

I think in the future the uncounted thousands of Afghanis lives lost and the Americans lost and other foriegn troops lost in Afghanstan will be appreciated by Afghanis.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Ant10708

I mean their country was in terrible shape before we came(unlike Iraq) so we honestly didn't destroy their country.

Yeah, because we NEVER interefered with Afghanistan before now.

That country's been fucked from every side, and we've had our turn. It's great that they seem to be getting some lovin now after all the raping that's been done in the past.

[FS]

Originally Posted by Ant10708

Once they get rid of all that opium and start building more infrastruture they'll be on their way.

Suuure, piece of cake.

[mburbank]

The Taliban? You mean the guys we funded and built up from almost nothing to keep the soviets occupied during the cold war? that Taliban? The one headed by Mullah Omar who's still out there?

And since Opium sales is propping up more than half their economy right now, and they're STILL one of the ten poorest countries on earth, how do you suppose they'll erradicate it? Opium sales are the REASON theoir economy is doing better.

[ziggytrix]

Goddamit Max, that's not the way they told it on FOX last night. I'm so confused. You must be lying.

[El Blanco]

The Taliban? You mean the guys we funded and built up from almost nothing to keep the soviets occupied during the cold war?

The Taliban didn't exist until the 1990s.

Our mistake was not getting more ivolved in Afghanistan.

1,500 American lives and counting.

How many casualties does the military suffer during an average year?

Uncounted thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis dead, amounting to a US sponsored recruitkment drive for terrorists.

Ya, because they were in short supply prior.

A plunge from a huge surplus to a record defficit

Surplus which is probably exaggerated. And there was a significant event in our financial center that probably effected the economy.

The declaration, and worse yet, acceptance of a war on a concept,

What concept? Security? How exactly is that different from the national soveriegnty our forefathers spilled blood for?

Or the tons of concepts for the Civil War?

commiting us to a permanent state of war and permanent war powers to the executive branch.

Ya, that Cold War ruined us, didn't it?

Vital damage to the system of checks and balances.

You mean by having one party in control of all three branches?

The rejection of the geneva convention.

Show me one time the winner of an armed conflict was held accountable for war crimes by the international community.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

1,500 American lives and counting. Uncounted thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis dead, amounting to a US sponsored recruitkment drive for terrorists. An official state policy of agression. Unprecedented presidential power up to an including doing away with habeus corpus, allowing the executive branch to simply make people disapear. A plunge from a huge surplus to a record defficit. The declaration, and worse yet, acceptance of a war on a concept, commiting us to a permanent state of war and permanent war powers to the executive branch. Vital damage to the system of checks and balances. The rejection of the geneva convention. Refusal to officially reject torture. The exportation of uncharged prisoners to countries we know will torture them, including official enemies like Syria. A free pass for for the man most responsible for the black market in nuclear weapons technology. etc. etc. etc.

I think you've definitely pointed out some of the obvious negatives to this foreign policy we have here. You left out the part about us basically being seriously misled over WMDs, chem labs, etc.

Some Hawks would still argue that the weapons were found, and that the WMD push had been justified. The evidence they seem to cite for this however comes almost entirely from a book written by one of the editors of a neo-con mag, as well as some DoD memos that have already been discredited for the most part.

The plan B option has become talk about Saddam as the WMD, talk about liberation, talk about freedom, talk about Middle Eastern democracy, etc. etc. I can buy this argument, and while it kinda smarts to basically get lied to, I think the overall ends that we've reached are very promising. As ABC pointed out, we can't take sole credit for all this, nor should we celebrate too soon. And you Max have enumerated some of the unethical problems that continue with this war/occupation.

But as I said, internationalism aside, multi-lateralism aside, warm fuzzy liberalism aside, do the ends (a potentially free and democratic Middle East) justify the means....? Are these truly baby steps, or are we witnessing history in the making?

[mburbank]

I'll answer Blanco in more detail later;

Kev; I'd say the ends are an awfully long way off, and there's no way of knowing if they're far really far away or nonexistant at this point.

Also, if the 'ends' are democracy in the middle east, we have no way of knowing what that would look like. How about free democracies that hated us and everything we stand for passionately?

So I would have to say no, I don't think the ends, whatever they may be, do justify the means. That's my opinion.

Now, if by the ends one means a happy dappy free market trading partner that seels us cheap oil, buys our cultural exports and loves us... Well, that's a silly, simplistic argument. Why not say by exporting democracy in the way we have the edns we're looking for is a middle east that shits rainbows and ponies?

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

The Taliban didn't exist until the 1990s.

Our mistake was not getting more ivolved in Afghanistan.

Yep, when they sprung forth, fully formed like like a Islamic version of Athena from the head of Allah, with absolutely nothing to do with American assistance. ::shoves head firmly back into the sand::

Show me one time the winner of an armed conflict was held accountable for war crimes by the international community.

Because it's OK to be the bad guy, so long as you WIN.

[Abcdxxxx]

Thing is, we're also seeing the Islamic extremists using these opportunities to their benefit... which is exactly what Bush's opposition said would happen. So I guess it becomes a race to see if we can unseat Iran before they become the roll model for the rest of the Middle East.

I'm not really excited to see any American's die for overseas politics, but 1500 lives doesn't seem like a huge price to pay should some progress come out of all this. Ultimately, it's inevitable that we'll see a cultural revolution in the next 10 years that will completely undermine any ground the fundamentalists gain.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Yep, when they sprung forth, fully formed like like a Islamic version of Athena from the head of Allah, with absolutely nothing to do with American assistance. ::shoves head firmly back into the sand::

No, they were a coalition of groups fighting the Soviets in the 1980s that came together and seized power in a vacuum.

If there had been a presence to stabalize the region, it wouldn't have been what it was.

Did we help them gight the Soviets? Yes.

Did we put them power? No.

Because it's OK to be the bad guy, so long as you WIN.

I would have said that right does indeed make right, but your way is also an accurate description of history.

[Immortal Goat]

Actually, it is simply an accurate description of the United States. Remember, we refused to become part of an international court for war crimes because we wanted to be the only country with immunity from it's jurisdiction.

[El Blanco]

That and it gives any tin pot dictator the ability to stop the US government dead in its tracks. They just go there with charges against us, and now the president and congress etc have to give depositions and confer with lawyers.

Remember the Lewinksi bullshit? Now make that 100x bigger.

Also, most of the countries signed onto the IC under the condition that their respective courts hold precedent over the IC. That means an Australian court can over turn an IC ruling pertaining to an Australian citizen. So, the IC will have no real teeth.

[Immortal Goat]

Ohmygod, a conservative called the Lewisnski scandal bullshit! (just kidding)

Seriously, though, shouldn't Bush be held accountable for the crimes commited by his administration? I don't care who it is, if someone is responsible for war crimes, they should be called on it, and tried accordingly.