Don’t look.

To Mike Marden:

“Here’s what I perceive as the core of Ho’s argument: America deserves what it is getting because of misdeeds committed in the past.”

You can add the present too, but you generally got the picture. Cause and effect, push-comes-to shove.

“Ho’s solution is to withdraw our participation in that region. Ho’s logic goes: if we just leave them alone they will leave us alone and Americans are free to live in peace.”

There is ample proof that disengagement works:

A settlement with the IRA terrorists in Ireland has brough peace.

I’ve already mentioned that bombs stopped going of in Paris when they pulled out of Algeria years ago.

Jews stopped killing Brit’s when they pulled out of Israel.

American’s stopped killing Brit’s when they pulled out of America.

The ANC, once claimed to be communist, stopped killing white people and setting off bombs when apartheid was dismantled.

When we stopped killing Vietnamese they too stopped killing us. Now you can go there and have a very nice vacation or open a business with a local. Anyone who’s been there will tell you how friendly the people are, even to Americans. Unless of course you try to overthrow their government (which I should mention applies anywhere).

Iran, radicalised under the fascist, US backed Shah, has mellowed conseiderably since those heady days, and I imagine will continue to do so, as long as we stay out of their business and treat them fairly.

Perhaps you can offer an example where disengagement didn’t work, that is, the “enemy”, when left alone, fulfilled our ghastly expectations to terrorise and destroy “our freedom”?

“First, an admittal: The United States has not behaved with perfect moral clarity over the last 60 years.”

Morality was never a consideration, only our geo-political economic interests, the reason so many dislike us.

“In an effort to stop the spread of communism (and in so doing, protect American citizens) we took positions of foreign policy that undoubtedly supported the brutal reign of dictators and helped to destabilize southwest asia.”

If anything good came out of 9/11 it is the awareness or admission that past US foreign policy might have anything to do with anything in the world we live in.

Having said that I disagree we backed dictators to stop the spread of communism, over decades a loosely defined term to brand anyone not entirely malable to US foreign policy.

Please be more specific? Where exactly were the Soviets looking to pick a fight with the west? Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Lumumba, Mossagdeh, Ortega, and a slew of others were more then willing to ally themselves with the west. The fact is we wanted it our way, all or nothing, chasing many leaders into the arms of the Soviet’s, who in many cases cared very little about them or their regions.

True that is the way we percieved it, but I say if you look at it case by case, state by state, much of it is nonsense or sheer fabrication.

This is an important point. Since I presume you agree with Ms. Rice, that past US foreign policy was mistaken (defined as lacking understanding), I would ask you for a moment to step back and make sure that we don’t make the same mistake again, that is RADICALISE ISLAM THE SAME WAY WE DID THE COMMUNISTS!

“This is why I can’t buy your solution (disengagement):
1) Women deserve the right of representation. They deserve protection from gang rape. They deserve to receive equal treatment under law.”

I agree 100%. The question is how do we get there? What would have happened in the US if the Soviets invaded us to give women the right to vote or to stop the lynching of black people? At the turn of last century it was exactly the socialists and communists who were promoting such provacative notions. If they had invaded I say it would have altered considerably the political dynamic, and if anything retarded social progress.

War has a way of swallowing everything up.

“Radical Islam is the result of your exit strategy and the leaders that would fill the resulting power vacuum would rather die than see this suffrage extended.”

Radical Islam is not the result of my exit strategy, rather the result of OUR ENTRANCE STRATEGY, the people we handed countries over to (Saudi, Taliban), backed and funded, or since radicalised by our foreign policy and out right agression.

Having said that clearly the question is what to do with the radical elemnts now. As this is something Arabs should decide themselves, an internal Arab dialogue between moderates and radicals should be fostered. We should get out. Violence will only radicalise them more.

2) If we leave the ME to its own devices then the leaders that emerge (such as Hussein) will continue to repress, imprison, gas, and mass-execute minority groups.

Nonsense. The most oppresive regimes
are the one’s we backed and continue to back. The one’s left to their own devices, like Iran, Syria and Lybia, practice a much more moderate form of Islam, affording woman far more liberties, then our allies Pakistan Saudi Arabia or (the old) Afghanistan.

“This includes Kurds.”

We never cared about the Kurds and sold them out a number of times. If we had to we would again.

“This includes Christians.”

Christians and Jews live across the Muslim world, and as long as they don’t involve themselves in espionage or the like are left alone.

“On a very personal level, if I see injustice done to my neighbor I do not turn a blind eye for “their sake.”

No one’s asking anybody to “turn a blind eye”, only to consider a constructive course of action, taking into account who we are and how we are percieved by those we now (after 50 years) are finally seeking
(pretending?) to help. Agression is exactly wrong. Dialogue is the right course, diplomacy, but highly unlikely to come from the US corner.
Of course this is not suprising, after 60 years of “mistakes”, why would we get it right now?

“Ultimately, I think this is a question of morality. It is a question of justice. I think it is in our national character to promote the freedom and dignity of the world’s people and I think we are on the right path.”

It is a question of morality and justice, unchartered waters for US foreign policy. But ultimately it will not be what we think, it will be what the people of the Middle East think as our military runs rampant through Iraqi cities and villages, threating neighbouring countries, and playing our tireless role as bully. It will ultimately be how they percieve us.

Freedom and dignity are a worthy message, but unfortunately, considering our image and all we’ve represented in the past, we, the U.S. messenger, stink. Diplomacy, an effort to bring all parties to the table, not violence, is the only way out of this. The U.N. or the Europeans might have a chance at success.

And don’t forget, if it doesn’t work we can always bomb them again.

Here’s what I perceive as the core of Ho’s argument: America deserves what it is getting because of misdeeds committed in the past. Ho’s solution is to withdraw our participation in that region. Ho’s logic goes: if we just leave them alone they will leave us alone and Americans are free to live in peace.

First, an admittal: The United States has not behaved with perfect moral clarity over the last 60 years. In an effort to stop the spread of communism (and in so doing, protect American citizens) we took positions of foreign policy that undoubtedly supported the brutal reign of dictators and helped to destabilize southwest asia. As Condi said recently at the American University in Cairo: these positions were wrong.

That being said, this is why I can’t buy your solution:

1) Women deserve the right of representation. They deserve protection from gang rape. They deserve to receive equal treatment under law. Radical Islam is the result of your exit strategy and the leaders that would fill the resulting power vacuum would rather die than see this suffrage extended.

2) If we leave the ME to its own devices then the leaders that emerge (such as Hussein) will continue to repress, imprison, gas, and mass-execute minority groups. This includes Kurds. This includes Christians. This includes Women. In Iraq this included Shi’ites. A multicultural democracy with equal protection under law for minorities is the solution. While not perfect, in contains the seeds for something better.

3) Ultimately, I don’t want my freedom at the expense of others. I don’t think that leaving this region alone is the most moral solution to our problem. On a very personal level, if I see injustice done to my neighbor I do not turn a blind eye for “their sake.” I think this would apply even if I had acted to their detriment in the past. (In fact, the impulse would be greater for my guilt)

Look, we aren’t perfect, but the Iraqis are better-off with the disposal of Saddam Hussein. Afhanis are better off without the oppressive Taliban. Egyptians will be better off with the end of their perpetual state of emergency and the existence of free elections. Africans (in fact, everyone) is better off without Khadafi in possession of WMD’s . Saudis would be better off with corrupt monarchy, I could go on…

Ultimately, I think this is a question of morality. It is a question of justice. I think it is in our national character to promote the freedom and dignity of the world’s people and I think we are on the right path.

“The Middle East has been a barbarous place for hundreds of years, long before Westerners came into contact with it. You cannot blame the savagery of the region on US foreign policy.”

Excuse me, everywhere has been a barbarous place, not just the Middle East. Still, under the Ottoman Empire, roughly 1300-1920, the Middle East was fairly stabile and peaceful, even for the Jews living there.

I’m not going to go through US interventions in every country there, you can look that up yourself, and perhaps imagine how American’s would respond to a similar Arab intervention in the U.S.

“There has never been an election in the Muslim world.”

That’s not true, I already mentioned Iran in 1952, their first president shot by us. The Palistinians had two now, and seemed pretty fair. And say what you want about the two Iranian candidates, they represented a differing view, a choice anyway.
We only have two, and the difference between them is perhaps less significant.

As we (and primarily the British) only backed autocratic regimes, it’s hard to say how many democracies there would now be if we had ever actually promoted any. Support dictatorships, you get dictatorships. Funny that.

“The Taliban never held one.”

Why then did we give them Stinger missiles and hand the country over to them? The Soviets would have been infinitely better.

“Sadaam never held one.”

Didn’t stop us from helping his mob to power, being our ally, training his security service, arming or financing him.

“It is simply foolish to pretend that the Middle East was a land of milk and honey before the western imperialists and their evil corporations arrived.”

I never did. There’s good and bad people every where. How about our good people working with there’s for once? We can try now, but that’s going to be a hard sell, considering who we are and what we’ve done to them the last fifty years. Bomb ’em, inavde ’em, shove our way down their throats, exactly the wrong approach.

“If we’d have left the Middle East alone, the USSR would not, repeat not, have done likewise. They would have showed up with guns, money, and KGB assassination squads and created the People’s Republic of Iran, the Saudi Socialist Union, etc., etc.”

They did, particularly in Egypt under Nasser, and Kassem in Iraq, one reason we worked with Saddam back in ’57. Still I’ll ask you, ..why did people ever become communist in the first place? Because they too were inherently evil beings that needed to be stamped out?

“It would have been great if there had been a Jeffersonian democrat in Iran with a wide base of popular support that we could have backed. But there wasn’t.”

There was, his name was Dr. Mossagdeh, their first elected President. We had him killed back in ’53. And while you’re mentioning it, when was the US ever looking for a democratic foreign leader? Most countries would never freely vote for “our” guy, the reason we backed so many dictatorships. Democratic leaders were normally the one’s we had shot. Ever hear of Patrice Lumumba?

“The Middle East was in play and we had to pick a side. We had to make the best of a bad situtation. That meant supporting people like Mubarak and the Shah.”

Why was the Shah better then Mossagdeh? As far as Mubarak, or any other leader, if the US backs a guy none of his subjects support, they will hate us for it. And they do.

I say we haven’t made the best of a bad situation, we’ve made it worse.

“And with respect to Sadaam, really, our “support” for him was very insignificant in the great scheme of things. He was mostly a Soviet client.”

In the scheme of things? The CIA only brought his Baath gang to power twice, the second time for 30 years. Not liking our exclusively pro-Israel policy he did play us off against the Russians. It was certainly a love hate relationship.
What ever was in our interest, and when. Yet the financial-military aspect, when it was happening, was quite significant.

More left-wing appeasement drivel? Maybe, but it’s from today’s Wall Street Journal, the Science Journal column “Why Just Detecting Hidden Explosives May Not Cut Deaths”, page B1. You might want to look it up, it says that detonating bombs in open areas might actually do more damage than an enclosed area.

“New research suggests that even perfect detection may not substantially lower the death toll from bombs set off in urban areas. And in some cases, terrorism experts now recognize a counterintuitive possibility: Warnings may lead to more fatalities.”

Yes, and you very much place the right emphasis upon that aspect of the discussion. WTC ’93 is another pivotal point, as “the tragedy of Andalusia” is a critical juncture for OBL’s overview of history. No one – excepting the strawman and simpleton arguments forwarded by the Left – is seriously suggesting a blindered approach to analyzing the current situation or to planning and executing strategies relevant to the conflict.

Sorry, I said the Economist, but I was referring to the Spectator. This is the lede of the piece I was referring to:

Yesterday’s disgusting attack on London will naturally be seized upon by politicians of all hues to advance their various agendas. Opponents of the war in Iraq have lost no time in blaming Tony Blair and British engagement for the bombs that hit London and killed dozen and injured many hundreds. They have a point. As the Butler report revealed, the Government was explicitly warned before the Iraq war that our involvement would exacerbate the risk of terrorism in this country. But that does not for one moment mean that if Britain had not been involved in Iraq, then London would have been safe. It bears repeating that more British people died in the attacks on the World Trade Centre than in yesterday’s brutal outrages, and it must never be forgotten that 9/11 preceded the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, as did the series of vicious Islamicist bombings in Paris in the 1990s…

As the lead article in today’s Economist points out, that’s neither here nor there.

Did we make enemies by picking sides in the past? Sure; that’s the nature of conflict. Should we base our policy on appeasement of thugs? Hardly.

Every time we try the “let’s make nice” approach, we get burned. We are currently, I believe, showing ourselves to be strong and loyal towards friends–strong and fearsome towards enemies–much as we did sixty years ago.

It worked then.