The scary thing is that we discussed this at the time. I mentioned that here. I think it might be more accurate to say that the US adopted the rhetorical posture of empire, however, which is rather different than the question of how much more or less "empire-like" the US became after 9/11.
Imagine! Last night I had the strangest dream!
Dan writes:
"I think it might be more accurate to say that the US adopted the rhetorical posture of empire, however, which is rather different than the question of how much more or less "empire-like" the US became after 9/11."
I agree. The "iron fist" was there long before Dubya and Sept. 11th--ask the folks on the business end of Bubba's economic assault on the Asian Tigers. The only thing Dubya did was remove the "velvet glove."
Great points. Antonio Negri had an interesting idea about "Empire", except that he conceived of it as a less than one individual country than a complex living organism that manifests itself out of the economic and political interactions of globalization.
It's an intriguging idea, but he literalizes it too much, and like the Marxist academic he is he tries to make it some kind of unified capitalist monster when it would make much more sense as Lovelock's "Gaia Hypothesis" applied to economics and political science.
"the mutual recognition of sovereign states by one another, and the associated norm of non-intervention that permitted each sovereign state to regulate its own affairs within its own territorial borders."
Sovereign states supporting irregulars (terrorists, guerillas, whatever) who attack another sovereign state are intervening in the affairs of that state. It is a hostile act.
It was convenient, during the Cold War, to turn a blind eye or give a diplomatic fig leaf to such proxy warfare. More than convenient, it helped prevent escalation to a superpower confrontation. So, at the time, it was a reasonable policy.
Without that need to prevent a nuclear war, the rationale for the previous policy of tolerance for state support of terrorism evaporates unless there is another important state interest in play. States that sponsor terror groups should do so knowing full well that they are possibly risking war if their proteges miscalculate or go off the reservation.
America's enormously oversized military capacity and global terrorism are two sides of the same coin. Just as we took the initiative in every round of the arms race before and during the Cold War and thus ensured that the Soviets would build up an enormous strategic force to counter our moves, we guarantee the emergence of new and more desperate terrorist groups by engaging in unilateralist policies, military violence, and torture. The only thing that can counter our deadly technology is ideological or religious fanaticism. in effect, we're creating a monster by technological terror and then justify more terror by pointing at the monster we ourselves created. Whether the situation is a vicious circle or a utopian dream depends upon whether or not you belong to one of the groups on either side who benefit from an eternal war.
mark- there are no soveriegn states supporting irregulars. al queda isn't state sponsered. are you talking about eco-terrorism or something?
Lester,
I never said al Qaida was state sponsored or that all irregulars were state sponsored.
Hezbollah, by contrast, has two state sponsors, Iran and Syria. The former also sponsors Palestinian Islamic Jihad. A number of anti-Indian terror groups find support from Pakistan. Prior to Oslo and the collapse of the USSR, most factions of the PLO had multiple state sponsors in the Soviet bloc and Arab world.
Progressive values are sometimes better promoted by empires than by sovereign states. As I've said in a comment on another post: I don't understand why/how sovereignty should have become so important a value for progressives, all of a sudden. I mean: national self-determination is a progressive value, but even the right to _it_ isn't some sort of all-trumping thing: human rights, for example, ought to come first. I'm not saying they have, by any stretch, for the current administration. But if one is--as one ought to be--consistently against torture both by one's own government and by others, that means, presumably, that there are limits to what a sovereign state ought to be allowed to do. That applies to the US, but it does not, by any means, apply to the US alone.
At this stage of the game, liberal apologists for empire have to live with what the realities they are supporting in fact, not the possibilities that might obtain in principle. I doubt if very many people would claim that sovereignty is an absolute good, but the Bush doctrine drains it of all meaning. We simply do not respect the rights of other people to manage their own affairs. That may work so long as we are sufficiently strong. I bet we end up paying for it on the back side as our power declines as it surely must.
The fundamental problem here is that many erstwhile liberals have bought into a sociopathic view of human affairs that is every bit as dangerous as the paranoid fantasies of the right wingers.
Jim,
"The fundamental problem here is that many erstwhile liberals have bought into a sociopathic view of human affairs that is every bit as dangerous as the paranoid fantasies of the right wingers."
Can I ask you to elaborate? What's the sociopathic view you have in mind?
I suppose _I_ should elaborate re. what I'm after in asking Jim what particular sociopathic view he has in mind.
There've been, during the Bush administration, two military interventions. One in Iraq, one in Afghanistan. Suppose there were nothing at all on the positive side of the ledger re. the Iraq intervention (which I see as having gone abysmally myself, though not with absolutely zero points of light. Saddam's gone, Iraqis have voted.) There would still be Afghanistan. There too, there are all sorts of problems one might point to, but with a democratically elected government there, and with girls going to school again, I don't see what sort of case can be made that "we do not respect the rights of other people to manage their own affairs." Ought we to have respected Taliban sovereignty?
Is it sociopathic to say that other values ought to trump respect for a regime like the Taliban regime in Afghanistan?
Since we were actually injured by groups protected by the the Taliban, one hardly needs to ignore the traditional laws of nations to come up with a causus belli. (There is, I think, an argument against the way in which we proceeded--the ultimatum we delivered to the Taliban was, was like the ulitmatum delivered to the Serbians in 1914, carefully designed to be impossible for any state to go along with. But that's just to say that our behavior exhibited the normal hypocrisy of international relations.)
The sociopathy I mentioned is exhibited by your assumption that we have a right to decide how other people live. At the very least, you might show some slight qualm about blowing other human beings to kingdom come with advanced terror weapons because you are so entirely sure that your notions of how people ought to live are obviously correct. You and Lenin and Pope Urban and Mohammad. You write "Iraqis have voted" as if elections were some sort of thaumaturgic ritual that everybody in the world is obliged to think is, to use a technical term, a big fucking deal. Hey, they voted in the Soviet Union, too, and their elections weren't a lot more bogus than the shams we impose at the point of a gun. Note that Baathists weren't allowed to run.
By the way, I must point out that it is no longer acceptable to use the word "democracy" since it is obvious that nobody but nobody believes that people should be allowed to govern themselves. If you think you really do favor democracy, ask yourself whether you really support Hamas or the kind of government that Egypt would have were it not a military dictatorship. What you really support are oligarchies legtimated by plebicites. That's a defensible position, but shouldn't you fess up to it?
Jim,
Suppose al Qaeda hadn't attacked us, but Afghanistan was nevertheless a gross violator of human rights. I'm not saying the US would still have attacked it--it wouldn't have. But I'm asking _you_: what do you think ought to be done when countries abroad are gross violators of human rights? Is violation of human rights something that should concern us only when it occurs at home?
Re. Hamas and Egypt. I mentioned elections as positive things both in the case of Afghanistan and in the case of Iraq, but that doesn't mean I see democracy as the highest value. A democratically elected theocracy that restricts fundamental freedoms isn't something I need to be committed to as a consistent democrat. As it happens, I am not only a democrat but a liberal as well, which means that certain rights and freedoms--not only democratic processes--are valued by me. So one question that arises is whether a Hamas-led government in Palestine or a Muslim Brotherhood-led government in Egypt would be more or less respectful of human rights than governments led by Fatah or Mubarak. I don't claim that democracy and human rights are the only, or even the primary, considerations, weighed by the US. But I don't see why promoting those values should be thought of as a bad, much less a psychopathic, ambition. Because it involves "telling others how to live"? Human rights either are or aren't universal. It is not "erstwhile" liberalism to say that they are, it is simply liberalism. And it is no kind of liberalism at all to say that they aren't. It offends me when they are violated by the US government. But I don't see why it should offend me in the slightest measure less when they are violated elsewhere. (And, needless to say, I don't see why that taking of offense should be viewed as psychopathic. All sorts of things--some of which would make a charge of psychopathology look mild--might be said about a view that sees human rights as applying less than universally applicable, but I will not say them both because I don't know whether you do in fact see human rights as less than universally applicable, and because even if that is your view, you are allowed to be wrong. That, too, is part of liberalism.)
Psychopathically yours,
a
To "a": "Is a violation of human rights something that should concern us only when it occurs at home?" No; obviously we should be concerned about human rights violations, especially gross violations, wherever they occur. But stating this doesn't say what should be done about them in any given case, which is why general professions of a belief in universal human rights, while all well and good, are not particularly useful as guides to foreign policy. Among other things, the Bush admin's increasingly loud emphasis on democracy promotion opens the admin to non-trivial charges of hypocrisy stemming from the fact that its democracy-promotion efforts have been much more vigorous (for lack of a better word) in some places than others. Moreover, the Bush admin has been quite content to ignore democracy/human rights when other considerations (such as the need for military bases in Central Asian countries [e.g. Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan] from which to prosecute the 'war on terror') seemed more important. True, in the case of Uzbekistan the human rights situation eventually became too flagrant for the US and Europe to ignore (see Robin Wright, "Uzbeks Stop Working with US Against Terrorism," Wash Post 9/30/05), but that only happened when the Karimov regime started shooting unarmed demonstrators in the streets. Up to that point, the US had been happy to work with it as an 'ally'
in the 'war on terror'. [P.S. In previewing this comment, the time attached to it by the system is off by several hours.]
Looking at the regime changes of the last couple of decades, it's notable that the ones that worked out were home grown. Anyhow, imposing "democracy" is a contradiction in terms and would be, even if the variety we were promoting didn't so richly deserve its scare quotes.
I have as many worries as anybody else about what a truly popular regime would look like in Muslim countries, though I expect that what many people are worried about is what it would look like here. Unfortunately, neither I nor anybody else can have it both ways. A "liberalism" that doesn't work towards a world in which government is by the consent of the people is really just the ideology of technocrats and would-be technocrats who are utterly convinced that they know better and can be counted on to be humane and decent, except, of course, when it's convenient to bomb the crap out of somebody.
L.C.,
"To "a": "Is a violation of human rights something that should concern us only when it occurs at home?" No; obviously we should be concerned about human rights violations, especially gross violations, wherever they occur. But stating this doesn't say what should be done about them in any given case, which is why general professions of a belief in universal human rights, while all well and good, are not particularly useful as guides to foreign policy."
They're useful, at least, as starting points. On the right there is the argument that only self-interest ought to drive foreign policy whereas on the left there is, increasingly (though, thankfully, this is not yet a majority view) a view of human rights as just a white man's construct. I wish that, at least on the left, there were still the sort of consensus about human rights that there once was, which would allow us, taking that consensus for granted, to just move on to discussions of how best to promote them. But as things now stand, I don't think that there is.
"Among other things, the Bush admin's increasingly loud emphasis on democracy promotion opens the admin to non-trivial charges of hypocrisy stemming from the fact that its democracy-promotion efforts have been much more vigorous (for lack of a better word) in some places than others."
Yes, but there are at least two possible correctives to the hypocrisy. One is to stop being hypocritical by promoting democracy more consistently. The other is to stop promoting it altogether because of the thought that it can _never_ be promoted consistently. Is that the case, not about the Bush administration (which will not last forever) but about the US more generally? Is the US essentially incapable of consistent democracy promotion? I don't see why we should take the current administration's record as the last word on that question. Should democracy promotion not be an aim for Democrats?
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Jim,
"Looking at the regime changes of the last couple of decades, it's notable that the ones that worked out were home grown. Anyhow, imposing "democracy" is a contradiction in terms and would be, even if the variety we were promoting didn't so richly deserve its scare quotes."
What if Afghanistan works out? And though I'd grant that democracy promotion wasn't the primary aim in the defeat of the Axis powers in WW2, can't it be said that in that case, at least, democracy got some indispensable external help?
"I have as many worries as anybody else about what a truly popular regime would look like in Muslim countries, though I expect that what many people are worried about is what it would look like here."
Well, I don't. But I can see the logic: I must, if I disagree with you, have _some_ sort of ulterior motive, mustn't I?
"Unfortunately, neither I nor anybody else can have it both ways. A "liberalism" that doesn't work towards a world in which government is by the consent of the people is really just the ideology of technocrats and would-be technocrats who are utterly convinced that they know better and can be counted on to be humane and decent, except, of course, when it's convenient to bomb the crap out of somebody."
Other things being equal, we ought indeed to work towards a world in which government is by the consent of the people. That is not liberalism's only value, however, and to mention others (e.g., minority rights) is only to be complete in one's account of liberalism. Indeed, as Rodger mentions in his post today
http://duckofminerva.blogspot.co...appy-
about.html
promoting democracy isn't always the best way to promote liberalism, though in World War Two the two did go together, and in Afghanistan the current regime is more liberal and democratic than the Taliban were. (That's not the reason why the US intervened, but it isn't such a bad side benefit.)
When the argument is about whether democracy promotion is the best means to promote progressive values, and about whether it is those values on the one hand or democratic processes (even when illiberal) that ought to take precedence, that is one thing. I favor progressive values myself to such a degree that where it can be shown (e.g., in Egypt's & Hamas' case and perhaps (though I hope not, in the long run) in Iraq) that democracy jeopardizes them more than the status quo, that counts, in my book, as a case against promoting democracy. In any case, the argument between democracy and liberalism is, as I see it, a noble argument.
But there is a current on the left that sees the promotion of progressive values abroad (even human rights specifically) as just another case of the white man imposing his value system on the developing world. That strand of thought worries me at least as much as any phenomenon on the right, both for personal reasons (I come from the left) and because I fear that it's the sort of current of thought that lasts longer than even a two-term administration.
Since both the Repubicans and the liberal imperialists are enthusiastic supporters of an interventionist foreign policy, I think your worry about critics is misplaced. You guys are in charge, and I expect the tragedy to be played out to its last bitter act. But I do object to the notion that very many people oppose the promotion of progressive values abroad. We just don't want "promotion" to be a code word for missles as it so often is today. A nation can also promote progressive values by displaying them in its behavior towards other nations--we got vastly more bang for our buck by sending aid to the earthquake victims in Pakistan than we'll ever get from the trillion or so we'll eventually piss away in Mesopotamia.
mark- I wouldn;t really consider hezbollah a terrorist group. plus, if it's not al queda who really cares? this is america not israel.
or India
Jim,
"We just don't want "promotion" to be a code word for missiles as it so often is today. A nation can also promote progressive values by displaying them in its behavior towards other nations--we got vastly more bang for our buck by sending aid to the earthquake victims in Pakistan than we'll ever get from the trillion or so we'll eventually piss away in Mesopotamia."
How ought we to deal with tyrants abroad? Was Sadam the last one except Bush? Some of the world's catastrophes are caused neither by nature nor by the US, but by humans, and aren't best remedied by providing food and blankets. So there needs to be a coherent progressive doctrine re. when to intervene militarily. Now, I made a comment earlier about how progressive values are sometimes better promoted by empires than by sovereign states, and in any case I'm thick skinned, so I don't mind if you call _me_ a liberal imperialist. But if anyone with a progressive doctrine that involves military intervention risks earning that label, it won't be good for the Democratic Party, for the country, or for victims of tyrants abroad.
Do you want to say that there are no isolationist currents at all in the Democratic Party's base? Would that that were so.
--
Something additional ought to be said (not really as part of my argument, since I don't take the following as esp. representative even though it does warrant mention):
In this very comment thread, a commenter has said that he didn't view Hezbollah as a terrorist group and that
"if it's not al queda who really cares [whether there is state sponsorship]? this is america not israel."
Then he added (in a separate comment, perhaps as an afterthought)
"Or India."
I have to say: afterthought or not, India's addition doesn't make the thought expressed more decent.
Or at all progressive.
..Or--though by no means do I read them as agreeing with it--something that is of too much concern to D of M's editors, though perhaps I'm wrong. Please, D of M editors, tell me I am.
I don't view liberal imperialist as a term of abuse. There were lots of 'em in England 100 years ago, and they weren't unreasonable people. I just don't think their position (or yours) is intellectually defensible or practically sustainable. (Cue Kipling's Recessional)
"mark- I wouldn;t really consider hezbollah a terrorist group. plus, if it's not al queda who really cares? this is america not israel."
Hezbollah is a terrorist group that evolved upward into having semi-conventional military capabilities. al Qaida was on the same track in Afghanistan, developing open fighting formations until we scattered them. So most likely, will any othe group that secures a sizable revenue stream and a secure geographic safe haven.
Does the U.S. need to attack Hezbollah ? No. But the principle in operation is general here.
a/ mark- I disagree. hezbollah is not a terrorist group in the way it is generally being defined here: one that is an internationlaists / existential threat to the west. they are mainly a threat to people who try and invade lebanon. if you don't find that decent tough. I didn't find Qana very decent either. this time or last time
"they are mainly a threat to people who try and invade lebanon"
Except of course, for such native Lebanese demographic groups as Syrian soldiers and Iranian Revolutionary Guards. ;o)
..and Israeli non-combattants and US Marines, and Argentine Jews. (That last one ought to fit the category "international," unless, like Hezbollah, one sees Jews--even in Argentina--as proxies (targetwise) for Israelis, and Israeli non-combattants as proxies for IDF soldiers.)
But fair enough: the American homefront isn't under threat by Hezbollah, and to be a terrorist one must threaten the American homefront.
There are all sorts of things one might call an understanding like that, but whatever categories it falls under, it is a stretch to think of it--if you do--as progressive, and odd to find it in the comments section of a progressive blog.
But by itself it wouldn't have led me to say anything explicit about basic decency. _That_ was triggered by the "This isn't Israel" bit, which I still haven't seen this blog's editors do anything to dissociate themselves from.
Perhaps--though they see layers upon layers of meanings in so many other things--the eds. here take "This isn't Israel" to have only a literal meaning, to imply nothing more than what the words themselves say.
But that can't be it. It can't be that on this type of sensitivity of the "other"--on this one alone--they are tone deaf.
..Or can it?
A clarification (probably not necessary, but just in case..): the groups I list at the top of my post are groups to whom Hezbollah is a threat. (I.e., as distinct from the Syrians and others Mark lists.)
'a' seems to suggest that there are two choices re tyrants: do nothing about them or intervene against them militarily. In fact there are a range of possible measures. It is wrong to label as isolationist those who do not want the U.S. to roam around the world freely intervening militarily against tyrants (or others). The general principle of non-intervention is in the UN Charter for a good reason, and if 'a' thought about it for a bit, I think 'a' would realize what that reason is. The U.S. would be well advised to pay more attention to its own obligations under international law (e.g., Article VI of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, just to take one example) before setting itself up as arbiter of every other country's practices and international bona fides. The idea of democracy promotion may well be defensible, but the phrase and the way the notion has been implemented have acquired so many unfortunate connotations that it would probably be a mistake for the Democrats to make it a major part of their policy. 'Consistent' democracy promotion is extremely difficult.
LC,
"The U.S. would be well advised to pay more attention to its own obligations under international law (e.g., Article VI of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, just to take one example) before setting itself up as arbiter of every other country's practices and international bona fides."
You're right insofar as it's good to not be hypocritical. But I don't see hypocrisy as the worst possible crime. Or, to put it differently:
It worries me a great deal that the administration seems bent on licensing torture. I think it's repugnant.
But if torture's going on it needs to stop because it's wrong, not because stopping it will make us look less hypocritical when we, say, fight the Taliban. The Taliban need to be fought in any case. It's _better_ for there not to be even the slightest trace of hypocrisy when we're fighting them, but hypocrisy or not, they must be fought.
Now will come comments (not from you, LC, and perhaps not in this thread itself, but often enough in the soi-disant progressive discourse of these times) like
"If you're so gung ho, why not enlist yourself?"
and/or
"How smug/presumptuous/(fill in something else bad) of you to decide for the people of Afghanistan that they shouldn't have the Taliban."
and/or
"But Bush isn't in Afghanistan for human rights reasons (so neither can you be.)"
and/or
"Fess up. You're part of the Israel Lobby, aren't you?" (OF COURSE I AM: why else would I want girls to be able to go to school in Kabul?)
a- I'm not seeing what is offensive about stating that america isn't israel. to conflate israel and america by saying hezbollah is "a threat" implies israel is a part of america. as an american who is against israel, obviously I take offense at this.
also, the israelis and marines were in lebanon at the time they were "terrorized" and I have yet to see conclusive proof about the argnetina thing.
From the Council on Foreign Relations:
(I'd forgotten about the kidnappings in the 80s and the TWA flight.)
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/
"What major attacks is Hezbollah responsible for?
Hezbollah and its affiliates have planned or been linked to a lengthy series of terrorist attacks against the United States, Israel, and other Western targets. These attacks include:
-a series of kidnappings of Westerners in Lebanon, including several Americans, in the 1980s;
the suicide truck bombings that killed more than 200 U.S. Marines at their barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983;
-the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, which featured the famous footage of the plane’s pilot leaning out of the cockpit with a gun to his head;
-two major 1990s attacks on Jewish targets in Argentina—the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy (killing twenty-nine) and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center (killing ninety-five).
-a July 2006 raid on a border post in northern Israel in which two Israeli soldiers were taken captive. The abductions sparked an Israeli military campaign against Lebanon to which Hezbollah responded by firing rockets across the Lebanese border into Israel. "
--
The Marines were in Lebanon as a peacekeeping force. And while attacks on IDF soldiers are one thing, the targetting of Israeli civillians is another.
And "This is America, not (country X)" smacks of nativism. When country X is Israel, it smacks of a very particular brand of nativism, which given your "yet to see conclusive proof about the Argentina thing" line ("thing"??? It was a MASSACRE) I am growing less hesitant, with every post of yours, to apply.
Meanwhile: a continuing silence from Duck of Minerva's eds.
What would constitute " conclusive " proof, Lester ?
The Israelis bombed Qana. Hezbollah kidnapped foreigners and engaged in suicide bombings and openly boasts about its capacity to do so throughout the West. Why argue this point?
mark- My point was that hezbollah acts in lebanon. fine, they are terrorists. but they also hand out money to people who's houses have been destroyed and have other services they offer. if they were somehow disarmed they could still conceivably go on. they aren't full of people who make their living as professional terrorists.
honestly, I'm not convinced they are "evil" a la al queda. maybe they are. but most shia I know like them and view them as a response to israeli aggresions, which they literally are if you know when and where they started.
I don't have a problem with Hezbollah as a disarmed political party or social movement. The crux is that given Lebanon's legacy from the 1980's, leaving Hezbollah armed let's it dominate the weak state and tempts the Druze, the Christian Phalangists and Amal to rearm.
interesting. I'll run that idea by some people I know who are in lebanon. granted they are biased towards the shia side, but all are cognitive of the civil war issue and don't want to relive it.
"I'll run that idea by some people I know who are in lebanon. granted they are biased towards the shia side, but all are cognitive of the civil war issue and don't want to relive it."
If they can get you Nasrallah's address, please pass that on. I have some friends in Israel...
his last known address was at the head of a 1,000,000 person strong rally in his honour
Commenting by HaloScan.com
