MaxSpeak, You Listen!
"The authors fail to acknowledge the role of the U.S. (see first point) in constructing Islamic extremism,"
Ok I'll bite. What would that be?
They led the country in war to defeat fascism, Nazism, and Imperial Japan . . . .
Shouldn't that be "Imperial Japan(ese-ism)" -- I mean, just to maintain ideological coherence?
Is "Dustin" ignorant, or being merely facetious?
It's just some sort of militant Israeli-American chauvinism (often with British accent for some reason) mixed generously with Islamophobia, that's all it is. Nothing whatsoever to do with any liberalism; quite the opposite in fact. The word 'liberal' here isn't any more meaningful than 'socialist' in 'national-socialist'.
Dustin, Robert Dreyfuss laid out a lot of the relevant history in his book The Devil's Game, whose subtitle is "How the U.S. helped unleash fundamentalist Islam".
The short answer is: 1) by unreserved support for thuggish Middle East regimes that crushed any reformist opposition, which ended up strengthening the one effective opposition: Islamic fundamentalist movements and parties, 2) by turning a blind eye to our good friends the Saudis' support for spreading extremely fundamentalist Islam worldwide, 3) by supplying and encouraging fundamentalists in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the 1980s.
What's the deal with Telos, anyway? I haven't read it in a couple of decades, but it seems to have a different tone than it used to back then.
Telos is a good object lesson in left-wing academic wankery. I was an undergrad at Wash U when the journal was edited there. Paul Piccone, the founding editor, was an obnoxious jerk who steadily steered the journal into a more-recherche-than-thou partisan of the Budapest School. Piccone attached his nose firmly to Ferenc Feher and Agnes Heller's hindquarters, and most of the journal's other editors followed him. You could see their right turn forming in the early 1980s when they supported the deployment of Pershing II missiles in Europe and started to cheerlead for neoconservatives as the only real serious political thinkers in the United States. Then they started flirting with Carl Schmitt - I notice that a book by Schmitt published by Telos Press is now on their website. The last time I picked the journal up, they were publishing articles in the affirmative-action-is-racism vein. Dick Howard, who remained stubbornly Habermasian the whole time, was one of the few who didn't go off the deep end. I see he's no longer on the masthead. I should have taken this lesson to heart; I would have been less surprised when the more-recherche-than-thou PoMos turned into strikebreakers at Yale. Bourdieu so thoroughly had these folks' number.
A new piece by Tony Judt in the LRB is a must-read on this very topic. Choice nugget: "In today’s America, neo-conservatives generate brutish policies for which liberals provide the ethical fig-leaf. There really is no other difference between them."
We suspect there is no plan for the aftermath of this lunacy.
We will be greeted as liberators. It didn't work last time, and that means it has to this time.
It's the old herd of independent minds back for an encore stampede.
>that crushed any reformist opposition, which ended up strengthening the one effective opposition
The inherent problem secular movements have in this type of struggle is that they can't with a straight face tell anybody "Suffer all sorts of indignities and hardships now, including torture and death to you and your loved ones, and you shall be richly rewarded in the afterlife". So when you support a government clealy "not of the people" only the religious opposition can get any traction for What Has To Be Done.
Oh, but I was going to comment on something else:
>will be no protection from the whirlwind reaped by yet another U.S. military adventure in the Middle East.
Yup, 100 wise men cannot fix.what one military adventure can break.
This crap is really a battered wife relationship as viewed thru the eyes of the husband. I don't know what the proportion is of husbands who love their wives but can't control their temper to those who really feel stuck in a relationship and want out, but the women's stories mostly all go a lot like "Oh, but he is so sorry and so nice afterwards.. it's just these moments when he loses it etc. etc".
Finally she wises up and leaves. Because it doesn't matter if he's good 99% of the time, it only takes one time to be dead.
Well, we *do* have many good intentions, we *are* willing to try things to help others. Even militarily, Kuwait being a good example as well as Kosovo.
But at regular intervals we just do something that Kills A Fucking Unbelievable Number Of Innocent People Rather Rapidly For No Really Clear Reason.
Numbers incomprehensible if you try to picture them. Millions of Vietnamese. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis during the sanctions. God (and Negropointe) knows what went on in South America. And on and on.
The abusive husband, if he really wants to fix things, eventually gets told in no uncertain terms that he can never, ever, for the rest of his life strike her again.
Thanks to Iraq we are in that position. That was the last blow anybody will tolerate. But these clowns are the husband who says "I'll only hit her if she's really bad, and then in a very controlled, almost surgical manner."
And then wonder why the conselor turns to the wife and says "Leave. Leave now. It's over."
Not to beat a dead horse, but y'all got to check out Telos's love letter to Condi rice in the current issue.
you'd think they'd be embarassed by the flimsy "liberal" figleaf for their obviously racist impulses, but really why should they be when there's no mainstream alternative to this way of thinking. i see harold ford's commercials for the senate, where he pursues a JFK "missile gap" strategy of being tougher-than-thou on Iran. such a dead-end street the Dems are pursuing.
To me, the most recent war in Lebanon was intructive too.
Granted, larger atrocities were conducted before, in Lebanon in particular. But the following juxtaposition was extremally jarring
(1) I did not see a single characteristic that would distinguish the behavior of Israel from the behavior of Hezbollah --- for the better, except for the "morality tests" invented specifically for the contex of the conflict of Israel with Arabs (my favorite --- take into account the damage that a side in a conflict COULD do, in which way the possession of nukes increases the morality of the nuke-storing party. The consequences are mind-boggling, to wit, extemists fighting to get nukes to improve their moral standing).
(2) As Beirut was smoking, Tony Blair declaired in his earnest manner "this is a war of ideas". It reminded me explanation given by a Lebanese how one could survive the civil war there: "when you heard an explosion, we had to fall flat on the floor, hands on your head, and move only when the noise went away, no looking around, no peeking, nothing. Just lay flat." Beirut was full of ideas in those days.
(1) that discussion/comments of the "nimrod" Brendan from Tapped is the dumbest thing i've ever read on Maxspeak.
If, say, Al Gore had become President 8 months prior to 9/11, I most certainly wouldn't have argued that, gosh darn, look at the suicidal/depressed ticket takers and now look how less contrite Al Gore is. Stupid.
Bertram links to a Tony Judt piece in the LRB which reads "Not every liberal cheerleader for the Global War against Islamo-fascism, or against Terror, or against Global Jihad, is an unreconstructed supporter of Likud: Christopher Hitchens, for one, is critical of Israel."
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n18/jud...18/
judt01_.html
I'd agree that these Euston-USA people aren't very liberal when it comes to Israel. I still don't understand how so-called liberals can be nostalgic for Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, where the minority Sunni population lorded over the majority Shia population. Very liberal, very democratic....
I am not a supporter of a war with Iran, or of the Euston Manifesto, but I generally agree with Peter K. Two points though:
If America only supported brutal reactionary regimes, then how come the great majority of Middle Eastern regimes are leftist? Would'nt they have been eliminated by now?
And is American foreign policy so totally devoid of any positive content? If that is true then all governments stand condemned, and should stop participating in international affairs.
If, say, Al Gore had become President 8 months prior to 9/11, I most certainly wouldn't have argued that, gosh darn, look at the suicidal/depressed ticket takers and now look how less contrite Al Gore is. Stupid.
You forgot the part in the middle where "Al Gore" kills tens of thousands of innocent people in a war of aggression against a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Speaking of stupid.
I still don't understand how so-called liberals can be nostalgic for Saddam Hussein's dictatorship
Jesus. Do you buy your straw in bulk?
I see no regimes in the ME I would call leftist. Not a single one.
Re: your last remark, being engaged is one thing; the use of force is another. Most use of force by the U.S. has come to grief, IMO. WWII is the big exception.
I see no regimes in the ME I would call leftist. Not a single one.
Uh...yah, I was puzzling over that one too. Although I'm sure that a few minutes of googling would lead to an "analysis" by some wingnut explaining how suicide bombing and universal health care are really the same thing, when you think about it.
jim s writes;
And is American foreign policy so totally devoid of any positive content?
Doyle;
Any government provides some services which some people need. U.S. foreign policy has three pieces that give the U.S. trouble, the great game geo-political focus on control of Afghanistan and middle east oil. And the control is managed by the dollar and military power. Relatively speaking Japan manages their internal economy better than the U.S. In part because being under a U.S. shadow they can't play the great game. For Japan, or Germany or Canada or Great Britain, there are benefits on being strongly connected to the U.S. On the scale of things though, most people in the world suffer by comparison, and the U.S. is not going to change that under the current mode of power.
We are moving toward a multi polar world of basically economic strife. That's not very promising from a left point of view. All those billions of people marginalized by the current developed world divisions seem to be on the move in some way during this century.
When those things get worked out, then the whole question of positive content will be a bit easier to parse. Sure the U.S. like other great powers does something of a positive nature while in the dominant world position. But that passes away as the old order can no longer stabilize in the face of challenges to the system from outside.
thanks,
Doyle
jim s: And is American foreign policy so totally devoid of any positive content? If that is true then all governments stand condemned
I think all governments do stand condemed. Over and over again. But everything- everything is ambivalent. Given all the oppression, war, inequality- people still hope for better. And try to hand on to the good we have achieved.
Max: WWII is the big exception.
And even that big exception is riddled with ambivalencies. Mass murder of civilians rationalized by the Allies.
who steadily steered the journal into a more-recherche-than-thou partisan of the Budapest School
Is this a joke? There really is such a thing?
No joke, Lemuel. You can get the basics here. The Budapest School eventually turned into a dead end, but it wasn't a bad project ab initio. Paul Piccone's project was always a joke, though. Found a journal, attach yourself to someone else's intellectual project, and accumulate second-order cultural capital. Now there's nothing left but the slime.
Leftist governments in the Middle East: Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, North Yemen, South Yemen, Qatar.
Turkey is a secular democratic state.
The Sudan and Iran are Islamic revolutionary states.
About the only "reactionary, old-style regimes" that America supposedly backs are Moroccco and some states in the Arabian peninsula.
Also, what about the ruthless oppression that the Sunni Arabs-whom people like Dreyfuss seem to think are heroic resistance fighters-meted out to the Kurds annd the Marsh Arabs?
And..yes the allies committed crimes during WWII. Including the former Soviet Union-why not discuss some of those?
jim s. writes;
Leftist governments in the Middle East: Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, North Yemen, South Yemen, Qatar.
Doyle;
Leftist governments? I think you are in the habit of labeling governments according to prejudice rather than some sort of clarity about meaning of words.
jim s. writes;
Also, what about the ruthless oppression that the Sunni Arabs-whom people like Dreyfuss seem to think are heroic resistance fighters-meted out to the Kurds annd the Marsh Arabs?
Doyle;
In relation to what? U.S. democracy brought to Iraq? Your point lacks a credible understanding of what to do to make a stable state.
jim s. writes;
And..yes the allies committed crimes during WWII. Including the former Soviet Union-why not discuss some of those?
Doyle;
I'm reminded of Roman crimes as well after the Republic. And Hannibal. Belgium in the Congo. Al Capone in Chicago, ummmm so what is your point?
thanks,
Doyle
DOYLE 5, JIM S O
And we head into the final innings.
"Leftist governments in the Middle East: Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, North Yemen, South Yemen, Qatar."
Are you drunk, or stupid?
And incidentally, its the EU that's responsible for turning Turkey into something approaching a democratic state. The US was quite happy dealing with it the way it was.
In answer:
Algeria-ruled since 1962 by the rebels against the French.
Libya-ruled since 1969 by the "green rvolutionary" Qaddafi.
Tunisia-ruled since 1956 by Bourguiba and his sucessors, also rebels against the French.
Egypt-ruled since 1952 by a series of revolutionary regimes (Nasser, Sadat, Mubarak).
North Yemen-ruled since 1962 (when the holy Imam was overthrown) by radical regimes.
South Yemen-ruled since the late 1970's by a succession of leftist governments (reputedly involving the then Soviets).
Syria-ruled since the 1960's by the Baathist socialists.
Qatar-all right, somewhat iffy, but where Al-Jazeera comes from.
As for Iraq, all that was meant was that our opponents might be just as bad as we are. Not every heel is in America. And what is wrong about bringing up the Kurds and Marsh Arabs? It seems (1) that only the victims of America deserve any sympathy and (2) America is the Great Satan and is the source of all evil, and (pace Turkey) that one cannot point to a spot on the map and say "there America did good" (the last words a paraphrase of Gladstone).
As for the Soviet Union, the only Allied crimes ever discussed during WWII are those committed by the Western Powers-America, Britain, France. That is all that was meant.
cian -- easy big fella.
jim -- a bit more is required for left credentials than having rebelled against the French thirty years ago. Nasser had the bit of a leftist in him, but how do you figure SAdat and Mubarak?
America is the greatest military power in the world projecting its power all over the world. That's what the phrase 'the Great Satan' means, pretty much by definition.
If you don't like it, make it disarm and then it won't be the Great Satan anymore.
Either you have all these weapons and the title, or no title and no weapons, Jim. You can't keep the weapons and lose the title. Make your choice.
I'd be a little less extreme than is abb1 on this last point. Let's assume that a certain degree on military preparedness is required for assurance of the national defense. The problem is not with the need for defense, but rather with the effort to subvert that need
with deceitful argument and ineffective leadership. The use of the nation's military preparedness to fulfill an imperialist agenda around the world is the crux of the problem.
The subjugation of others in the name of democracy is itself obscene. That's what most people with a progressive frame of reference are concerned about, and that is exactly the kind of foreign policy that foments insurgency and terrorism.
Sure, I agree - defense is fine.
``We are moving toward a multi polar world of basically economic strife.''
I am inclined to agree. What I suspect is that there will begin ot emerge circumstances resembling, in relevant respects, those that prevailed in the last fit of ``globalization'', namely the years prior to August 1914.
As for jim s., Mussolini was a radical nationalist, so was Hitler: did that make their regimes ``left wing'' (I am just trying to see if you will swallow a redutio ad absurdum 
After all, Mussolini used to complain that Italy was a ``proletarian nation'' being oppressed by the ``plutocratic nations'', by which he meant primarily Britain and France, and, pre-Hitler, Germany.
Michael McIntyre:
My only contribution, one way or the other, to the Telos gang was that I once beat Piccone at chess (during a party at Carl Bogg's apartment, circa 1975?
Jim S. writes;
As for the Soviet Union, the only Allied crimes ever discussed during WWII are those committed by the Western Powers-America, Britain, France.
Doyle;
Thanks for the clarification. I see you are able to go into some depth. We can all argue to exhaustion about many of these topics. I will say welcome to the mix.
I think you see the world more through U.S. foreign policy eyes than I do. A rebellion does not a left make. But let's not quibble about those things. To be honest, there is no U.S. left to speak of, though certainly there are left oriented people of various opinions. There are some wise and some interesting versions here to hone one's opinion upon.
Anyway, my view is that certain sorts of U.S. pillars of power, the dollar, and the military are shaky. There are frictions with the rest of the world, but these center on big national centers of power which ally with other, and threaten U.S. power which unfortunately I have to live with.
No matter your orientation, the current Iraq war looks to be more failure than success. Now some deny that here, but I think for a realist, Iraq demonstrates some powerful things to think over. Never the less the U.S. is big enough to shrug off the failure. Even make a pretense about the success of the project become the dominant look back understanding, but I'm sure it is clear to the other big powers, the U.S. military cannot cope with disorder of a certain scale. Conquest of territory yes, social disorder no. Therefore this exposure of weakness must be on the minds of the rest of the global power system.
If the dollar also proves weak under some sort of crisis, then I believe the realists in the U.S. will come into their own. What that would end up of being I think is where the debate here is pointed. In other words, we don't know but good ideas are likely to be tried and discarded once a shift in U.S. power has to happen.
If you are of good heart please continue to participate.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor
Thanks for being of good heart.
I never thought of myself as looking through the U.S. foreign policy. On the contrary, I looked upon this viewpoint as being detached. It just seems that the U.S.A. was being held to standards that were not imposed upon others.
I stand by my list. And, just because Hitler and Mussolini sometimes called themselves anti-plutocratic does not make them leftist. Anyway, the point was that most of the Middle East is governed by anti-American regimes, so where is American power? This "biggest military in the World" does not really mean so much. There are no troops, no armaments, just a lot of money being thrown to military-industrial complex. If the other nations of the world would just stand up to the U.S.A., it's power would vanish overnight.
It is not so much money as fanaticism and ideology that governs American foreign policy. Indeed businesses have been willing to make deals with regimes the ideologues love to hate-Communist regimes then, Arab and Moslem regimes. What drives foreign policy now is a great hatred for the Arab and Moslem world, and indeed the whole world apart from America and Israel, on the part certain key groups in thecountry.
no armaments?
Jim S writes;
There are no troops, no armaments, just a lot of money being thrown to military-industrial complex. If the other nations of the world would just stand up to the U.S.A., it's power would vanish overnight.
Doyle;
abb1 jogs my brain this morning. The U.S. has a large occupation army in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Plus beaucoup bases and expanding around the world. At this time the U.S. has 435,000 military personal outside the U.S. by far the largest such occupation forces of any country now.
While I don't disagree with your comment money thrown at the MIC, the U.S. does really depend upon military power to act like a super power or global power.
U.S. armaments are top grade for defeating armies and national governments, though because of nuclear weapons that does not guarantee we can defeat Russia or China. What is a problem for the U.S. is the traditional costs of empire. The British occupied for centuries India and paid to do that off the profits of the East India Company. Iraq shows that communal strife really does take a large standing army a long time to contain.
Therefore the dream of a great global empire is questionable based upon military power alone. Mainly in the sense that the costs are too high to maintain.
The other leg of global power is the dollar. Japan financed the U.S. throughout the whole long period after the stock crash of 87. As China does as well. To the point that neither can upset the cart without a massive and nasty economic spill that would be most hard to smooth over. No one expects this scenario to go forever however.
Are the states on your list anti-American? Why Egypt as a leftist state for example do you think Egypt is anti-American? Egypt neither seems left or anti-American any more than Jordan is anti-American.
Doyle
What occupation army in Germany and Japan? They mostly left after 1991 and the end of Communism.
Yes there are 435,000 troops outside the United States. There are 1,500,000 people in the military establishment altogether. This is supposed to control the destinies of 6,500,000,000 people. Calculate yourself.
Among these 435,000 troops there are some individuals who can wipe out a small country by pushing a button.
Hey jim s. Here some stuff I got of the internet. The U.S. Eigth Army is Stationed in South Korea, the U.S. Seventh Army is stationed in Germany.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Kor...a/
HI09Dg01.html
Seoul forged a mutual defense pact with Washington to keep 37,000 troops there, the largest US contingent in Asia after Japan, which has 45,000 troops in 39 bases.
the US military "forward-deploys" almost 450,000 troops in foreign bases, with large numbers in Europe (112,000), East Asia (82,000) and the Middle East (240,000).
Doyle
Jim - thanks for taking the heat on this one! It was nice (not literally) to see someone else get the personal attacks....outstanding job!
"...the point was that most of the Middle East is governed by anti-American regimes" Did you mean "East Coast" or "Middle East"? Cuz either one works....
"What drives foreign policy now is a great hatred for the Arab and Moslem world, and indeed the whole world apart from America and Israel,..." As the semi-king of hyperbole I understand your desire to express your disallusionment....but you may want to re-think the "hatred" idea....i.e. if we do nothing we are blamed for not doing anything because they're brown people, if we do something semi-militarily (half-assed) we're blamed for not commiting and being a victim to our isolationist past , if we sacrifice our children to drag some yahoo out of the 14th century we're being imperialist....I miss being on the left, it was so much easier......
chris - "Thanks to Iraq we are in that position. That was the last blow anybody will tolerate. But these clowns are the husband who says "I'll only hit her if she's really bad, and then in a very controlled, almost surgical manner."" Yeah, that's the ticket! The death worship cult is really like an abused wife who just wants to be loved.....I couldn't make this stuff up! Beautiful!
piot - "I did not see a single characteristic that would distinguish the behavior of Israel from the behavior of Hezbollah...." I don't remember Israel sheilding themselves with women, children and churches....or loading rockets with ballbearings to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible....what kind of youth groups do these islamic churches have? I bet that's a fun time.....*"Death to america, please reload your stoning pouches for an honor killing after the potluck...Allah Akbar!"*
This is an excellent site, from what I can tell at first glance. accept credit cards online
Commenting by HaloScan
