TheRPGSite

It's a few months old (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072001806_2.html?nav=hcmoduletmv), but priceless:

Quote'Why Do They  Hate Us?'

By Mohsin Hamid
Sunday, July 22, 2007; Page B01

LONDON Recently, I found myself in Dallas, a place I'd never been before. As a Muslim writer, I felt about going there pretty much the way an American writer might have felt about heading to the tribal areas of Pakistan: nervous, with the distinct suspicion that the locals carried guns and weren't too fond of folks who look like me.

So I was surprised by the extraordinary hospitality I encountered on my trip. And I still remember the politeness with which one elderly gentleman addressed me in a bookshop. He held a copy of my latest novel, "The Reluctant Fundamentalist," and examined the face on its cover, comparing it to mine. Then he said, nodding once as if to dip the brim of an imaginary hat: "So tell me, sir. Why do they hate us?"

That stopped me cold. I've spent almost half my life in the United States, arriving from Lahore, Pakistan, with my parents in 1974 when I was 3 after my father was accepted to a PhD program at Stanford. I learned to sing "The Star-Spangled Banner" years before I could sing the Pakistani national anthem, played baseball before I could play cricket and wrote in English before I could write in Urdu. My earliest memories are of watching "Star Trek" and "MASH" while my parents barbecued chicken in the back yard. I was an American kid, through and through. Part of me still is.

But when I was 9, I moved back to where I came from. And because where I came from was Pakistan and I was about as all-American as a foreign-born brown boy could be, my perspective a quarter-century later on the question of why "they" hate "us" is perhaps a little more textured than most.

For one thing, part of me identifies with "they" and part with "us." For another, growing up in Pakistan in the 1980s let me see firsthand the devastating effects that the best of U.S. intentions can have.

Talk about why so many Muslims hate the United States these days, and you'll hear plenty of self-flagellation, at least in some quarters of post-9/11 America. I have too much affection for the United States to join in. These people make up the "We deserve to be hated because we're bad" school of thought, which is simplistic and unhelpful. It is simplistic because there are 300 million different components of the "we" that is America. And it is unhelpful because it ignores so much that is good about the nation.

Part of the reason people abroad resent the United States is something Americans can do very little about: envy. The richest, most powerful country in the world attracts the jealousy of others in much the same way that the richest, most powerful man in a small town attracts the jealousy of others. It will come his way no matter how kind, generous or humble he may be.

But there is another major reason for anti-Americanism: the accreted residue of many years of U.S. foreign policies. These policies are unknown to most Americans. They form only minor footnotes in U.S. history. But they are the chapter titles of the histories of other countries, where they have had enormous consequences. America's strength has made it a sort of Gulliver in world affairs: By wiggling its toes it can, often inadvertently, break the arm of a Lilliputian.

When my family moved back to Pakistan, I was given a front-row seat from which to observe one such obscure episode. In 1980, Lahore was a sleepy and rather quiet place. Pakistan's second-largest city was still safe enough for a 9-year-old to hop on his bicycle and ride around unsupervised.

But that was about to change. Soviet troops had recently rolled into Afghanistan, and the U.S. government, concerned about Afghanistan's proximity to the oil-rich Persian Gulf and eager to avenge the humiliating debacle of the Vietnam War, decided to respond. Building on President Jimmy Carter's tough line, President Ronald Reagan offered billions of dollars in economic aid and sophisticated weapons to Pakistan's dictator, Gen. Mohammed Zia ul-Haq. In exchange, Zia supported the mujaheddin, the Afghan guerrillas waging a modern-day holy war against the Soviet occupation. With the help of the CIA, jihadist training camps sprung up in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Soon Kalashnikov assault rifles from those camps began to flood the streets of Lahore, setting in motion a crime wave that put an end to my days of pedaling unsupervised through the streets.

Meanwhile, Zia began an ongoing attempt to Islamize Pakistan and thus make it a more fertile breeding ground for the anti-Soviet jihad. Public female dance performances were banned, female newscasters were told to cover their heads and laws undermining women's rights were passed. Secular politicians, academics and journalists were intimidated, imprisoned and worse.

One part of this was particularly unpleasant for those of us entering our teens: the angry groups of bearded men who began enforcing their own morality codes. They made going on dates risky, even in a fun-loving city such as Lahore. Meanwhile, a surge of cheap heroin -- the currency often used to buy the allegiance of Afghan warlords -- meant that Pakistan went from having virtually no addicts when I was 9 to having more than a million by the time I completed high school, according to a lecture that a U.S. drug-enforcement official gave at my school.

People all over the world talk about how things were better when they were young. In Lahore, we got into the habit of talking about how they were better last month.

In 1988, Zia died in a suspicious plane crash. The Soviets were driven out of Afghanistan in 1989, shortly before I left Lahore for college in the United States. When I mentioned the final campaign of the Cold War to my fellow freshmen at Princeton, few seemed to know much about it. Eighteen years later, most people I meet in the United States are astounded to learn that the period ever occurred. But in Pakistan, it is vividly seared into the national memory. Indeed, it has torn the very fabric of what, when I was born, was a relatively liberal country with nightclubs, casinos and legal alcohol.

The residue of U.S. foreign policy coats much of the world. It is the other part of the answer to the question, "Why do they hate us?" Simply because America has -- often for what seemed good reasons at the time -- intervened to shape the destinies of other countries and then, as a nation, walked away.

There is so much about the United States that I admire. So when I speak of that time now, and encounter the pose of wounded innocence that is the most common American response, I am annoyed and disappointed. It is as though the notion of U.S. responsibility applies only within the 50 states, and I have no right to invoke it.

How then does someone like me reconcile his affection and frustration? Partly by offering a passionate critique. And partly by hoping for change -- by appealing, as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. did, to what is most attractive about the United States, to what it claims to stand for, to what is best in its nature.

Americans need to educate themselves, from elementary school onward, about what their country has done abroad. And they need to play a more active role in ensuring that what the United States does abroad is not merely in keeping with a foreign policy elite's sense of realpolitik but also with the American public's own sense of American values.

Because at their core, those values are sound. That is why, even in places where you'll find virulent anti-Americanism, you'll also find enormous affection for things American. That's why Pakistani rock musicians listen to Jimi Hendrix and Nirvana, why Pakistani cities are full of kids wearing blue jeans and T-shirts, and why Pakistanis have been protesting to give their supreme court the same protection from meddling by their president held by its model: the Supreme Court of the United States.

All of which leads us to another, perhaps more fruitful question that Americans ought to consider: "Why do they love us?" People abroad admire Americans not because they back foreign dictators but because they believe that all men and all women are created equal. That concept cannot stop at the borders of the United States. It is a concept far greater than any one nation, no matter how great that nation is. For America to be true to itself, its people must broaden their belief in equality to include the men and women of the world.

The challenge that the United States faces today boils down to a choice. It can insist on its primacy as a superpower, or it can accept the universality of its values. If it chooses the former, it will heighten the resentment of foreigners and increase the likelihood of visiting disaster upon distant populations -- and vice versa. If it chooses the latter, it will discover something it appears to have forgotten: that the world is full of potential allies.

I'm one of them. I do not currently live in the United States, but I still believe in its potential for good. And like so many who wonder how our new and more integrated world can be built on a foundation that is humane and just, I look to the land where I, a writer, first learned to write, and allow myself to dream.

mohsinhamid@hotmail.co.uk (//mohsinhamid@hotmail.co.uk)

Mohsin Hamid's most recent novel is "The Reluctant Fundamentalist."

If its "priceless" - then it might be  thatit has no value.
Except to maybe start an argument thread .

Whats the matter?... don't like the season we're in?


- Ed C.

Spot on article IMO. What i don't get is that there isn't as much resentment towards the British for their meddling when they were the big boys. I guess that's a while ago now and forgotten. Perhaps you have to fall from the pedestal before you're forgiven your tresspasses...

Did you even read the article, Ed?  It's remarkably fair-handed and concilliatory.  I don't think you did.

!i!

Quote from: One Horse TownI guess that's a while ago now and forgotten. Perhaps you have to fall from the pedestal before you're forgiven your tresspasses...

I think that's where the bit about envy comes into play.  Having fallen from the pedestal, the envy is largely mollified.  Still, I've run across a handful of people here and there, mostly who've come to Canada through the old commonwealth emigration policies, who continue to grumble about colonial policies that lasted well into the 20th century.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaDid you even read the article, Ed?  It's remarkably fair-handed and concilliatory.  I don't think you did.

!i!

Yes I read it.


- Ed C.

Okay, so what objection do you have to it?  I'll cut you a little slack and allow that, perhaps, Jong was attempting to be inflammatory by posting the article as bait, but it's not an especially objectionable piece itself.

!i!

Quote from: JongWKIt's a few months old (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072001806_2.html?nav=hcmoduletmv), but priceless:

Overall, I think it's a well written article worth reading, and I do think it points to an important factor about how the US is perceived abroad.

But there are are problems with it, as well, if the goal is to improve things.

While there are cases where hindsight is 20/20, there are also plenty of reasons why hindsight is rarely perfect, either.  Yes, it's easy to describe the problems caused by the United States backing of Gen. Mohammed Zia ul-Haq to claim that if the United States hadn't backed certain world leaders, things would have been better but we'll never actually see the alternative play out and can never know for sure.  

It's easy to imagine that if the United States hadn't backed Zia that Pakistan would have been better off.  But it's also entirely possible that his "reforms" would have happened anyway or perhaps more violently.  Perhaps to retain power, he would have looked to the Soviet Union for aid and gotten those AK-47s directly from the source.  It's possible that whoever replaced him in some alternative history would have been worse.  Maybe it would have been better if the United States had never given aid to Zia but it also could have been far worse.  We don't know and we'll never know because history only lets us see the real consequences of one choice.

And even if the United States had not helped Zia, would they have still been resented for not toppling Zia?  Should the United States simply stop doing anything about the internal affairs of other countries and would that really help the world love us more?

You should read The Reluctant Fundamentalist if you liked this article, Jong. A very good novel.

Even in Australia, which is at the State level an ally of the US, there is a significant amount of resentment among the populace towards US foreign policy. Anti-Americanism is rife here.

good article.  reminds me of the reasons i both love and hate this country, and i'm a citizen.  :raise:

Quote from: beebergood article.  reminds me of the reasons i both love and hate this country, and i'm a citizen.  :raise:

What do you think the United States should have done in response to the Soviet Union moving in to Afghanistan?  Was boycotting the Moscow Olympics enough or should we have not even done that?  If people don't like what the United States did, that's fine.  But I'd like to know what the United States should have done instead.  It's easy to say what shouldn't have been done, especially in retrospect.  It's a lot harder to say what should be done.  That's why it's a lot easier for politicians to attack and run on what they don't like than it is to run on what they would do and what they do like.

Quote from: John MorrowOverall, I think it's a well written article worth reading, and I do think it points to an important factor about how the US is perceived abroad.

That's why I posted it (no inflammatory purposes, Ian).

QuoteWhat do you think the United States should have done in response to the Soviet Union moving in to Afghanistan?

Fighting a proxy war was SOP for the Cold War, but one can only wonder if some things could have been handled better (the aftermath in Afghanistan, for example, when the Taleban swept to power).

Quote from: JongWKFighting a proxy war was SOP for the Cold War, but one can only wonder if some things could have been handled better (the aftermath in Afghanistan, for example, when the Taleban swept to power).

Oh, I'm sure plenty of things could have been done better.  But like I said, it's easy to criticize a decision looking backward at the results and it's easy to criticize a decision when we'll never get to see how the alternative would have played out.  Yes, the United States did a lot of things during the Cold War (and even after) that can be questioned, but if fighting a proxy war and backing anti-communist dictators wasn't the right course of action, then what was?  It's not as if communist dictators didn't go on their own murderous rampages, as if the Soviet Union or other foreign factions wouldn't have gotten involved if the United States hadn't, or as if those very same dictators couldn't have retained power either without American help or by seeking the aid of the Soviet Union and others.  It's easy enough to imagine things being better without U.S. involvement but it's also not that difficult to imagine them being as bad or as worse.  And since we can't see the alternatives play out, imagining is all that we can do.

(And let's not forget that it was the Nobel Peace Prize-winning and now-highly-regarded-because-he's-critical-of-Bush ex-President Jimmy Carter that started the policies mentioned in the article, not Ronald Reagan, though he expanded them.)

Quote from: John MorrowWhat do you think the United States should have done in response to the Soviet Union moving in to Afghanistan?  

I think you missed the point of the article.  The author was simply citing the Afghan war as an example of US foreign policies that had a profound impact on an entire country (Pakistan), but rate little more than a blip in US history.  It's not about whether US decisions were right or wrong, or whether it could have bee done better.

In any event, apparently the US wanted the Soviets in Afghanistan.  At least, according Zbigniew Brzezinski who was a national security advisor to Carter at the time.

Quote from: JongWKThat's why I posted it (no inflammatory purposes, Ian).

Honestly, I didn't think so.  It seems Ed did, though, which is a shame.

!i!

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI think you missed the point of the article.  The author was simply citing the Afghan war as an example of US foreign policies that had a profound impact on an entire country (Pakistan), but rate little more than a blip in US history.  It's not about whether US decisions were right or wrong, or whether it could have bee done better.

I honestly don't see the distinction except as a matter of degree.  But, OK, what could the US have done better based on the information that they had at the time?

There are certainly plenty of other examples of American foreign policy backing either dictators (e.g., Pinochet) or revolutionaries (e.g., The Contras) that had profound effects on the countries in question but they are never as simple as all that.  For example, Cambodia is an example of a country where the post-Nixon Democrat-controlled Congress cut off funding for the right-wing dictator Lon Nol in Cambodia so that the peaceful agrarian communist reformers known as the Khmer Rouge could take over the country.  In that case where we do get to see what happened when the U.S. stopped interfering and let the local civil unrest sort itself out, about a third of the country was murdered.  

So what would have happened if the United States hadn't backed General Mohammed Zia ul-Haq or General Augusto Pinochet or any number of other dictators during the Cold War and left those countries to their own means or the influence of the Soviet Union?  Would those countries now be ruled by benevolent democratic governments and be filled with people who love America or would they have descended into a living Hell like Cambodia?  Remember, plenty of people earnestly believed that the Khmer Rouge would be good for Cambodia.

So, yes, I'm sure the people of Pakistan resent the United States for backing General Mohammed Zia ul-Haq but what would have happened if the United States hadn't backed him?  Would he have fallen from power sooner?  Would he have gotten backing from the Soviet Union?  Might he have started a war with India to polarize the region?  Why do people only imagine the rosy scenarios and never the Cambodias, even though history has shown us that the Cambodias and Rwandas and Darfurs happen, too?

And it's always easy to imagine what might have been done better, after the fact, when you can see the results of what was done and can only imagine what wasn't done, and imagine that what wasn't done would have only turned out better, not worse.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkIn any event, apparently the US wanted the Soviets in Afghanistan.  At least, according Zbigniew Brzezinski who was a national security advisor to Carter at the time.

Do you have a citation on that?  If so, then Carter was even less deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize than I thought.

Good essay Jong. It was passed around here when it was first published. It goes nicely with the Granta edition of essays by a series of different authors on America. If you can find it, it's worth a read.

Regards,
David R

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThere are none so blind as those who will not see.

What am I supposed to see?  A peaceful world fully of happy and prosperous people singing Kumbaya if only the United States wouldn't meddle in the affairs of others or perhaps a world full of nightmares every bit as bad and maybe worse than what we have now, but for which the United States isn't responsible, if only the United States wouldn't meddle in the affairs of others?  Or am I supposed to imagine a United States ruled by people so perfect that they can reliably predict the results of their policies and never make mistakes so that the United States only does good and never does bad?

That's what I'm asking.  

OK, so I know people think the United States does bad things and I know the United States has had a hand in bad things happening but what's the alternative?  In the past, you've commented on being an adult about things like this.  Being an adult means not simply saying what's wrong but suggesting a better alternative and being able to explain why it's a better alternative. (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell081798.html)  Simply saying that backing the military dictator is always wrong is naive because we have examples where the United States didn't back the military dictator and things got even worse.

So, if you think the criticism of US policy in Pakistan is legitimate, what specifically should the United States have done differently that would have turned out better?  And if there is no answer for that question, then isn't it a bit silly to hold the United States responsible for a decision it made when you don't have a better specific alternative?

Quote from: John MorrowAnd it's always easy to imagine what might have been done better, after the fact, when you can see the results of what was done and can only imagine what wasn't done, and imagine that what wasn't done would have only turned out better, not worse.

As I understand it, the outrage was that the US (usualy called the CIA in this context) wanted a scorched earth policy. They wanted to stop the spread of communism, and fragile new democracies were not up to snuff.

By way of rough analogy, how would you like it if some forign power trained the Manson family* to fight like world class commandos? Of course you'd be happy that President Manson protected you from the whatever-ists, but in the back of your mind, you'd always wonder what America could have become without Helter Skelter.

*(I selected the Manson family because they were the top result when I googled "craziest cult.")

The point of the article is not that US interference has prevented the world from being a utopia, but that US interference has created resentment against the US.

The article is not talking about whether the interference was in the end better or worse than no interference, or should have been some different kind of interference, but that the interference itself created the resentment.

That's what you won't see. The US barges into a country interfering with its affairs uninvited, that pisses people off. Generations ago the British learned this lesson. They said, "Surely the natives would rather have good rule by foreigners than bad rule by locals?" The answer turned out to be, "Nope." Countries just want to be left alone, pretty much.

They want some help with natural disasters, and maybe some technical advice with big engineering projects and the like, but on the whole they'd like to be left alone. They don't want to be invaded, have coups sponsored against their governments (good or bad), have sanctions against them, have their dictators lent vast amounts of cash, have their secret police trained in torture, or anything like that. They just want to be left alone.

The US forces its way in when it's not wanted, and refuses to go in when it is wanted (cf, any one of dozens of UN missions). That creates resentment. At the very best you'll be perceived as one of those interfering mothers-in-law. "But dear, I'm just saying this for your own good." "Maybe, but it's my marriage and children - just leave us alone." At the worst you get September 11.

You can argue intentions and coulda woulda shoulda as much as you like. But the simple truth is that most countries wish that Great Powers would just leave them the fuck alone. Whether those minor powers would be better or worse off with or without that interference is irrelevant to the fact that they resent the interference. Maybe if I listened to my mother my relationship with my woman would be much better - but in the end, it's none of her fucking business.

When you interfere uninvited, countries resent you. It's not really that complicated.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe point of the article is not that US interference has prevented the world from being a utopia, but that US interference has created resentment against the US.

Correct.  And a lack of US interference has also created resentment against the United States in other situations.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe article is not talking about whether the interference was in the end better or worse than no interference, or should have been some different kind of interference, but that the interference itself created the resentment.

So that suggests that the way to avoid resentment is to avoid interference, even if in the end that means things are far worse for the people who feel the resentment.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's what you won't see. The US barges into a country interfering with its affairs uninvited, that pisses people off. Generations ago the British learned this lesson. They said, "Surely the natives would rather have good rule by foreigners than bad rule by locals?" The answer turned out to be, "Nope." Countries just want to be left alone, pretty much.

And whole countries are of one mind on such things, right?  So when the Hutus were slaughtering the Tutsis in Rwanda, members of both tribal groups were in equal agreement about being left alone, right?  And when the US and NATO bombed Serbia over Kosovo, the Kosovo Albanians just wanted to be left alone as much as the Serbians did, right?  And the anti-Taliban Afghanis that the United States helped take over didn't appreciate the US interference in Afghanistan any more than the Taliban did and I must be imagining those commercials by the Kurds thanking the US for not leaving them alone in Iraq.  And isn't it curious that one of the factions in the recent Nicaraguan election brought in Oliver North, notorious for interfering in Nicaraguan affairs via the Contras, because he's very popular among many in Nicaragua when such interference supposedly only causes resentment.  And I'm sure all of those Vietnamese who got into leaky boats to leave Vietnam were happy that the United States abandoned it's war effort in Vietnam and cut off military aid to the South Vietnamese government.  That must be why so many came to the United States.

Don't you think the idea that foreign countries and everyone in them speak with a single voice and have common opinions about things is just a little patronizing and simplistic?  

Quote from: Kyle AaronThey want some help with natural disasters, and maybe some technical advice with big engineering projects and the like, but on the whole they'd like to be left alone. They don't want to be invaded, have coups sponsored against their governments (good or bad), have sanctions against them, have their dictators lent vast amounts of cash, have their secret police trained in torture, or anything like that. They just want to be left alone.

Do you really think it's that simple?  You don't think the United States also gets resented for not interfering and never gets thanked for interfering?

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe US forces its way in when it's not wanted, and refuses to go in when it is wanted (cf, any one of dozens of UN missions). That creates resentment.

And what you need to realize is that many of those dozens of UN missions are just as resented by someone as the US-led missions.  By their very nature, almost all interference is done on the behalf of one local faction at the expense of another.  Yes, the Bosnians and Albanians in the Balkans might be happy that the UN is there but plenty of Serbs aren't happy about it.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAt the very best you'll be perceived as one of those interfering mothers-in-law. "But dear, I'm just saying this for your own good." "Maybe, but it's my marriage and children - just leave us alone." At the worst you get September 11.

OK, Kyle, take a good look at who as responsible for September 11th.  We're talking about the same people that Mohsin Hamid complains that the US helped in the 1980s and for years, people pretty much left the Taliban alone.  And the United States intervened on the behalf of Muslims in Kosovo.  Look at the social class of those involved.  And bear in mind that it was French commandos, not Americans, who were called into Mecca by the Saudi royal family in 1979.  So where is the resentment of the French?  Yes, it's a very nice narrative about poor downtrodden Muslims who resent American interference and presence in their part of the world but too many of the details just don't fit that narrative.  In fact, they didn't talk at all about Israel and the Palestinians until they realized that was part of the expected narrative.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou can argue intentions and coulda woulda shoulda as much as you like. But the simple truth is that most countries wish that Great Powers would just leave them the fuck alone. Whether those minor powers would be better or worse off with or without that interference is irrelevant to the fact that they resent the interference. Maybe if I listened to my mother my relationship with my woman would be much better - but in the end, it's none of her fucking business.

Sure, but isn't that a fairly childish attitude to have?  Seriously.  What you are basically saying is that people want to do their own thing regardless of the results of their choices and don't want advice even if it's good advice.  Doesn't that describe a typical adolescent attitude toward things?

   When I was young and knew everything
And she a punk who rarely ever took advice

[...]

(Chorus)
For the life of me I cannot remember
What made us think that we were wise and
We'd never compromise
For the life of me I cannot believe
We'd ever die for these sins
We were merely freshmen

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhen you interfere uninvited, countries resent you. It's not really that complicated.

I never said I didn't understand that.  My point is to ask what the alternative is.  If the alternative is worse or the United States will be resented for not interfering, then perhaps it is worth it to be resented or perhaps the resentment is simply inevitable.

How naive of you, Kyle. Don't you know, the march of freedom needs footsoldiers. Democracy is too precious to be left in the hands of just anyone.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumAs I understand it, the outrage was that the US (usualy called the CIA in this context) wanted a scorched earth policy. They wanted to stop the spread of communism, and fragile new democracies were not up to snuff.

And my point is that there are examples of where the US pulled it's hands away and let the chips fall where they may.  In Vietnam, we wound up with 200,000 dead in Cambodia and a flood of refugees into Thailand and leaving in leaky boats.  In Cambodia, the post-Nixon Democrat-controlled Congress cut off funding to right-wing dictator Lon Nol in Cambodia to let the Cambodians sort it out (i.e., let the Khmer Rouge win) and a third of that country was murdered.  We've been leaving our hands off of various countries in Africa for years and the results can best be described as anarchy.  And the track record of many Soviet client states dwarfs any American client state when it comes to hardship, starvation, and mass murder.  So it's not as if these policies occurred in a vacuum or if the United States had just kept it's hands off, everything was guaranteed to turn out OK.  As I said earlier, we'll never get to see the alternative but I think it's naive to assume the alternative would always have been better, even though there are times when it may have been.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumBy way of rough analogy, how would you like it if some forign power trained the Manson family* to fight like world class commandos? Of course you'd be happy that President Manson protected you from the whatever-ists, but in the back of your mind, you'd always wonder what America could have become without Helter Skelter.

Sure.  But rational resentment (as opposed to the adolescent sort that Kyle is talking about) would require that I believe that things would have been better off without the interference.  If I thought, say, 30,000 Americans killed by those crazy Mansons died for nothing, I'd resent the people who put the Mansons in power.  But if I thought those 30,000 Americans died, perhaps including some members of my own family, to prevent 30 million Americans from dying under an American Pol Pot, resentment would be pretty silly.  That's why I find it difficult to separate the resentment from the alternatives and the imagined results under those alternatives.

Again, I said that the problem was that the US goes in when not invited, and refuses to go in when it is invited.

It's not really very complicated.

Sure, whatever you do or don't do someone will hate you. But that'd be another aspect of that "adulthood" you're talking about - you realise that you can't please everyone. All you can do is avoid pissing off almost everyone.

Quote from: John MorrowWhat you are basically saying is that people want to do their own thing regardless of the results of their choices and don't want advice even if it's good advice. Doesn't that describe a typical adolescent attitude toward things?

You can look at it that way. Or you can look at it as an adult attitude to things. As an adult, you want to be able to do your own thing without interference or unasked for advice.

If you don't believe me, think of some friend or relative of yours who at least occasionally has some family problems. Force your way into their home and start giving them advice on fixing them up. Or at least ring them up every day to tell them. If they complain, just say that they're "a typical adolescent". See what happens.

The true adolescent is the one who thinks they know what's good for everyone else. Can we name a country which thinks it knows what's good for everyone else? An adult has a degree of humility and respect for others. "Well, I certainly made mistakes, and still do - here are the mistakes I've made, perhaps you can learn from them. Aside from that, good luck, and call me if you need me."

Again, this has nothing to do with whether the US's interference or lack thereof has done good or not. People just like to be left alone to handle their own affairs. If they want help they'll ask for it.

That's what the article's about. That's the key to the whole thing, and it's something that Americans are rather slow to understand. The world wants you to leave them alone. Just have normal diplomacy and trade. When you mess about in another country's affairs, more likely than not you'll piss someone off. Do it for long enough and eventually everyone will hate you.

That's part of being an empire - the colonies will hate you, the people under the puppet regimes will hate you, your rivals will hate you. If you don't want to be hated, stop being an empire. "What have the Romans ever done for us, then, eh?" may have been a joke, but it's true.Since, like the British were, you're convinced you know better what's good for those "adolescent" countries than they do, perhaps you'll like Kipling,

  Take up the White Man's burden--
  And reap his old reward:
  The blame of those ye better,
  The hate of those ye guard--

It's really not very complicated. You mess around in people's countries, they hate you. Mind your own business, they don't. It's nothing to me, really. I just want my own country to stop joining in. We can do without the hatred. We do enough stupid and immoral things without joining in on your messes.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAgain, I said that the problem was that the US goes in when not invited, and refuses to go in when it is invited.

It's not really very complicated.

It's not very complicated if you ignore the details.  Who is doing the inviting, Kyle?  There is almost always a local faction that wants the US there and a faction that doesn't.  What makes one faction's invitation legitimate and another factions invitation illegitimate?  Sure, Mohsin Hamid's family didn't want the US supporting General Zia but I bet General Zia had supporters who were happy that the US was involved.  I doubt the US was making General Zia take their money at gunpoint against his will and isn't he also a Pakistani?

Quote from: Kyle AaronSure, whatever you do or don't do someone will hate you. But that'd be another aspect of that "adulthood" you're talking about - you realise that you can't please everyone. All you can do is avoid pissing off almost everyone.

And we don't piss off almost everyone, even though the left-wing media carefully selects who it interviews to give that impression.  For example, I'm sure that CNN would rather interview you than ex-PM Howard if they wanted to represent the Australian position on the United States.

As I pointed out, if you listen to the mainstream media, the US intervention with the Contras in Nicaragua was uninvited and caused great resentment yet how to you square that with Nicaraguan politicians inviting Oliver North, the architect of Iran-Contra, to Nicaragua to campaign for a candidate and get votes?  Doesn't that suggest that maybe US intervention on behalf of the Contras was welcomed by many Nicaraguans and that it was the Democrats who opposed funding the Contras who were out of touch?  And, yes, I know Daniel Ortega ultimately won that election -- with less than 40% of the vote because the vote on the right was split.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou can look at it that way. Or you can look at it as an adult attitude to things. As an adult, you want to be able to do your own thing without interference or unasked for advice.

That's not being an adult.  That's being an adolescent.  Somewhere along the way people stopped growing up and started confusing being an adolescent who is independent enough to ignore advice with being an adult.  Adults understand and deal with obligations.  Marriage requires commitment and compromise and being willing to listen to someone other than yourself.  That's why adolescents are so bad at it.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIf you don't believe me, think of some friend or relative of yours who at least occasionally has some family problems. Force your way into their home and start giving them advice on fixing them up. Or at least ring them up every day to tell them. If they complain, just say that they're "a typical adolescent". See what happens.

Like an adolescent, they'll throw a hissy fit.  That's what adolescents do.  They feel.  They don't think.  Do I really need to explain this to you?

Haven't you ever heard of an "intervention"?  How about a "support group"?  And do you know how "adults" with problems fare when they ignore their family and don't seek help?  And, of course, you assume the person has no obligations or responsibilities because, well, adolescents can't be bothered with such things.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe true adolescent is the one who thinks they know what's good for everyone else.

Really?  Most adolescents I know of only care about themselves.  Or are you saying that if your mother gives you advice about your relationship with a woman that might actually make that relationship better that she's being the adolescent for giving the advice and you are being an adult for ignoring it?  That's a pretty upside-down world you've got there down under.

Quote from: Kyle AaronCan we name a country which thinks it knows what's good for everyone else?

I didn't know that countries had opinions or thoughts.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAn adult has a degree of humility and respect for others. "Well, I certainly made mistakes, and still do - here are the mistakes I've made, perhaps you can learn from them. Aside from that, good luck, and call me if you need me."

Really?  Take a look at the contrast between the values of boys and men in gangs and adult men with families and responsibilities and tell me which group is obsessed with respect, popularity, and freedom.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAgain, this has nothing to do with whether the US's interference or lack thereof has done good or not. People just like to be left alone to handle their own affairs. If they want help they'll ask for it.

And as I've pointed out, what happens when, say, the Kurds want the United States to invade Iraq and the Sunnis don't?  What happens when the Kosovo Albanians want the US to invade but the Serbs don't?  Countries don't speak with one clear voice and often, one part of a country doesn't want to be left alone while another part does.

Suppose you know two people who are lovers.  One starts smacking the other around.  The one being smacked around calls you and the other grabs the phone and tells you to mind your own business.  What do you do?  Do you default to leaving them alone?

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's what the article's about. That's the key to the whole thing, and it's something that Americans are rather slow to understand. The world wants you to leave them alone. Just have normal diplomacy and trade. When you mess about in another country's affairs, more likely than not you'll piss someone off. Do it for long enough and eventually everyone will hate you.

But the reality doesn't bear that out.  There are Nicaraguans who are thankful that the United States backed the Contras, there are Chileans happy that the United States backed Pinochet, there are Cubans in exile that drive the US sanctions against Cuba, and there are Kurds running commercials thanking the US for invading Iraq.  Maybe it would help if you stopped anthropomorphizing countries.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's part of being an empire - the colonies will hate you, the people under the puppet regimes will hate you, your rivals will hate you. If you don't want to be hated, stop being an empire. "What have the Romans ever done for us, then, eh?" may have been a joke, but it's true.

And what happened when Rome fell?  Does the term "Dark Ages" ring a bell?  

Quote from: Kyle AaronSince, like the British were, you're convinced you know better what's good for those "adolescent" countries than they do, perhaps you'll like Kipling,

  Take up the White Man's burden--
  And reap his old reward:
  The blame of those ye better,
  The hate of those ye guard--

And if the British had never had an Empire, what would the world look like?

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's really not very complicated. You mess around in people's countries, they hate you. Mind your own business, they don't. It's nothing to me, really. I just want my own country to stop joining in. We can do without the hatred. We do enough stupid and immoral things without joining in on your messes.

But they don't all hate us, Kyle, nor do they all hate the British.  Some of them are even happy that we messed around in their countries.  The world isn't a simple place and you should stop believing it is.  And the most important thing in life isn't being well liked at any particular moment.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron"Praise Allah, you are right! We put down our weapons and return to farming. We grow things Americans want to buy, have much trade with your country! Long live Uncle Sam!"

You are aware that the Taliban dealt with poppy farming very harshly, right?

"We're adult and sensible and know what's good for the world, and anyone who disagrees with us is just adolescent."

Like I said, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Doesn't worry me. Just don't stumble into my country.

Kyle's point is that no matter who ask, don't get involved in someone else's country....esp since let's face it, you're doing it for your own self interest... only John Morrow could turn this thread into a defense of American foreign policy and babble on about offering alternatives without offering any of his own or acknowledging the damage US foreign policy has done to it's relationships with the rest of the world. And as for the Weapon of Mass Quoting ....:rolleyes:

Regards,
David R

John,

What I was getting at is, is why choose the Mansons at all? Presumably there's SOMEONE in America who a) loves freedom and b) isn't the craziest. Why not pick them? Because the CIA wants a scorched earth policy. Picking the most vile, hateful and deranged group is the paramilitary equivalent of nuking from high orbit. It destroys the country as an asset for everyone, it's radioactive (i.e. unstable) for generations, and has more killing power than trying to shepard a goodie-two shoes democracy.

Quote from: David RKyle's point is that no matter who ask, don't get involved in someone else's country....esp since let's face it, you're doing it for your own self interest... only John Morrow could turn this thread into a defense of American foreign policy and babble on about offering alternatives without offering any of his own or acknowledging the damage US foreign policy has done to it's relationships with the rest of the world. And as for the Weapon of Mass Quoting ....:rolleyes:

Regards,
David R

Since when, David, is it a requirement to acknowledge the damage US foreign policy has done over here when defending it over here?  This kind of  "I must first confess all my sins before I speak a word" sort of limits the conversation, no? Add that to the fact that in the very first response (and in many cases after) John is acknowledging the problems - he's just saying that the alternative action (the one usually advocated by the opposition and is usually "can't we just leave them all to themselves") often leads to horrible situations that people then point to and then blame....the US for not getting involved.

And it's ok to disagree with Kyle's point as you summarize - I certainly don't think you ignore a plea for assistance no matter who is asking.

And I'm still continually baffled by this kind of adverse statement to self interest.  When all else is equal, it can at least be used to criteria, no?

I'm fine if Kyle wants Australia out of world politics. I'm sure that means he won't be trying to mess about with US internal politics by opposing any external pressures on the US to alter greenhouse gas emissions...right?

In the mean time, we'll keep electing people, then tossing them out of office when we disagree with them, who take America's self interest as the last word on deciding if the US should get involved. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we've got.

See?

Thats why I posted what I posted earlier.

The last two-thirds of this thread were almost pretty predictable.

 YES, of course the article raised several interesting and there arecseveral facts or truthjs in it - doesn't change the truth that it will lead to yet another back & forth thread about the US has done wrong or right. (pkay HAS lead to that ...) Then someone will say what the other poster's non-US country has done wrong or right over the years...etc., etc.,....

 Hey lets all complain about Berzerkistan ...or Freedonia...or Latveria.
there would be just as much point to those discussions.


- Ed C.

Latveria:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latveria

Quote from: David RKyle's point is that no matter who ask, don't get involved in someone else's country....esp since let's face it, you're doing it for your own self interest... only John Morrow could turn this thread into a defense of American foreign policy and babble on about offering alternatives without offering any of his own or acknowledging the damage US foreign policy has done to it's relationships with the rest of the world. And as for the Weapon of Mass Quoting ....:rolleyes:

Regards,
David R

Wrong.

I could also turn this into a defense of American foreign policy.

By and large I wish my country had better choices than to deal with dictators, but often we must deal with the world as it is, rather than as we'd like it to be.

When there aren't any good choices, you're faced with making a choice someone's not going to like (choosing to do nothing is also a choice -- and often a very bad one). And so the result of any foreign policy is, ultimately, hatred.

I don't mind being held accountable for the choices I make. I expect my country to be held accountable for the choices it makes, but the idea that there are simple, "good" choices out there and that the US is somehow not making them (and that, we should, somehow, choose an enlightened leadership that would make the "good" choices and then we'd be loved) is, I think, wrong.

We're big, we're powerful, our influence and power is an incredibly blunt instrument. Isolationism isn't an option. Neither is empire. What we're left with is pretty much where we are -- doing the best we can in a world without a lot of good options.

I think we should be aware of the impact of our foreign policy and we should strive to live up to our ideas, including those of fairness and generosity. I think there is always room for improvement and I think our critics -- even the ones who hate us -- can teach us.

So with regard to the article, I would agree we should listen.

But I don't think foreign policy is the whole story. I'm not convinced that a lot of the hatred is the result of foreign policy impacts. And while the author touches on "envy" I don't think envy tells the whole story, either. Looking at some of the hatred -- not even, necessarily, hatred directed at *us* I think there is clearly there is an ideological element to it that should not be underestimated.

America -- what it is, what it stands for (which is often not what it is), and the ideas it represents (and will never, by definition, live up to) is clearly offensive to a lot of people (and not just Islamic radicals -- I'm thinking of various kinds of socialists and, to a much lesser degree, secularists, as well).

That America is hugely -- no, singularly -- powerful, influential, and successful is in some ways a vindication of those ideas. I think that a lot of people find that offensive beyond pragmatic foreign policy issues.

And although I doubt we will ever live up to our greatest ideas, I wouldn't want to stop trying even if it meant being loved by those we currently offend.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: James J SkachSince when, David, is it a requirement to acknowledge the damage US foreign policy has done over here when defending it over here?  This kind of  "I must first confess all my sins before I speak a word" sort of limits the conversation, no? Add that to the fact that in the very first response (and in many cases after) John is acknowledging the problems - he's just saying that the alternative action (the one usually advocated by the opposition and is usually "can't we just leave them all to themselves") often leads to horrible situations that people then point to and then blame....the US for not getting involved.

And it's ok to disagree with Kyle's point as you summarize - I certainly don't think you ignore a plea for assistance no matter who is asking.

And I'm still continually baffled by this kind of adverse statement to self interest.  When all else is equal, it can at least be used to criteria, no?

I'm fine if Kyle wants Australia out of world politics. I'm sure that means he won't be trying to mess about with US internal politics by opposing any external pressures on the US to alter greenhouse gas emissions...right?

In the mean time, we'll keep electing people, then tossing them out of office when we disagree with them, who take America's self interest as the last word on deciding if the US should get involved. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we've got.

Where exactly is here, James? And no, acknowledging past mistakes and acts does not limit the conversation, in fact it broadens it allowing all participants the understand each other better without falling into the trap of needless defensive rhetoric. No, John has never really acknowledged the problem with American foreign policy only made justifications for it. And nobody blames the US for not getting involved....which is the convenient excuse by those who defend it's more egregious policies. People blame the US for not getting involved because its rhetoric of freedom does not match its acts.

When all else is equal, self interest is great. When there's a disparity and one makes use of it in the guise of altruistic purposes....don't be surprised if  scorn is all you get.

As for the environment, I'm sure Kyle would be the first to critise his country and support any country who sincerely takes the lead in the effort.

You keep electing whoever you want and as long as your policies don't adversely affect the rest of the world nobody would really care....kindly extend to others the same courtesy.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: -E.I could also turn this into a defense of American foreign policy.

You just did.

QuoteI don't mind being held accountable for the choices I make. I expect my country to be held accountable for the choices it makes, but the idea that there are simple, "good" choices out there and that the US is somehow not making them (and that, we should, somehow, choose an enlightened leadership that would make the "good" choices and then we'd be loved) is, I think, wrong.

You get the choices you get, when interfering in the domestic policies of foreign countries.

QuoteI think we should be aware of the impact of our foreign policy and we should strive to live up to our ideas, including those of fairness and generosity. I think there is always room for improvement and I think our critics -- even the ones who hate us -- can teach us.

Agreed.

QuoteSo with regard to the article, I would agree we should listen.

This a good start.

QuoteBut I don't think foreign policy is the whole story. ......

Of course, but it's the most important one.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RKyle's point is that no matter who ask, don't get involved in someone else's country....esp since let's face it, you're doing it for your own self interest...

So you are fine with what happens when the United States and the rest of the world doesn't get involved in situations like Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur and think that NATO should have stayed out of Kosovo and the UN should have stayed out of Bosnia?

Quote from: David Ronly John Morrow could turn this thread into a defense of American foreign policy and babble on about offering alternatives without offering any of his own or acknowledging the damage US foreign policy has done to it's relationships with the rest of the world.

The reason why I'm not offering alternatives is that I'm not the one claiming that the US could have and should have done better.  It's easy to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong but not so easy to tell them what they should have done instead, and to take responsibility for the consequences of that alternative.

I have acknowledged, for example, that the United States backed dictators and could have done plenty of things better than they did, especially with the benefit of hindsight and better information now than the US had then.  Yes, US foreign policy has done damage to its relationship with the rest of the world but what would the world look like to day if after (or, heck, even for) WW2 the United States had just said, "Not my problem," and ignored the world the way Kyle suggests?  

Would South Korea be living in a socialist paradise like the happy citizens of North Korea if the US hadn't intervened on their behalf?  Would Iran and Pakistan have become client states of a possibly still healthy Soviet Union?  And would the people of those countries really love the US more than they do now or would the resent the US for not helping them?

I thought the people on a site like this would be familiar with the idea of alternate histories and could use their brains to make a specific change and then follow through what it would have meant to world history.  What would have changed for the better or worse other than, perhaps, that America would (possibly) be less resented?

So far, all I've really gotten is that Kyle doesn't seem to care whether things would be better or worse, which seems a bit strange and irresponsible to me.  

So he cares whether the people of Pakistan resent American interference in their country but he doesn't really care what happens to them in an alternate future without American involvement?  Does Kyle really care that much about how loved America is?  

As for doing it in our own self-interest, isn't that what Kyle's, "Doesn't worry me. Just don't stumble into my country." really boils down to?  Do America's critics really care about the people of Pakistan (or any other country) except as it affects them and their own country?  If the people complaining about American foreign policy really cared that much about the people of Pakistan (or Afghanistan or Iraq or Vietnam or whatever), I would expect at least some consideration of their plight without US intervention rather than a disinterested claim that it doesn't matter.

Quote from: John MorrowSo you are fine with what happens when the United States and the rest of the world doesn't get involved in situations like Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur and think that NATO should have stayed out of Kosovo and the UN should have stayed out of Bosnia?



The reason why I'm not offering alternatives is that I'm not the one claiming that the US could have and should have done better.  It's easy to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong but not so easy to tell them what they should have done instead, and to take responsibility for the consequences of that alternative.

I have acknowledged, for example, that the United States backed dictators and could have done plenty of things better than they did, especially with the benefit of hindsight and better information now than the US had then.  Yes, US foreign policy has done damage to its relationship with the rest of the world but what would the world look like to day if after (or, heck, even for) WW2 the United States had just said, "Not my problem," and ignored the world the way Kyle suggests?  

Would South Korea be living in a socialist paradise like the happy citizens of North Korea if the US hadn't intervened on their behalf?  Would Iran and Pakistan have become client states of a possibly still healthy Soviet Union?  And would the people of those countries really love the US more than they do now or would the resent the US for not helping them?

I thought the people on a site like this would be familiar with the idea of alternate histories and could use their brains to make a specific change and then follow through what it would have meant to world history.  What would have changed for the better or worse other than, perhaps, that America would (possibly) be less resented?

So far, all I've really gotten is that Kyle doesn't seem to care whether things would be better or worse, which seems a bit strange and irresponsible to me.  

So he cares whether the people of Pakistan resent American interference in their country but he doesn't really care what happens to them in an alternate future without American involvement?  Does Kyle really care that much about how loved America is?  

As for doing it in our own self-interest, isn't that what Kyle's, "Doesn't worry me. Just don't stumble into my country." really boils down to?  Do America's critics really care about the people of Pakistan (or any other country) except as it affects them and their own country?  If the people complaining about American foreign policy really cared that much about the people of Pakistan (or Afghanistan or Iraq or Vietnam or whatever), I would expect at least some consideration of their plight without US intervention rather than a disinterested claim that it doesn't matter.

Well yes John. Stop backing dictators, stop meddling in the policies of other countries and then when you play world cop, America would have more credibility. I would answer point by point....but really, you're not exactly saying anything new.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John MorrowSo you are fine with what happens when the United States and the rest of the world doesn't get involved in situations like Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur and think that NATO should have stayed out of Kosovo and the UN should have stayed out of Bosnia?

Why are you stopping there? Anyone advocating isolationism is almost certainly against taking action to stop genocide (and, from the looks of things, that would be almost everyone).

But the US's involvement in other places goes well beyond military actions.

The US donates a lot of money to humanitarian efforts. After earth quakes and tsunamis, the US (often the US Military) arrives providing blankets, medical care, etc. Oddly, in these cases, I often see the US of accused of not doing enough...

And even beyond government-sponsored actions, the US's purely domestic behavior has massive impacts on other countries: money sent home from illegal workers in the US is the primary source of income for some entire nations.

Surely those wishing the US would simply get off the world stage object to those actions and impacts as well?

Or do you think that many of the critics have a more ... nuanced idea of how the US should interact with and affect other parts of the world -- something along the lines of "only do the kind of intervention I agree with... and only in the way I agree with it?"

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: David ROf course, but it's the most important one.

Regards,
David R

I disagree. I think ideology probably has more impact. From a practical, day-to-day perspective people's lives are more-affected by their local and regional government than by the US.

In the article, you'll note that the "bearded guys" running around enforcing Islamic law weren't, you know, American. The desire to hold someone else -- preferably someone foreign -- responsible for one's own mess is strong and, I think, in some ways innate to human nature.

No -- the decision to focus on the US in those cases is the result of belief and ideology. Policy is secondary.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumWhat I was getting at is, is why choose the Mansons at all? Presumably there's SOMEONE in America who a) loves freedom and b) isn't the craziest. Why not pick them? Because the CIA wants a scorched earth policy. Picking the most vile, hateful and deranged group is the paramilitary equivalent of nuking from high orbit. It destroys the country as an asset for everyone, it's radioactive (i.e. unstable) for generations, and has more killing power than trying to shepard a goodie-two shoes democracy.

And where was this scorched Earth policy put into action?  Pakistan?  There were problems between Pakistan and India and unrest among the Muslims there going back to British colonial rule (Pakistan was carved out of India and they are still fighting over Kashmir).  Where, specifically, was this policy that would destroy a country for generations actually put into play and how successful was it?

Quote from: -E.No -- the decision to focus on the US in those cases is the result of belief and ideology. Policy is secondary.

I disagree, policy is the fuel which feeds the flames of hatred and envelops the moderates and the sympathethic. Policy is primary.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI disagree, policy is the fuel which feeds the flames of hatred and envelops the moderates and the sympathethic. Policy is primary.

Regards,
David R

I give you the Danish Cartoon riots -- the flames can be fed by almost anything. And so long as there are people out there who gain from the flames... and so long as there are people willing to listen to them, it's words, ideas, and concepts that will, in the end, do the most damage.

I'm not saying we couldn't do better with our policy, and I'm not saying we shouldn't -- but when we're talking about *hatred* we're talking about emotions and ideas, usually simple ones.

Policy and its second and third degree impacts aren't "simple" -- your life, anyone's life, is the result of a huge number of variables. Decisions in Washington are only one of them.

Who you chose to hold responsible -- who you chose to *hate* is a personal choice and often a simplistic one.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: David RWell yes John. Stop backing dictators, stop meddling in the policies of other countries and then when you play world cop, America would have more credibility.

What does it mean to stop backing dictators?  Stop sending them aid?  Withdraw diplomatic recognition?  Sanctions?  Cease trade?

And I thought the current complaint was that the United States toppled a dictator in Iraq and should have left him in place and that America and the UN shouldn't have been subjecting Iraq to sanctions.  So, if the United States just kept buying oil from Saddam and didn't push him out of Kuwait and didn't stop him from slaughtering Iraqi minorities with the no-fly zones throughout the 90s, would that have been "backing" Saddam or doing what you and Kyle want?

I know the details are difficult but if you want some credibility on the topic, details are necessary because, as they say, the devil is in the details.

Quote from: David RI would answer point by point....but really, you're not exactly saying anything new.

Humor me.  Answer point to point because I'm waiting for someone to show me that they can.

Quote from: -E.I'm not saying we couldn't do better with our policy, and I'm not saying we shouldn't -- but when we're talking about *hatred* we're talking about emotions and ideas, usually simple ones.

Thanks -E, this makes the conversation much easier. I appreciate it.

QuotePolicy and its second and third degree impacts aren't "simple" -- your life, anyone's life, is the result of a huge number of variables. Decisions in Washington are only one of them.

Which is true when you're living in a stable enviroment but, policy is the draw for both those already disenfranchised and living in wreckage of said policy and those who identify with the suffering of their brothers and who travel (what Le Carre called) the more darker roads of Islam

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John MorrowHumor me.  Answer point to point because I'm waiting for someone to show me that they can.

Whoa...tough talk. Ever cross your mind John that some just could not be bothered, going point by point in circles with you....after all it's the internet.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RThanks -E, this makes the conversation much easier. I appreciate it.



Which is true when you're living in a stable enviroment but, policy is the draw for both those already disenfranchised and living in wreckage of said policy and those who identify with the suffering of their brothers and who travel (what Le Carre called) the more darker roads of Islam

Regards,
David R

It's not hard to weave a story for someone (or an audience of someones, say a bunch of school kids) about how the problems in their country and in their life are the result of ham-handed, bone-headed, callous, or even intentionally venal and cruel decisions made in Washington.

And it's not hard to do because inevitably there will be degrees of truth in any such story: policy matters, decisions made elsewhere are felt all over the world.

The meta-stories about how the US is primarily or simplistically responsible, however, are pretty uniformly false. The truth is that dictatorships are not the result of foreign support -- they're the result of *local* support and logical result of ruthless political calculus: local men with guns organized and willing to kill those who do not submit.

Blaming some other guy for your dictator doesn't make it the right thing to do, even if the other guy happens to be doing business with said strongman. But blaming someone else *can* feel good... and it *does* make for a good story.

As one looks at the particulars it's not hard to find good reason to be disgusted with a lot of what the US has done (although I think that in most cases, we're looking at no-win scenarios; there would be a lot to be disgusted about in any case... and things to be disgusted about if the US had chosen to do nothing). Hatred, though, is something else -- and fanatical hatred, I think, says more about the hater than the hated... and almost nothing about policy.

I recommend True Believer  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer). I think, in many cases "they hate us" because having someone distant, powerful and ideologically offensive to hate simply works for a lot of people... and not necessarily the poor, desperate ones. A lot of the people who hate the most are middle class.

I brought up the Cartoon Riots for a reason: we cannot -- ever, through any policy -- stop giving demagogues ammunition. If something as innocuous as political cartoons can be used to inspire hatred and action then we're doomed  on that front: our very existence will give them ammunition.

We can focus on our ideas and strive to meet them; we can accept criticism and try to do better next time. We be humane in the face of enemies who hold ideas abhorrent to us. As we do these things, I think we can meet their hatred with conviction instead of shame. We can be proud that they hate us.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.We can focus on our ideas and strive to meet them; we can accept criticism and try to do better next time. We be humane in the face of enemies who hold ideas abhorrent to us. As we do these things, I think we can meet their hatred with conviction instead of shame. We can be proud that they hate us.

This I agree with.

As for the rest of your post, well we would be going around in circles. You ended very eloquently.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI disagree, policy is the fuel which feeds the flames of hatred and envelops the moderates and the sympathethic. Policy is primary.

That the moderates would rather worry about American policy that they have little control over instead of the domestic troublemakers that they could have some control over is a big part of the problem.  It's the same psychology that make people worry more about dying in an airplane accident (something that they have very little control over) than dying of a heart attack (something that they have a great deal of control over), despite the odds of the latter being much greater than the odds of the former.

Quote from: David RThis I agree with.

As for the rest of your post, well we would be going around in circles. You ended very eloquently.

Regards,
David R

I'm totally good with this.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: David RWhoa...tough talk. Ever cross your mind John that some just could not be bothered, going point by point in circles with you....after all it's the internet.

Not just the internet.  Life.  People can't be bothered to think about the details and then they wonder why nothing changes.

Quote from: John MorrowThat the moderates would rather worry about American policy that they have little control over instead of the domestic troublemakers that they could have some control over is a big part of the problem.  It's the same psychology that make people worry more about dying in an airplane accident (something that they have very little control over) than dying of a heart attack (something that they have a great deal of control over), despite the odds of the latter being much greater than the odds of the former.

No, that the voices of the moderates are drowned out by the shock and awe tactics from Washington and what cautious resistance to the pressure of domestics troublemakers is spent arguing and then losing to overwhelming chorus of voices demanding justice for their fellow believers.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John MorrowNot just the internet.  Life.  People can't be bothered to think about the details and then they wonder why nothing changes.

People very often think about the details, they just can't be bothered arguing about them online, esp on a gaming site.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: -E.As one looks at the particulars it's not hard to find good reason to be disgusted with a lot of what the US has done (although I think that in most cases, we're looking at no-win scenarios; there would be a lot to be disgusted about in any case... and things to be disgusted about if the US had chosen to do nothing).

That's pretty much my point.  Yes, the US has supported some awful people who have done awful things to the people of their country.  And, yes, the US has made some choices that caused problems around the world.  But if there wasn't some other choice that the US could have made that would have produced better results then it was a no-win scenario, and if the alternatives or doing nothing would have produced worse results, then condemning what the US did is to wish that even worse things had happened to the people affected.

Is US foreign policy perfect?  Of course not.  Does the United States make mistakes?  Absolutely.  A good example of a horrible mistake was apparently giving Saddam Hussein the impression that the United States would not get involved if he invaded Kuwait.  Another potentially disastrous mistake was the Able Archer NATO exercises during the 1980s that gave the paranoid Soviet leadership the impression that NATO was preparing for a nuclear attack.  

The United States should certainly show more care with its foreign policy than it has at times, should certainly try to learn from its mistakes, and should certainly try to support it's ideals as much as possible.  But I think it's also important to look at the apparently bad choices that the United States has made and ask whether the alternatives were really better.  And if there were better alternatives, understanding why they weren't made could help improve the quality if decisions in the future.

Quote from: David RPeople very often think about the details, they just can't be bothered arguing about them online, esp on a gaming site.

Why is it a bother to explain something that's so important?

Quote from: David RNo, that the voices of the moderates are drowned out by the shock and awe tactics from Washington and what cautious resistance to the pressure of domestics troublemakers is spent arguing and then losing to overwhelming chorus of voices demanding justice for their fellow believers.

As -E pointed out, all it takes is some cartoons of Muhammed in a Danish newspaper to create an overwhelming chorus of voices demanding justice or the naming of a teddy bear Muhammed to create an overwhelming chorus of voices demanding the head of a UK schoolteacher (in a country where the US exerts very little pressure or influence).  Problems like Kashmir suggest that if the United States weren't blamed for Pakistan's problems, India would be (and is).  The complaints and problems also closely mirror those of Latin America where religion and pan-Islamism is not a factor.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy is it a bother to explain something that's so important?

John, what you're dealing with here, on a forum devoted to RPGs, is largely the domain of opinion. Yet your consistent tactic in discourse is to demand, line by line, factual proof or refutation where none is forthcoming.  Yes, you may want it, but when it comes to someone's opinion there's a point at which responding to your repeated, and often circular, demands for evidential support simply grows wearisome.  You get some concessions out of some people for a bit of argument, but you always have another demand for proof waiting in the wings.  Sooner or later people always give up on that sort of argument.  And you always declare victory with a statement like, "I'm still waiting."  Great.  Wait.

!i!

Quote from: John MorrowDo you have a citation on that?  If so, then Carter was even less deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize than I thought.

http://www.proxsa.org/resources/9-11/Brzezinski-980115-interview.htm

IMHO, the most fascinating part of the interview comes here:

QuoteQ: And neither do you regret having supported        the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
     
     Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the        world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up        Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Fascinating because it suggests that Afghanistan was considered trivial compared to the real objective of the US, which was the cold-war "defeat" of the USSR.  And also, because those "stirred-up" Moslems went on to become the number one target in the War on Terror after 9/11.  

What comes around, goes around.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaJohn, what you're dealing with here, on a forum devoted to RPGs, is largely the domain of opinion.

Correct.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYet your consistent tactic in discourse is to demand, line by line, factual proof or refutation where none is forthcoming.  Yes, you may want it, but when it comes to someone's opinion there's a point at which responding to your repeated, and often circular, demands for evidential support simply grows wearisome.

It grows wearisome for me, as well, but there is a point to it.  Several, actually.

Ultimately, explaining a position about a complex issue and convincing people to change their mind is a wearisome task and that most people can't be bothered is why so little gets done to change so many things and it's why extremists dominate the discourse.  Talk is cheap and if you can't even be bothered to do that past a two-minute sound bit, what does that say about your commitment to an issue when the going really gets rough.  If you think I'm a problem, try getting in a debate with someone who really doesn't like you and/or really feels strongly about the issue.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYou get some concessions out of some people for a bit of argument, but you always have another demand for proof waiting in the wings.  Sooner or later people always give up on that sort of argument.  And you always declare victory with a statement like, "I'm still waiting."  Great.  Wait.

The point is often that, ultimately, differences of opinions come down to differences in opinions about facts and assumptions rather than differences in character, yet character is often how things tend to get framed here.  When your opponents insist on framing your position as a failure of character, the only way I know of to handle that is to explain, ad nauseum if necessary, the actual reasons why people hold different opinions.  

As for whether you can keep me waiting or not, that's not really the issue.  The issue is whether you've explained yourself to the satisfaction of those reading the thread who may be undecided on the issue.  If you think you have and that nobody is going to be bothered by leaving my questions unanswered, then by all means stop responding.  In a public message board, you aren't simply debating the person you are responding to.  You are making your case to those who are reading but not participating.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy is it a bother to explain something that's so important?

Because it's not really important.

Regards,
David R

These threads, and the very vocal voices in them do not make me feel welcome at this site.

Quote from: John MorrowSo you are fine with what happens when the United States and the rest of the world doesn't get involved in situations like Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur and think that NATO should have stayed out of Kosovo and the UN should have stayed out of Bosnia?

Again, you're failing to make the distinction between going where you're invited, and going where you're not invited.

In general, a UN mission counts as an "invitation".

You can come to my house if I invite you. You can knock on the door and invite yourself, but I have to agree to let you come in. If you force your way in, that's burglary and trespass. If my neighbour is kicking down my fence, or if I'm fighting with someone in my house, and I then invite you in to help, then absolutely you should come on in if you believe it's the right thing to do. But going around kicking in people's doors, barging into their houses and setting them on fire, well, amazingly people don't like that.

Also, you should study some hsitory before using it in your examples. Cambodia had a very weak Communist rebellion until the US bombings of Cambodia, and the US/RVN invasion of Cambodia. In Problems of Communism, Jan-Feb 1979, Zasloff and Brown fervent anti-communists) write that the Khmer Rouge claims that the US bombings and US/RVN invasion caused the deaths of 600,000 to 1,000,000 people are credible (compared with Amnesty's estimate of 1.4 million deaths under Pol Pot). These deaths and destructions further destablised the regime, and strengthened the Khmer Rouge's support. When their regime was allied with a country bombing and invading them, the people stopped supporting their regime and looked for alternatives. The Khmer Rouge was the only one; thus their victory in April 1975.

When the Vietnamese tired of constant Khmer Rouge attacks on their villages and the genocide occurring in the country, they invaded, and in 17 days toppled the regime. The US opposed the Vietnamese invasion, and voted for the KR to retain their seat at the UN. In 1980, the US pressured the World Food Programme into passing food aid to KR guerillas hiding out in camps on the Cambodia-Thai border, keeping 30,000 of them in fighting fitness. When the KR combined with the KPLNF and the ANS, the US supported them as the "legitimate" government of Cambodia, giving tens of millions of dollars in aid. This helped perpetuate the conflict in Cambodia, keeping the KR out attacking civilians.

Eventually the Cambodians tired of the conflict, and asked the UN to come in. In 1989, peace was agreed (with the UN Secretary General leading the negotiations) and the Vietnamese withdrew. In 1991 UNTAC was authorised, and in 1992 came into the country. It eventually grew to 22,000 troops and civilians rebuilding infrastructure and supervising free and fair elections. In 1993, the Assembly elected and met, UNTAC was dissolved. UNTAC cost $1.6 billion and had 78 fatalities (many from landmines laid by the US and both Vietnams in the long conflict). In 1997, Second Prime Minister Hun Sen staged a coup in which 100 people died, but the country has since returned to democracy, more or less.

With US "help", Cambodia had 600,000 to 1,000,000 deaths from 1967-75, plus God knows how many in 1980s as the US supported the KR against Vietnamese forces and their puppet government in Cambodia. With UN action, there were 78 deaths under the UN, and 100 afterwards. This is a clear case of unilateral action being harmful, and multilateral action on the invitation of the host country being much much less harmful, and even helpful.

By contrast, the US was in no way responsible for the conflict in Rwanda. They did, however, like Australia, block UN attempts to prevent the genocide. We share shame in that. The country most blameworthy in Rwanda, aside from Rwanda itself, is France, since it was jealous of other countries interfering in "French" Africa, and blocked all attempts to do so.

We can go on like that, but it's tedious. The point is that unilateral interference in countries against the wishes of the inhabitants is very frequently harmful, and whether helpful or harmful, creates resentment. People don't like it when you kick over their tent, even if it's "for their own good." But multilateral interference on the invitation of the locals is often successful.

Go in when you're invited and you can get lots of neighbours to agree you should go in, don't go in when you're not invited and everyone opposes you. That approach will tend to give you better results when you do go in, and even if you don't get good results, at least nobody will hate you.

Quote from: John MorrowSo far, all I've really gotten is that Kyle doesn't seem to care whether things would be better or worse, which seems a bit strange and irresponsible to me.  

Of course I care. However, the original article, the point of this thread, is not whether things would have been better or worse with US action or inaction here or there, but how US action has created resentment against the US.

The article isn't about effects, it's about why so many people hate the US. I'm reading a fantasy novel at the moment in which a woman takes a man out of prison, saving his life. But he's had his eyes put out. One character says, "one part of him will never forgive you for saving his life" - because he has to live it blind. Her intentions were right and good, her actions honourable - but he'll still occasionally resent her.

That's what the article's about: why so much of the world hates the US. Even if the US's intentions had been entirely pure and their actions right and proper in every instance, there could still be resentment against them. Having at times malevolent or callously indifferent intentions, and actions wrong and stupid, of course doesn't help.

So if I don't speak of effects but only of the perception of the US, that's because that's what the article is about. I realise that for Morrow sticking to the fucking point is difficult, as he'd much rather talk about US domestic politics in just about every fucking thread he can, but that's the topic of the article.

Quote from: John MorrowNot just the internet.  Life.  People can't be bothered to think about the details and then they wonder why nothing changes.

There's details, and then there's quibbling, and then there's talking about details with someone who's obviously ignorant of them, for example your ignorance of the history of Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge and US diplomatic and material support for them.

Quote from: E-We can focus on our ideas and strive to meet them; we can accept criticism and try to do better next time. We be humane in the face of enemies who hold ideas abhorrent to us. As we do these things, I think we can meet their hatred with conviction instead of shame. We can be proud that they hate us.

As David said, good stuff.

Americans have many great and fine qualities. As seen in history, there's a part of the American character which is hard-working, honest, easygoing, friendly and open-handed, at the same time courageously striving for great goals, building deep tunnels under rivers, vast hydroelectric dams and reaching for the stars. But there's a part of the American character which is lazy, small-minded, selfish and aggressive. At different times these good or bad characteristics dominate, each in their turn. The good part of the American character will come again to dominate.

Quote from: John MorrowAs -E pointed out, all it takes is some cartoons of Muhammed in a Danish newspaper to create an overwhelming chorus of voices demanding justice or the naming of a teddy bear Muhammed to create an overwhelming chorus of voices demanding the head of a UK schoolteacher (in a country where the US exerts very little pressure or influence).  Problems like Kashmir suggest that if the United States weren't blamed for Pakistan's problems, India would be (and is).  The complaints and problems also closely mirror those of Latin America where religion and pan-Islamism is not a factor.

There's a difference between the chorus of voices in your examples and the hissed whispers of those advocating war with the US. The former can and have been dealt with (it's a continual process hampered by US foreign policy and domestic issues tangential to this discussion). India is way too complicated to get into here. You're casting a wide net....you don't have to.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Tyberious Funkhttp://www.proxsa.org/resources/9-11/Brzezinski-980115-interview.htm

Thanks.  Greatly appreciated.  And, as I said, that gives me even a lower opinion of Jimmy Carter than I had of him already.  I presume instigating a brutal 10 year war wasn't part of his appeal to the Nobel Peace Prize committee.  And I find it curious that Ronald Reagan is forever blamed for backing the Contras and creating the problems in Afghanistan while Jimmy Carter is given a pass and is considered a man of principles and peace.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkFascinating because it suggests that Afghanistan was considered trivial compared to the real objective of the US, which was the cold-war "defeat" of the USSR.  And also, because those "stirred-up" Moslems went on to become the number one target in the War on Terror after 9/11.

Well, I agree it's fascinating.  I'm not a huge fan of a lot of things the United States did after Watergate and during the Carter years. but Carter's inept handling of the Afghanistan invasion (boycotting the Olympics?) now make a certain amount of sense.  I've already acknowledged that I think the choice to let the Khmer Rouge take Cambodia was bad (as was the preceding decision to bomb Cambodia heavily).  I also think the decision to simply let Iran fall to radicals was bad (and I get the impression that the Carter administration was surprised by how anti-American they were).  Given Brzezinski's explanation of what went down in Afghanistan, then I have to agree that the United States did an injustice to that region in 1979 and 1980.  And I wonder how much of that was related to Carters inept handling of Iran.  

Quote from: Tyberious FunkWhat comes around, goes around.

Given how many of those involved in carrying out 9/11 were middle-class Saudis and how many of the London 7/7 bombers were from the UK, I think it likely that a 9/11 of some sort and a conflict with radical fundamentalist Islam would have happened regardless.  Many Muslim nations have been fighting an internal battle with against radical forces independent of whether the United States is actively involved in their region or not and, like Israel, I think Afghanistan plays a role but the problem (in some form) would exist despite it.

Quote from: SpikeThese threads, and the very vocal voices in them do not make me feel welcome at this site.

Perhaps you'd prefer a friendly, more heavily moderated site, like this (http://forum.rpg.net/) or this (http://www.story-games.com/forums/)?  

It might also help if you simply add me to your ignore list.

QuoteUltimately, explaining a position about a complex issue and convincing people to change their mind is a wearisome task and that most people can't be bothered is why so little gets done to change so many things and it's why extremists dominate the discourse. Talk is cheap and if you can't even be bothered to do that past a two-minute sound bit, what does that say about your commitment to an issue when the going really gets rough. If you think I'm a problem, try getting in a debate with someone who really doesn't like you and/or really feels strongly about the issue.

To this I can only paraphrase one of the very statements that got me banned from RPGnet:

Dude, it's a fucking website about RPGs, not conservative boot camp.

If you want to go play debate school, I suggest you do it at a debate school.

Oy Vey!!!


 We didn't start the fire....its been burning since the world's been turning....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvZ4cH_u1O4


...its almost about time to do the Politics of Dancing...too.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAgain, you're failing to make the distinction between going where you're invited, and going where you're not invited.

In general, a UN mission counts as an "invitation".

I don't think it does in the sense that it matters in this discussion.  Who has the authority to invite someone into a country?  Even if we accept that the UN serves the role of a legitimate police force, that it's the police entering the house with cause doesn't change the fact that it's uninvited nor that the residents that they harass or detain won't resent their intrusion.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou can come to my house if I invite you. You can knock on the door and invite yourself, but I have to agree to let you come in. If you force your way in, that's burglary and trespass. If my neighbour is kicking down my fence, or if I'm fighting with someone in my house, and I then invite you in to help, then absolutely you should come on in if you believe it's the right thing to do. But going around kicking in people's doors, barging into their houses and setting them on fire, well, amazingly people don't like that.

And my point is that in almost every case, including the one in question in this article, there was someone "in the house" inviting the US in.  

Quote from: Kyle AaronAlso, you should study some hsitory before using it in your examples. Cambodia had a very weak Communist rebellion until the US bombings of Cambodia, and the US/RVN invasion of Cambodia.

Correct.  While the non-Khmer Rouge death estimates that I found range from 30,000 to 500,000, I'm not going to haggle over that because there is no doubt it was bad for Cambodia, good for the Khmer Rouge, and probably something that, in retrospect, would have been better off not happening.

But my point (which is critical of US policy, by the way) is that the anti-Vietnam War, possibly pro-Communist post-Watergate Congress not only cut off funding to South Vietnam (letting the North win) but also cut off funding and aid to Lon Nol's government in Cambodia which essentially just let the Khmer Rouge win.  In other words, the United States made a mess by doing something (bombing Cambodia both against North Vietnamese targets and against the Khmer Rouge) but made a bigger mess of things when they put their hands up, get out, and let the Cambodians sort it out on their own, because that's exactly what the US Congress claimed they were doing when they cut off Lon Nol.  They thought it would bring peace to Cambodia even though signs of Khmer Rouge atrocities were known by 1974.

As for the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in 1978, the Vietnamese weren't exactly invited into the country, ASEAN had asked for international help with the Cambodian resistance, and, combined with the KPLNF and the ANS, the Khmer Rouge (who were combined in their opposition to the Vietnamese and represented the main Cambodian factions) were essentially the "legitimate" government of Cambodia and the primary intent of American Aid was to help the KPLNF and ANS and not the Khmer Rouge.  Finally, the UN was called in after a peace accord was negotiated and Vietnam agreed to withdraw.  And let's not forget that the North Vietnamese bringing their war into Cambodia also played a role in the rise of the Khmer Rouge and their persecution of ethnic Vietnamese in Cambodia.
 
So let's do what I originally said and look at what the US could have done differently and point to some specific things that could have been done better.

We can both speculate on what might have happened had the United States never been involved in Vietnam or Southeast Asia at all, but the roots of the Khmer Rouge and it's ideology extend into the 1950s and 1960s and the Vietnamese communists had been encroaching on Cambodian territory back into the 1940s.  Given the Khmer Rouge's backing by the PRC, their radical ideology, and so on, I think it's likely that they would have taken control and that things would have gone badly, though likely not as badly as they ultimately did.  Speculating on the larger picture is more difficult given the variables involved, but I think it's reasonable to claim that America should have minded its own business instead of getting involved in Vietnam.

It's also clear that the bombings of Cambodia were a mistake given that the United States ultimately abandoned both Vietnam and Cambodia to the forces it was bombing Cambodia to fight.  Had the US not bombed Cambodia, far fewer Cambodians would have died, not only from the bombs (now as well as then) but it's probably reasonable to assume that the Khmer Rouge would have been less radical and violent without US and Vietnamese interference in the country.

OK.  So we have two things there the United States could have done better.

But once the United States did get involved in Vietnam and did bomb Cambodia, cutting and running only made matters worse.

Quote from: Kyle AaronBy contrast, the US was in no way responsible for the conflict in Rwanda. They did, however, like Australia, block UN attempts to prevent the genocide. We share shame in that. The country most blameworthy in Rwanda, aside from Rwanda itself, is France, since it was jealous of other countries interfering in "French" Africa, and blocked all attempts to do so.

And my point there is that I think it is a shame that nobody intervened in Rwanda, yet that's exactly what it means if the standard operating procedure should be to let countries manage their own affairs and sort out their own problems.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWe can go on like that, but it's tedious. The point is that unilateral interference in countries against the wishes of the inhabitants is very frequently harmful, and whether helpful or harmful, creates resentment. People don't like it when you kick over their tent, even if it's "for their own good." But multilateral interference on the invitation of the locals is often successful.

Sure, but the problem is that the inhabitants/locals are frequently not of one mind about intervention.  As I've said, the Kurds are generally pretty happy that the United Stated deposed Saddam Hussein yet most Sunnis probably are not (and I suspect the Shiites have mixed feelings about it).  Which group constitutes the legitimate  inhabitants who have the authority to invite intervention?  And if you don't think the Khmer Rouge was the legitimate government of Cambodia after 1975, then what made Saddam Hussein a legitimate head of state?  Who decides who legitimately speaks for the inhabitants?  Who decides which government is legitimate?  And multilateral interventions are not necessarily any more popular with the locals than a unilateral intervention, at least with the ethnicities that they are intervening against.  

In theory, the UN is the answer.  In practice, with the security council authority and the unilateral veto power, the UN is ill-equipped to deal with that role in many cases.  See your own example of the UN failure in Rwanda.

Quote from: Kyle AaronGo in when you're invited and you can get lots of neighbours to agree you should go in, don't go in when you're not invited and everyone opposes you. That approach will tend to give you better results when you do go in, and even if you don't get good results, at least nobody will hate you.

In general, I think that's a reasonable plan.  In practice, I don't think it's always that clear.  For example, a lot of the neighbors, in the form of China, ASEAN, and the locals, in the form of the KPLNF, the ANS, and the Khmer Rouge were asking the US to assist in fighting the Vietnamese, a policy that you criticized above.

Quote from: Kyle AaronOf course I care. However, the original article, the point of this thread, is not whether things would have been better or worse with US action or inaction here or there, but how US action has created resentment against the US.

Correct, and I've acknowledged that several times.  But either that's something the US can fix by doing things differently or it's something that the US has to live with because it can't do things differently.  Thus looking at whether US action is worthwhile in terms of results should be looked at.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe article isn't about effects, it's about why so many people hate the US. I'm reading a fantasy novel at the moment in which a woman takes a man out of prison, saving his life. But he's had his eyes put out. One character says, "one part of him will never forgive you for saving his life" - because he has to live it blind. Her intentions were right and good, her actions honourable - but he'll still occasionally resent her.

Correct.  But he'll resent her less and understand it more if he knows that she also saved his life instead of simply having him blinded to suit her own purposes with no benefit toward him.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's what the article's about: why so much of the world hates the US. Even if the US's intentions had been entirely pure and their actions right and proper in every instance, there could still be resentment against them. Having at times malevolent or callously indifferent intentions, and actions wrong and stupid, of course doesn't help.

Correct.  But I think that the US can do less about resentment caused by callous indifference or malevolence or stupidity than can about resentment caused with good intentions that may actually have done some good.

Quote from: Kyle AaronSo if I don't speak of effects but only of the perception of the US, that's because that's what the article is about. I realise that for Morrow sticking to the fucking point is difficult, as he'd much rather talk about US domestic politics in just about every fucking thread he can, but that's the topic of the article.

No, you didn't stop only of the perception.  You extended that to advice about how the US should behave in order to avoid the perception, as did the article.  And to assess whether the United States can and should behave differently or not requires an assessment of the effects and whether the positive effects of intervention outweigh the negative effects of perception.  The effects of the US behaving differently are certainly part of what the article is about.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThere's details, and then there's quibbling, and then there's talking about details with someone who's obviously ignorant of them, for example your ignorance of the history of Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge and US diplomatic and material support for them.

I think you are glossing over quite a bit of details concerning US support of the Khmer Rouge.  Not only did the US Congressional aid package prohibit use of the money "for the purpose or with the effect of promoting, sustaining or augmenting, directly or indirectly, the capacity of the Khmer Rouge" but China and ASEAN (the "neighbors" that you mentioned elsewhere) were also behind the merger of the Khmer Rouge, ANS, and KPNLF into the CGDK to oppose the Vietnamese.

So, Kyle, please don't gloss over important details if want to call me ignorant of them.

Quote from: J ArcaneDude, it's a fucking website about RPGs, not conservative boot camp.

And this is the "Off Topic" forum, where the discussion isn't about RPGs.  And given that you are free to call me whatever you want here, knock yourself out.

Quote from: J ArcaneIf you want to go play debate school, I suggest you do it at a debate school.

Some people enjoy posting cat pictures.  Some people enjoy practicing ornary as an art form.  I enjoy practicing my typing and testing what I think and know with lengthy debates on minutia.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd this is the "Off Topic" forum, where the discussion isn't about RPGs.  And given that you are free to call me whatever you want here, knock yourself out.



Some people enjoy posting cat pictures.  Some people enjoy practicing ornary as an art form.  I enjoy practicing my typing and testing what I think and know with lengthy debates on minutia.

There's a difference between liking something, and trying to make everyone else go along with that something and getting pissy when they don't want to.  Especially when that something is far from the primary reason for everyone's presence here.

Quote from: J ArcaneThere's a difference between liking something, and trying to make everyone else go along with that something and getting pissy when they don't want to.

I have no ability to make everyone go along with what I'm saying.  And what makes me pissy often has more to do with the tone and quality of a response than with whether it agrees with me or not.  For example, I do tend to learn things from people here when their arguments consist of more than simply assertions and aspersions about the character of the opposition.

Quote from: J ArcaneEspecially when that something is far from the primary reason for everyone's presence here.

When it's in the Off Topic forum?

QuoteAnd what makes me pissy often has more to do with the tone and quality of a response than with whether it agrees with me or not.

Which was exactly my point.

I'm sure there's plenty of other places on the internet that would be capable of providing what you seek, so expecting it of a forum on a completely unrelated topic is rather presumptuous and rude.

Quote from: J ArcaneI'm sure there's plenty of other places on the internet that would be capable of providing what you seek, so expecting it of a forum on a completely unrelated topic is rather presumptuous and rude.

So what exactly should I be expecting here?

Quote from: John MorrowSo what exactly should I be expecting here?

Are you just completely fucking thick?  

It's a pretty simple concept.  If you want in depth analysis of political issues, a webforum about games where people pretend to be gay ass elves and stab beasties for their shit is probably not gonna be the most optimal environment for such.

How is that so hard for you to understand?

Quote from: John MorrowAnd where was this scorched Earth policy put into action?  Pakistan?  There were problems between Pakistan and India and unrest among the Muslims there going back to British colonial rule (Pakistan was carved out of India and they are still fighting over Kashmir).  Where, specifically, was this policy that would destroy a country for generations actually put into play and how successful was it?

The billions of dollars in sophisticated weapons and CIA jihadist traning camps cited in the original article are one such example, unless you believe that well trained and well armed mujaheddin are the forerunners of democracy and stability? I don't see how it was anything more than a (successful) attempt to stop the Soviets at any cost.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumThe billions of dollars in sophisticated weapons and CIA jihadist traning camps cited in the original article are one such example, unless you believe that well trained and well armed mujaheddin are the forerunners of democracy and stability? I don't see how it was anything more than a (successful) attempt to stop the Soviets at any cost.

Well, to be fair, his question was more specifically what we should have done instead.  I think that supporting the remnants of supporters for the government of Mohammed Daoud Khan would have been the right thing to do -- as opposed to the influx of foreign mujaheddin.  They would not have been as successful in fighting the Soviets, but I suspect less people would have died on both sides.  We could have used the threat of the Soviets to push for more cooperation in Pakistan -- i.e. providing aid contingent on reform.  This could have helped stem nuclear proliferation in later years.  

In general, I think that many of our policies of backing dictators worked against us, since it turned many populations sour on the U.S.  We could have been making converts to Western-style democracy and capitalism.  South Korea was about the best case of our Cold War intervention, and that was still riddled with some pretty horrible abuses that we tolerated or encouraged.  

For what it's worth, I disliked the foreign policy of both Carter and Clinton.  As far as foreign policy, I think our best president of the last few decades was George Bush senior.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumThe billions of dollars in sophisticated weapons and CIA jihadist traning camps cited in the original article are one such example, unless you believe that well trained and well armed mujaheddin are the forerunners of democracy and stability? I don't see how it was anything more than a (successful) attempt to stop the Soviets at any cost.

Correct.  But stopping the Soviets at any cost is not the same thing as destroying the country so that nobody could have it.  Of course if that Brzezinski claim is true, it sounds like the Carter administration planned quagmire war for the Soviets which is, in my opinion, only a notch less malicious than the scorched earth policy you mentioned.

Quote from: J ArcaneAre you just completely fucking thick?

I'll tell you what I tell my wife.  I can't read minds.

Quote from: J ArcaneIt's a pretty simple concept.  If you want in depth analysis of political issues, a webforum about games where people pretend to be gay ass elves and stab beasties for their shit is probably not gonna be the most optimal environment for such.

Actually, I think it is a decent place for such discussions because any board dedicated to political discussions is generally so polarized that discussion is pretty pointless and may get you banned if you disagree with the orthodoxy of the discussion board.  And let's not forget that RPGPundit spends a fair amount of time on his blog mixing role-playing and politics to some depth.

Quote from: J ArcaneHow is that so hard for you to understand?

I do think I need to work on being more terse and maybe I need to start practicing summary replies rather than paragraph-by-paragraph Usenet-style replies, since those seem to annoy people here.

Oops! I was talking in first-person superpower. 'Nobody could have it' as in no government could have it. It's 'destroyed' in the sense that it can't be controlled by a superpower like America or the USSR.

(My other gay-ass elf is America.)

Quote from: jhkimWell, to be fair, his question was more specifically what we should have done instead.  I think that supporting the remnants of supporters for the government of Mohammed Daoud Khan would have been the right thing to do -- as opposed to the influx of foreign mujaheddin.  They would not have been as successful in fighting the Soviets, but I suspect less people would have died on both sides.  We could have used the threat of the Soviets to push for more cooperation in Pakistan -- i.e. providing aid contingent on reform.  This could have helped stem nuclear proliferation in later years.  

In general, I think that many of our policies of backing dictators worked against us, since it turned many populations sour on the U.S.  We could have been making converts to Western-style democracy and capitalism.  South Korea was about the best case of our Cold War intervention, and that was still riddled with some pretty horrible abuses that we tolerated or encouraged.  

For what it's worth, I disliked the foreign policy of both Carter and Clinton.  As far as foreign policy, I think our best president of the last few decades was George Bush senior.

Again, knowing how it all turned out, it's easier to second guess the cold-war policy of supporting anti-soviet tyrants.

And even at the time we knew doing business with those guys was regrettable...

But my alt.history crystal ball is broken -- can someone with a working one let us know what the cost would have been if we hadn't pressed against communism?

I think it's intuitive that the USSR would have -- eventually -- undergone some kind of major transition. I doubt the US would have fallen... but if the result of US passivity was, in fact, the spread of communism then it's not hard to imagine that the ultimate cost in terms of lives would have been much higher and that today we might see people who are free in this time-line living in a post-transition China-style society (e.g. a hybrid capitalist/dictatorship)

How much ill-will was winning the cold war worth?

To echo some of John's points: the kind of calculus we're doing here (second guessing historical decisions) is based on unstated and unprovable assumptions.  I'm inclined to think that the relative success of the Cold War validates and to some degree vindicates our (not just America's) approach to fighting it.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I'm inclined to think that the relative success of the Cold War validates and to some degree vindicates our (not just America's) approach to fighting it.

It's also important to realize that America did learn many lessons from those Cold War engagements.  For example, the United States developed precision guided ordinance for bombing in response to the problems related to bombing during Vietnam (including Cambodia) such that the bombs dropped are now not only far more efficient at destroying the target but also far less likely to injure those not targeted nearby.  And by the end of the Cold War as things wound down, many dictators supported by the United States in places like Chile and El Salvador had given way to democratic elections, as they did in Nicaragua once both the United States and Soviet Union stopped playing games with their proxies.  It's also important to note that several nations that did fall to communist dictatorships, among them Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba, are still not democratic and still endure a suppressed standard of living.

I will make a bold proclaimation: precision munitions are one of the least effective weapons developments of the last 1,000 years.

Why?

Because it completely destroys the civil will to do whatever is necessary to win wars, because ANY civilian casualties are decried as a Bad Thing. Some wars (such as the current one) would probably end sooner and with less political and societal stress if they were fought like the old-style wars. Destroy the enemy's will to fight, which generally means his population if necessary. As it stands now, our will to fight is nearly drained because the war has no end in sight - because we won't do anything that is required to win it in a timely manner, because we lack the political will.

Soften the enemy up before moving in for the kill, rather than marching into dangerous mazes of insurgent gunfire (and don't give me the Leningrad speech, please). As it stands now, any casualties aside from armed combatants (and sometimes, even them) are used not only by the enemy, but by opponents of the war in the homeland, as propoganda to batter the national will to fight.

Essentially, we've reached the point that we are unwilling to fight a war that kills anyone on our side, or any civilians on their side. Our precision weapons aren't quite that precise - not yet, at least.

There, I said it, and I'm not sorry I did.

Quote from: WerekoalaBecause it completely destroys the civil will to do whatever is necessary to win wars, because ANY civilian casualties are decried as a Bad Thing. Some wars (such as the current one) would probably end sooner and with less political and societal stress if they were fought like the old-style wars. Destroy the enemy's will to fight, which generally means his population if necessary. As it stands now, our will to fight is nearly drained because the war has no end in sight - because we won't do anything that is required to win it in a timely manner, because we lack the political will.

Using Cambodia as the counter example, the United States dropped more ordinance on that one small country than they did on the enemy during WW2.  It didn't destroy the enemy's will to fight -- not the NVA, the Viet Cong, or the Khmer Rouge.  Instead, it made a huge mess of Cambodia that continues to this day, in the form of unexploded bombs that still go off.

Our will to fight is being drained for the same reason it was drained in Vietnam, a media that's emphasizing the bad, ignoring the good, and looking for every opportunity to say that we've lost with absolutely no historical perspective about how wars are fought.  Abu Ghraib?  In WW2, we had summary executions or SS and Japanese prisoners, soldiers using flame-throwers on the enemy, and Japanese having gold teeth ripped out of their mouths while they were still alive and their defleshed skulls sent home as souvenirs.  By any measure I can think of, the American troops are better trained, safer, less harmful to civilians, and more humane to the enemy than they've ever been, yet the press emphasizes the problems it can find.  Doesn't anyone find it the least bit curious that there are almost no reports of heroism or honor in the mainstream press, even though there is heroism and honor happening in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Quote from: WerekoalaEssentially, we've reached the point that we are unwilling to fight a war that kills anyone on our side, or any civilians on their side. Our precision weapons aren't quite that precise - not yet, at least.

We don't want to kill civilians because that's not what good guys do if they can help it.  It's easier to get away with killing civilians when the mainstream media becomes part of the propaganda machine and talks about how evil the enemy is like they did during WW2 rather than becoming part of the enemy's propaganda machine by detailing every civilian casualty and weeping relative.  The United States purposely fried tens of thousands of Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Americans cheered.  Perhaps things would have been different if, instead of reminding Americans of Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and the Rape of Nanking the press had done their best to avoid talking about those things and instead blamed America for provoking the Japanese to attack with sanctions and excused their atrocities in China as a matter of cultural differences.

As for why we don't want casualties on our side, I read an interesting explanation for that.  In a country where many parents have one or maybe two children, many soldiers are essentially "Private Ryan".  If you remember the plot of the movie, it was to save the last remaining son of a mother who had already lost 4.  But for a mother with only 1 son, that one son starts out being "Private Ryan".  We no longer have expendable children.

Quote from: -E.To echo some of John's points: the kind of calculus we're doing here (second guessing historical decisions) is based on unstated and unprovable assumptions.  I'm inclined to think that the relative success of the Cold War validates and to some degree vindicates our (not just America's) approach to fighting it.

The thing is, John Morrow said many of the same things.  He also said that he believed the bombing campaign against Cambodia was a mistake, for example.  That was not vindicated by the overall collapse of the Soviet Union.  

Obviously, this is all hypothetical.  However, the conservative view that whatever was done in the past was inherently the best choice has no better foundation than any other view.  I think the Cold War in particular is a very murky justification for most things compared to actions in an active war -- since it is not at all clear how the quagmire in Afghanistan connects to the political change of will in Moscow.  The USSR was not militarily defeated, but rather opened up on its own.  

Even in an active war, though, I don't think that citing overall victory justifies all evils done along the way.  Some moves, like Sherman's March or the firebombing of Dresden, are debateable.  However, others are less so, like the internment of Japanese-Americans or the common practice of killing Japanese prisoners.  

Quote from: -E.Again, knowing how it all turned out, it's easier to second guess the cold-war policy of supporting anti-soviet tyrants.

And even at the time we knew doing business with those guys was regrettable...

But my alt.history crystal ball is broken -- can someone with a working one let us know what the cost would have been if we hadn't pressed against communism?

Um?  Hello?  I'm saying that I believe the support of tyrants was often counter-productive in the press against Soviet aggression.  I believe the Soviets should have been pressed against -- but that some of the efforts against them were mistaken.  

It is a stupid rhetorical tactic to claim that any change from exactly what was done in history would mean doing nothing.  (i.e. "What?  You're against the bombing campaign in Cambodia?  That must mean you think that we should have done nothing to fight communism.")  

I think we should have opposed Soviet aggression by helping sides that were actually compatible with us.  So, specifically, I think that funding the mujaheddin was a mistake.  I think instead we should have supported Pakistan, which naturally turned to us given its fear and hatred of the Soviets.  Obviously, the results are not certain, but I'll give my view.  Afghanistan would have been less of a quagmire for the Soviets -- though there would still have been mujaheddin, just less well-funded ones.  Thus, it would have been more of an ex-Soviet state when the USSR collapsed, rather than a realm of warlords.  

Having drawn the line at Pakistan rather than fighting within Afghanistan, I believe that we could have fostered a more moderate regime in Pakistan -- which would have been a stronger ally (more like Saudi Arabia or South Korea).  By building up along the Afghan border, I think we still could have presented the Soviets with a strong front.

Quote from: jhkimIt is a stupid rhetorical tactic to claim that any change from exactly what was done in history would mean doing nothing.  (i.e. "What?  You're against the bombing campaign in Cambodia?  That must mean you think that we should have done nothing to fight communism.")

That's exactly why I asked for alternatives.  If you actually give an alternative (as you've done), then it becomes clear what you think should have been done, instead.  People can certainly argue that your specific alternative wouldn't have worked, worked as well, or worked better than what was done, but proposing an alternative shows a recognition that there was an issue there that needed to be dealt with and that things weren't as easy as simply doing nothing instead.

Quote from: John MorrowThat's exactly why I asked for alternatives.  If you actually give an alternative (as you've done), then it becomes clear what you think should have been done, instead.  People can certainly argue that your specific alternative wouldn't have worked, worked as well, or worked better than what was done, but proposing an alternative shows a recognition that there was an issue there that needed to be dealt with and that things weren't as easy as simply doing nothing instead.

Fair enough.  Though sometimes, it should be sufficient to say "Don't do that thing."  Demanding an active alternative carries the implication that the action was absolutely necessary.  

For example, the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII, say.  You can say, "Well, what alternative was there?"  That would be simply, not interning them.  This doesn't need a special alternative -- I think our regular police work and counter-intelligence work would have been fine, since it worked well enough for German-Americans.  

The thing to avoid is overblown interpretations like "Well, if you're saying we shouldn't have spent billions funding the mujaheddin, then you must mean that we should have done nothing anywhere else to oppose the Soviets."  Which is stupid.  Suggesting "don't fund the mujaheddin" should be interpreted as the alternative of not funding the mujaheddin but otherwise acting as we did.  You can criticize that in itself that Afghanistan would have been less of a quagmire for the Soviets, but we would have billions more in our budget (which would reduce the national debt, among other things).

Quote from: WerekoalaBecause it completely destroys the civil will to do whatever is necessary to win wars

Maybe people have finally come to the conclusion that wars are bad, mkay?

Quote from: jhkimThe thing is, John Morrow said many of the same things.  He also said that he believed the bombing campaign against Cambodia was a mistake, for example.  That was not vindicated by the overall collapse of the Soviet Union.  

Obviously, this is all hypothetical.  However, the conservative view that whatever was done in the past was inherently the best choice has no better foundation than any other view.  I think the Cold War in particular is a very murky justification for most things compared to actions in an active war -- since it is not at all clear how the quagmire in Afghanistan connects to the political change of will in Moscow.  The USSR was not militarily defeated, but rather opened up on its own.  

Even in an active war, though, I don't think that citing overall victory justifies all evils done along the way.  Some moves, like Sherman's March or the firebombing of Dresden, are debateable.  However, others are less so, like the internment of Japanese-Americans or the common practice of killing Japanese prisoners.  


Um?  Hello?  I'm saying that I believe the support of tyrants was often counter-productive in the press against Soviet aggression.  I believe the Soviets should have been pressed against -- but that some of the efforts against them were mistaken.  

It is a stupid rhetorical tactic to claim that any change from exactly what was done in history would mean doing nothing.  (i.e. "What?  You're against the bombing campaign in Cambodia?  That must mean you think that we should have done nothing to fight communism.")  

I think we should have opposed Soviet aggression by helping sides that were actually compatible with us.  So, specifically, I think that funding the mujaheddin was a mistake.  I think instead we should have supported Pakistan, which naturally turned to us given its fear and hatred of the Soviets.  Obviously, the results are not certain, but I'll give my view.  Afghanistan would have been less of a quagmire for the Soviets -- though there would still have been mujaheddin, just less well-funded ones.  Thus, it would have been more of an ex-Soviet state when the USSR collapsed, rather than a realm of warlords.  

Having drawn the line at Pakistan rather than fighting within Afghanistan, I believe that we could have fostered a more moderate regime in Pakistan -- which would have been a stronger ally (more like Saudi Arabia or South Korea).  By building up along the Afghan border, I think we still could have presented the Soviets with a strong front.

I wasn't trying to paint your position as unreasonable -- and it's obvious you're not advocating doing nothing; I'm sorry if my post made it sound like I thought that.

Let me be clear: I basically agree with you that we should take action and we should try to deal with tyrants and extremists as little as possible.

I think the devil's in the details, though... how little is "as little as possible?"

In WWII we were "good buddies" with Stalin, providing him with resources for the Eastern Front. We knew he was a butcher, but we felt it was worth it to take out Hitler.

Certainly working with him was a gross violation of our principles in many ways, but it seemed like the lesser of two evils. It probably was.

If that's the case then it's a lot more complex than "don't do business with tyrants."

It's more like like "only do business with tyrants when it's worth it."

You're probably right that we do more business with tyrants than we ought to. My guess is that it's easy and safe compared to other approaches... but in terms of specifics I find the calculus hard to do.

Taking your Afghanistan scenario -- if the Pakistan option would get us to where we are now, but with fewer Osamas, then it's a clear win. But I'm not sure it's that simple:

I'm not an expert, but I've done a little reading about what the Soviet's failure in Afghanistan meant to them. It wasn't just an economic and military failure; my understanding is that for much of the senior leadership it raised some very serious questions about the value of their whole system and whether it was worth fighting for.

Those questions became critically important, one presumes, when they were facing collapse and they had to decide whether to fight or to go out peacefully and with grace.

We know about the choices they actually made: they didn't slaughter their population to maintain control at all costs (as Stalin did in WWII). They didn't hold the world hostage with their nuclear arsenal (North Korea).

There's no way to know how influential their experience in Afghanistan was, but I don't think it was trivial... and if it was in some way pivotal, then who knows... maybe finishing things quickly and in a way that left no question as to the outcome of the conflict *was* worth the cost.

This is a bit of an alt.history speculation (which is fun, but I'm critically undereducated to be doing this stuff), but my point is that I don't think there are simple answers to these things or easy ways to "do better" in the future and I'm skeptical of most analysis of the past.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkMaybe people have finally come to the conclusion that wars are bad, mkay?

People have always felt that wars they lose are bad.

US, Chinese and Soviet victory in WWII gave us the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, but also gave us a pacifist Germany and Japan. US defeat and Vietnamese Communist victory in the Vietnam War gave us the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, and several years of US pacifism. Soviety victory in East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia gave us the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. US victory in the Cold War gave us the first war against Iraq, which gave us the second war against Iraq. And so on.

There's nothing like winning a war to make you keen on having another, and nothing like losing one to make you into a pacifist - at least until you turn around a few years later and rationalise your defeat so you can say, "but this time we'll do it right."

People have always felt that wars they lose are bad. You don't get very many anti-war movies about battles we won.

Quote from: jhkimFair enough.  Though sometimes, it should be sufficient to say "Don't do that thing."  Demanding an active alternative carries the implication that the action was absolutely necessary.

Well, then explicitly say that nothing should have been done at all.

Quote from: jhkimFor example, the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII, say.  You can say, "Well, what alternative was there?"  That would be simply, not interning them.  This doesn't need a special alternative -- I think our regular police work and counter-intelligence work would have been fine, since it worked well enough for German-Americans.

Well, German-Americans were interred, too.  As my father describes it, the German butchers in Jersey City disappeared over night.  The people who lived downstairs from him belonged to the American Bund and the whole topic of the American Bund is interesting, especially if you are looking for some good villains for a 1930s pulp game that takes place in the United States.  You can find accounts of Germans and Italians (along with Japanese) sent to camps in Texas.  But I do think it's fair to say the broad internment of Japanese-Americans cannot be justified and simply should not have been done and the American government has since admitted as much.

Quote from: jhkimThe thing to avoid is overblown interpretations like "Well, if you're saying we shouldn't have spent billions funding the mujaheddin, then you must mean that we should have done nothing anywhere else to oppose the Soviets."  Which is stupid.  Suggesting "don't fund the mujaheddin" should be interpreted as the alternative of not funding the mujaheddin but otherwise acting as we did.  You can criticize that in itself that Afghanistan would have been less of a quagmire for the Soviets, but we would have billions more in our budget (which would reduce the national debt, among other things).

In the case of this author's article, he was critical of a specific US policy because of the detrimental effects that he saw it have on their country.  His criticism is that the United States supported General Zia and the mujaheddin.  But General Zia was in control of Pakistan since 1977, when he took control of the country from Benazir Bhutto's father and remain in control until 1988.   In other words, General Zia was a Pakistani, represented a segment of the Pakistani population, and was in charge of Pakistan at the time.  And he wanted massive US aid badly, at one point calling the Carter administration's offer of $325 million in aid over three years "peanuts".  So even if we simply "supported Pakistan", we were supporting General Zia, which is what the author of the article complains about.

And based on Kyle's criteria as he broadly defined it, Pakistan (as a country) was inviting the United States to do exactly what the author of this article is critical of the United States doing (providing aid), unless you want to argue that General Zia was not the legitimate ruler of Pakistan.  But once we go down that road, no dictatorship is legitimate, whether we are talking about Pervez Musharraf or Fidel Castro.

On a side note, I think that there needs to be serious inquiry into this concept of "legitimacy" with regard to power.

Quote from: -E.There's no way to know how influential their experience in Afghanistan was, but I don't think it was trivial... and if it was in some way pivotal, then who knows... maybe finishing things quickly and in a way that left no question as to the outcome of the conflict *was* worth the cost.

This is a bit of an alt.history speculation (which is fun, but I'm critically undereducated to be doing this stuff), but my point is that I don't think there are simple answers to these things or easy ways to "do better" in the future and I'm skeptical of most analysis of the past.

I'm not claiming my speculation as a definite.  However, I think that the burden should be placed differently.  If we do a clearly bad thing as a country -- such as supporting a violent extremist movement or a bloody dictator with billions of dollar -- I feel the burden of proof is to show that it is proven justified by the results, rather than the burden being that critics must prove that it couldn't possibly have had justifiable results.  

We shouldn't just do evil things based on speculation that it might possibly have eventual good results in the end.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkMaybe people have finally come to the conclusion that wars are bad, mkay?

   "War is waged by men; not by beasts, or by gods.  It is a peculiarly human activity.  To call it a crime against mankind is to miss at least half its significance; it is also the punishment of a crime. That raises a moral question, the kind of problem with which the present age is disinclined to deal.  Perhaps some future attempt to provide a solution for it may prove to be even more astonishing than the last."
- from the Prefatory Note of The Middle Parts of Fortune: Somme and Ancre, 1916 (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200261.txt) by Frederic Manning, 1929

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerOn a side note, I think that there needs to be serious inquiry into this concept of "legitimacy" with regard to power.

I agree.  But the hard part is going to be getting people to agree on a criteria for determining it.  And then you'll also be stuck with the question of what the world should do about leaders who are not deemed legitimate.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThere's nothing like winning a war to make you keen on having another, and nothing like losing one to make you into a pacifist - at least until you turn around a few years later and rationalise your defeat so you can say, "but this time we'll do it right."

I think there is a great deal of truth to that analysis and the problem with that effect is that it detaches the willingness to enter a war or avoid a war from the necessity of fighting a war or, at the very least, warps the moral calculus involved.  The anti-war sentiments generated by the horrors of the First World War (more on that below) made many countries reluctant to enter a war in the Second, but their reluctance didn't prevent the war and may have made it worse.  The effect you are talking about can make a country more willing to enter an unnecessary war but also less willing to enter a necessary war, perhaps until it is too late.

I also think that your point is why we see so little positive news about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and an almost palpable hope that those wars will fail in some quarters.  I think there are people who believe, perhaps correctly based on the points that you made, that if the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan end well and are seen as "good wars" like WW2 or Korea, that it will only lead to more wars to change regimes that the United States doesn't like.  So I think there are people who hope that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will end badly so that they are not followed by wars in, say, Iran and North Korea in the future.

Quote from: Kyle AaronPeople have always felt that wars they lose are bad. You don't get very many anti-war movies about battles we won.

This particular part is not entirely true because the victor rarely wins every battle and suffers no losses.  There was a great deal of literature after WWI that depicted the war as horrific and bad, even from those on the winning side (see the quote I posted earlier in the thread).  There are times when war takes a high enough toll on both sides that even the winner feels like a loser.  But the use of air power and overwhelming firepower against weaker opponents make it very unlikely that America will experience the equivalent of the Somme or even Vietnam ever again.

And a problem with later wars is that the soldiers who returned home largely remained silent about the horrors they witnessed and the misdeeds that they participated in which has allowed WW2 and Korea to be viewed almost unquestionably as "good wars" even though the Allied militaries did many things that would truly shock the world if coalition troops were to behave the same way in Iraq.

Quote from: jhkimI'm not claiming my speculation as a definite.  However, I think that the burden should be placed differently.  If we do a clearly bad thing as a country -- such as supporting a violent extremist movement or a bloody dictator with billions of dollar -- I feel the burden of proof is to show that it is proven justified by the results, rather than the burden being that critics must prove that it couldn't possibly have had justifiable results.  

We shouldn't just do evil things based on speculation that it might possibly have eventual good results in the end.

I agree, but I suspect we set the bar at different places.

How do you do that justification? What factors do you include? How do you assess the value of the "results?"

The algorithm needs to distinguish between support for Stalin in WWII (which most people would probably support as "good") and support for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan (which at least some folks would count as "bad")

I don't think this is trivial and I suspect that there are likely to be a variety of partisan factors and other agendas that will muddy the waters.

Maybe it's not critical that we all score actions the same way, though: both of us are going to take the same approach and hold the people in charge accountable for their results.

Nothing -- no results -- could justify Abu Ghraib; I would like to see the people who made those decisions held responsible for them. I'll take everyone's word that bombing Cambodia was a huge mistake. I tend to come down positive on our intervention in Bosnia. I think supporting Stalin in WWII was necessary; I think supporting the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan was probably equally so (and I think the fall of the USSR are the results that justify it)

Etc. All of these positions are subject to change with new information.

We probably agree on some of these and disagree on others; I find that entirely reasonable.

One place I probably differ from others here is that, within boundaries, I probably favor action over inaction and hold people accountable accordingly. I would rather our leaders take some risks in the pursuit of our national agenda and therefore I'm less inclined to cry out for blood when things don't go well (I supported -- and still support -- our decision to invade Iraq; clearly a variety of mistakes were made at various points during the operation. With certain exceptions that I've already mentioned, I still think we're right to be there).

I'm certain that some people here would set a very different bar; I want to be clear that I respect their right to do so (I'm not sure how far off I am from you, John -- reading your analysis of Afghanistan, I think we share a lot of the same perspective even if we reach different conclusions in some cases).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I'm certain that some people here would set a very different bar; I want to be clear that I respect their right to do so (I'm not sure how far off I am from you, John -- reading your analysis of Afghanistan, I think we share a lot of the same perspective even if we reach different conclusions in some cases).

I think that if the Carter administration purposely provoked the Soviets into invading in order to turn Afghanistan into a Vietnam, that was crossing an ethical line of purposely messing up a country to serve an end that wasn't to ultimately help that country.  The distinction I'm making here is that backing a group of insurgents because a countries government is bad and we feel the insurgents represent a better future for the country is far more noble and understandable than backing a group of insurgents to create problems for a third party without any regard for the plight of the country that's being messed with.  Deciding to sacrifice an involuntary victim to serve a greater good is where utilitarian thinking gets particularly dangerous and immoral and I can certainly see the residents of a country resenting another country deciding they were expendable in the service of a greater good that had little to do with them.

Beyond that, I think that much of the problem of backing the mujahadeen is far more clear in retrospect than it was at the time, when the prevailing mindset was that the Soviet Union was stronger than it was and that the Cold War was unlikely to end any time soon.  So I can understand why it was done at the time, even if it caused problems in retrospect.  I think that one of the big lessons of both backing the mujahadeen and bombing Cambodia is that people need to think beyond the current situation and narrow objective and at least consider what happens when it's over.  It's very easy to get so caught up in an immediate problem that one loses sight of where things are headed.  

Looking at Cambodia one sortie at a time may have looked rational but looking at the big picture and how much ordinance was being dropped overall should have clued someone in to how crazy it was getting.  Similarly, backing the mujahadeen to resist the Soviet Union was a reasonable choice in that context of finding a credible force to resist them but thinking about what might happen if the Soviet Union was driven out and the mujahadeen took power might have encouraged the exploration of other options and opportunities of the sort that John Kim is talking about.

Damn.....


Didn't any of you guys go to New Years Eve parties last night?

- Ed C.

Quote from: -E.One place I probably differ from others here is that, within boundaries, I probably favor action over inaction and hold people accountable accordingly. I would rather our leaders take some risks in the pursuit of our national agenda and therefore I'm less inclined to cry out for blood when things don't go well (I supported -- and still support -- our decision to invade Iraq; clearly a variety of mistakes were made at various points during the operation. With certain exceptions that I've already mentioned, I still think we're right to be there).

For me, it depends what type of action.  In the case of war, I think we should favor inaction.  i.e. War should be a last resort rather than a risk to try just in case it might help our agenda.  This is just another side of what I said before: that doing bad things has a burden of proof that it is necessary.  

Quote from: -E.Nothing -- no results -- could justify Abu Ghraib; I would like to see the people who made those decisions held responsible for them. I'll take everyone's word that bombing Cambodia was a huge mistake. I tend to come down positive on our intervention in Bosnia. I think supporting Stalin in WWII was necessary; I think supporting the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan was probably equally so (and I think the fall of the USSR are the results that justify it)

Fair enough.  As I mentioned, I disagree about the mujaheddin, and I think that Stalin is questionable.  He murdered far more of his own countrymen than Hitler did his, and he turned out to be just as much of an empire-builder.  His mass murders weren't racist in motivation, but I'm not sure that makes him the lesser evil.  In retrospect, the Axis would still have been defeated -- but I'll grant that it wasn't at all obvious at the time.  If our sole goal was freeing Western Europe, then our choice was understandable.  However, if we were looking at the wider picture, it is not as clear.

Quote from: KoltarDamn.....


Didn't any of you guys go to New Years Eve parties last night?

- Ed C.

I went out for a very nice and expensive steak dinner, had lots of Jagermeister, watched "From Hell", had great sex around 1 am (yes, with another person) and woke up in a soft bed and without a hangover. Why do you ask?

Quote from: Werekoala....... watched "From Hell", had great sex around 1 am (yes, with another person) and woke up in a soft bed and without a hangover. Why do you ask?      

Its just I left the house around 6:45pm last night, went to a pretty good party hosted by one of my players. (She's in her 60s...but looks early 50s.) Went there with one of my other platers. (the young woman who loves STAR WARS that was mentioned in another thread). Did a little bit of drinking , toasted the NEW YEAR . Slept over at that house ....then I get home around 12noon  and I see  by the time caodes that people were STILL dsoing this  argument when they could have been partying.


 Koala - Its cool, very cool that you had a great time last night...


- Ed C.

IMHO, New Years is quite possibly the most over-rated night of the year.  I have more fun on a typical Friday night than most New Years.

Well, it beat the hell out of most MONDAY nights. :D

Quote from: John MorrowPerhaps you'd prefer a friendly, more heavily moderated site, like this (http://forum.rpg.net/) or this (http://www.story-games.com/forums/)?  

It might also help if you simply add me to your ignore list.

That's awfully helpful of you, if a bit backwards, John.

I get tired of defending myself as an American and labeled as some blind idiot savant patriot for that defence by the vast majority of the posters in these threads.

If you are one of those people... well then I must excuse myself to head back to fucking gradeschool, because I've obviously failed basic reading comprehension.

On the other hand, I see a lot of anti-american posting on this thread waving that article about on the presumption that the rest of us didn't read it for ourselves, because what they seem to get from it is vastly different than what I got from it.

Then again, given the demographics of this site, and the general tone of posting, I feel very much like a black man on a 'south will rise again' forum. Sure, there are some fellow blacks, and not ever poster is pro-slavery, but fuck'n-a if I don't feel my neck stretched just a mite wandering around these parts.  Its not moderation, its the unmitigated, blind prejudice and unthinking insults that are casually tossed off.

All in all, I'd much rather hang out with the girls from Brisbane who were hitting the local slopes this Monday.  None of them seemed at all put out about the role of the US on the world stage, they were much to busy availing themselves of our copious mountains and free market economy.... or something.


Yeah, nothing like being reviled for where you were born to make you appreciate reading a forum...:rolleyes:

Quote from: Spike................
All in all, I'd much rather hang out with the girls from Brisbane who were hitting the local slopes this Monday.  None of them seemed at all put out about the role of the US on the world stage, they were much to busy availing themselves of our copious mountains and free market economy.... or something.

Yeah, nothing like being reviled for where you were born to make you appreciate reading a forum...:rolleyes:

So,...Spike - you had a good time then??

 Very Cool.

People really need to get over the politics thing.

Browser stoppewd ino the store today. We got to talking religion by accident....I did tell him I try to avoid talking politics and religion at work. Turns out he converted to being a Muslim over 10 years ago.  We had a nice conversation. He knows the other workers at the store better - because he was haninbg out there before our big merge of inventory and changeover.

Hate is not part of his version of Islam.....but thats better saved for another thread...


- Ed C.

Quote from: SpikeYeah, nothing like being reviled for where you were born to make you appreciate reading a forum...:rolleyes:

Firstly, I doubt anyone here hates YOU specifically for where you were born.  Secondly, it's not a question of where you were born, but the decisions that your government makes.  And given that so many Americans proudly proclaim to have the greatest democracy on the planet, I can only assume that the decisions of the government are pretty representative of the majority of the US people.  To borrow from Oscar Wilde... To elect GWB once may be regarded as a misfortune; to elect him twice looks like carelessness.

So, er, what does that say about John Howard's three successful elections?

That gamers in glass houses should not thrown stones?

Regards,
David R

Just plain stubborn meanness?

!i!

Quote from: droogSo, er, what does that say about John Howard's three successful elections?

It says that I'm ashamed to be an Australian, at times.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerOn a side note, I think that there needs to be serious inquiry into this concept of "legitimacy" with regard to power.

Criteria for legitimacy of power:

1)Is beejazz the head honcho yet?

If no, the power is not legitimate. Beejazz for king I say.

Quote from: beejazzCriteria for legitimacy of power:

1)Is beejazz the head honcho yet?

If no, the power is not legitimate. Beejazz for king I say.

Y'know, that's probably a lot closer to what most folks actually believe to be "legitimacy" (substituting whomever they prefer for you) than many think it to be.