Neoconservative stands as one of the most widely used but least defined words of the Bush presidency. As of late, neoconservatives have been primarily associated with a more adventurous use of American military might to promote democracy, particularly in the Middle East. But several of the most prominent neoconservatives have questioned the wisdom of Bush's Iraq campaign specifically, and the administration's Middle Eastern policies generally.

In his Claremont Review of Books essay "Leo Strauss and American Foreign Policy," Thomas West writes: "the attempt to build democracy in a place where the minimal preconditions of democracy are not present may well cause more harm than good. How many civilians will the American forces have to kill before it becomes clear that that well-intentioned goal is indefinitely out of reach?" If West is cautious about the Iraq venture, Francis Fukuyama is downright hostile. The campaign so infuriated the End of History and the Last Man author that he announced last year that he wouldn't be voting for Bush. "The Bush administration went into Iraq with enormous illusions about how easy the post-war situation would be: it thought the reconstruction would be self-financing, that Americans could draw on a lasting well of gratitude for liberating Iraq, and that we could occupy the country with a small force structure and even draw US forces down significantly within a few months," Fukuyama wrote last summer.

Daniel Pipes is the latest neoconservative to outline his reservations. While welcoming recent developments in the region, Pipes admits that he does so warily. He gives six reasons for caution:

1. "Yes, Mahmoud Abbas wishes to end the armed struggle against Israel but his call for a greater jihad against the 'Zionist enemy' points to his intending another form of war to destroy Israel." 2. "The Iraqi elections are bringing Ibrahim Jaafari, a pro-Iranian Islamist, to power." 3. "Likewise, the Saudi elections proved a boon for the Islamist candidates." 4. "Mubarak's promise is purely cosmetic; but should real presidential elections one day come to Egypt, Islamists will probably prevail there too." 5. "Removing Syrian control in Lebanon could well lead to Hezbollah, a terrorist group, becoming the dominant power there." 6. "Eliminating the hideous Assad dynasty could well bring in its wake an Islamist government in Damascus."

"Note a pattern?" asks Pipes. "Other than the sui generis Palestinian case, one main danger threatens to undo the good news: that a too-quick removal of tyranny unleashes Islamist ideologues and opens their way to power."

A few quick points...

on #2, I don't see a problem with a pro-Iranian heading up the Iraqi government as long as they remain a close ally of the US. I'm not sure that is possible, but if it is, it gives us some geographical and political influence that we don't have at the moment. Even Bush admits that "We're relying upon others, because we've sanctioned ourselves out of influence with Iran". If we can work with the guy, it might be a first step to a REAL Iran policy in the US.

On point #4, NO ONE believes Mubarak will hold any meaningful elections.

And on point #5, not only will Hezbollah become the dominant force in the region (it's already the most popular), but this pullout is leaving a vaccum that is BEGGING Hezbollah to take over the country. We're forcing their hand, really. I agree that the soviet-style intelligence aparatus in Lebanon could be described as worse than even the KGB, but is terrorist rule any better? At least the Syrian intelligence forces and secret police can control their people. We face a real possiblity of a hardcore, out-of-control-terrorist orgainization running a country whose capital is only 150 miles from Jerusalem...and we're taking the risk just so the people can be free to vote for the Hezbollah candidate.

I'm sorry to harp on this again, but it's madness and it's going to be a bloody mess (pun intended).

My hunch: If we were to ask the prominent neoconservatives (those who were conservative at all) 10 years ago what they thought about US democracy-building in the mideast, they would still be enthusiatic about the long-term goal (because neoconservatives like big projects), but not optimistic about the ability to attain it quickly or via US armed intervention.

This is a trendy little swarm, and most of them (who ever were conservative in the first place) quickly gave up on this insight because of the mileu of a new age -- the post-9/11 age. "The vision thing" they love to talk about is really a seductive, blinding optimism.

I like that hunch Short.

I think this is evidenced even in Fukuyama's changing views from the End of History to the Great Disruption. Flush with the spread of democracy in the former Soviet Bloc Fukie went into Hegelian reveries in EoH, but by the time of the Great Disruption reality had set in to a large extent and he curtailed his earlier Hegelian optimism.

I guess it's optimism, but it seems more like blind faith, emphasis on the blind. Ask ANYONE here in the Middle East what they think about Lebanon, and they'll tell you that Hezbollah will have no choice but to take over the country. And that the nutcases waiting in the wings to bascially re-start the civil war are ready to re-enter the country as we speak.

I concede that the average man doesn't understand foreign policy as well as the experts, but the consenus among people I've talked with(and I ask EVERYONE about this question) has been universal.

It's just anecdotal, I admit. But interesting, nonetheless.

Just don't go native on us, Homer

I haven't converted to Islam yet.

Though, I'm going to sample the Koresh at the Iranian restaurant here in Dubai to see if it's as good as my mother-in-law's.

On the "vision thing" being a "seductive, blinding optimism,” I can't speak for neocons because as Dan's post demonstrates, they are all over the map on these issues. I can't speak for all those who have supported Bush's more aggressive policy toward the Middle East since, as Hamilton pointed out in Federalist 1, a person can be on the right side of an issue for the wrong reasons (and the wrong side for the right reasons).

I believe I do speak for conservatives like Vice President Cheney who have a history of foreign policy realism and yet support this more aggressive policy. Sometimes optimism is the only realistic policy. If the only way to "win" is for things (some of which are out of your control) to fall into place for you, then it is rational to proceed as though those things will fall into place for you. This situation happens frequently in games like Bridge where the only way to win can sometimes be for one opponent to have a particular card. One then plays the other cards as though that opponent did have the card, until the probability falls to zero of being right or until one wins. (I beleive the logic here is similar to the logic of "Pascal's Wager.")

A politician cannot discuss these probabilities because to even discuss them is to act as though the required assumption might not be true and the dominant strategy is to act as though it is true. This "realistic optimism" only appears to be blinding.

Until someone articulates an alternative to an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East which has any chance of keeping the world from being constantly terrorized by the most vicious elements of an aggressive and imperialistic religious tradition (a phrase that politicians cannot employ for other reasons), I will continue to be "realistically optimistic."

Go native on us Homer, if you feel like doing so.

I think we can safely say that the middle east will be controlled by some form of Islamic control until the end of eternity.

Our aggressive foreign policy with Afghanistan and Iraq, and I am being optimistic here, was a defense mechanism to remove regimes that posed major and immanent threats to us. That being said, I think we need to seriously withdrawal our rhetoric and our presence in middle eastern affairs (as much as we can possibly can).

Democracy and liberty will only come to this region when the people rise up for themselves and demand it. Now that countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are moving, ever so slowly, to democracy (or democratic elections), we should embrace that, regardless of what kind of power it brings. We should embrace any kind of democracy, but be careful not to rush it. As far as Lebanon, again, we need to silently encourage any kind of democratic change, but stay out of their affairs.

Perhaps we have sowed the seeds of change with our aggressive foreign policy, but now we need to take a few steps back and give those seeds a chance to bloom.

As a side-note, I find it interesting that you approvingly quote a Straussian's critique of the 'neocons'. Aren't the 'neocons' suppossed to be Straussians (or at least descendents of Strauss)? Aren't you a critic of Strauss? Strange connections all the way around.

I was at U.D. for a couple of years and had the chance to hear West speak a number of times. The most interesting was a debate with one of the philosophy department's Hegelians over whether or not Hegel was a friend of freedom or not. The two talked mostly past one another; the former spoke of the political/historical applications of Hegelianism, the latter of Hegel's contention in the "Philosophy of Right" that freedom is the human essence.

I think this contrast is pertinent here. President Bush, in a far less sophisticated way, is making Hegel's point - freedom is the human essence. If he is correct (and I'm not sure that he is), then there is an inherent platform for the creation of a free society. Put another way, the absence of "minimal preconditions of democracy" are outweighed by the essential presence of freedom.

Can somebody, anybody, back up these assertions that his man is a Pro-Iranian Islamist? I have heard it claimed many times, but never any evidence behind it.

Ben: Iran gave shelter and funding to the party Jaafari leads when Hussein was in power. The translation of Dawa means, "Islamic Call." Its stated purpose while in exhile was to create an Islamic state in Iraq. It supported the Islamic revolution in Iran, and has had ties with terrorism.

Here's the take on Jafaari by a few leading media outlets:

Christian Science Monitor: "Jaafari's rise will put a Shiite Islamist in charge of the government for the first time in Iraq's history. It also underscores waning US influence over Iraq's politics. The US would have preferred to see a secular leader emerge, not an Islamist who once lived in Iran."

Time: "Jaafari is a 'Shiite modernist,' according to an AFP profile carried in the Tehran Times. He has signaled a moderate Islamist position on questions of religion and the state, advocating that Islam be constitutionally recognized as Iraq's official religion and a source (but not the sole source) of legislation, and that no laws will be passed that contradict Islamic values."

Miami Herald: "Although Jaafari maintains that he will pursue an inclusive, democratic nation, his past has given rise to fears that he may wish Shiite Islam to play a dominant role in the government.... He avoids talk about the Dawa Party -- which formed to counter secular parties in Iraq and was led for years by a man who idolized the late Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini -- and prefers not to discuss its past views about theocracy."

It looks like the "Bens" now have a case of the bends.

"Until someone articulates an alternative to an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East which has any chance of keeping the world from being constantly terrorized by the most vicious elements of an aggressive and imperialistic religious tradition (a phrase that politicians cannot employ for other reasons), I will continue to be "realistically optimistic.""

*Exactly* -- very well said.

I can understand opposition to neoconservative foreign policy. What I can't understand, however, is the absolute denial that there is even a case to be made for it.

No, Dan, democracy is not a "panacea." As Thomas Sowell has written, when people talk about "panaceas" and complete "solutions", it is nonsense. You're attacking a straw man. You (Buchananites, collectively) think we need to adopt the isolationist foreign policy of two centuries ago, and we (the sinister neocons, unwitting allies of evil) think the escalating attacks committed by Muslim radicals over the 1990s (and into that fateful day in 2001) demands a new way of looking at the problem.

There are legitimate arguments on both sides. It's time to recognize this. You're beginning to seem like those you describe in your latest book. The Buchanan rightists as a whole have now actually convinced themselves that some people prefer shackles to freedom. This borderline dementia is the logical result of a blinding ideology.

You are correct in saying that we will not know what the full ramifications of these modern techniques will be for another decade or so. Neoconservative foreign policy may turn out to be disastrously mistaken. If so, reality will have rendered those ideas illegitimate in 2015. As of right now, neoconservatism is an entirely sensible route to alleviating the primary threat to our nation, Islamic terrorism.

-ben (*L*!)

Ben L,

Take your own advice.

For one, stop calling "Buchananites" isolationist, you have been stuck on that mischaracterization for a long time now and it is tedious. It is particularly tedious when you say seemingly reasonable things like "there are legitimate arguments on both sides." If you believed that to be true then you would debate with the "Buchananites" (as you want to call conservatives) through logical and rational means instead of calling us isolationist, anti-semites, and so forth.

Your post above is completely patronizing and doesn't make any arguments at all, it only gives condescending and insincere advice to Mr. Flynn and various posters here.

Ben L: Why are you so obsessed with Pat Buchanan? I can't recall the last time his name was even mentioned within my blog. Are Thomas West, Richard Pipes, and Francis Fukuyama "Buchananites" too? They've expressed reservations about the war in Iraq and/or the attempts at democratization in the region.

Thanks for the reference to Intellectual Morons, but since I'm a bit of an expert on my own book I'll break down the author's main suggestion: embrace experience over the untested. All of human history shows the Arab world to be hostile to democracy, pluralism, freedom, etc. The theories of a few scribblers suggest the opposite. Hmmm....all of human history.... or the theory spinning out of some intellectual's head?

"All of human history shows .... The theories of a few scribblers suggest the opposite. Hmmm.... all of human history.... or the theory spinning out of some intellectual's head?"

Democracy, representative government and federalism were all innovations at one time or another. Doesn't your dichotomy need some refinement?

The wisdom of "Intellectual Morons" as explicated above by the author ("embrace experience over the untested") is an important insight that Madison and Hamilton often endorsed in the Federalist Papers. They call experience "the least fallible guide of human opinion" and the "oracle of wisdom" among other things. But finally they are arguing for something entirely new and something based on a novel and untested theory. So Madison makes his most emotional appeal in Federalist 14:

"To this manly spirit, posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for the example, of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theatre, in favor of private rights and public happiness. Had no important step been taken by the leaders of the Revolution for which a precedent could not be discovered, no government established of which an exact model did not present itself, the people of the United States might, at this moment have been numbered among the melancholy victims of misguided councils, must at best have been laboring under the weight of some of those forms which have crushed the liberties of the rest of mankind. Happily for America, happily, we trust, for the whole human race, they pursued a new and more noble course. They accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society."

And after that argument Americans embraced the novel theories which were at the foundations of the Constitition.

Sometimes experience is not enough, and there is a good argument that we face such a situation today.

DocMcG: Of course the American system is NOT quite unprecedented in the history of Madison's culture. Madison exaggerates more than a bit here. Representative government, seperation of powers, dignity of the individual person, even layers of local and national loyalties and authoritites are all found in the English (and other European) experience prior to 1776. They weren't trying something radically new given this cultural history. The story is different for the Middle East...

Who is the James Madison of Iraq?

Short,

I believe that Madison is not exaggerating. The thing he would emphasize about the American Revolution is that it was fought for a principle. The material oppression of the British actions in the 1760s and 1770s was minimal. The Americans did something practically unprecedented by opposing the most powerful government in the world for a principle. Next, written constitutions were unprecedented. The manumission of large numbers of slaves accomplished by this time in a majority of the states was unprecedented, at least in the English speaking world. I believe a bicameral legislature where both chambers are elected was unprecedented. Madison likely had many other such things in mind.

But the innovation Madison is trying to persuade the Americans to undertake in this passage is to ignore all the political theory up through the 1760s that held that popular government was viable only in small places and to jump into a new system based on the new theory that popular governmenst could thrive in an extensive area. This was an unprecedented jump indeed.

But don't the muslims hate us because of a principle? I don't mean the ridiculous idea that they hate us "because we're free". They hate us because we export our pornographic culture to their countries and virtually shove it down their throats. So if "democracy" is branded as yet another "product of America", why should we think that they won't hate, and rebel against, it on pricinple as well?

By the way, my mother-in-law's Koresh dominance is safe. I had some wonderful Koresh tonight (I figured I'm a little more than a stone's throw from Iran, so it oughta be good), but even as good as it was, it doesn't hold a candle to the sublime dish prepared by my wife's mother. Of course, we don't get invited over for that particular dish anymore...it seems to be reserved for her b-i-o-l-o-g-i-c-a-l children. Hmph.

Homer: Not quite. They hate us because we won't let the Arab world push Israel into the ocean. They hate us because we "occupied" their "Holy Land" in 1991. And they hate us because non-Muslims are "infidels." Their culture is shallow and destructive, and needs to be supplanted by Western culture no matter how far the latter has fallen from its ideal.

Short: What precedent for freedom led to Athenian or Japanese democracy?

Homer, Brad,

I would say that you are both right. I'm sure they do hate us for our pornography, and I'm sure that they hate us for our stance on Israel--heck a number probably hate us for the crusades still.

Which one do they hate us for more? It really doesn't matter. It could be that they hate our promiscuous culture, and the topper is our support for Israel's incursion on "their land". If could be that they hate us for Israel and our cultural exports are the topper.

It could be that it's split into groups. And I think it is more likely the case that the hate could be distributed across porn-major and Israel-major factions which can both point to the US and say "Look at it!"

"They hate us for our freedom" seems to me to be the liberal justification (because they don't really care about Israel and think more people should be less critical about porn). It seems also a conservative way to embrace the freedom in this culture (and in Israel) without embracing what the Muslims find objectionable.

I think that what you both said is true, I think you are just holding on to different parts of the elephant.

Dan

Links to your assertions about The Shiites plz. Not to say they are untrue just want hard evidence.

Secondly why would a Shiite president, ruling over a National Assembly that is quite divided among Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, as well as being quite divided along party lines, be able to simply wrench Iraq into an Iran-like stat?. Your assertions about the fate of Iraq rely not only on the president gaining almost totalitarian power over the National Assembly, but also the people of Iraq, Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis, not to mention the western world (which will be playing a major role in the formulation of Iraqi democracy.) simply lying down while he rips to pieces their bill of rights and their constitution in favor of an Iran-style theocracy. It takes a lot for a democracy to turn into a dictatorship, and your claims about what will happen in Iraq are ill-founded at best.

NOTE: For evidence as to the capability of Arabs to form a western style democracy, see pre-civil war Lebanon.

FINAL NOTE: Anyone who bothers to look will see that the real power of Iraqi government will lie not with the executive branch, but with the National Assembly.

Ben T: You are a true believer, impervious to evidence. Jaafari's own party has stated in its platform, for years and years, that it wants Iraq to be an Islamic state. To that you say "plz," demanding "hard evidence." Like all true believers, when the facts don't mesh with your ideology you demand new facts.

Because the Iraqi system will likely divide power, Jaafari's Dawa may not get what it has stated that it wants. But this doesn't negate the fact that it wants what it has stated for decades that it wants. What it wants is an Islamic state--something that I, and all other sensible people, believe is inimicable to freedom, democracy, and all the things that you profess to love.

Your second post--"Anyone who bothers to look will see that the real power of Iraqi government will lie not with the executive branch, but with the National Assembly"--is rather ridiculous, as well. The Iraqi's haven't even devised their constitution yet, so we won't know where the "real power" will lie until (at the very earliest) they do this. With regard to the temporary government elected in January: it's a parliamentary system. Of course the power resides in the national assembly. But since the assembly chooses the prime minister, Jaafari's selection says a lot about the views of the majority in the assembly.

Bradford: Athenian democracy is not worth emulating, but it was precedented by a mixed regime implemented by Solon. And BTW I don't think we should complain too much about other cultures' being "superficial and destructive." Have you watched any cable TV lately?

DocMcG: All of your examples are miserable. None of the things you list are radically new. Representative government; bicameral legislatures; confederations with written treaties, colonial charters, state constitutions and the Articles of Confederation -- all are precursors to the 1787 system Madison calls so novel. Even the revolution itself was done within a (sometimes misused) British tradition of reigning in or overthrowing usurpers on principle; moreover, this British tradition is supported by the broader feudal understanding of government and even by medieval political philosophy, e.g. Thomas Aquinas. Though the arrangement was new and brilliant, every peice is found in the political culture and tradition that produced Madison himself.

The only "novel theory" founding the Costitution of 1787 was the theory that the vertical and horizontal seperations of power in the complex system would be protected by the jealously of officers to guard the power of their offices. This operates in Madison's mind as an equivalent of gravity in the political world, which he wound harness to hold his system together. To some extent our system was based on that novel theory (rather than on institutions with cultural predecessors); to that very extent Madison's system has been a failure. Finally, the breakdown of seperation of powers means that the US doesn't prove that a "popular" (republican) government can exist over such an extensive area.

"For one, stop calling "Buchananites" isolationist, you have been stuck on that mischaracterization for a long time now and it is tedious."

Look, when someone is unsure of whether or not Nazi Germany was worth fighting, I think it's safe to say that he's an isolationist. Again, there are legitimate arguments for isolationism. I simply think it's the wrong path to take. Also, I'm very curious -- if he is not an isolationist, which American political figure is?

"If you believed that to be true then you would debate with the "Buchananites" (as you want to call conservatives) through logical and rational means instead of calling us isolationist, anti-semites, and so forth."

I have done just that, but you have refused to accept that any argument was valid. Also, I have only called people "anti-Semitic" if they were being anti-Semitic. (By the way, William F. Buckley would agree with my suggesting that Buchanan is an anti-Semite. But I'm sure he's not a real conservative.)

"Why are you so obsessed with Pat Buchanan?"

He is the modern intellectual leader of the style of conservatism that is dominant 'round these parts.

In addition, I keep bringing up his name because (as you can see with Brian's quote above) many people here have an odd tendancy to believe that anything other than his brand of 1920s conservatism should not be considered conservative. As Brian might say, it's tedious.

"Are Thomas West, Richard Pipes, and Francis Fukuyama "Buchananites" too? They've expressed reservations about the war in Iraq and/or the attempts at democratization in the region."

Who hasn't expressed reservations? Any thinking person would express *reservations* about practically any action. That's not the issue. The point is that they can see the logic in such an action. The Bush doctrine may turn out to be wrong, but the men you mentioned did not flatly dismiss it, unlike the Chomskys and Buchanans.

"embrace experience over the untested. All of human history shows the Arab world to be hostile to democracy, pluralism, freedom, etc. The theories of a few scribblers suggest the opposite. Hmmm....all of human history.... or the theory spinning out of some intellectual's head?"

What about the "experience" of worldwide slavery? What about the "experience" of absolute monarchy? What about the "experience" of segregation? Yes, yours is a good rule of thumb, but it is NOT ABSOLUTE.

It's worthwhile to point out that some of the scribblers who believed freedom is for every human being scribbled their ideas out onto the Bible. Others were named Abraham Lincoln.

-ben

Ben, what verses in the Bible say that political "freedom is for every human being"?

First, when Madison is writing about American innovations he is not including the Constitution which has yet to be adopted. He is writing about innovations found in the Articles of Confederation and in the state constitutions and laws. He is praising the Americans' manly spirit by saying without it there would have been "no government established of which an exact model did not present itself."

Second, as implied by that last quote, there is no implication in Madison's words or mine that you could not find the roots of these actions in his tradition, only that sometimes you must depend on theory (which, of course, should be rooted in an intellectual tradition) to guide action because you are in an unprecedented situation.

Third, at this point in the Federalist Papers Madison has yet to articulate his "ambition must be made to counteract ambition" argument (which is never his primary mechanism but always referred to as a "secondary precaution" no matter what the Progressives say). He is referring to the more general theory, first articulated by David Hume a few decades earlier, that a large, diverse society is a suitable place for a republic.

Fourth, the breakdown in separation and division of powers has occurred gradually over the centuries, and if not reversed will destroy any chance of popular government over diverse people. Madison would not assume that any kind of popular government could ever be perpetual. The people must continue to understand and cherish the principles of republican government if it were to survive. The Progressive lies (I mean you Charles Beard and you Woodrow Wilson, the rest of you know who you are) have succeeded in disrupting this love and understanding and the great structure will fall if not tended to soon. But to indict Madison's system because it could not withstand such an attack is to misunderstand the limits of popular government.

Ben,

Regarding Buckley on Buchanan: So what if Buckley's a conservative, he can also be wrong on Buchanan. First of all, Buckley admits that "Indvidually,... these comments could possibly be defended," but together they form a pattern. But is it the pattern that Buckley reads? What I see, even including the last quote is that Buchanan disagrees with defending Israel.

I don't agree with Buchanan. I think Israel is dandy. I don't think we should be sacraficing American lives unless we have to, so I agree with PB to a degree.

But the "recant" method is too blunt an instrument. What would have really closed the case is if they asked Buchanan whether he meant to imply that Jews don't enlist in the armed forces (rather than just reading that implication in there) and he said "Yes".

But he's not really likely to say "yes" is he? Why that is, could be because he's antisemitic, but it could be that it wasn't his implication. In that case, all you have is a disagreement on Israel. I agree that Pat has looked shakey in the past, but I don't think the solution is to argue that he is anti-semitic by implication.

The spectrum is wider than "fer or agin'", IMO. As far as not going to war against the NAZIs, we didn't for a long while. We attacked the Japanese when they attacked us. The same country that 1) avoids a war and 2) attacks its attacker, already has a predisposition to defense and not involving itself where it is not concerned. You could make the argument that the leaders misused our momentum toward Japan and redirected it toward Germany for ideological reasons. After all, Germany had not attacked us yet and were never an imminent threat.

On the other hand, I'm a bit more idealistic, I'm glad to see Hitler gone. And there would have been a threat should the Germans have been allowed to complete their nuke program.

Thus I agree with you that Buchanan is an isolationist if anybody is. But that might be all that is going on with his comment about NAZI Germany or Israel. Of course, I would expect him to be consistent in with Korea and Viet Nam (that doesn't mean he had to like the anti-war efforts), or at least have a good argument for those.

DocMcG: You called the system established by the consitution of 1787 "entirely new" and "based on a novel and untested theory," and then you called a bunch of stuff the Americans did in the 1770s-80s "unprecedented." Thus I conclude that you are wrong to say later: "there is no implication in Madison's words or mine that you could not find the roots of these actions in his tradition."

My point: Political systems develop, they don't just happen. Overestimating the novel in our own political history encourages us to overestimate the flexibility of other countries to our nation-building schemes. This is imprudent.

In response to Mr. Flynn,

It has been asserted multiple times by higher-ups in the Iraqi government, as well as US officials, that the main power base of the Iraqi government will be with the National Assembly. Likewise, it has been stated multiple times, once again both by Iraqi government officials and US officials that the Iraqi constitution will have a strong Bill of Rights that will protect the individual freedoms of all Iraqis. Mr Jafaari's own party has stated it is fully willing to work with other parties towards a real democracy in Iraq.

Secondly, Mr. Jafaari's party won 41% of the vote in the Iraqi election. Your views of how Iraq will end up, so reliant on Mr Jafaari having near totalitarian powers, are standing on shaky ground. The National Assembly is well divided. Iraq is to have a strong Bill of Rights. The Western World is going to be playing a strong role in the development of Iraq's democracy, and Jafaari's party is by no means the only party of significance in Iraq.

You are plainly a very smart man Mr Flynn, but I think your own ideology has gotten the best of you. It might be a good idea to reread your own book.

Ben: your post is conjecture. You may hope that Iraq has a strong Bill of Rights, you may hope that Iraq's Bill of Rights is enforced, and you may hope that the Western World plays a strong role in Iraq. You don't know any of these things.

My post further up the thread is reality: Jafaari's party explicitly has called for Iraq to become an Islamic state for decades. This doesn't mean Iraq will become an Islamic state. It does mean that we should be on guard--and while we're in Iraq, try to prevent--such an outcome.

In a nutshell: I prefer fact-based arguments to hope-based arguments. I hope for many of the things you hope for in Iraq. But when evidence emerges that gives us pause for hope--such as the large number of Islamist parties within the winning Iraqi coalition--we should confront it rather than brush it under the rug.

Seacrest out.

Short, there is nothing incompatible in what I said. Every development has predecessors. I can find the roots of Television in the 30s by tracing the theories behind it to radio and telegraphy. That television was unprecedented is nonetheless true. But let's not argue over what may be a misunderstanding of the word "unprecedented." Your major point is well taken but mine is undiminished. There are problems that require more than experience. The Founding generation faced many such challenges and it is arguable that these times face such challenges as well.

Ben L,

You are still using sophistical means of argumentation. It is impossible to have a debate with you when you continue to do that. You write: "there are legitimate arguments for isolationism. I simply think it's the wrong path to take." But no one here has *argued* for isolationism, so your seemingly even-handed avowal that there exist legitimate arguments for it is either entirely disingenuous, or ignorant. You used the phrase "straw man" in a post above, so I conclude that disingenuousness rather than ignorance is your problem.

I actually think that isolationism is an utopian stance to take, much as pacifism is, and therefore I am not as sure as you *claim* to be that legitimate arguments exist in isolationism's defense. But, of course, isolationism isn't the topic it is just the one-track your mind is operating on.

I would probably defend Buchanan more vigorously than Sea King but I only want to point out that practically the only time Buchanan is mentioned on this site is when you or I bring him up. I am just me, I speak for no one else, nor do my opinions reflect Dan's opinions, so conflating the views of the diverse posters on this blog with some sort of "1920's" conservatism called Buchananite makes little sense.

That is all for now . . .

"Thus I agree with you that Buchanan is an isolationist if anybody is. But that might be all that is going on with his comment about NAZI Germany or Israel."

Perhaps that is the case. Good post, as per usual.

"But no one here has *argued* for isolationism"

Okay, then can you (or anyone else with similar viewpoints) express your thoughts on what our post-9/11 foreign policy ought to be like? What *are* you arguing for? I'm not asking what you're arguing against -- that is clear. What is the course of action you'd like to see taken?

"I only want to point out that practically the only time Buchanan is mentioned on this site is when you or I bring him up."

I've seen him mentioned at least a couple times (glowingly, of course). One guy even said he wished Pat were President. The horror! Thank God that will never happen.

But let's put Uncle Pat aside for a moment. Please answer the question about foreign policy.

Again to Mr Flynn,

It is interesting for you you to say you prefer fact-based arguments, when you yourself are making an assertion that a party that gained 41% of the Iraqi vote is going to wrench the power from the National Assembly, and turn Iraq into an Iranian style theocracy without the Sunnis, the Kurds, the other political parties in Iraq, or even the western world doing anything about it.

As you yourself said the Iraqi constitution has not even been written yet. But then, why is it you are already jumping so quickly to condemn Iraq to theocracy? Your argument is, in the end, no less conjecture than my own.

Additional Note: Of course we should "be on guard." This would seem to be a simple statement of common sense.

Is there a way to make it so we can edit our posts? It would make everything much easier

I realize four posts in a row is getting to be to much. However,

"Additional Note: Of course we should "be on guard." This would seem to be a simple statement of common sense"

-Ben-T

The way this was worded made me sound like a total asshole. Please don't take it that way.

Ben T, you write: "It is interesting for you you to say you prefer fact-based arguments, when you yourself are making an assertion that a party that gained 41% of the Iraqi vote is going to wrench the power from the National Assembly, and turn Iraq into an Iranian style theocracy without the Sunnis, the Kurds, the other political parties in Iraq, or even the western world doing anything about it."

Twice in posts above, I explicitly state the opposite of your characterization of my position. I write: "Because the Iraqi system will likely divide power, Jaafari's Dawa may not get what it has stated that it wants [an Islamic state]."

In case you missed it the first time, in a later post I again write: "Jafaari's party explicitly has called for Iraq to become an Islamic state for decades. This doesn't mean Iraq will become an Islamic state."

Ben T: why did you lie about what I said?

***Sorry about the length!***

Ben L.,

Practical politics, including foreign affairs, is a realm of human action properly guided by the prudential application of the natural moral law. As such it is not neatly reducible to a priori theories or schemes. You only want to accept that there are two options for dealing with the terrorist threat posed by Islamic fanaticism, "interventionism" or "isolationism." This is a Manicheaen reduction and a typical rationalist error.

When you ask: “what our post-9/11 foreign policy ought to be like?” I would say that it should be the way it *always* should be, a realist and prudent policy taking its orientation from the natural law and pursuing the common good of American society. You keep conflating the practical and the theoretical in your posts and so our debates here have been quite confused.

I think you keep trying to place an artificial restriction on debate over how to deal with terrorism (isolationism vs. interventionism) which keeps making you miss the point that what many of us are objecting to is *simply* the invasion and occcupation of Iraq. That decision is what is most at issue, not whether "terrorism must be defeated," or "the American regime must defend itself," or even "the fight must be taken to the terrorists."

I have never objected, nor noted little objection from the conservatives commenting at this site, to the invasion of Afghanistan, the overthrow of the Taliban, and the hunt for Bin Laden in the Tora Bora region. Ergo, I am not an "isolationist," or even a non-"interventionist" in the way you mean to use those terms dichotomously. The objections you are encountering on this site are twofold: 1) practical objections--basically to the invasion of Iraq and the generally belligerent tone as regards the Middle-East states, but also to the manner in which the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is being dealt with; and 2) theoretical--to your democratic idealism.

Now you seem to be interested above in the practical side when you ask, “What is the course of action you'd like to see taken?” I hope you are sitting down as this may shock you, but the Bush administration has done a good number of things right, imo, to fight terrorism. Crucial, but overlooked, are the efforts made to cripple international terrorist organizations financially, the extensive international cooperation and networking of intelligence, the attack on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the great use of Pakistani assistance, the willingness to stick it to the U.N. (a necessary trait although he was wrong to do so as regards Iraq), the list goes on. Of course, there are a number of ways in which Bush has been failing, the Iraq invasion, the overblown rhetoric of the “Bush Doctrine,” miserable performance on border safety and foreign invasion, insane belligerence towards Putin, creation of a Homeland Security department, unwillingness to support terrorist profiling by airlines, Palestine problem, relationship w/ Israel in general, neocon infiltration in Pentagon, and manipulation of the CIA. Sadly, I am sure I could come up with even more.

I do not think this attempt to answer will satisfy you though since you demand a “course” of action. That seems to me to be demanding a theory to follow (such as that democracies won't attack us and the terrorist problem is one of the existence of tyranny, so we must sweep in democracy in Arabia to be safe). I don’t have a Pat theory to offer (pun intended), each policy choice must be evaluated individually w/ the general method I outline above, which was, the realist and prudent application of the natural law in service of America’s common good.

Brian,

What I see there is a lot of very well articulated mumbo jumbo.

"you miss the point that what many of us are objecting to is *simply* the invasion and occcupation of Iraq. That decision is what is most at issue"

It seems to me that this isn't the case. Many of you are objecting not simply to the war in Iraq, but to the theory and doctrine which brought us there. My question to you was: Setting aside minute details, what is the grand course of action that should be taken to thwart these evil men? I don't think you have sufficiently answered this. You mentioned certain tactics the Bush administration has employed that you approve of, but you were merely theoretical in your discussion of what our foreign policy should be like in lieu of neoconservatism.

"Ergo, I am not an "isolationist," or even a non-"interventionist" in the way you mean to use those terms dichotomously."

I think I have been unclear in my use of the term. An isolationist would not be against directly responding to an attack. A nihilist would be. You have stated that you view isolationism as an ideal. That is what makes you an isolationist. Naturally, we would like to see our country pushed in the direction of our "ideal".

If you have time, please clarify these points:

"insane belligerence towards Putin"

What is insane about being confrontational toward a man who is scaling back democracy in his country? We are not going to allow Putin to turn the clock back to totalitarianism.

"unwillingness to support terrorist profiling by airlines"

Agreed. It's just logical. Daryl "Chocolate Thunder" Dawkins is not going to be running any planes into buildings any time soon. Mumia "Islamofascist Thunder" Ibn-khalmounouri looks like about 100% of the people who have.

"Palestine problem"

What has the Bush administration done wrong here? More progress has been made than under any administration. Elections have occurred in the Palestinian territories. Israel is soon to pull out. We might actually see peace between them while Bush is in office.

"relationship w/ Israel in general"

The fact that we *have* one is enough to bother you.

"neocon infiltration in Pentagon"

LOL "Infiltration"? (Also, this interesting lingo reminds me of something Ann Coulter joked about -- often liberals use "neocon" in place of "Jew". I think the same rule of thumb applies to many paleocons.)

"I don’t have a Pat theory to offer"

Well, develop one. What we were doing prior to 9/11 clearly was not working. (Jim Norton has a joke about people who are against racial profiling in airports, and I think it applies to the paleocons who don't think Muslim radicals are a serious threat to the United States -- "It would be a crime to profile Arabs, because aside from 9/11, the USS Cole, Pan-Am over Lockerbie, Achille Lauro, the '93 Trade Center bombings, and the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, when have they attacked us?")

-ben

Let me clarify one point...

When I said this:

"you were merely theoretical in your discussion of what our foreign policy should be like in lieu of neoconservatism"

I was referring to your repetition of this nonanswer:

"the realist and prudent application of the natural law in service of America’s common good"

Wow Ben, you are great to have a debate with. Really.

In claiming that the invasion of Iraq isn’t the fundamental issue you write “It seems to me that this isn't the case. Many of you are objecting not simply to the war in Iraq, but to the theory and doctrine which brought us there.” Yes, your right, I said that the decision to invade Iraq is at the heart of the controversy and a “decision” does involve theory so both the invasion itself and the theory of the neocons that led to it are at issue. They are two sides of the same coin, the theory and the practice are both being questioned by me, and I made this clear in my 4th paragraph where I actually listed the practical and theoretical points of disagreement.

I did sufficiently answer what “grand course” of action should be taken by saying no “grand course” of action should be taken. Every specific proposed action must be evaluated individually, I am critiquing your contention that a grand theory must be present in order to have a prudent foreign policy. To the extent that I have a grand theory it is what you dismiss as a “theoretical non-answer.” Why do you ask for *theory*, i.e. a “grand course” and then reject it as a non-answer when I give it to you? Make up your mind, do you want a theoretical or a practical course of action from me? I have to reiterate the claim I make above, you keep confusing discussion of the theoretical and the practical.

So, you go on by claiming “you have stated that you view isolationism as an ideal. That is what makes you an isolationist.” Where are you getting this? You just can’t handle the fact that I am not an isolationist can you? I am guessing that you are getting this absurd contention from my statement in an earlier post above that “I actually think that isolationism is an utopian stance to take, much as pacifism is, and therefore I am not as sure as you *claim* to be that legitimate arguments exist in isolationism's defense.” Please read that slowly . . . I think isolationism is “utopian.” Apparently for you utopian means “ideal,” but I didn’t say that. In case someone just reads my calling isolationism utopian and therefore thinks that I approve of it (which I don’t, utopian has a negative connotation for me), I make my meaning quite clear in the last clause by denying that there exist any legitimate arguments for isolationism. How can I view isolationism as an ideal if I think there are no legitimate arguments for it?

I really don't have time to clarify any of those specific criticisms I made of the Bush administration now but maybe we can get into them some other time. I think these broader conflicts over what we are talking about would have to be cleared up first though for us to have any meaningful argument about specific policies.

More importantly, I will consider arguing with you a waste of my time if you continue to imply that I am racist and call me an isolationist. In your listing above of my areas of critique of Bush you twice imply that I am anti-semitic. I don’t appreciate your calumny. This again is evidence of your small-mindedness and is simply a fallacious debate tactic. My patience with it is quickly evaporating so if you actually want to argue with then me cut it out.

"Make up your mind, do you want a theoretical or a practical course of action from me?"

BOTH. The former should support the latter. Saying that foreign policy should be "prudent" and "realistic" is quite simply a non-answer. What are these prudent and realistic measures? And is your goal to ensure a short- or long-term safety for America?

"You just can’t handle the fact that I am not an isolationist can you?"

Why is this term so bothersome to you? Your definition of isolationism is basically a kind of pacificistic nihilism. That isn't what isolationism actually is. You never answered the question: if a man you greatly admire, Pat Buchanan, is not an isolationist, which modern political figure is?

"you twice imply that I am anti-semitic."

My count is one, with the Coulter thing. (I was sincerely in agreement with you about racial profiling in airports, and my comment about your not wanting the US to have a major relationship with Israel is absolutely based on fact.)

-ben

Make that pacifistic.

"Ben T, you write: "It is interesting for you you to say you prefer fact-based arguments, when you yourself are making an assertion that a party that gained 41% of the Iraqi vote is going to wrench the power from the National Assembly, and turn Iraq into an Iranian style theocracy without the Sunnis, the Kurds, the other political parties in Iraq, or even the western world doing anything about it."

Twice in posts above, I explicitly state the opposite of your characterization of my position. I write: "Because the Iraqi system will likely divide power, Jaafari's Dawa may not get what it has stated that it wants [an Islamic state]."

In case you missed it the first time, in a later post I again write: "Jafaari's party explicitly has called for Iraq to become an Islamic state for decades. This doesn't mean Iraq will become an Islamic state."

Ben T: why did you lie about what I said? "

-Dan Flynn

Many times in the past you have expressed an extreme lack of confidence in the way Iraq will turn out. My objective was not to mischaracterize your views, I apologize if it came off that way.

Well Ben L.,

You've finally convinced me that arguing with you is a waste of my time.

I have come to this unfortunate conclusion b/c of the following two things you say in your last response to me:

1) "Your definition of isolationism is basically a kind of pacifistic nihilism. That isn't what isolationism actually is." I never defined isolationism. I likened isolationism to pacifism as sharing the attribute "utopian." Applying an adjective to a term does not define that term. The definition of a human is not "rational human," it is "rational animal." So where are you getting this? Why do you insist on making up your opponent's arguments for them? What is your major malfunction private?

2) "my comment about your not wanting the US to have a major relationship with Israel is absolutely based on fact." What fact? I never claimed this, you are just making all this up. What color is the sky in your world?

Look, you read too fast and/or think too slow. Either way I have to give up debating you. Sorry.

Brian

You describe the Bush adminstation policy toward Vladimir Putin as "insane belligerence toward Putin." Even before reading your post, I have done extensive reading and thinking about America's policy toward Russia. You and I simply are not seeing the same thing. Even before reading your post, I have described the Bush administration policy toward Russia as "kid glove." Of course it is understandable to me why you would pursue a kid glove policy toward Russia, as it is questionable as to whether the United States could defeat Russia in a direct militray confrontation at this time. I think I do recall some statements made by Bush criticizing some of Russia's internal policy but countries criticize one another all the time. They criticize us. We criticize them. The European countries criticize us. We criticize them and so on and so forth. Business as usual. I also recall a recent diplomatic conference where praise was heaped on Putin. I;m simply not seeing "insane belligerence" toward Putin. Can you elaborate on how you reached your conclusion that the Bush administration is engaging in "insane belligernece" toward Putin?

Rob

"I likened isolationism to pacifism as sharing the attribute "utopian." Applying an adjective to a term does not define that term."

You misunderstood my words, again. But instead of explaining it for the millionth time, I will ask you. What is your definition of isolationism? By what you stated above regarding Afghanistan, you think an isolationist would be against retaliating militarily. That is false. That would be pacifism and nihilism. I didn't use the word pacifism because you did; I used it because it was appropriate in describing your implied understanding of isolationism.

"I never claimed this, you are just making all this up."

I believe we've argued about Israel at one point or another on this site. It could have been just James and Reader, however.

But that said, what else could your statement possibly mean? Bush is correctly viewed as being very pro-Israel (Unlike Clinton, he would never negotiate with Arafat. This has led to democratic elections in Palestine, while Clinton's method led to more suicide bombings). You plainly stated you have a problem with our relationship with Israel. This isn't that big a leap of the imagination.

Hey Rob,

If you think I advocate a kid glove policy towards Putin because "it is questionable as to whether the United States could defeat Russia in a direct militray confrontation at this time," then it is not surprising that you wouldn't agree with me that U.S. belligerence towards Putin is insanse. I want to ask why you are even toying with the idea that we would want a war with Russia? Over what? They aren't the USSR anymore Rob, how are they our enemy?

But to answer your question, I think that Russia and Putin is a critical ally for the U.S. in its current struggle against Islamic terrorism for several reasons:
1) By far the largest amount of unsecured wmd's, particularly nukes (the only true wmd) are in Russia and the former Soviet bloc countries in Asia. Terrorists want these weapons.
2) Putin still has a lot of pull with strategically important central Asian countries like the former Soviet "Stans."
3) Russia has helped us directly with intelligence against terrorism.
4) Russia intervened to gain us access to bases and airspace in the region for the invasion of Iraq.

O.k., those are some pluses for us, now here are some negatives if we alienate Russia:
1) Russia is already firming up a relationship with China and thus orienting itself towards Asia and away from Europe thus strengthening China and further pitting east against west.
2) Russia is an economic nightmare and thus has great incentive to sell weaponry, possibly at some point even WMD's to Asian or MidEast countries, and possibly even "independent" buyers. This is the most important factor by far.
3) Russia could withdraw its support from us in the region thus getting us kicked out of the various "Stans."

So what does intervening in the Ukrainian election and finger-wagging at Putin get us? As far as I can tell this only gets Bush good press by our mainstream neo-liberal and neocon media who abase themselves at the altar of the false-god democracy. Seriously, what is the upside for us? How does constantly maneuvering (such as by supporting the further expansion of NATO---which should be defunct anyway---into former Soviet Bloc states, or by interfering with Russia's ability to get oil through the Caspian) in a manner which isolates Russia from Europe and pushes her to the east benefit us?

Brian

Thank you for your comments. I will expound more on what you wrote later. In the meantime please refer to the comments section of Dan's post entitled "RedState" in the Feb archives, dated 2/21/05. I believe Russia is the enemy behind our enemies. Maybe I'm over reacting.

I read your comments on the Redstate post Rob and I am not yet convinced that we are facing a concerted Russian-Chinese silent "war" with us.

They both have their own particular national motives for their activities in the region just as we do. I do agree that China is a bigger threat to us but more so for economic reasons, imo, I don't care about US hegemony in Asia so the Chinese attempt to dominate that region isn't as big a cause of concern for me.

However, I do think that our policy vis-a-vis Russia should be to keep from pushing them east into a stronger alliance with China. That result is what I object to as regards our policy towards Russia. So I agree with your concerns to some extent. There is a lot more "honey" we could use diplomatically to keep Russia from arming our enemies before we have to resort to the vinegar. It should be remembered that the Russians also have an Islamic terrorist problem they are dealing with as well. Terrorists that in fact were armed, albeit indirectly, by Clinton.

Brian

Thank you for taking the time to read my redstate post. As I said before, I could be over-reacting to what I'm seeing. In any event to address your points:

1.) The weapons in the former Soviet Union are very old by now. My understanding is nukes require much maintenace to be operational. These weapons are supposedly insecure and Al Qaeda and others want them and have or had at one time large amounts of cash to pay for them. It seems to me they would have already had them and used them by now if these weapons were really such a big threat. I do agree we do need an inventory of these and it would be nice if we could account for the ones that are missing. I just don't think we can count on Russia to keep them out of the terrorists hands, if they are such a threat. You state that these are the only true WMD. I'm not so sure this is true. We still don't know what happened to Saddam's WMD. Maybe Saddam tricked most of the world or maybe he destroyed them and wanted others to think he still had them. There are some reports that say he moved them to Syria, prior to the war. I think this is by far the most plausible theory as to why we have been unable to find them. In any event, now that Syria might be leaving Lebanon we may finally be able to get some answers.
2.) Russia does have much pull with all of the "Stans." So does Europe now with the expansion of NATO and the expansion of the EU. I just have not seen much from Putin to help us. The "Stans" might help us because the alternative to them is for them to fall back under the thumb of Russia. In other words, they can be allied with the United States who they can get rid simply by asking them to leave or they can be ruled by Moscow's earn fist. I know which one I would choose.
3.) Russia may have helped us superficially when it served their interests. Their assistance to Iran's nuclear weapons program and supplying Syria with missles that could alter the balance of power in the region far outweigh any benefits they may have supplied us with. To top this off, recently Russia has agreed to supply the Palestinian Authority with weapons. They have to know their allies are the major supporters of terrorism. While you may be correct, that this is not a silent war with Russia, I do not think they can be trusted. At a minimum we should be cautious.
4.) Russia opposed the war to remove Saddam. We now know why. They had huge oil contracts with Saddam. I don't know when they helped us in any meaningful way here.

Now for the other points:
1.) I don't think the relationship between Russia and China is new. I think this goes back many decades. Sometimes they may clash but this has generally been a quite chummy relationship.
2.) Russia is an economic nightmare. I think there is no question about this. This is what decades of communisim will do. We do need an accounting of the weapons that are unaccounted for and to find out once and for all what happened to them. I think the biggest issue by far is to find out what happened to Saddam's WMD.
3.) I'm not sure if the "Stans" want us out. If we leave, this means Russia would come back in and enslave them once more.

Regarding the Ukranian election, all I know we did was to protest Russia's attempt to steal an election. For that matter, all of the European Union protested. The European Union even inserted itself into Ukraine's affairs to attempt to negotiate a settlement of the situation. Any actions we may have made is just that, "finger-wagging" and has no real effect on Russia's livelyhood. It is no different than the "drunken cowboy" slur Putin once directed at Bush or the constant rhetoric directed at the US by Russia's allies. We could also ask what does all of the their "finger-wagging" at the US get them?

"False-god democracy." I think what you are trying to say is that you do not think democracy is the end all cure to Islamic Terrorism. If this is what you mean, I agree. The liberal press has generally been hostile to Bush's policies and has opposed them vociferously. The press that supports Bush's policies are not worshiping a false god called "democracy." They are simply advocating what they honeslty believe to be the best solution to the problem.

I agree with you that NATO should be defunct. Perhaps on different grounds from you. Donald Rumsfeld, Lord Robertson the former chairman of NATO, and Colin Powell have all said, on multiple occasions that NATO operates by "consensus." For NATO to expand the other members will have to agree on the expansion. If we are displeased with NATO's expansion, it will need to be discussed with Europe. Why is NATO expanding into the former Soviet Union? I'm not sure. Several possible theories. A.)The former Soviet republics do not want to fall back under the thumb of Russia and know they need a buffer. B.)The EU is expanding into these areas and as it expands western organizations such as NATO expand with it. C.)The former Soviet republics are allied with Russia and want entry into NATO so they can get and inside view of NATO planning. This last theory cuts into "conspiracy theory" and, as such, would require much proof to be believed. I agree NATO should be defunct. It gives other coutnries to much control over the use of American military assets.

"Interfering with Russia's ability to get oil through the Caspian?" Where did you hear this? I'm a bit skeptical. Various former Soviet Republics occupy this region. They probably want NATO there to serve as a buffer between them and Russia but I seriously doubt they would tolerate such a policy toward such a powerful neighbor, furthermore, I don't think the EU would tolerate such a policy. They don't even like our war against Iraq. I seriously don't think they would like a conflict with Russia. If the Bush administration approved of such a policy, the media would be beside themselves with hysteria, The UN would be falling all over itself to weigh in on this. I just have not seen this. As I stated, I'm skeptical of this but I would like to know where you got this information. If we want to talk about interference, we could talk about Russia's cozy relationship with the vehemently anti-American Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. We get allot of our oil from Venezuela. I read a few days that we may FINALLY be about to open up Anwr, in Alaska, for drilling. This can only help.

Having said all of this, I'm not sure if Bush's policies for dealing with Russia and China are the correct ones or even if we should be as concerned about them as I am. I do think we need to keep a close eye on them and I am concerned all of the talk about Islamic Extremists may have caused us to loose sight of much more more dangerous enemies.

Rob

Conspiracy overtly revealed. www.supportthetruth.com

Hey Rob,

Thanks for the thoughtful discussion. I will be leaving town for a few days so will have to let this thread die but want to answer your question about the Caspian oil issue.

Th Caspian issue is related to what you have noted as Russia's good relations and even help of Iraq and then Iran. Why does any country give a flip about the Mid-East? Oil. Russia is no exception and has been getting most of its oil from Iraq and now Iran. (note that even France was getting lots of oil from Iraq and only idiot neocons like John J. Miller are calling France one of our enemies). Russia actually has its own pipeline through the Caspian to get Mid-east oil and this pipeline does NOT bypass Iran. That is, the U.S. wants to see Iran isolated and supports various pipeline ideas in the area that would bypass Iran, since Russia has one that includes Iran there is the rub for us. This is a legitimate annoyance I suppose, I can see the strategic interest for the U.S. to minimize Iran's control of the world's oil supply.

Now, what I was alluding to as bad policy (and this actually dates back to the Clinton years, Bush has only continued this line)is that there is a big issue over whether the Caspian Sea is in fact a "sea" or only a large "lake." The importance of this issue is that if it is a lake(or is this the issue if it is a sea?, I always get this confused so take the gist of this rather than the specifics) then Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan have the largest portion of rights to use of the oil resources IN the Caspian, that is, there is a heck of a lot of oil on that sea/lake floor, as well as control of use of the waterway. Now, if it is a Sea than Iran and Russia have more control of the oil resources. The U.S. has taken Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan's side in this and has long frustrated Russian attempts to exploit the oil sources in the Caspian. What that means is that Russia has long had great incentive to pursue good relations with Iran in order to secure enough oil for itself so that while the U.S. wants to isolate Iran they are actually giving Russia incentive to be chummy with the Mullahs by holding up drilling in the Caspian.

At least this is the best I can explain so far as I understand the issues here. I pretend no expertise in this matter but as Ben L. would say, post-9/11, past policies often need to be reexamined and I would include this Clinton-era policy regarding Russian claims to the exploitation of oil resources in the Caspian as on to be reexamined.

But you said it best when you say that caution should be the rule of thumb as regards Russia, amen to that. I think that most of Dan's posts about the Iraq War, etc., have intended to strike cautionary notes, that neocons find such reservations infuriating is quite telling.

Brian

Likewise, thank you for the thoughtful discussion. I also am by no means an expert on the Caspian. What I think it comes down to is countries such as Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan don't want to be exploited by Russia, as they were under the former Soviet Union. I did a google search on this issue and am still reading through the articles. Ana-lyzing foreign affairs is by no means easy!!

Rob

That may be the case for Azer. and Turkm. Rob but why should US foreign policy be most concerned with what those 2 countries want? My point is only that we have an interest in keeping Iran strategically more isolated (at least I am accepting that we do here) and on the one hand Russia ticks us off for getting oil from Iran, but on the other we follow policies that ensure that Russia has every motive to get oil from Iran and thus be chummy with them. That seems irrational to me, and particularly if the only motive we have for that policy is helping Azer and Turk not get pushed around by Russia. Let them fend for themselves. American policy should be wholly determined by what is in America's best interest. Also, I don't think Azer and Turkm are actually getting to exploit the Caspian as is, the whole issue is unresolved I think.

Of course, all I have said is premised on the assumption by me that I am relatively clear about the issues in this area . . . which is not at all guaranteed.

Brian

The Caspian situation is complicated to say the least. I do hope we can resolve it in a way that will be beneficial to all parties. I'm just not seeing much willingness from Russia or their allies to solve anything diplomaticlly. I don't know what the intentions of the leaders of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan are. For all I know they will stab us in the back!! I suspect we support them for much the same reason we support Israel and Tawain. I just don't see how we will enhance America's long range security by sacrificing Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. If we sacrifice these countries, Russia will reassert their dominance over these countries and I think they would still be chummy with Iran. Russia's relations with Iran go back to even Russia was the USSR, at least this is my understanding. Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan should be allowed to pursue their own policies, as independent soverign nations. The only real lasting solution would be to allow Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan to decide the issue of which countries will develop their resources or they should develop it themselves. On this note, Azerbaijan officials have complained of excessive Russian interference in their affairs.

I'm not clear about the issues of this region either. It is definitely worth further research!! Lets not kid ourselves. Oil is a big issue here.

Rob

Brian and Rob you are both dorks.

Everybody,

Calling me or Brian a dork does not refute the arguments either one of made. If you have something constructive to add, please do so. Insults are counter productive..

Rob

Yes, it would have been more creative to say that you both sound like you're from Dorkmenistan.