So what did we actually achieve?

[Sue U]

We didn't provide aid to Saddam in order to help him "win" if by win you mean some sort of strategic advantage over the Iranians.

At the time we started providing aid to Iraq, the Iranians had started to pull their act together as a military force, and the tide of battle was turning against Hussein. (Saddam will certainly not go down in the annals of history for as a great militarily strategist or tactician...)

We wanted them to punch each other out to a stalemate that would essentially restore the staus quo ante prior to Hussein's invasion...

Nice revisionist history there. The CIA backed the coup that brought Saddam Hussein's Baathist faction to power in 1963, viewing them as inevitable successors to the failing Iraqi Republic government (which in turn had overthrown the pro-West monarchy) and as a bulwark against communism. The US and UK were happy to have the "stability" brought by the new Baathist leadership which, despite its hostility toward Israel, maintained cordial relations with the West. Following an internal Baathist putsch in 1968, Hussein became second-in command and dedicated himself to eradicating internal divisions in both the party and Iraqi society at large, using the secret police and a campaign of oppression to stamp out dissent and accrete personal power through the 1970s. However, he also used Iraq's oil wealth to improve conditions for the people (notably in health and education) and to modernize the economy. In the war with Iran, the US, Europe and the Arabs all supported Saddam from the outset; the only holdout was the Soviet Union, which claimed neutrality. The Reagan Administration supplied chemical weapons and intelligence data showing where to use them. The underlying causes of the war were numerous, but there was virtually unanimous international support for Iraq mostly because Iran was seen as a threat to export Islamic (and specifically Shiite) revolution.

Re Afghanistan:

You are aware I presume that the policy of aiding the Mujahedin began under Carter...and in fact it began even before the Soviets invaded. For the purpose of trying to provoke a Soviet invasion.

No, I wasn't aware of that. But regardless of which administration first supported the Afghan mujaheddin, it was a predictably bad policy to empower religious zealots even if their jihad was aimed at a Soviet-allied government -- unless, of course, they were never supposed to win, but only to keep fighting and dying, in which case the policy would be both bad and morally indefensible.

[rubato]

It is important to establish the principle that no country in the world can harbor another Al Qaeda unless they expect we will invade and tear their shit up again. . . . We will continue to pursue Al Qaeda in Yemen or anywhere else they are with all of the weapons we have.

What criteria would be employed to justify such a preemptive attack? Is "membership" in Al Qaeda, or "association with" Al Qaeda, or merely "sympathizing with" Al Qaeda a sufficient basis to warrant an assassination by drone strike, without actually being charged, tried and convicted of anything that might be a crime? Are there no limits on the exercise of deadly force against anyone deemed (by whom?) a "terrorist"?

You're being uselessly argumentative.

Al Qaeda provided clear and distinct criteria for their eradication. A great deal more than sufficient proofs. The Cole bombing, the East African embassies, the first (failed) attempt on the WTC, & assorted others. Anyone who associates themselves with that group risks (OMG!) being associated with people who are at war with us and with the rest of the civilized world. And if we show clearly that such association means we will kill you then they will learn something important and valuable.

There are boundaries to civil liberties. We should have been less tolerant of Nazis and Fascists than we were in the 1930s.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Nice revisionist history there. The CIA backed the coup that brought Saddam Hussein's Baathist faction to power in 1963, viewing them as inevitable successors to the failing Iraqi Republic government (which in turn had overthrown the pro-West monarchy) and as a bulwark against communism.

And yet they became a Soviet Client State...

The Baathists became pro Soviet, to the point that we were thrown out of both Iraq and Syria...

I'm really not sure what you're getting at with this...

I'll repeat what I said...

Sometimes we have to look at the situation we face at the time,and put the consequences that might eventuate from that to a later time...

Just as we had to do in deciding to send military support to the Russians prior to our formal entrance into WW II...

[Sue U]

You're being uselessly argumentative.

Al Qaeda provided clear and distinct criteria for their eradication. A great deal more than sufficient proofs. The Cole bombing, the East African embassies, the first (failed) attempt on the WTC, & assorted others. Anyone who associates themselves with that group risks (OMG!) being associated with people who are at war with us and with the rest of the civilized world. And if we show clearly that such association means we will kill you then they will learn something important and valuable.

There are boundaries to civil liberties. We should have been less tolerant of Nazis and Fascists than we were in the 1930s.

yrs,
rubato

Exactly the same arguments for "eradication" of "terrorists" have been applied to numerous organizations throughout history: ANC, Sinn Fein, Fatah, Irgun/Lehi, Sons of Liberty. But still the terrorists won!

A civilized nation doesn't kill people simply because of their beliefs or political sympathies, no matter how wrong-headed they might be. It arrests, tries, convicts and sentences those who have actually committed crimes that are actually defined as crimes, and does so with due process of law. Sanctioning the murder of anyone accused of "associating with terrorists" means we have descended to the lowest level of immorality; civil liberties be damned.

[Lord Jim]

I can't begin to tell you how much I regret being on the same side as rubato...

But he is spot on on this...

I don't see a single word to argue with...

[Sue U]

And yet they became a Soviet Client State...

The Baathists became pro Soviet, to the point that we were thrown out of both Iraq and Syria...

Wrong again. Iraq was never a Soviet "client state," but like the rest of the Arab world purchased arms and received some modest assistance from the USSR -- as well as France, Germany and other European countries. It cooperated with the USSR and often aligned itself politically with the Soviet bloc in world affairs, but that was largely because of the domestic Arab politics of anti-colonialism. It wasn't until the mid 1970s that the USSR actually sought a closer relationship with Iraq, and even then that had much more to do with the spike in oil prices than extending political hegemony. Iraq never allowed the Soviets to influence its internal affairs.

The U.S. was not "thrown out of both Iraq and Syria" for anything that had to do with the Soviet Union, but for its unflagging support of Israel, particularly in the Six Day War and continuing through the Yom Kippur War. But full diplomatic relations with Iraq were resumed in the 1980s.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at with this...

I'll repeat what I said...

Sometimes we have to look at the situation we face at the time,and put the consequences that might eventuate from that to a later time...

What I'm getting at is that the "consequences that might eventuate" need to be more thoroughly considered and planned for; they are not unpredictable and unforeseeable, and they can be shaped by effective strategy. The short-sightedness of policy and the knee-jerk reaction to events have served us poorly in the past and are continuing to do so today.

[Big RR]

I agree 100% Sue. And I think the first point we need to examine every time is how to get the people on our sode and stop treating them as pawns that we can freely choose to sacrifice to suit our interests. That only stirs up more hatred and is worse in the future.

[Andrew D]

There are far too many "interests" which the US ends up supporting.

We support the Baathists in Iraq, and we end up with Saddam Hussein. We end up concluding (rightly or wrongly) that Iraq is a Soviet client State, and then we end up with a fucked up mess.

We oppose Allende's election and, at the very least, "appeared to condone" the right wing coup against him, and we end up supporting mass-murderer Pinochet and his torture of tens of thousands of Chileans.

We support -- indeed, sponsor -- the overthrow of moderate-socialist Mossadegh in Iran, and we end up with the Ayatollah Khomeini. And, decades later, we end up with another fucked up mess.

Having gone after the Taliban in Afghanistan -- which was, in itself, okay, because Afghanistan was the principal stronghold of the people who had attacked us -- we've spent years trying to create some sort of democracy/ally (it won't be a democracy unless it's an ally) in Afghanistan, only to end up with yet another fucked up mess.

The whole thing is fundamentally wrongheaded. We should not be pissing away our national treasure protecting "interests" around the world which are, in large part, "interests" only of the rich and powerful who run our government.

We should be devoting our energies to making ourselves no longer dependent on other nations for our wellbeing. A truly successful America is a self-sufficient America.

[Gob]

A series of at least 20 car bomb blasts killed more than 80 people across Iraq today in one of the deadliest attacks since U.S. troops withdrew from the country.

The co-ordinated explosions struck mainly Shiite pilgrims in several cities - a stark reminder of political tensions that once threatened to provoke a new round of sectarian violence.

It is this bloodshed that could once again push the country to the brink of civil war.



The pilgrims were headed to the northern Baghdad neighborhood of Kazimiyah to mark the anniversary of the death of a revered Shiite saint who is interred there.

The first bomb struck a procession at around 5am in the town of Taji, north of Baghdad, killing seven people and wounding two, police said.

That was followed by four more morning blasts that hit other groups of pilgrims across the capital, killing 30 people and wounding more than 70.



‘A group of pilgrims were walking and passed by a tent offering food and drinks when suddenly a car exploded near them,’ said Wathiq Muhana, a policeman whose patrol was stationed near the blast in central Karrada district.

‘People were running away covered with blood and bodies were scattered on the ground.’

South of Baghdad, two car bombs exploded minutes apart at dawn in the centre of the city of Hillah, killing 22 people and wounding 53.

‘When a minibus packed with policemen stopped near the restaurants, a car exploded near the bus,’ said Maitham Sahib, owner of a restaurant in Hilla near the blast. ‘It’s heart breaking. It is just sirens, and screams of wounded people.’

A parked car bomb also exploded near a group of pilgrims in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, 55 miles south of Baghdad, at about 8am, killing two people and wounding 22 others.

Two nearly simultaneous car bombs also killed seven pilgrims and wounded 34 in the Shiite town of Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad.

[rubato]

"...

The whole thing is fundamentally wrongheaded. We should not be pissing away our national treasure protecting "interests" around the world which are, in large part, "interests" only of the rich and powerful who run our government.

We should be devoting our energies to making ourselves no longer dependent on other nations for our wellbeing. A truly successful America is a self-sufficient America.

Isolationism and self-sufficiency were reasonable policies 75 years ago, but impossible today.

We have no choice but to be engaged in the world and to grasp the nettle of dealing with the cultural, religious, economic, geographic, problems of other countries.

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

I do not advocate isolationism. Self-sufficiency does not even imply, let alone require, isolationism.

Of course we should be "engaged in the world". But that does not require us to pick up the world's bills.

The US spends more money allegedly defending Germany than Germany spends defending Germany. The US spends more money allegedly defending Japan than Japan spends defending Japan. That is madness on the US's part; on the part of Germany and Japan, it is highly beneficial parasitism.

The US could save more than a trillion dollars over ten years with no detriment to its defense needs. Why don't we? Follow the money, and see who is running the show.

George Washington had it right: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world". So did Thomas Jefferson: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none."

That was not, and still is not, isolationism. It is sensible policy in the best interests of Americans.

[rubato]

Whether the defense budget is wastefully bloated (it is*) is a different category than whether we should be 'self sufficient'.

And self sufficiency does directly imply a severe form of isolationism. Self-sufficient = we import no necessary raw materials + we do not depend on international trade for our economic well being + we do not depend on treaties with other countries to manage common resources (oceans, clean air). Otherwise we are not self-sufficient we are dependent. And in my opinion we, all of the nations of the world, are so deeply mutually dependent that one cannot be wounded without all the rest of us feeling the pain and the success of one depends on the success of others (are you listening, Germany?)

yrs,
rubato

* and should be cut so that we do not spend more than 10% more than the Eurozone countries do altogether.

[Andrew D]

Whether the defense budget is wastefully bloated (it is*) is a different category than whether we should be 'self sufficient'.

And self sufficiency does directly imply a severe form of isolationism. Self-sufficient = we import no necessary raw materials ....

No. Self-sufficiency means that we do not need to import necessary raw materials. If we can get them cheaper by importing them, fine. ([C]ommerce ... with all nations" and all that.) So long as, if our external supplies should be cut off, we could manage (even at some greater cost) by ourselves.

Self-sufficient = ... we do not depend on international trade for our economic well being ....

No. Self-sufficiency means that we do not depend on international trade for our economic survival.

Self-sufficiency = ... we do not depend on treaties with other countries to manage common resources (oceans, clean air).

So we're fucked.

Not just the US. All of us. All of humanity.

Treaties to manage common oceans have been dismal failures. Treaties concerning clean air mostly don't exist, and the ones which do exist have been dismal failures.

We're fucked.

[BoSoxGal]

Basically, yes.

[rubato]

What defeatists.

And how disappointing. We are currently the only superpower in the world (and will be for at least a couple of decades) and what is needed from us is leadership in the areas of the global environment, international peace and stability (yes, we do need to go after and kill Al Qaeda where ever they are in the world or their equivalents), human rights (Reagan et al set us back by decades by supporting any dictator no matter how brutal as long as they were nominally anti-communist), and global leadership in economics (what we could have done in the great depression* but failed to do because Hoover was a Republican).

We are in a position where we can only fail by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

All we have to do is show our own voters how grossly stupid Republican policies are and how harmful they have been. Can't be all that difficult. 2001-2008 Repuglicans had it all their way and every thing went wrong. Poverty went up, wages fell (for the longest time since the great depression, and this is BEFORE the Repuglican economic collapse of 2007 - present) opportunity evaporated, equality was reduced.

yrs,
rubato

* And could do now.

[Lord Jim]

(Reagan et al set us back by decades by supporting any dictator no matter how brutal as long as they were nominally anti-communist),

I see rube is posting his Fractured Fairtytales again....

(It's always such a hoot when he tries to talk history )

The policy of supporting authoritarian leaders in different regions around the world to keep Soviet expansionism in check was of course, a key element of the Containment Policy, pursued by every President, Republican and Democratic from Harry Truman forward, (until Mr. Reagan's defeat of the Soviet Union finally made this policy unnecessary)

There was one exception to this; The Idiot Carter and his so-called "human rights" policy that did nothing to improve the quality of human rights for a single person anywhere on the planet, (by contrast, Mr. Reagan's policies resulted in more than 200 million being freed from the yoke of Soviet oppression all over Europe) and did enormous damage to US security interests some of which reverberates down to this very day.

The two most noteworthy examples of this naive, harebrained policy in action were the pressure he put on The Shah of Iran to liberalize his political system at a more rapid rate than the country was prepared for, and the abandoning of Anastasia Somoza, (who was certainly no sweetheart, but as FDR had said of his father, "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch") which resulted in the establishment of a Soviet Client State in Central America....

The Carter "Human Rights" policy was an unmitigated disaster with absolutely no upside or even one single positive accomplishment.

As with the economy, internationally that hopeless cretin left a humongous cluster fuck for his successor to clean up....

Thankfully, we elected a man who was up to the task....

[dales]

As with the economy, internationally that hopeless cretin left a humongous cluster fuck for his successor to clean up....

Thankfully, we elected a man who was up to the task....

Barry O?

(sorry, Jim...........that was a nice fat hanger, right over the plate)

[Big RR]

Jim--I'll refrain from commenting on Regan and his part in the "defeat" of the USSR (I don't want to hijack the thread to the same old argument), but I do take issue with your assessment of the human rights position of Carter. I honestly don't think you can assess the value of the position by pointing out the ineptness of Carter in getting things accomplished; indeed I do think much was accomplaished by making it clear to the strongmen we were supposedly allied with that we would not automatically support them when they brutalized their people and didn't live up to even a modicum of ethical behavior in how they used the resources we graciously supplied. The examples you presented, the Shah and Somoza, made this clear in spades, and many regimes moderated, not greatly, but significantly. And this moderation made the lives of many somewhat better.

As for the Shah and Somoza, granted their replacements weren't ideal (and, at least in the case of Kholmeini, may have even been worse to some Iranians), but turning you statements around, Ortega and Kholmeini might have been SOBs, but they were the SOBs of the locals, not jerks imposed by a government just seeking to protect their business interests). Foreign policy is not and should not be founded on the dubious "enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle, but the administrations, republican and democrat, bought this BS in spades since WW2 (it is interesting to speculate who we would have supported had Hitler come to power in the 50s; my guess is e would have helped the nazis make the world "safe for democracy" against the godless communists). Carter said and instituted a policy that was well founded, and though he failed, I maintain it did not.

[Andrew D]

... what is needed from us is leadership in the areas of the global environment ....

The call for "leadership" is rather platitudinous. It is all fine to call upon the US to "lead," but that call provides no answer to the essential question: How should we go about effectuating change? For just one example, what -- in specific terms, not general bromides -- can and should the US do to induce China to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions?

The US has been cutting its greenhouse-gas emissions for years. China, on the other hand, has acknowledged that it has become the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases and, in the same breath, defended its intent to increase its greenhouse-gas emissions, at least in the short term.

How would "show[ing] our own voters how grossly stupid Republican policies are and how harmful they have been" induce China to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions?

The call for "leadership" in international peace and stability, human rights, and economics is also platitudinous. What specific policies should the US adopt to bring about peace between Sudan and South Sudan? Or among the nations of central Africa? Or among the nations rapidly becoming embroiled (or already fully embroiled) in the Syrian crisis? What policies should the US adopt to induce, say, China and Iran to stop detaining, abusing, torturing, and murdering political prisoners?

Notwithstanding some superficial recent "success," the US has largely failed to induce China to stop manipulating its currency, a policy which has cost the US at least a million jobs. (The recent "success" has to do with measurement under the standards set by the Trade and Competitiveness Act; most of what China has done has been finding ways to manipulate its currency without violating those standards.) The US has had virtually no success in achieving anything more than nominal crackdowns on the theft of intellectual property, military and private-sector technology, and US government secrets. What specific policies should the US adopt?

In short, where are the nitty-gritty realities? Moral leadership is a fine thing, and economic pressure can sometimes achieve results (though often while biting one in the ass at the same time). But if the US really is the world's only superpower, what that shows us is that super ain't what it used to be.

[Andrew D]

... the pressure [Carter] put on The Shah of Iran to liberalize his political system at a more rapid rate than the country was prepared for ....

Hogwash.

The people of Iran had been fully prepared to democratize the country at least since 1951. That is when the Majlis, Iran's national legislative body, overwhelmingly elected Mossadegh Prime Minister by a vote of 79 to 12.

But then Mossadegh committed the unpardonable sin: He crossed a western oil company.

Right-wing US jingoism denounced that as some sort of Leninist takeover, but it was nothing of the sort. What is now BP refused a 50-50 profit-sharing arrangement with Iran, the same arrangment which ARAMCO had made with the Saudis. Mossadegh was fully prepared to satisfy BP's legitimate claims for compensation; the Iranian nationalization law set aside a full 25% of net profits for the purpose of doing exactly that.

But to BP, mere satisfaction of its claims was not enough. And because it was not enough for BP, it was not enough for the US government.

Eager, as always, to do the bidding of an oil company, the US promptly orchestrated Mossadegh's overthrow. That gave Iran the dictatorship of the Shah, and that, in turn, gave the world the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Blaming Jimmy Carter for Khomeini is just excuse-making for the avarice of oil companies and the cravenness of the politicians whom they control.

And who can say "Dick Cheney"?