"...to actually research and nail down examples of the kinds of activities that have been subjected to the “impeachment by lack of references” attack…"
So, if someone claimed that the earth is flat, evolution is a bogus theory because it has been established that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and all creatures originally appeared as they do today, you would accept that without question because the claim may have been made by a person "of good will"? You actually call a request for references and citations, whether in my example here, or in the claim that the US sent in a mercenary force from Jordan, an "attack."?
I hope for the sake of your intellectual integrity that you cast the net wider for news than Russia (RT), Iran (presstv), and Rupert Murdoch, none of which can be counted on for accuracy in reporting. Murdoch and his outlets are sensationalist, and Russia and Iran for objective news about Syria? Surely you jest when you accept without question their contention about the US sending a mercenary force into Syria from Jordan. Russia and Iran would have absolutely no reason to plant subversive news stories about non-existent US activity in Syria, now would they?!
You have just demonstrated how little you understand George Kennan and his policy of Containment, SUPER390. At the time Kennan wrote the "X" article, he was also very much involved in "Operation Rollback," a series of covert operations in which we inserted agents into Albania and Latvia to foment uprisings in those Soviet controlled areas. they failed, of course, because Kim Philby was the British liaison in Washington and notified the Soviets of each operation, but the point is Kennan at the time was much more willing to use such tactics than he later claimed.
Kennan did not want to just confine the policy of Containment to Europe. The policy of Containment was first applied with the introduction of the Truman Doctrine, the first efforts of which were to counter the Communists in the Greek Civil War and the Soviet Union's moves to subvert Turkey. The key phrase in Kennan's "X" article was that Soviet pressure "is something that can be contained by the adroit and vigilant application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and maneuvers of Soviet policy." Note the terms "counter-force" and "geographical and political points." Kennan knew full well that the application of force, as well as political maneuvering, was an essential part of the doctrine, and that it might be needed wherever the Soviet Union was actively subverting Western interests, either by force or political subversion.
That does not mean that Kennan, or any of us, would have agreed that the application of the doctrine was essential in every case. Vietnam was a good example. It was essentially a civil war in which Vietnamese were doing the fighting. It was a far different situation than the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I suspect that Kennan would have very much approved of our arming the anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan.
To understand Kennan, SUPER390, you have to have followed his thinking throughout his career. In later years he repudiated some of his earlier positions (without actually saying so). I suggest you read some of his writings and books, of which there have been many, and you will see the evolution of his thinking. I would also recommend a first-rate biography of Kennan entitled "George F. Kennan: An American Life," by the Yale historian of the Cold War John Lewis Gaddis, published in 2011. There have been many biographies of Kennan, but Gaddis had access to papers and documents that were unavailable to others.
"The US helped gin up this war, sending a proxy army of Mercenaries in from Jordan in late 2010."
Please be specific. Who were these mercenaries? What is your evidence that the US sent in a "proxy army of mercenaries in from Jordan in late 2010"? I follow this pretty closely and have seen no evidence that the US did any such thing. Nevertheless, I keep an open mind and would be glad to consider the evidence upon which you base your charge.
The United States effort in Afghanistan in the 1980s, resulting in the defeat and withdrawal of the Soviet Union, can be counted a success, not a catastrophe. A Soviet occupied satellite on the borders of Pakistan and India would have been in no one's interest. The problem was that we took our eye off the ball after we succeeded in driving the Soviets out. We allowed Al-Qaeda to rise in Afghanistan without a plan to counter it. That Al-Qaeda created a base in Afghanistan was not pre-ordained and does not detract from the success of defeating the Soviets.
The statement concerning the Soviet Union's collapse: "There is no truth to the notion that the Afghanistan war...contributed to its collapse," is highly questionable. The US effort that led to the Soviet's withdrawal from Afghanistan was part of the overall implementation of George Kennan's policy of "Containment," a policy that was in effect for 45 years. It was a perfect example of Kennan's statement of Containment in his 1947 "Mr. X" article in the journal Foreign Affairs. Kennan wrote that Soviet pressure "is something that can be contained by the adroit and vigilant application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and maneuvers of Soviet policy." It was the overall policy of "Containment" that was the primary cause of the Soviet Union's collapse, and our effort in Afghanistan was a part of that policy.
Finally, the statement that, "We let the Soviets alone in Kazakhstan, and we never worry about today’s Kazakhstan," is puzzling. Kazakhstan was a part of the Soviet Union at the time under discussion. We recognized Kazakhstan as part of the Soviet Union. It had been a part of Russia, and then the USSR, since the 19th century. That is a far different matter than the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
"This may surprise many people, this point that metadata—just, you know, the fact of a phone call, who you called, perhaps where you made the call—can be more revealing than a transcript of the conversation itself."
This would be "surprising" to only the most obtuse. It is hardly a revelation that a pattern of calls from, say, Colorado to Yemen, particularly to a cell No. in Yemen that belongs to a known AQAP operative, would be far more important to obtain a warrant to tap into than a call from someone in Colorado to her medical specialist.
"The U.S. Government acquired the “proof” you refer to due to a FISA warrant and NSA surveillance that violated the attorney-client privilege."
The FISA court warrant was obtained in a manner consistent with legal procedures, and the surveillance was perfectly legal. It was Ms. Stewart who violated both the attorney-client privilege and her agreed-upon condition not to use her meetings with Abdel-Rahman to pass messages. Once Ms. Stewart went beyond discussion of Abdel-Rahman's legal case and began acting as a conduit for messages to his followers, she lost all claim to attorney-client privileges.
"Up until 1989, American policy in the Middle East was formulated in the context of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. While a much overemphasized issue, Moscow did have regional interests of its own... Nevertheless, Russian intrigue and influence in the Middle East has generally been limited. Among the places the Soviets were able to create a bit of leverage – leverage that still exists today – was through Damascus."
Gregory Harms' depiction of Soviet interests and influence in the Middle East as having been "overemphasized" and "limited" demonstrates either ignorance or a willful distortion of Middle East history over the past 50 years. No serious historian would lend credence to Harms' position on this issue. In 1956, Egypt's Nasser purchased Soviet arms from Czechoslovakia, beginning a close alliance with the Soviet Union that continued until Anwar Sadat changed course in 1974. From 1958 until the first Gulf War in 1991, The Soviet Union had a close alliance with Iraq. Soviet influence and the alliance with Syria began in 1966, solidified under Hafez al-Assad in 1970, and continues today between Russia and Syria.
These were strong alliances that played out during the Cold War. Soviet influence in their respective Middle East allies was just as strong as that of the United States in its respective Middle East allies. The Soviets armed them, backed them in the United Nations and other international fora, and used them to their advantage in the Soviet's Cold War competition with the US in the international arena. Russia hangs on to its alliance with Syria today in an attempt to maintain its naval base at Tartus and to retain relevance as a Middle East player and power to be reckoned with.
Harms has some good points to make. Nevertheless, his depiction of the Cold War and his claim that Soviet influence in the Middle East was "overemphasized" and "limited" is wrong and undermines the rest of his piece.
Just a correction to my comment above. The Bryce Report contributed to (vice investigated) British anti-German propaganda in WWI. Although the British effort was described as propaganda, the Wikipedia article states, as noted above,"The findings of the Report have been substantiated by several scholars in the 21st century."
"the WWII anti-Jap anti-Kraut American propaganda"
You reference "WWII ant-Jap anti-Kraut American propaganda," yet you cite a wikipedia article (Wikipedia is not the best of sources for historical accuracy, but that's another story) on the Bryce Committee which investigated British anti-German propaganda in World War I! There are several points to be made about your comment.
A. To cite a report dealing with World War I propaganda to substantiate alleged activities in World War II is a non-sequitur. It does not apply. You have either deliberately or inadvertently conflated two different wars.
B. Ironically, the Wikipedia article states, in part, "The findings of the Report (concerning alleged activities during World War I) have been substantiated by several scholars in the 21st century," thus undermining the point you wished to make with your non-sequitur.
C. And finally, to cite a report on British anti-German propaganda in WWI in an attempt to substantiate your charge of alleged "American anti-Jap anti-German" propaganda in WWII is to stretch your non-sequitur even further.
"Leftist politician Hamdeen Sabahi said Egypt should consider denying the dam’s international backers use of the Suez Canal."
Were Egypt to follow through with Mr. Sabahi's suggestion, it would find itself in direct contravention of its international obligations under the Constantinople Convention of 1888, which is still the governing authority on use of the Suez Canal. Article I of the Convention is quoted below.
"Article I:
The Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free and of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag.
Consequently, the High Contracting Parties agree not in any way to interfere with the free use of the Canal, in time of war as in time of peace.
The Canal shall never be subjected to the exercise of the right of blockade."
If Egypt were to deny any nation use of the Canal because of support for the Ethiopian dam, or for any other reason, it would find itself an international pariah and suffer significant financial and economic losses as a result. I doubt that Egypt would cut its nose to spite its face because of one misguided politician.
If not Assad, Who? What other country on the Mediterranean littoral would welcome a Russian naval base?
Regarding its importance, having a home port on the Mediterranean is far more advantageous for maintaining a Mediterranean presence than home-porting thousands of miles away and sending naval vessels in and out via Gibraltar.
It is true, Professor Cole, that nations can blunder their way into war. Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August" (among many other histories) describes how it occurred prior to World War I. Germany bore the greatest responsibility for the war, but the other participants elevated the tensions with full mobilization, "blank checks" granted, ultimatums issued, bellicose rhetoric, all leading to the outbreak of war, with Germany invading Belgium, France, and Russia.
Such blunders and rhetoric notwithstanding, I cannot conceive of Israel or Russia carrying such activities beyond a point leading to war. While Russia considers Syria important (the naval base at Tartus, among other issues), Putin is smart enough not to take Russia to war in order to defend Assad, even if Israel ups the ante in Syria.
No need for hyperventilation about the consequences of Israel attacking Russia, either with conventional or nuclear weapons. There is not a chance that Israel would launch an attack against Russia. Neither Israel nor Russia are about to go to war with each other over Syria.
"According to a historian I read the American entry into WWI might have extended the war. Apparently there was talk of a truce in mid-1917, but the British declined because they had an understanding that the US would join in and give them and the French the edge they needed to defeat the Germans."
Three points here on the above-cited quote:
A. No reputable historian claims there was any serious talk of a truce in mid-1917. Neither the British nor the French nor the Belgians were contemplating a truce, which would have left Germany occupying parts of France and Belgium, a condition they would have considered unacceptable.
B. Everyone did not lose except the Americans. Certainly, the French and Belgians considered themselves winners, having withstood and defeated German aggression against their territory.
C. It is sometimes forgotten that World War I, although initiated in large part by Germany, was not fought on one square inch of German territory. It was all fought on French and Belgian soil. (And in Russia in the East, until the Bolsheviks pulled out of the war.) At the time of the armistice, Germany had not experienced any foreign troops on its soil. Perhaps there should have been, in which case the popular myth among Germans that they had been "stabbed in the back" by their politicians might have been avoided.
I, too, am disgusted with the "Happy Memorial Day" greeting, as it completely misses the meaning of the day. Most people are too busy indulging in hotdogs and beer to recognize that Memorial Day is the one day in the year that we should remember and honor those who paid the last full measure while serving the United States in uniform.
Although the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the fighting on the Eastern Front (after having initially sat out the war under the Nazi-Soviet Non-Agreesion Pact, while Britain stood alone), the defeat of Germany was an Allied effort involving the United States, and Britain, as well as other allies. To say "the Soviets' victory over fascist Germany" leaves out the other allies, who were just as important in winning the war. We could not have defeated Germany without the efforts of the Soviets, who did pay a much greater price, but the Soviets could not have done it alone either.
You would be surprised how many Americans join the military, as both officers and enlisted men, out of a sense of duty and honor, as well as other things you mentioned: education, training, etc. After the 9/11 attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, there was a large uptick in numbers entering the military. In fact, I knew personally a retired Army officer who managed to get placed back on active duty because he felt the obligation to serve in uniform again to join the fight against Al-Qaeda.
Nevertheless, regardless of the reason someone joins the military, if that person pays the last full measure one can pay in service to his country, it certainly is not asking too much to devote one day out of the year to commemorate him and his fallen comrades throughout America's wars and conflicts.
"While the American soldiers who have died in the nation’s wars deserve to be memorialized, not all the wars they fought in do."
In the sentence cited above, Professor Cole, you have summed up the meaning of Memorial Day. Our soldiers who have fallen on the battlefield, whether in pursuit of "just" or "unjust" wars (and there can be debate over which adjective applies to which wars) certainly deserve to be remembered. They were not responsible for the wars in which they fought, but they did their duty and paid the last measure one can pay. their sacrifice should not be any less memorialized because they fought in a war that we might consider "unjust."
The Bengal famine was not in 1940, Shahid Shahid. It occurred in 1943-44. And Churchill did not deliberately cause the famine. There were two causes. The main cause was that Japan had invaded and occupied Burma, which at the time was the world's greatest producer of rice, and which was the main supplier for Bengal.
The other cause was that Britain was short of food itself, and Churchill and the British did withhold supplying Bengal, but not by holding food offshore in ships. They simply did not ship it out. As Professor Cole stated above, the British shamefully mismanaged the famine, but they did not deliberately cause it.
Your statement that Churchill should "stand alongside Hitler & Mussolini" is ludicrous and does not deserve comment.
That the Holocaust is better known than the atrocities committed in the Belgian Congo does not mean that the Congo is an "untold story," Shahid Shahid. As I stated above, it is not only the book I mentioned, but studies and other works as well. And your snide little comment asking how long I have been "in the company of NEWT," says a lot more about you than it does about me. Mounting "ad-hominum" attacks against a person with whom you disagree simply demonstrates intellectual poverty.
The US had no vital national interest involved in the Bosnian intervention and the war against Serbia on behalf of Kosovo, Ron. In fact, regarding Bosnia, then Secretary of State James Baker famously said, "We don't have a dog in that fight." It was a humanitarian intervention plain and simple, and so was the war against Serbia on behalf of Kosovo.
As far as Henry Kissinger goes, I don't know what he has to do with it. He had been long out of office when these events took place. By the way, what position have you held that enables you to speak so authoritatively about what dominates the State Department? I actually do have experience in, and know something about, the State Department.
Thus, Ron, I would be very interested in the evidence you no doubt have that leads to your conclusions regarding just what US vital national interests were involved in Bosnia and Kosovo, if not humanitarian? Likewise, Since you no doubt have an insider's knowledge of what "dominates" the State Department (your term), please advise how you came to that conclusion.
Your rant has nothing to do with whether or not the Belgian Congo is one of the "great untold chapters in world history," SUPER390. You have simply used the topic to piggyback the grinding of your own axe. And speaking of the "conquest of non-whites by whites," I don't suppose you would be interested in discussing the African slave trade conducted by Arabs, 700 years before the first slaves were taken by Europeans? Or the African slaves taken as booty as a result of tribal warfare in Africa by victorious African tribes?
To get back to the topic, there are many elements of world history that are not generally known by populations all over the world, including America. That does not mean that information is unavailable for those who are interested. The Belgian Congo is not an "untold story"; in fact there always has been information about it out there. Like much of African (and other) history, there has been little general interest, but not because the story is "untold."
Let's not forget that Westerners have intervened to save Muslims as well. During the Clinton Administration, the United States intervened in Bosnia against Serbia in 1994- 1995 and in a war against Serbia to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo in 1999. These interventions on behalf of Muslims is something that is conveniently forgotten or deliberately omitted when launching diatribes against Western intervention against Muslims.
"The map of Africa correctly identifies the Belgian Congo."
Was there a question that it didn't?
"It is one of the great untold chapters in world history."
Actually, it was told very well in the book on the subject, "King Leopold's Ghost," by Adam Hochschild, published in 1998. Since then, there have been numerous studies detailing the atrocities committed in the Congo, which was Leopold's private domain until it was turned over to the Belgian state.
"In MP-speak, “unprivileged” means not entitled to the protections of the Law of Land Warfare as transmitted by the Geneva and Hague Conventions."
Brian, the reason they are not entitled to the protections of the Law of Land Warfare under Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions is because they are not Lawful Enemy Combatants, as defined by Common Article III (i.e., wearing uniforms, having rank, operating under a command structure, not attacking civilians, etc.) While they should not be subject to torture and abuse, they certainly are not entitled to the status of Prisoners of War.
Thanks for sharing these treasures, Professor Cole. This is wonderful that so many of the really beautiful and important items have been preserved and displayed again. I hope that the great cache of cylinder seals and cunieform tablets can eventually be recovered and put on display as well.
"Obama’s ratings are as bad as Bush’s were in the opinion polls throughout the Muslim world."
And your point? Obama is President of the United States, not the "Muslim World." His job is to tend to the national interest of the US, not assuage every grievance in the Muslim World.
"The Barbary States were actually engaged in something that used to be called “piracy”"
Close, Mr. McPhee, but no cigar. Piracy has always had a very specific definition as being conducted for private ends and by private vessels. The Barbary States were sponsoring the attacks on American shipping and holding American seamen for ransom. They were acting in their capacity as "states" and, thus, were not committing "piracy." They were committing what we would call "acts of war." The definition of piracy was codified in the Geneva Convention on the High Seas of 1958. It simply codified language that had been recognized since the 18th century.
"I think a more valid reason for going to war would be an invasion of one of the 56 states and territories."
Disregarding the fact that 56 states and territories did not exist at the time of the Barbary Wars, are you actually making the claim that attacks against American shipping, demands for tribute, and the kidnapping and holding for ransom of American seamen did not constitute acts of war to which the US had every right to respond with military and naval force? I'm very thankful that you were not then, and are not now, in any position involving the security of the United States.
Murder is the deliberate killing of innocent people. The drone program targets Unlawful Enemy Combatants whose aim is to harm the United States. As such, it does not meet the definition of "murder." It is justified under the Law of War, the UN Charter, and the AUMF.
"US has been an aggressive Empire right from the beginning (remember Barbari (sic) wars of Jefferson?)"
Your obvious lack of understanding and misinterpretation of American history is neatly summarized in your statement quoted above. The Barbary Wars were provoked by the Barbary States along the coast of North Africa. Barbary corsairs led attacks upon American merchant shipping in an attempt to extort ransom for the lives of captured sailors, and ultimately tribute from the United States to avoid further attacks, much like their standard operating procedure with the various European states. If there were ever a more valid reason for going to war than attacks against American shipping, demands for tribute, and the kidnapping and holding for ransom of American seamen, I do not know what it would be.
Inhofe is not only one of the most ignorant members of the senate, he is a total hypocrite, claiming on Tuesday that federal relief for tornado-ravaged parts of his home state will be "totally different" than a Hurricane Sandy aid bill he voted against late last year. My question is, do the majority of Oklahomans subscribe to his form of hypocrisy and, thus, reveal themselves to be hypocrites as well?
"The exclusion of these two is a sign that Khamenei does not want an independent-minded president who might appeal to the people in any contest of will with the Supreme Leader."
Actually, it was evident long before this incident that Khamenei did not want an independent-minded president. Many in the West criticized Ahmadinejad for everything from Iran's nuclear stance to the 2009 elections, not realizing that it was really Khamenei who made (and continues to make) the final decision on important issues such as these. I would argue that Iran under Khamenei has been more or less authoritarian all along, and that the exclusion of presidential candidates is simply open recognition of that reality.
To pursue Professor Cole's point, did the majority of Oklahomans support Senators Imhofe and Coburn's votes against Federal relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy in New York? If the majority supported the votes against relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy, they can hardly call for federal assistance now that they need it and consider themselves anything but hypocrites. On the other hand, if the majority did not support Imofe's and Coburn's votes, that puts an entirely different complexion on their call for assistance.
"Furthermore, the big protests and riots that are happening in the backwater towns of China seem to be about layoffs at state enterprises"
"These citizens are more opposed to rule by corporations than we Americans"
So what is the point of your two observations? That protests against layoffs from state enterprises indicate citizens are opposed to rule by corporations? That is a non-sequitur.
Historically, all economic transformations have resulted in disruption. The development of Capitalism in Britain and the West resulted in the Enclosure Laws and Milton's "Satanic mills" in Manchester, and labor-management strife in the US. It was far worse in the Socialist command economy of the Soviet Union, where Stalin's forced industrialization and agricultural collectivization resulted in 20 million deaths. Not a pretty sight.
"By the way, the rules are neutral as to big public sector or big private sector. China did fine."
Agreed! South Korea also has closely intertwined government and private business working together, as does China with its state-led enterprises working with privately-owned enterprises. Sometimes its hard to tell them apart.
Nevertheless, I think the key to a nation's economic success, whether the economy is largely private sector driven or public sector driven, is to let the market determine production, prices, and distribution. The major problem with the old command Socialist economies of the USSR, China, Eastern Europe, and even India, is they were tied down by their "Five Year Plans." They operated outside the market economy. This led to stagnation and shoddy products. Once they entered the market driven economy, they had to face competition, and this led to more efficiency and better products that could compete.
Let's hope the third time around is the charm for Nawaz Sharif and Pakistan. Since the establishment of Pakistan in 1947, Pakistan has experienced both military and civilian governments, and neither has performed well, not in the political sphere nor in the economic sphere.
I certainly subscribe to "Cole's Laws for Economic Development." They are fundamental prerequisites for economic growth and development, and hence for bringing large segments of the population out of poverty. Examples over the last thirty years are China, India (to an extent), South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Chile. All subscribed to an export-led model, while welcoming foreign direct investment and eschewing the old "import substitution" model, the heavy hand of the state, and the printing of money that led to inflation, all of which drove so many Latin American countries into the ground from the 1960s through the 1980s, and some even today.
The problem with Pakistan is that the old elites are so entrenched that one wonders if they can accept foreign direct investment and other changes that threaten their "iron rice bowls" (to use a Chinese expression describing those segments of society with what appear to be lifetime sinecures). One can hope.
As usual, SUPER390, you make some interesting points that appear just plausible enough to be valid...until one probes a bit deeper.
"They are representatives of the culture that capitalists created in America, in fact the very reason they created America in the first place."
That English joint stock companies IN PART (emphasis) financed the colonies is only a part of the story. Just as Europeans IN PART provided financing for the development of the railroads in America is only part of the story of America's development. There were many reasons why British colonists, and later American revolutionaries, founded America and created the resulting society. Your economic determinism is a very old fashioned Marxist view of history.
"Where would General Electric, General Motors, the TV networks, the housing industry, and the energy industry, as a small sample, be without the indoctrination of the American people in instant gratification through consumption?"
Agreed that corporations and advertising have successfully attempted to create our culture of consumption and "instant gratification" I mentioned in my original post. Where we disagree is, whereas you appear to think the American consumer is an indoctrinated, brainless creature unable to resist advertising, I think the American consumer readily embraces the concept of "instant gratification" as a conscious decision on his part. He wants the baubles and bling because he wants them (if you will forgive the tautology).
"When the workers were getting very revolutionary in the early 20th century over the boom & bust economy that resulted, it was necessary to co-opt them by giving them the illusion of a piece of the action. It is a fact that after WW1, Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover chaired a commission of industry leaders who determined that social stability would require the cultivation of a culture of mass consumption, via mass advertising."
What really gave American workers a piece of the action (not the illusion of a piece of the action, but a piece of the action itself) was the union movement, and the resulting bargaining power that unions provided the workers in their face-off with management. That more than anything, as well as manufacturing pulling us out of the Great Depression during World War II, created the post-war strong middle class in America.
"Logically, how could any values of thrift survive once, as Keynes realized, over-saving could cause a closed economy ( no free trade then) based on durable goods purchases (which can be deferred) to suffer a catastrophic, unending contraction?"
The logical fallacy in your above cited statement is that you seem to think of "saving" as simply putting money under the mattress, where it does no good. When individual investors put their money in the stock market, for example, that money is invested in business expansion and other activities that increase the stock value to the individual investor. Having more value and equity, the individual tends to spend more on consumer goods. As a result, the overall economy expands.
"You mean “their own decisions and choices” after Madison Avenue gets through bombarding them, every second of their lives, with paeans to exactly the instant gratification you decry?"
So, Tehanu, do you support the cult of instant gratification by purchasing every bauble and piece of bling that is the fashion of the season? More importantly, do you think so little of an individual's ability to think for himself that you ascribe the cult of instant gratification to simply "brainwashing"?
The vast majority of the public can, in fact, think for themselves. That they choose to have what "all their friends have" is a choice they make. It is more important to them to appear to be "in" than to use their money more prudently. Yes, they act like lemmings, but not because they cannot think for themselves; rather, They choose to do so.
As for being a "scold," you seem to be one yourself when it comes to assigning blame to "Madison Avenue," rather than to the individuals themselves.
Speaking of "Barracuda Capitalism" and the height of Wretched Excess, yesterday I saw the movie "The Great Gatsby." The Great Gatsby, of course, is F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic novella of the 1920s, the "Jazz Age," a decade filled with scams, con men, and wealthy poseurs. And the greatest poseur of all (at least in literature) was Jay Gatsby. It was an age that screamed excess, real Wretched Excess.
The movie is very well done, and Leonardo DeCaprio portrays Gatsby perfectly. All the other actors are good as well. Highly recommended.
"(...your assertions that the poor are spendthrift are just a bias.)"
My comment about many people lacking investments and savings was not directed against just the poor as being spendthrift. I stated that the cult of "instant gratification" practiced by "many people, including those in the lower socio-economic class," was the cause of their lack of investment and savings. In other words, I include much of the middle class and upper middle class, as well as the lower socio-economic class, in my observation. We are basically a nation of strivers after instant gratification, whether it be for a new car, the latest fashion, a 52" flat screen TV, or a pair of $200 sneakers. The result has been documented in many studies: A majority of Americans have saved very little. I am simply suggesting that that result is a function of their own decisions and choices.
Contained within your diatribe against the lottery, Professor Cole, is actually a piece of advice that, if followed by everyone, from those in the lower socio-economic class to wealthier individuals, would lead many more individuals and families to a reasonably well-off financial future. I refer to your following quote.
"If you started at 20 and put $5 a week into the stock market, you’d likely get 12% return on your money, so when you were 70 it would be a very substantial amount of money."
If individuals and families would invest in the stock market, using "dollar cost averaging" strategy, from the time they begin their careers and increasing the amount over a working lifetime, it would lead to a very nice nest egg. It is the power of compound interest at work. And the stock market is not as dangerous as it seems, in spite of crashes such as occurred in 1987 and 2008. Over a lifetime they are mere blips on the screen.
The problem with many people, including those in the lower socio-economic class, is that they want instant gratification. They want their 52-inch flat screen TVs, a new car, they max out their credit cards for their little shiny baubles and bling, not to mention a $200 pair of sneakers, and they thus end up with no savings and no investment. And we shouldn't blame Capitalism and advertising. Individuals have minds and are capable of independent thought and decision-making. The short-sighted approach and lack of personal responsibility inherent in the attitude of satisfying instant gratification and to hell with the future is no one's fault but their own.
And if you have been reading all of my posts on this issue, as you state, "Very, very carefully. With a historian’s eye," you will note that I have been consistent from the beginning about our national interest being best served by scrapping counter-insurgency and "nation-building" but continuing counter-terrorism. I suppose I should be flattered by your suggestion that that might indicate "credibility." And if the suggestion had been made by someone with a greater understanding of geopolitics and national interest, I would.
I have commented on several previous occasions and do so again here, our effort at counter-insurgency and "nation building" in Afghanistan is a fool's errand. We were justified and correct in invading Afghanistan and defeating the Taliban and rooting out Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda had declared war against the US, and the Taliban had provided Al-Qaeda with a safe-haven from which to operate and plan its attacks against the US. After we accomplished that goal, however, we should have left Afghanistan to function as the half-made nation it always has been, with various warlords in charge. But with one proviso, that we would continue our counter-terrorism efforts as necessary.
While counter-insurgency and "nation-building" was bound to fail in Afghanistan, as it has in every country except the British effort in the 1948-1960 "Emergency" in Malaya (and that success was due to the very special circumstances of the British effort in Malaya), there is no reason for us to let up on our counter-terrorism effort, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If intelligence were to indicate Al-Qaeda or affiliated forces re-forming in Afghanistan, and the Afghan government appeared unable or unwilling to resist, we would be perfectly justified in using drones or Special Ops teams to neutralize them. And we should put the Afghan government on notice.
There will be a lot of hand-wringing in the US over our 2014 departure from Afghanistan. But the fact is there is no US national interest in remaining in a country that basically doesn't want us (except for our cash), and that will be no more a "nation" than when we first attempted to make it one. That our troops who paid the ultimate sacrifice will have done so in vain is sad, but it is no reason to continue having our troops die in vain. That Afghan girls may not be allowed to attend school is a shame, but it is none of our business to make it right. That Afghan women may be forced to revert back to being medieval chattel, again, is none of our concern. That is for Afghans either to live with or sort out among themselves. Our main concern should be the US national interest, not Afghanistan's national interest. That is a problem for the Afghans to address.
"And how it is going to prevent the coming big wars in Korea and in the Middle East which are the natural consequences of Obama’s policies?"
I would be interested to know why you think Obama's policy regarding Korea will result in a "coming big war." Are you referring to Obama's sabre-rattling a couple of months ago? Obama threatening South Korea with a "sea of fire"? Obama scrapping the Armistice Agreement that ended the fighting in 1953? Obama stating publicly that the Korean Peninsula is now in a "state of war"?
Oh, wait, that wasn't Obama. That was North Korean leader Kim Jong Un issuing the above-cited threats. So please tell me, how is it that you conclude it is Obama's policy that will result in a "coming big war" on the Korean Peninsula. Are you suggesting that Obama has not responded to Kim Jong Un's above-cited peace overtures?
"I’m no fan of our do-nothing President, but I will reveal how he could regain influence.... He needs to go after some low-hanging fruit to restore the shine to his image. And releasing the 86 innocent men at Gitmo is the lowest hanging fruit around."
The internees at Guantanamo are way below the radar and of little importance for the vast majority of the American people. There are probably twenty issues, from immigration reform to climate change and more, that are of far more importance. The internees at Guantanamo are small beer compared to the important issues America faces. Were Obama to waste the political capital necessary to push for what no doubt would be a losing battle anyway, would be to demonstrate even greater political naivete than he has to date. And such a failure certainly would not "restore the shine to his image."
I have read quite a bit of Thomas Sowell's writings, and I have never come across a statement of his that either explicitly or implicitly suggested "black culture had no right to exist." I would appreciate it if you would provide a citation to back up your categorical statement.
To expand on your observation, Travis, Adam Smith, along with Karl Marx, are among the most widely cited individuals, and the least read, by those who purport to use their ideas as evidence of the correctness of their positions. Be they Libertarians, Socialists, Capitalists, or Marxists, those who are so fond of quoting Smith and Marx as evidence backing their positions have only in rare instances actually read "The Wealth of Nations" and "Das Kapital."
Everyone seems to base their understanding of each author on secondary sources or, more perniciously, by searching the internet and Wikipedia (with its consistent suggestions that "this needs further citation"). Such flimsy research results in many a lacunae in the understanding of Smith's and Marx's ideas and philosophy. As an example, many think of Smith as an economist. He was not. Adam Smith was first and foremost a University of Glasgow lecturer who held the Chair of Moral Philosophy, and one of his works is entitled, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments. That he wrote about Political Economy and the mechanism of the Market in "The Wealth of Nations" was an adjunct to his overall view of Moral Philosophy, and his concern for the well-being of not only the Capitalist class, but that of the common man as well.
"That sounds not at all like an “informed discussion,” Lj, rather instead like a set of apologist talking points."
Of course it doesn't sound like an informed discussion to you, Mr. McPhee, because in your universe anything that deviates from your anti-drone mantra and set phrases taken from your stack of 3x5 index cards (Notagainistan, Smedley Butler, Great Gamers, etc.) by definition cannot be either "informed" or a "discussion." In your universe, only your pronouncements reach the level of "informed discussion."
Ljudivet, a couple of us have made the very points you mention above. Look back over the past year's pieces on the drone program in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. You will find that I (and one or two others) have defended the drone program as being legal under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter (the right of self defense) and under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by the US Congress on September 14, 2001. Moreover, the drone program has been effective in degrading the leadership and operational cadres of Al-Qaeda and its affiliated forces and organizations.
The article refers to the veil, or "niqab," which covers the face. Yet all of the photos are of women wearing a headscarf, or "hijab." There are none wearing a niqab. Are we talking about the veil or the headscarf? Or is the author conflating the two?
"America essentially adopted the then-advanced intelligence capabilities of the Nazi German and Soviet intelligence networks to compete in the Cold War."
Actually, America did not pattern its intelligence capability after either Nazi Germany's or the Soviet Union's intelligence networks after World War II. The precurser to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) took its cue from British intelligence. Subsequently, with the establishment of the CIA, American intelligence continued patterning itself after British intelligence.
"Germany and Japan had no defense obligations after WWII..."
"Germany was rebuilt under the Marshall Plan."
"America will bankrupt itself to control the world."
"Our U.S. empire mentality gave us wars in...Korea..."
What is more important in understanding the resurgence of Germany, Japan, and Western Europe after World War II, and other issues noted in the comment above, is what is left unstated in the above four cited quotes. The reason Germany and Japan had no defense obligations after the war and could focus on development of their economies is because the United States assumed the the defense obligations for both countries. It was the United States who provided both conventional defense, as well as the nuclear umbrella, that enabled both to succeed without the additional defense costs.
The Marshall Plan was a $13 billion effort over a four-year period (1948-1952) that not only assisted the rebuilding of Germany, but all of Western Europe. Western European countries had the knowledge and technological ability to rebuild their own economies. They just needed the capital to spark the recovery after the ravages of the war. The Marshall Plan provided that spark, and Western European recovery succeeded. Marshall Plan funding was offered to Eastern European countries under Soviet control as well, and the Czechs were inclined to take it. The Soviet Union, however, intervened and denied them the opportunity.
In the above two examples, the national interests of the United States and its allies in NATO and Japan coincided in the face of the Soviet threat. Regarding our "US empire mentality giving us a war in Korea," I would remind you that it was North Korea that invaded South Korea and started the Korean War in June 1950. That, after Kim Il Sung had first obtained Stalin's approval to launch the war against South Korea. In fact, Secretary of State Dean Acheson omitted South Korea from the US's Asian defense responsibilities in statement in early 1950. US "empire mentality" had nothing to do with it.
While the United States has embarked on some dubious adventures (Vietnam, Iraq, and others), it is a vast overstatement, not to mention a misreading (or perhaps lack of understanding) of history to claim that "America will bankrupt itself to control the world."
China will act like a responsible great power, particularly with regard to non-interference, when it sees it in its interest to do so, and the further from its geographic neighborhood the issue. While China may support an Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I do not see China engaging the issue as a "broker." China simply does not have the background or trust in the region. On the issue of trust, neither the US nor Russia has it much on either side, but China has even less so.
China's diplomatic legacy worldwide is based on acquisition of a flow of resources, and the Chinese are very deft at playing the "non-interference" card to do so. They will deal with any country or government, regardless how odious, in order to advance their interests. Note China's close relations with Myanmar (Burma) long predating Myanmar's opening and release of Aun San Suu Kyi. And the history of China's relations with several African countries demonstrate the ease with which the Chinese deal with authoritarian governments. And why shouldn't they? China is itself authoritarian.
Closer to home, China continues to be North Korea's sole supporter, refusing to punish North Korea's outrageous behavior and threats toward South Korea, Japan, and the United States. The Chinese fear the collapse of the North Korean regime and the consequent refugee problem, not to mention a US ally, a unified Korea under Seoul, on its border. In order to stave off that collapse, however, China has no problem supporting probably the most odious regime in the world. China has demonstrated an assertive and, at times, aggressive stance regarding its claim to practically all of the South China Sea (the nine-dotted line). And it has backed that claim with clashes against japan and the Philippines.
In sum, China will always act in what it perceives as its own best interest. Most great powers throughout history, including those today, do likewise. the difference is, there are times when self-interest includes attempting to rectify a political and humanitarian disaster, such as the US did in intervening in Bosnia to stop the slaughter of Bosnian muslims, and in intervening and waging war against Serbia to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing against Kosovar Muslims. In both cases, the US gained nothing that would normally be considered in its national interest. Do not expect the Chinese to do likewise.
"A UN commission unvestigating the situation in Syria has strong, concrete suspicions that Syrian rebels used sarin gas, but does not have firm proof, according to investigator Carla del Ponti."
Carla del Ponti could use a brush-up on English. A "concrete suspicion" is an oxymoron. A "suspicion" by definition cannot be "concrete," which could only refer to a fact backed by evidence.
It is wrong to judge historical figures by today's standards. They are products of their culture and era, just as we are products of our culture and era. It is equally wrong to expect iron-clad consistency in meeting one's definition of "Progressive," or any other label for that matter.
Your dismissal of Teddy Roosevelt ignores many of his accomplishments that were progressive. Within weeks of assuming office, Roosevelt became the first president to host an African-American in the White House, when in October 1901 he invited Booker T. Washington to Dinner. Later he spearheaded the prosecution of the Northern Securities Company, and he followed that up with his landmark anti-trust legislation, thus earning him the title of the "trust-buster. Roosevelt was also a conservationist, establishing the US National Park System.
In foreign affairs Roosevelt was indeed an imperialist, but he also won the Nobel Peace Prize for ending the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese War, through his mediation and brokering of the peace treaty between Russia and Japan at Portsmouth, New Hampshire in August 1905. Roosevelt also arbitrated between Germany and Great Britain over their claims in the Venezuelan crisis of 1904.
Teddy Roosevelt was a very interesting figure with many facets to his governing philosophy and character. It would be wrong to dismiss him because he failed to meet all of the checked boxes required to meet your definition of a "progressive," sitting in judgment more than 100 years later.
Coincidently, today's Washington Post has an article on an experimental plane that runs on solar power. The developer plans to pilot it across the United States on a test flight soon. The developers have named it "Solar Impulse." It weighs in at 3,500 pounds, has 12,000 photovoltaic cells that form the top of the wing, a series of batteries behind the planes four engines, the wingspan of 747, can reach an altitude of 28,000 feet, and can operate day and night. At this stage, it has a crew of one--the pilot, who sits in a small, confined space. But it is a beginning.
"In 2001, the CIA didn’t have even one spy in the Middle East.
The CIA folks in the region managed intel purchased from others; they didn’t do actual espionage, regardless of what’s written in memoirs."
Your statement above is patently false. All of our Embassies had stations with case officers running agents and collecting intelligence. We did not "outsource" our Intel activities to others. We cooperated with host country services, of course, but we ran our own activities as well. To say we didn't have any clandestine officers in the Middle East is just plain ludicrous.
"However, a great way to help defuse the situation in Syria is for the US government to flex its muscle with the Saudi and Qatari and Turkish governments and insist that they stop arming the rebels in Syria"
So you apparently would be pleased to see the US Government exercise hegemonic power over Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey? Am I reading you correctly that you have no problem with the US lording it over other countries to pursue goals with which you happen to support?
President Obama is a victim of his own loquaciousness, a trait he should keep under control. He appears to be too impressed with his own verbal ability, however, to do so. Obama is always talking about "red lines" and this or that course of action being "unacceptable." It is "unacceptable" that Iran should develop a nuclear weapons capacity. It is "unacceptable," and would cross a "red line" for Syria to use chemical weapons. The most absurd example of the Administration's approach was in March, when National Security Advisor Tom Donilon stated that, "The United States will not accept North Korea as a nuclear state." Earth to Obama Administration: North Korea IS a nuclear state.
The problem with "red lines" and the Administration's constant use of the term "unacceptable" is that they never follow through with the threat. I'm not suggesting we should bomb Iran or establish a no-fly zone over parts of Syria. I'm even rapidly losing interest in providing the Free Syria Army and other rebels with weapons because by far the best fighters and commanders are the al-Nusra group and other Al-Qaeda offshoots and affiliates. I'm of the opinion that there is a high likelihood they would prevail among the rebels and create one more headache for the US and the West.
If Obama does not intend to follow through and do what really needs to be done in order to make it "unacceptable" for Syria, Iran, North Korea, and any others, to violate his "red lines," then he should not stop talking about "red lines" and banish the term "unacceptable" from his vocabulary. On the other hand, if he is so enthralled with his use of those terms, he should follow through with his threats. To do otherwise in either case noted above is to diminish the credibility of the United States.
"You cannot be Muslim–not even moderately Muslim–and do that; it is actually one of the GLORIES of Muslim civilizations that a political agenda of social justice is BUILT into the religion."
Of course you can do that. Turkey did. Rather than one of the GLORIES OF Muslim civilizations, the inability to separate the state and religion is one of the elements that has held back most Muslim countries.
"Marxism incorporates the philosophy of dialectical materialism – which denies the existence of religion."
Two points, Mark.
A. The point is that Marxism, with its all-encompassing explanation for man's condition and its historical determinism, is like a religion, in this case a secular religion.
B. Dialectical Materialism is not a philosophy. Marx borrowed Hegel's dialectic (thesis-antithesis-synthesis), which was one part of Hegel's philosophy of history, and married it with his concept of materialism. It is part of Marx's philosophy, but not a philosophy in itself.
"Just as the actual teachings of Jesus Christ have never been implemented by any large population, so have the theories of Karl Marx never been implemented by any large population."
Three points need to be made here.
A. Karl Marx's description of capitalism in 1848 was, for the most part, accurate. Where Marx's theory went off the rails was his inability to imagine that capitalism could change and accommodate various pressures, rather than collapse. Marx's theory of the historical inevitability of capitalism's collapse (a sort of religious teleological process), wedding Hegel's dialectic with materialism, failed the test of empirical evidence.
B. For the reasons listed in point A, above, Marx was turned on his head when, rather than capitalism, it was the internal contradictions of communism that led to its collapse.
C. And how could it be otherwise? The Marxian view of the state withering away was a chimera that simply defies the logic of individual humans living together with differing desires and impulses, not to mention different levels of ability.
"The Young Turks were anti-religion fanatics. Ataturk, who followed them, was of their ilk, and he suppressed the Sufi tekkas or monasteries of Istanbul. They cannot be included in Dr. Cole’s statistics."
Wrong. The Young Turks, like Ataturk, were not anti-religion fanatics. They were Muslims, but they realized that one did not need to exhibit all the trappings of Islam that, in their view, held back Turkey's modernization. I repeat, they were Muslims. That is an undeniable fact. But they wanted to emulate the West in its complete separation of the state and religion, and they succeeded. It was the Islamic religious establishment that the Young Turks, and Ataturk, considered to be fanatics, a fanaticism that was considered to be an obstacle to modernization.
Nevertheless, Islam was by far the dominant religion of Turkey, and it certainly was used to fuel the fire of genocide against the Armenians during the period 1915-1916. The Turkish genocide of nearly one million Armenians absolutely qualifies to be included in the total of non-Muslims killed by Muslims in the twentieth century.
Practicing science? Clipping off your toe nails at night? I'm always willing to meet challenges to my comments, Matt, when there is a challenge to be met. Unfortunately, your comment does not refute any of the points I made about Marxism. You have not presented me with a challenge to be met. Your comment reminds me of what Gertrude Stein said about Oakland, "There is no "there" there."
As a self-proclaimed Marxist, you should know better than to deny that Marxism is a secular religion. Marxism has all the hallmarks of a religion: It has a theory of historical inevitability (a teleological endgame) that explains how mankind has gone through the various phases of economic organization, leading to the demise of capitalism and the rise of communism. And it has all proven to be wrong! (Another attribute it shares with much of religion.)
You will recall that Marx wrote that the internal contradictions of capitalism would lead to its collapse. The final irony (and what any rational person would recognize) is that it was the internal contradictions of communism that led to communism's collapse. Capitalism has demonstrated the flexibility to change and prosper, while communism's sclerotic rigidity was its Achilles Heel. Marx was good at describing the conditions in England and Europe in 1848, but he was absolutely wrong in his analysis of the future development of both capitalism and communism.
"I don’t figure that Muslims killed more than 2 million people or so in political violence in the entire twentieth century, and that mainly in the Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988 and the Soviet and post-Soviet wars in Afghanistan, for which Europeans bear some blame."
I agree with the basic premise of your article, Professor Cole. All religions historically have included elements that, for political and religious reasons, have committed mass murder and massacres. Nevertheless, I wonder if your statement that Muslims have killed no more than 2 million people during the entire twentieth century includes those killed by the Ottoman Turks in the Armenian genocide of 1915-1916.
The Young Turks, then ruling the Islamic Ottoman Empire, initiated the genocide against the Armenian population in April 1915. It occurred in two phases. The first phase was the killing within Asia Minor of Armenian males. The second phase saw the "deportations" of women, children, and the elderly, and Ottoman troops accompanying the deportations allowed rogue elements to murder many of those being deported.
Scholars have estimated the number of Armenians killed at between 600,000 and 1.5 million, but the most accurate estimate appears to be around 850,000. Are you factoring this figure into your estimate of the number killed by Muslims in the twentieth century?
Agreed, Brian. We could have left the Balkans alone and let Milosevic run roughshod over Bosnia and continue his murderous actions against the Muslims (Srebenica) and his ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Maybe we should have. As Secretary of State James Baker said earlier, "We don't have a dog in that fight." The same applies to Rwanda, where we chose not to intervene. We certainly didn't have a dog in that fight either. Perhaps the best thing is to let them slaughter each other until one side cries "uncle." My point was these are the issues that policy-makers must deal with and make decisions on whether or not to intervene. And the context in which they make those decisions is not a vacuum; there are pressures from all sides.
"The rise of Jabhat al-Nusra and of Sunni radicalism in northern Syria is alleged to be one reason the Obama administration declines to support the rebels militarily. They fear repeating the mistake of the Reagan administration, which encouraged the radical fundamentalists to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and created an atmosphere in which al-Qaeda could be founded in Afghanistan."
Your observation Professor Cole, cited above, illustrates the dilemma faced by US policy-makers. To many geopolitical armchair moralists who glibly pronounce on US policy as "hegemonist" and "imperialist" on one side, and unwilling to engage in defense of "human rights" and "democracy" on the other, the world is black and white. Issues are easily disposed of by declaring the US either a "Warmonger" for engaging (Afghanistan), or uninterested in "human rights" by not engaging (Rwanda).
Policy-makers are constantly facing such issues. Should the US have intervened in Bosnia, an intervention that resulted in the 1995 Dayton Accords? Should the US and NATO have gone to War against Serbia in 1999, a war that rid the Balkans of Milosovic and resulted in Kosovar independence? Should the US have intervened in Rwanda in 1994 to stop the genocide occurring in that hapless country? Or were we correct in not intervening and allowing the genocide to continue? Should the US directly intervene in Syria in support of the rebel army? Or not?
To many who have never had to face a decision more difficult than whether to have another glass of chardonnay or make a switch to merlot, the answers to such questions facing the United States are easy. After all, the poseurs feigning moral superiority can pronounce on US policy with impunity and go to sleep at night without facing the consequences (good or bad) of decisions that policy-makers must face.
"Wouldn’t this require a formal declaration of war from the USA? And logically, the prior recognition of al-Qaeda as a sovereign power?"
No, and No. The US has engaged in wars and sent troops into conflict on many occasions without a formal declaration of war. In fact, since the adoption of the US Constitution, the US has only issued five declarations of war.
Being a recognized sovereign power has never been an essential element for status as a belligerent. The sovereign nation-state as we know it has only existed little more than 300 years, with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years War. Yet war has been around for at least five thousand years. War can be a state that exists between sovereign states, between sovereign states and other groupings and entities that are belligerents, and between belligerents that do not possess sovereignty at all but are political groupings of one sort or another. Tribal warfare which occurs among tribal groups in Papua New Guinea and West Papua in Indonesia, for example, is definitely a form of warfare, but it exists among groups for whom "sovereignty" is an alien concept.
"Oh, and on how the US government fostered democracy in places like Italy after WW II."
What does your statement, quoted above, have to do with the issue of whether Tsarnaev should be tried in a civilian court or a military commision? I fail to see any relevance to the topic under discussion. Enlighten us.
"Yeah but we’re not at war with Russia (Chechnya) or Kyrgyzstan."
No we are not, but we have been at war with Al-Qaeda and other assorted affiliates ever since they declared war on and attacked the US. As I stated above, Tsarnaev would be considered an Unlawful Enemy Combatant and, thus, could be tried by military commission only if he was acting on behalf of Al-Qaeda or an affiliated organization that has been at war with the US. If he was not acting on their behalf and was acting on his own, he would not be considered an Unlawful Enemy Combatant and should be tried in civilian court. The key to his status is, was he acting on behalf of an entity that is a declared enemy of and has attacked the United States, or was he acting on his own?
The question of whether or not Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be tried in a civilian court or by military commission as an Unlawful Enemy Combatant depends neither on his status as a terrorist nor his US citizenship. One can be a terrorist (with political ends) without being an Unlawful Enemy Combatant. For example, if Tsarnaev committed the bombings with his brother because they were lone "anarchists" or wanted to make their own "statement" against the US government, they would be terrorists making their own statement, but should be tried in civilian court. If, however, they were acting on behalf of Al-Qaeda or some other organization that had clearly declared and waged war on the United States through terrorism, Tsarnaev could legitimately be considered an Unlawful Enemy Combatant and tried in a Military Commission, his US citizenship notwithstanding.
There is precedent for trying Unlawful Enemy Combatants (includng US citizens) by military commission, and the Supreme Court has upheld it. During World War II, eight German citizens (one of whom was also a US citizen) received saboteur training near Berlin. In June 1942 the group of eight was split and were conveyed, along with explosives and detonators, across the Atlantic via two submarines, one group landing off Long Island, New York and the other off Ponta Vedra Beach, Florida. Their mission was to blow up railroads, bridges, tunnels, and other targets in the US.
All eight were quickly caught by authorities. Although there were arguments on both sides of the issue, President Roosevelt approved trial by military commission. They were charged under the Law of War, the Articles of War, and Conspiracy to Commit Espionage and Sabotage. All eight were found guilty. Six of the saboteurs, including the US citizen, were sentenced to death and executed. Two received extended prison sentences. The case was brought before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in "Ex Parte Quirin," found that the President had the authority under the Constitution to try all eight, including the US citizen, and sentence them in a military commission.
"This was simply two immigrant brothers angry at American society. They simply used radical Islam as a “cover” for their shame and rage and give the violence they committed a perverse aura of legitimacy."
It's a little bit early in the investigation to reach such a definitive conclusion regarding their motives. You may be correct, of course, but the wiser course of action would be to wait and see what is uncovered on their hard drives, their travel patterns and travel destinations, interviews with people who knew them, and a host of other actions that will assist in providing a clearer picture of what drove them to commit the bombings. It will become clear in due course whether they were "simply angry at American society," as you propose; or cat's paws for some larger movement; or self-radicalized via Jihadist propaganda on the internet. Way too early to draw definitive conclusions.
There are times in the field of conflict when the choice is between two alternatives that are less than ideal. Our alliance with the Soviet Union in World War II was correct, as Nazi Germany represented the greater threat at the time. And the defeat of Nazi Germany could not have been accomplished without the Soviet Union and the Eastern Front.
My response to the previous comment was based on her statement in quotes, referring to "our side," suggesting, yet again, that the US blundered. That Bosnia and Kosovo are relatively calm, and have been since the US and NATO interventions, with little resulting "blowback," speaks well for the interventions. It appeared that the poster of the comment's sarcastic reference to "our side" suggested that we should have left well enough alone regarding the Muslims, and allowed Milosevic to continue his reign of terror.
"The threat to the United States from the USSR was always overrated. Attacking Czechoslovakia and Hungary was a hell of a different proposition from attacking the US."
That attacking Hungary and Czechoslovakia was "a hell of a different proposition from attacking the US" is self-evident. I use it to illustrate the Brezhnev Doctrine in practice. The USSR could put down revolts within its own satellites, as well as undermine Western societies and allies, but the West was not supposed to interfere with Socialist countries.
While certain aspects of the Soviet threat were exaggerated, such as the nonexistent "missile gap" when Kennedy took office, the overall Soviet threat to the US, as well as to US and Western interests, was very real indeed. The Warsaw Pact had many times more conventional forces arrayed against our NATO allies than we had. That is the reason we never accepted the "No first use" of nuclear weapons so many wanted us to do. We had to maintain that nuclear edge, since we did not have a conventional edge. Revisionist history regarding the Cold War does not do justice to the real threat the USSR represented.
Nice diversionary tactic to avoid having to admit you have no evidence that the US government does not want a democratic government in Syria, Mr. McPhee. It took you six paragraphs of obfuscatory prose to circle around a vacant center that, by its very lack of substance, speaks for itself.
"It was also not the only place “radical Muslims” were invited to fight on “our side”. Check out Bosnia and its neighbours."
Rosemerry, are you suggesting that Slobodan Milosevic and his Serbian thugs should have been allowed to commit the genocide of Srebenica and the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo without the US and European/NATO intervention to stop him? Are you aligning yourself with the likes of Milosevic?! And here all along I thought of you as a liberal proponent of human rights. It appears that you will align yourself with anyone, as long as he is anti-American.
"the USSR was not a threat to the USA- it was the Cold War rhetoric."
If you think the USSR was not a threat to US interests and that of other countries during the Cold War, Rosemerry, you must have been missing in action, or had your head in the sand, from the years 1945 to 1989. The Soviets cutting off access to Berlin in 1948, necessitating the Berlin airlift; the USSR and East Germany building the Berlin wall in 1961 to prevent the transit of East Germans to West Germany; the four hundred Soviet SS-20 medium range missiles targeting West Germany when the NATO allies had none, until 1983, when the West installed Intermediate Range and cruise missiles in Western Europe; the USSR installation of ballistic missiles in Cuba, leading to the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962; and, yes, the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, beginning in December 1979. And don't forget the "Brezhnev Doctrine," Rosemerry: the Soviets claimed the right to undermine Western, Capitalist countries, but the West had no right to undermine Socialist countries. The Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 to put down the Hungarian revolution, and the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 to put down the Prague Spring.
I suggest that you read up on post-World War II history before you glibly state that, "the USSR was not a threat to the USA- it was the Cold War rhetoric." You might learn something.
"“aren’t hoping that a democratic government emerges.” Same is true of our Great US government."
That is a categorical statement that could only be made by either someone with very strong evidence to back it up or, lacking such evidence, a fool. Please provide your evidence.
"The US spent the 1980s encouraging Muslim radicals to engage in ‘freedom fighting’ against the leftist government of Afghanistan..."
I agree that US support of the Mujahideen in the 1980s resulted in the blowback of Al-Qaeda and anti-US, anti-Western militant Islamic movements. This is a perfect example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Nevertheless, it is a bit disingenuous to state that we armed the Muslim radicals to fight against the "leftist government of Afghanistan." The Soviet Union had mounted a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan and had poured troops and air power into the country. This occurred at a time when the Cold War was still a reality, and the Soviet Union, under Brezhnev, was viewed, correctly, as a threat. We armed the Mujahideen to fight against the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The leftist government itself was a minor consideration at the time.
Are you seriously suggesting that a society that produces Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, Milton Friedman, and Samuel Huntington (not to mention Juan Cole) is a society that does not value intellectual diversity and the exchange of ideas? Do not make the mistake of confusing valuing the diversity and exchange of ideas with their acceptance. The ideas are out there in the intellectual marketplace, and everyone I know considers that to be of value. That anyone's ideas may not be accepted, via the political process, is not evidence they are not valued as ideas. After all, just because someone has ideas out there in the intellectual marketplace does not grant him the right to expect they will be accepted.
"Islam’s holy book forbids coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it."
Except Muslims who wish to abandon Islam and convert to another religion, or abandon religion altogether. that is called apostasy, and the penalty for apostasy under Islam is death. It is not necessarily enforced in more enlightened Islamic countries, but it is always a presence and a threat, and it is enforced in more hardline Islamic societies.
"@bill,not a problem,it seems clear that a majority of you are supporting your government actions in Iraq,Afganistan,Iran,Syria,Pakistan,North Africa,east Africa…Do you want more examples?"
Actually, VOICUM, your glib response of "not a problem" is a problem, in that you have failed to answer my question put to GREGORYLENT. You, like GREGORYLENT, list the reason that you have determined Americans lack consciousness and compassion, as cited in your quote above. But that was not the question. My question is repeated below.
"To what do you attribute the lack of consciousness and compassion which you detect in Americans, as opposed to other nationalities? Would you say it is inherent in their genetic makeup? Having reached your conclusion that Americans lack compassion, you must have a theory about why: Nature or Nurture? Please enlighten us."
Now, let's try again and see if you can answer the question.
The Washington Post has run three detailed reports of the Iran-Pakistan earthquake over the last several days, EuroFrank. American media, in fact, has covered this tragedy.
It is ironic that those in the region who assert that the "blows" (drone attacks) have effectively rendered Al-Qaeda "no longer a viable organization" are at odds with those in our commentariat who are ideologically driven to continually repeat the mantra that our counter-terrorism effort has increased the terrorist threat. But then, "there are none so blind...".
And the theory that terrorism is caused by poverty is, was, and always has been nonsense cooked up in the halls of academe by those with little experience in how ideology and religion drives true believers. History teaches otherwise, from the French "Reign of Terror" to 19th century Russians such as Bakunin and Nechayev, to the 20th century terrorism of Lenin and Stalin, and on to Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations.
"compassion for others is indicative of a level of consciousness .. pretty sure few in america have it"
What marvelous powers of perception you have, Gregorylent, in your ability to determine the level of compassion and consciousness of various nationalities. To what do you attribute the lack of consciousness and compassion which you detect in Americans, as opposed to other nationalities? Would you say it is inherent in their genetic makeup? Having reached your conclusion that Americans lack compassion, you must have a theory about why: Nature or Nurture? Please enlighten us.
"I just re-read my comment, I think you’ll find it does actually address and refute quite a few things you said…"
So you are saying that Thatcher's policies:
A. Did not result in lower inflation?
B. Did not result in greater efficiency and productivity?
C. Did not result in increased GDP?
D. Did not result in the end of the three-day workweek?
E. Did not result in paring down the bloated public sector?
F. Did not result in reining in the Miner's Union that constantly held the British public hostage to its demands?
I suggest that you look up the economic statistics for the UK during the late 1970s, and then after Thatcher became PM. I think you will find that you are wrong on all counts and have refuted nothing in my comment above. Furthermore, I suggest, as a good primer, the following works.
"When the Lights Went Out: Britain in the Seventies" by Andrew Beckett.
"Crisis, What Crisis? Britain in the 1970s" by Alwyn W. Turner.
I think you will find just how much Thatcher's policies, in fact, did turn Britain around.
"Interesting, of course, that some of us who sneer at and snigger about “broken rice bowls”"
As usual, Mr. McPhee, you miss the point. Nothing wrong with "rice bowls" that most people have as a result of their earned efforts. You conveniently omit any mention of my metaphorical "iron rice bowls" that were the result of the bloated public sector, overstaffed with inefficient employees who were secure in their guaranteed life-long sinecures (that is, until Margaret Thatcher became PM).
Your comment neither addresses nor refutes anything I wrote regarding Margaret Thatcher's accomplishments in setting Britain's course after the debacle of the 1970s, Jackson. You would do well to remember how bad things were when she took power. I know a lot of "iron rice bowls" were broken as a result of her policies, but they deserved to be broken.
Others are welcome to their views. I recommend the following sources for your edification, regarding the depths to which Britain had fallen before the election as Prime Minister of Margaret Thatcher.
"When the Lights Went Out: Britain in the Seventies" by Andrew Beckett.
"Crisis, What Crisis? Britain in the 1970s" by Alwyn W. Turner.
Margaret Thatcher dealt with a failing Britain, as described in the above-cited works, and got the nation moving again.
"...to actually research and nail down examples of the kinds of activities that have been subjected to the “impeachment by lack of references” attack…"
So, if someone claimed that the earth is flat, evolution is a bogus theory because it has been established that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and all creatures originally appeared as they do today, you would accept that without question because the claim may have been made by a person "of good will"? You actually call a request for references and citations, whether in my example here, or in the claim that the US sent in a mercenary force from Jordan, an "attack."?
Brian,
I hope for the sake of your intellectual integrity that you cast the net wider for news than Russia (RT), Iran (presstv), and Rupert Murdoch, none of which can be counted on for accuracy in reporting. Murdoch and his outlets are sensationalist, and Russia and Iran for objective news about Syria? Surely you jest when you accept without question their contention about the US sending a mercenary force into Syria from Jordan. Russia and Iran would have absolutely no reason to plant subversive news stories about non-existent US activity in Syria, now would they?!
You have just demonstrated how little you understand George Kennan and his policy of Containment, SUPER390. At the time Kennan wrote the "X" article, he was also very much involved in "Operation Rollback," a series of covert operations in which we inserted agents into Albania and Latvia to foment uprisings in those Soviet controlled areas. they failed, of course, because Kim Philby was the British liaison in Washington and notified the Soviets of each operation, but the point is Kennan at the time was much more willing to use such tactics than he later claimed.
Kennan did not want to just confine the policy of Containment to Europe. The policy of Containment was first applied with the introduction of the Truman Doctrine, the first efforts of which were to counter the Communists in the Greek Civil War and the Soviet Union's moves to subvert Turkey. The key phrase in Kennan's "X" article was that Soviet pressure "is something that can be contained by the adroit and vigilant application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and maneuvers of Soviet policy." Note the terms "counter-force" and "geographical and political points." Kennan knew full well that the application of force, as well as political maneuvering, was an essential part of the doctrine, and that it might be needed wherever the Soviet Union was actively subverting Western interests, either by force or political subversion.
That does not mean that Kennan, or any of us, would have agreed that the application of the doctrine was essential in every case. Vietnam was a good example. It was essentially a civil war in which Vietnamese were doing the fighting. It was a far different situation than the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I suspect that Kennan would have very much approved of our arming the anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan.
To understand Kennan, SUPER390, you have to have followed his thinking throughout his career. In later years he repudiated some of his earlier positions (without actually saying so). I suggest you read some of his writings and books, of which there have been many, and you will see the evolution of his thinking. I would also recommend a first-rate biography of Kennan entitled "George F. Kennan: An American Life," by the Yale historian of the Cold War John Lewis Gaddis, published in 2011. There have been many biographies of Kennan, but Gaddis had access to papers and documents that were unavailable to others.
"The US helped gin up this war, sending a proxy army of Mercenaries in from Jordan in late 2010."
Please be specific. Who were these mercenaries? What is your evidence that the US sent in a "proxy army of mercenaries in from Jordan in late 2010"? I follow this pretty closely and have seen no evidence that the US did any such thing. Nevertheless, I keep an open mind and would be glad to consider the evidence upon which you base your charge.
The United States effort in Afghanistan in the 1980s, resulting in the defeat and withdrawal of the Soviet Union, can be counted a success, not a catastrophe. A Soviet occupied satellite on the borders of Pakistan and India would have been in no one's interest. The problem was that we took our eye off the ball after we succeeded in driving the Soviets out. We allowed Al-Qaeda to rise in Afghanistan without a plan to counter it. That Al-Qaeda created a base in Afghanistan was not pre-ordained and does not detract from the success of defeating the Soviets.
The statement concerning the Soviet Union's collapse: "There is no truth to the notion that the Afghanistan war...contributed to its collapse," is highly questionable. The US effort that led to the Soviet's withdrawal from Afghanistan was part of the overall implementation of George Kennan's policy of "Containment," a policy that was in effect for 45 years. It was a perfect example of Kennan's statement of Containment in his 1947 "Mr. X" article in the journal Foreign Affairs. Kennan wrote that Soviet pressure "is something that can be contained by the adroit and vigilant application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and maneuvers of Soviet policy." It was the overall policy of "Containment" that was the primary cause of the Soviet Union's collapse, and our effort in Afghanistan was a part of that policy.
Finally, the statement that, "We let the Soviets alone in Kazakhstan, and we never worry about today’s Kazakhstan," is puzzling. Kazakhstan was a part of the Soviet Union at the time under discussion. We recognized Kazakhstan as part of the Soviet Union. It had been a part of Russia, and then the USSR, since the 19th century. That is a far different matter than the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
"This may surprise many people, this point that metadata—just, you know, the fact of a phone call, who you called, perhaps where you made the call—can be more revealing than a transcript of the conversation itself."
This would be "surprising" to only the most obtuse. It is hardly a revelation that a pattern of calls from, say, Colorado to Yemen, particularly to a cell No. in Yemen that belongs to a known AQAP operative, would be far more important to obtain a warrant to tap into than a call from someone in Colorado to her medical specialist.
"The U.S. Government acquired the “proof” you refer to due to a FISA warrant and NSA surveillance that violated the attorney-client privilege."
The FISA court warrant was obtained in a manner consistent with legal procedures, and the surveillance was perfectly legal. It was Ms. Stewart who violated both the attorney-client privilege and her agreed-upon condition not to use her meetings with Abdel-Rahman to pass messages. Once Ms. Stewart went beyond discussion of Abdel-Rahman's legal case and began acting as a conduit for messages to his followers, she lost all claim to attorney-client privileges.
"Up until 1989, American policy in the Middle East was formulated in the context of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. While a much overemphasized issue, Moscow did have regional interests of its own... Nevertheless, Russian intrigue and influence in the Middle East has generally been limited. Among the places the Soviets were able to create a bit of leverage – leverage that still exists today – was through Damascus."
Gregory Harms' depiction of Soviet interests and influence in the Middle East as having been "overemphasized" and "limited" demonstrates either ignorance or a willful distortion of Middle East history over the past 50 years. No serious historian would lend credence to Harms' position on this issue. In 1956, Egypt's Nasser purchased Soviet arms from Czechoslovakia, beginning a close alliance with the Soviet Union that continued until Anwar Sadat changed course in 1974. From 1958 until the first Gulf War in 1991, The Soviet Union had a close alliance with Iraq. Soviet influence and the alliance with Syria began in 1966, solidified under Hafez al-Assad in 1970, and continues today between Russia and Syria.
These were strong alliances that played out during the Cold War. Soviet influence in their respective Middle East allies was just as strong as that of the United States in its respective Middle East allies. The Soviets armed them, backed them in the United Nations and other international fora, and used them to their advantage in the Soviet's Cold War competition with the US in the international arena. Russia hangs on to its alliance with Syria today in an attempt to maintain its naval base at Tartus and to retain relevance as a Middle East player and power to be reckoned with.
Harms has some good points to make. Nevertheless, his depiction of the Cold War and his claim that Soviet influence in the Middle East was "overemphasized" and "limited" is wrong and undermines the rest of his piece.
Just a correction to my comment above. The Bryce Report contributed to (vice investigated) British anti-German propaganda in WWI. Although the British effort was described as propaganda, the Wikipedia article states, as noted above,"The findings of the Report have been substantiated by several scholars in the 21st century."
"the WWII anti-Jap anti-Kraut American propaganda"
You reference "WWII ant-Jap anti-Kraut American propaganda," yet you cite a wikipedia article (Wikipedia is not the best of sources for historical accuracy, but that's another story) on the Bryce Committee which investigated British anti-German propaganda in World War I! There are several points to be made about your comment.
A. To cite a report dealing with World War I propaganda to substantiate alleged activities in World War II is a non-sequitur. It does not apply. You have either deliberately or inadvertently conflated two different wars.
B. Ironically, the Wikipedia article states, in part, "The findings of the Report (concerning alleged activities during World War I) have been substantiated by several scholars in the 21st century," thus undermining the point you wished to make with your non-sequitur.
C. And finally, to cite a report on British anti-German propaganda in WWI in an attempt to substantiate your charge of alleged "American anti-Jap anti-German" propaganda in WWII is to stretch your non-sequitur even further.
"Leftist politician Hamdeen Sabahi said Egypt should consider denying the dam’s international backers use of the Suez Canal."
Were Egypt to follow through with Mr. Sabahi's suggestion, it would find itself in direct contravention of its international obligations under the Constantinople Convention of 1888, which is still the governing authority on use of the Suez Canal. Article I of the Convention is quoted below.
"Article I:
The Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free and of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag.
Consequently, the High Contracting Parties agree not in any way to interfere with the free use of the Canal, in time of war as in time of peace.
The Canal shall never be subjected to the exercise of the right of blockade."
If Egypt were to deny any nation use of the Canal because of support for the Ethiopian dam, or for any other reason, it would find itself an international pariah and suffer significant financial and economic losses as a result. I doubt that Egypt would cut its nose to spite its face because of one misguided politician.
If not Assad, Who? What other country on the Mediterranean littoral would welcome a Russian naval base?
Regarding its importance, having a home port on the Mediterranean is far more advantageous for maintaining a Mediterranean presence than home-porting thousands of miles away and sending naval vessels in and out via Gibraltar.
It is true, Professor Cole, that nations can blunder their way into war. Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August" (among many other histories) describes how it occurred prior to World War I. Germany bore the greatest responsibility for the war, but the other participants elevated the tensions with full mobilization, "blank checks" granted, ultimatums issued, bellicose rhetoric, all leading to the outbreak of war, with Germany invading Belgium, France, and Russia.
Such blunders and rhetoric notwithstanding, I cannot conceive of Israel or Russia carrying such activities beyond a point leading to war. While Russia considers Syria important (the naval base at Tartus, among other issues), Putin is smart enough not to take Russia to war in order to defend Assad, even if Israel ups the ante in Syria.
"I don’t see Syria, even when it was an intact state, had all that much to offer on behalf of Russian interests. Any thoughts on this?"
The Russian naval base at the Syrian port of Tartus gives Russia a naval presence and home port in the Mediterranean.
No need for hyperventilation about the consequences of Israel attacking Russia, either with conventional or nuclear weapons. There is not a chance that Israel would launch an attack against Russia. Neither Israel nor Russia are about to go to war with each other over Syria.
"On the other hand perhaps we are seeing an inevitable consequence of the breakdown of four empires, Turkish, British, French, and US"
You forgot to mention the breakdown of the fifth empire, whose demise is perhaps most important of all given today's context: The Soviet Union.
Yup, frogs are today's equivalent of the canary in the mine shaft.
"The question is, must Memorial Day be a pro-war holiday (they died for a good cause), or an anti-war holiday (more will die if we don’t change)?"
It is neither. It simply remembers and honors those who perished, period.
"According to a historian I read the American entry into WWI might have extended the war. Apparently there was talk of a truce in mid-1917, but the British declined because they had an understanding that the US would join in and give them and the French the edge they needed to defeat the Germans."
Three points here on the above-cited quote:
A. No reputable historian claims there was any serious talk of a truce in mid-1917. Neither the British nor the French nor the Belgians were contemplating a truce, which would have left Germany occupying parts of France and Belgium, a condition they would have considered unacceptable.
B. Everyone did not lose except the Americans. Certainly, the French and Belgians considered themselves winners, having withstood and defeated German aggression against their territory.
C. It is sometimes forgotten that World War I, although initiated in large part by Germany, was not fought on one square inch of German territory. It was all fought on French and Belgian soil. (And in Russia in the East, until the Bolsheviks pulled out of the war.) At the time of the armistice, Germany had not experienced any foreign troops on its soil. Perhaps there should have been, in which case the popular myth among Germans that they had been "stabbed in the back" by their politicians might have been avoided.
I, too, am disgusted with the "Happy Memorial Day" greeting, as it completely misses the meaning of the day. Most people are too busy indulging in hotdogs and beer to recognize that Memorial Day is the one day in the year that we should remember and honor those who paid the last full measure while serving the United States in uniform.
"the Soviets’ victory over fascist Germany"
Although the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the fighting on the Eastern Front (after having initially sat out the war under the Nazi-Soviet Non-Agreesion Pact, while Britain stood alone), the defeat of Germany was an Allied effort involving the United States, and Britain, as well as other allies. To say "the Soviets' victory over fascist Germany" leaves out the other allies, who were just as important in winning the war. We could not have defeated Germany without the efforts of the Soviets, who did pay a much greater price, but the Soviets could not have done it alone either.
You would be surprised how many Americans join the military, as both officers and enlisted men, out of a sense of duty and honor, as well as other things you mentioned: education, training, etc. After the 9/11 attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, there was a large uptick in numbers entering the military. In fact, I knew personally a retired Army officer who managed to get placed back on active duty because he felt the obligation to serve in uniform again to join the fight against Al-Qaeda.
Nevertheless, regardless of the reason someone joins the military, if that person pays the last full measure one can pay in service to his country, it certainly is not asking too much to devote one day out of the year to commemorate him and his fallen comrades throughout America's wars and conflicts.
"While the American soldiers who have died in the nation’s wars deserve to be memorialized, not all the wars they fought in do."
In the sentence cited above, Professor Cole, you have summed up the meaning of Memorial Day. Our soldiers who have fallen on the battlefield, whether in pursuit of "just" or "unjust" wars (and there can be debate over which adjective applies to which wars) certainly deserve to be remembered. They were not responsible for the wars in which they fought, but they did their duty and paid the last measure one can pay. their sacrifice should not be any less memorialized because they fought in a war that we might consider "unjust."
The Bengal famine was not in 1940, Shahid Shahid. It occurred in 1943-44. And Churchill did not deliberately cause the famine. There were two causes. The main cause was that Japan had invaded and occupied Burma, which at the time was the world's greatest producer of rice, and which was the main supplier for Bengal.
The other cause was that Britain was short of food itself, and Churchill and the British did withhold supplying Bengal, but not by holding food offshore in ships. They simply did not ship it out. As Professor Cole stated above, the British shamefully mismanaged the famine, but they did not deliberately cause it.
Your statement that Churchill should "stand alongside Hitler & Mussolini" is ludicrous and does not deserve comment.
That the Holocaust is better known than the atrocities committed in the Belgian Congo does not mean that the Congo is an "untold story," Shahid Shahid. As I stated above, it is not only the book I mentioned, but studies and other works as well. And your snide little comment asking how long I have been "in the company of NEWT," says a lot more about you than it does about me. Mounting "ad-hominum" attacks against a person with whom you disagree simply demonstrates intellectual poverty.
The US had no vital national interest involved in the Bosnian intervention and the war against Serbia on behalf of Kosovo, Ron. In fact, regarding Bosnia, then Secretary of State James Baker famously said, "We don't have a dog in that fight." It was a humanitarian intervention plain and simple, and so was the war against Serbia on behalf of Kosovo.
As far as Henry Kissinger goes, I don't know what he has to do with it. He had been long out of office when these events took place. By the way, what position have you held that enables you to speak so authoritatively about what dominates the State Department? I actually do have experience in, and know something about, the State Department.
Thus, Ron, I would be very interested in the evidence you no doubt have that leads to your conclusions regarding just what US vital national interests were involved in Bosnia and Kosovo, if not humanitarian? Likewise, Since you no doubt have an insider's knowledge of what "dominates" the State Department (your term), please advise how you came to that conclusion.
Your rant has nothing to do with whether or not the Belgian Congo is one of the "great untold chapters in world history," SUPER390. You have simply used the topic to piggyback the grinding of your own axe. And speaking of the "conquest of non-whites by whites," I don't suppose you would be interested in discussing the African slave trade conducted by Arabs, 700 years before the first slaves were taken by Europeans? Or the African slaves taken as booty as a result of tribal warfare in Africa by victorious African tribes?
To get back to the topic, there are many elements of world history that are not generally known by populations all over the world, including America. That does not mean that information is unavailable for those who are interested. The Belgian Congo is not an "untold story"; in fact there always has been information about it out there. Like much of African (and other) history, there has been little general interest, but not because the story is "untold."
Let's not forget that Westerners have intervened to save Muslims as well. During the Clinton Administration, the United States intervened in Bosnia against Serbia in 1994- 1995 and in a war against Serbia to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo in 1999. These interventions on behalf of Muslims is something that is conveniently forgotten or deliberately omitted when launching diatribes against Western intervention against Muslims.
"The map of Africa correctly identifies the Belgian Congo."
Was there a question that it didn't?
"It is one of the great untold chapters in world history."
Actually, it was told very well in the book on the subject, "King Leopold's Ghost," by Adam Hochschild, published in 1998. Since then, there have been numerous studies detailing the atrocities committed in the Congo, which was Leopold's private domain until it was turned over to the Belgian state.
"Turkey may be ahead of the curve on these issues in the Muslim world."
Since the reforms implemented by Ataturk, Turkey has always been ahead of the curve on such issues in the Muslim World.
"In MP-speak, “unprivileged” means not entitled to the protections of the Law of Land Warfare as transmitted by the Geneva and Hague Conventions."
Brian, the reason they are not entitled to the protections of the Law of Land Warfare under Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions is because they are not Lawful Enemy Combatants, as defined by Common Article III (i.e., wearing uniforms, having rank, operating under a command structure, not attacking civilians, etc.) While they should not be subject to torture and abuse, they certainly are not entitled to the status of Prisoners of War.
Thanks for sharing these treasures, Professor Cole. This is wonderful that so many of the really beautiful and important items have been preserved and displayed again. I hope that the great cache of cylinder seals and cunieform tablets can eventually be recovered and put on display as well.
"Obama’s ratings are as bad as Bush’s were in the opinion polls throughout the Muslim world."
And your point? Obama is President of the United States, not the "Muslim World." His job is to tend to the national interest of the US, not assuage every grievance in the Muslim World.
"The Barbary States were actually engaged in something that used to be called “piracy”"
Close, Mr. McPhee, but no cigar. Piracy has always had a very specific definition as being conducted for private ends and by private vessels. The Barbary States were sponsoring the attacks on American shipping and holding American seamen for ransom. They were acting in their capacity as "states" and, thus, were not committing "piracy." They were committing what we would call "acts of war." The definition of piracy was codified in the Geneva Convention on the High Seas of 1958. It simply codified language that had been recognized since the 18th century.
"if the stat i heard, is correct
for every ‘target’ ‘attained’
there are 49 innocents killed
it’s lazy and cowardly
and it is not ‘war’
although it is a ‘war crime’"
Your evidence for the claim that for every targeted Unlawful Enemy Combatant, 49 innocents are killed?
Finally, it is neither lazy nor cowardly nor a war crime. It is indeed war.
"I think a more valid reason for going to war would be an invasion of one of the 56 states and territories."
Disregarding the fact that 56 states and territories did not exist at the time of the Barbary Wars, are you actually making the claim that attacks against American shipping, demands for tribute, and the kidnapping and holding for ransom of American seamen did not constitute acts of war to which the US had every right to respond with military and naval force? I'm very thankful that you were not then, and are not now, in any position involving the security of the United States.
"i hear murder"
Perhaps you should have your hearing checked.
Murder is the deliberate killing of innocent people. The drone program targets Unlawful Enemy Combatants whose aim is to harm the United States. As such, it does not meet the definition of "murder." It is justified under the Law of War, the UN Charter, and the AUMF.
"US has been an aggressive Empire right from the beginning (remember Barbari (sic) wars of Jefferson?)"
Your obvious lack of understanding and misinterpretation of American history is neatly summarized in your statement quoted above. The Barbary Wars were provoked by the Barbary States along the coast of North Africa. Barbary corsairs led attacks upon American merchant shipping in an attempt to extort ransom for the lives of captured sailors, and ultimately tribute from the United States to avoid further attacks, much like their standard operating procedure with the various European states. If there were ever a more valid reason for going to war than attacks against American shipping, demands for tribute, and the kidnapping and holding for ransom of American seamen, I do not know what it would be.
Inhofe is not only one of the most ignorant members of the senate, he is a total hypocrite, claiming on Tuesday that federal relief for tornado-ravaged parts of his home state will be "totally different" than a Hurricane Sandy aid bill he voted against late last year. My question is, do the majority of Oklahomans subscribe to his form of hypocrisy and, thus, reveal themselves to be hypocrites as well?
"The exclusion of these two is a sign that Khamenei does not want an independent-minded president who might appeal to the people in any contest of will with the Supreme Leader."
Actually, it was evident long before this incident that Khamenei did not want an independent-minded president. Many in the West criticized Ahmadinejad for everything from Iran's nuclear stance to the 2009 elections, not realizing that it was really Khamenei who made (and continues to make) the final decision on important issues such as these. I would argue that Iran under Khamenei has been more or less authoritarian all along, and that the exclusion of presidential candidates is simply open recognition of that reality.
To pursue Professor Cole's point, did the majority of Oklahomans support Senators Imhofe and Coburn's votes against Federal relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy in New York? If the majority supported the votes against relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy, they can hardly call for federal assistance now that they need it and consider themselves anything but hypocrites. On the other hand, if the majority did not support Imofe's and Coburn's votes, that puts an entirely different complexion on their call for assistance.
"Furthermore, the big protests and riots that are happening in the backwater towns of China seem to be about layoffs at state enterprises"
"These citizens are more opposed to rule by corporations than we Americans"
So what is the point of your two observations? That protests against layoffs from state enterprises indicate citizens are opposed to rule by corporations? That is a non-sequitur.
Historically, all economic transformations have resulted in disruption. The development of Capitalism in Britain and the West resulted in the Enclosure Laws and Milton's "Satanic mills" in Manchester, and labor-management strife in the US. It was far worse in the Socialist command economy of the Soviet Union, where Stalin's forced industrialization and agricultural collectivization resulted in 20 million deaths. Not a pretty sight.
"By the way, the rules are neutral as to big public sector or big private sector. China did fine."
Agreed! South Korea also has closely intertwined government and private business working together, as does China with its state-led enterprises working with privately-owned enterprises. Sometimes its hard to tell them apart.
Nevertheless, I think the key to a nation's economic success, whether the economy is largely private sector driven or public sector driven, is to let the market determine production, prices, and distribution. The major problem with the old command Socialist economies of the USSR, China, Eastern Europe, and even India, is they were tied down by their "Five Year Plans." They operated outside the market economy. This led to stagnation and shoddy products. Once they entered the market driven economy, they had to face competition, and this led to more efficiency and better products that could compete.
One hopes Pakistan will follow suit.
Let's hope the third time around is the charm for Nawaz Sharif and Pakistan. Since the establishment of Pakistan in 1947, Pakistan has experienced both military and civilian governments, and neither has performed well, not in the political sphere nor in the economic sphere.
I certainly subscribe to "Cole's Laws for Economic Development." They are fundamental prerequisites for economic growth and development, and hence for bringing large segments of the population out of poverty. Examples over the last thirty years are China, India (to an extent), South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Chile. All subscribed to an export-led model, while welcoming foreign direct investment and eschewing the old "import substitution" model, the heavy hand of the state, and the printing of money that led to inflation, all of which drove so many Latin American countries into the ground from the 1960s through the 1980s, and some even today.
The problem with Pakistan is that the old elites are so entrenched that one wonders if they can accept foreign direct investment and other changes that threaten their "iron rice bowls" (to use a Chinese expression describing those segments of society with what appear to be lifetime sinecures). One can hope.
As usual, SUPER390, you make some interesting points that appear just plausible enough to be valid...until one probes a bit deeper.
"They are representatives of the culture that capitalists created in America, in fact the very reason they created America in the first place."
That English joint stock companies IN PART (emphasis) financed the colonies is only a part of the story. Just as Europeans IN PART provided financing for the development of the railroads in America is only part of the story of America's development. There were many reasons why British colonists, and later American revolutionaries, founded America and created the resulting society. Your economic determinism is a very old fashioned Marxist view of history.
"Where would General Electric, General Motors, the TV networks, the housing industry, and the energy industry, as a small sample, be without the indoctrination of the American people in instant gratification through consumption?"
Agreed that corporations and advertising have successfully attempted to create our culture of consumption and "instant gratification" I mentioned in my original post. Where we disagree is, whereas you appear to think the American consumer is an indoctrinated, brainless creature unable to resist advertising, I think the American consumer readily embraces the concept of "instant gratification" as a conscious decision on his part. He wants the baubles and bling because he wants them (if you will forgive the tautology).
"When the workers were getting very revolutionary in the early 20th century over the boom & bust economy that resulted, it was necessary to co-opt them by giving them the illusion of a piece of the action. It is a fact that after WW1, Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover chaired a commission of industry leaders who determined that social stability would require the cultivation of a culture of mass consumption, via mass advertising."
What really gave American workers a piece of the action (not the illusion of a piece of the action, but a piece of the action itself) was the union movement, and the resulting bargaining power that unions provided the workers in their face-off with management. That more than anything, as well as manufacturing pulling us out of the Great Depression during World War II, created the post-war strong middle class in America.
"Logically, how could any values of thrift survive once, as Keynes realized, over-saving could cause a closed economy ( no free trade then) based on durable goods purchases (which can be deferred) to suffer a catastrophic, unending contraction?"
The logical fallacy in your above cited statement is that you seem to think of "saving" as simply putting money under the mattress, where it does no good. When individual investors put their money in the stock market, for example, that money is invested in business expansion and other activities that increase the stock value to the individual investor. Having more value and equity, the individual tends to spend more on consumer goods. As a result, the overall economy expands.
"You mean “their own decisions and choices” after Madison Avenue gets through bombarding them, every second of their lives, with paeans to exactly the instant gratification you decry?"
So, Tehanu, do you support the cult of instant gratification by purchasing every bauble and piece of bling that is the fashion of the season? More importantly, do you think so little of an individual's ability to think for himself that you ascribe the cult of instant gratification to simply "brainwashing"?
The vast majority of the public can, in fact, think for themselves. That they choose to have what "all their friends have" is a choice they make. It is more important to them to appear to be "in" than to use their money more prudently. Yes, they act like lemmings, but not because they cannot think for themselves; rather, They choose to do so.
As for being a "scold," you seem to be one yourself when it comes to assigning blame to "Madison Avenue," rather than to the individuals themselves.
Speaking of "Barracuda Capitalism" and the height of Wretched Excess, yesterday I saw the movie "The Great Gatsby." The Great Gatsby, of course, is F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic novella of the 1920s, the "Jazz Age," a decade filled with scams, con men, and wealthy poseurs. And the greatest poseur of all (at least in literature) was Jay Gatsby. It was an age that screamed excess, real Wretched Excess.
The movie is very well done, and Leonardo DeCaprio portrays Gatsby perfectly. All the other actors are good as well. Highly recommended.
"(...your assertions that the poor are spendthrift are just a bias.)"
My comment about many people lacking investments and savings was not directed against just the poor as being spendthrift. I stated that the cult of "instant gratification" practiced by "many people, including those in the lower socio-economic class," was the cause of their lack of investment and savings. In other words, I include much of the middle class and upper middle class, as well as the lower socio-economic class, in my observation. We are basically a nation of strivers after instant gratification, whether it be for a new car, the latest fashion, a 52" flat screen TV, or a pair of $200 sneakers. The result has been documented in many studies: A majority of Americans have saved very little. I am simply suggesting that that result is a function of their own decisions and choices.
Contained within your diatribe against the lottery, Professor Cole, is actually a piece of advice that, if followed by everyone, from those in the lower socio-economic class to wealthier individuals, would lead many more individuals and families to a reasonably well-off financial future. I refer to your following quote.
"If you started at 20 and put $5 a week into the stock market, you’d likely get 12% return on your money, so when you were 70 it would be a very substantial amount of money."
If individuals and families would invest in the stock market, using "dollar cost averaging" strategy, from the time they begin their careers and increasing the amount over a working lifetime, it would lead to a very nice nest egg. It is the power of compound interest at work. And the stock market is not as dangerous as it seems, in spite of crashes such as occurred in 1987 and 2008. Over a lifetime they are mere blips on the screen.
The problem with many people, including those in the lower socio-economic class, is that they want instant gratification. They want their 52-inch flat screen TVs, a new car, they max out their credit cards for their little shiny baubles and bling, not to mention a $200 pair of sneakers, and they thus end up with no savings and no investment. And we shouldn't blame Capitalism and advertising. Individuals have minds and are capable of independent thought and decision-making. The short-sighted approach and lack of personal responsibility inherent in the attitude of satisfying instant gratification and to hell with the future is no one's fault but their own.
"Consistency is taken as credibility...."
And if you have been reading all of my posts on this issue, as you state, "Very, very carefully. With a historian’s eye," you will note that I have been consistent from the beginning about our national interest being best served by scrapping counter-insurgency and "nation-building" but continuing counter-terrorism. I suppose I should be flattered by your suggestion that that might indicate "credibility." And if the suggestion had been made by someone with a greater understanding of geopolitics and national interest, I would.
I have commented on several previous occasions and do so again here, our effort at counter-insurgency and "nation building" in Afghanistan is a fool's errand. We were justified and correct in invading Afghanistan and defeating the Taliban and rooting out Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda had declared war against the US, and the Taliban had provided Al-Qaeda with a safe-haven from which to operate and plan its attacks against the US. After we accomplished that goal, however, we should have left Afghanistan to function as the half-made nation it always has been, with various warlords in charge. But with one proviso, that we would continue our counter-terrorism efforts as necessary.
While counter-insurgency and "nation-building" was bound to fail in Afghanistan, as it has in every country except the British effort in the 1948-1960 "Emergency" in Malaya (and that success was due to the very special circumstances of the British effort in Malaya), there is no reason for us to let up on our counter-terrorism effort, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If intelligence were to indicate Al-Qaeda or affiliated forces re-forming in Afghanistan, and the Afghan government appeared unable or unwilling to resist, we would be perfectly justified in using drones or Special Ops teams to neutralize them. And we should put the Afghan government on notice.
There will be a lot of hand-wringing in the US over our 2014 departure from Afghanistan. But the fact is there is no US national interest in remaining in a country that basically doesn't want us (except for our cash), and that will be no more a "nation" than when we first attempted to make it one. That our troops who paid the ultimate sacrifice will have done so in vain is sad, but it is no reason to continue having our troops die in vain. That Afghan girls may not be allowed to attend school is a shame, but it is none of our business to make it right. That Afghan women may be forced to revert back to being medieval chattel, again, is none of our concern. That is for Afghans either to live with or sort out among themselves. Our main concern should be the US national interest, not Afghanistan's national interest. That is a problem for the Afghans to address.
"And how it is going to prevent the coming big wars in Korea and in the Middle East which are the natural consequences of Obama’s policies?"
I would be interested to know why you think Obama's policy regarding Korea will result in a "coming big war." Are you referring to Obama's sabre-rattling a couple of months ago? Obama threatening South Korea with a "sea of fire"? Obama scrapping the Armistice Agreement that ended the fighting in 1953? Obama stating publicly that the Korean Peninsula is now in a "state of war"?
Oh, wait, that wasn't Obama. That was North Korean leader Kim Jong Un issuing the above-cited threats. So please tell me, how is it that you conclude it is Obama's policy that will result in a "coming big war" on the Korean Peninsula. Are you suggesting that Obama has not responded to Kim Jong Un's above-cited peace overtures?
"I’m no fan of our do-nothing President, but I will reveal how he could regain influence.... He needs to go after some low-hanging fruit to restore the shine to his image. And releasing the 86 innocent men at Gitmo is the lowest hanging fruit around."
The internees at Guantanamo are way below the radar and of little importance for the vast majority of the American people. There are probably twenty issues, from immigration reform to climate change and more, that are of far more importance. The internees at Guantanamo are small beer compared to the important issues America faces. Were Obama to waste the political capital necessary to push for what no doubt would be a losing battle anyway, would be to demonstrate even greater political naivete than he has to date. And such a failure certainly would not "restore the shine to his image."
"Therefore black culture had no right to exist."
I have read quite a bit of Thomas Sowell's writings, and I have never come across a statement of his that either explicitly or implicitly suggested "black culture had no right to exist." I would appreciate it if you would provide a citation to back up your categorical statement.
To expand on your observation, Travis, Adam Smith, along with Karl Marx, are among the most widely cited individuals, and the least read, by those who purport to use their ideas as evidence of the correctness of their positions. Be they Libertarians, Socialists, Capitalists, or Marxists, those who are so fond of quoting Smith and Marx as evidence backing their positions have only in rare instances actually read "The Wealth of Nations" and "Das Kapital."
Everyone seems to base their understanding of each author on secondary sources or, more perniciously, by searching the internet and Wikipedia (with its consistent suggestions that "this needs further citation"). Such flimsy research results in many a lacunae in the understanding of Smith's and Marx's ideas and philosophy. As an example, many think of Smith as an economist. He was not. Adam Smith was first and foremost a University of Glasgow lecturer who held the Chair of Moral Philosophy, and one of his works is entitled, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments. That he wrote about Political Economy and the mechanism of the Market in "The Wealth of Nations" was an adjunct to his overall view of Moral Philosophy, and his concern for the well-being of not only the Capitalist class, but that of the common man as well.
"That sounds not at all like an “informed discussion,” Lj, rather instead like a set of apologist talking points."
Of course it doesn't sound like an informed discussion to you, Mr. McPhee, because in your universe anything that deviates from your anti-drone mantra and set phrases taken from your stack of 3x5 index cards (Notagainistan, Smedley Butler, Great Gamers, etc.) by definition cannot be either "informed" or a "discussion." In your universe, only your pronouncements reach the level of "informed discussion."
Ljudivet, a couple of us have made the very points you mention above. Look back over the past year's pieces on the drone program in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. You will find that I (and one or two others) have defended the drone program as being legal under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter (the right of self defense) and under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by the US Congress on September 14, 2001. Moreover, the drone program has been effective in degrading the leadership and operational cadres of Al-Qaeda and its affiliated forces and organizations.
The article refers to the veil, or "niqab," which covers the face. Yet all of the photos are of women wearing a headscarf, or "hijab." There are none wearing a niqab. Are we talking about the veil or the headscarf? Or is the author conflating the two?
"America essentially adopted the then-advanced intelligence capabilities of the Nazi German and Soviet intelligence networks to compete in the Cold War."
Actually, America did not pattern its intelligence capability after either Nazi Germany's or the Soviet Union's intelligence networks after World War II. The precurser to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) took its cue from British intelligence. Subsequently, with the establishment of the CIA, American intelligence continued patterning itself after British intelligence.
"Germany and Japan had no defense obligations after WWII..."
"Germany was rebuilt under the Marshall Plan."
"America will bankrupt itself to control the world."
"Our U.S. empire mentality gave us wars in...Korea..."
What is more important in understanding the resurgence of Germany, Japan, and Western Europe after World War II, and other issues noted in the comment above, is what is left unstated in the above four cited quotes. The reason Germany and Japan had no defense obligations after the war and could focus on development of their economies is because the United States assumed the the defense obligations for both countries. It was the United States who provided both conventional defense, as well as the nuclear umbrella, that enabled both to succeed without the additional defense costs.
The Marshall Plan was a $13 billion effort over a four-year period (1948-1952) that not only assisted the rebuilding of Germany, but all of Western Europe. Western European countries had the knowledge and technological ability to rebuild their own economies. They just needed the capital to spark the recovery after the ravages of the war. The Marshall Plan provided that spark, and Western European recovery succeeded. Marshall Plan funding was offered to Eastern European countries under Soviet control as well, and the Czechs were inclined to take it. The Soviet Union, however, intervened and denied them the opportunity.
In the above two examples, the national interests of the United States and its allies in NATO and Japan coincided in the face of the Soviet threat. Regarding our "US empire mentality giving us a war in Korea," I would remind you that it was North Korea that invaded South Korea and started the Korean War in June 1950. That, after Kim Il Sung had first obtained Stalin's approval to launch the war against South Korea. In fact, Secretary of State Dean Acheson omitted South Korea from the US's Asian defense responsibilities in statement in early 1950. US "empire mentality" had nothing to do with it.
While the United States has embarked on some dubious adventures (Vietnam, Iraq, and others), it is a vast overstatement, not to mention a misreading (or perhaps lack of understanding) of history to claim that "America will bankrupt itself to control the world."
China will act like a responsible great power, particularly with regard to non-interference, when it sees it in its interest to do so, and the further from its geographic neighborhood the issue. While China may support an Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I do not see China engaging the issue as a "broker." China simply does not have the background or trust in the region. On the issue of trust, neither the US nor Russia has it much on either side, but China has even less so.
China's diplomatic legacy worldwide is based on acquisition of a flow of resources, and the Chinese are very deft at playing the "non-interference" card to do so. They will deal with any country or government, regardless how odious, in order to advance their interests. Note China's close relations with Myanmar (Burma) long predating Myanmar's opening and release of Aun San Suu Kyi. And the history of China's relations with several African countries demonstrate the ease with which the Chinese deal with authoritarian governments. And why shouldn't they? China is itself authoritarian.
Closer to home, China continues to be North Korea's sole supporter, refusing to punish North Korea's outrageous behavior and threats toward South Korea, Japan, and the United States. The Chinese fear the collapse of the North Korean regime and the consequent refugee problem, not to mention a US ally, a unified Korea under Seoul, on its border. In order to stave off that collapse, however, China has no problem supporting probably the most odious regime in the world. China has demonstrated an assertive and, at times, aggressive stance regarding its claim to practically all of the South China Sea (the nine-dotted line). And it has backed that claim with clashes against japan and the Philippines.
In sum, China will always act in what it perceives as its own best interest. Most great powers throughout history, including those today, do likewise. the difference is, there are times when self-interest includes attempting to rectify a political and humanitarian disaster, such as the US did in intervening in Bosnia to stop the slaughter of Bosnian muslims, and in intervening and waging war against Serbia to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing against Kosovar Muslims. In both cases, the US gained nothing that would normally be considered in its national interest. Do not expect the Chinese to do likewise.
"A UN commission unvestigating the situation in Syria has strong, concrete suspicions that Syrian rebels used sarin gas, but does not have firm proof, according to investigator Carla del Ponti."
Carla del Ponti could use a brush-up on English. A "concrete suspicion" is an oxymoron. A "suspicion" by definition cannot be "concrete," which could only refer to a fact backed by evidence.
It is wrong to judge historical figures by today's standards. They are products of their culture and era, just as we are products of our culture and era. It is equally wrong to expect iron-clad consistency in meeting one's definition of "Progressive," or any other label for that matter.
Your dismissal of Teddy Roosevelt ignores many of his accomplishments that were progressive. Within weeks of assuming office, Roosevelt became the first president to host an African-American in the White House, when in October 1901 he invited Booker T. Washington to Dinner. Later he spearheaded the prosecution of the Northern Securities Company, and he followed that up with his landmark anti-trust legislation, thus earning him the title of the "trust-buster. Roosevelt was also a conservationist, establishing the US National Park System.
In foreign affairs Roosevelt was indeed an imperialist, but he also won the Nobel Peace Prize for ending the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese War, through his mediation and brokering of the peace treaty between Russia and Japan at Portsmouth, New Hampshire in August 1905. Roosevelt also arbitrated between Germany and Great Britain over their claims in the Venezuelan crisis of 1904.
Teddy Roosevelt was a very interesting figure with many facets to his governing philosophy and character. It would be wrong to dismiss him because he failed to meet all of the checked boxes required to meet your definition of a "progressive," sitting in judgment more than 100 years later.
Coincidently, today's Washington Post has an article on an experimental plane that runs on solar power. The developer plans to pilot it across the United States on a test flight soon. The developers have named it "Solar Impulse." It weighs in at 3,500 pounds, has 12,000 photovoltaic cells that form the top of the wing, a series of batteries behind the planes four engines, the wingspan of 747, can reach an altitude of 28,000 feet, and can operate day and night. At this stage, it has a crew of one--the pilot, who sits in a small, confined space. But it is a beginning.
"In 2001, the CIA didn’t have even one spy in the Middle East.
The CIA folks in the region managed intel purchased from others; they didn’t do actual espionage, regardless of what’s written in memoirs."
Your statement above is patently false. All of our Embassies had stations with case officers running agents and collecting intelligence. We did not "outsource" our Intel activities to others. We cooperated with host country services, of course, but we ran our own activities as well. To say we didn't have any clandestine officers in the Middle East is just plain ludicrous.
"However, a great way to help defuse the situation in Syria is for the US government to flex its muscle with the Saudi and Qatari and Turkish governments and insist that they stop arming the rebels in Syria"
So you apparently would be pleased to see the US Government exercise hegemonic power over Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey? Am I reading you correctly that you have no problem with the US lording it over other countries to pursue goals with which you happen to support?
President Obama is a victim of his own loquaciousness, a trait he should keep under control. He appears to be too impressed with his own verbal ability, however, to do so. Obama is always talking about "red lines" and this or that course of action being "unacceptable." It is "unacceptable" that Iran should develop a nuclear weapons capacity. It is "unacceptable," and would cross a "red line" for Syria to use chemical weapons. The most absurd example of the Administration's approach was in March, when National Security Advisor Tom Donilon stated that, "The United States will not accept North Korea as a nuclear state." Earth to Obama Administration: North Korea IS a nuclear state.
The problem with "red lines" and the Administration's constant use of the term "unacceptable" is that they never follow through with the threat. I'm not suggesting we should bomb Iran or establish a no-fly zone over parts of Syria. I'm even rapidly losing interest in providing the Free Syria Army and other rebels with weapons because by far the best fighters and commanders are the al-Nusra group and other Al-Qaeda offshoots and affiliates. I'm of the opinion that there is a high likelihood they would prevail among the rebels and create one more headache for the US and the West.
If Obama does not intend to follow through and do what really needs to be done in order to make it "unacceptable" for Syria, Iran, North Korea, and any others, to violate his "red lines," then he should not stop talking about "red lines" and banish the term "unacceptable" from his vocabulary. On the other hand, if he is so enthralled with his use of those terms, he should follow through with his threats. To do otherwise in either case noted above is to diminish the credibility of the United States.
"You cannot be Muslim–not even moderately Muslim–and do that; it is actually one of the GLORIES of Muslim civilizations that a political agenda of social justice is BUILT into the religion."
Of course you can do that. Turkey did. Rather than one of the GLORIES OF Muslim civilizations, the inability to separate the state and religion is one of the elements that has held back most Muslim countries.
"Marxism incorporates the philosophy of dialectical materialism – which denies the existence of religion."
Two points, Mark.
A. The point is that Marxism, with its all-encompassing explanation for man's condition and its historical determinism, is like a religion, in this case a secular religion.
B. Dialectical Materialism is not a philosophy. Marx borrowed Hegel's dialectic (thesis-antithesis-synthesis), which was one part of Hegel's philosophy of history, and married it with his concept of materialism. It is part of Marx's philosophy, but not a philosophy in itself.
"Just as the actual teachings of Jesus Christ have never been implemented by any large population, so have the theories of Karl Marx never been implemented by any large population."
Three points need to be made here.
A. Karl Marx's description of capitalism in 1848 was, for the most part, accurate. Where Marx's theory went off the rails was his inability to imagine that capitalism could change and accommodate various pressures, rather than collapse. Marx's theory of the historical inevitability of capitalism's collapse (a sort of religious teleological process), wedding Hegel's dialectic with materialism, failed the test of empirical evidence.
B. For the reasons listed in point A, above, Marx was turned on his head when, rather than capitalism, it was the internal contradictions of communism that led to its collapse.
C. And how could it be otherwise? The Marxian view of the state withering away was a chimera that simply defies the logic of individual humans living together with differing desires and impulses, not to mention different levels of ability.
"The Young Turks were anti-religion fanatics. Ataturk, who followed them, was of their ilk, and he suppressed the Sufi tekkas or monasteries of Istanbul. They cannot be included in Dr. Cole’s statistics."
Wrong. The Young Turks, like Ataturk, were not anti-religion fanatics. They were Muslims, but they realized that one did not need to exhibit all the trappings of Islam that, in their view, held back Turkey's modernization. I repeat, they were Muslims. That is an undeniable fact. But they wanted to emulate the West in its complete separation of the state and religion, and they succeeded. It was the Islamic religious establishment that the Young Turks, and Ataturk, considered to be fanatics, a fanaticism that was considered to be an obstacle to modernization.
Nevertheless, Islam was by far the dominant religion of Turkey, and it certainly was used to fuel the fire of genocide against the Armenians during the period 1915-1916. The Turkish genocide of nearly one million Armenians absolutely qualifies to be included in the total of non-Muslims killed by Muslims in the twentieth century.
Practicing science? Clipping off your toe nails at night? I'm always willing to meet challenges to my comments, Matt, when there is a challenge to be met. Unfortunately, your comment does not refute any of the points I made about Marxism. You have not presented me with a challenge to be met. Your comment reminds me of what Gertrude Stein said about Oakland, "There is no "there" there."
As a self-proclaimed Marxist, you should know better than to deny that Marxism is a secular religion. Marxism has all the hallmarks of a religion: It has a theory of historical inevitability (a teleological endgame) that explains how mankind has gone through the various phases of economic organization, leading to the demise of capitalism and the rise of communism. And it has all proven to be wrong! (Another attribute it shares with much of religion.)
You will recall that Marx wrote that the internal contradictions of capitalism would lead to its collapse. The final irony (and what any rational person would recognize) is that it was the internal contradictions of communism that led to communism's collapse. Capitalism has demonstrated the flexibility to change and prosper, while communism's sclerotic rigidity was its Achilles Heel. Marx was good at describing the conditions in England and Europe in 1848, but he was absolutely wrong in his analysis of the future development of both capitalism and communism.
"I don’t figure that Muslims killed more than 2 million people or so in political violence in the entire twentieth century, and that mainly in the Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988 and the Soviet and post-Soviet wars in Afghanistan, for which Europeans bear some blame."
I agree with the basic premise of your article, Professor Cole. All religions historically have included elements that, for political and religious reasons, have committed mass murder and massacres. Nevertheless, I wonder if your statement that Muslims have killed no more than 2 million people during the entire twentieth century includes those killed by the Ottoman Turks in the Armenian genocide of 1915-1916.
The Young Turks, then ruling the Islamic Ottoman Empire, initiated the genocide against the Armenian population in April 1915. It occurred in two phases. The first phase was the killing within Asia Minor of Armenian males. The second phase saw the "deportations" of women, children, and the elderly, and Ottoman troops accompanying the deportations allowed rogue elements to murder many of those being deported.
Scholars have estimated the number of Armenians killed at between 600,000 and 1.5 million, but the most accurate estimate appears to be around 850,000. Are you factoring this figure into your estimate of the number killed by Muslims in the twentieth century?
Agreed, Brian. We could have left the Balkans alone and let Milosevic run roughshod over Bosnia and continue his murderous actions against the Muslims (Srebenica) and his ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Maybe we should have. As Secretary of State James Baker said earlier, "We don't have a dog in that fight." The same applies to Rwanda, where we chose not to intervene. We certainly didn't have a dog in that fight either. Perhaps the best thing is to let them slaughter each other until one side cries "uncle." My point was these are the issues that policy-makers must deal with and make decisions on whether or not to intervene. And the context in which they make those decisions is not a vacuum; there are pressures from all sides.
"The rise of Jabhat al-Nusra and of Sunni radicalism in northern Syria is alleged to be one reason the Obama administration declines to support the rebels militarily. They fear repeating the mistake of the Reagan administration, which encouraged the radical fundamentalists to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and created an atmosphere in which al-Qaeda could be founded in Afghanistan."
Your observation Professor Cole, cited above, illustrates the dilemma faced by US policy-makers. To many geopolitical armchair moralists who glibly pronounce on US policy as "hegemonist" and "imperialist" on one side, and unwilling to engage in defense of "human rights" and "democracy" on the other, the world is black and white. Issues are easily disposed of by declaring the US either a "Warmonger" for engaging (Afghanistan), or uninterested in "human rights" by not engaging (Rwanda).
Policy-makers are constantly facing such issues. Should the US have intervened in Bosnia, an intervention that resulted in the 1995 Dayton Accords? Should the US and NATO have gone to War against Serbia in 1999, a war that rid the Balkans of Milosovic and resulted in Kosovar independence? Should the US have intervened in Rwanda in 1994 to stop the genocide occurring in that hapless country? Or were we correct in not intervening and allowing the genocide to continue? Should the US directly intervene in Syria in support of the rebel army? Or not?
To many who have never had to face a decision more difficult than whether to have another glass of chardonnay or make a switch to merlot, the answers to such questions facing the United States are easy. After all, the poseurs feigning moral superiority can pronounce on US policy with impunity and go to sleep at night without facing the consequences (good or bad) of decisions that policy-makers must face.
"Wouldn’t this require a formal declaration of war from the USA? And logically, the prior recognition of al-Qaeda as a sovereign power?"
No, and No. The US has engaged in wars and sent troops into conflict on many occasions without a formal declaration of war. In fact, since the adoption of the US Constitution, the US has only issued five declarations of war.
Being a recognized sovereign power has never been an essential element for status as a belligerent. The sovereign nation-state as we know it has only existed little more than 300 years, with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years War. Yet war has been around for at least five thousand years. War can be a state that exists between sovereign states, between sovereign states and other groupings and entities that are belligerents, and between belligerents that do not possess sovereignty at all but are political groupings of one sort or another. Tribal warfare which occurs among tribal groups in Papua New Guinea and West Papua in Indonesia, for example, is definitely a form of warfare, but it exists among groups for whom "sovereignty" is an alien concept.
"Oh, and on how the US government fostered democracy in places like Italy after WW II."
What does your statement, quoted above, have to do with the issue of whether Tsarnaev should be tried in a civilian court or a military commision? I fail to see any relevance to the topic under discussion. Enlighten us.
"Yeah but we’re not at war with Russia (Chechnya) or Kyrgyzstan."
No we are not, but we have been at war with Al-Qaeda and other assorted affiliates ever since they declared war on and attacked the US. As I stated above, Tsarnaev would be considered an Unlawful Enemy Combatant and, thus, could be tried by military commission only if he was acting on behalf of Al-Qaeda or an affiliated organization that has been at war with the US. If he was not acting on their behalf and was acting on his own, he would not be considered an Unlawful Enemy Combatant and should be tried in civilian court. The key to his status is, was he acting on behalf of an entity that is a declared enemy of and has attacked the United States, or was he acting on his own?
The question of whether or not Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be tried in a civilian court or by military commission as an Unlawful Enemy Combatant depends neither on his status as a terrorist nor his US citizenship. One can be a terrorist (with political ends) without being an Unlawful Enemy Combatant. For example, if Tsarnaev committed the bombings with his brother because they were lone "anarchists" or wanted to make their own "statement" against the US government, they would be terrorists making their own statement, but should be tried in civilian court. If, however, they were acting on behalf of Al-Qaeda or some other organization that had clearly declared and waged war on the United States through terrorism, Tsarnaev could legitimately be considered an Unlawful Enemy Combatant and tried in a Military Commission, his US citizenship notwithstanding.
There is precedent for trying Unlawful Enemy Combatants (includng US citizens) by military commission, and the Supreme Court has upheld it. During World War II, eight German citizens (one of whom was also a US citizen) received saboteur training near Berlin. In June 1942 the group of eight was split and were conveyed, along with explosives and detonators, across the Atlantic via two submarines, one group landing off Long Island, New York and the other off Ponta Vedra Beach, Florida. Their mission was to blow up railroads, bridges, tunnels, and other targets in the US.
All eight were quickly caught by authorities. Although there were arguments on both sides of the issue, President Roosevelt approved trial by military commission. They were charged under the Law of War, the Articles of War, and Conspiracy to Commit Espionage and Sabotage. All eight were found guilty. Six of the saboteurs, including the US citizen, were sentenced to death and executed. Two received extended prison sentences. The case was brought before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in "Ex Parte Quirin," found that the President had the authority under the Constitution to try all eight, including the US citizen, and sentence them in a military commission.
"This was simply two immigrant brothers angry at American society. They simply used radical Islam as a “cover” for their shame and rage and give the violence they committed a perverse aura of legitimacy."
It's a little bit early in the investigation to reach such a definitive conclusion regarding their motives. You may be correct, of course, but the wiser course of action would be to wait and see what is uncovered on their hard drives, their travel patterns and travel destinations, interviews with people who knew them, and a host of other actions that will assist in providing a clearer picture of what drove them to commit the bombings. It will become clear in due course whether they were "simply angry at American society," as you propose; or cat's paws for some larger movement; or self-radicalized via Jihadist propaganda on the internet. Way too early to draw definitive conclusions.
There are times in the field of conflict when the choice is between two alternatives that are less than ideal. Our alliance with the Soviet Union in World War II was correct, as Nazi Germany represented the greater threat at the time. And the defeat of Nazi Germany could not have been accomplished without the Soviet Union and the Eastern Front.
My response to the previous comment was based on her statement in quotes, referring to "our side," suggesting, yet again, that the US blundered. That Bosnia and Kosovo are relatively calm, and have been since the US and NATO interventions, with little resulting "blowback," speaks well for the interventions. It appeared that the poster of the comment's sarcastic reference to "our side" suggested that we should have left well enough alone regarding the Muslims, and allowed Milosevic to continue his reign of terror.
"The threat to the United States from the USSR was always overrated. Attacking Czechoslovakia and Hungary was a hell of a different proposition from attacking the US."
That attacking Hungary and Czechoslovakia was "a hell of a different proposition from attacking the US" is self-evident. I use it to illustrate the Brezhnev Doctrine in practice. The USSR could put down revolts within its own satellites, as well as undermine Western societies and allies, but the West was not supposed to interfere with Socialist countries.
While certain aspects of the Soviet threat were exaggerated, such as the nonexistent "missile gap" when Kennedy took office, the overall Soviet threat to the US, as well as to US and Western interests, was very real indeed. The Warsaw Pact had many times more conventional forces arrayed against our NATO allies than we had. That is the reason we never accepted the "No first use" of nuclear weapons so many wanted us to do. We had to maintain that nuclear edge, since we did not have a conventional edge. Revisionist history regarding the Cold War does not do justice to the real threat the USSR represented.
Nice diversionary tactic to avoid having to admit you have no evidence that the US government does not want a democratic government in Syria, Mr. McPhee. It took you six paragraphs of obfuscatory prose to circle around a vacant center that, by its very lack of substance, speaks for itself.
"It was also not the only place “radical Muslims” were invited to fight on “our side”. Check out Bosnia and its neighbours."
Rosemerry, are you suggesting that Slobodan Milosevic and his Serbian thugs should have been allowed to commit the genocide of Srebenica and the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo without the US and European/NATO intervention to stop him? Are you aligning yourself with the likes of Milosevic?! And here all along I thought of you as a liberal proponent of human rights. It appears that you will align yourself with anyone, as long as he is anti-American.
"the USSR was not a threat to the USA- it was the Cold War rhetoric."
If you think the USSR was not a threat to US interests and that of other countries during the Cold War, Rosemerry, you must have been missing in action, or had your head in the sand, from the years 1945 to 1989. The Soviets cutting off access to Berlin in 1948, necessitating the Berlin airlift; the USSR and East Germany building the Berlin wall in 1961 to prevent the transit of East Germans to West Germany; the four hundred Soviet SS-20 medium range missiles targeting West Germany when the NATO allies had none, until 1983, when the West installed Intermediate Range and cruise missiles in Western Europe; the USSR installation of ballistic missiles in Cuba, leading to the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962; and, yes, the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, beginning in December 1979. And don't forget the "Brezhnev Doctrine," Rosemerry: the Soviets claimed the right to undermine Western, Capitalist countries, but the West had no right to undermine Socialist countries. The Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 to put down the Hungarian revolution, and the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 to put down the Prague Spring.
I suggest that you read up on post-World War II history before you glibly state that, "the USSR was not a threat to the USA- it was the Cold War rhetoric." You might learn something.
"“aren’t hoping that a democratic government emerges.” Same is true of our Great US government."
That is a categorical statement that could only be made by either someone with very strong evidence to back it up or, lacking such evidence, a fool. Please provide your evidence.
"The US spent the 1980s encouraging Muslim radicals to engage in ‘freedom fighting’ against the leftist government of Afghanistan..."
I agree that US support of the Mujahideen in the 1980s resulted in the blowback of Al-Qaeda and anti-US, anti-Western militant Islamic movements. This is a perfect example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Nevertheless, it is a bit disingenuous to state that we armed the Muslim radicals to fight against the "leftist government of Afghanistan." The Soviet Union had mounted a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan and had poured troops and air power into the country. This occurred at a time when the Cold War was still a reality, and the Soviet Union, under Brezhnev, was viewed, correctly, as a threat. We armed the Mujahideen to fight against the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The leftist government itself was a minor consideration at the time.
Are you seriously suggesting that a society that produces Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, Milton Friedman, and Samuel Huntington (not to mention Juan Cole) is a society that does not value intellectual diversity and the exchange of ideas? Do not make the mistake of confusing valuing the diversity and exchange of ideas with their acceptance. The ideas are out there in the intellectual marketplace, and everyone I know considers that to be of value. That anyone's ideas may not be accepted, via the political process, is not evidence they are not valued as ideas. After all, just because someone has ideas out there in the intellectual marketplace does not grant him the right to expect they will be accepted.
I stated that the penalty for apostasy under Islam is death. Perhaps I should have been more precise and indicated it as under Shari'a Law.
"Islam’s holy book forbids coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it."
Except Muslims who wish to abandon Islam and convert to another religion, or abandon religion altogether. that is called apostasy, and the penalty for apostasy under Islam is death. It is not necessarily enforced in more enlightened Islamic countries, but it is always a presence and a threat, and it is enforced in more hardline Islamic societies.
"@bill,not a problem,it seems clear that a majority of you are supporting your government actions in Iraq,Afganistan,Iran,Syria,Pakistan,North Africa,east Africa…Do you want more examples?"
Actually, VOICUM, your glib response of "not a problem" is a problem, in that you have failed to answer my question put to GREGORYLENT. You, like GREGORYLENT, list the reason that you have determined Americans lack consciousness and compassion, as cited in your quote above. But that was not the question. My question is repeated below.
"To what do you attribute the lack of consciousness and compassion which you detect in Americans, as opposed to other nationalities? Would you say it is inherent in their genetic makeup? Having reached your conclusion that Americans lack compassion, you must have a theory about why: Nature or Nurture? Please enlighten us."
Now, let's try again and see if you can answer the question.
The Washington Post has run three detailed reports of the Iran-Pakistan earthquake over the last several days, EuroFrank. American media, in fact, has covered this tragedy.
"The anti-authoritarian solution to prevent terrorist acts against people in the United States is to just quit making enemies in the first place."
And those who would make enemies of the United States?
Both observations are spot-on, Joe.
It is ironic that those in the region who assert that the "blows" (drone attacks) have effectively rendered Al-Qaeda "no longer a viable organization" are at odds with those in our commentariat who are ideologically driven to continually repeat the mantra that our counter-terrorism effort has increased the terrorist threat. But then, "there are none so blind...".
And the theory that terrorism is caused by poverty is, was, and always has been nonsense cooked up in the halls of academe by those with little experience in how ideology and religion drives true believers. History teaches otherwise, from the French "Reign of Terror" to 19th century Russians such as Bakunin and Nechayev, to the 20th century terrorism of Lenin and Stalin, and on to Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations.
"compassion for others is indicative of a level of consciousness .. pretty sure few in america have it"
What marvelous powers of perception you have, Gregorylent, in your ability to determine the level of compassion and consciousness of various nationalities. To what do you attribute the lack of consciousness and compassion which you detect in Americans, as opposed to other nationalities? Would you say it is inherent in their genetic makeup? Having reached your conclusion that Americans lack compassion, you must have a theory about why: Nature or Nurture? Please enlighten us.
"I just re-read my comment, I think you’ll find it does actually address and refute quite a few things you said…"
So you are saying that Thatcher's policies:
A. Did not result in lower inflation?
B. Did not result in greater efficiency and productivity?
C. Did not result in increased GDP?
D. Did not result in the end of the three-day workweek?
E. Did not result in paring down the bloated public sector?
F. Did not result in reining in the Miner's Union that constantly held the British public hostage to its demands?
I suggest that you look up the economic statistics for the UK during the late 1970s, and then after Thatcher became PM. I think you will find that you are wrong on all counts and have refuted nothing in my comment above. Furthermore, I suggest, as a good primer, the following works.
"When the Lights Went Out: Britain in the Seventies" by Andrew Beckett.
"Crisis, What Crisis? Britain in the 1970s" by Alwyn W. Turner.
I think you will find just how much Thatcher's policies, in fact, did turn Britain around.
"Interesting, of course, that some of us who sneer at and snigger about “broken rice bowls”"
As usual, Mr. McPhee, you miss the point. Nothing wrong with "rice bowls" that most people have as a result of their earned efforts. You conveniently omit any mention of my metaphorical "iron rice bowls" that were the result of the bloated public sector, overstaffed with inefficient employees who were secure in their guaranteed life-long sinecures (that is, until Margaret Thatcher became PM).
Your comment neither addresses nor refutes anything I wrote regarding Margaret Thatcher's accomplishments in setting Britain's course after the debacle of the 1970s, Jackson. You would do well to remember how bad things were when she took power. I know a lot of "iron rice bowls" were broken as a result of her policies, but they deserved to be broken.
Others are welcome to their views. I recommend the following sources for your edification, regarding the depths to which Britain had fallen before the election as Prime Minister of Margaret Thatcher.
"When the Lights Went Out: Britain in the Seventies" by Andrew Beckett.
"Crisis, What Crisis? Britain in the 1970s" by Alwyn W. Turner.
Margaret Thatcher dealt with a failing Britain, as described in the above-cited works, and got the nation moving again.