From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: Foul Words and False
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:17:00 GMT

In article <1dbtj3INNmln@fido.asd.sgi.com>, coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes...
>In article <5NOV199207010394@vxcrna.cern.ch>, casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>|> In article <1da3k2INN9dd@fido.asd.sgi.com>, coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes...
>|> >In article <5NOV199202465423@vxcrna.cern.ch>, casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>|> 
>|> I fail to see how demonstrating in a foreign country (where he was also
>|> conveniently safe from the draft, yet still "politically viable") did anything
>|> to aid these poor victims for which he supposedly cared so much.  Why not
>|> come home and take a stand where it might have some effect on the government?
>|> Why not openly repudiate the draft then instead of playing administrative
>|> games that look for all the world like someone trying to stay out of the draft
>|> while keeping a low profile?
> 
>I fail to see any difference between demonstrating in London and Boston - with
>the possible exception that the various pro-war administrations never paid 
>*any* attention to demonstrations in Boston (and I was there the whole time; I
>know whereof I speak). To that extent, demonstrating in London may well have 
>been more effective. You have nothing to back your opinion other than that 
>opinion itself. Circular logic proof doth not make.

How can you say the administrations did not pay any attention to the
demonstrations in Boston?  Where is your proof?  I doubt they held a press
conference to respond to them, but I think it is ridiculous to suggest that
anti-war demonstrations were ignored or had no effect on US policy.  Clearly
the policy did not change outright as a result of the demonstrations, but
that is nothing like saying they were ignored.  Second, where is your proof
that demonstrations in London were viewed with any greater seriousness than
ones in the USA?  When you clamor for proof, you should have some yourself.

>If you, like Bush, think that there's a qualitative difference, put up or 
>shut up. (Bush did neither.)

Now, why is demonstrating overseas different than demonstrating at home?  First
I think it takes a lot more courage to protest at home, in the place where the
issue is being determined.  Of course, that would have also made slick more
likely to have to serve.  Second, a demonstration overseas is much more likely
to be an anti-US demonstration than a demonstration against a particular
policy.  Third, I agree with the President - it is a visceral thing, and it
just plain makes me sick.

>As for the draft, I have far more respect for anyone who, opposing the
>war, would take any legal step whatsoever to avoid the draft, than I could 
>ever have for someone who opposed the war but wimped out and let his ass
>be drafted without ever taking a stand. 

Fine, but Slick's letters show he was more concerned with his own reputation
("political viability") than in taking an open stand.

>|> >BTW, the Vietnamese weren't our "enemy". Or perhaps I missed it when
>|> >Congress declared the war...? What? No War? Well, then...
>|> 
>|> Talk about semantic tarpits.  Yeah, ok, they weren't our enemy.  And they
>|> *certainly* couldn't have been armed, supported and financed by any other
>|> countries with bad intentions toward the US.  They were just out for a little
>|> nature walk on the Ho Chi Minh trail with their Kalashnikovs.  Please.
> 
>Ha. Ha. Very funny, Comrade.
> 
>Of *course* the arming of the Viet Cong was intended to damage the US. Why,
>weren't they all bound for Los Angeles next? Then the heartland? And finally
>that bastion of revisionist running-dog evil thought, Washington DC itself?
> 
>Smartass comments don't prove anything, though.

You made the original smart-ass comment that Vietnam was not a war.

I do not subscribe to the so-called Domino Theory, but on the other hand, there
was a definite risk of communist expansion in SE Asia.  I am not all that sure
fighting the war in Vietnam was a good idea, certainly not the half-assed way it
was fought, but on the other hand, it did wear down Chinese and Russian ability
to back expansion, even if it wore us out much more.  Fighting in Vietnam had
obvious risks.  Abandoning Vietnam had others.

>Thye VC weren't attacking the US, they were attacking a corrupt US-installed
>puppet regime. The fact that they were no better themselves is totally
>irrelevant. We had no legal or moral right to be there; one could persuasively
>argue that it was the French and US presences there that caused the Vietnamese
>Communist movement in the first place.

Absolutely.  The question in my mind is not did we have a moral or legal right,
but did we have a security interest which justified committing the kinds of
human and material resources required to defend it.  Obviously LBJ thought we
did, but in retrospect we can see that he was probably wrong.

>|> Ethics alone are great for moralists and Sunday school teachers, but I'm
>|> afraid the world outside Podunk, Iowa is a bit rougher.  I'm not questioning
>|> Carter's motives, but merely saying that world history is littered with these
>|> naive do-gooders who expect tyrants to play by club rules. 
> 
>There have been more than a few exceptions to your rule. George Washington.
>Thomas Jefferson. Abraham Lincoln. And so on.

The world in which Washington and Jefferson lived is quite a bit different than
the one we live in today.  In that time, the US could safely ignore what
happened beyond our shores.  The rulers of that day *did* play by club rules.
Lincoln, while not remembered for anything related to foreign policy, was
hardly naive or a do-gooder.  He happily locked up the Maryland legislature and
ignored Supreme Court decisions, revoked habeus corpus, and did lots of other
messy stuff to secure the ends he wanted.  I would count him as a example of
the kind of attitude we need in the President's conduct of foreign policy. 

>Whereas look at the historic carnage that has invariably followed in the wake
>of the likes of Bismarck, Disraeli, Cardinal Richelieu, and other so-called
>"statesmen" who have practiced politics according to your formula. World War I,
>World War II, and the Viet Nam conflict are a few of the more notable recent
>examples.

World War I happened because Bismark's system broke down due to idiots in
Austria-Hungary and Russia who were blind to the consequences of their actions.
Balance-of-power politics had preserved a century of peace in Europe.  Neville
Chamberlain is exactly the sort of well-meaning dupe I am talking about, and
you could not pick a better example than WWII to illustrate my point.  In
Vietnam, as I discussed above, there was a misjudgement of interests.  According
to my formula, the Vietnam war should not have been fought.

>|> Everywhere else: Iran, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Poland, Carter
>|> wound up doing more harm than good.
>|> 
>|> Contrast this to the foreign policy accomplishments of Reagan and Bush.  You
>|> may disagree with me on how much credit they deserve, but you cannot deny they
>|> played a role in making the world a safer, more peaceful, and more democratic
>|> place.
> 
>Of course I can deny it! More importantly, I can prove it. As the most blatant 
>recent example, Iraq comes to mind. By continuing his balance-of-power games 
>and leaving Saddam in control, Bush guaranteed that the Kurdish and Shi'ia 
>minorities would be persecuted and murdered. He guaranteed that the region 
>would remain poised and prepared for war, rather than finally turning to peace.
>He guaranteed that the day when democracy finally comes to Iraq would be pushed
>farther and farther into the future.

Where as you would have committed US troops to occupy and govern the entire
country, and install a democratic government?  Of course you wouldn't!  You'd
have been one of the first out in the street screaming imperialism!

>Croatia and Bosnia also come to mind...but, of course, they have no oil,
>so *any* military action is naturally ruled out. People be damned.

The President of the United States has to put the legitimate interests of
the people of the United States above those of people elsewhere.  How can you
suggest intervening in the Yugoslav civil war?  Who would we shoot at?  What
would be the final objective?  How could we get out?  I agree that we should
do whatever we can to end that horrible war, but military intervention is the
dumbest thing we could do.  Why should we risk the lives of our servicemen
where we have no interest worthy of the sacrifice at stake?  Are you saying
the US armed forces should be the world's police force??

>|> >|> By your moral criterion then, a more ethical FDR could never have conscienced
>|> >|> aiding Stalin in the war against Hitler, since Stalin was not a nice person.
>|> >|> The mere fact that he was willing to aid in the struggle against a common
>|> >|> enemy who was perhaps only equally as evil (Hitler's evil being directed more
>|> >|> outward than Stalin's, however) would be irrelevant under this view, since
>|> >|> only the moral value of nations, not their impact on US national security,
>|> >|> should be considered.
>|> > 
>|> >It's precisely the Realpolitik attitude you espouse that *creates* problems
>|> >for our security by constantly playing off one nation against another.
>|> 
>|> Right, everybody should just sit down and be mellow together and there'd be
>|> no more international problems.  Why didn't anyone think of that before?
> 
>See my earlier note about smartass remarks. If you have nothing of substance
>to say, save everybody's bandwidth and get on to your points.

You said Realpolitik is the cause of our security problems.  I am saying that
we very often have no alternative but to play various forces off against one
another.  You did nothing to defend your statement or propose an alternative
to defending our interests where we find them and staying out where we don't.

>|> >|> Look, in the early '80s Iran was the biggest threat to our security in the
>|> >|> middle east.  

>|> >Hogwash.
>|> >Iran has never been a threat to our security. They were a threat to our
>|> >prestige, but that's all.
>|> 
>|> Yeah, I guess its not like we need oil or anything.  Even Carter was smart
>|> enough to realize that we have a critical interest in the Middle East.
> 
>And I suppose that when Iran did cut off our oil, and we boycotted it
>in turn, our security suffered? Not a bit. The rest of OPEC, especially
>Saudi Arabia (but also Iraq :^), was more than happy to take up the slack.

And what if they had managed to subvert the Saudi government and install a
Fundamentalist one?  Ditto in Iraq.  Then who would take up the slack for us
and our allies?

>|> >And anyone who thinks that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, is
>|> >simply girding for a later conflict with his enemy's enemy.
>|> 
>|> No, I call it more like "the enemy of my enemy might do something that helps
>|> me out and save me from having to fight my enemy"
> 
>But as long as we're selling them the military capability to do so, they
>become an even bigger potential threat to, if not us, the rest of their
>region. As did Iraq. 

If you recall, at the time just before the Gulf War, the Administration was
making an active effort to improve relations with Iraq.  If Hussein weren't the
stupidest man alive, he'd have seen the writing on the wall (no more superpower
rivalry to exploit, the benefits of improved relations with the West, the
incredible cost of war) and things might have worked out much differently.
And we sold them very, very little of their military capability, by the way.

>A problem with Realpolitik is that it has an extremely short horizon.
>Immediate effects are the only ones considered. Future implications are
>not only denigrated, but not even considered. The result is an endless
>series of insincere alliances, constantly forming and dissolving, all
>in the constantly heightening tension of a contest for power. Then, as
>soon as one side feels confident enough, war.

Any alliance which is not based upon the interests of both parties is doomed
to fail.  I do not think long-term interests should be denigrated.  It was
Hussein that failed to correctly identify and protect his interests, not us.

> 
>|> >|> Look, the world is a *fucking dangerous* place, especially when you're the
>|> >|> only superpower left and your so-called allies (France, Germany, Japan -
>|> >|> Britain being the lone exception) have to be led by the hand every step of the
>|> >|> way and told to put the seat down before taking a dump.
>|> > 
>|> >Ever make the connection between that idiot attitude and much of the world's
>|> >resentment of the US? No? Take a close look, or maybe even *ask* some of
>|> >the citizens of those fully sovereign states what they think of your
>|> >analogy - and what Uncle Sam has done to them since WWII.
>|> 
>|> "Done *to* them?!?!?!"  They've done to us exactly what you accuse the US of
>|> doing - they've taken advantage of us to fight their political and often
>|> military battles for them!  They've graciously allowed us to bear a massively
>|> disproportionate share of paying for their defense!  Hey, like I said, it's
>|> great if you can get away with it.  We had to do it because twice this
>|> century they've been unable to do it for themselves.  In the final analysis,
>|> it was probably worth the enormous cost to us anyway, but please don't try
>|> to portray these poor wealthy countries as some kind of victims.
> 
>Your patronizing attitude is exactly what I'm talking about ("...we had to do
>it because twice this century they've been unable to do it for themselves...").

Do you dispute the fact that the Europeans twice failed to sufficiently protect
their security, that terrible wars resulted, that the United States was
eventually, despite initial determination to stay out, embroiled in their wars
nonetheless as it expanded to encroach upon our security, and that US
intervention was extremely important (in WWI) or indispensible (in WWII) in
finally ending these wars?  Or do you just think it's not polite to say so
out loud?

>Nobody denies that we have done them great economic good with both the Marshall
>Plan and our appropriating of their defense. But they have lost sovereignty
>in the process, and continue to do so. They resent the attitude that Uncle
>Sam can tell them what to do.

I would say they resent the thought of Uncle Sam telling them what to do, but
on the other hand, I think their leaders are quietly thankful that someone
else makes the tough calls and then suggests to them where they can pitch in.
You can see this in the uneasiness with which they have greeted Clinton's
election, which is probably also partly due to his protectionist trade policies.

The Germans and Japanese obviously have a problem in this regard for
perfectly valid historical reasons.  The French are much too provincial (by
which I mean the opposite of internationalist) in their outlook, and their
governments are too weak to govern the country, much less affect the world
outside noticably.

>On the other hand, they discovered that, without the need to constantly play 
>schoolyard bullyboy with each other, they can actually cooperate to all of 
>their mutual advantages. Maybe someday we can learn the same lesson.

Yeah that's fine.  But when a lunatic starts taking over the world's oil supply,
somebody better do something about it.  Do you honestly think the Europeans
could have stood up to Hussein without George leading the way?  Maybe after
holding referenda, changing coalition governments a few times and amending
their constitutions, but not on the timescale of a man's lifetime.

>|> And yes, in fact, since I live in France, I do hear and see a lot.  Been many
>|> Mideast Peace Conferences sponsered by Europeans lately?  Do you see them
>|> pushing for strict enforcement of inspections in Iraq?  How long have they sat
>|> and wrung their hands over Yugoslavia? 
> 
>I, at least, remember that it was Mitterand who forced the UN and the West in
>general to finally step in and do something in Yugoslavia. Not Bush, not any
>part of the US. Living in France, how could you have missed that?
> 
>(Note: I'm no great fan of Mitterand. But he deserves credit for taking action
>in Yugoslavia when no other Western leader would.)

He made a highly publicized trip during the lead-up to a French election, but
I am not so sure there was any meaningful result.

>|> How many international conferences have
>|> concluded lovely little treaties which have had no effect? And then Mitterand
>|> and others clamor for the US to please do something! 
> 
>Mitterand, unlike the US at the time, actually *did* something in Yugoslavia.
>A little truth, please.

I think all he did was make himself a bit more visible.  We are still talking
about talk.  Where is the decisive action to end the fighting?

>|> I'll tell you, the Europeans are great at doing business, but when it comes
>|> to building a consensus on foreign policy issues and actually taking action
>|> about it, all bets are off.  Their governments are too fragile and their people
>|> are too pacifist - I might even say isolationist.  The have become complacent
>|> from having their good old Uncle Sam around to stick up for them all these
>|> years.  John Major will now become the leader of the Western alliance, and I
>|> hope he is able to fill the same role of pointman and consensus-builder that
>|> George Bush has played, because you sure aren't going to see the Germans or the
>|> French doing much to keep the peace outside their own borders anytime soon. 
> 
>John Major will soon be out on his ass. And good riddance.
> 
>You may long for the good old days when every 20 years brought a major
>European war, but I don't. Nor, I submit, do the Europeans themselves.
>"...too pacifist..." indeed! That's funny. As if European wars are a good thing.

Now from where do you draw the conclusion that I yearn for a major European
war?

The point of all this is that the Europeans are followers and not leaders when
it comes to collective security at this time in world history.  I am saying
we could have a situation akin to the period before WWII when the European
leaders will fail to take decisive action during a time of international
crisis, and for the first time since 1945, the US will not be there to prod
them into doing something.  The surest prescription for war is to appease
aggressors.

>|> And the same in spades for the Japanese.  And the Slickster will be too busy
>|> protecting the spotted owl to worry about anything as irrelevant as 3rd world
>|> nuclear weapons or the threat of a resurgent Iraq. We are basically back to
>|> isolationism in the US and appeasement in Europe.
> 
>Maybe you're angry that Clinton beat Bush, but you shouldn't let that blind
>you so badly. Had you actually listened to any of his speeches, or read his
>poistion papers, you'd know how full of RNC nonsense your last paragraph is.

Most of his speeches I have heard sound like "I agree with the President",
a pretty safe line to take in the election.  To the extent he has said anything
of his own, it sounds a lot like that "moral force" stuff, which is what I
objected to in the first place.

>I guess you'll just have to wait and see. Maybe you'll even be man enough
>to admit your mistake :^) 

I will if you will.


Dave

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13424 alt.flame:14498