Weekend Reflections is on again. Please comment on any topic of interest (civilised discussion and no coarse language, please). Feel free to put in contributions more lengthy than for the Monday Message Board or standard comments.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
Ian Gould, et al, makes the comment in BAIT AND SWITCH that: Yes, because only when we exterminate the subhuman arab vermin can we hope to move forward to a new world of peace, equality and amity.
It took me some hours to get my mind around this comment especially the suggested relationship between ‘exterminate’ and ‘peace, equality and amity’.
I also found it difficult to reconcile ‘peace’ with the unceasing endeavours of the arms industry and certain capitalist nations to promote war as a means of economic underpinning and stimulation. Indeed, it has been suggested that should ‘peace’ ever prevail among the naked apes, certain nations in Europe and the Americas would suffer quick bankruptcy.
The weekend is indeed a time when serious reflection upon the current chaotic state of the world would be wise. But then it appears that wisdom is as scarce a commodity in 2006 as it has been for the last 6,000 years.
Peace, equality and amity are just as scarce!
Actually, Sinni Kal, I think you will find if you double-check the “Bait and Switch” thread that Ian Gould defended Arabs and Muslims.
It would appear that your grasp of facts is as vast as your capacity for self-indulgent humbuggery.
Sinni Kal,
I am more than surprised about your assertions. All posts by Ian Gould that I recall have been humanitarian in nature and unbiased toward muslims.
This would have helped you.
Sinni Kal: Every now & then the midnight scurrying noises, squeaking, chewed sofa and stench of vermin becomes too much for me, and I exterminate the sub-human vermin. I then begin to experience peace, quiet, relaxation, tranquility, lower blood pressure, calm.
My long term goal is total annhilation of the species/genus for a radius of half a block from my place!
It’s interesting the way that all forums work.
When you first dare to comment you are ignored. Then if you dare to address issues raised by one of the gang (even when you quote the actual words), you are attacked personally. It’s like dogs nipping and snarling as the pack heirachy readjusts to the new, unwanted intruder.
My concern clearly was not about Ian Gould in particular but the huge number of people in the Western world who hold the view which his comment suggests. Such views ensure that the ‘us and them’ position (we’re the Christian goodies and they are the Muslim badies) mean we will forever be caught up in wars.
Speaking for myself, I’m sick of wars, predjudice, bigotry, sick of seeing innocents being blown up, sick of the pettiness, cruelty, inhumanity and deviousness of egotistical, stupid naked apes!
Perhaps Steve at the Pub has touched upon the answer.
Larry Diamond in the latest New Republic online:
“This is not a time for the United States to throw in the towel in Iraq. The consequences of all-out civil war-which would now surely follow a precipitous U.S. withdrawal-would be too disastrous for everyone except the extremists. It is still possible to find or reconstruct some political common ground. It is still conceivable that the Shia politicians who are now set (in one combination or another) to rule Iraq for the indefinite future can be persuaded to make concessions on the big issues, by the logic that less is more in circumstances when seeking to win everything means civil war. There is still time for far-reaching mediation to avert the slide. But the hour is growing late”.
I still wonder if JQ’s proposal for a pre-announced withdrawal to clean-up the ‘disaster’ of the invasion is so self-evidently a good idea.
Sinni Kal, since you’re a new visitor, I’ll take you at face value. The comment you quoted from Ian Gould was an ironic criticism of comments by another poster, “burrah”. Reread the thread and you can see this. If you’re not clear on the rhetorical functions of irony follow the link in Tom Davies comment above.
SATP is poking fun by taking the reference to vermin literally and talking about (I assume) rats and mice.
Assuming your quotation of Ian G was an honest misunderstanding I hope this clears it up.
Harry, the comments you cite, except for the first two sentences are almost identical to the last para of my most recent post on this topic.
I don’t claim that a preannounced withdrawal is “self-evidently a good idea”, merely that on the balance of probabilities it looks like the best available option.
And in assessing the relative weight of alternative judgements, I think it’s worth pointing out that the moderate opponents of the war (that is, those who did not take a reflexively anti-war position, but judged that this was a bad idea) have been consistently proved right, while the supporters of the war have been consistently proved wrong. Examples
* WMDs
* the insurgency (broadbased opposition, not just deadenders and jihadis)
* looting (a disaster, not “messy freedom”
* Mission accomplished
* Sistani and his call for elections (we supported, prowar opposed until forced)
* Fallujah
* Najaf and Sadr
and I could go on at great length. Don’t you think it might be a good idea to pay attention to those who’ve been right rather than those who’ve been so consistently and egregiously wrong.
It shows just how far to the extreme right we have shifted when a Social-Democratic commentator can refer to a “reflexively anti-war position” as somehow betraying lack of judgement.
The irony for me is that none of the comments thus far address or reflect upon any of the issues I was trying to canvass.
Is the big picture too big?
“I still wonder if JQ’s proposal for a pre-announced withdrawal to clean-up the ‘disaster’ of the invasion is so self-evidently a good idea.”
Harry, I still wonder whether your form of words “pre-announced withdrawal” freights an equivocation that you would be less opposed to an unannouced withdrawal, Gallipoli style.
I know I’ve asked this question before, but your repetition and your silence do suggest some form of mental reservation on your part.
On the more general point raised by your Larry Diamond quote:
It is clear that the mainstream Shiite leaders are both determined and sincere in their desire to create an Islamic state.
Their determination is vouchsafed by their unwillingness to compromise on core elements of the proposed Iraqi constitution.*
Their sincerity is vouchsafed by the fact that they have offered the US no figleaf to cover its surrender of its hopes and dreams in “the Central Front of the War Against Terror”. That is, the Shiites are quite unlike the North Vietnamese. The North Vietnamese gave the US an “out” in the Paris “Peace Accords”, allowing the US to “withdraw with honour”. The North Vietnamese knew that the US would never return to Vietnam. However, the North Vietnamese massaged the ego of the US as if the US were not really a “paper tiger”. Cynically, the North Vietnamese knew that they could take the southern part of Vietnam any time they wanted to. And in 1975 they did.
Iraq’s Shiite leaders, on the other hand, at present are giving the US no easy out. Maybe that’s on orders from Iran. Maybe they have calculated that they can make the US still more gun-shy than they are now. Because unlike the Vietnam War, the Iraq War is deeply unpopular in the US. There is no need to march in the streets. The opponents of the Iraq War are simply biding their time until election day, the day of reckoning for the Bush Clique.
*fn. Remember the much-boasted Iraqi constitution, that document that was put on ice late in 2005 when it became clear that there were “irreconcilable differences” between Iraqis? Well, eventually the draft will have to be thawed out. My guess is it will stink to high heaven from the putrifying effects of American meddling.
JQ, I didn’t claim that you claimed it was ‘self-evidently a good idea’. I asked whether it was so self-evidently a good idea and raised the quote from New Republic to illustrate my doubt. As you now focus on the probabilistic nature of your judgement we are close to agreement although a difference – I attach a higher probability to the notion that the US can play a constructive role in preventing a much more bloody civil conflict.
The Diamond article by the way is quite extreme in its articulation of the current disasterous situation in Iraq. I don’t read it as being apologetic to the American cause at all. He recognises, for example, that mixed Shia/Sunni suburbs are (ominously) being segregated and that even mixed Shia/Sunni marriages are creating conflicts of loyalty. No-one disagrees this is serious stuff from the viewpoint of creating the possibility of broad-based long-term civil conflict.
The long-list of wrong judgements you identify are mistakes by the Bush administration, misjudgements of the US military and some ex post wisdom (e.g. on WMD). These judgements have some bearing on what the US should do now but the main issue is the position of the Iraqi people. Will a preannounced US withdrawal allow the two sides to come together once the enemy has left or for Iraq to fall into 3 pieces – either option with relatively low bloodshed. Will Iran step in and effectively run the show (a possibility it has been suggested by some the US are already thinking of)? Or will it lead to a drawn out conflict that might last for a decade? I fear the latter – many strongly anti-American Sunni now see the US presence, ‘the honest brokers’, as the last chance to prevent all-out civil conflict.
There has been a lot of comment on a lot of threads over a long time about “conspiracy theories� as being by nature somehow inadequate. Accusations of “conspiracy theory!�are thrown around which degenerate rapidly into personal attacks and often shed more heat than light. There is also, on some blogs (but not all) a tendency to ignore or underestimate the importance of scandal to understanding the world. We need working definitions of conspiracy theory and scandal so that we can better understand and use these things.
Here is a rough definition of conspiracy theory to start the ball rolling:
“A conspiracy theory is any interpretation or analysis of action/s which includes an argument that the ostensible or publicly given reason for the action is not the real reason for undertaking that action.�
There are good and bad conspiracy theories. A good conspiracy theory has (at least) these characteristics:
(a) the ostensible reason must be shown to be either plain wrong or, alternatively, inadequate to support the action taken
(b) an alternative (“real�) reason must be defined and rationally defended with evidence and logic
(c) all actors are assumed to be rational.
Conspiracy theorists know that (b) is the hardest to achieve, but for some reason conspiracy theories are most often attacked on (c). That is, the observed mismatch between action and rationale is attributed to irrationality. Thus the common statement “It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just a stuff-up�. I have never understood why anti-conspiracy-theorists can get away with this statement without evidence, while demanding elaborate proofs from the poor, harassed conspiracy theorists. It seems unfair. Besides, if the world is as irrational as such people claim, what is the point of any rational analysis at all?
Conspiracy theories are often linked to the occurrence of scandals. This is because scandals often reveal the wrongness or inadequacy of the ostensible reasons for action. This observation could form a basis for a working definition of scandal…
On Katz’s points. Preannouncing things suggests lack of commitment which is a problem if trying to influence outcomes. To a large extent commitment has already been undermined by pre-announced troop reductions and restrictions on US military activity inside Iraq But a pledge to withdraw completely seems unwise. I didn’t respond to your earlier note because your tone pissed me off.
The last point you make in your current post is interesting. You are saying that to the Iranians ‘less is not more’ since they want a fundamentalist state and the war is unpopular in the US. Hence they won’t make concessions to avoid civil war. Complex. It depends whether the will of the fanatics in Teheran can be thwarted by moderate Muslim opinion within Iraq. Iraqi friends and press articles I have read suggest that the fanatics are very much in the minority and that the US could help ‘honest broker’ a deal.
Good post Gordon.
No one doubts that Allied intelligence mounted a vast conspiracy against the Nazi regime in preparation for Operation Overlord. This conspiracy involved hoaxing the Germans into thinking that D-Day would happen elsewhere and/or at some other time than on 6 June on the Normandy Beaches.
One of the major functions of intelligence agencies is the construction of conspiracies.
Intelligence agencies are much, much bigger and more technically capable today than they were in 1944.
If at least a part of the huge budgets of these intelligence agencies weren’t being spent on concocting conspiracies, informed taxpayers and their representatives would be justified in demanding what their money was being spent on.
One of the fascinating by-products of the rise of the National Security State is the propensity for intelligence agencies to escape political control. Consideration of the course of COINTELPRO in the US is a fascinating case in point. The FBI, the CIA and other US intelligence agencies were up to their armpits in illegal, conspiratorial activities.
The world knows these facts because, admirably, the US Legislative Branch demanded information about Executive conspiracies against the liberties of Americans.
I wish the Australian legislature would show half as much gumption.
“It depends whether the will of the fanatics in Teheran can be thwarted by moderate Muslim opinion within Iraq. Iraqi friends and press articles I have read suggest that the fanatics are very much in the minority and that the US could help ‘honest broker’ a deal.”
This is a fascinating and complex game. All sides need to avoid demandng so much that a tipping point is suffered.
1. The Bush Administration (or at least the Republican Party) needs “withdrawal with honour”. That requires an acceptable constitution. This can be achieved only by broad consensus involving the Shiites. But the Bush Administration is running out of time.
2. The majority of Shiite politicians want Islamic components in the constitution that are unacceptable to broad groups in Iraq. These Shiite Islamists know they have time on their side. They can delay until the US runs out of patience and either withdraws or widens the war. The Shiites probably wouldn’t mind a US invasion of Iran.
3. The Iranian Government want a Shiite maximalist solution in Iraq. What is less clear is if they are prepared to risk war with the US to achieve this. The argy bargy over the Iranian nuke suggests that the Iranians themselves have not decided upon a clear line vis a vis the US. Therefore it is possible that Iran will eventually counsel a Vietnam-like figleaf for the US. It is questionable whether the Iranian people will remain supportive of a hardline confrontation of the US for very long. Time is therefore an enemy of the Iranian government, but not as big an enemy as it is for the Bush Administration.
4. Sunnis are terrified of Shiite hegemony. They know that they are the ultimate victims of this tragedy and that more than likely the US will betray them. The best they can hope for is that the US will persuade the Shiites to compromise on the constitution and to hang around for some time to ensure its enforcement. The Sunni are themselves deeply divided at the moment. If they begin to cohere, that may be the sign for the Iranians to advise their Iraqi Shiite confederates to appear to compromise to give the US a face-saving exit pass.
Thus the Sunni will determine the timetable, but not the outcome, the US debacle in Iraq.
“It shows just how far to the extreme right we have shifted when a Social-Democratic commentator can refer to a “reflexively anti-war positionâ€? as somehow betraying lack of judgement.”
Well, I supported the interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan and, in each of these cases, I think on balance that the benefits have been positive, though Afghanistan has been left to fall into a hole. And if I thought that war with Iraq would have resulted in low casualties and a stable democracy, I would have supported that as well.
That said, the vast majority of wars in human history have produced nothing but misery, so you should certainly start from a presumption that war is usually wrong.
In any case, my intended point was a bit different. If you’re starting from the position that war is always wrong, you don’t tend to worry too much about a careful assessment of the likely outcomes in any particular case. Those of us who were opposed to the Iraq war, but willing to be convinced otherwise, tended to look more carefully at the evidence.
Admidst all the celebrations, John Howard’s Decade of Wit at http://www.abc.net.au/sydney/stories/s1582217.htm with Jmaes Valentine is worth a listen.
I caught the end of Michael Duffy’s Counterpoint program on Radio National last week and I heard Duffy read out the words of Crispin Bennett, who is an occasional commenter on this forum.
I can’t actually recall exactly what he said but I do remember agreeing with his eloquently expressed point of view.
Well done Crispin.
John, I think a mere ‘presumption’ against war is far too weak. There are presumptions in favour of obeying law, against telling lies, etc., but these are surely different orders of requirement?
I don’t have a formula for a ‘just war’, but I think it’s possible for a non-pacifist to have a much stronger anti-war position. War should be unthinkable for all but the most dire emergencies, should always literally be a last resort (ie. there should be no other open possibilities), and should have very high urgency requirements (ie. it must be demonstrable that to avert the emergency, it has to be done right now, and, if not so demonstrable, it should be delayed).
One parsimonious test that could help decision-makers would be: would you ultimately be willing, in order to secure your desired results, to make the sacrifices that your decision will force on others? So would Mr. Howard and his supporters, who were willing to explode and set fire to Iraqis to secure democracy for Iraq, themselves be willing risk having themselves and their loved ones exploded or incinerated for the sake of Iraqi democracy?
What is to be avoided at all costs is the notion of war becoming a normalised foreign policy option, with costs and benefits to be decided using a cool utilitarian calculus.
Steve Munn, so someone heard my angry missive to Michael Duffy! I was incensed that the IPA’s Mike Naharn’s ludicrous and ignorant Bufton-Tuftonesque comments about the Maasai had gone entirely unchallenged. I support the general idea of Counterpoint, and rather like Duffy for all that his views are the opposite to mine on almost everything, but he really does let some of his sillier guests get off very lightly.
“It shows just how far to the extreme right we have shifted when a Social-Democratic commentator can refer to a “reflexively anti-war positionâ€? as somehow betraying lack of judgement.â€?
That notorious reflexive pacifist Winston Churchill remarked in defence of his position that ‘To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war’. Perhaps, Prof Q, we can all be thankful that sort of defeatist talk isn’t in the lexicon of our contemporary leaders. Or not, as the case may be.
have started a weekend economics puzzles series – apologies Dr. Quiggin. Would be glad to hear you guys comment on it.
http://truckandbarter.com/mt/archives/2006/03/weekend_economi.html
(Keynes Banana Plantation)
Sinni Kal, quite apart from irony, it’s been known for a long time that extermination is one path to peace (in the sense of an undisputed clear field) – if you are willing to undertake the tactic and carry it through to completion (no stopping the medication when you feel better).
Precedents include “in those days there was peace in Israel”, which must have reached Israeli background knowledge, the Roman “they make a desert and call it peace” (free translation of “ubi solutidinem faciunt, pacem apellant”), and John Buchan’s observations on Ireland in his life of Cromwell that the only way to make a minority safe in an occupied country is to transform it into a majority by means of massacre and exile.
The right still lives in a fantasy world. Only a fantasist could think that *anyone* in the Middle East would ever for a moment think of the US as “honest brokers” in anything.
P.M.Lawrence, yesterday, I tried, unsuccessfully, to reply to your post but ran afoul of J.Q’s spam filter.
While I appreciate the nuisance that spam is, it is difficult to compose comments while keeping in mind that some mindless filter might count you out because of an odd word. It becomes somewhat of a lottery.
Is there no better solution?
I would suspect that you also supported Australian military action in Timor following the independence referendum.
I am no expert on Bosnia and Kosovo but I am not convinced that all of the intervention (or even most of it) was helpful. In Timor I think it is obvious that Australia did something good.
So how’d you get an Erdos number of 3? The obvious math-econ connection seems to be Ramsey.