The Developing and Deepening Conflict
Host: Farhad Saba

Opening

(Richard Farson) Welcome to our conference on "The Developing Conflict" to be led by Farhad Saba. Some of you will remember his penetrating comments in earlier ILF discussions when he was invited to be a resource specialist, helping us to understand the history and culture of the Middle Eastern countries. "Fred" (as he calls himself, now that he has become Americanized) was born and raised in Iran, and was formerly head of educational broadcasting for that country. He is now a very popular professor of educational technology at San Diego State University. He brings to this discussion a deep understanding of the Arab world, and we look forward to his moderation of this conference on the various developments that will lead to and follow any resolution of the current debate over the invasion of Iraq. So, welcome, Fred.

(Farhad Saba) Richard: Thanks for your warm welcome and your great introduction. I am delighted to moderate this conference, and look forward to reading everyone’s comments and observations about the "Developing Conflict."

I have just started to read Margaret MacMillan’s "Paris 1919." It is the story of how the great powers redrew the map of the globe, brought a few empires to an end, and created many new countries including Iraq. I feel that we are experiencing a similar period in history.

We are witnesses to events that are transpiring as the result of the end of the Cold War. This "Developing Conflict," in my view, is part of a large shift in relations among nations at the dawn of a new era in history. The role of the US in this time of dramatic change is central, and paramount. Your insights, therefore, will be invaluable to understating our time and its events.

Recap of "The Developing Conflict" (Month 1)

(Farhad Saba) Welcome to the new discussion "The Deepening Conflict." For the benefit of those joining us, and those who will continue from the previous discussion I thought I would present a quick summary of what we have been discussing:

We started the previous discussion by a question related to the broader context of the then "Developing Conflict." The question was if with the failure of the US, Germany, and France to agree on a coordinated policy toward Iraq we have entered a new era in international relations?

Some of us, looking at the developing conflict from both the liberal and conservative vantage points, felt out of step with the decisions of the US Government.

The role of the press in keeping us truly informed was also questioned, but on the positive side, grass roots efforts to keep people involved and informed were heralded.

We also discussed the concept of democracy, and if Iraq was ready for it after the conflict was over.

Another branch of our discussion revolved around strategic and tactical developments in

• diplomacy, or there-lack-of,
• the conduct of the war, and
• the possibility of taking over Baghdad by force.

The policy of pre-emptive strike as espoused by neoconservatives was questioned in relation to the American traditional foreign policy posture.

We spent some time in considering the reaction of the world’s public opinion

and the Arab Press to the war, and keeping in mind that the war–-at least according to the Bush administration—is in response to the terrorist attacks against the US.

The process of peacemaking, and the paradoxes that the current US policies entail in such process was another concern. Somewhat related to this theme, we also touched upon

• the adamant opposition of many US citizens, as well as the overwhelming majority in many countries to the war,
• the question of Palestine and the necessity for its resolution to have peace in the Middle East,
• the inherent conflict between Islam and modernism, and
• the necessity of the exercise of power by the US

Finally, since the conflict has moved from a potential one to an actual one, and there is a full war going on, we open this new discussion with dangers and prospects that could bring to bear.

I am looking forward to see your comments, ideas, and analyses as well as references to new articles and resources that could help us understand the current events better.

American Leadership and Strategy

(Participant) Welcome, Fred.

I appreciate your outline of the "BIG PICTURE" on which we should focus. It seems likely that we will have much tension within our discussion between the long and short views, and it is probably inevitable that we will oscillate between them.

In that context, my own question of interest at the moment is whether there is anything that we (i.e., the US) could do, starting today, to move constructively from where we ARE NOW toward making progress toward any long-term objective. Or have we so boxed ourselves in that there is no way to avoid a costly and sad detour?

(Farhad Saba) Hi, Raymond, and welcome to the new discussion.

I am not sure how others feel, but according to the news "the situation is very fluid," as the cliché goes. I don’t think we are boxed into any one policy, but I am sure there are other point of views.

(Participant) The situation seems to worsen by the day. The Russians are now threatening a veto, Bush is planning to withdraw from the Security Council discussion completely, ready to go to battle unilaterally, tension is mounting in North Korea, we no longer have Turkey, the Kurds are upset, the people of the world are totally against us, demonstrating in massive protests of unprecedented scale.

What is the bright side? Maybe if the situation crumbles further, Bush can no longer stay the course. If his plan falls apart, it could be the beginning of a new awareness in America of the necessity of our playing a more cooperative international role. Because most of the world is angry at Bush more than America, it might be possible for us to regain our goodwill. The collapse of Bush's plan might have just the right effect. But enough of this whistling in the dark.

One comment we probably won't hear in the future: "It really doesn't make any difference who we elect president."

Although this is an item that refers to our previous conference, I can't resist gloating a bit. I just read Tom Friedman's column in the New York Times, in which he suggests the same idea I advanced--for Bush to be tough and save face by demanding a specific set of disarmament requirements with a specific date, after which force would be used. Obviously that would not remove Saddam, nor would it keep him from hiding items not on the list, but the latter is going to happen anyway, indeed it is happening all over the world as Bush's moves advance nuclear proliferation, and removing Saddam will only make matters worse. The world is united on the disarmament issue, however, and Bush could make points by sticking to it, and by backing it with the 250,000 troops we have there now. Friedman suggests that it be done with a UN resolution, which I would support, but either way would be better than what is going to happen.

I have just received over the internet a document like others we have seen that smells of left wing propaganda. But somehow, it seems more plausible, if unbelievable.

(Participant) It asserts that there is an organization called The Project for a New American Century, or PNAC. Its membership includes Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Abrams, Richard Perle.

The article alleges that PNAC seeks to establish America as the sole remaining superpower. Weapons of mass destruction are a smokescreen. Their drive is to establish America as the dominant global economic power. And for these reasons, avoiding war is not on their wish list.

Smells like left wing propaganda. But I can't quite swallow the legitimacy of mounting the war we have in mind simply to destroy Saddam's weapons. I have never before felt so out-of-step with our leadership, and so unable to pick existing potential leaders that might set us back on track.

(Participant) I will certainly try to follow this one and hope we will have some serious input on the deeper aspects of Mid-East thinking.

You get very taken by the numbers that are mentioned about the cost estimates for running the proposed war Think of all the good that could be done with that sort of money.

Only a fraction of the 200,000 soldiers could probably establish truce in the Palestine/Israel area that could make way for an honorable peace.

In my book that should be Priority No. 1 for Mr. Bush; it could save his face and enter him in the history book as a great leader.

I do not believe the Iraqis and all other Arabs will rush into democracy after a war in Iraq; it will take a long time and the involvement of women in the area to build a foundation for democracy.
Christer

(Participant) Christer, great to see you online again. Bush claims that conquering Iraq will lead to a Palestinian state. Interesting reasoning, since Iraq is a great supporter of the Palestinians. But things work paradoxically, as we know.

(Participant) Is this a contradiction in President Bush's speech that one day may come back to haunt us?

Saddam should be deposed by war because he refuses to obey the UN Security Council's vote that he dismantle all his lethal weapons.

The US need not be deterred from war because of a vote against it by the UN Security Council.

(Participant) It appears that Powell and Blair may be cooking up a resolution similar to my suggestion (and Tom Friedman's), that we give Saddam a specific disarmament list (benchmarks), and pledge to withdraw if it is accomplished to the satisfaction of the inspectors. That might be one in which the Security Council could unite behind. Why we haven't been more explicit in our demand has always puzzled me.

Of course this keeps Saddam in power, and enables him to continue secret activities, but so what? He still wouldn't be the threat that other nations pose. And would be definitely weaker than before.

(Participant) Fred, I read with interest your opening comment, Item 1:2 especially—This "Developing Conflict," in my view, is part of a large shift in relations among nations at the dawn of a new era in history. The role of the US in this time of dramatic change is central, and paramount.

I think we can take it as a given (highly probable) that the USA is going to attack Iraq. Period. It is my own personal opinion that there is a potential for tremendous benefits to the global community if the USA pulls off a quick overthrow. What would seem to me to be most important is to give serious thought to how best to augment, manage and distribute the benefits.

I was listening to a program on NPR today that included some interviews with Iraqis and some observations about the economy. One interviewee (works at the oil pumping station near the border with Turkey) is convinced that the war must not exceed 4 weeks in duration. The financial disruption of a longer engagement would be too great. Another interviewee noted that today the income of Iraqis is one-tenth what it was 12 years ago. Another listed the basic rationing package upon which most Iraqis survive (dismal). Interestingly it was only the first interviewee (he described himself as an "oil man") who seemed optimistic about the future. The others stated that most Iraqis see the USA as being responsible for their bleak lives and aren't likely to welcome us as "liberators."

Observations of various outsiders included comments such as the huge cost to American taxpayers for rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure, the necessity for the IMF etc. to make huge loans (partially to cover the billions of dollars currently owed by Iraq). Other observations included an initial fund of $900 million now being set up by USA government to rebuild infrastructure (the USA government has already asked for bids from large USA construction companies). Comments were made noting that the transition will be made most difficult because those at the apex of power for the past 25 years will not willingly give up their power and wealth. Of course there are the problems that will arise because in Iraq for the past generation the state basically has controlled everything, and the other problems that will arise from the various tribal and religious interests--Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, etc.

I notice that the most common thread is money. Perhaps the conflict is ultimately about business?

(Participant) The strategy of the US administration is to frighten the Iraqi soldiers into surrender before we start. Testing our new 21,000-pound "mother of all bombs," with a mushroom cloud like an atom bomb, is designed to strike fear in their hearts. And well it could. It strikes fear in mine.

(Interesting aside: We are fighting this war presumably over "weapons of mass destruction," not nuclear because Saddam doesn't have any, but chemical and biological. But the history of chemical and biological attacks show that the death and destruction resulting from their use is comparable to a single conventional bomb. But the fire bombing of Tokyo killed 100,000, more than Nagasaki. Dresden was totally destroyed with conventional bombs. We plan to drop 3,000 missiles into Baghdad the first 48 hours, as much as we used in the entire Gulf War, in which authoritative estimates of the Iraqi dead range between 85,000 and 200,000. Now, what's all this about weapons of mass destruction? Are chemical and biological weapons more fearsome than flame throwers, napalm, land mines, fire bombing?)

I wonder what others of you think about what this fear tactic will do in Iraq? It failed in Vietnam, stiffening resistance. Maybe it will succeed this time.

It is striking that with all the power, bribes, and potential retribution (some of which William Safire outlines in his column this morning) that superpower US is able to wield, it was unable to enlist the support of even half of the Security Council. How difficult it must have been for these small nations, and even some big ones, to choose not to support America.

But 62 percent of Americans are now behind the war, so may not fault Bush if it becomes a mess. Indeed, that may even add to his support as Americans may be reluctant to change horses in midstream.

(Farhad Saba) Going back to my opening comments, and in regards to the potential "mess" that Richard indicated in 1:42, I wonder what everyone is thinking? Is the current situation a result of the fact that the US administration completely mismanaged its recent diplomatic efforts, or are we beginning to witness the end of the international order that was put into place after World War II?

(Participant) I'll argue, at least momentarily, that neither of the above is the case. The situation in, and of, Iraq has been untenable for quite some time now, as has that of the Palestinian people.

Go back ten years, and then I'll say that we mismanaged our diplomatic efforts. In fact we were stupid!

In recent years--particularly the last 18 months--we have moved in small steps toward invalidating any "solution" other than the direct application of unlimited force. It isn't so much that we mismanaged recent diplomatic efforts as it is having painted ourselves into a corner, so to speak, leaving no way out.

If the Bush administration is very smart--much smarter than I think they are—or, if we are very lucky, we may get a second chance to play our hand intelligently. I hope!

(Participant) I don't get the sense that the administration minds going it alone. Maybe that's what they (not Powell) have wanted all along.

I do, however, get the sense that this may be the unraveling of alliances and structures that have existed since WWII, and that we may see something very different emerge, after a period of chaos.

(Participant) I believe that the formula for our current predicament is a president who has let his current position of power go to his head and wipe out whatever "human manners" he might have had, surrounded by a cabinet of ruthless individuals with hidden personal agendas that override their patriotism.

Leaving aside whatever thoughts I may have concerning the goals of our "diplomatic behavior" during the past few months, I simply can't believe that going to war with so few allies and so many disbelievers was inevitable.

Now that we are at war, I of course will join the patriotic group that say "my country right or wrong" and will hope that I am more inadequate in making the above judgments than our president.

Well, they did it. In spite of no threat, no support, massive protests, worldwide anger and disapproval, decided lack of UN authority, through manipulation and deception they accomplished what they set out to do. We are at war. 42% of Americans now believe that Saddam Hussein is responsible for the 9/11 attack. Today, because Bush has put hundreds of thousands of our service-people in harm's way, we have no option but to protect them as best we can.

(Participant) An amazing victory for Bush, against all odds. Of course, even before he has "disarmed" Iraq, through his insulting rhetoric and obsessive militarism, he has already grown two new nuclear threats in North Korea and Iran, to say nothing of other nations who may now feel similarly in need of nuclear defenses. So he has his own private victory, but as a global society, and especially as Americans, we have already experienced a major defeat.

Don, like you I fault the "ruthless individuals" (mainly neoconservative intellectuals, as they say) who influence Bush, but even more, I fault the timid and dreadfully irresponsible opposition party for not seeing through this from the beginning. I hope that our forthcoming ILF publication will serve in at least a small way to prevent such ignorance and irresponsibility from happening in the future. And, personally, I'm going to work to have tax supported elections. The fact that our legislators are owned by their campaign benefactors is central to this, and all of our problems.

I see no end to the difficulties ahead because, as I have said over and over again, the Bush administration has discovered that it can easily dominate the media. The war will make that worse. The fourth estate is no more. We have all but lost our last and best defense against tyranny.

(Participant) I wish someone would tell me the meaning of "neoconservative". It would do all of us good, as it did me, to read a review of a speech recently given in San Francisco by a Dr. Muller--an old man who was associated with the founding of the UN It's on The Meta Network in one of the Salon conferences-- I’ll see if I can find it again and move it over here.

Gist: This is a fantastically wonderful time in history. No matter what happens next, for the first time in recorded history people have actually debated in open forum the question, Shall we go to war?. And the whole world participated in the debate!

Evidently the UN does not have to "win" with its first major effort in order for this to be an event worth celebrating. Just having the event happen is enough.

Here is an excerpt from what I read:

<<<<Dr. Robert Muller, former assistant secretary general of the United Nations, now Chancellor emeritus of the University of Peace in Costa Rica was one of the people who witnessed the founding of the UN and has worked in support of or inside the UN ever since. Recently he was in San Francisco to be honored for his service to the world through the UN. and through his writings and teachings for peace.

At age eighty, Dr. Muller surprised, even stunned, many in the audience that day with his most positive assessment of where the world stands now regarding war and peace.

"I'm so honored to be here," he said. "I'm so honored to be alive at such a miraculous time in history. I'm so moved by what's going on in our world today. Never before in the history of the world has there been a global, visible, public, viable, open dialogue and conversation about the very legitimacy of war.

"In a huge global public conversation the world is asking – ‘Is war legitimate? Is it illegitimate? Is there enough evidence to warrant an attack? Is there not enough evidence to warrant an attack? What will be the consequences? The costs? What will happen after a war? How will this set off other conflicts? What might be peaceful alternatives? What kind of negotiations are we not thinking of? What are the real intentions for declaring war?’"

All of this, he noted, is taking place in the context of the United Nations Security Council, the body that was established in 1949 for exactly this purpose. He pointed out that it has taken us more than fifty years to realize that function, the real function of the UN.

"We, the world community, are WAGING peace."

Dr. Muller also made reference to a recent New York Times article that pointed out that up until now there has been just one superpower--the United States, and that that has created a kind of blindness in the vision of the US. But now, Dr. Muller asserts, there are two superpowers: the United States and the merging, surging voice of the people of the world. All around the world, people are waging peace. To Robert Muller, one of the great advocates of the United Nations, it is nothing short of a miracle and it is working.>>>>

(Participant) Ray: those are interesting and even hopeful comments of Dr. Muller. But with a pessimistic streak that you are well aware of from our many years of emailing together, I also perceive the dark cloud of the one non-governmental super ignoring the international (UN) superpower. We should keep this in mind as the events unfold. What could happen in the future if the second or even the third powers, each with strong military power, follow our lead and ignore the UN power? Which super power is, or should be, dominant?

(Participant) I had read Dr. Muller's whole speech as it made the rounds on the Internet, and find his point quite valid. It was given, of course, before the collapse of the diplomacy, but even so, it did place the UN in its proper position, and recognized genuine achievements. One thing he didn't comment on is how it is possible to resist a superpower in the Security Council proceedings. It remains to be seen what will become of it as a result of this new action.

Ray, I think that the term neoconservative refers to a cluster of Republicans who depart radically from traditional conservative Republican positions that emphasize non-intervention and fiscal responsibility, to one in which the US uses its power internationally, and pre-emptively to serve American interests and bring about American ideals, even if it means running up a huge deficit. The ones most influential in the Bush administration--Wolfowitz, Perle, etc., as well as Bill Kristol, editor of the highly influential Weekly Standard--are also tied closely as advisors to the Likud, which has spawned the criticism that they espouse a similarly militaristic and expansive idea for Israel.

(Participant) Fred: I fear that there is no possible victory for us even if, as seems almost certain, we win the war. I tried the following on some Middle East scholars who do not think it is realistic, but if President Bush would do something like it, it might be helpful.

Some advice for President Bush:

You can win the war, but not before your current pronouncements of winning have made it almost impossible to win the peace. On your way to victory you will need to have the courage to do the something like following:

• Announce that you have changed your mind about appointing a US General to head the post-war government of Iraq.
• At the same time, ask Kofi Annan, as Secretary General of the UN, to appoint a replacement "coalition" of political advisors (with a strong representation of Arab and Muslim leaders) to advise you on the composition of an interim government after the fighting has stopped.
• Put in escrow in the UN Development Program a realistic amount to cover the cost of rehabilitation that you have already pledged. This will help convince Iraqi citizens who would like to see a change in government that the US will not permit Saddam’s return to power as he did after the last war. At the same time this will encourage more of them to assist us in this war.

(Participant) It is so humiliating to read those excerpts from the Arab press. I thought at the time, naming our attack, "Shock and Awe", was so arrogant, so superior, so full of hubris. I wish this administration were only an embarrassment, but it is a disaster that will penalize us all long after it is out of power.

As you rightly say, Don, winning the war will not win the peace. I believe it is already lost. Your proposals will help stanch the flow of blood, but the enmity and the proliferation of nuclear devices has already reached dangerous heights, and may not yield even to diplomatic efforts, let alone military ones.

I like your suggestions very much. They seem to be of the sort that would save face, but given the administration's intransigence, I doubt they will sell. Domination is what they seek, for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which is business.

(Participant) I find the swift dismissal of the "shock and awe" somewhat disingenuous. Would people have been more awed had the US military engaged in the indiscriminate carpet bombing that has characterized air war campaigns until now? I'm certain the US could accommodate such a desire. A repeat of the firestorms of Berlin and Tokyo perhaps? Really, the ability to take out so many military targets in a large city with such incredibly minimal loss of civilian life is an astonishing breakthrough in weapons control. I don't think there is any other military force in the world that could have done this. If anybody isn't shocked by the control that has been demonstrated--unprecedented in the annals of war--then they are missing a significant point.

(Participant) Jeanne Cherbeneau, of our staff, sent me the following item from a newsletter she received today, outlining the conflict management advice its editor received from our friend Harlan Cleveland. It seems so appropriate for our discussions today.

Principles of Peacemaking, Peacekeeping, and Negotiation
B. Kim Barnes, Barnes & Conti President and CEO

Much can be learned about conflict management and resolution from the
experience of people who have been involved in difficult and long-term
international conflicts. About 20 years ago, I was privileged to hear a keynote speech by the Honorable Harland Cleveland, former Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador to NATO and Director of the Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Policy. He spelled out a number of principles for conflict management garnered from his experience in international diplomacy.

1. Agreements on next steps are only possible if parties are not forced to agree on the causes of the conflict.
2. No conflict is merely two-sided. Real conflicts are always multi-lateral.
3. We need to recognize the limitation of two-sided procedures such as the courtroom.
4. Voting is an inferior means of conflict management, because it produces two-sidedness. People argue differently toward a conclusion than toward an action. A consensus is required for committed action.
5. Procedure can become a surrogate for substance.
6. Creep up carefully on the use of force. The purpose of force is to accomplish limited objectives with the least risk of escalation.
7. It helps to widen the community of concern--this should be considered early in a conflict. Courage to tackle a problem is directly proportional to distance from the problem--this is why the regional approach to peacekeeping does not work.
8. Know the costs as well as the benefits of openness (to the press and the public). Openness produces posturing in meetings.
9. Private consultation is needed as part of the process. Everyone does not have to be involved in everything.
10. The third party is indispensable, though often lacking. He or she helps the parties articulate what they want.
11. Power is not just force. There is a Chinese saying, "Big noise on stairs, nobody coming down."
12. Our standards are not the world's standards. As Clarence Darrow said, we need to watch our tendency to judge others by their actions and ourselves by our intentions.
13. We need to take an interdisciplinary approach rather than narrow our
    degrees of freedom for both reflection and action. The difficulty is not how to make the conflict simple enough to deal with, but to get our thinking to be complex enough to deal with it.
14. Some tensions are promising and should be allowed to run their course-- we need not resolve everything.

(Farhad Saba) Mandatory Surgery

Over the past quarter of the century, since the Iranian hostage crisis, I have been wondering when the US would shake its Vietnam syndrome and respond appropriately to constant attacks by Middle Eastern terrorists to its citizens, prestige and property. I firmly believe if the US had responded to Iran as decisively in 1979 as it is responding to Iraq, we wouldn’t have had to suffer constant terrorist actions culminating in 9/11. Unfortunately, lack of resolve over the past quarter of a century has resulted in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Korea becoming formal terrorist states. I hope once the US military reaches Baghdad the rest of these countries learn a lesson and change their ways. Otherwise, we have to stay the course and deal with the rest of them as decisively as we are dealing with Iraq. A superpower cannot play with appeasement for a quarter of a century. The regime in Iran is far more sophisticated and dangerous than Iraq. It has the potential to change and I hope that it does. Otherwise, we have to deal with that snake too.

(Participant) Fred: This may seem like a question from a "left-wing" bias, but I think it reflects the concerns of many people who are no more left-wing than occasionally voting democratic:

How can we hope to play a dominant role in the Middle east when:

(Participant) Apples versus oranges here, I fear.
Fred's challenge is strategic.
Don's questions are tactical.

Granted, we have messed up the tactics in recent years, but even if we had not, the strategic issue would remain.

(Farhad Saba) Raymond beat me into my response to Donald!

Donald raises some good issues, but they are not insurmountable. We have to make sure that our presence in Iraq would be as inclusive as possible after the war is over.

(Participant) Fred, my first reaction to your 106 was to wonder (because of the title and the separation bar) if you were voicing your own opinion or simply reporting, as you have done before, something that someone else said. I was tempted to ask but decided to wait and see what would follow. It now seems that it was your own. If I err in my judgment, I hope you'll not take offense.

My second reaction to those words was: Oh, somebody else has a strategic sense of what is going on. Somebody is looking at this from a viewpoint other than morality.

Your statement "A superpower cannot play with appeasement for a quarter of a century." was particularly interesting and brought to mind the Bhagavad Gita.

This opens up a new avenue of discussion. What is the proper obligation of power once it is set in motion to achieve an end by engaging in conflict? At what point does leadership decide that sufficient stability has been achieved? What ancillary roles are proper (I think of the Greek chorus)?

(Participant) In my naïveté, I am confused by the above agreements that we (or more properly I) confuse strategy with tactics.

I see our current national behavior in many respects rooted in a strategy that sees the role of a super power to decide on what is correct behavior for inhabitants of this globe (strategy) AND ALSO to be the ruler that determines to what extent the world's inhabitants accept these decisions and to punish those who don't (tactics). If I have confused these two words, please correct me.

I also see, in this, another case of what I have called a dichotomous trap of seeing things in an either/or dichotomy rather than and/also options.

I intrude only because I think that my above intervention reflects a confusion that is not mine alone but appears every day in the press and in conversations in which I have taken part.

(Participant) Columnist Jim Goldsborough wrote this morning about whether or not one should continue to protest what one believes to be an unjust war. He believes we should, and concludes his column with these lines:

"As a foreign correspondent based in Europe, I used to joke that I'd never met a German who was a Nazi or a Frenchman who wasn't in the Resistance. In retrospect, we all choose the right side.

"What's harder is to be on the right side from the beginning."

(Participant) >> My above intervention reflects a confusion that is not mine alone but appears every day <<

I certainly agree with that!

Don, I think it's largely a timing issue. Wise strategy is more difficult to achieve in the midst of bad tactics, but it is still worth talking about because doing so may have a favorable effect on tomorrow's tactics.

Talking about the bad tactics, on the other hand, doesn't usually do more than worsen the tactical argument by causing people to dig in even deeper or hold on even tighter to their bad logic.

>> In retrospect, we all choose the right side. <<
I'm not so sure about that. I was opposed to the first Gulf war and to the attack on Afghanistan (and remain so), although most pundits seem to take those events as virtuous--at least in comparison to THIS one. (And maybe they're right, in comparison.)

(Participant) Ray, I think we were both right about the Gulf war and Afghanistan, and we both remain so. The fact that most people don't agree with us...well, isn't that the story of our lives?

(Participant) Don, with respect to your comment that "I see our current national behavior in many respects rooted...." I can't help but point out that in the world this is the way it is done. That is the whole point of power in the world: to say what will be and to enforce that. What are the options? To let the weak undertake those roles? To have the power and not apply it, thus defaulting to those who don't have power is, to my mind, irresponsible. I earnestly hope that power will be applied to make the world better (though obviously it's not always). I think people who are allowed to exercise power they don't genuinely have tend to be very abusive. Not truly having any power they are unfamiliar with its proper use.

(Participant) This may be both unrealistic and correct--a dilemma that is not unusual in today's discussions. But I feel that the most US citizens can do about this situation is to seek review of several totally wrong assumptions of our current administration:

• The assumption that we are a military super power with no rivals, when in fact our military might is based almost totally on superior air power which was both awesome and clumsy in the Iraq case.
• Terrorism has replaced conventional military power, and we are as vulnerable there as the weakest conventional military nation.
• Our future as a world power will demand a new attitude and national politeness in the way we seek to influence other nations.
• The world needs international organizations to do the peacekeeping and policing job. A single world power seeking to do these jobs unilaterally will not long remain powerful.
• Our own model of democracy is no longer a form of government which other nations wish to emulate, and for good and obvious reasons.
• Our per-capita wealth and standard of living as a model is in serious jeopardy.

(Participant) Don, I am stunned by the powerful insights you have articulated in your last comment.

In this show of our military power, I think we bask in being an unchallengeable hyper-power. In your comments you demonstrate just how fragile that status is. Among the many mistakes we have made recently is our failure to recognize that nationhood is very fragile. I don't mean just that they can be taken apart in a few days or weeks in the way we are taking apart the nation of Iraq. I mean that we can come apart more like the way the USSR did. As you say, we are no longer the economic model, no longer the moral leader, and if we keep this strategy up, we will no longer be the military power we now are.

In an L.A. Times article, Nobelist Gunter Grass says that we are bringing disaster to our country. And he isn't even referring to the coming economic disaster. In the glow of victory over this third world country, we lose sight of the possibility that we may not hold our international leadership position long, and indeed could completely fall apart. It happens all the time. Even to superpowers.

(Participant) If Syria is to be the next country we invade (since we're in the neighborhood, as Tom Friedman says), the apparent strategy is to take over all of Israel's enemies, one by one. Is this the Bush roadmap to a Palestinian state? And why does Arafat have to go, if Sharon gets to stay? Sharon's actions have been monstrous.

(Participant) This morning's New York Times carries a quote from a senior administration official who declined to be identified, "Iraq will not be put under a UN flag. The UN is not going to be a partner. And right now, people don't have the stomach to make a theological fight over this." The administration also opposes the return of United Nations weapons inspectors. It appears that the administration intends to continue its rejection of the UN.

The administration is now trying to build its case against Syria by suggesting that the missing weapons of mass destruction have been transported to Syria, a position that kills two birds with one stone--excusing the fact that no WMD have been used or found, and creating animosity toward the obvious next target country to incur the administration’s wrath.

Where is Congress as all this is happening? Busy creating a law, eliminating judicial discretion, to require mandated life sentences for child sex offenders. The Democrats are making those of us who oppose the way in which the administration is operating long for an opposition party.

(Participant) Before we invade Syria, I think it is worth our noting one of the great PR achievements of the Bush administration (among many). That is its ability, in the face of failure, to shift, after the fact, the goals of the pre-emptive wars we have recently fought. Our invasion of Afghanistan was to capture or destroy Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. When we failed at both, the war was justified by our having ended the repressive Taliban government and contributed to the liberation of Afghani women. For that reason, the war is now seen by almost everyone as a successful response to 9/11. We have walked away from the Afghanistan rubble respected liberators, though it remains a hiding place for terrorists.

In Iraq, our goal was to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and if that were impossible through negotiation and inspection, to get Saddam himself. We will never know whether or not diplomacy and inspection would have worked, but we do know that Iraq did not use WMD, and so far we have not found evidence that any exist. Nevertheless, we now justify the war on the liberation of repressed Iraqis. And it is working. Shifting our interest to the safety and recovery of our troops, and to the efforts to bring about a democratic state there, appears to be justification enough for our pre-emptive war, which has killed many thousands. Again, we are liberators. Well, we shall see.

Pre-emptive wars are regarded by the world as immoral, and therefore they are illegal in international law. If they are worthy of a shred of justification, it could only be if a real threat exists and if the goal of the war is met. But what if they fail to meet that goal? To fight pre-emptive wars that do not pre-empt anything, but ravage a nation because it has a despotic leader, is without moral justification, and can be seen by some of us as applying a cure that is worse than the disease, because such actions legitimize other pre-emptive violence and invasion, as we did for Sharon in the West Bank and Gaza, and as we may be doing with Iran and North Korea.

I don't know to what or to whom to attribute the administration’s amazing PR achievements, but if Karl Rove is the architect, he is truly extraordinary.

(Participant) In regard to the fragility of nations, John Adams wrote:

"All that part of Creation that lies within our observation is liable to change. Even mighty states and kingdoms are not exempted. If we look into history, we shall find some nations rising from contemptible beginnings and spreading their influence, until the whole globe is subjected to their ways. When they have reached the summit of grandeur, some minute and unsuspected cause commonly affects their ruin, and the empire of the world is transferred to some other place."

Folks, I'd like your help in thinking about America, and its future relations with the world.

Life seems to go on in normal ways. Sea World was jammed yesterday with overweight Americans. My tennis partners still show up. The papers are delivered. Bob Hope's 100th birthday is celebrated on television. And yet I have the uneasy feeling that America is headed for big trouble. Especially economically, I fear that the Bush administration's actions may actually lead to America becoming a second rate nation, or worse. People who don't pay attention to history cannot imagine that a rich and powerful America could falter and collapse. But we have seen it happen to a super power in recent history when the USSR died. It happens all the time.

People have the idea that individuals are fragile and organizations are strong. It's just the other way around. It's relationships, organizations, even nations, that are fragile. It is almost impossible to damage an individual (to hurt one's feelings is easy but to damage them in any permanent way is very difficult). But it is very easy to damage or wreck a relationship, as we see everyday in our own relationships, and as we have seen with Bush's handling of our international relations. We lose them virtually overnight.

When people are in trouble, they need relationships more than ever. Actually, relationships are the single best protection against illness, both mental and physical. I'm sure the same applies to nations, and we are losing ours. So we head into rough economic seas without the support we may need. We cannot imagine the dollar losing out to the Euro, but it could very well happen. And we cannot imagine becoming a totalitarian state, but that happens easily too.

We have a failure of nerve in both the opposition party and in the Fourth Estate. Without either, and with John Ashcroft in charge, we are highly vulnerable.

Or am I just a Nervous Nellie? Is there a brighter picture I am not seeing clearly?

(Participant) 1. It’s impossible to predict the future with consistent accuracy. 2. In a two-party system such as we enjoy in the USA it is simply the way of things to shift from one party's agenda to the other's. 3. It's not of much use to criticize the goals, achievements or even methods of either party. Whether one likes them or not they represent the views of millions of Americans. This is an essential aspect of freedom in a representative democracy. Besides which, flies, honey and vinegar. 4. If you want your own agenda to prevail you have to do what it takes to make that happen. It's not easy. It takes much more effort to build than to destroy. 5. If you can't make your own agenda prevail there is the option of working within whatever agenda currently does prevail to make it 'better' (however one defines that). 6. You can't lead where no one wants to go--assuming that following is optional. It doesn't even matter if your destination is the "right one". If nobody will follow, then you are useless as a leader. You might, at some point in time, become an "example"--hardly the same thing.

Most of our conversation comes too late too be effective. The US leadership is operating from the OODA loop. It is anticipating the moves of opponents in advance and sifting its tactics to preempt tactical advantage. As one military commander recently expressed it when talking about the relative ease with which Baghdad was taken "We got inside their (the Iraqi's) decision loop."

If we can't develop a specific goal and adopt the tactics that will ensure a high probability of success in achieving the goal then why bother?

(Participant) Kip: the six steps in your #89 are well stated descriptions of our democracy as it should be and as it is described in text books. But I think that there are large gaps between the traditional descriptions and current reality. For just one example:

• Our voting turn out is seldom more than 50% of the eligible voters. This means that most majorities represent little over 25% of the electorate.
• Even if the voters represented a larger percentage of the electorate, the opinions and preferences of the donors to campaigns is often more influential on elected officials than that of the people they represent.

Your last sentence sums up the results of my two paragraphs above, but I do not believe that the prevalent "why bother" attitude has much to do with the citizen's access to tactics and decision loops.

My understanding of the role of citizen in a democracy is to express majority preferences for broad policies, and seldom with strategies for executing those policies. In my opinion, the plea for help that Dick expresses in #88 is based on the current lack of clout that the citizens in this democracy can (or even are trying) to exert. This opens up a large topic not obviously germane to our current focus, but just to recognize them may help clarify some of the issues we are addressing.

(Participant) Don, the reality is that we have to work with what we have. Lamenting what we don't have is only useful if such lamenting will bring us more.

(Participant) Kip: Again I agree with your wisdom of stressing what we have rather than what we want. But you didn't address my observation that the definition of reality has changed more in the past decade than at any time in the past.

Just a few examples:

• rapid changes in the use of electronic and internet communication
• political changes in Europe, the Middle East, and even in more subtle ways in the US.
• the changes in warfare and the new doctrine of preemptive attacks introduced by the US.

In our exchanges here, I would like to stress the established wisdom of your observations in #93 and in #93 and combine them with my suggestion that we also seek new strategies based on new needs and new conditions—changing the emphasis to "exploration of new strategies" rather than "lamenting what we don't have."

(Participant) Don, I find it very difficult to agree that the definition of reality has changed. It's form has changed, but isn't the definition of "reality" that which actually exists?

You say most people don't vote, and I can't help but ask what is the point of the observation? We can read into that whatever we want but doing so doesn't necessarily mean anything.

How can we develop a strategy if we don't have a goal? The strategy for character development is significantly different from the strategy for acquisition of wealth.

We the People. Do we know anything? Do we want to bother with learning more? Do we want to be involved? Do we want to set our own goals for the country? Why do people vote? Do we want more people to vote? Do we want them to vote the way they want to or the way we want them to? If more people voted would the country be better off--or would we just feel better knowing that more people had weighed in? Are the non-voters mostly content with the state of affairs? If they are, then why should they vote? Is it time for us to consider training potential candidates for important elected positions?

(Participant) The spectrum of social conditions in America now lining up, seem akin to the alignment of the earth, moon and sun in a solar eclipse. Could it be that this unprecedented simultaneous existence of troubling situations could bring about the eclipse of America? As I have noted several times before, nations are fragile, even at the height of their power.

Think about this: a possible economic disaster ahead, a timid and foundering opposition party, media that are subjugated by corporate interests, a cowardly Congress that has abandoned its responsibility to judge the validity of the war, the profession of journalism having lost its nerve and therefore its ability to protect us from tyranny, an unending and unwinnable War on Terrorism diverting us from more important threats, a president, Congressional majority, and Supreme Court majority sharing the same ideological persuasion with a proven record of subverting their higher callings to benefit their political party, and perhaps most dangerous of all, a loss of positive relations with other key nations in the world community. I am not sanguine about the future, and I cannot imagine that you are, either. I can well imagine the US coming apart, becoming a third tier nation, or losing nationhood altogether. It happened to the other ideologically bound, overextended superpower, overnight.

Since I have mentioned some of these concerns before in this discussion with you, my friends, whom I know to be wise, knowledgeable, and alert, I can't help but wonder why they do not resonate with you. Ray gets after me for being so overbearingly partisan in my views, and perhaps that explains it all. And I am reading Walt Anderson's new book (not out yet) on the Next Enlightenment, suggesting that there is another consciousness possible, a way to view traumatic events with more equanimity. The Dalai Lama said something similar in today's New York Times. Perhaps that's what you all have ascended to, and these conditions simply don't alarm you. And maybe you don't agree that these conditions exist, and are in dangerous combination. Or that you cannot imagine that we are that vulnerable. But I can't help but wonder.

I'm sure you wish I would get back to the subject of the UN, but believe it or not, I think these issues are the ones that lead to our dismissal of the UN, as our president did again last night in his interview with Tom Brokaw.

(Participant) Dick: I agree with virtually all of your concerns in the above two messages. I do think that our democracy is in deep trouble, and for most of the reasons that you outline. President Bush led a "regime change" against Iraq for valid reasons of human abuse but ironically employed abroad similar extreme horrors of killing foreign citizens. To change regimes (at least abruptly) in another nation usually demand some killing horrors, and Bush did not let that necessity deter him from pursuing his goal. He seemed to acknowledge that also in his Brokaw interview.

Here at home, there seem to be two ways of achieving policy and regime changes: the economic power of the very rich and large corporations, or the focused will of a large majority of citizens. I am not even sure of the latter, and of course there may be others that I haven't mentioned.

But if we are to achieve a regime change of the kind we both want, I see no alternative but the empowerment and strong desires of a majority of citizens. That, like any regime change, can also run into messy results and situations. But if, as I think we both do, we want the change to strengthen our democratic dreams, I see no alternative.

(Farhad Saba) The missing link…

I don’t want to repeat the wonderful analysis that Dick made in an editorial about the press in America a few weeks ago. He graciously sent me an advanced copy and I was delighted to read it. Nevertheless, as one who has become an American citizen only recently, I have to emphasize one of the points Dick presented in his editorial.

US domestic and international policies impact the lives of most of the countries of the world directly, or indirectly. The presence and absence of the US is a major factor in the lives of the people of many countries. However, the press coverage of the world is limited to when events directly impact the lives of Americans in other counties. In other circumstances there is virtually no coverage about other counties in the US.

We don’t know what some of the current issues are in Britain, Germany or France today. There is virtually no coverage of it. Afghanistan has disappeared from the press, although we still have forces there. And Iraq is disappearing rapidly. We only are made aware of issues in other countries when they become a crisis. Under crisis situations, it is easy to sell a military solution to people in the US even if it is not in their best interests.

Why, given so many outlets in the US, is the international coverage so limited? Why are people kept uniformed until something becomes a crisis? Is there any other reason behind this than the usual excuse that there is no market for international coverage?

It seems to me that it is extremely dangerous for the general public in the US to have so little information about the world, when their political, economic and military power directly or indirectly impacts the lives of virtually everyone in other countries.

(Participant) Hey, folks. Big news. Today we got the Eight of Clubs. Or maybe it was the Seven. Like all patriotic Americans, I'm trying to keep track. I must hand it to the administration. They sure did find a great way to turn this war into a fun game. And what a clever PR gimmick! This way, every day or two we get to announce on the front page another evildoer who has negotiated a deal to be captured.

Too bad those sourpusses at Nuremburg couldn't take this lighthearted approach. I guess they figured it's not easy to take seriously—let alone execute---some guy who's a Jack of Hearts, or King of Clubs.

I don't know what's going on with those first dozen evildoers we got, but I'm confident the Eight of Clubs will, for sure, be the one to lead us to the secret treasure trove of WMD.

With the administration dealing out this deck of cards, the press doesn't have to worry about covering all those untidy aspects of our glorious victory, or figure out what's really going on in the world. I'm sorry, Fred, but that stuff just isn't fun.

.

Next Page

top