The Right Way to Change a Regime....By James Baker III

August 25, 2002 8:19 PM

The Right Way to Change a Regime....By James Baker III Oh no, I'm starting to think that James Baker is making some sense.
posted by bas67 (44 comments total)

Wow. That makes sense to me too. What doesn't make sense is how that editorial got published in the New York Times. Maybe the Times are a changin'? Naah..
posted by hama7 at 9:47 PM on August 25, 2002

What paper is without an editorial slant?? Isn't that why they call it an op-ed page?

The key is not POV, but balance, as evinced by this column which appeared on the same page as Señor Baker's reasonable argument.
posted by Fupped Duck at 9:52 PM on August 25, 2002

pssst.

Good article though. It'd be better if there were a few more links so that people can compare and contrast. Remember, help us not just to see, but to analyze and understand.
posted by zpousman at 10:17 PM on August 25, 2002

I just knew someone was going to bring that metatalk thread up...
posted by Fupped Duck at 10:23 PM on August 25, 2002

I didn't say anything. Not one word.

The key is not POV, but balance,

Balance at the NYT is usually conspicuous by its absence.
posted by hama7 at 10:32 PM on August 25, 2002

I read that Baker piece. I guess he's just looking international cover a UN resolution would give us -- goodness knows we've got a ton of mileage out of the original Iraq resolutions. But I just don't think UN personnel have any business going into harm's way: they can't protect themselves, and if Saddam thought for a minute that the bombs would start falling when they left, he would simply take them hostage, and use them as human shields, as the Serbs did in 1993.

This would give the international community all the excuse it would need to put off an attack indefinitely; by the time he released them, people would be calling THAT a major concession.

As an aside: am I the only one who's tired of the phrase "take out," e.g. "We would have to be extremely lucky to take out the top leadership[...]"? From now on, my policy will be to actively work for a cliché change.
posted by coelecanth at 10:33 PM on August 25, 2002

From now on, my policy will be to actively work for a cliché change.

Good idea.

Although I agree with what Baker said, the whole thing gives the the heebie-jeebies. Everybody agrees that Hussein is a rather dangerous and volatile despot who is hated and feared by most iraqis. What keeps them silent is his brutality and speculations about what he's got in his toolbox. I hope the rumours about Iraqi relief at his overthrow are true.
posted by hama7 at 10:59 PM on August 25, 2002

Since when has Maureen Dowd brought balance to any debate? She is to the left what Ann Coulter is to the right. Both rely on invective to avoid substance or intellectual challenge, and neither offer anything constructive.
posted by chazw at 12:37 AM on August 26, 2002

Balance at the NYT is usually conspicuous by its absence.

Why is it necessary in every political thread for you to throw around inflammatory over-generalizations that don't relate to the content of the posted link? This site could be such a great place for examining opposing ideas and actually discussing political differences. Why do you consistently work against those of us who are trying to *elevate* the level of discussion here, hama7? Do you care about what you post or is this just a game to you?

Anyway. bas67, I'm surprised you think the idea of an invasion of Iraq "makes sense." We're not even close to finishing whatever the heck it is we're supposed to be doing in Afghanistan; we're *still* ignoring the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people even as we get reports of Palestinian extremists growing closer to Al Qaeda; almost every single one of the U.S.'s Gulf War allies is opposed to an invasion, *and* the economies of dozens of states are stagnating under huge deficits as Cheney's federal government is literally pouring money into the pockets of his buddies in the defense industry. That's just to start. Baker's piece not only presupposes a world where the U.S. has the right to preemptively attack another country, it also presupposes that Cheney and Rumsfeld get as much money as they want to pay their pals to set up and maintain new military bases all across Asia and the Middle East. Halliburton is salivating all over itself.

Do you really want to live in a U.S. that's mired in a permanent war economy, fighting a nebulous, unseen enemy in a war Congress hasn't declared? Good lord. The willingness to accept Baker's premises here is more than a little shocking.
posted by mediareport at 2:08 AM on August 26, 2002

While I completely disagree that it's our responsibility to effect "regime change" in Iraq, I find Baker's argument at least cogent and reasoned. That is something sorely missing from the current administration. They seem a scary mix of mendacious businessmen (Cheney) and radical fundamentalists.
posted by Shike at 3:56 AM on August 26, 2002

Palestininan "grievances" are not legitimate, and Palestinians have had countless chances to establish a state, which they refused every time in favor of Jewish genocide and terror. To support a free, democratic Israel is the only moral choice.

Why do you consistently work against those of us who are trying to *elevate* the level of discussion here, hama7?

mediaretort: It's interesting that "elevate" and "enlighten" are most often used in a discussion where they are synonymous with "socialize" and "liberalize"? In other words: to normalize leftism? I *am* trying to elevate the level of discussion.

For example: How is a hostile dictator, hell-bent on murdering all his opposition, building nuclear missiles and weaponry to lob at Israeli and American cities, producing chemical and biological weapons to do same, not permitting UN (snore) inspections of suspected weapons-producing plants (even though he promised to do so), a "nebulous, unseen enemy"???

If there were a man standing in front of you with a baseball bat raised above his head, would you just put a blindfold and hope for the best? That seems to be what you are advocating.
posted by hama7 at 4:24 AM on August 26, 2002

I´m hoping that the Europeans refuse to participate and bankroll Bush's "war". The Germans have an election for PM coming up and one of the key points is this "war". Both candidates seem to advocate NOT supporting it. Hope the rest of the EU follows their cue.

As far as what hama7 says:

For example: How is a hostile dictator, hell-bent on murdering all his opposition, building nuclear missiles and weaponry to lob at Israeli and American cities, producing chemical and biological weapons to do same, not permitting UN (snore) inspections of suspected weapons-producing plants (even though he promised to do so), a "nebulous, unseen enemy"???

this is the view the BUSH administration propaganda machine wants the US public to believe. They want us to live in fear so that we allow them to do whatever they want with our money and our lives. I think there is more credible evidence out there (do a search on Metafilter for links to Scott Ritter for example) that Iraq has no such arsenal of mass destruction. This is largely a fabrication meant to keep us living scared. The logical conclusion of any attack on Iraq is an escalation of killing in the middle east and another round of terrorist attacks that will hit America in its fat midsection. Do we really want that? I know the Bush administration does. Without the war on terror their shortcomings and shady dealings would be in the limelight.
posted by sic at 4:47 AM on August 26, 2002

this is the view the BUSH administration propaganda machine wants the US public to believe.

Then, pray tell what is the "truth"?

Not a single person I know wants anything to do with the middle east. I don't want any more wasted time or money there, either. Yes there is poverty in Iraq, but there are also weapons aimed at us. Do you suppose that the current administration simply wants expensive, sensless bloodshed? What posible motive would indiscriminate killing serve?

Without the war on terror their shortcomings and shady dealings would be in the limelight.

Please put some proof of your generalizations in the limelight.
posted by hama7 at 5:11 AM on August 26, 2002

James Baker can kiss my shiny metal ass.

What a coup it is for the Junta that so much of the mainstream debate has been shaped not to be about how mewlingly stupid an idea it is to attack Iraq, unilaterally or otherwise, but about what the best way to do it might be, and when. That said, it seems that folks who refuse to be spoonfed their lies predigested are starting to be heard, though, enough perhaps to divert the Shrub from his murderous fixation.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:25 AM on August 26, 2002

Proof:

Didn't Cheney's old co. Haliburten build the prision we are housing the terrorists in right now?

How many large corps are defense contracters and would benefit from a war with Iraq?

WWII was a major part of pulling the U.S. out of an economic downturn earlier this century. War is generally good for this country economically, at least it has been in the past anyway.

What part of Bush's presidency did the majority of folks agree with? His response to 9/11. He's crappy on domestic policy but a lot of people thought the war on terror was working, at least till recently.

Slap me if I'm wrong but we have the regime of big business in power right now. When have more CEO's been a part of a single regime in our history?

It looks to me like Bush is trying to go with his strengths and get his war on to distract people from his domestic short comings and pull the nation out of a slump. I think he could keep the war going until his term is up and hope to ride patriotism into a second term.

Iraq doesn't hold a club over our heads(more like a nerf bat in my opinion). They have a grenade. If we start to attack them, they pull the pin. We lose by attacking first.

I would like to see someone paint a picture of what we hope to gain by attacking first that would be worth the political fallout from doing so.
posted by Wong Fei-hung at 5:38 AM on August 26, 2002

*slap* We have, thank God, capitalism in place now, as it has been for at least the two-hundred years since the wonderful inception of the United States.

Attacking first prevents American casualties. Isn't that enough?
posted by hama7 at 5:57 AM on August 26, 2002

chazw: [Dowd] is to the left what Ann Coulter is to the right. Both rely on invective to avoid substance or intellectual challenge, and neither offer anything constructive.

Wow, I must have missed Dowd's calls for violence against Republicans and conservative media companies, not to mention leaders of foreign countries. Can you show me?
posted by s.e.b. at 6:01 AM on August 26, 2002

I dislike the idea of the U.S. initiating this conflict. It goes against everything I've ever believed about this country. But if in five or ten years a nuclear bomb is detonated in the U.S. that was made in Iraq -- and we could have stopped its manufacture with an invasion -- there would be legitimate second-guessing of our failure to effect "regime change." But the present course, which appears to be driven by its own rushed momentum rather than reasoned thought, can't be the right way to go.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:15 AM on August 26, 2002

"Attacking first prevents American casualties. Isn't that enough?" Well, no, it isn't.

What's the equation you're working on? How many American lives saved would justify what type of war?

As for the Baker piece, well, where do you start? "An outlaw regime, is in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions, is embarked upon a program of developing weapons of mass destruction and is a threat to peace and stability". I think half the Middle East would describe Israel in those terms, so it's OK if they go to war with them then.

We accept that Saddam has long had chemical and biological weapons. Why then, if he didn't use them in the Gulf war, do we assume he is going to turn round and start using them now?

Some of the neighbouring states don't want a regime change for what seems to me to be soley selfish reasons (hello Saudi Arabia), but the fact that not one arab country supports this planned attack speaks volumes. If Saddam really is such a danger to all concerned why don't they want to see an attack?
posted by ciderwoman at 6:19 AM on August 26, 2002

Here I thought the linked article was going to be about how to overturn an election when you've lost the popular vote.
posted by crunchland at 6:19 AM on August 26, 2002

We accept that Saddam has long had chemical and biological weapons. Why then, if he didn't use them in the Gulf war, do we assume he is going to turn round and start using them now?


He did effing well use them, and my old man is living proof. He's got bones where bones shuldn't be growing, and is suffering terribly. Hussein gassed countless hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Kurds in his happy little pogrom, and don't think for a minute he won't do the same to the Yanks, given half a chance.

I think half the Middle East would describe Israel in those terms,

Israel has the power and weaponry to obliterate, decimate and erase the Palestinians, Iraqis, and probably most of the middle east. Why is it that Israelis only take defensive action? Action undertaken because of terrorist civilian killings? Because they are defending a morally just, democratic nation, and a nation that deserves defending. To think otherwise is an exercise in equivocation and futility.

Palestinians desire only the obliteration of Israel and all Jews, in other words: genocide.

How can you, in good conscience, stand for such skewed atrocity?
posted by hama7 at 6:54 AM on August 26, 2002

Let's say the US does invade and kick out Saddam. Whether you agree with this or not, I think we all agree on one thing; If this were to happen, the US would be forced to stay in Iraq to defend the new regiime for a long, long, LONG time.

If Afghanistan is any indication. do you see the US leaving there anytime soon?
posted by CrazyJub at 6:57 AM on August 26, 2002

do you see the US leaving there anytime soon?

No.
posted by hama7 at 7:00 AM on August 26, 2002

Oh no, I was misunderstood. I don't want a war in Iraq. My point was that even someone so close to the Bush Adim. is saying that we show go slow and do it the right way if we are going to do it.

I have no illusions about the fact that the Bush folks are going to go to war. I would stop them if I could but my superpowers are on the fritz. The fact is that Bush is going to go into Iraq. The question is should we just up and go or should we take the necessary steps to do it the right way.
posted by bas67 at 7:06 AM on August 26, 2002

Is this going to change into one of those famous metafilter Israel vs Palestine arguments.
posted by seanyboy at 7:12 AM on August 26, 2002

This won't be a clean war like the Gulf War. Airstrikes alone won't do it this time. It could take months (if not longer) to get Hussein. I think that the general opinion of Vietnam was that "we are strong and this will be easy." at first. Clearly that was not the case.

I fully expect to watch the nightly body count on the evening news as was done in the late 60's. The good news is that that will end the Bush presidency, the bad news is that it will cost 1000's of american lives (not to mention billions of dollars). I don't like Bush but I don't want to get rid of him this way.
posted by bas67 at 7:16 AM on August 26, 2002

Hussein gassed countless hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Kurds in his happy little pogrom
And we didn't do shit to help them.

Is it any coincidence that after they had built up Osama post-9/11 ("Wanted: Dead or Alive"), then when he escaped from Tora Bora (gigantic fuckup) that all of a sudden we turned to our old reliable enemy Saddam?

How come the chatter about him posessing "weapons of mass destruction" became a dull roar when Bush realized he hadn't caught Osama yet?

How come the saber-rattling for Iraq got louder as the Dow dropped and Enron, Worldcom and every other accounting scandal got the headlines and Bush offered his mealy-mouthed "self-policing" remedies?

Bush is planning to finish daddy's war so the GOP can keep control of the House and maybe the Senate this fall.
posted by owillis at 7:20 AM on August 26, 2002

I must have missed Dowd's calls for violence against Republicans and conservative media companies, not to mention leaders of foreign countries. Can you show me?

Apologies for starting a side discussion about Maureen Dowd's merits as a journalist.

As far as I know, Dowd has never called for violence of any sort, but her opinion pieces rely on derisive language to attack the Bush administration, without providing constructive criticism, or alternatives, to any of their policies. She depicts Bush as an airheaded jock, Cheney as the corrupt businessman, Rumsfield as the irresponsible warmonger and Powell as the bewildered man of principle, overwhelmed by the chaos surrounding him. These characterizations allow her to offhandedly dismiss the administration as a bunch of inept fools, without actually have to challenge their policies. In my opinion, it's irresponsible for a journalist, published regularly by the NY Times, to resort to this type of polarization, which inhibits constructive debate. Because of this, I lump her with the Ann Coulters and the Rush Limbaughs of the world, who I feel would be best ignored.
posted by chazw at 7:31 AM on August 26, 2002

And we didn't do shit to help them.

The heck we didn't! What was the gulf war about?

And what about Somalia? That was an overthrow of a genocidal regime (of the kind that is so notorious)

Bin laden is pushing up daisies on Tora Bora.

Enron? A bankrupt company has got not a whit to do with anything.
posted by hama7 at 7:51 AM on August 26, 2002

The heck we didn't! What was the gulf war about?
The Gulf War was about saving Saudi/Kuwaiti oil. The minute we ran them out of Kuwait we could give a shit about the Kurds - or else we wouldn't have let them be slaughtered.

And what about Somalia? That was an overthrow of a genocidal regime (of the kind that is so notorious)
Yeah, the situation in Somalia is sooooo wonderful now - if you think rampant warlords are wonderful. Ditto goes for Afghanistan. Guess what - Nation building is hard, yet necessary (unless you think post WWI Germany turned out real well)

Bin laden is pushing up daisies on Tora Bora
Show me some proof. As recent as last week the military folks said "we don't know where the fuck he is".

Enron? A bankrupt company has got not a whit to do with anything.
Enron and all the others have everything to do with everything.

You're not even doing a good job on the GOP talking points.
posted by owillis at 7:57 AM on August 26, 2002

Dowd was famous for tearing Clinton a new sphincter throughout his difficulties during his second term.
Despite this, Clinton went on record as saying she's the first column he read every morning.
She's Dave barry with substance behind the jokes. But she's no mirror image of Coulter, who's MO is simply to be the Madonna of Political Columnists.
posted by BentPenguin at 7:58 AM on August 26, 2002

The heck we didn't! What was the gulf war about?

The happy oil-rich oh-so-democratic kingdom of Kuwait, I believe.

The situation with the Kurds right now is accidentally optimal, and yet highly unstable. Now that I think of it, it reminds me of the bizarre status of Taiwan: de facto independence, when true independence would piss off not only Iraq but Turkey (and probably Iran).
posted by riviera at 8:00 AM on August 26, 2002

She's Dave barry with substance behind the jokes
Dowd is Barry with neither substance nor jokes. Barry is actually entertaining (and actually has a political message at times). I can't make heads nor tails of a Dowd column.
posted by owillis at 8:14 AM on August 26, 2002

Thanks for the slap -

but "Attacking first prevents American casualties. Isn't that enough?" is hardly a picture. This is supposed American casualties. They don't have the bomb yet do they? I was under the impression that they are still trying to find ways to build the thing. Hence the club is a nerf bat.

The only way that SH can win this war is to appear the victim to other Arab Nations. What better way then to be attacked by the big bad United States for the "possible" development of weapons of mass destruction.

(I only say possible because no matter how damning the evidence, there will be some Arab people that will not believe it unless they are used in an attack, on them.)

The PR War is the "only" arena in which SH can compete with the United States. If he plays his cards right he will win it. It doesn't matter what Americans think, if the rest of the world is against it.

Assuming SH is a big a wack job as you're painting him:

If SH is put into a position where he has nothing to lose what is going to stop him from attacking Israel(US by proxy)? Is Israel going to stand back and take it or are then going to retaliate?

Then Israel retaliates and the Middle East really destabilizes. What then?

All this because he might get the bomb in a few years. If he's a threat then we haven't been trying hard enough to depose him through the right political/economic methods (too much stick and too little carrot).

Hama7 you didn't argue with any of my points except for the number of CEO's in the regime at least so it seemed to me. You didn't come close to painting a picture much less a polaroid of what I asked to be shown.

Perhaps you should have waited and replied when you had more time, otherwise you are treating a situation way too cavalierly to have given it enough thought. How did you hope to convince me of anything with your 2 line response.

Right now it looks like you are just someone that likes to listen to the sound of their own voice.

Are you in the military?





posted by Wong Fei-hung at 8:27 AM on August 26, 2002

Oops, YOUR OWN VOICE.
posted by Wong Fei-hung at 8:30 AM on August 26, 2002

Baker, and Scowcroft, and many other Bush I, Reagan, and Nixon/Ford alumni are to a greater or lesser extent dependent upon the continued patronage of various totalitarian Arab regime for their continued wealth. The amount of money which flowed to them in the 1990's from the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and various Gulf emirates/sultanates cannot be overstated.

There was always a strain in post-1967 Republican thought that regarded Israel as a burden on American policy, and support for Israel something which pushed the Islamic world toward the Soviets, on behalf of an interest group (American Jews) which voted for Democrats, anyway. (Baker made a famous remark along those lines...) Beyond their own geopolitical concerns, this was a contingent of the classic "country club Republicans," with quite a strong legacy of their own anti-Semitism.
posted by MattD at 8:50 AM on August 26, 2002

The heck we didn't! What was the gulf war about?

Are you fucking kidding? It must be nice to live with such an unabashed confidence in US propaganda. Yeah, the US really gives two shits about the Kurds. Ya know, I have partial ownership of this bridge in Ohio, and I would love for you to invest in it.
posted by adampsyche at 10:04 AM on August 26, 2002

War is generally good for this country economically, at least it has been in the past anyway.

I don't believe this statement to be true. Consider Henry Hazlittâ??s "broken window fallacy":

In his classic Economics in One Lesson, Hazlitt uses the simple example of someone breaking a window to disprove the notion that this is good for the economy. True, the broken window will provide a job for the repairman, who, in turn, purchases equipment from someone else in order to complete the job. Those who claim that war is good for the economy make similar claims about how the defense industry and military spending will create jobs.

However, these claims are just as fallacious as claims that a broken window creates jobs. In the case of the window, the argument completely overlooks the impact on the homeowner, who must now dip into savings or curtail spending in order to cover the costs of repair. The homeowner is worse off because resources have been diverted away from planned expenditures or savings simply to return the house to its previous condition. At best, the broken window created no new jobs or wealth, it simply switched the beneficiaries of the homeownerâ??s budgetary decisions. At worst, it means that the homeowner had to forgo investment decisions that would have helped to expand the economic pie rather than reapportion the existing slices.

So, war might be good for individual companies, but on the whole it's bad for the economy.
posted by Triplanetary at 12:06 PM on August 26, 2002

I'm sorry, Mr Hazlitt, for mangling your name there. For the record, it should be Henry Hazlitt's "broken window fallacy".
posted by Triplanetary at 12:09 PM on August 26, 2002

I agree that war just doesn't produce money out of thin air. In WWII wasn't the US paid reparations from Japan and Germany? Russia annexed East Germany and a large part of Eastern Europe. Russia dismantled whole factories in East Germany and shipped them to the motherland.

Do you think the Shrub is going to invade Iraq as a public service to the rest of the world? It wouldn't surprise me if the new regime was forced into giving the US some sort of favorable deal on Oil in order to compensate us for having to "fix" their leadership problem.

Maybe not even forced. Maybe an Iraqi politician will promise us just that in order to be handed the leadership of Iraq. War with Iraq would be good for our economy, in the short term at least, and bad for Iraq's.
posted by Wong Fei-hung at 6:08 PM on August 26, 2002

Enron and all the others have everything to do with everything.

Like what? Account fraud, maybe. A blot on the Bush administration? Hardly.
posted by hama7 at 3:29 AM on August 27, 2002

War with Iraq would be good for our economy, in the short term at least, and bad for Iraq's.

Wrong-o, Wrong Fei. A totalitarian dictatorship like Iraq's and North Korea's props itself up fat and happy in Mercedes and Rolex while its minions scavenge along the roadside for roots and berries, and its generous foreign rations donations go to its military. Freedom for Iraq means freedom for its people. Do I really have to explain this?
posted by hama7 at 3:35 AM on August 27, 2002

Perhaps you should explain it -

Your last post seems to imply that Bush gives a damn about the freedom of the Iraqi people. I'm sorry but the only thing he cares about is the economy (big business) and getting a second term.

If he helps a nation gain their "freedom" that is just a side benefit. Didn't the US Government leave the Iraqi people with a bunch of empty promises the last time we pulled out of Iraq? I don't know about you but the US Governments track record in this area doesn't look good to me.

I don't really have high hopes that the US government is going to do any better by Afghanistan. If the Shrub was really concerned with the freedom of people in the world why isn't he taking this war to North Korea, or China or Cuba for that matter.

Basically because he can't justify it to the American people. He is taking the war to Iraq because he can at least come close to faking a justification.

Please explain it to me and while you are at it please address some of my points. Your statement about totalitarian governments didn't really make sense.

I'm sure you have more experience with them than I do but when I am having a discussion with someone I try and acknowledge what they are saying by addressing the points of their argument in my rebuttal and providing something of a complete argument with which to work.

Wrongo - Wong-Fei just doesn't cut it.
posted by Wong Fei-hung at 5:37 AM on August 27, 2002

I got a 3rd opinion about your statement and am now understanding what you are talking about. I was framing my last argument in the framework of Henry Hazlitt's "broken window fallacy", I.E. The US is the window repairman and Iraq is the homeowner.

I thought Triplanetary was putting the US in the role of the window repairman and the homeowner and i was trying to point out who I thought should be in those roles.

I agree that a regime change "may" be better for the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Economy, but only if we replace SH with someone better. The US weeded out allot of those candidates when we promised to back Iraqi dissidents and then left them to swing in the wind.

SH should of thanked us for pointing out his enemies to him. I was under the impression that allot (if not all) of the leaders of the dissident movement have been tortured and killed.

But I digress.

I originally replied to your request for reasons why Bush would invade Iraq. I left out that he might also want to be known as the president that finished what Bush Senior started. I never stated that the US invented capitalism - they just perfected screwing over your neighbor for a profit.

Nowhere have I stated that the Iraqi people deserve to be stuck under the yoke of their current leadership.

I am stating that my leaders reasons for attacking Iraq are not at all that altruistic. Attacking Iraq can only fuel Osama Bil Ladens propaganda machine as "proof" of the US's anti-muslim/anti-arab policies and actions.

Disregarding the opinions of all the Arab nations against attacking Iraq forces these nations to not be for the US, and to quote my fearless leader - "You are either with us or against us".

Without the cooperation of the US allies and the Arab Nations in the Middle East the US will find itself on the defensive in the war on terror, the real war.
posted by Wong Fei-hung at 7:09 AM on August 27, 2002