More Cognitive Dissonance

November 18, 2003 10:22 AM

To Invade Or Not To Invade?
Many have expressed the sentiment that unilaterally invading other countries can be justified as serving the best interests of its people. We can all agree that brutal dictatorships are a bad thing. What should be done when they are identified? Engagement or invasion? Should cognitive dissonance by our leaders be ignored and/or accepted? Are double standards justified by financial interests? Here is another case where all litmus tests fail.
posted by nofundy (38 comments total)

Invade. Yes... invade.
posted by Witty at 10:36 AM on November 18, 2003

They should be handled on a case by case basis. However, if I was running the show, I'd make sure that no government that repressed its people would get no support other than humanitarian aid.

In any event the US is very hypocritical and even a cursory glance at history shows that the US will engage any government if it thinks the (usually economic) interests of the US may benefit. I'm thinking in particular about N Korea and Cuba here where the US says human rights abuses means no business, yet Bush Sr sends a secret envoy to the PRC a week after the Tianamen (sp) massacre.
posted by infowar at 10:39 AM on November 18, 2003

Just wanted to point out that this article is pretty much just a transcription of the piece on last Sunday's Sixty Minutes.
posted by destro at 10:40 AM on November 18, 2003

Isn't an embassy the first step of engagement? Honestly, 500,000 people is a mere blip on the bigger picture of the world. China has had long-standing human rights' issues that has progressively gotten better over time, because of their role in global economics. Wouldn't you think that Equatorial Guinea's oil is actually a way for their people to come out of a repressive regime? Offer the world a reason to pay attention and receive money for the goods at the same time.

Obviously the US isn't going to give a shit about you unless you offer something in return. That's not politics, that's humanity. How many of us actually give money to beggars on the street, really? Once in a while, sure...but every time you see a poor person, you don't immediately open your wallet.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:40 AM on November 18, 2003

BlueTrain: I guess it's like Disraeli said about Britain: No friends, only interests.
posted by alumshubby at 10:43 AM on November 18, 2003

Friendship is based on common interests, not random acts of kindness.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:45 AM on November 18, 2003

How many of us actually give money to beggars on the street, really? Once in a while, sure...but every time you see a poor person, you don't immediately open your wallet.

On the other hand, I don't pay someone to beat the shit out of beggars and take what little money they have. You need to include that tidbit if you want a complate analogy for US policies.
posted by badstone at 10:51 AM on November 18, 2003

This is a farce. We don't have the authority to decide, much less invade. As far as I understand it, what happened in Iran was a popular revolution, and resulted in nothing resembling "democracy." Same in North Vietnam. And it remains to be seen whether, after invading, if we can replace the dictator with anything better. Why do you think countries arrive at such dire governance in the first place?

Even if we had the ability to decide which dictators needed to go, we don't have the budget to take care of them all around the world, and so we'd wind up taking care of the ones that are in our economic interest. If we really had an interest in deposing oppressive, undemocratic regimes, instead of just a keen interest in stimulating our own economy through warfare, we'd topple the Saudi ruling family immediately.
posted by scarabic at 10:52 AM on November 18, 2003

Honestly, 500,000 people is a mere blip on the bigger picture of the world.

Yes, that's how Marx looked at it too. And Mao, who "believed that China would lose less than half its population in a nuclear war, and was therefore not worried." Looking at people as individuals, believing that "taking a single life is like destroying an entire world, and saving a single life is like saving an entire world," is so inefficient. We must at all costs be realistic.
posted by languagehat at 11:23 AM on November 18, 2003

nothing is what it seems.
posted by muppetboy at 11:37 AM on November 18, 2003

Invade. Yes... invade.

who? and why?
posted by mcsweetie at 11:37 AM on November 18, 2003

Invade them all and convert them to Christianity.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 11:50 AM on November 18, 2003

Invade them all, convert them to Christianity, hand choose their form of government, install a lasting military presence, and make them understand at the muzzle of a gun we're only doing it for their own good.

"We Offered Them Order!"

Oh, and then the citizens of the US should send their Goodwill things overseas to them, to show 'em we're really nice people after all.
posted by Perigee at 12:03 PM on November 18, 2003

Let me be the first to welcome our... No, I can't do it...

How about: Hooray for the Black Iron Prison!
posted by badstone at 12:05 PM on November 18, 2003

Yeah but do they got Weapons of Mass destruction? How bout Nuk-yoo-ler Weapons?
posted by aaronscool at 12:08 PM on November 18, 2003

we'll never know until we invade them, will we? sneaky bastards.
posted by badstone at 12:14 PM on November 18, 2003

"God wills it!"
posted by alumshubby at 12:20 PM on November 18, 2003

Here is another case where all litmus tests fail.

In other words, no single approach is correct for all oppressive governments. In other words, as infowar said, they must be handled on a case-by-case basis. Sounds about right to me.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:33 PM on November 18, 2003

I suggest the matter be handled like a teevee show. Every issue should be resolved in a linear fashion in 50 minutes, with an emotionally gratifying outcome. Next week, everything will be the same as it was at the beginning of this week.
Then all we need are a bunch of "A-Team" bullets so nobody gets hurt. Medals all around!
posted by kablam at 12:34 PM on November 18, 2003

who? and why?

Why, the bad and brutal dictatorships of course.... because they are bad and brutal. What other reason do you need?

This IS fun, I should have been playing this game all along. Count me in from now on.
posted by Witty at 12:38 PM on November 18, 2003

Oooh! Oooh!! Let me play too!

I liked this one best, when they threw it at me:

"So, McSweetie - why are you standing up for bad and brutal dictatorships? You some kinda commie bastard? Why do you hate America so much?"
posted by Perigee at 12:54 PM on November 18, 2003

"So, McSweetie - why are you standing up for bad and brutal dictatorships? You some kinda commie bastard? Why do you hate America so much?"

it's our freedoms. I hate them!
posted by mcsweetie at 1:17 PM on November 18, 2003

Attaboy - we'll have you pulling the "Right Thinking" lever in no time, m'boy!
posted by Perigee at 1:19 PM on November 18, 2003

On the other hand, I don't pay someone to beat the shit out of beggars and take what little money they have.

But how much of that is attributable to the fact no such service exists? As far as you know.
posted by yerfatma at 2:20 PM on November 18, 2003

How about this idea? Rather than debate whether to unilaterally, proactively, illegally attack soveriegn nations, why don't we funnel more spending into our own economy and into becoming more powerful and more self-sufficient, so that we don't need to have dealings with countries who fail to make progress towards democracy?

Let's stack the decks in favor of freedom, sit back, and let time and the evolutionary nature of history do the rest. Worked well enough with the Soviet Union...
posted by insomnia_lj at 3:22 PM on November 18, 2003

no government that repressed its people would get no support other than humanitarian aid.

Our invasion, liberation and occupation of Iraq is precisely that: humanitarian. Probably the largest single humantarian aid package in history.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:49 PM on November 18, 2003

Let's stack the decks in favor of freedom, sit back, and let time and the evolutionary nature of history do the rest. Worked well enough with the Soviet Union...

:I

Doomsayers continue to predict extended operations, massive casualties, or expansion of operations beyond control of the players, but rarely has the Army entered into an operation without the sincere belief that it would dominate and succeed. Jomini would be proud of this sanguine approach to war. He allowed for a prescription for a winnable war of limited nature. Under the control of skilled commander and a trained staff, Jomini considered war scientifically manageable.

'-Scientific Optimism: Jomini and the U.S. Army'
Major Gregory R. Ebner


The Jomini Factor
posted by clavdivs at 5:10 PM on November 18, 2003

OH, forget the
"
pardon
posted by clavdivs at 5:15 PM on November 18, 2003

Our invasion, liberation and occupation of Iraq is precisely that: humanitarian. Probably the largest single humantarian aid package in history.

OK; that's rubbish. If you're going to count the Iraq war as a humanitarian effort, WWII/the Marshall Plan/the Japanese Occupation was certainly a humanitarian effort as well. And, in real (constant dollar, not to mention the loss of life) terms, it was orders of magnitude larger and more expensive than "our invasion, liberation, and occupation of Iraq". Hell, how about the crusades? The crusaders certainly saw themselves as "liberating" the holy land for Christian pilgrims. Vietnam? (We were "liberating" the South Vietnamese from communism, right?) You'd have to use some pretty twisted logic to argue the operations in Iraq are the largest single anything in history.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:24 PM on November 18, 2003

You'd have to use some pretty twisted logic to argue the operations in Iraq are the largest single anything in history.

Give it some time. Could very well be the "largest intelligence failure that became a reason to go to war in US history".

And please don't feed Paris...he's a large part of the reason "right of center" thought is undervalued on this site. His strawmen and crappy logic do not represent Republicans or conservatives.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:31 PM on November 18, 2003

BlueTrain: the voice of reason. True, $87 billion is a small change in 1945 dollars. My point was actually to piss off all of those left-of-center anti-Bush idiots who congregate on this site....
posted by ParisParamus at 6:03 PM on November 18, 2003

Don't feed the bears - they'll get ideas!

Meanwhile - Come on now, Foldy....arguing for consistency.......?

Don't you know that Richard Perle has determined that " consistency based on moral considerations is the hobgoblin of little foreign policies"?
posted by troutfishing at 7:40 PM on November 18, 2003

My point was actually to piss off all of those left-of-center anti-Bush idiots who congregate on this site....

that's probably not the best perspective to use when choosing your politics, but it does explain a lot.
posted by mcsweetie at 8:08 PM on November 18, 2003

The Vanishing Case for War
By Thomas Powers

The invasion and conquest of Iraq by the United States last spring was the result of what is probably the least ambiguous case of the misreading of secret intelligence information in American history. Whether it is even possible that a misreading so profound could yet be in some sense "a mistake" is a question to which I shall return. Going to war was not something we were forced to do and it certainly was not something we were asked to do. It was something we elected to do for reasons that have still not been fully explained.
posted by y2karl at 9:06 PM on November 18, 2003

I'll just say one thing.

We don't require the agreement of every gang leader and crime boss before we form a state police department. Why should we require the agreement of every violent dictator before we start bringing democracy and freedom to oppressed nations?
posted by krisjohn at 9:14 PM on November 18, 2003

Because we're not the Police Force of Planet Earth; we're just another country. Much as we'd apparently like to think otherwise.
posted by ook at 9:47 PM on November 18, 2003

(...and who says we're bringing democracy and freedom? So far all I see us doing is bringing bombs and guns, causing a whole lot of chaos and anger, failing to capture the dictators in question, then crossing our fingers and hoping for the best. You really think that's helpful, either to American interests or to the world in general?)
posted by ook at 10:06 PM on November 18, 2003

Could very well be the "largest intelligence failure that became a reason to go to war in US history".

I would disagree with this characterization. It would be more accurately stated as the largest failure to use good intelligence in a responsible manner. Twisting intelligence to suit a political goal is not a failure of intelligence but a failure of its use.

Y2karl's link goes into greater detail and is, as are all his links/posts, recommended reading.
posted by nofundy at 5:15 AM on November 19, 2003