Molly Ivins proffers the absurd notion that we give peace a chance.
June 24, 2002 4:09 AM   Subscribe

Molly Ivins proffers the absurd notion that we give peace a chance. Even more absurd is that she has a pretty good reason to do so.
posted by crasspastor (26 comments total)
 
Our non-intervention in Afghanistan between 1991 and 2001 providing a splendid example, of course.
posted by dhartung at 4:27 AM on June 24, 2002


One could argue that the situation in Afganistan was the result of Soviet military interventionism, and that we just happen to be catching the backlash this time around. One might also recall that we weren't really attacked by the Afganis: bin Laden is a Saudi, and was acting in claimed defense of Saudi interests... in reaction against US intervention there. Sure the Taliban was complicit -- but would hypothetical US intervention there during the 90's prevented bin Laden from just setting up shop somewhere else?

I'm also not so sure our current intervention there is a success story: we didn't acheive our stated goals, have no exit strategy, may have made the hunt for terrorists more difficult by spreading them across a wider area. Mostly into Pakistan, apparently, where it seems rather unlikely we'll be applying this strike-first doctrine anyway.

Are pre-emptive declaration of war, or total head-in-the-sand isolationism really the only options? Wouldn't it be better to find a way of protecting ourselves from terrorism that doesn't involve creating a whole new generation of people that hate the US?
posted by ook at 6:27 AM on June 24, 2002


Ken Adelman was recently asked on television one of those major "what if" questions and actually replied, "Don't worry about that."

The NEW American Government: Leave the thinking to us!
posted by ColdChef at 6:32 AM on June 24, 2002


If the situation in Afghanistan is the result of Soviet military action as ook suggests, then we must also recognize the role the U.S. played in encouraging Soviet involvement. Zbigniew Brzezinski has stated that the U.S. "knowingly increased the probability" that the Soviets would get involved.
posted by maurice at 6:40 AM on June 24, 2002


I like Molly Ivins.

> Ken Adelman was recently asked ...

Now don't you voters go and worry your pretty little heads about big ol' problems like that. You just leave everything to Daddy and things'll come out just fine.
posted by pracowity at 6:42 AM on June 24, 2002


[Asked about the possibility that an attack on Iraq would so upset Arab peoples they would overthrow now-friendly governments in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the neo-cons dismiss the question. "All the better if you ask me," Adelman told Marshall. What's better about having Islamist fanatics running Egypt and Saudi Arabia?]

That's not dismissing the question, It's answering it. What's better about it? They don't pretend to be our friends anymore, and we don't pretend that they are our allies. That leads to a quick and decisive end to the mess for all of us.
posted by revbrian at 6:50 AM on June 24, 2002


revbrian, you forgot the sarcasm tag.
posted by ook at 7:01 AM on June 24, 2002


Our non-intervention in Afghanistan between 1991 and 2001 providing a splendid example, of course.

Our arming of Afghanistan in the 80s was equally splendid.

This quote is the best thing in the article, and while I generally can't stand Ivins' politics or writing style, its a good one:

"President Bush has directed his top security people -- a happy nest of neo-con hawks -- 'to make a doctrine of pre-emptive action against states and terrorist groups trying to develop weapons of mass destruction.' This means, we declare war first. This dogma "will be the foundation of a new national security strategy.' "

We should just take a pre-emptive policy to its logical conclusion, and occupy every country. Hey, they'll be better off for it!
posted by insomnyuk at 8:08 AM on June 24, 2002


I'd like to know where Molly Ivins confirmed that we've got special-operations folks regularly deploying to Iraq. Not that I'd be surprised if it were confirmed, but I doubt like hell anybody'd tell her.
posted by alumshubby at 8:23 AM on June 24, 2002


What's better about having Islamist fanatics running Egypt and Saudi Arabia?

Well, duh! It gives us our mandate to go in and take 'em out!
posted by rushmc at 9:00 AM on June 24, 2002


Molly Ivins article is ridiculous. We have "troops in Uzbekistan"? Mine as well say we have troops in Japan, Germany and Greece, too, since the one there and in Uzbekistan are only there as a base and to help deter attacks in the region. Of the 7 countries she listed, we're currently at war with zero of them. Our troops in Afghanistan are working with Afghanis, Brits, Turks and many others, not fighting the government.

If Bush was such a hawk, why haven't we actually attacked any of these countries? Our bombing runs in Iraq have been going on for years, mainly because he keeps firing missiles at planes from the peacekeeping forces and we have to destroy those bases. Why do we have planes there? To keep a no-fly-zone so that Saddam stops killing Kurds and minority Muslims. He had basically attempted genocide.

Bush is not perfect, but his foreign policy has been effective. No country in history has done more to relieve nations with murderous leaders while at the same time protecting its own national security and keeping causalties to as low as possible a figure as the current United States and our allies.

Ms. Ivins, the people in Iraq do not like Saddam Hussein, aside from those that have profitted because of his reign. The people in the Kurdish north have had their living conditions (life expectancy, caloric intake, infant mortality) all improve since gaining limited self-rule because of the no-fly-zone.

Even inside of Iraq proper, conditions are not dire. The life expectancy and literacy are the same as before the Gulf War, and infant mortality has dropped (source).

Should we invade Iraq? I don't think we should because of the ramifications of an attack in the middle east without the support of middle east people and media, and with no evidence of current international wrongdoing by Saddam (though he's certainly doing some bad inside of his nation). There's no need to invent exaggerated figures as Ms. Ivins does to make this point. If she really cared about improving people's lives and not launching a liberal crusade against the Bush government, perhaps she could pen "Saddam, give peace a chance" next week.
posted by Kevs at 1:24 PM on June 24, 2002


revbrian, you forgot the sarcasm tag.

Those are generally used when sarcasm is intended and I'll guarantee you didn't intend it to be taken as sarcasm. It's interesting that this article begins with a quote from Winston Churchill which she obviously did not realize WAS sarcastic. Churchill was a warmongering hawk who begged Parliament to establish an aggresive stance against fascist buildups on the continent. She should have quoted Neville Chamberlin who was the British PM who held peace talks and ceded territory to avoid war, only to discover that he was hip deep into World War II when he finished.

I find it depressing that people would rather have the illusion of peace than decisive change. It's interesting that this article seems to completely ignore the costs of not intervening as if they don't exist - but I think Kevs has summed up the situation nicely whilst I was typing. Good job...
posted by RevGreg at 1:37 PM on June 24, 2002


Can I be really, really, inappropriate and say that MI's old hairdo was much nicer?
posted by gimonca at 2:38 PM on June 24, 2002


Molly Ivins article is ridiculous. We have "troops in Uzbekistan"? Mine as well say we have troops in Japan, Germany and Greece, too, since the one there and in Uzbekistan are only there as a base and to help deter attacks in the region. Of the 7 countries she listed, we're currently at war with zero of them.

True, but Uzbekistan is the only one ruled by a former Communist party chief who cracks down on dissidents for recreation, especially if they happen to be Muslim women launching such outrageous campaigns as a wish for democracy.

Or does 'we're not at war with' make it all right to be propping up rulers for whom elections happen to other countries, not theirs? Because 'our enemy's enemy' worked so well when it came to bankrolling Saddam Hussein in the 1980s?
posted by riviera at 3:17 PM on June 24, 2002


Our troops in Afghanistan are working with Afghanis, Brits, Turks and many others, not fighting the government.

Um, yeah, well, not now that we've violently deposed them and "encouraged" the installation of one more to our liking, no.
posted by rushmc at 3:42 PM on June 24, 2002


Can I be really, really, inappropriate and say that MI's old hairdo was much nicer?

Actually, she has been receiving treatment for breast cancer in the last year or two, and its probably the chemotherapy which is responsible for the new 'do, if anything.
posted by insomnyuk at 3:45 PM on June 24, 2002


From Molly's screed: As for the longer menu of war and near-war under the Bush Doctrine, why not try peace instead?

From Bush's speech today:

For too long, the citizens of the Middle East have lived in the midst of death and fear. The hatred of a few holds the hopes of many hostage. The forces of extremism and terror are attempting to kill progress and peace by killing the innocent. And this casts a dark shadow over an entire region.

For the sake of all humanity, things must change in the Middle East. It is untenable for Israeli citizens to live in terror. It is untenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and occupation. And the current situation offers no prospect that life will improve. Israeli citizens will continue to be victimized by terrorists, and so Israel will continue to defend herself, and the situation of the Palestinian people will grow more and more miserable.

My vision is two states, living side by side, in peace and security. There is simply no way to achieve that peace until all parties fight terror.


So, Molly, what exactly is your problem with the "Bush Doctrine?"
posted by RevGreg at 3:49 PM on June 24, 2002


Why do we have planes there? To keep a no-fly-zone so that Saddam stops killing Kurds and minority Muslims. He had basically attempted genocide.

Funny, we didn't have a problem with that genocide when he was an ally.

No country in history has done more to relieve nations with murderous leaders while at the same time protecting its own national security and keeping causalties to as low as possible a figure as the current United States and our allies.

Which allies do you mean? Pinochet? Suharto? Saddam Hussein?
posted by Ty Webb at 4:00 PM on June 24, 2002


See, this is the problem I'm talking about. If we're not helping depose Suharto and Kazimov (the Uzbek leader), we're supporting their brual regime. If we do remove them, we're "encouraging American interests overseas" through hawkish military policies.

Pray tell, what exactly do the left suggest we do with Hussein? What about with Kazimov? Other disliked rulers? It's a lose-lose situation. Peace has already been tried - it was called the UN embargo, and it didn't work. Multilateralist peace has failed, and has killed millions because of its inaction.

Something must be done with nations that are committing unthinkable crimes against their people. A recent example of "hawkish unilateralism" was US and allied action in former Yugoslavia. It seems to me that it worked. Should Saddam commit another egregious crime against humanity, I would support a similar course of action.
posted by Kevs at 4:39 PM on June 24, 2002


I find it depressing that people would rather have the illusion of peace than decisive change. [RevGreg]

An "illusion of peace" is not what I'm looking for. I'm just saying -- as, I believe, is this article -- that maybe all-out war isn't the only, or best, solution.

I'll guarantee you didn't intend it to be taken as sarcasm [ibid]

And I'm saying that to suggest that it'd be good if our allies fell, because then we could have even more people to war against -- as revbrian, and presumably Adelman, suggested -- is too dumb to be taken as anything but sarcasm.

If we're not helping depose Suharto and Kazimov (the Uzbek leader), we're supporting their brual regime. If we do remove them, we're "encouraging American interests overseas" through hawkish military policies. [Kev]

This point is well taken, though -- you're quite right, it is a no-win situation, and criticism would be inevitable no matter what course of action were taken. (Do remember, though, that you're not talking to a monolithic "Left"; for the most part, those are different people on each end of that contradiction.)
posted by ook at 4:52 PM on June 24, 2002


If we're not helping depose Suharto and Kazimov (the Uzbek leader), we're supporting their brual regime. If we do remove them, we're "encouraging American interests overseas" through hawkish military policies.

No, that's a false choice. The U.S. did a lot more than "not help depose" Suharto, in particular; the U.S. (Ford/Kissinger) knowingly facilitated the massacre of the East Timorese through military training and arms sales.

I'm glad we've prevented Hussein from gassing any more Kurds, but it also would've helped if we hadn't increased military and economic support to his regime when he did it the first time around. It always amazes me how people bring this up as if the U.S. were overly concerned with the Kurds; we aren't. Turkey maintains a brutal offensive against any moves toward Kurdish independance, and the U.S. has no problem with that. This is one of the reasons why Bush's appeals to "international standards of decency", etc, are greeted with barely muffled laughter around the world.

A recent example of "hawkish unilateralism" was US and allied action in former Yugoslavia.

"allied action" is multilateral by definition.
posted by Ty Webb at 4:57 PM on June 24, 2002


I'm just saying -- as, I believe, is this article -- that maybe all-out war isn't the only, or best, solution.

The fallacy of that stance is that must first believe that our current administration wants an all out war. I for one believe that they do not. What they do want is to present the image that all out war is a possibility in order to encourage the parties involved to actually do something other than the sitzkrieg (pardon the expression) that has existed for 30+ years now - and in order to do so we must prepare for all out war, threaten all out war and be absolutely ready for all out war as an option.
posted by RevGreg at 5:14 PM on June 24, 2002


insomnyuk: Ouch, my apologies to anyone, I didn't know that.
posted by gimonca at 6:38 PM on June 24, 2002


What they do want is to present the image that all out war is a possibility

Indeed. And bluffing is a part of any good diplomatic strategy. But the problem with a bluff is that if somebody calls you on it, you have to follow through. I don't think pre-emptive military threats are the solution. I happen to think what's needed here is more like a police force than a military force: invading nations isn't going to help you catch people who are funded and organized internationally. If we were to guarantee investigation and retaliation for specific acts, past or future, but tone down the overt belligerence, I think that would protect the homeland at least as effectively as blustering threats -- and would serve the double benefit of reducing tensions overall.

That's just one opinion, there's obviously plenty of reasons you may disagree with it, and there are surely plenty of differing opinions represented here. I just dislike the increasing frequency with which war is being presented as the only available option.
posted by ook at 7:23 PM on June 24, 2002


maurice, if we're going to blame Zbig (rather than, say, Daoud and his pals in flushing the country Karmal, Taraki, and Najibullah), why not follow the path all the way back and blame the British? Or the Persians? Or Genghiz Khan? At some point responsibility is diluted to homeopathic levels. Frankly, the place had ten years to get its act together after the USSR and US signed the 1991 mutual agreement to cease arms sales -- which the people complaining now, at the time thought was saintly behavior. And American reluctance to remain engaged as interim government after interim government warred against each other surely must have something to do with what bin Laden's men wrought on the streets of Mogadishu in 1993. Or, no, wait, that all falls in Zbig's lap too. After all, only the West has any moral responsibility; the rest is just noble savages who react to what we do.

Remember, when passing out blame, it's duck, duck, duck, goose, Westerner! And run quick!

As for Ivins, as noted above she makes the egregious category error of equating having troops stationed somewhere with "intervention". (Yes, I well remember all the French terrorism we endured as a result of "intervention".) And of course I don't have to tell anyone that having a response policy is not the same thing as using one. After all, we've lived with a nuclear response policy for half a century, which hasn't been used in that time.

Finally, Ivins must know that the discussion of a pre-emption policy is not in itself a substantive change in terms of our actions. We would always act in self-defense. It is an incremental change in what we are asking our allies to support -- in short, it is an attempt to formulate a military response within the framework of a multilateral policy to which other nations can agree. It's not unilateral at all; in fact it shows that the crew in DC understand how to use multilateralism to our advantage rather than constantly enduring these silly arguments over whether we're being more "uni" than "multi" where the former is universally bad and the latter universally good. In the end, her attempt to distinguish this policy from the idea of international law indicates that she doesn't think that international law can ever be extended or modified except as a way of hemming in American policy. In fact, international law being a living thing with no written constitution, framed by the very sovereignty questions she would use to eschew intervention, it is always subject to the influence of its signatories. We have every right to try to influence it towards a fruitful direction from our point of view, and all the more so if other countries cynically try to use international law to play bell the hyperpower cat.
posted by dhartung at 1:31 AM on June 25, 2002


As for Ivins, as noted above she makes the egregious category error of equating having troops stationed somewhere with "intervention".

More like: You (USA) are everywhere and assert your right of way anywhere you feel works to benefit American interests. We (insert axis of all gibberish here), we cannot do what you are able to do, we are powerless and poor, our government ripe for being taken over by corporate interests. We cannot, as a sovereign nation of people, afford even our own cars, let alone designer shoes, computer, cell phone or non GMO tofu-pups like you can in your trendy natural foods supermarkets. We want what you have. We'll play by your rules until it no longer suits us. Until a bigger bully promises our rich leaders more.

What makes what the US wants and its cadre of well financed military branches with their insanely well off corporate benefactors trump the needs, the security, the EGO, of other nation states? American Imperialism can just run willy-nilly about the planet impervious to such stridency's "blowback"?

If what we want as a species is peace, freedom and responsible treatment of the environment, in other words from Ivin's article, that we rethink the benefits, as a people, of American/corporate Imerialism and how it applies to us as individuals and communities. This Imperialism (said or unsaid) impacts everybody, but the people, the extant members of the human species, are they who reap little of its unjust bounty. As an American taxpayer, I am no more a part of it than that I unfortunately help to finance it. As do we all -- MeFiUSA. Whether any of us agree with whatever going politician, pundit or adherent's rehearsed line it is, whether it be Michael Reagan, Don Imus, Kevs or whoever that says this is the best route for civilization to follow, it speaks nothing to the true fact, that they themselves, breathe the same air, don the same sweat dried shirts, eat the same scarred-hand picked squash, as the working-class peasantry, the born today/terrorist tomorrow ordinary human. Or the ordinary liberal you share the planet with who chooses to live life placing himself in other's shoes.

So, if somebody cares enough to see to it that they remind us to take care of the only planet we have, that makes them a global-village idiot? Regardless of the answer:

It's your globe too idiots! Deal the fuck with it, that people give a fuck about it.
posted by crasspastor at 2:48 AM on June 25, 2002


« Older Virus Books   |   Are they serving popcorn and Junior Mints at this... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments