I just heard on the news how Susan Rice, the US representative with the UN, says that the country is prepared to go against the UN decisions and “help” the people of Syria through unleashing military measures against them. I have a question: when will we stop giving this unwanted “help” to people who don’t want us around and concentrate on our own serious issues?
83 responses to “Stop Helping Already!”
-
Susan Rice was one of the three witches who pressured Obama to go into Libya. And what a mess they left there! Drown her in her own cauldron!
LikeLike
-
Ah, I didn’t know this! Now things are getting clearer.
LikeLike
-
-
I have not been paying due attention to the Syrian situation, but I keep hearing, vaguely, that US is craven to ignore it (i.e. not take military action). I cannot help thinking that really, this is just an excuse to get into another war to keep the arms industry booming, and I get this sinking feeling that the destruction and mayhem will only increase.
LikeLike
-
That’s exactly how I feel. More money will be siphoned off into this, more enemies will be made. But the military contractors will make out like bandits. Yippee!
LikeLike
-
-
The US definitely has been involved in 2-4 wars of questionable value since WWII (Iraq and Vietnam for sure, and Korea & Afghanistan I am less certain were failures of intention, but perhaps execution), but America’s role as a stabilizing force in this world and for a force for good has bee UNPRECEDENTED in world history.
We had magnificent foresight with the Marshall Plan in Europe and also in rebuilding Japan in a structure that has made it one of our great allies and a great technology leader in modern society.
Without going into a long diatribe, my point is that while major armed conflict needs to be seriously scrutinized, our ability to help shape the outcome in smaller skirmishes has been very successful. I know charles rowley is saying Libya was a disaster (and I welcome details on why the world is worse now that a form of loose democracy has a chance to take roots) but fundamentally the world has treneded towards democratic norms over the last 70 years and that is a GREAT thing for ending violence.
If the US can help Syria trend that way… AND neuter the Iranians in the process (Syria is their largest proxy state ally) rock on 🙂
Also, if it wasn’t for the international community (and lets be real, the UN ex US is an old man ex viagra (this early in the morning it sounds like a witty reference lol)) Assad would have EVERY motive to gas his own people.
So yes, Obama, as terrible as I president as I may think you are in some areas, Libya was a good way to use American force and a similar resolution in Syria would be good for long-term US AND world-wide interests (except muslim extremists.. but they can pound sand 🙂 )
LikeLike
-
//if it wasn’t for the international community … Assad would have EVERY motive to gas his own people
I thought he was doing whatever he wanted anyway, no? If his regime falls, he’s a dead man, why should he think of UN in this situation? Unless Assad thinks “if I kill X rebels in Y way, UN will come to help & I will be dead, better do it in Z way”.
I won’t try to judge whether it’s better for Israel or for peace in the region that US interferes or not in Syria, but, Clarissa, why do you think rebels in Syria don’t want US help? Also, in theory if US intervention in another country wasn’t a good idea, it doesn’t say anything about this new, current situation.
I want to ask Matt and other US readers about 1 topic. If Clarissa wrote a post about it, it would’ve been great. Please, put it in posts’ requests, if you want to write this. 🙂 The topic goes thus:
Matt talked of “America’s role as a stabilizing force in this world” and of “a good way to use American force”. From the impression I got, may Americans think this way now. Would be very curious to do
A SURVEY:
– Do you think US is a stabilizing force in this world and, on the whole, does good for countries and/or itself, when it intervenes?
– Are you for US to intervene more/less/same in the future?
– Would your answers to 2 previous questions change, if US had “the draft”? How?
– Which changes, if any, would happen in US politics, had the draft stayed? Would it be better or worse for US interests as a country? For the world in general (which is a completely different question, of course) ?
Notice: I am NOT talking of a personal interest of somebody not wanting to serve, but of a country as a whole and of other countries, which don’t care about personal interests of US citizens as long as it doesn’t affect them.LikeLike
-
I think the draft is a horrible idea. Only people who are suited to it should go into the military. It’s a very special personality that can deal with this kind of profession. Forcing people into it against their will and their inclination is a very very bad and dangerous idea.
Look, my grandfather was in WW2. This was a just war by anybody’s standards. He was defending his country from the Nazi invaders, what can be more important than that? He fought bravely, from the first day of war to the last. Had a chest full of medals. Was wounded twice. My grandfather was an undoubted hero. I don’t think anybody would argue otherwise.
However. In analysis, my grandfather’s being in the war keeps coming up. I can trace many of my today’s issues to his being in the war. I’m still fighting the war today, so to speak. In psychology, this is called “the echo of the war.” It stays with you through generations. And this is an undoubtedly just war. Imagine what happens when the the war in question is something like imvading Syria for reasons no regular soldier can even begin to comprehend.
I know a man who was in Vietnam War. He tells me he still has PTSD. He chose not to have children because he didn’t want them to inherit the trauma.
We are creating crowds of deeply traumatized boys and girls who will raise deeply traumatized children. And for what? Can anybody explain to me how it is even remotely worth it?
LikeLike
-
Also, there is no “country” outside of its individual citizens. When people and their individual interests get sacrificed for the sake of an imaginary identity construct, we get a totalitarian regime. The only point of having a country is to make the lives of individual people as good and pleasant as possible. Otherwise, a country has no value.
LikeLike
-
//And for what? Can anybody explain to me how it is even remotely worth it?
Well, that’s what I asked in survey’s last question.
Do you really think nowadays in US “Only people who are suited to it” go, who don’t get trauma? A woman, whose lj I read and linked to, when you asked for new blogs, served and has PTSD. On Feministe post people shared how economic class plays in it.
I have this inner feeling that with a draft in US:
1 – not only (mainly) poor people would serve
2 – US public would be *much* more careful in what wars and how US would participate. If *you* and not only unimportant citizens of country X can get killed or get PTSD, people would think more than twice.In general, there is something extremely corrupting, when waging war in faraway countries is easy (for people who don’t serve, but vote) and when people, who don’t serve themselves, vote for more wars. Disgusting in a way, from my pov.
LikeLike
-
People who choose the military as a profession are people with very high degrees of aggression. It’s better for them to channel it into this legitimate direction because they will find different outlets for it otherwise.
LikeLike
-
-
// Disgusting in a way, from my pov.
Want to clarify / add:
it also lets politicians engage in warmongering.Nowadays also the training methods of soldiers are different than in our grandfathers’ time. Even people who served in USSR army before the war weren’t trained according to those methods. Yet still many get PTSD and, even if not, carry scars till death.
I am afraid “people who are suited” rhetoric lets other soldiers. As in, “I will vote for US to invade another country, which would NEVER have done, were I be able to be drafted, but it’s OK. Our soldiers are heroes, they choose it, so they’re suited to it”.
If there are “suited to it” people at all, I am sure they aren’t so numerous as to provide all necessary soldiers.
LikeLike
-
In the US, wars are not started by referendum. Citizens don’t get to vote for or against the war.
LikeLike
-
-
– Do you think US is a stabilizing force in this world and, on the whole, does good for countries and/or itself, when it intervenes?
NO.
– Are you for US to intervene more/less/same in the future?
LESS.
– Would your answers to 2 previous questions change, if US had “the draft”? How?
NO.
– Which changes, if any, would happen in US politics, had the draft stayed?
If we are going to have a military I am actually for the draft, although I also remember it from Viet Nam, and it was horrible — getting a draft card was like getting a death letter, and there were all sorts of ways to get exemptions (which is why people like Bush II did not have to serve). It is bad but this all volunteer army is worse and more coercive, since people go in because they are desperate for work, food, etc., and the mercenaries we use (there is a shocking amount of “outsourcing” to private security companies, which are pretty much unregulated) are worse. My idea is draft, no exceptions, and especially not for politicians, government bureaucrats and their children, on the theory that at least then they will think twice before they start something. Perhaps I am naive, though, and they really will prefer cash from the arms lobby over their families’ lives.
LikeLike
-
-
The US hasn’t won a single armed conflict it entered since 1898. All it manages to do is make itself hated. This is how everybody in the world sees it. Unless people agree that your invasions are good for them, they aren’t good. If nobody agrees you have been “unprecedented force of good “, then you aren’t. It’s as simple as that.
I highly recommend my post on what constitutes help.
LikeLike
-
//I highly recommend my post on what constitutes help.
I forgot, but hasn’t it been about interpersonal relationships, not about countries?
//The US hasn’t won a single armed conflict it entered since 1898.
How do you define “won”? New wars are different and old definitions don’t completely suit them, right? If f.e. the goal isn’t to conquer population, but to stop a dictator, the situation could be better than otherwise, but still not very good. Btw, wasn’t US The True Winner of WW2, f.e. economically? It didn’t win alone, but it was deep in war with Japan.
Now I remember the article about Japan victims of an atom bomb in a Youth USSR magazine. Had a picture of some girl in it, who visited USSR (?). Only now I got an idea how strange it is in a way. Japan was on Germany’s side, yet USSR sympathised in a way it wouldn’t, had Germany gotten the bomb. Because of Cold War, I suppose.
LikeLike
-
It doesn’t matter, though. What the post was specifically about. The idea of help is the same whether we talk of individuals or larger formations.
LikeLike
-
We are talking about military conflicts, not about the economy. For some reason, the US can’t win any of its military conflicts unless it drops a nuclear bomb. My theory is that this happens because there is no sense of righteousness attached to these military interventions. The soldiers don’t feel them like their own.
LikeLike
-
-
-
our ability to help shape the outcome in smaller skirmishes has been very successful.
Actually the US had two rather distinct policies post-WWII. One “Marshall”-like plan applied to Europe, Japan, Canada and Australia, and another very different applied to the rest of the brown peoples. The Marshall plan was a master-stroke, the coup-d’etat-driven CIA policy was a disaster and helped push far more countries to the Soviet sphere than the other way around.
When Reagan ordered a complete reversal of those policies in the 1980s those countries didn’t run into socialism. To the contrary, for example in Latin America political animosity against the USA went down dramatically and those countries naturally fell back well within the US sphere of influence.
LikeLike
-
Reagan, complete reversal? The 1980s were the years of the contra war and the scorched earth policy in Guatemala, and lots of complicity with Pinochet in Chile, etc. And not just the Chilean dictatorship, which lasted the longest, but the Brazilian one (starting 1964), the Argentine, Uruguayan, Paraguayan, ones from the 60s-80s were undertaken with huge US support and advice. What are you smoking?
LikeLike
-
I don’t see any positive feeling among Latin Americans having been generated towards the US since the 80s. I see the opposite, to be honest. I spend a lot of time with Latin Americans, go to conferences, read their most important essayists, and I don’t see anything resembling a positive shift. Which I find eminently understandable given the absolutely tragic fate of pretty much every Latin American country at the hands of the US.
Here in the DR (and everywhere else I’ve traveled), saying that you are not really American makes people instantly like you. Just yesterday I was talking to this Dominican man who was very haughty at first but when I mentioned I’m from Ukraine, he instantly became my best buddy.
LikeLike
-
-
Reagan, complete reversal?
Yes. It always surprises people from Latin America when I point this out, because it is contrary to some of the most obvious outward signs from that administration.
Here’s a datum I’m willing to bet you were unaware of: not a single military dictatorship went up in L-A during the Reagan years.
, but the Brazilian one (starting 1964), the Argentine, Uruguayan, Paraguayan, ones from the 60s-80s were undertaken with huge US support and advice.
Actually all of those with the exception of Paraguay came to an end during the Reagan years. Paraguay’s dictatorship ended when Stroessner stepped down (again under pressure from the US) a month after Reagan’s term of office ended.
Oh, and by the way. I’m in no way a fan of Ronald. In fact he is in my list of worse ten US presidents.
LikeLike
-
-
-
//My theory is that this happens because there is no sense of righteousness attached to these military interventions.
What about mistakes in planning from above & the unlike before nature of those wars?
//People who choose the military as a profession are people with very high degrees of aggression.
Not always. Many choose it for other reasons.
// Citizens don’t get to vote for or against the war.
They do vote for politicians and then can judge them or not for lying, war crimes, etc.
LikeLike
-
I can’t believe that for several generations the US has had lousy military commanders out of sheer bad luck. That’s too much of a coincidence. Korea, Vietnam, afghanistan, Iraq, even the pathetic invasion of Cuba – all have been complete failures. There has got to be a reason.
I’m not insisting on my theory, mind you. I still have no definitive response. If people want to advance other theories, I’d be very interested.
The draft is definitely not the answer to this issue because the last draft wars were lost tragically.
LikeLike
-
Fact of draft, though, did make the general public aware of what was going on in Viet Nam. It wasn’t just that it was reported on in ways wars have not been since (this is the myth that has been marketed since). It was everyone having to deal with the question, is this something we want to be doing? We can’t vote on wars, but we can work against them, think about what is going on, vote for peace candidates, etc.; it is something. Now with Iraq etc., the soldiers are the poor; if you are from a more elite area the war and its effects can be quite abstract to you.
I am not saying people do not have a responsibility to think about these things anyway, and I am hardly saying the draft was good or fun — it was freakin’ traumatic.I am saying the current system has its own serious problems, and perhaps worse ones — largely because it puts an even heavier burden on the poor, and more because with fewer regular soldiers, we have so much contracted out to private mercenaries. This last point is particularly important because what the mercenaries then do is so far out of public hands. It is almost literally as though we were sponsoring and funding wars fought by corporations on behalf of corporations. (Actually, this image, coupled with that of the narcos battling each other, the paramilitaries and anonymous hombres armados in Lat. Am., really seems to indicate the emergence of a post-national, medieval style world, it is weird.)
LikeLike
-
Yes, I agree that this farming out to military contractors has been an immense disaster.
LikeLike
-
-
Well, there is the fact that people fought back more than was expected. Also, decisions about what to do depend on many factors. For example, I remember reading at the time that the Bush administration was convinced, prior to Iraq War II, that it could be won, and won under the strategy they wanted, and this was against advice from the actual military who have professional training in these matters.
LikeLike
-
-
-
“Reagan, complete reversal?
“Yes. It always surprises people from Latin America when I point this out, because it is contrary to some of the most obvious outward signs from that administration.
“Here’s a datum I’m willing to bet you were unaware of: not a single military dictatorship went up in L-A during the Reagan years.
“, but the Brazilian one (starting 1964), the Argentine, Uruguayan, Paraguayan, ones from the 60s-80s were undertaken with huge US support and advice.
“Actually all of those with the exception of Paraguay came to an end during the Reagan years. Paraguay’s dictatorship ended when Stroessner stepped down (again under pressure from the US) a month after Reagan’s term of office ended.
“Oh, and by the way. I’m in no way a fan of Ronald. In fact he is in my list of worse ten US presidents.”
I am not at all convinced that Reagan caused the parts of this that are true … US does not cause everything. I am not one of those who believe he cause the USSR to fall, by the way.
It is also not at all evident to me that L.A. is more US friendly since 1980s. If you read the press and books from there, spend time there and talk to people there, you don’t hear much support for US activities and policies even from conservatives. Yes, there are many aspects of US cultural production people like, US cities people enjoy, and so on, and US is a metropolis in this hemisphere so it is a place people go for all sorts of reasons, and they may have US friends. All of that is very different from being (happily, willingly, non coercedly) under US sphere of influence — much influence though US corporations, embassies, etc. have.What immediately came to mind upon reading your first comment was the contra war, which was Reagan’s. Here’s a NYT opinion piece and timeline on it from 1988. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/07/opinion/wrong-from-the-start-reagan-s-contra-war-reagan-s-failure.html There is also a lot of documentation of it available online from the National Security Archive, hosted at George Washington U (on their site).
LikeLike
-
I have to agree with Z. In my Hispanic Civ course, by the end of the course, whenever I say, “Things finally started going better for such and such country but then…” And the students chant in a chorus, “The US interfered!”
LikeLike
-
Also, thank God, somebody finally sees the collapse of the USSR as having nothing whatsoever to do with Reagan.
LikeLike
-
I too don’t consider Reagan responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union, and in the end he might only be indirectly responsible for the fall of dictatorships in Latin America, however if you read the rhetoric from the Reagan administration it was clear that they welcomed the transition to democracy in Latin America. Contrast this with the released memos from the Nixon administration, ordering the toppling of democratically elected governments throughout Latin-America.
Curiously enough, often the people who are the most likely to say that nothing happens in Latin America without the strong approval of the USA are the first ones to deny that Reagan could have had anything to do with this development (not speaking of you in particular at this point, since I have no idea what is your stance on that).
LikeLike
-
I wouldn’t say nothing happens in Lat Am without strong approval of USA, although I see the point people are trying to make when they say that.
Reagan administration rhetoric, do you mean in secret memos? I have not read those but as I say, what about our Central American activity under RR? We toppled Nicaragua in 80s, and supported the generals in Honduras, El Salvador and very notably Guatemala. I totally believe they supported transition post Velasco in Peru. Argentina-Uruguay-Brazil, didn’t they sort of have to accept the change by that point? Things had gotten so scandalous, and there was a world level outcry. Pinochet was still going strong in Reagan’s and working with US as from beginning, or was the Reagan administration actually moving against?
LikeLike
-
Reagan administration rhetoric, do you mean in secret memos?
Yes.
what about our Central American activity under RR? We toppled Nicaragua in 80s,
Ortega lost elections in 1990. Elections which by the way he nearly won until he foolishly announced that he wouldn’t stop the draft after winning the elections.
and supported the generals in Honduras, El Salvador and very notably Guatemala.
Honduras had general elections in 1981. El Salvador in 1984. Guatemala in 1986.
didn’t they sort of have to accept the change by that point?
True, but that often doesn’t stop them from supporting regimes well past their best before date.
or was the Reagan administration actually moving against {Pinochet]?
They moved against him really strongly. Pinochet didn’t want to resign at all, so they lobbied really hard to remove him. In fact he was unique in that he called a referendum to approve or disapprove eight more years with Pinochet at the helm, hoping to win it and get the USA of his back. After he lost the referendum in October 1988, presidential elections were called in December 1989 with Hernán Büchi running for the Pinochet side, and Patricio Aylwin running for the unified opposition.
LikeLike
-
-
-
El: “Nowadays also the training methods of soldiers are different than in our grandfathers’ time.”
I am curious to know more about this. I suspect the more I know, the more I will be against having an all volunteer army. If the training is different — if the all volunteer army means training to be yet more frightening — then this is really scary.
There are a lot of soldiers and ex soldiers here and a lot of them are very out of control people, very entitled, very paranoid, major bullies. Yes war is always scarring but I am older and I have met veterans of various wars. Current ones are perturbing, and what you suggest may explain some of it.
LikeLike
-
F.e. shooting at human looking targets as a practice.
//if the all volunteer army means training to be yet more frightening
No matter how frightening training is, I am 100% sure, it’s nothing compared to combat. It was extremely weird to me to see you be against some “frightening” training. What about combat and RL dead people?!
LikeLike
-
Of course, combat is worse than training. But the point is that not all soldiers end up in actual combat while all of them go through this training. So even those who don’t see any action, are still scarred.
LikeLike
-
What Clarissa said. Many of the military I know and meet have also been or are interrogators, prison guards, and so on. Those are the positions they move into after battle tours and so on. Think about what they are trained to do. I have had some of them describe parts of it; they have suffered faux abductions and waterboarding, etc., and psychological torture.
Shooting at human looking targets, I thought that had been going on for decades?
LikeLike
-
I also read about how people are trained to shoot at civilians, women, children and old people. It’s horrible! They get to run through a danger field, screaming “I hate women and children!” The goal is to break through the taboo of shooting at helpless people.
A few days of that and you can imagine in what shape they come back home.
LikeLike
-
-
-
This is an important point. I heard that in contemporary military training, soldiers need to be broken down completely and refashioned anew to serve the military purposes.
LikeLike
-
I thought that was old, well established. ?
LikeLike
-
-
-
//Yes, I agree that this farming out to military contractors has been an immense disaster.
Isn’t it a logical continuation to army not being “the army of the people”, like in Israel?
LikeLike
-
I actually heard that this practice of military contractors was borrowed from Israel. It might not be true, of course, since I heard it on American television. 🙂
LikeLike
-
I googled and there are in Israel too. My bad.
Btw, here a representing post for Matt how Russians view US’s interventions. Though, to be honest, they get anti-US propaganda day & night. On the other hand, this blogger criticizes Russian government a lot too.
We love to mock the way the U.S. bears democracy to underdeveloped countries. That is to say, carry out aggression under the guise of protecting the rights and establishing law and order. It seems to be a savagery, Americans have lost their conscience and all.
But, in general, this is absolutely nothing new. Not an ounce. For example, the slogan “Save the Holy Sepulchre” thundered some time ago. And ,you know, many people believed. For a while.
…
People try to prove to me that it’s a conspiracy.
And, in general, something special.Damn, but what, should they confess : “Yes, we attack”?
Any Gopnik (my translation: a [small] criminal or a hooligan)believes he’s doing the right thing in his value system!http://russell-d-jones.livejournal.com/750974.html#comments
LikeLike
-
It’s also thw hypocrisy that is so daunting. Just come out and say honestly, we invade because we want to enrich ourselves and vent aggression outside our borders. But don’t say, “we are dropping bombs on you because we decided that it will be very good for you.”. That tends to make people livid.
LikeLike
-
-
I apprecaite the article El. I don’t fully understand it I guess, but from the article you cite and from Clarissa’s follow-up the main jist is that the US are huge hypocrites in terms of wanting democracy, caring about other countries etc. (if there is some nuance I am missing please let me know so I can try to understand and respond to that!)
To say the US is a benevolent actor such as Ghandi or Mother Theresa would be utterly ridiculous, but to say they don’t care about people in other countries is hard to stomach. Are there ANY nations in history which have cared more? Almost certainly not among super-powers. But, even more importantly, the US has done a BRILLIANT job of making the world a safer place and turning enemies into allies. Again, the Treaty of Versailles after WW1 essentially made WWII inevitable. The US could ahve punished Germany, Italy, Japan etc. like EVERY other (to my knowledge) super power had done when winning a major war in the history of the world. Yet, the Marshall Plan and policies with Japan made Germany and Japan (our two primary enemies) into a few of our biggest allies today!
And whether you give Reagan credit or not, the US kicked the ass of those commies in USSR through a triumph of our political, economic AND military systems! That is awesome and should be celebrated! Also, the US truly does want billions of people to get out of povery and oppressive regimes and has been hugely helpful in having that occur in China.
Historically, China would be an enemy (as the biggest threat of a counter-vailing super power to the US), but we have spread a little democracy and a lot of capitalism (again morphed capitalism) that has made it almost inconceivable that our two great nations will ever go t owar. We all like to hate on rich people, esepcially corrupt ones, but we know they care about their interests and we have created a system where they would lose their wealth if US & China went to war.
So yes, the US does care about self-interest, but I personally beleive the vast majority of citizens DO care about others and want them to experience democracy (or a mild for of socialism) because we know it is such a great system! And America has done an amazing job weakening the powers of “evil” in this world.
The only state which can maybe cause small problems in the world is Iran. Once Syria goes down, partially due to US and European covert actions, Iran will be even further isolated.
I need to work.. sadly.. and I realize these thoughts are not fully-fleshed out, but I am curious if this persuades anyone that the US has self-interest in mind, and is not a benevolent saint, but truly has done amazing good in the world and there is no other nation EVER!!!!!!! who has nearly done as much good.
I will try to add more tonight.
LikeLike
-
As I said many many times, wanting something in other people’s lives, is hugely problematic. Wanting to make people happy by force and within your understanding of happiness is very wrong. It is not your place to decide what constitutes universal good and start imposing it on people. Whenever you do that – whether internationally or on a personal level – the result will be the same – people will hats you.
As for defeating those Soviet commies, I want to point out that Putin worked for the KGB. And every major official and new Russian billionaire either worked for the KGB or wad a high -ranking party apparatchik. Doesn’t sound like a huge defeat to me.
LikeLike
-
-
-
-
/ /the US kicked the ass of those commies in USSR through a triumph of our political, economic AND military systems!
My family were “those commies” too, btw. 🙂 My grandmother was a true member of the party.
So, how has US kicked my relatives’ country? (Where I was born too, but already towards the end).
After WW2 USSR stayed in many countries f.e. and US didn’t prevent that.
//The only state which can maybe cause small problems in the world is Iran.
Depends on one’s pov. For Israel those can be big problems.
LikeLike
-
I really love the desperation of, “We keep invading, dropping bombs, killing, torturing, taping, and those ingrates don’t even see that we are doing it for their own good. Because we CARE so much.”
How can people be so brainwashed? What if tomorrow Iran nukes the US with the best possible intentions? I’m sure the Iranian authorities are convinced they possess a much better recipe for happiness than we do. Should they invade and make us happy on their terms?
There is nothing more terrifying than the belief that you have the right to force your vision of happiness on OTHER people.
LikeLike
-
Here is one link on US “soft power” helping end the colonization of Africa.. which the rest of Europe would have liked to see continue.. even after WWII http://kemablog.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/the-united-states-and-the-post-wwii-decolonization-of-west-africa-senegal-and-the-gambia/
But even more so Clarissa, you really are going to try to say the Iranian leaders as pure in the intentions as the US leaders? Are you kiddiing me? This blog wouldn’t even have a CHANCE of being allowed to stay up in Iran. Their president famously denied that they “have gay people in Iran” (and they are infamous for atrocities against homosexuals). They brutally oppressed a popular uprising in 2009. To claim that the Iranian people would choose their current govt. is pretty ridiculous.
To get all 3rd grade and very simple on you.. you usually don’t allow elections… when you know you wouldn’t win (kinda what that whole dictatorship / monarchy/ theocratic rule is all about 🙂 )
And the utmost irony is the only view that the US pushes on others is the right for “self-determination”…. that the CITIZENS should decide what they want… free from tyranny and opression.
This is why when certain people (aka conservatives to a significant degree) bemoan the elections in Egypt, or Libya, or Iraq as likely to not go exactly the way we want I am generally unconcerned. As long as a true dictatorship/harsh regime doesn’t gain power, eventually more peaceful democratic norms will take place (with a likely more overt religious ovetone.. which I am fine with as long as it doesn’t lead to al Qaeda type fundamentallism) . There is a reason every advanced OECD country (Europe, Japan, US etc.) embraces democracy and a relatively free-market economy. People like when their quality of material life improves and they have high degrees of freedom. And that is the brilliance of America in trying to spread that 🙂
I think you made your comments very quickly.. and they clearly did not have the sound logic that you usually have… so I’m wondering if after reconsidering you are more convinced? 🙂
LikeLike
-
Salvador Allende was a democratically elected leader of his country. Do I need to tell you what the US did to him? Do I need to provide you with a list of democratically elected leaders that the US removed from power and put brutal dictators in place?
I know you can do better than this 3rd-grade claptrap about the US as defenders of democracy.
LikeLike
-
-
The U.S. supported the overthrow of Allende because he was a Marxist and the Communists in the country were preparing to launch a civil war to implement a dictatorship (remember Marxists view democracy as a bourgeoisie sham). Using civil war is a strategy Marxists use to implement their dictatorship.
Remember, pure democracy is no good if it’s just mob rule, where one majority can oppress the minorities. In some such democracies, the U.S. has backed replacing the leader with a dictator friendly to them. The U.S. defends liberal democracy, and generally freedom, but remember the Cold War was very complex, and U.S. foreign policy involved some shades of grey, as opposed to just being “good” or “evil.”
LikeLike
-
Allende was a democratically elected leader. If you remove democratically elected leaders by force, you can’t claim to be a defender of democracy.
LikeLike
-
Would you be making all the same excuses if your country was invaded under the same rhetoric? Who gave you the right to judge the quality of democracy in other countries and expect not to be judged in the same way in return? How would I feel if I disapprove of your lifestyle, break into your house, slaughter your family and force you into a healthy lifestyle against your will?
Again, I know there won’t be any direct answer. Just empty verbiage.
LikeLike
-
-
If said democratically-elected leader is likely going to get overthrown via a violent civil war because the Communists want to take over, I think a country could very much support their overthrow and still be a defender of democracy and human freedom. That’s how it gets into shades of gray. Another example could be if the democratically-elected leader is elected via strict mob rule democracy that has no respect for human freedoms. It’s like the difference between supporting capitalism, but being against oppressive capitalism.
LikeLike
-
So you invade countries based on something that hasn’t even happened but that you decide is LIKELY to happen? Meaning, on an unintelligent, baseless fantasy? What next, exterminating people who are “likely” to commit a crime?
Jeez, I’ve heard all kinds of uneducated, silly stuff but this is just the limit. I like this country and I don’t look forward to its inevitable decline and destruction that will happen as a result of this pig-headed belief you can play God with people’s lives. Because when you do that, people feel entitled to play God with yours.
Please tell me where you see any differences between the position you describe and that of the 9/11 hijackers. I fail to see a single one.
LikeLike
-
-
“Would you be making all the same excuses if your country was invaded under the same rhetoric? Who gave you the right to judge the quality of democracy in other countries and expect not to be judged in the same way in return?”
This kind of stuff is very basic. If you have one group of people violently oppressing another group, then that’s not a liberal democracy. We have international human rights standards these days as well to serve as a good guide.
“How would I feel if I disapprove of your lifestyle, break into your house, slaughter your family and force you into a healthy lifestyle against your will?”
This is a meaningless comparison. A proper comparison would more your home is already broken into and you are being forced to live a lifestyle against your will, and then another country breaks in, crushes your oppressors, and frees you to live however you want.
LikeLike
-
-
The United States seeking to establish liberal democracy in a country so the people can live freely is not the same as the United States seeking to “force” anyone to live any way. The only alternative to liberal democracy is some form of tyranny. How is setting up the system where people can live however they please forcing people to live a certain way?
LikeLike
-
-
-
Matt: “And America has done an amazing job weakening the powers of ‘evil’ in this world.”
Yes, genocide in what is now USA is a good place to start thinking about this and so are slavery and its legacies. Then start looking at colonialism and imperialism abroad.
Some reading for starters: Dee Brown, Bury my heart at wounded knee: http://www.powells.com/biblio/62-9780812417968-0
If you truly love your country then surely you can stand to know its full story.
LikeLike
-
I think your answer isn’t fair. Matt means after WW2 period, AFTER US became a super-power. At least, most/ all his examples refer to it.
LikeLike
-
Yes, once the US sets itself up as savior of Europe, opposer of Stalin, and placid consumer paradise, it is easier to call it “good.” I do not agree with that view of the post 1945 period, although they sure did try to market it in elementary and junior high school, I will tell you.
LikeLike
-
-
-
And it is ridiculous to suggest the 1776-1945 period wasn’t the true US, if that is what you mean. But, for some of our post 1945 exploits, here is quite a good book on Operation Condor. This is the USA large parts of the world see acting in their countries. http://www.amazon.com/Predatory-States-Operation-Condor-America/dp/0742536874
LikeLike
-
@Culture Club, do you have any idea at all what went on in Central America in the 80s?!
LikeLike
-
A better idea than you do certainly. I’m aware, just as you are, of all the abuses from the Reagan administration in CA then, but I’m also aware of the timeline of the transition to democracy throughout the region, which you had completely fuddled in your head.
This is really a teaching moment. On the face of so much information that you didn’t posses, you really ought to revisit the timelines and rethink some of your positions: new data means new conclusions.
And by the way, I’m not saying that Reagan was some sort of savior in Latin-America, withdrawing support from your own installed thugs doesn’t make you a hero. I’m just pointing out that things were not as one-sided as the typical narrative goes, and I’ve given copious data to back this up.
LikeLike
-
? What an odd comment and also tone.
What data? You seem to have almost none. And you do not appear to know anything about the elections you mention earlier, and you speak in a very superficial way, in broad generalizations — initially about the whole continent.
LikeLike
-
What an odd comment and also tone.
Not any more odd than your tone in:
What are you smoking?
or in
do you have any idea at all what went on in Central America in the 80s?!
Clearly Reagan supported a transition to democratic regimes in LA during the 80s with the majority of the dictatorships in the region ending during his term. This was perhaps due to pressure from external forces as you indicate, though I personally believe that this was one of the rare times where this guy pursued the right policy out of his own accord (agreeing to openly negotiate with Gorbachev the orderly end of the cold was another).
This is no way contradicts that he simultaneously pursued some other rather nasty policies in CA, such as support of the contras or massive support for the anti-guerrilla forces in El Salvador.
For some reason you seem to have a hard time grasping this duality: a good thing happened while many other bad things happened too.
LikeLike
-
-
-
Here we have a pretty good piece on Central America in 80s, U.S. activity, some of the principals, and their recycling into the Bush administration.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1076
LikeLike
-
And here, because I just came across the link, is another great book on Operation Condor (which starts in 1970s) –
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Condor_Years.html?id=Te1OPwAACAAJ
LikeLike
-
I find these links very useful. Thank you, Z!
LikeLike
-
-
when we stop helping?
like never!
there is a ton of money involved and after all that what’s it all about!LikeLike
-
I’m afraid you are right. 😦
LikeLike
-
-
What my TA suggested today about forms of US intervention in Lat Am: in the 80s one of their newer business (US), the drug war, really got going. This generates much cash and also allows for much militarization, influence on governments, and so on. So one thing that happens in that period, on this view, is that the form of US intervention changes shape.
Other note: my interpretation of the Chilean transition is, they needed to get ease Pinochet out, he was not well looked upon and getting old, and they wanted to make sure the country continue to serve US interests. Hence the carefully crafted transition through Alwyn, which did reinstitute formal democracy while maintaining strong US ties and influence.
LikeLike
-
The reason the U.S. questions whether to give help to people getting slaughtered is because it is wrong for the free world to just sit by and allow mass slaughter to occur. If something can be done, then we should help. Help need not mean sending in troops, but there are other ways to give aid and support. Also, there’s only so much we can concentrate on at home. Giving aid to Syrians being slaughtered does not hamper the U.S. economy for example. And problems will always exist, the best a society can do is manage them as well as it can.
LikeLike
-
Dropping bombs in people is an interesting way to prevent mass slaughter. So is invading their countries. Do you think the number of civilian casualties has grown or diminished during the US invasion of Iraq? Something tells me I will not be getting a direct answer to this question.
LikeLike
-
You make it sound like the U.S. bombs the populations being saved or something. Modern bombs are pretty precision. There were some civilian casualties in the Serbia bombings to stop the genocide from occuring, but, well, there was a genocide occuring that had to be stopped.
Regarding Iraq, Hussein was a BRUTAL dictator who tortured and murdered his own people, along with other peoples in the region. The U.S. invasion did not produce high casualties, it was al-Qaeda which decided to start fighting the U.S. in Iraq that led to high casualties. And al-Qaeda was so violent to the Iraqis that the Iraqi peoples turned against them in the end.
LikeLike
-
-
-
Even if the things Kyle says were true, it is hard to see how we “helped.” Look at what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan today, and look at how much of this is a direct result of the US invasion.
LikeLike
-
What I don’t understand is, if your “help” makes you universally hated, if people all over the world detest you for it, if nobody is even remotely grateful, and just wants you to go away, why not just do it? Whether you are right or wrong, nobody wants this help. Nobody has the slightest interest in it. Isn’t that just the tiniest clue that you need to buzz off already?
I keep hearing these lies about how there is no money in the pension fund, no money for education, no money for unemployment benefits, no money to repair the roads. In the meanwhile, cutting the Pentagon budget by half would solve all these problems instantly – and then some. Yet we agree to let our taxpayer money to line the pockets of the military contractors just because a certain number of very dense people can’t force themselves to realize that this blabber about helping other countries is nothing but a ploy to rob them blind.
And then people don’t understand when I say that often the oppressed do all they can to continue being oppressed. Look at Kyle. The guy has been duped into handing over his hard-earned money to enrich the CEO of Lockhead-Martin who is laughing his head off at how easy is to swindle such simple-minded folks.
People, this propaganda about your mission to save countries and promote democracy is simply a way to rob you. Don’t be idiots. Wake up already. You are victims of a huge scam here. Your pathetic need to see yourselves as saviors (which is extremely unhealthy psychologically, by the way) is destroying the country and turning all of us into stupid, zombified, miserable folks hated everywhere on the planet. And all this just so that military contractors can buy more fresh mistresses and huge mansions.
Start learning to think for yourself. It will be hard but it’s worth it.
LikeLike
-
“What I don’t understand is, if your “help” makes you universally hated, if people all over the world detest you for it, if nobody is even remotely grateful, and just wants you to go away, why not just do it? Whether you are right or wrong, nobody wants this help. Nobody has the slightest interest in it. Isn’t that just the tiniest clue that you need to buzz off already?”
\How can you judge whether or not people living under a tyrannical dictator want help or not? As for hate, there’s two forms of it:
1) A lot of that hate is akin to the spoiled brats living in the free world who detest market capitalism and instead favor socialism. Similarly, many people in the free world detest a country like the United States for overthrowing a dictator like Hussein. Why? Because they are spoiled brats who themselves live in a free society and under the security umbrella provided by the United States, but for whatever reason are hateful if the United States uses military force anywhere.
2) Various Muslim populations around the world that do not want liberal democracy being established in the Middle East (because their religion makes them hate human freedom) and thus do not like the United States overthrowing a dictator in the area.
“I keep hearing these lies about how there is no money in the pension fund, no money for education, no money for unemployment benefits, no money to repair the roads. In the meanwhile, cutting the Pentagon budget by half would solve all these problems instantly – and then some.”
It wouldn’t even come close. Unfunded pension liabilities alone are about $4 trillion it is estimated. Infrastructure is estimated to be another two trillion. As for education, more money is not going to solve that. America spends more per pupil on public education then almost any other Westernized country with dismal results. Money is not the problem with the system—if anything, it has too much money as it is. Regarding higher education, we have been subsidizing that for years, which is why it costs as much as it does. Continuing to increase the subsidies has onlydriven the price higher and higher.
And cutting defense in half would have numerous other costs, such as the U.S. no longer underwriting global security, which would mean a lot o other free countries that rely on the U.S. for protection would find themselves defenseless. It would create all manner of problems and even possibly wars.
Yet we agree to let our taxpayer money to line the pockets of the military contractors just because a certain number of very dense people can’t force themselves to realize that this blabber about helping other countries is nothing but a ploy to rob them blind.
“People, this propaganda about your mission to save countries and promote democracy is simply a way to rob you. Don’t be idiots. Wake up already. You are victims of a huge scam here. Your pathetic need to see yourselves as saviors (which is extremely unhealthy psychologically, by the way) is destroying the country and turning all of us into stupid, zombified, miserable folks hated everywhere on the planet. And all this just so that military contractors can buy more fresh mistresses and huge mansions.”
Three things:
1) On the other hand though, should a free nation just sit by and do nothing while people are slaughtered? Doing something need not be military intervention, but there are things that can be done
2) The United States underwrites global trade and security. It provides protection to other free nations and keeps the sea lanes open and so forth. If it is going to give up its role of protecting freedom around the world, who or what will replace it? What would replace it likely will be a country not friendly to free-markets or free peoples
3) Who cares if promoting freedom engenders hatred? You make it sound like it’s a popularity contest or something. On the one hand, you have the “spoiled brat” types living in the free countries of the world (which to a good degree exist dueto the U.S.’s security umbrella) who do not want attempts made for other nations to be free. Then you have the various religious populations around the world that hate freedom as they want to oppress others. A lot of them are also extremely poor people who are uneducated, so they are also easy to stir up into a rage over things.
IMO, it should not matter if there are 300 million Muslims (or any religion for that matter) who are offended over attempts to make sure people such as women, other religions, all ethnic groups, LGBT, etc…have equal freedoms and can live peacefully.
LikeLike
-
I think this comment should be a post on its own, it is very good.
LikeLike
-
I meant, Clarissa’s comment should be a post.
LikeLike
-
-
Well for a country like Iraq, it takes a while to get a functioning liberal democracy established, and especially with how al-Qaeda was waging war there. Afghanistan is much more complex. Remember, the United States left there originally in the hopes of never having to go back into that area again, as it is hopeless. But then that led to the terrorists taking over and eventually 9/11. So the fear is leaving could lead to a repeat of the same problem.
LikeLike
-
-
Ay, Kyle, Matt, and Culture Club. I will have a bumper created for you: “If there was an election, everything must be democratic now!”
I still do not understand what CC means when s/he says Lat Am was not under US sphere of influence in 60s – 70s as compared to now, and why s/he thinks (unless I misread) that bing under the US sphere of influence is a good thing.
And Kyle/Matt, I know you think of US as rescuer but the point
made in the post is that many, including those it claims to have rescued, see it as
predator/agressor.LikeLike
-
p.s. excuse typos above: *bumper sticker and *being … and *aggressor.
Here’s a piece from La Jornada I tore out when I read it, there is so much food for thought in it. http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2012/06/29/opinion/021a1pol
Do you, Kyle/Matt, see US support for and/or complicity in recent coups in Honduras and Paraguay as a good thing, as promoting democracy, and so on?
LikeLike
-
And now, Wolfowitz joins the chorus on intervention in Syria. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/think-tanked/post/in-syria-us-should-arm-rebels-shape-future-political-agenda-says-wolfowitz/2012/07/30/gJQATwPNKX_blog.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost
Assad is our erstwhile friend, of course. Now we are mad at him but who is funding the insurgents and how long will we be friends with them?
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment