Voting for Interventions

[Griff]

I like the way Steven LaTulippe writes about the cost of our foreign policy. He expresses well why I'm reluctant to vote for an interventionist Democrat when Bush is so obviously in over his head.

#3 Aggressive warmongering often incites that which it is designed to prevent.

The Middle East is currently experiencing a high fever of militant Islamism. This is occurring for a wide variety of reasons and has been the subject of much debate. But whatever the cause, one thing is clear: Fundamentalist Islam is not a credible, long-term ideology around which a modern nation can be constructed. A productive economy with prosperous citizens cannot be sustained by the tenets of radical Islam. It is destined to fail, just like communism was destined to fail.

This fever will pass.

The only real issue is how we will interact with the Middle East as it goes through this period of crisis, and what the resulting repercussions will be.

Aggressive American militarism aimed at Muslim countries will be profoundly counterproductive for both the indigenous forces of modernity found there and for America’s own safety and security.

Take the example of Iran. That nation was the first to enter the long, dark tunnel of Muslim Fundamentalism. The rise of the mullah-dominated government occurred back in the 1970s, after the fall of the Shah. By the 1990s, the clear majority of the population had become totally disillusioned with this form of government and was clamoring for change. Riots were breaking out and the fundamentalists appeared to be losing their grip on power.

We were on the cusp of a profound moment in history. The first nation to have an Islamist government (in modern times) was becoming increasingly destabilized by its own population’s demand for reform and modernity.

Then along came the neocons.

Once President Bush started his "axis of evil" malarkey, the surging demands for reform in Iran immediately subsided. After Bush invaded Iraq and continued to threaten Iran, the people of Iran rallied nationalistically behind their government. They closed ranks against an external threat, as people always do. Those reformers who are still active in Iran are widely discredited for their associations with America.

A crucial moment in history was lost. The American people would have been much better off had our government stayed out of Iran altogether and allowed events to take their natural course. The people of the Middle East may well then have occupied a front-row seat from which to watch a fundamentalist nation making the transition to true democracy.

Instead, the mullahs are now more entrenched than ever.

Our bellicose jihad against WMDs has profoundly worsened the situation there because the reinvigorated and hostile Iranian government is now nearing the final stages of building nuclear weapons.

Our militarism has achieved the exact opposite of its stated intent.

[Undertoad]

Once President Bush started his "axis of evil" malarkey, the surging demands for reform in Iran immediately subsided. After Bush invaded Iraq and continued to threaten Iran, the people of Iran rallied nationalistically behind their government. They closed ranks against an external threat, as people always do.

There have been reform movements in Iran forever and still are. One big uprising came in the summer of 2003, post "AoE" speech. These movements wane when the fascist mullahs jail the dissenters.

Those reformers who are still active in Iran are widely discredited for their associations with America.

Where the words "widely discredited" may mean "put in a stinking Iranian jail for 20 years."

I'm sure the dissenters prefer a hope that international events beyond their ken change the country for the better without having to put up with being quashed by fascists with guns. I'm always amazed when otherwise sensible libertarian types show up as big fans of, and apologists for, the fascists with guns.

If we ignore them they will just go away, he argues. It worked with Communism, he says. I guess; it seemed to require the buildup of a massive industrial-military complex to ensure a pattern of spending that would bankrupt them -- after many decades, many millions of purged subjects. And without the annoying matter of people's basic faiths getting in the way. And without the notion of asymmetric warfare where 19 people could kill thousands of us as a part of the power struggle of its failure.

Which is where we were when that "AoE" speech was made. Mr LaTullippe is right; Islamic states ARE destined to fail. That doesn't give him pause? What happens when they fail is that they become magnets for terrorists looking to take advatange of the power vacuum. Just think about it for a second: wasn't Afghanistan the very model of such a failing state? One of the least important Islamic states and one without oil? And that resulted in 9/11?

Well, yesterday they had free elections and guess what, the Taliban didn't show up. Which means that, in that particular case, when he says

Aggressive American militarism aimed at Muslim countries will be profoundly counterproductive for both the indigenous forces of modernity found there and for America’s own safety and security .... Our militarism has achieved the exact opposite of its stated intent.

Applying it all to Afghanistan, he's exactly wrong.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I'm always amazed when otherwise sensible libertarian types show up as big fans of, and apologists for, the fascists with guns.

Libertarians tend to think closer to home when they worry about armed fascism.

[xoxoxoBruce]

A productive economy with prosperous citizens cannot be sustained by the tenets of radical Islam. It is destined to fail, just like communism was destined to fail.

Sure, but when communism failed and left the poulace destitute and aimless, they blamed the government. When Islam fails they will blame us.

[russotto]

[quote=xoxoxoBruce]Sure, but when communism failed and left the poulace destitute and aimless, they blamed the government. When Islam fails they will blame us.[quote]

They blame us no matter what. Probably the only solution which will work short-term is to act pretty much as they claim the US acts -- that is, to move in and set up a military occupation whose purpose is to keep the people down and the oil flowing. However, the US populace isn't likely to support that.

[Happy Monkey]

What on Earth is that a solution to?