yon wrote:I believe it is understood by everyone I know that the economic interests of France, Germany, and Russia are the most important motivating factors behind their opposition to the U.S. This does not, in my opinion, discredit their opposition...Any implication that the millions who have taken to the streets in the U.S. and Europe are motivated by macroeconomics would certainly be dishonest.
I respectfully disagree. It seems Europeans are protesting Bush more than the behavior of their own respective governments. I feel that something is wrong with this, and perhaps I am wrong entirely, but perhaps I can't put it into words very well. Suffice it to say that I don't see that Chirac and Schroeder et al have much credibility on issues of morality any more than Bush.
yon wrote:The leading motivation behind the U.S. action here, as described very clearly and explicitly in the widely published Bush administration doctrine I mentioned above, is U.S. hegemony. Energy resources are an important factor in global politics, but this doctrine is based on deeper interests. Oil is, by itself, not sufficient to motivate this invasion.
What about Venezuela? If the Bush administration was simply about territorial and cultural conquest, there are plenty of weak banana republics to pick on without all this oil floating about.
yon wrote:In any case, I personally disagree with your suggestion that the power relationships between Iraq and the U.S. are remotely comparible in scale, by any reasonable measurement.
Hussein has played politicians of various critical nations against each other, has amassed WMDs that it is likely are still around, and by doing so has made a conflict with him potentially dangerous and certainly fraught with risk. His country sits atop the world's second largest source of untapped crude oil. Along with this, his cruelty and cunning help level the playing field with any rival. The man has read up on his Machiavelli and Sun Tzu. Asymmetric warfare.
yon wrote:No one anywhere doubts that he's a despicable dictator. We simply doubt the wisdom of allowing the U.S. to invade Iraq in order to install another one
Speculation which may not bear out either way. It is possible a stable, relatively free democracy could evolve in Iraq that has a freer market -- certainly relative to any of the monarchies or dictatorships that surround it.
After a generation of Iraqis live through economic well-being and interdependencies with other countries, they would have much more to lose from their kids becoming terrorists and suicide bombers.
Perhaps one example, but hindsight shows things seem to have largely worked out for Germany, in the end. Certainly, Germany didn't have much of a reputation for democracy until after the Marshall Plan provided currency reform and rebuilding of infrastructure. Kaiser Wilhelm II was a militaristic nationalist -- certainly no friend of post-WW I democratic Germany. (There seem eerie parallels with him and George II -- with the history that follows, I sure hope not.)
After reunification, there was (and is still to a lesser degree) a sense from former East Germans that they were disenfranchised from economic progress. There was and is a stronger neo-Nazi presence there from people who believe that they don't have much of a future in a reunified Germany. It's easy to blame Turks, whomever...
My point is that where there is economic freedom, there is -- to a large extent -- a sense that you can live and bring up your children in an environment of hope and possibility.
At this time, most Middle Easterners, inside and outside Iraq, do not live in such conditions. This is why their masses hate caucasians -- the rulers of Europe and the US create and subsidize autocracies in the Middle East.
And it is equally as convenient for leaders in the Middle East to use Americans as targets of hatred, to distract their masses from their miserable state. Hussein became a hero of the people because he launched a few Scuds into Israel during Gulf War I. Recent Egyptian and Iranian papers show a front page picture of Bush and an Apache helicopter with the caption "Finally Getting Slapped In The Face". Meanwhile, it's business as usual in these countries: secret police, torture, disappearances.
Bush has commited the US -- for better or worse -- to an irreversable course of action. There is little to no hope of turning back.
Its citizens now have the obligation to make sure the promises of free elections and prosperity are followed through upon -- here and in Afghanistan. They also have the obligation to remove this clown in '04 elections. The antiwar protestors cannot simply let up once the war is over. The alternative is even worse misery for us all.
yon wrote:...By saying this, I don't mean to be cynical, but, in my opinion, the racist argument is based on fear, and is reserved for propaganda within the U.S. and Britain.
Bush is also making the war palatable to waffling left-wingers by casting it as one of liberation. How can a racist want to free people he hates? Doesn't make sense. But propaganda == marketing. So he's just hitting various demographics with whatever they want to hear. How can an antiwar movement fight a moving target? (Especially when the movement itself keeps jumping from one barely-relevant tangent to another?)
I really, truly doubt this is an issue of Christians going after Muslims. It's just convenient for him to make that connection in the press because it will garner him support with people too ignorant to educate themselves otherwise.
I guess this could be called racism-by-proxy but I think its more just that the Iraqis are sitting atop something that we need to fill our gas tanks with, and they happen, sadly, to have olive skin like the Saudi Flying Circus. It's a pretty bland and tasteless flavor of racism.
If Bush and Friends had an apocalyptic fantasy of wiping out non-Christians, launching a nuclear device upon Mecca during Hajj would probably do the trick. Since it hasn't happened already, post-9/11, and as it's not happening any time soon (I hope) I'm inclined to think that it's really just about the oil.
yon wrote:The antiwar movement is stronger than it has been since the Vietnam war. In other times, this might be enough to lend one hope. However, the leaders of the U.S. and Britain have shown as little regard for the opinion of people at home and abroad as they have shown for humanity in general. Consequently, the situation is rather bleak.
On the contrary: these are exciting times. I have lived in the US for about 16 years and I haven't seen people as interested in politics and issues as they are now. Whatever the outcome, whatever your opinion, more people are drawn into a dialog about what is going on. This can only mean good things in the long run.
Best,
Alex