Afghanistan and Iraq

In an attempt to understand the neo-con position regarding the Middle East, I've read a lot of the neo-con writings, including Norman Podhoretz's book -- World War IV. Podhoretz makes some good points regarding the danger of terrorism, and the failure of the paleo-conservatives, isolationists, realists and liberal internationalists to come up with a better response to terrorism than Bush's two-prong attack on Afghanistan and Iraq, but only as his points relate to the resistance of the Bush Doctrine being an obsession to destroy Bush and put Israel in its place rather than an alternate solution to terrorism. His points justifying preemptive attacks and the goal to democratize the region are not very good points, but then I'm a crazy non-interventionist -- not an isolationist, though, because I think we should interact globally through free trade while maintaining a policy of defensivism against terrorism -- more about this at the end of the post.

It appears there's a lot of pressure now for the U.S. to return to liberal internationalism, yet, there isn't much movement going on to reverse what Bush started. The rhetoric coming from the Whitehouse is influenced by liberal internationalism, but the actions are a continuation of the Bush Doctrine. You could say that we've gone too far to turn back in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I'm not sure this is correct -- we could pull out now and claim we've done everything we can, and that the region is now responsible for its own destiny, that this is as close to victory as you can get in this type of war with this type of enemy. I can't imagine anyone calling a pullout now a defeat, except the most ardent neo-cons who have been thoroughly discredited by the media and universities and liberal establishment as Podhoretz shows in his book. Obama won, so he can now establish his own doctrine as Commander-In-Chief.

The liberal internationalist rhetoric hasn't produced much support for a continuation of the two wars and the U.S. is practically going it alone, although I don't hear the cries of unilateralism, but that's another issue. The neo-con position is that a pull-out would encourage the terrorists to continue their war against the U.S., and would make Israel vulnerable, that it could be another Viet Nam-type disgrace, but I'm not sure this is the reality now -- perhaps a couple of years back it would have been. I don't really know how Obama is going to do anything different, though, than what Bush was doing. Oddly, there has been little indication of the long term plans regarding Afghanistan and Iraq. The recent report I linked to above shows some support for an early pullout from Iraq, but the adminsitration might be worried that an early pullout could backfire -- isn't this the neo-con position? Plus, even if the administration pulled out early in Iraq, all indications are that it would do so in order to concentrate more effort on Afghanistan -- but to what purpose?

I don't know -- it seems to me that the image projected is one of liberal internationalism, but the actions are more neo-con. Obama might be trying to put his own style on the leadership, but the goal seems to be to democratize the region. It could be a more realist goal of stabilizing the region, but this remains to be seen -- one thing is for sure, liberal internationalism is not working so far. And, to be fair to Obama, I doubt he will use preemption as a strategy in other countries such as Iran or North Korea -- so, perhaps he's winding down the current situation, looking for an escape hatch, but it sure seems like he has grander plans for Afghanistan for some reason which are, so far, unrevealed.

In the spirit of my previous post - Private Voices in The New Media - I believe our continuing focus on politics and government is leading us astray, even in foreign policy, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the whole war on terrorism -- and this is where I disgree with neo-cons and whatever we call Obama's doctrine when it materializes -- perhaps roll-back of regimes who don't follow our global vision. In Afghanistan, the enemy is becoming invisible. Around the world, small countries have options other than the U.S. -- China and India -- and it's becoming mainly economic options. As we waste our resources over-seas, being bled by invisible enemies who pin-prick us to financial collapse -- and as we pull in at home, centralizing and regulating and hamstringing business -- other countries are making economic advances and increasing their influence around the world, while despite the liberal international rhetoric, we're seen more and more as the dinosaur with a big stick. The big stick approach will not work in the global economy.

We've got to get down to the business of production, business and competition. Our problem is not terrorism, it's wasting our resources on fear of terrorism, and wasting our resources trying to be the leader of the world. Let the world take care of itself, we'll all join in competition and those who stay behind in superstitious ignorance will change or collapse. Yes, we have to defend ourselves against real threats, but we're smart enough to figure that out, or should be, without falling into the trap of our Middle East presence where the plan is to bleed and distract us to death, slowly. While we play this political game of American world leadership (control), China and India are moving forward economicially, and we're going backwards.

War on terror -- global trade

It's a mistake to underestimate the danger in the world. Many countries are controlled by gangs of criminals determined to maintain power by any means possible. The instability of these countries continues to fuel regional and internal conflicts. There is also a history in the U.S. of our government misusing power and applying interventionist strategies causing needless conflicts and needless death and destruction.

There's evidence though that countries can learn from their past mistakes and develope more peaceful means by which to co-exist in the world. The risk of major powers fighting in world wars has been lessened through economic interdependencies and the assured destruction which would be caused by dangerous weapons of war more deadly and destructive than anything used in previous wars. Global trade and non-interventionist policies are the hope for the future, along with the demise of the power of nation-states. Global markets will deepen interdependence and lessen the importance of military dominance. A strong defense will be necessary for all countries, because the world will most likely never be safe from all aggression.

Ruthless tyrants are not amenable to the normal reasoned approach used by most of the world's countries to settle disagreements and develope treaties regarding co-operation and co-existence issues. These countries under tyrannical rule can not last much longer because they're falling too far behind in a world of technology and production. The ones relying on oil will fold when alternatives are developed and they have nothing with which to replace the income.

After 9/11 a response was called for to determine the extent of what we were dealing with, but now we know. Whether the response was the correct response will be determined by history, but we haven't experienced repeated attacks in U.S. There's not much benefit in being a second-guesser when all the information is not available.

It does seem that now we can begin readjusting our foreign relations policies. What we've learned about terrorism ought to enable us to create a much better defense against attacks, while preserving our rights as free citizens. There's no need to give up rights of privacy, or speech, or property, or person in general in order to combat terrorism. The threat is not greater than our Constitution.

I have no way of knowing the right timing, but at some point relatively soon the U.S. would be better off if we removed all military personell from overseas military bases and returned defense responsibilities to countries we've been supporting militarily. Global trade is the movement to a more peaceful world. Free trade coupled with a policy of non-military intervention would set the tone for the shift from military solutions to economic solutions. The rise of NGOs is a movement that should be encouraged globally so that no few nations are acting as Super-Police on the world stage. Supporting these organizations without political influence will be a tricky endeavor, but it's worth the effort. International politics within the incompetent mechanizations of the UN have failed. Just as private solutions are more effective intranationally, they'll be more effective internationally. The motives to find real solutions will be present, while statist politics will often benefit from conflict. The US would be smart to remove itself from statist politics.

Terrorism would have to stretch its hatred to lengths even sympathetic countries would find unbelievable if the US is no longer maintaining an interventionist policy in international affairs. This doesn't mean we back down from threats, it merely means we transcend the backward notion of interventionist military solutions and go beyond through technology and capitalist economic growth. We can build a defense system which will be capable of keeping the country safe and answering any real threat, but we must change the game and not be drawn into impossible conflict-games where terrorists and anti-capitalists make the rules.