Green Lantern in Indochina

British journalist Johann Hari hops aboard the National Review cruise in a hilarious TNR article, only to discover the conservative take on the Vietnam War:

There is something strange about this discussion, and it takes me a few moments to realize exactly what it is. All the tropes conservatives usually deny in public--that Iraq is another Vietnam, that Bush is fighting a class war on behalf of the rich--are embraced on this shining ship in the middle of the ocean. Yes, they concede, we are fighting another Vietnam; and this time we won't let the weak-kneed liberals lose it. "It's customary to say we lost the Vietnam war, but who's 'we'?" Dinesh D'Souza asks angrily. "The left won by demanding America's humiliation." On this ship, there are no Viet Cong, no three million dead. There is only liberal treachery.

As Spencer Ackerman wrote in one of his last New Republic articles, this is in many ways the original sin of conservative foreign policy analysis. Trapped in the intellectual prison of Vietnam revisionism, the right is fundamentally incapable of seeing objective limits to US military capacity or domestic political debate as actually vital to the appropriate conduct of national security policy.

Photo by Flickr user Flydime used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Hari singles out Mark Steyn as the most important figure on the cruise:

The table nods solemnly before marching onward to Topic A: the billion-strong swarm of Muslims who are poised to take over the world. ... Some people go on singles' cruises, some on ballroom-dancing cruises. This is the Muslims Are Coming cruise. Everyone thinks it. Everyone knows it. And the man most responsible for this insight is sitting only a few tables down: Mark Steyn. ... Steyn's thesis in his new book, America Alone, is simple: The "European races"--i.e., white people--"are too self-absorbed to breed," but the Muslims are multiplying quickly.

And what would you know, but TNR supremo Peretz endorses Steyn, at least on the 'grand issues':

OK, Mark Steyn is not exactly a rigorous political philosopher. On quotidian matters I don't share his politics ... But here's the kicker you're awaiting. On the real agenda of the time, the challenge to civilization that you won't avoid even if it you ignore it, he is absolutely correct. The jihad is on, and it is being fought in one way or another on nearly every border and within more and more societies.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/spine?pid=52882

That's the problem with US 'liberalism' right there: willingness to reject right-wing nuttery - except in the case of Arabs and Muslims.

This has been another example of TNR attempting to distance itself from policies and personalities TNR itself enables and advocates. TNR is a "The Muslims are Coming" magazine.

Posted by otto | June 26, 2007 12:43 PM

Vietnam revisionism's close cousin is Watergate revisionism -- roughly, the idea that constraints on executive power must be aggressively rolled back. These are the twin wellsprings of the current administration's approach to governing. It's scary how many of our leaders are trying to re-fight battles in which they, personally, suffered humiliation more than thirty years ago. These are sick, sick men.

Posted by Ryan | June 26, 2007 12:48 PM

That's the problem with US 'liberalism' right there: willingness to reject right-wing nuttery - except in the case of Arabs and Muslims.

Sadly I think that's too simple. If Bush decided China was the next great threat there'd be plenty of self-described liberals ready to jump on that bandwagon, too. Racism is part of it but so is this twisted desire of some liberals to project toughness.

Posted by Ryan | June 26, 2007 12:54 PM

You want revisionism? Just check out the discussion of Pinochet by Kate O'Beirne and her husband:
"I drop the news that there are moves in Germany to have Rumsfeld extradited to face war crimes charges. A red-faced man who looks like an egg with a moustache glued on grumbles, "If the Germans think they can take responsibility for the world, I don't care about German courts. Bomb them." I begin to cite the Pinochet precedent, and O'Beirne snaps, "Treating Don Rumsfeld like Pinochet is disgusting." Egg Man pounds his fist on the table: "Treating Pinochet like that is disgusting. Pinochet is a hero. He saved Chile." "Exactly," adds O'Beirne's husband. "And he privatized Social Security."
Remember, this was the man in charge of which personel ended up in Iraq after "Mission Accomplished".

Posted by Col Bat Guano | June 26, 2007 12:55 PM

When the history is written on this miserable failure of a war the defeat and humiliation will be assigned to the Left in this nation. No matter every dollar Bush has asked for he's received. No matter the first 3 years were conducted with the reins of legislative and executive power fully in Bush's control. No matter the initial military and civilian planning completely excluded Democrats. Democrats specifically and the Left generally have had nothing to do with the planning and execution of this war. They will be blamed for its outcome though, by both the political power brokers on the Right and the public at large. The public has been trained since the 50's (the Red scare) and the 60's (think dirty fucking hippies) to believe the very worst about progressive/liberal/Leftist factions. Bushco will get a pass on this fiasco. It will be decided the Left lost the war. Also, forget about banding together for some sort of pushback or counter argument. Might as well be bailing the Pacific Ocean with a bucket.

Posted by steve duncan | June 26, 2007 12:59 PM

That's the problem with US 'liberalism' right there: willingness to reject right-wing nuttery - except in the case of Arabs and Muslims.

Liberals, almost universally, despise Peretz and have ambivalent feelings towards his magazine, so it's a bit much to treat his ravings as emblematic of American 'liberalism.'

Posted by Matt Stevens | June 26, 2007 1:02 PM

Peretz is recognized as a nut, but many american Liberals still honour Bernard Lewis, who is equally an Muslim-hating nut (going by Hari's article). Much of estabglshment American Liberalism is too tolerant of this bigotry (as MY and Spackerman often point out).

Hari's article was very funny, and a great idea for progressive journalist -- attend a wingnut function and report on it. What better way to give readers the true picture of right-wing nuttery.

And the true picture is scary. I always thought the nuttiness was a blog phenomenon,a nd that higher up "serious" pundits had more sensible views. Turns out, higher-uips like N-Pod is as much of a nut as a frothing warblogger.

Scary.

Posted by Ikram | June 26, 2007 1:12 PM

"Liberals, almost universally, despise Peretz and have ambivalent feelings towards his magazine, so it's a bit much to treat his ravings as emblematic of American 'liberalism.'"

On the contrary, liberals for a very long while allowed Peretz to act as a sort of gatekeeper of respectable liberal opinion - in fact the sllight weakening of this role has come from the rise of the less-gatekeepered interweb and not any 'liberal' rejection of Peretz. And indeed many still scramble to write for his magazine.

Posted by otto | June 26, 2007 1:16 PM

You would think that Rennie Davis, Mark Rudd, and Tom Hayden were on the National Security Council, for all the power that D'Souza et al ascribe to people like them.

Posted by kth | June 26, 2007 1:18 PM

KTH,
Speaking of Hayden, he was on Colbert last night. Too bad Colbert didn't ask him what you were talking about. I sure he would have been flattered that D'Snooza thought so highly of him.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 26, 2007 1:53 PM

That article was supposed to be "hilarious"? I'm shitting my pants after reading that looniness.

Posted by Trip | June 26, 2007 1:54 PM

On the contrary, liberals for a very long while allowed Peretz to act as a sort of gatekeeper of respectable liberal opinion

First of all, this isn't really true. The New Republic of the '80s was a very widely admired magazine among liberal elites, but it wasn't as powerful as you're making it out to be. Also, it has been declining in prestige among liberals since the Andrew Sullivan/Michael Kelly era, for obvious reasons.

Second, Peretz's nuttery is on Israel and the Middle East, and while he was always pretty crazy on that stuff, he has gotten even worse in this decade. To the extent that he was ever influential in the world of liberal opinion, it was during a time period when Middle East issues were far less prominent in the public debate. Peretz is not necessarily a "good liberal" on non-Middle East matters, but he actually is left of center more often than not.

Posted by JP | June 26, 2007 2:07 PM

"Lest liberals be too eager to adopt the Gipper as one of their own, Buckley agrees approvingly that Reagan's approach would have been to "find a local strongman" to rule Iraq."

But then there would be less chaos to complain about. Liberals could no longer point out, to their electoral advantage (see Nov. 2006), that Bush - personally - created this bloody mess in Iraq b/c of the oil companies or neocons or whatever.

But then they'd complain about Bush installing a strongman... They'd SCREAM about it.

Posted by Peter K. | June 26, 2007 2:10 PM

This thread is pretty confusing. Where exactly is the debate? Nobody said that Peretz/TNR are now ok because of this article. Are we not supposed to read the Hari piece because it would validate Peretz to do so?

Posted by JP | June 26, 2007 2:25 PM

You guys are dumb. TNR is a good magazine, with consistently great analysis, except for Peretz. Just don't read Peretz.

Posted by Patrick | June 26, 2007 2:38 PM

Trapped in the intellectual prison of Vietnam revisionism, the right is fundamentally incapable of seeing objective limits to US military capacity ...

rev. Reveling in playpens of Beltway insularity and unaccountability, pro-war, anti-combat, overcompensating cowards are intrinsically incapable of accepting objective limits to U.S. militancy or militarism ... e.g. Lieberman, Podhoretz et al.

Posted by sinsneer | June 26, 2007 2:43 PM

"You guys are dumb. TNR is a good magazine, with consistently great analysis, except for Peretz. Just don't read Peretz."

Or Lawrence Kaplan. Or contributors like Harvey "My middle name is Manliness" Mansfield.

Posted by Reality Man | June 26, 2007 2:52 PM

These people are as unhinged as the Heaven's Gate or the David Koresh Cult.

Unfortunately they are also members of the current Ruling party and dominate the DC Media Establishment and the judiciary.

Posted by DonB | June 26, 2007 2:54 PM

But then there would be less chaos to complain about. Liberals could no longer point out, to their electoral advantage (see Nov. 2006), that Bush - personally - created this bloody mess in Iraq b/c of the oil companies or neocons or whatever.
But then they'd complain about Bush installing a strongman... They'd SCREAM about it.
Posted by Peter K. | June 26, 2007 2:10 PM

We didn't create the damn electoral advantage Petey, the men you voted for in the Republican Party and the magazines you subcribe to and the papers you read and the news you watch on tv, they all did that for you. Your guys screwed up, big time, so instead of crying about Democratic electoral advantage like it was a case of the clap, why don't you deal with your friends massive screw up, think about why it happened and how conservative republican partizans like yourself can prevent it from happening in the future. Take the beam out of your own eye before you kvetch about the mote in ours.

As for liberals complaining about installing a strongman you know we had one of those in place but some president elected by some people (i donno who, did you vote for him? what me, hell no!) got conned by a group of foreign policy opportunists into rolling the dice and smashing things up in the name of peace and progress. So at this point if we go back to a strongman, what is there to bitch about anyway? It's tragic and it's par for the course. Don't confused undelining Bush's failure to live up to his own rhetoric with "bitching". It' just called pointing out the truth, something conservatives have a damn hard time accepting these days.

Stop smearing us to hide your own failures as a political philosophy and as a political party.

Posted by Northern Observer | June 26, 2007 2:57 PM

BTW, Joe Lieberman is also a fan of Mark Steyn. I remember a story about him promoting Mark Steyn's book.

Posted by DonB | June 26, 2007 2:57 PM

"Watergate revisionism -- roughly, the idea that constraints on executive power must be aggressively rolled back."

Yes but only when we have a GOP president. With a Dem president he must be stripped of much of executive branch power.

John Yoo is a good example of this. During the Clinton years he lectures and published papers about how Clinton had run amok with executive powers, ignoring the courts and congress and pursuing an imperial presidency. He started singing a different tune the minute Bush moved into the White House.

Posted by DonB | June 26, 2007 3:03 PM

As a Marine Viet Nam veteran ('68 - '69) the most make me gag moments of the last 2 years have been hearing military officers who should know better talk about implementing the "successful counter-insurgency tactics" learned in 'Nam.
The commitment of the Congress wasn't the problem; we did our best and lost because the guys on the other side had more commitment and more people willing to die to show their support than the guys on our side.
To all veterans who would deny losing I say this; "The fact that you lost isn't condemnation of your service, it's a recognition of the failure of policy makers to set you a mission that was possible." Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon lost their war, the military did all it could.
Once again the non-warriors have sent the warriors to a battle there was never a hope of winning by arms.

Posted by Roger Tompkins | June 26, 2007 3:11 PM

"On the contrary, liberals for a very long while allowed Peretz to act as a sort of gatekeeper of respectable liberal opinion"

True. Peretz criticism started with the Internet and the blogs. Prior to that he was treated as some kind of a liberal Pope. Dem politicians had to kiss his ring and ask for his blessing.

This is understandable because prior to the blogs genuine liberals had no gathering place. The Nation was for Hitchens/Nader type eccentric lefties. Op-ed page liberals were the Al Hunt, Richard Cohen don't-rock-the-boat types.

Posted by DonB | June 26, 2007 3:16 PM

Buckley's comments reflect the fifties CIA mindset. That was when the CIA was busy installing strongmen. Unfortunately, the strongmen almost always looted their countries, created such discontent that some communist insurgency would arise, and were eventually chased out, leaving behind a stink and the impression that the Americans were evil. Today, it would be impossible for the Americans to install a strongman in Iraq - they couldn't even install a mayor in Basra. So the question of whether Bush should have installed a strongman is mute - it is like wondering what would happen if Bush could raise people from the dead.

The closest Iraq got to a strongman was Allawi. He was supported in the 2005 elections by the U.S. He was clobbered. Now he is back in Iraq, and he is talking with Sadr. We might see a strongman in Iraq arise in spite of the U.S., not because of the U.S. It will be interesting to see if the Bushies recognize that this is a perfect opportunity to cut their losses, or whether the greed for the oil will keep them looking in vain for some magic Iraqi traitor who will smile upon the maximum looting of the country by the ever crooked business allies of Cheney.

Posted by roger | June 26, 2007 3:22 PM

"As for liberals complaining about installing a strongman you know we had one of those in place but some president elected by some people (i donno who, did you vote for him? what me, hell no!) got conned by a group of foreign policy opportunists into rolling the dice and smashing things up in the name of peace and progress."

Very true. Also, the reason the Bushies didn't install a strongman (Chalabi) right away was because of al-Sistani, not because of liberals. Since he commands so much power and respect in Iraq, when Sistani called for elections much sooner than the US wanted to hold them, the US kind of had to deal with the fact that they couldn't exactly go to war with the only person the majority of Shi'ites respected. Imagine fighting al-Sadr and al-Sistani at once. There would literally be no one left to even be in the government.

Posted by Reality Man | June 26, 2007 3:24 PM

Northern Observer:

"So at this point if we go back to a strongman, what is there to bitch about anyway? It's tragic and it's par for the course."

Thus does much of the left expend itself...

Actually, I consider myself a lefty and pro-democracy. But you're right, if we just install a strong man who doesn't give a crap about human rights, we'll no longer have to read about Iraq in the papers. Plus it will save a lot of money we won't be "wasting" anymore. As for the dusky inhabitants of said dictatorship, tough luck... they can bitch about it, but at least the country won't be so violent.

What bothers me is that the entire recent history of Iraq is wiped clean, down the memory hole, just for the mere purpose of scoring political points - via rhetorical excess - against the Republicans. It worked as I thought it would in Nov. 2006.

Hillary was right recently when she said the military did a great job of ridding the world of an awful dictarship, but the Iraqi Shia and Sunni and the Bush administration screwed it up. (I thought the Shia were pretty good for a while (not par for the course in the M.E) but they've been provoked over and over and over again (massacres of pilgrims, exploding of mosques etc.)

John Burns recently had an excellent report on the trial of Chemical Ali (know who he was???)

"One difference is that Mr. Hussein himself, removed as a defendant in the Anfal trial after his hanging, is gone. But another is the exhaustion with the war here, and the growing inclination of Iraqis — even Iraqis whose families suffered grievously under Mr. Hussein — to say that life was never as miserable as it has become under the daily cycle of suicide bombings and death-squad killings, and the deprivation of basic public services like electricity, hospitals and schooling. The desire for revenge, or retribution, has been muted."

"“Thanks be to God, now I’m leaving,” [Chemical Ali] said gruffly, as he turned to limp from the courtroom in the old Baath Party headquarters, a place where his reputation as a man who relished handing out summary sentences to Kurds, Shiites and other supposed enemies of the old government — and overseeing the executions himself, with a ghoulish pleasure evident in official videos — made him almost as feared as Mr. Hussein."

Ah the good old days! Par for the course indeed.

Posted by Peter K. | June 26, 2007 3:29 PM

Yes but only when we have a GOP president. With a Dem president he must be stripped of much of executive branch power.

Well, natch. But remember the war was supposed to be the ticket to a permanent Republican majority, or at least a longer-lived one than it now seems we're likely to have.

The plan to claw back executive power has been clear almost from Day One, but I confess I have no clue (and am very curious) whether Cheney et al gave any thought to the problem you raise, and if so, how they planned to handle it (or whether in their minds GOP rule would last forever). On my darkest days I suspect they planned that *their own* overreaching would lead Congress, after they left office, to rein in the Presidency and impose on a Democratic White House the constraints which the Bush team had managed to shrug off. In fact this will probably happen, and it probably should.

Posted by Ryan | June 26, 2007 3:32 PM

Actually, I consider myself a lefty and pro-democracy. But you're right, if we just install a strong man who doesn't give a crap about human rights, we'll no longer have to read about Iraq in the papers.

Do you really think that would stop anything at this point (or that ever would have flown)?

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 26, 2007 3:40 PM

Yeah, that's right, Matthew. But "the intellectual prison" is not one just of Vietnam revisionism. Conservatives (being, you know, backwards and backwards-looking) are just having a hell of a time catching up with the fact that there are twice as many people on the planet than there were - many of them much wealthier, relative to Americans, than they were - in the 1960s. We couldn't very well dictate our will to foreigners in their own countries then - not without mobilizing for a big war like we did in the 1940s - and it's even harder now. The prison conservatives wall themselves into is a time warp. If it was 10,000 BC they'd be arguing against planting seeds. It's surprising they're in favor of antibiotics.

Posted by dcbob | June 26, 2007 4:01 PM

Ryan,

"whether Cheney et al gave any thought to the problem you raise, and if so, how they planned to handle"

Of course they did. They planned to handle it by stacking the courts with Federalist Society judges. Judges they can rely on to rule one way for a Dem president, another way for a GOP president.

Cheney understands the importance of a reliably partisan judiciary. After all he owes his job to Bush v Gore, handed out by a partisan court. The Scalia 5 were quite willing to reverse themselves on issues like states rights and judicial activism to install their crew in the White House.

Which is why Brent Kavanaugh, one of Ken Starr's prosecutors who later worked for Bush White House counsel's office was appointed to the DC appeals court. While working for Starr he argued that the president had no right for any executive privilege whatsoever. He quickly did a 180 after Bush moved in the WH and can be counted on to continue taking positions based on which party is in power.

Blogger Digby calls these partisan judges "GOP sleeper cells". They can be counted on to derail/frustrate any future Dem president.

Posted by DonB | June 26, 2007 4:27 PM

Ryan,

"whether Cheney et al gave any thought to the problem you raise, and if so, how they planned to handle"

Of course they did. They planned to handle it by stacking the courts with Federalist Society judges. Judges they can rely on to rule one way for a Dem president, another way for a GOP president.

Cheney understands the importance of a reliably partisan judiciary. After all he owes his job to Bush v Gore, handed out by a partisan court. The Scalia 5 were quite willing to reverse themselves on issues like states rights and judicial activism to install their crew in the White House.

Which is why Brent Kavanaugh, one of Ken Starr's prosecutors who later worked for Bush White House counsel's office was appointed to the DC appeals court. While working for Starr he argued that the president had no right for any executive privilege whatsoever. He quickly did a 180 after Bush moved in the WH and can be counted on to continue taking positions based on which party is in power.

Blogger Digby calls these partisan judges "GOP sleeper cells". They can be counted on to derail/frustrate any future Dem president.

Posted by DonB | June 26, 2007 4:27 PM

Tying together the threads of Cheney, rolling back post-Watergate restrictions on executive power, and Vietnam, there's a fascinating segment about Dick Cheney in 1967 in David Maraniss's 2003 book, "They Marched Into Sunlight". The book treats the month of October, 1967, in one rifle company in Vietnam and at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. That was the month Madison had its student protests, incompetent police intervention, and ultimately riots, and Dick Cheney happened to be there as a graduate student in political science. (Lynne was a grad student in English.)

The lessons Cheney drew from the protests are predictable. As might be expected, they were disgusted. On October 18, a protest was organized against on-campus recruiters from Dow Chemical, which manufactured napalm. A political theater troupe consisting of a bunch of mimes were doing some passive resistance stuff, with police trying to haul them away:

"Lynne Cheney, the English doctoral student who also taught freshman composition, and her husband, Dick Cheney, the political science graduate student, could not recall later precisely where they were as the Dow protest unfolded that day, but they retained a strong memory of seeing, and being revolted by, the antics of the mimes. In an interview with The New Yorker three and a half decades later, when her husband was vice president of the United States, Lynne Cheney said that she distinctly remembered 'going to class and having to walk through people in whiteface, conducting guerrilla theater, often swinging animal entrails over their heads, as part of a protest against Dow Chemical.'" (P.370)

It's all the mimes' fault! Damn those mimes!

Posted by mattsteinglass | June 27, 2007 1:39 AM

Posted by Ryan | June 26, 2007 12:54 PM:"Sadly I think that's too simple. If Bush decided China was the next great threat there'd be plenty of self-described liberals ready to jump on that bandwagon, too. Racism is part of it but so is this twisted desire of some liberals to project toughness."

Sorry but are you saying that anyone who thinks that China is an oppressive dictatorship with an appalling human rights record is a racist? Damn right plenty of liberals ought to jump on that bandwagon. China is an awful country. No doubt you think that puts me on par with the KKK, but it is still true.

Posted by Roger Tompkins | June 26, 2007 3:11 PM:"The commitment of the Congress wasn't the problem; we did our best and lost because the guys on the other side had more commitment and more people willing to die to show their support than the guys on our side."

Isn't that exactly the "Revisionist" case? That the other side wanted to win more than the US - especially the educated, wealth and liberal parts of America - and so in the end they did? They had more commitment and did not care how many of their young men they sent to die as long as they won?

Posted by Roger Tompkins | June 26, 2007 3:11 PM:"Once again the non-warriors have sent the warriors to a battle there was never a hope of winning by arms."

Actually like all guerilla wars, the US never had a chance of losing by arms. And it did not. It lost politically. Besides, that non-warriors line is wrong. Kennedy served. So did Nixon. So did LBJ more or less.

Posted by DonB | June 26, 2007 3:16 PM:"Prior to that he was treated as some kind of a liberal Pope. Dem politicians had to kiss his ring and ask for his blessing."

Yeah well people who want to murder you and all your kind (on racial grounds too) tends to kind of clarify your values I'd guess. I am sure a lot of Jews find it hard to keep on good terms with people who support Hamas as so much of the Left tends to these days. Who has changed? The Neo-Cons generally or the Left?

Posted by roger | June 26, 2007 3:22 PM:"Unfortunately, the strongmen almost always looted their countries, created such discontent that some communist insurgency would arise, and were eventually chased out, leaving behind a stink and the impression that the Americans were evil."

Always? Created an insurgency? In fact the US tended to support strongmen only when the alternative was a Communist insurgency. More or less. Nor does it follow that the strongmen always loot their country. A few of them left their country much better off. Look at Brazil.

Posted by roger | June 26, 2007 3:22 PM:"It will be interesting to see if the Bushies recognize that this is a perfect opportunity to cut their losses, or whether the greed for the oil will keep them looking in vain for some magic Iraqi traitor who will smile upon the maximum looting of the country by the ever crooked business allies of Cheney."

There are so many things objectionable about that claim. There is no evidence oil has ever played any role in Iraq policy. Traitor? Someone who wants a democratic, prosperous, tolerant but still pro-US Iraq must be a traitor? Nice.

Posted by roger | June 26, 2007 3:22 PM

Posted by HeiGou | June 27, 2007 6:11 AM

Yeah well people who want to murder you and all your kind (on racial grounds too) tends to kind of clarify your values I'd guess. I am sure a lot of Jews find it hard to keep on good terms with people who support Hamas as so much of the Left tends to these days. Who has changed? The Neo-Cons generally or the Left?

Please provide examples of people on the left who support Hamas. Saying that the United States should accept last year's election results, stop encouraging Fatah to fight Hamas, drop the diplomatic boycott & engage Hamas, is not the same as supporting Hamas.

Posted by Peter H | June 27, 2007 6:44 AM

Yeah well people who want to murder you and all your kind (on racial grounds too) tends to kind of clarify your values I'd guess. I am sure a lot of Jews find it hard to keep on good terms with people who support Hamas as so much of the Left tends to these days. Who has changed? The Neo-Cons generally or the Left?

Please provide examples of people on the left who support Hamas. Saying that the United States should accept last year's election results, stop encouraging Fatah to fight Hamas, drop the diplomatic boycott & engage Hamas, is not the same as supporting Hamas.

Posted by Peter H | June 27, 2007 6:45 AM

Posted by Peter H | June 27, 2007 6:45 AM:"Please provide examples of people on the left who support Hamas."

Well the most famous American leftist would have to be Chomsky - would you accept his endorsement of Hezbollah as close enough?

Posted by Peter H | June 27, 2007 6:45 AM:"Saying that the United States should accept last year's election results, stop encouraging Fatah to fight Hamas, drop the diplomatic boycott & engage Hamas, is not the same as supporting Hamas."

Well the difference is hard for me to see I have to admit. Besides, the US has accepted last years election results - which was not total power but domination of the Parliament. But part of the democratic process is accepting the consequences of those free choices. So the boycott ought to remain.

Posted by HeiGou | June 27, 2007 7:03 AM

Sorry but are you saying that anyone who thinks that China is an oppressive dictatorship with an appalling human rights record is a racist?

No, quite the contrary. I'm rejecting someone else's idea that racism is the problem with the liberal hawks. I'm saying *hawkishness* is the problem with liberal hawks, and it doesn't require racism to activate it. Heck, I'm sure some at TNR would get behind war with Norway if a good-smelling Republican President proclaimed it vital to our national security.

Posted by Ryan | June 27, 2007 7:13 AM

Oh, and I'm sure DonB is right about the partisan sleeper cells in the judiciary giving GOP Presidents a free hand and reining in Democratic ones. I guess I've just always seen a contradiction between that plan and the Bush admin's claim that the Presidency as an institution is above the law -- if that's the case aren't the courts a pretty weak barrier to the imagined tyrannical tendencies of President Hillary? But it's true, those claims of omnipotence (mostly made in the realm of national security policy) have begun to be challenged by the courts just (coincidentally!) as the Bush admin's term in office is approaching its end. Convenient timing, that.

Posted by Ryan | June 27, 2007 7:20 AM

mattglassstein:

"It's all the mimes' fault! Damn those mimes!"

Mimes' actual influence has been overrated, but you have to give them credit for trying to live up to their principles. Still when I see a mime coming, I cross to the other side of the street.

Posted by Peter K. | June 27, 2007 2:43 PM

Heigou, let's do the claim counterclaim. I will start with your more ridiculous ones, and end with your more sublime ones.

1. Strongmen and insurgencies. My claim: the US supported strongmen, the strongmen were tyrants and kleptomaniacs, and they created insurgencies.

Your reply: "Always? Created an insurgency? In fact the US tended to support strongmen only when the alternative was a Communist insurgency. More or less. Nor does it follow that the strongmen always loot their country. A few of them left their country much better off. Look at Brazil."

Uh, you have to be kidding about Brazil. The military left the place in a shambles, and they were eager, in the end, to get rid of the responsibility for ruling the place while at the same time preserving their money. Goulart was, alas, elected by the people of Brazil - I don't know, something about destroying a democracy might not be exactly consistent with the alternative being a communist strong man. In the Congo, the U.S. installed Mobuto and had Lumamba tortured and killed. Mobuto may have stashed away as much as 5 billion dollars in the end. His overthrow was followed by a civil war that is even now going on, with the casualties estimated at 3 million some. As for the Congo economically, it has remained a basket case since Mobuto got his claws into it. Indonesia: the U.S. sponsored an absurd rebellion in 1957-8 to overthrow Sukarno. The rebellion fizzled, but it did drive Sukarno, who was the president of a country in which there were elections and such, into the hands of the PKI, the communist party. The U.S. continued its pressure, and in 1965, Suharto and a junta not only overthrew Sukharno, but killed around 500,00-600,000 people - the lower figure is the testimony of the American ambassador to Indonesia at the time. Pity, but all for the greater good. Sukharno looted as he could, and was kicked out in a revolution. Are Americans now popular in Indonesia? Actually, with the downfall of Sukharno and during the Clinton period, America did regain its standing, but according to the Pew Survey, approval of the U.S. stands at 30 percent now in Indonesia. We all know about Iran and Chile, so there is no need to go into the crimes the U.S. committed there. To argue that Mossadeq was a communist or even a near communist is intellectually vacuous - we know way too much, now, about the overthrow of Mossadeq, which had everything to do with Churchill's objections to Mossadeq's nationalisation of British oil holdings (which were acquired, in the first place, through highly illegal means), and nothing to do with communism.

Now for the sublime:

"There is no evidence oil has ever played any role in Iraq policy."

Uh, what? You should pay attention to your own side once in a while. For instance: what ministry did the U.S. guard in 2003 when all around, other industries were being looted? What law has the Bush administration claimed to be a 'crucial' benchmark for progress in Iraq? Why did Wolfowitz, testifying about the cost of the Iraq war before it began (that famous looney tunes testimony in which he estimated the cost at 10 billion dollars - no wonder he was elevated to the presidency of the world bank!), say that Iraq would be able to 'pay it back'?

"Traitor? Someone who wants a democratic, prosperous, tolerant but still pro-US Iraq must be a traitor?"

No, traitor, as in someone who wants to subordinate the interest of his own country to the interest of another country. As in the definition of the word traitor. Now, it would be nice if there were somebody who wanted a democratic,prosperous pro-US Iraq out there. Alas, since the democratic part implies, well, elections now and then, and elections imply that the people have an actual say so in who rules them, and since the Iraqi people are not exactly pro-U.S. - the majority of the Iraqis have consistently, for the last two years, supported resisting the American army even if it means killing American soldiers - you are not going to get your dream Iraqi candidate in office without, oh, the usual massive American dirty tricks. Although, frankly, I don't think America has that power anymore.

This doesn't mean that Iraq will necessarily be ruled by an anti-American government. Americans can make amends in Iraq by the kind of complete withdrawal they enact, the change in their attitude from aggression seeking to peace seeking, their acceptance that rules about the economy in Iraq, and in any country, are ultimately subject to the sovereignty of that country itself. Which is why ending the war, making peace with Iran and Syria, and recognizing the lesser power of the U.S. relative to the power the U.S. used to exert during the cold war, is ultimately to the American benefit.

Posted by roger | June 27, 2007 3:28 PM

Re: As for the Congo economically, it has remained a basket case since Mobuto got his claws into it.

Might not 100 years of disastrous, at times genocidal, misrule by Belgium have had something to do with this? Why oh why is it always the US's fault whenver something goes to hell in the world, even in cases where some other nation's grubby fingerprints are smeared all over the "basketcase"? No doubt as memories of the Soviet Union fade we'll eventually be told that even Belarus' dictatorship is our fault.

Posted by Jonf | June 27, 2007 10:14 PM

Posted by roger | June 27, 2007 3:28 PM
Posted by roger | June 27, 2007 3:28 PM:"Uh, you have to be kidding about Brazil. The military left the place in a shambles"

Except they also left the start of a fairly solid industrial base. Brazil makes jets thanks to the military.

Posted by roger | June 27, 2007 3:28 PM:"In the Congo, the U.S. installed Mobuto and had Lumamba tortured and killed."

No they did not. Lumumba made his secretary Mobutu CinC of the Army and then Mobutu overthrew him. Mobutu may have had talks with the CIA. The CIA might have given money to some politicians. Mobutu handed Lumumba over to his enemies in Katanga and they killed him. There is nothing to indicate any US causation here at all. However it is irrelevant. No doubt you are trying to pick the best case you can for your argument but as I have not denied that some dictators were corrupt I don't see the point.

Posted by roger | June 27, 2007 3:28 PM:"His overthrow was followed by a civil war that is even now going on, with the casualties estimated at 3 million some."

Proof that the odd strongman is often preferable to the alternative.

Posted by roger | June 27, 2007 3:28 PM:"As for the Congo economically, it has remained a basket case since Mobuto got his claws into it."

And it was doing so well economically before Mobutu. How many University graduates did Belgium leave them? Six was it?

Posted by roger | June 27, 2007 3:28 PM:"Pity, but all for the greater good."

A Communist victory would have been much worse.

Posted by roger | June 27, 2007 3:28 PM:"To argue that Mossadeq was a communist or even a near communist is intellectually vacuous"

A good thing I won't try it. However what it looked like at the time to the CIA is a different issue.

Posted by roger | June 27, 2007 3:28 PM:"we know way too much, now, about the overthrow of Mossadeq, which had everything to do with Churchill's objections to Mossadeq's nationalisation of British oil holdings (which were acquired, in the first place, through highly illegal means), and nothing to do with communism."

What illegal means exactly? A British person paid for them. From the legal government. As for the coup, that too was the work of Iranians. The Shah tried to dismiss Mossdegh. He refused to go and tried to rule illegally by decree. The Army threw him out. You cannot claim that everywhere there is some US involvement or interest the US caused these problems or is 100 percent to blame. The Shah would have dismissed Mossdegh anyway. Mobutu would have overthrown Lumumba in all likelihood. The Communists would have tried to take over Indonesia. Stability is not a feature of Third World politics. Precisely none of which even tries to answer my point. Would you like to try again?

Posted by roger | June 27, 2007 3:28 PM:"You should pay attention to your own side once in a while."

Denial is not an argument.

Posted by roger | June 27, 2007 3:28 PM:"For instance: what ministry did the U.S. guard in 2003 when all around, other industries were being looted?"

No idea. What does it matter? If they wanted to steal the oil, why would they defend the people who ran the nationalized industry?

Posted by roger | June 27, 2007 3:28 PM:"say that Iraq would be able to 'pay it back'?"

Probably because he thought they might have some money once the fighting stopped - you know, given they and not the US owned all that oil.

Posted by roger | June 27, 2007 3:28 PM:"No, traitor, as in someone who wants to subordinate the interest of his own country to the interest of another country. As in the definition of the word traitor."

Really? So you'd apply that to Jane Fonda? I see no evidence that anyone in Iraq is doing this except the pro-Iranian enemies of the US.

Posted by roger | June 27, 2007 3:28 PM:"Now, it would be nice if there were somebody who wanted a democratic,prosperous pro-US Iraq out there. Alas, since the democratic part implies, well, elections now and then, and elections imply that the people have an actual say so in who rules them, and since the Iraqi people are not exactly pro-U.S. - the majority of the Iraqis have consistently, for the last two years, supported resisting the American army even if it means killing American soldiers - you are not going to get your dream Iraqi candidate in office without, oh, the usual massive American dirty tricks. Although, frankly, I don't think America has that power anymore."

I don't think they have ever tried. Iraq has held free and fair elections. They did elected people the US did not like. Those people hold power. I'd like to see a source for your claim that the majority of the Iraqi people support murdering American soldiers because they also consistently support a further, but short-term, American military presence. So by your own definition there are no traitors in Iraq and your comments in defense of your previously insulting claims are not only wrong, they are irrelevant. There is no sign of any treason in the people who support the US presence.

Posted by roger | June 27, 2007 3:28 PM:"This doesn't mean that Iraq will necessarily be ruled by an anti-American government."

Of course it does. Half of America hates America at least overseas - see your comments. What do you think everyone else is likely to think? Not that such beliefs are rational, the mob rarely is.

Posted by roger | June 27, 2007 3:28 PM:"Americans can make amends in Iraq by the kind of complete withdrawal they enact, the change in their attitude from aggression seeking to peace seeking"

America is not aggressive and only seeks peace. Again we see why an anti-American government in Iraq is inevitable.

Posted by roger | June 27, 2007 3:28 PM:"their acceptance that rules about the economy in Iraq, and in any country, are ultimately subject to the sovereignty of that country itself."

Which of course the Americans have.

Posted by roger | June 27, 2007 3:28 PM:"Which is why ending the war, making peace with Iran and Syria, and recognizing the lesser power of the U.S. relative to the power the U.S. used to exert during the cold war, is ultimately to the American benefit."

Last I checked you were not at war with either country although of course they are at war with you. Peace is not made by appeasement or surrender to aggression. They will go on hating you even if you adopt a prone position. The US does not, as it happens, have lesser power than in the Cold War and it is usually extremely careful about using it. America does not benefit by allowing terrorism and the sponsors thereof to thrive. As we saw on 9-11.

Posted by Jonf | June 27, 2007 10:14 PM :"Why oh why is it always the US's fault whenver something goes to hell in the world, even in cases where some other nation's grubby fingerprints are smeared all over the "basketcase"? No doubt as memories of the Soviet Union fade we'll eventually be told that even Belarus' dictatorship is our fault."

There is no rational basis to the self-loathing of the Left. Like the Jewish Blood Libel, we will just have to accept that for the next 2000 years whenever anything goes wrong anywhere in the world, it must be the American's fault in the eyes of the Left.

Posted by HeiGou | June 28, 2007 5:16 AM