The League of Extraordinary Thoughtlessness

I think the idea of creating a "democracies only" international organization has some promise. But I think the idea of creating, as John McCain has proposed, a League of Democracies that would purport to have the authority to authorize Iraq-style non-defensive wars when the U.N. Security Council declines to do so is a terrible idea. But beyond the merits of the idea, there's another problem as Matt Welch points out:

[R]egardless of whatever Rauch, Welch or McCain might think about a 21st century League of Nations, the main point is that there is no way in hell anything remotely like this is happening any time in the next decade. After eight years of a cranky, go-it-alone White House that won re-election in part by bashing limp-wristed Euro-weenies, the chances of another interventionist Republican winning enough good faith among grumbly allies to create a brand spanking new America-defined Club of Winners are something approaching zero.

Quite so. McCain's habit of putting this at the center of his foreign policy agenda reveals not just poor strategic thinking on the underlying merits of the concept, but an extraordinary detachment from the realities of the contemporary world. The idea that Canada and France and Brazil and India and South Korea are all just chomping at the bit to join a new McCain-initiated, America-led war club is ludicrous and anyone who thought about it for five minutes could see that.

Comments

Remember, the highlight of McCain's military career was his losing his airplane.

What do you expect?

Posted by spencer | April 3, 2008 12:30 PM

Of course, if Matthew had actually bothered to read what he thought the league of democracies would be for, Matthew would understand that it isn't a "war club". The AP story that Welch links to says the following:

Such a new body, he says, could help relieve suffering in Darfur, fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa, develop better environmental policies, and provide "unimpeded market access" to countries sharing "the values of economic and political freedom."

But Matthew really doesn't care about actually researching these things by, you know, clicking a link. That's far too much work for Matthew. Instead, he simply regurgitates Welch's shoddy post. And that why Matthew's McCain-related posts are so laughable as to not be taken seriously - anybody with 30 seconds and the ability to click a link will be able to figure out that Matthew doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 12:32 PM

The strategic thinking here is just vacuous. If we organize a big military coalition of democracies (and does Taiwan get to join? India and Pakistan?), then the logical thing for the rest of the frightened world to do is organize a big military coalition of non-democracies. Suddenly Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, etc. will no longer be eccentric problem areas, but one big Warsaw-style alliance maneuvering to thwart us. That dynamic would certainly vindicate the "there's gonna be more wars, my friends, other wars" style of prophesy.

Posted by southpaw | April 3, 2008 12:36 PM

The idea is laughable because there are already plenty of international organizations in existence.

Proposing a new one is simply filler in a list of the usual vacuous campaign goo.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 3, 2008 12:42 PM

Well, remember all those millions currently being quietly paid out to pundits/activists of both parties by that Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) that AIPAC-clone financed by all those pro-Israel Wall Street billionaires...

My guess is that this League of Democracies would end up having two core members, namely America and Israel, plus a few additional countries (Bulgaria, Poland, Colombia, Botswana?) that can be bullied or bribed into joining.

On the other hand, I'll be pretty surprised if the democratically-elected Hamas government of Palestine is invited to join...

Posted by RKU | April 3, 2008 12:42 PM

But, hey, I will give Matthew and Welch credit for this much - they are a lot smarter than the moron Samantha Power. At least they understand that a tremendous flaw of the UN is that dictatorships have so much power there, and that a possible way around that problem is through a league of democracies.

The moron Samantha Power apparently can't understand this. She thinks that "Citizens have the power to make governments act differently" in respect of the UN, and that if only "political pressure from below" would cause member states "to prioritize global problems", the UN would be A-OK. As if the citizens of Iran and China and can make their governments "prioritize global problems".

God help us if Obama wins the Presidency and appoints someone so dimwitted as Samantha Power to an important national security post.

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 12:42 PM

This only has any chance at all of working if the US is willing to cede some power. Would the US hold back on an attack on Iraq/Iran/EnemyOfTheDay if the league voted against it?

There's also a problem of deciding who to include. Does Russia get in despite dodgy elections? How about Mugabe's Zimbabwe? Would the US get kicked out over something like the Florida 2000 fiasco?

Posted by togolosh | April 3, 2008 12:45 PM

champing.

Posted by bobbo | April 3, 2008 12:49 PM

And once again, Al is selective in his cut-and-paste, and actually reading of said links.

If you actually read the entire McCain speech, you'd read multiple paragraphs (Al omits), which do talk about military cooperation, and the rest of the actual paragraph (Al omits) that Al cited on his post:

The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order of peace based on freedom. It could act where the UN fails to act, to relieve human suffering in places like Darfur. It could join to fight the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa and fashion better policies to confront the crisis of our environment. It could provide unimpeded market access to those who share the values of economic and political freedom, an advantage no state-based system could attain. It could bring concerted pressure to bear on tyrants in Burma or Zimbabwe, with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval. It could unite to impose sanctions on Iran and thwart its nuclear ambitions. It could provide support to struggling democracies in Ukraine and Serbia and help countries like Thailand back on the path to democracy.

And there's more Al, just click the link (and read it):
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/Speeches/43e821a2-ad70-495a-83b2-098638e67aeb.htm

Posted by AKBY | April 3, 2008 12:52 PM

I've linked to The Onion's take on the matter before, but they summarize the issue so perfectly I feel compelled to do it again:

"U.S. Forms Own U.N."
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27948

Posted by James Gary | April 3, 2008 12:53 PM

McCain's New Millenium Thesaurus-

Main Entry: Bomb
Part of speech: Verb
Definition: Detonate
Synonyms: "bring concerted pressure to bear," "thwart ambitions," "support struggling democracies," "help countries"

Posted by drjimcooper | April 3, 2008 12:59 PM

The idea that Canada and France and Brazil and India and South Korea are all just chomping at the bit to join a new McCain-initiated, America-led war club is ludicrous

Regrettably, with our current Conservative government, I can't say Canada would not be chomping at the bit to join.

Posted by McKingford | April 3, 2008 1:09 PM

I don't see any talk of "non-defensive wars" (to use Matthew's term) in the text you highlighted, AKBY. In fact, your post simply adds evidence to my basic point: the League of Democracies is not intended to be a "war club" (as Matthew puts it). It is primarily intended to be able to take action around the globe short of war, but which is not hindered by the actions of countries that are governed in a manner not accountable to their populations.

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 1:10 PM

Shouldn't you at least credit Kevin O'Neill's art when you use it?

Posted by Oliver | April 3, 2008 1:16 PM

There is Al the vile insane troll, trolling vile insanity. Troll on, Insane Vile Al.

Posted by Jennifer | April 3, 2008 1:17 PM

Al, we know what the League of Democracies is intended for in McCain's mind. It's intended to be a war club. You might not realize this, but that's the whole problem we have with McCain's popularity, isn't it?

Posted by mpowell | April 3, 2008 1:19 PM

BTW, it is especially humorous to see that Matthew thinks there is no way that other countries will join the US in the next decade to authorize "non-defensive wars". After all, how exactly does Barack Obama propose to "deploy a large, capable UN-led and UN-funded force with a robust enforcement mandate to stop the killings" in Darfur over the Sudanese regime's protests?

Now who's being extraordinarily thoughtless?

Let's face it, Barack Obama is far, FAR more naive about international politics that John McCain ever was.

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 1:20 PM

Al, we know what the League of Democracies is intended for in McCain's mind.

Well, I, for one, am not a mind reader. Maybe that distinguishes me from the other commenters who are mind readers, I dunno.

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 1:24 PM

Let's face it, Barack Obama is far, FAR more naive about international politics that John McCain ever was.

I beg to differ. It's hard to imagine any possible operation in Darfur being the kind of complete cock-up that the Iraq war has been.

I mean, if his plan involved sending the entire army to Sudan, deposing the Sudanese government, and then--for an operation billed as lasting six months or less, spending five years occupying the country, with an intent to stay for 100 more--perhaps Obama might plausibly characterized as "as naive as McCain." For Obama to be "far, FAR more naive" would involve a blunder of a magnitude that's difficult to imagine.

Posted by James Gary | April 3, 2008 1:28 PM

I would tend to agree with Jeffrey Davis that this is just "vacuous campaign goo." Surely, McCain must be aware of the multiple international organizations already in existence, including the Community of Democracies, which has garnered significant State Department support in the past:

The Community of Democracies (CD) is an intergovernmental organization of democracies and democratizing countries with a stated commitment to strengthening and deepening democratic norms and practices worldwide. The CD is composed of both a governmental component made up government representatives, and a non-governmental component comprised of civil society organizations who meet as a group at biennial ministerial conferences. In 2004, CD governments also organized themselves into a Democracy Caucus in the United Nations (U.N.).

It seems like McCain is merely proposing to take this same structure and bully it into carrying out a neo-con platform. (For those or you who don't see the CD as essentially a neo-con project in itself...)

As for Al's business about Samantha Power being a "moron", I can only assume you're one of those Turkish nationalists who flipped when her (previous) book came out mentioning the "Armenian genocide." I mean, that's the only rational explanation I can think of for that kind of name-calling. I mean, I initially supported Obama BECAUSE of Samantha Power -- now, of course, its just for those great speeches...

Posted by LIJ | April 3, 2008 1:31 PM

Remember, since the situation in Darfur / Sudan is awful, there's no way whatsoever that a ham-handed military intervention could make it worse, because that is physically impossible and such worries are only the sorts of notions that hate-the-troops extremist pro-genociders might even consider.

Posted by El Cid | April 3, 2008 1:35 PM

OMG, the Al-bot has finally broken. If alt-ctrl-del won't work for the owners of the Al-bot, they should just pull the plug and start yanking cards until they get a clean boot.

Cuz gawd knows we've already had all the Al we need.

Posted by serial catowner | April 3, 2008 1:36 PM

"Such a new body, he says, could help relieve suffering in Darfur, fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa, develop better environmental policies, and provide "unimpeded market access" to countries sharing "the values of economic and political freedom."

Al- Those are all good things. I suppose you're familiar with the current Republican administration's record on them. You know, Darfur, "abstinence only", Kyoto, and farm subsidies?

Seems like Republican intransigence has been the primary obstacle so far. Think maybe this was one of the things Power was talking about? I do.

Posted by jack lecou | April 3, 2008 1:37 PM

Definitely vacuous campaign goo. The expiration date on this bottle of goo is November 2008.

Posted by blah | April 3, 2008 1:38 PM

The real lunacy here is the idea that the US, which in my lifetime has never supported democracy, would lead a "League of Democracies". Presumably the only nations admitted to this league would be dictatorships like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and the goals of the league would be to quash actual democracies like Venezuela.

Yeah, that'll work. Because the League of Superheroes will be helping us. We can have action figures and everything. It'll be cool!

Posted by serial catowner | April 3, 2008 1:43 PM

Here is the unabridged paragraph from McCain's big speech that immediately follows his introduction of the idea of the "League of Democracies":

At the heart of this new compact must be mutual respect and trust. Recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence, that we pay "decent respect to the opinions of mankind." Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.

"International military action" = non-defensive wars, doesn't it? What else could it mean? Of course McCain is saying for now that we only get to launch this international military action when our allies agree with us. But that's the point of Yglesias's post -- McCain is extraordinarily naive to think that the most significant democracies will be lining up to join us. (And McCain's rhetoric about listening to our allies totally contradicts his positions on Iraq.)

Posted by Matt Weiner | April 3, 2008 1:47 PM

democracies like Venezuela

Riiight. You probably think Cuba is a democracy too - they voted for Castro, right?

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 1:49 PM

Al, I though you weren't a mind reader.

Posted by blah | April 3, 2008 1:53 PM

Don't you guys get it? This is a ruse! After getting people to go along with this League thingie, he's going to dictate exactly WHICH democracies should be allowed to join, and rename the organization to League of REAL Democracies - or L.O.R.D!!! And then, the Lord will have returned and a new age of peace will have begun!

/snark off?

Posted by taodon | April 3, 2008 2:06 PM

It would be fun to ask mccain what the litmus test would be for membership in the "league of democracies", with a follow up question as to whether the U.S. circa 2000 would have met this standard. Answering the first would be fairly straight forward, however the second would surely give him fits as he needs lots of money for the genral election, the majority of which must come from the %30 of Bush supporters who were/are gleeful with the 2000 outcome. Thus straight talk hilarity would ensue.

Posted by frothferous | April 3, 2008 2:08 PM

Right. McCain will get military help from countries like Canada, where 62% of the people consider American policy a negative influence in the world, and Germany, where 72% of the people consider American policy a negative influence. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7324337.stm

But I think Matt is too pessimistic. These countries will glady join a League of Democracies. And then they'll just vote No every time another American idiot proposes an aggressive colonial war.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 3, 2008 2:08 PM

From a country that has only been knowingly invaded by the US (well, Denmark planted a flag and left quickly, and Russia dropped something from a submarine, but we didn't know until we checked Google Maps) what is a "non-defensive" war?

Is that when Poland invaded Germany in 1939 and Germany had to defend itself? Is that when Germany and Russia signed a non-agression treaty with each other but not with the rest of the world in 1940?

Ths US lost us when you left us holding the bag against the "terrorists" in Afghanistan. It is of course unfair to say that the only time we have seen you since is during "friendly fire" exercises.

Posted by Randy | April 3, 2008 2:22 PM

Well, like I said, Al, you have to read the ENTIRE text of what McCain actually said in his speech. And, I think the actualities of the League are somewhere in between your analysis "to be able to take action around the globe short of war" and Matt's "war club".

If McCain's intention was "short of war" then why would he include language such as "We must never again launch a military operation with too few troops to complete the mission and build a secure, stable, and democratic peace. When we fight a war, we must fight to win"

I think your argument on following posts about the U.N. points out one of the key issues McCain is driving at: We need a coaltion that will take action.

If you can't even concede this point, you haven't read his speech.

Posted by AKBY | April 3, 2008 2:22 PM

Al, whether you like it or not, Chavez was elected in Venezuela. The fact that he has undermined freedom and democracy since then is another matter.

For that matter, Iran is indisputably a democracy though no one like to admit this. And it is not a phony democracy with phony votes like Castro's Cuba or Saddam's Iraq. It is an imperfect democracy and a democracy with very few individual rights, but a democracy it is.

This is the problem. Democracy is not the be all end all of political systems. The rule of law and individual freedoms are far more important in defining a free society than whether or not some officials are elected.

In the US our democracy is also deeply flawed, but we have a much better system of government than Iran does. This is not because we practice better democracy. It is because we enforce the rule of law (generally) in a fair manner and because individual freedoms are protected. This is not the same as democracy. In fact it is very undemocratic. This is the problem with the sort of facile democracy promotion the Bush admin engages in. It misses the big picture entirely.

Posted by Rob Mac | April 3, 2008 2:24 PM

I don't know about the rest of you (and I certainly don't know about the Bush administration), but I have never defined "democracy" strictly in terms of majority rule. If you haven't got rule of law, some check on the power of the government's action on behalf of the majority (a constitution of some sort is good), and fundamental freedom to criticize the government and publish those criticisms, then you haven't got a democracy.

Holding an election is one step towards getting those other things, because somebody has to get the ball rolling as far as setting up laws and a constitution. But if you vote in some clown who doesn't go on and do those things, then the election itself doesn't really help much. "One person, one vote, once" does not a democracy make.

Posted by M.C. | April 3, 2008 3:00 PM

Can the boosters of these Leagues or Concerts or whatnot give a straight thumbs up or thumbs down to the following applicants to their club:

Venezuela, Guatemala, Ecuador, Bolivia, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Bhutan, Nepal, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Fiji, Russia, China, Taiwan, Japan, Serbia, Albania, Ukraine, Estonia, Ethiopia.

If not, why not?

Posted by kvenlander | April 3, 2008 4:14 PM

I find it odd that the entire debate in the blogosphere over McCain's proposal for a League of Democracies appears to be taking place in a vacuum -- as if this is a) a new idea and b) one that only conservatives have pushed. In fact, the concept is a refinement of a Clinton-era initiative known as the Community of Democracies -- an effort to bring together all 100-something of the world's democracies to find common ground on a range of issues, including work within the UN. The original concept was to build up a counterpoint to the non-aligned movement, and to give nascent democracies in the developing world some sort of cover to move their polices away from the lockstep of the NAM's UN lobby.

In reality, a few problems have cropped up. First, democracies may not go to war against each other, but they don't really get along that well either. The CoD process has been plagued by disagreements and infighting, with the French and others lobbing grenades at the idea almost from the beginning (although that has changed since Sarkozy has elected).

Second, the convening group of the CoD -- which at first consisted of the U.S., Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Chile, Mexico, India, South Africa, and Mali -- couldn't agree on who should be invited. The CoD has had 4 major ministerial meetings so far -- in Warsaw (2000), Seoul (2002), Santiago (2005), and Bamako (2007). In every case, there has been significant disagreement over who should and should not be invited. For example, the Bush Administration has pushed hard for Iraq's inclusion.

Third, the CoD has been perceived by many -- including many who are members -- as little more than an American institution created to weaken the UN. This was true under both the Clinton and Bush administrations, but it has become particularly true of the last two ministerials, which have taken place after the invasion of Iraq. This reinforces the point made by Matt Welch -- in fact, it demonstrates that such a notion would be difficult even were a Democrat to promote it.

Last but not least, the notion that perhaps the solution to the CoD's problems was to create a smaller more exclusive League was not first put forward by McCain, but as part of the Princeton National Security Project under the leadership of Anne Marie Slaughter and John Ikenberry.

I end with a comment on the commenters: Al, you demean your own comments when you demean Sam Power's intelligence. I suggest that instead of making ad hominem defamatory remarks, you instead read her work -- which often has been as critical of Democrats as Republicans -- or at the very least read the transcript of her comments in which she made the very valid point that the UN is often blamed for actions undertaken by its members. Maybe then you would find that she has much to contribute to the current foreign policy debate, and in fact would be an outstanding addition to the next administration.

Posted by Charlie | April 3, 2008 4:15 PM

Matt,
Before you dismiss international willingness to join a League of Democracies I suggest that you listen to how foreign democratic governments are reacting to it. I have and I can tell you that they are curious but not hostile.

Posted by pt | April 3, 2008 4:28 PM

And, I think the actualities of the League are somewhere in between your analysis "to be able to take action around the globe short of war" and Matt's "war club".

I said the League of Democracies "is primarily intended to be able to take action around the globe short of war". Which McCain's speech makes clear. Clearly different than Matthew's "war club".

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 4:32 PM

For that matter, Iran is indisputably a democracy though no one like to admit this. And it is not a phony democracy with phony votes like Castro's Cuba or Saddam's Iraq. It is an imperfect democracy and a democracy with very few individual rights, but a democracy it is.

Interesting. When does Ayatollah Khamenei next come up for reelection?

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 4:36 PM

Saying Iran is "indisputably a democracy" would be like saying the same thing about the U.S. if:

the head of the Mormon church were also the commander in chief of our armed forces and controlled the media (among other powers).

The Mormon church elders got to decide who ran for Congress and who ran for president.

Posted by Fred | April 3, 2008 4:44 PM

Al, you demean your own comments when you demean Sam Power's intelligence. I suggest that instead of making ad hominem defamatory remarks, you instead read her work

I did read the genocide book. It was OK. That said, I think you don't understand the term "ad hominem" if you believe that it is ad hominem to criticize her apparent inability to understand that, in dictatorships, citizens do not have the power to "make governments act differently" to cause member states "to prioritize global problems".

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 4:45 PM

in dictatorships, citizens do not have the power to "make governments act differently" to cause member states "to prioritize global problems".

Nonsense. Dictators are terrified of their subjects and pander to public opinion at least as much as elected politicians. We hear constantly that this or that dictator would love to take some American bribe but can't do it this time because of public opposition. Musharaff and that Jordanian pig have been frequent examples.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 3, 2008 4:58 PM

The devil is in the details of course ... technically speaking most western nations, including the US, aren't democracies, they're democratic republics.

"The League of Democratic Republics" ... LDR ... "leader" ... head hurting ...

Posted by Gheby | April 3, 2008 5:07 PM

Al: So you say it is their "primary" intention meaning "not exclusive" intention to take action short of war? Right...

You agree, finally, that one of the objectives of the League is in fact to take cooperative military action, in addition to the other objectives you cut-and-paste in your first post, like helping to fight the AIDS epidemic.

Thus the giant circle back to my point that If you actually read the entire McCain speech, you'd read multiple paragraphs (Al omits), which do talk about military cooperation.

Posted by AKBY | April 3, 2008 5:36 PM

NATO is already pretty close to such an organization. At least, most countries wouldn't want to join a US-led League of Democracies that aren't already in NATO. Granted, that leaves out quite a few democracies. But if that's what McCain really what's to do, it makes sense to start with NATO and see what it takes to make the club more attractive and more useful for more democracies globally. He'll soon discover that that will require less 'leadership' (or warmongering) from the U.S. than he might like. After all, a League of Democracies would have to be democratic. Is that what he really wants? Didn't think so.

Posted by madcat | April 3, 2008 5:59 PM

Here's a few more problems with a League of Democracies:

1. Who gets to be a member? Our non-democratic allies? Democracies who elect people we don't like, like Venezuela and Ecuador and Nicaragua? Countries that have elections but don't honor the results, like Kenya and Nigeria? US allies that, um, aren't very democratic, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia?
2. How does it solve any problems when China, Russia, and the entire Middle East besides Israel are not members?
3. How is power distributed? One democracy one vote? In that case, the US can be canceled out by Luxembourg and the next Iraq War will never happen. By population? If so, India would have more power than the US and EU put together. Maybe they should do it by military budget.

Posted by Joe | April 3, 2008 6:16 PM

Here's a few more problems with a League of Democracies:

1. Who gets to be a member? Democracies who elect people we don't like, like Venezuela and Ecuador and Nicaragua? Countries that have elections but don't honor the results, like Kenya and Nigeria? US allies that, um, aren't very democratic, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia?
2. How does it solve any problems when China, Russia, and the entire Middle East besides Israel are not members?
3. How is power distributed? One democracy one vote? In that case, the US can be canceled out by Luxembourg and the next Iraq War will never happen. By population? If so, India would have more power than the US and EU put together. Maybe they should do it by military budget.

Posted by Joe | April 3, 2008 6:17 PM

Here's a few more problems with a League of Democracies:

1. Who gets to be a member? Democracies who elect people we don't like, like Venezuela and Ecuador and Nicaragua? Countries that have elections but don't honor the results, like Kenya and Nigeria? US allies that, um, aren't very democratic, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia?
2. How does it solve any problems when China, Russia, and the entire Middle East besides Israel are not members?
3. How is power distributed? One democracy one vote? In that case, the US can be canceled out by Luxembourg and the next Iraq War will never happen. By population? If so, India would have more power than the US and EU put together. Maybe they should do it by military budget.

Posted by Joe | April 3, 2008 6:17 PM

Even though Canadian and French leaders probably believed Colin Powell that Saddam was amassing nuclear weapons and probably agreed that he shouldn't be allowed to have them, Bush was clearly determined to reenact the Flight of Icarus on his own, with or without their help.

Given this, plus the fact that war is very costly and unpopular with their own citizens, our allies had every incentive to sit this one out.

This calculus would count double for McCain, who's even more gung ho to launch bigger, costlier disasters elsewhere.

Posted by Aatos | April 3, 2008 7:23 PM

"even though Canadian and French leaders probably believed Colin Powell that Saddam was amassing nuclear weapons and probably agreed that he shouldn't be allowed to have them"

Well no.

The French repeatedly stated that Saddam didn't have WMD's (though he would like to get them) and that smarter sanctions would make sure that he wouldn't get WMD's.

Outside of the US & UK , powells presentation was regarded with surprised contempt.('is that the best they can do ?')

Why the french, for example, should sign up for this LoD after McCain comments when the french opposed the US's marvellously conceived and brillantly executed attack on iraq that "[The French] remind me of an aging movie actress in the 1940s who’s still trying to dine out on her looks, but doesn’t have the face for it."

Personally if i was the french i'd go for this LoD but I'd ban any country , like the US, that uses torture as a government policy from being a member.

Posted by kenny | April 3, 2008 7:58 PM

Hey, lay off Colin Powell. He even used PowerPoint, and that is never, ever wrong. He showed them a bottle of stuff!!!

http://www.viewimages.com/Search.aspx?mid=1762373&epmid=1&partner=Google

Posted by El Cid | April 3, 2008 8:09 PM

Another point the League of Democracies argument misses: Even if forming such a group were feasible (and I agree with Matt’s and other commenters’ arguments that it’s not), and even if the international community then recognised such a group as a legitimate body for authorising the sort of things McCain wants it to authorise, and even if there was a good way of working out who gets to join (there isn’t – kvenlander’s list makes the point), it still wouldn’t do most of things McCain (or some of the things liberals) would want it to do.

What proponents of this idea miss is that the opposing opinions in the UN or other international bodies don’t split along democracy-dictatorship lines. If the veto-holding states in the UNSC in ’03 had been US-UK-Fr plus Canada and Germany instead of Russia and China, would it then have authorised the Iraq war? It’s not conclusive – the politics would have differed in the run-up – but you’d have to think it less-than-likely. On human rights issues countries like Sth Africa and India tend to be against putting pressure on tyrants in Burma and Zimbabwe. Even if you looked at just the US and its closest western allies, the US is an outlier on a lot of international issues (sometimes in a good way, sometimes not).

Posted by jamesa81 | April 3, 2008 9:57 PM

and even if there was a good way of working out who gets to join (there isn’t – kvenlander’s list makes the point),

There isn't a "good way of working out who gets to join" the UN either. Taiwan? Kosovo?

Posted by Al | April 4, 2008 1:33 AM

"provide "unimpeded market access" to countries sharing 'the values of economic and political freedom.'"

Shorter version: sell out and we own you.

Where do these fucking idiots come from?

We have some clown up there saying, "Gee, listen to the foreign governments! They're curious, not hostile."

Yeah, they're curious about 1) how stupid the US can be to let a moron like McCain actually stand for President, and 2) is there some way they can use this stupidity to make a buck while shafting the moronic US electorate in the process.

Then we have this:

"Last but not least, the notion that perhaps the solution to the CoD's problems was to create a smaller more exclusive League was not first put forward by McCain, but as part of the Princeton National Security Project under the leadership of Anne Marie Slaughter and John Ikenberry."

Yeah - there's a pair. Some of TPM's finest idiot pundits. Anybody taking anything either of those two say seriously has to be as out to lunch as Al or Fred.

The "Princeton National Security Project" is the source of "interventionist Democrats" - the so-called "Truman Democrats" - i.e., "liberal hawks".

Morons, in other words.

I've read Slaughter's crap over at TPM for months. She got ripped to shreds by the posters there, most of whom have a lot more common sense than she does.

I can't believe any of this is even being seriously discussed. Matt's right - it's a complete waste of everybody's time to even take it seriously.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 4, 2008 4:41 AM

I live in Europe. The people here cannot believe that the U.S. people would EVEN consider electing another Republican. If it happens, he will be dismissed by the rest of the world.

Posted by Bajsa | April 4, 2008 12:12 PM