Monday, November 13, 2006

Peaks and Valleys

It's clear that the U.S. and the UK are now floundering.

Blair speaks of Iran and Syria either helping quell Iraqi violence, or face further isolation. In a satirical movie about current events, this would be a laugh line.

The U.S. plans to send a naval armada into the Gulf "to intimidate the Iranians." But the Iranians will make fun and hold demonstrations, and maybe send a few unmanned drones across the bows.

The recent election results have changed much. To many people it's all good news, of course. And maybe they are right. Maybe America's position in the world must get much weaker before we can reunify with any resolve and make her stronger again. It's all part of a much greater historical cycle that Bush's best attempts to defy could not change. The neocons have all abandoned Bush, and with good reason place the blame for how things are now going on his incompetence. Probably this fizzling retreat was inevitable, and the lesson should not only be that we should never go to war without an exit strategy, but never go to war until the American people feel the terrible necessity of it in the marrow of their bones.

But should Iran gather nuclear weapons and reshape a few Asian and European strategic alliances, thus recasting the economies and relative strengths of nations around the world and in particular favoring regimes that are violently repressive and reactionary, that will happen soon enough.

10 comments:

Paula said...

Bush & Co. fucked it up, which may or may not end up worse than doing nothing. We'll never know because we can't really go back. If there are no more attacks on our soil even after the Dems muck around with stuff, then good. If there are, then... ?

BTW, it's great you put those names after your links cuz I was like so confused before.

Anonymous said...

I feel kind of bad for Tony Blair. Like he's a sixth grader who was led into this by the peer pressure of a bully, and now he's left defending it, lest he look like, well, a sixth grader who was at the mercy of the peer pressure of a bully.

Bush & Co. fucked it up, which may or may not end up worse than doing nothing.

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? Given the number of UN Resolutions Iraq was violating, I felt at the time and still mostly feel that some action was necessary, though not outright invasion. I mean, why do we have the UN at all, if the resolutions amount to no more than name-calling? We denounce you! Okay, so? It's meaningless if it's not going to be followed through with anything, and the UN itself of course showed no resolve, as usual. But. To lie and cheat and manipulate your way into an out-and-out war nobody wants except you, because you think God is whispering in your ear? Not so much the answer.

And now of course where Iran or Korea are concerned it's conceivable we might actually need a war, or at least some military action, but it's too late. "Well, I'll ask them, but I don't think they'll be very keen. You see, they've already got one."

Anonymous said...

That would be the real damage--the loss of credibility in the event there really is a wolf in the flock, so to speak. The best thing would be for the government to talk and behave honestly. Right at this moment, if anyone at the Whitehouse said anything at all, I would assume they were lying.
-R

Harry said...

We have lost credibility. Long since. To assume that because Democrats for now hold both houses of Congress we are going to get weaker before getting stronger is to buy into Karl Rove's campaign talking points. To begin with, Bush still runs foreign policy, which has left us weaker than when we started. Secondly, something like a phased redeployment would likely lead us into a better position to deal with threats like Iran and North Korea. Thirdly, don't sneeze at a battle group in the Gulf. I'd bet my salary the Iranians aren't.

Harry said...

A futher point, since I'm roilling in high dudgeon. Now that we have opposing parties in government, maybe we'll get our constitution back, a little bit, and some of the outright VILE SCUM who have perpetrated fraud, corruption, and violations of the constitution will be brought to heel. The Republicans fouled it up on a grand scale. A return to wise broad minded foreign policy, where we talk even to our enemies, will strengthen our hand all around the world. The "with us 'r agin'" act has left us with a bad odor.

We'll never be strong again if we give up our ideals the way these people have the last six years.

Don said...

I don't assume we're going to get weaker because of Democrats. We are going to get weaker because the world now sees the American people have lost interest in Iraq. It is clear we will fade away from there, and the vacuum created by our departure will be filled with the expanding confidence of Iran and her new allies. This is a far cry from the strength, built not in navies but in cooperative democracies, that Bush started out to create. I don't care if I agree or disagree with Rove.

Harry said...

How did Bush ever really started out to create cooperative democracies?

I disagree with the notion that we'll be weaker because of how the world perceives us. We'll be stronger if our eventual withdrawal from Iraq coincides with a new outlook on the world in which we work on some level with everyone we are involved with. If we bring them to the table, they are less likely to launch. Anyway, we have the ability to keep an eye on their left hand while their right hand talks.

Roy said...

Anyway, we have the ability to keep an eye on their left hand while their right hand talks.

I would go further. I think we have so much military and economic clout that we can do most things any way we want to. We are not a third world country forced to deal with Iraq or anyone else on their terms.

Don said...

Sigh. The idea from the beginning was to work with everyone, because anyone who wasn't working with us was ripe to be used by Al Qaeda. But that "with us or against us" message got twisted, and the idiots in the Bush Admin were never able to clarify the message and the purpose. So now you're talking about bringing people to the table and having economic clout etc. But a group like Al Qaeda and its fellow travelers has no handles for us to grab on to. A major power can arm them up and then just cheerfully deny it. So we're fucked. Don't live near any juicy American targets.

Harry said...

Work with everyone? Working with other governments means paying some attention to their concerns. Seems the Bush Admin didn't do that.

How is that anyone not wokring with us was ripe to be used by Al Qaeda?

Bush et. al. just blew the rhetoric out there, cranked up a war in Iraq that didn't need to happen, and weakened the effort against Al Qaeda as a result. They were never able to clarify their purpose because they kept changing the public face of it as the latest justification got knocked down. Their real reasons for invading were never revealed. Al Qaeda was not part of it when they started the war. They had a handle on them in Afhganistan and blew that too. If they had stayed out of Iraq, Al Qaeda would be far more crippled than they are. If Al Qaeda has no handles for us to grab, how does Iraq fit as the focus of the war on terror?

I'm talking about bringing people to the table and getting the effort back together and leaving the idea that anyone who disagrees with us is automatically bad in the miserable past. Economically, militarily, politically, or whatever, the world needs to work together to keep something like Al Qaeda at bay. It can't be that hard, after all they've been kissing the Saudis butts for nearly 80 years.