I usually don't like Lind's commentary (especially regarding domestic issues) but this picks up on some things that I've been watching as well. Even Charles Krauthammer seems to recognize that balancing is underway.

Thanks Praktike for the note. I missed Krauthammer's acknowledgemnt of counter-balancing. He seems to always downplay costs of our policy that I'm surprised that he made the comment, but pleased if he did. Do you know where or when -- was it on "Washington Week"?
Steve

Talk about clarity! Mr. Lind's article is as direct and clearly on point about the US and the rest of the world. Red State America needs to read this slowly.

Here it is, alongside his National Interest piece:

http://www.liberalsagainstterrorism.com/drupal/?q=node/238

Any student of history will recognize that no empire lasts forever. It should come as no surprise that America's dominance would fade eventually; however, BushCo's actions have undoubtedly hastened that day.

Thanks for this excellent post, Steve. I'd love to read John Ikenberry's full article but see that it is blocked by Prospect Magazine's site. Please write about it some time.

On Lind, I think that you pitch it just right -- that we are seeing the "early currents" of a new global rejectionism of us. But instead of just words, the world is finding actions to constrain our options. That means America is going to pay some kind of price.

I think that we can still salvage things if we get Bush's head out of the utopian notions he has and out of how he'd like to see things rather than seeing the world and our situation as it really is.

You perform a great public service here, Steve, and thanks to Michael Lind for giving these problems some punch.

Mr. Lind, thanks for this clear statement of the mess that our nation is in. I think your entire article should be called "AMERICA'S UNDENIABLE QUAGMIRE." Thanks for writing it and also for supporting the work of your colleague, Steve Clemons -- whom many of us follow religiously (maybe George Bush might get inspired by that line??).
Thanks again,
d.

I'd also like to point you to an article that Dr. Eric Alterman pointed to on his web log.

ZNet Politics End-Timers & Neo-Cons.htm

very timely observations...

One of the problems has gotta be the closed circle of decision-making that really makes it hard for alternative views to be aired. If nobody ever questions the assumption that America will continue as the global leader during this century (militarily, economically, etc), they're going to have a hard time facing serious challenges to the position.

A new Secretary of State that fits the closed-loop model is probably not what America needs, as she is closely associated with the perceived belligerance/bad faith of the current administration. Maybe strategists within foreign governments will find their path to creating a counter-balance to American power easier because her intentions are suspect from the get go.

So much in the article, so true. Zbig's appearance on the Newshour the other day also did a good job of putting the lie to Bush's rhetoric (or at least its detachment from reality).

This article may preach to the converted (Bush-haters), but its ratio of rhetorical flourish to substance is too high to persuade me. Trade negotiations? All I care about is our own trade barriers. The fewer we have, the better off we'll be. Other countries' trade barriers are their problem.

Will other countries catch up with us economically? If so, my guess is that that would be a good thing.

The world economic system is not like Olympic basketball, where one nation's gains necessarily mean another nation's losses.

I like Bush's speech. Precisely because it sets a moral standard that will be hard for the country to stick to, it will give us something to think about going forward.

I dunno Steve,

I think Bush II is just keeping his word...remember he's a "uniter...not a divider".

It appears Bush II is just looking to create a lasting legacy and he and Condi will "unite" the world. Of the course the world will "unite" in such a way that it will be able to resist an "America Imperium" should we decide to take the next logical step and install a Caesar...Will Jeb be ready, is Neil practicing his Caligula in Asia?

Of course, it'll be a little hard to juxtapose Caesar's line of "divide and conquer" with Bush the II's " I'm a uniter " when it is in reference to "uniting" our enemies with our friends...but hey, that's why speechwriters get paid the big bucks.

Any article discussing the declining role of the US in world affairs that doesn't mention the economic growth of Asia is suspect.

“Consider, as well, the EU's rapid progress toward military independence” O.k. waiter will you bring me the reality check please. The U.S. has encouraged the EU to develop stronger military planning capabilities so they can take on a larger role in defending their own territory and has also championed their creation of a rapid deployment force. But these are very preliminary steps that were taken reluctantly. Based on spending, technology and political willpower the EU may be able to defend its own borders sometime in the next 25 years.

Even in his current column, Krauthammer waves the bloody shirt with both Russia and China...

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer1.asp

The money quote for me:

"Hegemonic powers, such as Napoleonic France and imperial and Nazi Germany, tend almost inevitably to spur the creation of a coalition of Great Powers to oppose and contain them.

That may be beginning again."

What a hoot. Coming from anyone else, the Nazi parallel would be denounced as anti-American terrorist-hugging Chomskyism.

Uh, guys, don't romanticize the Three Musketeers spirit of the Cold War. Western Europe basically agreed to let us risk nuclear suicide to defend it from a neighboring monster, Stalin's USSR. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan agreed to let us defend them against their local monsters. India and South Asia accepted our protection, then voted against us in the UN every other day. Latin America and Africa swallowed our aid and loans, then ignored us or attacked us politically.

So the early Cold War was essentially a project of the US and other, weaker English-speaking peoples, about the same as the effort to keep nukes out of the hands of oil-rich Arabs is today. Lind has more adolescent bile than historical perspective. (And I am not even an enthusiast for Bush's evangelicization of universal freedom.)

On a similar note:

Future: Tense : The Coming World Order?
by GWYNNE DYER

(From the Inside Flap)
The foundations of World War III are being laid today.

American defeat in Iraq is only a matter of time, but how long it takes matters a lot. The fate of Iraq is a sideshow, the terrorist threat is a red herring, and the radical Islamists' dream of a worldwide jihad against the West is a fantasy, but the attempt to revive Pax Americana is real. No matter what the outcome of the election in November, 2004, the enterprise is likely to continue. It is bound to fail eventually, but we need it to fail soon.

American military power is not limitless, and the other big powers will not stand for US military domination of the world. They don't buy the cover story about the 'terrorist threat,' but they don't want a fight either. They are all on hold for the moment, hoping that America will remember its commitment to the United Nations, the rule of law and multilateralism. If it does not, then the drift back into alliances, balance-of-power politics and military confrontations will begin. Ten years from now, an American-led alliance that includes India and occupies much of the Middle East could be facing a European alliance led by France, Germany and Russia AND a hostile, heavily armed China.

In Future Tense, Gwynne Dyer's brilliant follow up to last year's bestselling Ignorant Armies, he analyzes how the world made its way to the brink of disaster, and describes how we may all slide over the edge. It was fringe groups of extremists - Islamist fanatics and American neo-conservatives - who set the process in motion, but it has gone well beyond that now. It is not too late, but the clock is running.

About the Author
Gwynne Dyer has worked as a freelance journalist, columnist, broadcaster and lecturer on international affairs for more than twenty years. His twice-weekly column on international affairs is published by 175 papers in some forty-five countries and is translated into more than a dozen langu
ages.

Jeff,

You presume (there's that word again) that the US economy can continue to afford to spend more on it's military than the rest of the world combined for the next 25 years. Right now our budget deficits are in league with 3rd world nations and our balance of trade ain't nuth'in to write home about either.

For some historical perspective look up military spending between '72 and '78, in real dollars you will notice a steep decline. That dip was caused by a place called Viet Nam. Back then, as an economic power (in relation to other economies), we were the world economy. During the Viet Nam years we took our eyes off the ball and the world started catching up with us.

The reason we prevailed during WW II was because our economy was large and not nearly at it's capacity when we spooled up with Lend-Lease. In WW II our economic resources were converted to military hardware. We do not have that capacity now, the US can not afford to fight a high intensity conflict for any duration without going nuclear. Our industrial capacity shrinks with every passing day, should foreigners pull their industrial plants out of reach, Uncle Sam would be left standing naked. Don't kid yourself, alone we are in peril.

Oh yeah, one more thing, in a bad economy high school kids aren't exactly lining up to enlist with Army or Marine units, now I'm sure the Air Force and Navy is doing fine, but that's not where bodies are needed. In this world, you need friends.

Brennan,

AF and USN are doing fine -- backlogged in recruitment and looking for things to do (to be fair, AF is running convoys into Iraq, and USN has corpsmen on the ground).

As for the VN experience, let's remember that the particular causes were deficit-financing the initial war effort (until the first tentative efforts in 1968) plus lax monetary policy. Add to that follow-on costs such as veterans' benefits (around $250 - $300 bn) and societal costs (incalcuable), and you end up with the "stagflation" of the 1970s.

Sound familiar to anyone?

If you listen closely, you can hear the author's whisper, "Please let it all be true!". This is a veritable multi-cultural shopping list of 'things we really hope will come true'.

" Europe is building up its own rapid reaction force."

We've recently seen Europe's and heavyweights like China's, rapid reaction to the tsunami. Of course, this force must still be in its 'building' stage.

" Washington denounces tyranny in Iran but tolerates it in Pakistan."

And Europe denounces tyranny in Sudan but ignored it in Iraq. What's your point? That realpolitic created cognitive dissonance? I think we've recognized that, by now.

"Human rights? Europe has banned the death penalty and torture, while the US is a leading practitioner of execution."

Yet, somehow China, who executes thousands every year, finds a good seat at the Euro table. Didn't we JUST cover cognitive dissonance? And, who voted the US off the UN's Human Rights commission in favor of Syria? The resounding silence from human rights groups over that was notable.

"Today, however, practically all new international institution-building of any long-term importance in global diplomacy and trade occurs without American participation."

Presumably, these would include the Kyoto treaty and the ICC. More multi-culti wet dreams frustrated.

And, various countries coming together to form trade pacts to specifically exclude others? That's not new. That's what gave us the 1929 depression. Coffee and oil cartels have been doing that for decades. No complaints?

The author missed the important point. The US is forcing other nations, by mere competition. Most of the science and technology created in the world comes from the US. US culture expands, popularly, not from force.

The rest of the world can see the future as bleak if they don't learn to compete. How many decades behind the US is that Euro space telecom system? You say they even send satellites up now? The world is desperately trying to catch up, competition isn't even in the cards yet.

No offense to the author, but, the US isn't out front from lack of competition. It simply outdistanced the competition.

Regards,

Michael Lind is compelling here, as always. A number of the previous comments have, quite rightly, the comments that Lind has made about the sorry state of American foreign policy. I'd like to also call attention to paragraph 6 of the article, because it brings up another very crucial issue: the state of our electoral system. In his article, Lind appears to be working off some of the comments made in a panel discussion last week at the New America Foundation on electoral reform. As we engage in some bold thinking on reforming American foreign policy for the better, we also need to be very conscious of the extreme need for electoral reform here at home. It's not possible to overemphasize how vital it is to come up with 21st century ways of holding elections that actually promote democracy- in contrast to our current system, which, as Lind stated at the meeting, is actually nothing more than two regional one-party dictatorships: Republicans dominating in the South and Midwest; Democrats in the North, and the Coasts. America won't be very convincing in promoting democracy abroad if it's falling apart here at home: thus, the issues of foreign policy innovation and electoral reform are linked in a crucial, however tangential, way.

Best aritcle I've seen on the insularity of American thought comes from the Daily Telegraph. It talks about how "America" is an ideology and no one's more naive about this than the people in Washington. (Even the dissidents like William Odom are contemptuous of anything outside the US.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/18/turner/turner1606.xml

---One of the most revealing moments on my journey came over lunch with Irving and Bea Kristol in Washington. They are a delightful couple of high intelligence and sophistication. When I asked what kind of people made up America's imperial class, both strongly denied that there was any such thing.... Bea looked puzzled and shocked. "But," she said, "the word 'imperial' implies that there is something in it for America."

---To me, her remark bespoke an astonishing and unfathomable innocence. She seemed to imply that America was never self-interested, that it only ever acted for the good of others. Even at the height of the British Empire, we never managed to delude ourselves that the venture was purely altruistic.

Tom,

Some comments on your post.

"...And Europe denounces tyranny [I thought we called extermination of an identifiable people...genocide] in Sudan but ignored it in Iraq [no...the US didn't ignore Saddam, we helped him along, we only ignored him when he kill 35 sailors on the USS Stark]. What's your point?"

Might ask the same Tom?

" And, who voted the US off the UN's Human Rights commission in favor of Syria? The resounding silence from human rights groups over that was notable."

Tom, are you suggesting we take Syria off in favor of say...Egypt's Mubarak?

"And, various countries coming together to form trade pacts to specifically exclude others? That's not new. That's what gave us the 1929 depression. Coffee and oil cartels have been doing that for decades. No complaints?"

So Tom how do you feel about US trade subsidies to cotton, corn, wheat, soybean and government subsidies to Boeing...Lockheed, Northrop/Grumman or how about embargos against sugar cane, textiles? Since these practices are the cause for world depressions how come the world ever comes out depressions, since the practices continue unabated? Tom, people who post here knows about our trade practices.

"The author missed the important point. The US is forcing other nations, by mere competition. Most of the science and technology created in the world comes from the US. US culture expands, popularly, not from force.

Tom, last year foreigners filed more patents in the US than did "our people". The "our people" being a bit of a joke in that Americans won't take up science because many don't want to take an oath of poverty.

" No offense to the author, but, the US isn't out front from lack of competition. It simply outdistanced the competition."

This last statement of yours has a grain of truth in it, but if you are bragging because we got such a big head start on a race that is infinitely long, I suggest you take a large number, say a billion and divide by infinity, now take that number and set it next to zero. We have a big lead because our forefathers invested in our infrastructure while other countries invested in their military. While England, Russia, China, Austria-Hungary, France and Spain Warred against each other we did wimpy things like make the Louisiana Purchase, Lewis & Clark, Railroads, Canals, electrification, bridges, dams and of course we built a manufacturing base that was able to bump off the Fascists when they came for us.

History is replete with examples of failure when nations engage in the behavior we now espouse.

Michael Weinstein, of the Power and Interest News Report wrote last month on the same topic - the drift toward multipolarity - with abundant supporting detail:

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=246&language_id=1

The United States is bent on a quixotic quest for domination, taking handfuls of military Viagra to get it up for a "New American Century", an unattainable semblance of the century just past, rather than learning to thrive in the New Not-so-American Century it's actually been dealt.

The US could secure its position as a secure, major player in the coming century by opening itself up intellectually, culturally and diplomatically, and accepting the need for partnership and structural change. Disdaining adaptation, it may miss the window of opportunity, and secure only decades of decline.

Is Krauthammer cribbing from Mearsheimer? Looks familiar...

Cal: ---One of the most revealing moments on my journey came over lunch with Irving and Bea Kristol in Washington. They are a delightful couple of high intelligence and sophistication. When I asked what kind of people made up America's imperial class, both strongly denied that there was any such thing.... Bea looked puzzled and shocked. "But," she said, "the word 'imperial' implies that there is something in it for America."

---To me, her remark bespoke an astonishing and unfathomable innocence. She seemed to imply that America was never self-interested, that it only ever acted for the good of others. Even at the height of the British Empire, we never managed to delude ourselves that the venture was purely altruistic.

I think it is more revealing of the author than it is of Bea Kristol. The traditional sense of imperial was one where the natives were taxed harshly to pay not only for the sustenance of the occupation troops, but for luxuries for the people of conquering nation - and in many cases, the natives were shoved aside to make way for settlers from the conquering nation. Big chunks of the conquered nation's resources were carted off without compensation. It's not exactly clear what exactly is imperial about America's role in the world. We have annexed no states and stolen no resources.

As to whether British rule was altruistic, the interesting thing about the British empire is that it involved subsidies to the colonized territories - as soon as Britain shook loose her imperial responsibilities, her economy expanded and ordinary Britons became considerably wealthier. And in the majority of cases, her former colonies became considerably poorer and much less free than they were prior to independence.

Steve,

I'll add my thanks to others for posting this article. In your meeting with French business leaders, did any of these topics come up?

The article generated some random question on my part. First, I noted that Bush listed Burma as on of the outposts of tyranny, or what ever term was used, which is something that warmed my heart. However, how exactly is he proposing to do it? China, Japan and ASEAN have ignored US (and EU) initiatives with regard to Burma since 1988, so what realistic options does the US have now, especially since Japan and China are funding our government deficit?

A related question is, if the US is viewed as a dispensible nation, is our currency dispensible as an international currency?

Zhang Fei, you might want to read Chalmers Johnson's "Blowback" and "Sorrows of Empire", especially with regard to Okinawa before claiming the natives haven't been shoved aside.

Please, let it all be true.

There is another article by Andrew Moravcsik that I read today that drives at the same theme.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0125-01.htm
The main idea that I see is that Bush and company have squandered American good will and all that it bought us. This is one of those intangible assets that we have benefited from for generations and has been almost completely destroyed in 4 short years.
It boils down to this, when there is a bully in the sandbox, the other kids will go find somewhere else to play. This may be an overly simplistic way to state it, but the truth is that the rest of the world have grown tired of us.

Well if the world no longer has need for Team America, then we should finally be able to cut that defense spending back to about $100 billion per year from the current $450 billion. That might even put a dent in the deficit.

Lind takes a situation that is true enough and spins it to reflect his politics. No doubt the world is trying to counter us, hem us in, balance us. That's because human societies are almost always bipolar; a unipolar arrangement only survives by force. The U.S. is essentially a two-party state, of course, but even in multi-party Europe, each nation typically has two dominant parties with a bunch of also-rans tagging along. In the wake of the Cold War's end, only a dreamer could have believed we would be the only big dogs standing for long. Either we must be brought low, or another power must rise to oppose us. If it's not a natural law, maybe it should be.

We have tried the multilateral play-nice-with-the-U.N. deal, and it got us nowhere because 1) the U.N. is fundamentally inept, and 2) it is one of the chief tools of those nations bent on bringing us down a peg. The fact of the matter is that the terrorists want us dead and there is NOTHING -- not multi-culti crap, not isolationism, not cutting off Israel -- that could have made that different. The EUniks, meanwhile, are secretly thrilled to allow the Jihad to knock us off, though one wonders how on earth the Continentals will defend themselves once we aren't there to do it for them.

No matter what we do or did in the past, the left will not be satisfied because there will always be something to nitpick, something to blame us for. Like the man who is saved from drowning and then sues his rescuer for hurting his ribs in the process, there will always be a carp available for those who desire to find it. Sure, we look after our national interests, but who the hell doesn't? Does no one remember that one of Chirac's first acts as the French president was to set off a nuke in the Indian Ocean? Did he really give a damn about "world opinion?"

Whatever realignment is happening is merely a result of natural societal forces, not the consequence of something we have done. The rest of the world is what the American South is to the old Rust Belt: poorer, but hungrier to win no matter what it takes. So just as the highly-paid union workers in Detroit and Cleveland demand ever-increasing pay and benefits right up to the day the factory closes down and moves to Tennessee, our own wealth and standard of living is making us an increasingly easy target for the developing world to shoot down.

So yes, Lind is right about what is happening, but he's horribly wrong about why. The real question is this: when the terrorists manage to nuke New York or Washington, how long will it take the cheering throngs of fools in Brussels, Beijing, and Rio de Janeiro to realize that they're next?

Ben,

Normally I'd do a point by point refutation of an argument such as yours by debunking the underpinning facts that are used to support the thesis. However, in your case you have been way too clever for me, as you have been careful not to support your arguments with any facts whatsoever.

But not being satisfied in having undone me you conclude with the line:

"The real question is this: when the terrorists manage to nuke New York or Washington, how long will it take the cheering throngs of fools in Brussels, Beijing, and Rio de Janeiro to realize that they're next?"

Absent of any reality would have me argue against your adolescent male fantasy? You have caught me totally off guard...of course, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition either.

S. Brennan,
-------------------------------------------------
"...And Europe denounces tyranny [I thought we called extermination of an identifiable people...genocide] in Sudan but ignored it in Iraq [no...the US didn't ignore Saddam, we helped him along, we only ignored him when he kill 35 sailors on the USS Stark]. What's your point?"

Might ask the same Tom?
--------------------------------------------------
I'm certain that the US, through Secretary Powell, has declared it genocide. What other nation has?

I am not aware of any connection Saddam had with the Stark. Feel free to inform me, please.

MY point is that the author argues that the US is exhibiting hypocrisy,and he ignores the realpolitik practice that is, likewise, practiced by others. If it is damaging to the US, the author should also conclude that the practice is damaging to those others. Nowhere does he indicate such a belief.

-------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
" And, who voted the US off the UN's Human Rights commission in favor of Syria? The resounding silence from human rights groups over that was notable."

Tom, are you suggesting we take Syria off in favor of say...Egypt's Mubarak?
--------------------------------------------------

S. Brennan, I leave it to you to decide if that is a wiser course. If you are unable to recognize the travesty of a human rights commission dominated by those with the most to hide, then, knocking down your strawmen will not convert you.

-------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
"And, various countries coming together to form trade pacts to specifically exclude others? That's not new. That's what gave us the 1929 depression. Coffee and oil cartels have been doing that for decades. No complaints?"

So Tom how do you feel about US trade subsidies to cotton, corn, wheat, soybean and government subsidies to Boeing...Lockheed, Northrop/Grumman or how about embargos against sugar cane, textiles? Since these practices are the cause for world depressions how come the world ever comes out depressions, since the practices continue unabated? Tom, people who post here knows about our trade practices.
--------------------------------------------------

You persist in setting up strawmen. The author implies that the various multi-national trade cartels are a symptom of danger, of competition, to the US. I merely pointed out that the practice is not new and historically is shown to be detrimental to the world, as a whole. I politely decline to engage with you in subtle insinuation regarding my, or another's, body of knowledge.

-------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
"The author missed the important point. The US is forcing other nations, by mere competition. Most of the science and technology created in the world comes from the US. US culture expands, popularly, not from force.

Tom, last year foreigners filed more patents in the US than did "our people". The "our people" being a bit of a joke in that Americans won't take up science because many don't want to take an oath of poverty.
--------------------------------------------------
There is a reason people come to the US for study and research. How it becomes a sign of US decline I leave for you to explain.

-------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
" No offense to the author, but, the US isn't out front from lack of competition. It simply outdistanced the competition."

This last statement of yours has a grain of truth in it, but if you are bragging because we got such a big head start on a race that is infinitely long, I suggest you take a large number, say a billion and divide by infinity, now take that number and set it next to zero. We have a big lead because our forefathers invested in our infrastructure while other countries invested in their military. While England, Russia, China, Austria-Hungary, France and Spain Warred against each other we did wimpy things like make the Louisiana Purchase, Lewis & Clark, Railroads, Canals, electrification, bridges, dams and of course we built a manufacturing base that was able to bump off the Fascists when they came for us.

History is replete with examples of failure when nations engage in the behavior we now espouse.
--------------------------------------------------

Must one 'brag' to recite facts? Is the EU 'bragging' about the US when it notes those same facts?

It is not the US that is being threatened by the the Asian tigers, but, Europe. It was not the US which could not muster the will or force to intercede in Bosnia, Kosovo, etc, but, Europe. Asia is advancing in the world, Europe is receding. That has nothing to do with US policy.

Europe has problems of its own which they must answer to or fail by. Much of Africa is STILL under the European thumb. Their period in the doldrums will be prolonged so long as Europe holds sway in those nations.

The tangled knots of the MidEast is the product of European manufacture of nations, not the US. The only PROGRESSIVE changes in the MidEast, so far, are from the actions of the US.

The author would have spent his time and effort better had he examined the the trouble area of 50 years hence, Europe.

Lastly, history may be replete with failed nations. None were ever like the US. When its time comes, the US will pass, indeed. Take a large number, say a billion, divide by infinity? Well, that was funny, anyway.

Regards,

Tom,

There is a reason people come to the US for study and research. How it becomes a sign of US decline I leave for you to explain.

-------------------------------------------------

Back in 1988, US scientists produced 178,000 scientific papers, or 38% of all scientific and engineering papers worldwide. By 2001, the EU nations were the largest producers of scientific literature. In the field of physics, the US lead fell from 61% of all publications in 1983 to 29% in 2003.

According to a March 2004 report by the Council of Graduate Schools:
- admissions had dropped sharply at 90% of the grad schools surveyed. Total decline in applications from a year ago: 32%.
- Applications fell off most from the countries who have traditionally sent the most students: China (-76%) and India (-58%).
- decline in foreign students taking the GRE in 2004 as compared to 2003: Chinese = -50%, Taiwanese = -43%, Indians = -37%, Koreans = -15%

NY Time reports that:
- the number of students whose visas were rejected rose from 27.6% in 2001 to 35,2% in 2003.
- 6.3 million people applied for US visas between Oct. 2000 and Sept. 2001. That number dropped more than 40% to 3.7 million in 2003.

More data if needed...

S Brennan,

I must say that I have been less than impressed by your debating skills. I mean, if you are going to bother posting responses to commenters, it is usually helpful to at least have something substantive to say. After sending your strawman army into battle against Tom, you dismissed my comment with little more than mocking disdain, despite the fact that you could not even back up your rationale.

Facts? I cited several. But most of my contentions were rooted in generally well-known information. Do I really need to cite academic research before I state that the U.N. is inept, or that most European countries have two major parties and several minor ones?

The fact is that I, like Lind, presented my interpretation of our current circumstance, and you are free to disagree with it. But if you disagree, at least state your reasons, rather than feigning intellectual disdain and then running away like a frightened chipmunk. Strange, is it not, that you would be so flabbergasted by my contentions but are evidently unbothered by Lind's, like this whopper for instance:

"Ironically, the US, having won the cold war, is adopting the strategy that led the Soviet Union to lose it: hoping that raw military power will be sufficient to intimidate other great powers alienated by its belligerence."

Where are Lind's facts to support this thesis? There are none; his statement is based on his interpretation of events. In fact, many on the left implicitly shoot his statement down by insisting that our economic and cultural dominance is just as potent as our military supremacy.

At any rate, get off your egotistic pedestal and drop the intellectually superior demeanor -- if you were half as smart as you seem to think you are, you would be able to formulate better responses than what you have produced thus far.

Given my limited knowledge of US economy or politics, it is perhaps presumptous of me to comment on this article. Having said that, I think this is a brilliant article and echoes many of my personal thoughts (though far more lucidly and in a more erudite fashion). I have also read a number of other similar articles; many of whom also proclaim the eventual decline of US as an economic superpower.

I wonder about two things: one, if the US did not have such a large trade deficit, who would the rest of the world export to; two, if the US were to reduce its military expenditure, what would be the impact on the global terrorism situation and the consequent rise in military spending by the EU and other countries and their financial condition?

Sometimes I wonder if many Americans underestimate the strength of their national fabric(?)- a culture based on openness, willingness to accept people from all over the world; the consequent rise in multi-culturalism and its impact on the US leadership in global innovation, leadership in ideas and practices?

Fries....

It is, of course, notable that Europe still creates many new thoughts and ideas. The problem for many of those thinkers is that they have few places in Europe where they can develop their thoughts.

The American university system and US corporate research and development offer the most advanced linkage between raw thought and practical application and the opportunity to, simply, experiment.

The 'brain drain' is noted, even in Europe. Europe is just beginning to address their lack of research facilities and amend the stagnated systems which do exist, but, in which younger thinkers are denied opportunities to develop their own ideas.

There are sound, practical, causes, too, for the US outsourcing so much technical work to, say, India. India is a comer in the tech world. Their rapid development in software and technology presents strong competition to the US. Bollywood is very successful in Asia with its exports. Tech and culture expanding, as with the US. Indians have less cause to send their young minds abroad because they are creating institutions to develop them at home.

China usually had about 250k students studying in the US. If China and India will now send fewer to study, does that mean the US has somehow failed? Or, perhaps, that after decades of their educational investments, those countries are now reaping the benefits because they can now offer something similar, applying what they have learned?

And, let us not exclude world events from their influence on the falling numbers you cited. It is now more difficult for foreign students to enter the US, since 9-11. Some might prefer to study in the US over other nation's offerings, just as some might American might prefer going to Harvard over a city college. If the price is too high or the hurdle to difficult, lesser choices are available to both.

Regards,

This country - America - has always had a certain drunken swagger, but these Bushy days, the drunk can't even get out of bed, delirium tremens dancing in his head. It's beyond sad, and way, way preventable. Mr. Lind's sober piece, so relevant that it hurts, underscores the fundamental problem America faces right now: massive, untamed hubris. I would even wager that said hubris - pretty much a constant component of American life, at least in my lifetime - was only exacerbated by 9/11, given that that blighted day reignited the most noxious and insidious feature of America: unhinged patriotism.

I'm not kidding when I say that America is approaching serious pariah status in the world, on a line with Nazi Germany, just minus the Naziism. And in my more paranoid moments, I wonder if/when the rest of the world will say, "Okay, America, you've gone too far," then do something about it. Iraq is America's Poland (again, in my view), a kind of middle finger to the world. Why the hell should the world take it? Dangerous bullies, even if they once were kind, have to be dealt with, you know?

Ben,

In response to:

"I must say that I have been less than impressed by your debating skills. I mean, if you are going to bother posting responses to commenters, it is usually helpful to at least have something substantive to say." - Ben

Because I dismissed the following as not being worthy of debate:

"The real question is this: when the terrorists manage to nuke New York or Washington, how long will it take the cheering throngs of fools in Brussels, Beijing, and Rio de Janeiro to realize that they're next?" - Ben

I stand by my statement that these words are the manifestations of "adolescent male fantasy".

As for me standing on a "pedestal"... Ben, I wouldn't look so tall to you if you'd stand up and make an argument worthy of an adult.

A final note on the human rights points raised here.

The UN Human Rights Commission just selected members to an 'elite action panel'. China will represent Asia, Zimbabwe will speak for Africa, and Cuba will answer for Latin America.

'This is the fruit of whoring' (Shakespeare)

Regards,

S Brennan,

Sorry, but your revised statement won't cut it. In the first place, you dedicated the opening portion of your initial response to deriding my entire argument -- not just the last sentence. I provided no facts, you said. Now you claim it's all about the last sentence.

As for the content of the last sentence you so loathe, your response is the very definition of lame. What exactly is your problem with it? So far, you have not said. "Adolescent male fantasy?" Is it your contention that I WANT our country or any others to be nuked?

The point is this: we are not targeted by Islamofascist terrorists because of anything we have done, we are targeted because we are on top and because we represent the greatest force for modernity in the world today. Entire books have been dedicated to the fact that, other that Jews, the one thing the Jihadists hate more than anything is the idea of their societies joining the modern world, at least culturally. Terrorists can and will target other Western countries because they hate them, too. We have already seen attacks in Spain, Turkey, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia in the last couple of years.

Unfortunately, many countries around the world do not take terrorism seriously -- it's just a wedge issue to be used in the global political battles against the U.S. So I state my concluding point again: those countries who believe we are to blame for the actions of the terrorists and who think the Jihadists will go home once Allah has exacted his revenge against the Great Satan are sorely mistaken. Whether they know it or not, they are next on the hit list.

It's a point that Mark Steyn made rather nicely in a column last year:

"As the PR guy for the Islamic Army of Aden said after blowing up that French tanker: 'We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels.' [The Left] is confusing old-school terrorism -- blowing the legs off grannies as a means to an end -- with the new: blowing the legs off grannies IS the end. Old-school terrorists have relatively viable goals: They want a Basque state or Northern Ireland removed from the UK. You might not agree with these goals, you might not think them negotiable, but at least they're not stark staring insane.

"That kind of finely calibrated terrorism -- just enough slaughter to inconvenience the state into concessions -- is all but over... If Islamic terrorism were as rational as Irish or Basque terrorism, it would be easier. But Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, summed it up very pithily: 'We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.' You can be pro-America (Britain, Australia) or anti-America (France, Canada), but if you broke into the head cave in the Hindu Kush and checked out the hit list you'd be on it either way.

"So the choice for pluralist democracies is simple: You can join Bush in taking the war to the terrorists, to their redoubts and sponsoring regimes... Or you can stick your head in the sand and paint a burqa on your butt. But they'll blow it up anyway."

Ben wrote,

"So the choice for pluralist democracies is simple: You can join Bush in taking the war to the terrorists, to their redoubts and sponsoring regimes... Or you can stick your head in the sand and paint a burqa on your butt. But they'll blow it up anyway."

My understanding is western governments are cooperating quite closely on intelligence sharing, covert operations and other measures related to tracking down and capturing, or killing, jihadist terrorists around the world.

Where there seems to be a very huge gap between the US and Europe is that most of the Europeans believe that the invasion of Iraq was not just unnecessary to the fight against terrorism, but stupidly and dangerously antithetical to it. Like the Soviet invasion of Agfghanistan, it has created an entirely new "swamp" where one didn't exist before, which is now breeding a whole new swarm of bitter, radicalized, militant anti-western jihadists.

Dan,

Regarding aid from other countries in the War on Terror, everything I have read indicates that it is inconsistent, at best (although we obviously don't know everything that is going on behind the scenes). European countries have by and large refused to seriously crack down on Islamic extremism in their own countries, both out of a sense of political correctness and because they fear civil unrest and domestic terror attacks. Yet it is believed that many of the most dangerous terror cells are operating out of Europe. The Europeans have also been so petty as to withhold information from us if they think it might be used in a death penalty case.

But even on their best days, the Europeans still seem to treat terrorism largely as a big law enforcement operation, not a national security issue. They simply have not gotten as serious about the threat as they need to.

As for Iraq, there is no question that Saddam supported and had contacts with terrorists. We also knew before the war that his regime had been in contact with al Qaeda operatives. The only question was to what degree his government was actually working with al Qaeda at an operational level. Whether or not Iraq was a major front on the WOT before the Iraq war started is a moot point now (although I, for the record, say that it was). Whatever it was before the war, the fact that al Qaeda has placed such an emphasis on defeating us and defeating the nascent democracy in Iraq demonstrates that THEY clearly see Iraq as a crucial battle in the Jihad. If the Europeans had not been so complicit with Saddam and had not taken quite so many Oil-for-Food bribes before the war, maybe they could admit the obvious.

Ben,

We did not follow Bush I in Irak because he sold it under the WMD pitch. Remember WMD? The march to the war was a gross insult to normal democratic debate, and from a European point of view, bordered hysteria. Out of sanity people rejected it massively. Ask yourself this question. How is that possible that people who have had a long list of horrific wars on their soil since the fall of the Roman Empire, who have experienced terrorism for decades, and who are still victims of it, whose experience of suffering dwarfs yoursn would not follow the US on such a central fight?

Out of "fear of civilian unrest or terrorist attacks"? That's government reasoning. Some government did followed Bush I, but public opinion was massively against it. It hasn't changed. In the UK, opposition to the war has increased. Why?

Just ask the common sense question: what has the US and its long list of "willing" (soes that mean "big testicles"?) gained out of it? Has the WOT progressed out of that? Have the Iraqis been better off out of it?

Just one bit of info: Europeans do NOT feel at WAR. They feel that terrorism must be fought and countered, that the threat is ore intense, but they do NOT feel that their nations are under attack. Madrid did not changed that. We know what "being at war" is. And this is not it.

Explains a lot.

Best

Ben the idea that Saddam has anything to do with Al Qaeda has been debunked repeatedly. Have you been living in a cave? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html Even Bush admitted it when Kerry pointed out in the debates that Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 not Saddam. Hint, hint: Saddam was a secularist, so Osama hated him.

FF,

I am assuming here that all your references to "Bush I" refer to W? As for your questions:

- Yes, I remember WMD. I recall the Dulfer Report saying that Saddam had everything BUT weapons stockpiles. He had the recipes, the scientists, the infrastructure, and the intent to build WMD once the sanctions were lifted. And thanks to his Oil-for-Food bribes, the sanctions were being eroded in the UN Security Council every year. Dulfer concluded that Saddam was actually more dangerous than he had anticipated before the war.

- As for the Europeans, I don't really understand why they do many of the things they do these days. After spending almost the entirety of the 20th Century trying to defeat fascism (with our help, of course), why would they repeat the German mistake from the 1930s of voluntarily handing over their sovereignty and their democratic freedoms? That's what they are doing right now with the EU. As for their experiences with war, having seen what happened when they sat on their hands and let Hitler run amok, why would they repeat this error in Kosovo (until we were finally forced to step in and take charge of the situation)? Are Europeans not even capable of taking care of the problems in their own back yard? And why are the French and Germans so willing to accept bribes from a brute like Saddam? Given recent history -- plus the knee-jerk left-wing nature of the European press -- I am not shocked at all at how Europe has responded to all of this.

- Of course the Iraqis are better off. In case you haven't heard, they are having national elections this Sunday. And I don't expect that Saddam will get 99.7% percent of the "vote" as he did in the previous "election" the media covered so extensively. Things are bad now, but they were probably even worse in El Salvador a couple of decades ago when that country held its first elections, but now they are a stable democracy. Back then as now, the lefties proclaimed that the elections would never be successful due to ongoing violence.

If Europeans do not feel that their nations are under attack, perhaps they should. The rising tide of Islamic extremism among their unassimilated Muslim immigrant population is about to crest. The recent murder of Theo van Gogh is only a precursor of what is to come.

Jenn,

The contacts between Saddam's government and al Qaeda have been documented extensively. Meetings and contacts occurred throughout the 1990s, and some were even reported in the media at the time. Stephen Hayes has an entire book dedicated to documenting everything we know, including the information he got from leaked CIA documents. What has not been conclusively demonstrated is that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, but Bush never claimed there was. What we did know is that Saddam supported other terrorist operations (e.g., paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers) and had contacts with Bin Laden's group. And of course, there was the WMD intelligence. Post-9/11, that was more than enough. Put it this way: Saddam looked more menacing to us post-9/11 than al Qaeda did pre-9/11, and we all saw what ignoring Bin Laden got us. Another thing to note is that even noted Bush-hater Richard Clark still stands by his assessment that the al-Shifa "aspirin factory" in the Sudan (which Clinton bombed in 1999) was a chemical weapons facility run by al Qaeda and staffed with Iraqi weapons scientists. If true, that's at least one operational link.

Hmm
Here in Europe it look that USA have lost it importance...
And when USA is saying no to agreement they mostly was involved to create.
That increase the pressure to the Europeans to build a Europe federation ...
Aboute terorrist so will i think that more persons is kill in traffic and another things than terror....

The View from Over Here .... This is perhaps the most significant - and saddening - upshot of the unforgiveable ignorance-founded hubris of the Bush Administration. Significant because, step by step, less and less reluctantly, the world moves more closely together and finds out in the process that it IS capable of dispensing with the USA; and saddening because it was so totally unnecessary, if the USA had employed even a modicum of informed insight and respect for the points of view of others "out there".

The process started with the early finger-in-the-eye to the rest of the world through the Bush-endorsed withdrawal from the Kyoto Treaty, instead of urging useful compromise to reach common goals from the inside. It bought us nothing except a shocked response at our choice to disregard a freely undertaken commitment of a previous administration. Add the "F-U, we'll go it alone" which announced the invasion of Iraq, then the absolutely incredible "quaint and obsolete Geneva Convention" insensitivity used to justify torture at Gitmo, topped by Abu Grahib, and a refusal to be subject to International Justice, all accompanied by the appalling ignorant spiteful mouthing of disregard by intellectully incurious Americans, all in FoxStep with the Chorus from the very top. And the USA flags quite commonly everywhere flown privately to honor overseas family or remembered vacations or simply ages old affection, which proliferated remarkably after 9/11, began to come down as the PEACE flags went up. All over Europe ....

Because my own surprised smiles were sensitive to the frequent unexpected appearance of the stars and stripes, my dismay was all the more pronounced by the abrupt disappearance of the red, white and blue symbols as Europe withdrew its respect. And it didn't need to happen.

The dollar INEVITABLY is going to hell, even if the coming hard times will likely be reflected at least in part by the Euro and even the staid Swiss Franc. The difference is, the dollar will be nudged to hell with a vengence, urged by spite and with no regrets from those who henceforth choose not to depend on American honor. Bush's glib posturing with FREEDOM will be honored in the rush to be free of American hegemony, it having become unmistakably obvious by its disrespectful actions that the present adminstration does not honor what it says. And it will take a long time to repair, for now there are able and eager contestants to assume leadership, a few moral, more otherwise. Apocryphal or not, the alleged Chinese curse will be invoked by many who see it their turn to ensure that we live in interesting times.

Oh America ....

The View from Over Here .... This is perhaps the most significant - and saddening - upshot of the unforgiveable ignorance-founded hubris of the Bush Administration. Significant because, step by step, less and less reluctantly, the world moves more closely together and finds out in the process that it IS capable of dispensing with the USA; and saddening because it was so totally unnecessary, if the USA had employed even a modicum of informed insight and respect for the points of view of others "out there".

The process started with the early finger-in-the-eye to the rest of the world through the Bush-endorsed withdrawal from the Kyoto Treaty, instead of urging useful compromise to reach common goals from the inside. It bought us nothing except a shocked response at our choice to disregard a freely undertaken commitment of a previous administration. Add the "F-U, we'll go it alone" which announced the invasion of Iraq, then the absolutely incredible "quaint and obsolete Geneva Convention" insensitivity used to justify torture at Gitmo, topped by Abu Grahib, and a refusal to be subject to International Justice, all accompanied by the appalling ignorant spiteful mouthing of disregard by intellectully incurious Americans, all in FoxStep with the Chorus from the very top. And the USA flags quite commonly everywhere flown privately to honor overseas family or remembered vacations or simply ages old affection, which proliferated remarkably after 9/11, began to come down as the PEACE flags went up. All over Europe ....

Because my own surprised smiles were sensitive to the frequent unexpected appearance of the stars and stripes, my dismay was all the more pronounced by the abrupt disappearance of the red, white and blue symbols as Europe withdrew its respect. And it didn't need to happen.

The dollar INEVITABLY is going to hell, even if the coming hard times will likely be reflected at least in part by the Euro and even the staid Swiss Franc. The difference is, the dollar will be nudged to hell with a vengence, urged by spite and with no regrets from those who henceforth choose not to depend on American honor. Bush's glib posturing with FREEDOM will be honored in the rush to be free of American hegemony, it having become unmistakably obvious by its disrespectful actions that the present adminstration does not honor what it says. And it will take a long time to repair, for now there are able and eager contestants to assume leadership, a few moral, more otherwise. Apocryphal or not, the alleged Chinese curse will be invoked by many who see it their turn to ensure that we live in interesting times.

Oh America ....

The View from Over Here (CH).... This is perhaps the most significant - and saddening - upshot of the unforgiveable ignorance-founded hubris of the Bush Administration. Significant because, step by step, less and less reluctantly, the world moves more closely together and finds out in the process that it IS capable of dispensing with the USA; and saddening because it was so totally unnecessary, if the USA had employed even a modicum of informed insight and respect for the points of view of others "out there".

The process started with the early finger-in-the-eye to the rest of the world through the Bush-endorsed withdrawal from the Kyoto Treaty, instead of urging useful compromise to reach common goals from the inside. It bought us nothing except a shocked response at our choice to disregard a freely undertaken commitment of a previous administration. Add the "F-U, we'll go it alone" which announced the invasion of Iraq, then the absolutely incredible "quaint and obsolete Geneva Convention" insensitivity used to justify torture at Gitmo, topped by Abu Grahib, and a refusal to be subject to International Justice, all accompanied by the appalling ignorant spiteful mouthing of disregard by intellectully incurious Americans, all in FoxStep with the Chorus from the very top. And the USA flags quite commonly everywhere flown privately to honor overseas family or remembered vacations or simply ages old affection, which proliferated remarkably after 9/11, began to come down as the PEACE flags went up. All over Europe ....

Because my own surprised smiles were sensitive to the frequent unexpected appearance of the stars and stripes, my dismay was all the more pronounced by the abrupt disappearance of the red, white and blue symbols as Europe withdrew its respect. And it didn't need to happen.

The dollar INEVITABLY is going to hell, even if the coming hard times will likely be reflected at least in part by the Euro and even the staid Swiss Franc. The difference is, the dollar will be nudged to hell with a vengence, urged by spite and with no regrets from those who henceforth choose not to depend on American honor. Bush's glib posturing with FREEDOM will be honored in the rush to be free of American hegemony, it having become unmistakably obvious by its disrespectful actions that the present adminstration does not honor what it says. And it will take a long time to repair, for now there are able and eager contestants to assume leadership, a few moral, more otherwise. Apocryphal or not, the alleged Chinese curse will be invoked by many who see it their turn to ensure that we live in interesting times.

Oh America ....

The View from Over Here (CH).... This is perhaps the most significant - and saddening - upshot of the unforgiveable ignorance-founded hubris of the Bush Administration. Significant because, step by step, less and less reluctantly, the world moves more closely together and finds out in the process that it IS capable of dispensing with the USA; and saddening because it was so totally unnecessary, if the USA had employed even a modicum of informed insight and respect for the points of view of others "out there".

The process started with the early finger-in-the-eye to the rest of the world through the Bush-endorsed withdrawal from the Kyoto Treaty, instead of urging useful compromise to reach common goals from the inside. It bought us nothing except a shocked response at our choice to disregard a freely undertaken commitment of a previous administration. Add the "F-U, we'll go it alone" which announced the invasion of Iraq, then the absolutely incredible "quaint and obsolete Geneva Convention" insensitivity used to justify torture at Gitmo, topped by Abu Grahib, and a refusal to be subject to International Justice, all accompanied by the appalling ignorant spiteful mouthing of disregard by intellectully incurious Americans, all in FoxStep with the Chorus from the very top. And the USA flags quite commonly everywhere flown privately to honor overseas family or remembered vacations or simply ages old affection, which proliferated remarkably after 9/11, began to come down as the PEACE flags went up. All over Europe ....

Because my own surprised smiles were sensitive to the frequent unexpected appearance of the stars and stripes, my dismay was all the more pronounced by the abrupt disappearance of the red, white and blue symbols as Europe withdrew its respect. And it didn't need to happen.

The dollar INEVITABLY is going to hell, even if the coming hard times will likely be reflected at least in part by the Euro and even the staid Swiss Franc. The difference is, the dollar will be nudged to hell with a vengence, urged by spite and with no regrets from those who henceforth choose not to depend on American honor. Bush's glib posturing with FREEDOM will be honored in the rush to be free of American hegemony, it having become unmistakably obvious by its disrespectful actions that the present adminstration does not honor what it says. And it will take a long time to repair, for now there are able and eager contestants to assume leadership, a few moral, more otherwise. Apocryphal or not, the alleged Chinese curse will be invoked by many who see it their turn to ensure that we live in interesting times.

Oh America ....

- Yes, I remember WMD. I recall the Dulfer Report saying that Saddam had everything BUT weapons stockpiles. He had the recipes, the scientists, the infrastructure, and the intent to build WMD once the sanctions were lifted. And thanks to his Oil-for-Food bribes, the sanctions were being eroded in the UN Security Council every year. Dulfer concluded that Saddam was actually more dangerous than he had anticipated before the war.

[yeah, but they weren't there were they?

of course we can always fall back on the most brilliant orwellian statement of the past four years, from our great buddy Rumsfeld, "the absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence"...just gotta love how open ended the implication is, search forever, find nothing, doesn't prove it ain't there...]

- As for the Europeans, I don't really understand why they do many of the things they do these days. After spending almost the entirety of the 20th Century trying to defeat fascism (with our help, of course), why would they repeat the German mistake from the 1930s of voluntarily handing over their sovereignty and their democratic freedoms? That's what they are doing right now with the EU. As for their experiences with war, having seen what happened when they sat on their hands and let Hitler run amok, why would they repeat this error in Kosovo (until we were finally forced to step in and take charge of the situation)? Are Europeans not even capable of taking care of the problems in their own back yard? And why are the French and Germans so willing to accept bribes from a brute like Saddam? Given recent history -- plus the knee-jerk left-wing nature of the European press
-- I am not shocked at all at how Europe has responded to all of this.

[you condemn germany and france for accepting bribes from saddam? that is rich indeed, considering that saddam was your puppet to begin with, financed, supported, and owned lock, stock and barrel, literally...it just kills me that the left doesn't utterly demolish these pathetic side step arguments]

- Of course the Iraqis are better off. In case you haven't heard, they are having national elections this Sunday. And I don't expect that Saddam will get 99.7% percent of the "vote" as he did in the previous "election" the media covered so extensively. Things are bad now, but they were probably even worse in El Salvador a couple of decades ago when that country held its first elections, but now they are a stable democracy. Back then as now, the lefties proclaimed that the elections would never be successful due to ongoing violence.

[yeah, we'll talk in a few months, good luck with those "elections", hope it turns out like you think it will, instead of the inevitable civil war that is brewing...good luck with that indeed]

and by the way, i am canadian, and it really busts my ass when i hear you right wingers claim that we are your enemies, you really should pay more respect to history, damn you for that insult !

with respect to this site, keep up the good work.

cheers
Peter

Peter,

I'm in your wing probably, but I actually came across the "Absence of evidence..." saying via Stephen Jay Gould defending missing links in the theory of evolution. (And no, I do not attach any perjorative sense to the word "Theory"!) I imagine Orwell would agree with the sentiment, though I have no evidence...

Mo,

i certainly didn't mean to imply authorship on rumsfeld's part for the "absence of evidence" statement, the point is he used it to great affect to distract us all from the original point of the argument.

i mention orwell only in the context with which rumsfeld used the statement, because the statement turns in on itself, like a snake eating it's own tail, or like a zen koan, there is simply no angle for rational argument, which is what makes it so brilliant, given the context, and so double-think in terms of orwell...

interesting info with regards to stephen jay gould, i didn't know that the saying had this provenance, thanks for that.

cheers
Peter

Peter,

"Yeah, but they weren't there were they?"

Ah, yes -- the perfect sort of fact-avoidance argument. It's the sort of "did your finger actually enter the opening of the nostril" point of law that you might hear on an episode of Seinfeld. It would be like someone telling the police that a guy has a stash of loaded guns and some homemade bombs in his apartment. The police rush over, bust his door down and find unloaded guns under the bed, ammo in the closet, and bomb-making materials and plans, but no completed bombs. So the guy's lawyer shows up and tells the media, "See, he didn't have any loaded guns or finished bombs! He was harmless! This is a travesty of justice!" So are you Saddam's lawyer? Or is bashing Bush just too important to deal with facts and reason?

"you condemn germany and france for accepting bribes from saddam?"

Why yes, I do. Somehow, I doubt you would be so forgiving if Bush had been the one taking Saddam's stolen money.

"saddam was your puppet to begin with, financed, supported, and owned lock, stock and barrel, literally..."

You really should lay off the Kool-Aid. One day the voices might tell you to do something unfortunate.

"and by the way, i am canadian, and it really busts my ass when i hear you right wingers claim that we are your enemies, you really should pay more respect to history, damn you for that insult !"

Evidently, capital letters have not made their way north of the border, yet. But yes, Canada has certainly been acting more and more, shall we say, French as of late. Quebec is exacting a terrible price indeed for submitting to the rest of the country's groveling. Maybe you should read up on some of the writings by one of your compatriots, Mark Steyn. He mourns for what his homeland has become. Canada has gone from being a nation that stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the U.S. and Britain at D-Day to a country with barely a military that more and more resembles the inept, do-nothing nattering twits in Europe.

http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/index.cfm?page=article&article_id=266

We are making the grave mistake of thinking that these politicians are after our best interest in the world. We don't realize that these are the kind of rich coporate "leaders" who try to own countries like America or at least reduce it to something they can "drown in the bathtub". These people are not after our interests at all and I don't know how many more tax cuts for the rich, how large a deficit my children have to pay off, or how ruined they have to make Social Security or Medicare, or even how badly we have to start loosing to the Iraq insurgency before we realize that these people are not on our side. Perhaps they are not lieing when they look us in the eye and say everything is going good in the War on Terrorism. Am I the only one who realizes that these used-car-type salesmen are selling the American people their own demise. They know America can't sustain a global empire at this rate, and they also know that America is too mighty and free for them to control. So the solution is to turn America into something weaker and more third-world in order to fit the country better in the back pocket. These are the same interests that were in wait for the fall of the USSR in order to shove IMF economic "reforms" down their throat that they are still bitter about today. Thoes same "reforms" arn't going over any better in Iraq. The same agenda is being sold to America and all their lies about it won't make the truth any different. Like the USSR before us, our moral, economy and standing in the world will be reduced by endless war and the help of the same Islamo-fasists our CIA helped setup to defeat Russia. America is being humbled into a 3rd World status in order to fit us more comfortably into a "New World Order" invisioned by rich elites like Bush. This explains volumes of things we have done in the last 4 years that are so counter-productive in a true fight against terrorism that I'm convinced the true agenda of George Bush is to start an endless war (Mission Accomplished) instead of winning one. I applaud the rest of the world getting wise to the American "used-car sale". I just wish America was less enthusiastic to buy this lemon from Bush.

wow!

you know what ben, you win, you are right, you are the most clever, and the smartest, and bravest, and most courageous...and you definitely got it all figured out, so kudos to you.

CAPITALIZING if obviously very important to you so there you go.

it absolutely staggers me how you guys so gallantly and effortlessly throw away old friendships and alliances without a second glance backwards.

good for you, you just keep on keeping on.

S Brennan,

you were right, this is adolescence all right, and i must say i am humbled by it, it is easy to say "fight it", "stand up to the ignorance and the arrogance", but my god, this is going to be one hell of a struggle for you guys...

all i can say is, stand up and take these guys to the mat, wipe the floor with them, because behind all that noisy rhetoric is a hall of mirrors with nothing, absolutely nothing, to support the edifice...

once again, great work on this site, and keep up the good work.

cheers
Peter

Peter,

After all this time, I am still absolutely amazed at the utter inability of many lefties (e.g., you) to make a consistent argument or even a cogent point. Your first response to me was an off-the-cuff collection of unsubstantiated opinion delivered with Chretien-esqe arrogance. (Speaking of ol' Jean, how is his stock in Total-Fina holding up, I wonder?) After I responded with a fairly well-argued rebuttal (whether you agreed with it or not), your only response was to come back with sarcasm and then hurl insults -- and you weren't even original enough to come up with your own! Such behavior is indicative of weak ideology and intellectual cowardice.

I will agree with you on one thing, however: it really is staggering how Canada so gallantly and effortlessly is throwing away an old friendship without a second glance backwards. If members of our Congress were calling your national leader a "bastard" (and worse) and defacing pictures of him, I would frankly be embarrassed. Brian Mulroney, where have you gone?

Revision:

Perhaps I over-reached when I said "well-argued." I believe I was thinking of an earlier post I had made when I wrote that. Granted, my response to Peter was more glib than most of the things I have posted, but it still contained more actual argument than anything he posted to me. And the post I was responding to was, shall we say, rather lacking in substance.

What's that expression about the insane believing what they themselves state?

I think it's called "Michael Moore Syndrome."

Lind's essay is a tendentious effort to attack a particular policy-- the Iraq invasion-- by roping into his sprawling article a variety of unrelated facts and related half-truths.

The most important fact of our age is the rise of China, which will of course necessitate different security arrangements in the region, between the US and China and also among the US and key regional powers. Perhaps the next most important development is Japan's rearmament and willingness to adopt an aggressive military posture. After which, in importance, is the rise of India as a major nation that can project power across the region and that is expanding its military ties to Israel.

NONE of these crucial developments has anything whatsoever to do with our decision to wage war in Iraq. It's typical of the partisans in this debate that they try to seize on epiphenomena as justification for their arguments about Iraq. This is just more western-centric, actually Bush-centric, myopia.

Lind is wrong, as are some of the more strident neo-cons: the world does not revolve around what the Bush administration does or does not do.

But we do know that the axis of power around which the world turns is no longer based in Europe. When in history did a nation or culture with negative population growth achieve an increase in power and influence?

The axis of history now runs from Washington to Tokyo, Beijing and Delhi. Historians will view the Iraq War, and the transatlantic feud over it, as minor phenomena of little real significance to the really crucial developments of the early 21c.

Have any of you read *The United States of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy*? Several of you have stated that Europe is 'over the hill.' I wonder if your opinions are justified.

Lind is just another Quisling!
And the article sucks!
Could soft power help the tsunami victms? No. The UN no! US and Auzzie military forces? Yes!
see
http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/
Does anybody at ft.com know about free speach? No! Proof - look at their forums. They were once free and now are censored of any no PC thought. All thinkers on the right, left and center were forced over to:
http://www.serioustopics.com
Only anti-US ranters were kept.

Ask the most Europhile of ft readers - "little c" you will find he moved on.

I used to pay attention to ft but they drifted way over the edge....
Pure EU-PC-Anti-US correct and they hate Jews too!

Inez,

Here's all you need to know about Europe and where it's headed:

-In 1999 when Kosovar Albanians were being slaughtered and displaced, the Europeans sat around wringing their hands over the situation and debating the minutia concerning what to do, when, under what circumstances, etc., etc. until even Bill Clinton (!) was forced to step in, act like a responsible adult, and do what needed to be done. Behind all the sniffing about "cowboy Americans" is the quiet realization among Europeans that they can and do turn every decision into a do-nothing debating society.

-The EU bureaucrats have been trying to stuff the infamous "EU Constitution" down the throats of the citizenry any way they can. They have done everything possible to prevent public referendums on the constitution because they know they will lose. Said one EU bureaucrat/would-be fascist, "Sometimes the voters need to be protected from making the wrong decision." Yes, Stalin and Mao felt the same way.

-After depending on U.S. military power (which they constantly bitch about) for fifty years, European military capability is at pathetic levels. Forget about world-conquering military might -- the EU countries don't even have enough muscle to defend themselves. Before the current war, IRAQ could have wiped the floor with France and Germany combined.

-The European birth rate is so low (about 1.2 births per female) that they are actually losing population. White Europeans are the first race of people in the history of the world to voluntarily stop reproducing. They are engaging in self-extinction. The only thing growing in Europe right now is the population of angry Jihadists, anti-Semitism, and anti-Americanism. No wonder they like the Palestinians so much!

Guys,

Europe is dying before our eyes, and the European thought is clueless and powerless to stem the tide. Europe has not produced one idea of growth in the last century, and has no institutional, political or individual structure in place to stop the decline. The big project that they have undertaken, the EU, is nothing but a warmed-over socialism to bail France and Germany out of their long-term malaise. I can't believe the so-called intellectuals consider this as the rival of the US. US has more to worry about China and India, upcoming leaders in the world, than the dying Europeans.

"saddam was your puppet to begin with, financed, supported, and owned lock, stock and barrel, literally..."

What a dimwit! If Saddam was an American puppet, then why did his military rely on Soviet T-72 tanks, MiG jet fighters, and pretty much every other conventional weapon in the old Soviet arsenal? And these were not recent acquisitions -- that's what he's had for years. And why were former Soviet military experts advising him up until the very day Shock and Awe began?

Saddam is the love child of two of the left's all-time favorite countries: the mass-murdering Soviets and the perfidious French. Sorry, you can't pass the buck this time. This whole war is just us having to go in and clean up yet another of the Loony Left's major screw-ups.

I am flabbergasted. Rarely have I seen such a rich mix of arrogance and ignorance.
"We have annexed no states and stolen no resources."
Look it up, dear americans. Western europe consumes about five times it's share of the worlds resources, the US is content with nine times it's share. If everybody on earth lived according to american standards, we would need five (5) earths.
I call that stealing resources.
And installing and supporting dictatorships in Chili, el Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Jamaica, South Africa, Saudi-Arabia, Greec, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq (Rumsfeld was a great buddy of Saddam's, remember?), Indonesia, the list goes on for practicaly ever, you could argue that isn't quite annexing countries, but from the receiving end it sure feels like it.