In a lengthy piece in the WSJ, Norman Podhoretz says not so fast:
In recent months, we have been bombarded with reports of the death of the Bush Doctrine. Of course, there have been many such reports since the doctrine was first promulgated at the start of what I persist in calling World War IV (the Cold War being World War III). Almost all of them were written by the realists and liberal internationalists within the old foreign-policy establishment, and they all turned out to resemble the reports of Mark Twain’s death–which, he famously said, had been “greatly exaggerated.” Nothing daunted by this, the critics and enemies of President Bush are now at it yet again. This time, however, their ranks have been swollen by a number of traditional conservatives who were never comfortable with the doctrine bearing his name and who have now moved from discomfort to outright opposition.
But what is genuinely new, and more surprising, is the entry into this picture of a significant number of my fellow neoconservatives. As the Bush Doctrine’s greatest enthusiasts, they would be much happier if they could go on pointing to signs of life, but so disillusioned have they become that a British journalist can say that, to them, “The words ‘Rice’ and ‘Bush’ have all but become the Beltway equivalent of barnyard expletives.” No wonder that they have now taken to composing obituary notices of their own.
Are we then to conclude that the latest reports of the death of the Bush Doctrine are not “greatly,” if indeed at all, exaggerated, and that it has at long last really been put to rest?
[…]
If we go by the president’s speeches, as well as by his unscripted remarks at press conferences and other venues, there is not the slightest indication that today he is any less wedded than he was at the start to any of the four commitments that together constitute the substance of the Bush Doctrine.
A good benchmark is his Second Inaugural Address, delivered on Jan. 20, 2005. During the campaign that would end by giving him the opportunity to deliver this address, and in spite of the political considerations that might have led him to play it safe, Mr. Bush kept reaffirming his belief in the soundness of his doctrine and his determination to stick by all of its interrelated parts. Over and over again he declared that, if re-elected, he would go on working for the spread of liberty throughout the broader Middle East; that he would not relent in the war against terrorism (whose main front was now Iraq); that he would continue reserving the right to strike pre-emptively against mounting threats; and that he would steadfastly refuse to support the establishment of a Palestinian state unless and until its leaders renounced terrorism and began pursuing democratic reform.Nevertheless, immediately after he was re-elected on these promises, it was widely predicted that he would retreat from them in his second term, and that he would do so whether he liked it or not. Some said that because of setbacks in Iraq, he would lose the political support he needed to push the Bush Doctrine any farther. Others posited a political “law” under which second-term presidents were always forced to moderate their policies. And still others foresaw a clash with an obdurate reality that would kill off the Bush Doctrine by exposing it as a utopian fantasy.
With all this ringing in his ears, Mr. Bush defiantly took the oath of office for a second time with a restatement of the doctrine bearing his name that was even more eloquent, more forceful, and more unequivocal than the great series of speeches in which he had originally promulgated it three years earlier.
On the rejection of moral relativism:
We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. . . . We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul.
On the new conception of terrorism and the political roots of the assault we suffered on 9/11:
We have seen our vulnerability--and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny--prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder--violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat.
On the spread of democracy as the answer to terrorism:
There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom. . . . America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. . . . So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture.
On the nature and length of the war that was declared on us on 9/11, and what winning it will ultimately mean:
This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. . . . The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations.
On the determination to take preemptive action:
My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats.
So much for the idea that Mr. Bush was preparing to back away from the first three pillars of the Bush Doctrine. And what about the fourth? Framed in loftily abstract terms, the Second Inaugural contained no reference to Israel or the Palestinians. (Nor were Iraq and Afghanistan mentioned by name.) A few weeks earlier, however, Mr. Bush had already made it clear that the fourth pillar of his doctrine was still firmly in place. He did this during a postelection visit to Canada, where he once again conditioned his support for the establishment of a Palestinian state on the willingness of the Palestinians to renounce terrorism and embark on democratic reform:
Achieving peace in the Holy Land is not just a matter of pressuring one side or the other on the shape of a border or the site of a settlement. This approach has been tried before, without success. As we negotiate the details of peace, we must look to the heart of the matter, which is the need for a Palestinian democracy.
As I write, Mr. Bush’s second term has entered its 19th month, and on innumerable occasions during that time he has ringingly reaffirmed his commitment to the doctrine bearing his name. On what basis, then, is it being claimed all over the place that he no longer believes either in its soundness or its viability?
[…]
I must confess to being puzzled by the amazing spread of the idea that the Bush Doctrine has indeed failed the test of Iraq. After all, Iraq has been liberated from one of the worst tyrants in the Middle East; three elections have been held; a decent constitution has been written; a government is in place; and previously unimaginable liberties are being enjoyed. By what bizarre calculus does all this add up to failure? And by what even stranger logic is failure to be read into the fact that the forces opposed to democratization are fighting back with all their might?
Surely what makes more sense is the opposite interpretation of the terrible violence being perpetrated by the terrorists of the so-called insurgency: that it is in itself a tribute to the enormous strides that have been made in democratizing the country. If this murderous collection of diehard Sunni Baathists and vengeful Shiite militias, together with their allies inside the government, agreed that democratization had already failed, would they be waging so desperate a campaign to defeat it? And if democratization in Iraq posed no threat to the other despotisms in the region, would those regimes be sending jihadists and material support to the “insurgency” there?Perhaps, then, what the sectarian murderers and their foreign allies are trying to prevent is less the democratic project as such than the emergence of an Iraq which would be unified under the loose federal system prescribed by the constitution adopted last year? Perhaps what the Sunni “insurgency” is trying to do is prevent the Shiite majority from becoming dominant? Perhaps the Shiite militias are mainly engaged in reprisals for recent Sunni atrocities (not to mention being bent on revenge for the relentless oppression they suffered at the hands of the Sunnis under Saddam Hussein)? Perhaps all this is leading to a breakup of the country into three separate entities, with a fully independent Kurdistan in the north, with the Sunnis ruling in Baghdad and its environs, and with the Shiites in power in the south?
The Israeli political theorist Shlomo Avineri and Bill Clinton’s ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith have long contended that such an outcome is the best that can be hoped for, and that in any event the vision of an Iraq unified under a democratic system is nothing more than a mirage. From this glum analysis it follows that the United States should scrap the Bush Doctrine and resign itself to a tripartite division as the least bad alternative to complete chaos and an all-out civil war.
This position (which in the latest variant proposed by Mr. Galbraith has been endorsed as “second best” by a disillusioned neoconservative in the person of David Frum) comes at us with all the trappings of what looks like a hardheaded assessment of the sectarian facts on the ground in Iraq. But in common with many such apparently hardheaded assessments of other facts on other grounds, it poses intractable problems of its own. Worse yet, its plausibility depends on the ruling-out of the new possibilities that can materialize out of popular aspirations for something different, and something better.
Only yesterday we saw such aspirations vividly expressed in the flocking of millions of Iraqis to the polls, and all the world marveled at the sight. Now, because the enemies of these aspirations within Iraq and their foreign supporters are mounting a last-ditch campaign to blow them to smithereens, we are being told that it is useless to go on giving our support to what is clearly a lost cause. Shades of how George W. Bush’s father treated the Shiites whom he had encouraged to rise up against Saddam Hussein at the tail end of the first Gulf War, only to sit by as many thousands of them were slaughtered by this merciless despot who had been left in power by the “realism” of American policy. (It was, incidentally, only because some of us had forgotten the bitterness this betrayal had planted in the Shiites of the South that we were surprised when they greeted our troops in 2003 with surly suspicion instead of cheers and flowers.)
Well, having through the Bush Doctrine repudiated his father’s “realism” as, precisely, unrealistic, George W. Bush is hardly likely to welsh on the promises he in his own turn has made to the people of Iraq. And since most of them–Sunnis no less than Shiites–know very well that their lives literally depend on making the new system work, they have the greatest imaginable stake in fending off the evil forces that are dedicated to destroying its chances.
[…]
Two extraordinary features mark the consensus that has formed on the death of the Bush Doctrine. One is that it embraces just about every group all along the ideological spectrum, critics and friends of Mr. Bush alike: the realists, the liberal internationalists, the traditionalist conservatives, the paleoconservatives and the neoconservatives. The other extraordinary feature is that the only group that has refused to join in this unprecedented consensus is made up of Mr. Bush’s enemies on the left.
Take the inveterate Bush hater Fred Kaplan, who, in the left-liberal webzine Slate, argues that “reports of the death of ‘cowboy diplomacy’ are greatly exaggerated,” and that while there has been a “moderating tone in Bush’s rhetoric . . . his actual policies have barely changed.” It is in Slate, too, that its editor Jacob Weisberg (the same Jacob Weisberg who has devoted himself to collecting “Bushisms” supposedly proving how stupid the president is and how adept at finding “new ways to harm our country”) posted his article acknowledging Mr. Bush’s persistent refusal to engage with “rogue regimes.” Moving further to the Left, we come upon Mother Jones, where one Ehsan Ahrari also denies that “cowboy diplomacy” has really ended.No doubt, both Mr. Ahrari and Mr. Kaplan would very much prefer to agree that Mr. Bush has abandoned his wicked ways, and to congratulate the left on this great accomplishment. But the best they can do is concede that he is now “drifting” rather than pushing forcefully ahead (Mr. Kaplan) and to hope that Iran and North Korea will eventually force a real change in his overall approach (Mr. Ahrari). As for me, unaccustomed as I am to finding myself siding with my ideological enemies on the left, I have no honest choice but to admit that I think Fred Kaplan’s analysis of where the Bush Doctrine now stands is closer to the mark than any of the others discussed above, including the ones offered by some of my fellow neoconservatives.
Of course, there are plenty of leftists around for whom the true “axis of evil” still does and always will consist of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. In my opinion such people are worthy of contempt, as are all those who, whether or not they admit it even to themselves, are rooting for an American defeat in World War IV. My own heart–it should go without saying–is with those neoconservatives who have been pressing for a more aggressive implementation of the Bush Doctrine. I even think that there is at least some merit in many, or perhaps even most, of the arguments they offer to explain why they have concluded that American foreign policy is no longer true to the doctrine’s promises. Without denying that the president is still talking the talk, they contend that his actions demonstrate that he has ceased walking the walk; and it is by stacking those actions up against his own language that they seek to justify the charge of, at best, a loss of nerve and, at worst, an outright betrayal of the goals they formerly believed he meant to pursue and to which they themselves are as dedicated as ever.
Nevertheless, I think they are wrong–less wrong than the old foreign-policy establishment, which agrees with them that the president has abandoned his own doctrine, and is gleeful instead of angry about it, but still wrong.
To begin with, the neoconservatives who have given up on Mr. Bush or are in the process of doing so overlook one simple consideration: that he is a politician. This ridiculously obvious truth has been obscured by the fact that Mr. Bush so often sounds like an ideologue, or perhaps idealist would be a better word. But here an old Jewish joke applies that I used to tell in connection with the same mistake that was also made about Ronald Reagan.
“Why are you dressed like that?” asks the Jewish mother of her son when he visits her wearing the uniform of a naval officer. “Because, Mama,” he explains, “I just bought a boat, and I’m the captain.” To which, smiling fondly, she replies, “Well, by you you’re a captain. And by me you’re a captain. But by a captain are you a captain?” Which is to say that, like Ronald Reagan before him, George W. Bush may be an ideologue “by” most politicians (who believe in nothing much and are always ready to trade a principle for a political gain), but “by” an ideologue he’s no ideologue.
In other words, while he is certainly driven by ideas and ideals to a far greater extent than are most politicians, in implementing these ideas and ideals he is still subject to the same pressures by which all other politicians are constrained: pressures coming at him that, as president, he can ignore only at the peril of totally alienating the support his policies need both at home and abroad if they are to be sustained. And what this, in turn, means is that prudential considerations inevitably come into play whenever a major decision has to be made.
There are utopians to whom pursuing a principled or idealistic policy necessarily precludes the prudential judgment that determines which fights to pick at a given moment and which to delay until the time is ripe, when to pause and when to advance, and which tactic is the right one to use in maneuvering on a particular front. There are also “realists” who take the necessity of prudential judgment as proof that a policy driven by ideals is altogether incapable of being executed and can only lead to disaster if its proponents are naïve enough to try putting it into practice.
In pointing this out, I am not suggesting that those of us who share Mr. Bush’s ideas and ideals, but who labor under neither utopian nor realist delusions, are barred from questioning the soundness of his prudential judgment in this or that instance. But I am suggesting that, by the same token, we have an intellectual responsibility to recognize and acknowledge that he has already taken those ideas and ideals much further than might have been thought possible, especially given the ferocity of the opposition they have encountered from all sides and the difficulties they have also met with in the field. Indeed, it is a measure of his enormous political skills that–at a time in 2004 when things were not looking at all good for the Bush Doctrine’s prospects in Iraq–he succeeded in mobilizing enough support for its wildly controversial principles to run on them for a second term and win.
[…]
In 1947, at a time when many denied that the Soviet Union was even a threat to us, Truman saw it as an aggressive totalitarian force, which was plunging us into another world war. If Truman had done nothing else than this, he would deserve to be ranked as a great president. But he did more: he also recognized that this new world war differed from the two that had preceded it, and could not be fought in the same ways, or in as brief a time. Out of these two recognitions flowed the Truman Doctrine, and out of that doctrine came the new strategy known as containment.
Consider the similarities with Mr. Bush. Even after 9/11, many pooh-poohed the threat of Islamofascism and, seeing its terrorist weaponry as merely a police matter, denied (and continue to deny) that we were even really at war, much less in a new world war. But Mr. Bush understood that Islamofascism was “the heir of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century”–an aggressive totalitarian force that, like Nazism and Communism before it, could be defeated only through a world-wide struggle. It was a struggle that, in its duration and in its mix of military and nonmilitary means, would bear a greater resemblance to World War III than to World War II. But it also carried novel features with which containment had not been designed to cope. Out of these twin understandings, Mr. Bush promulgated his own doctrine, and out of that doctrine came the new military strategy of preemption and the new political strategy of democratization.
So far as the implementation of this new strategy goes, it is still early days–roughly comparable to 1952 in the history of the Truman Doctrine. As with the Truman Doctrine then, the Bush Doctrine has thus far acted only in the first few scenes of the first act of a five-act play. Like the Truman Doctrine, too, its performance has received very bad reviews. Yet we now know that the Truman Doctrine, despite being attacked by its Republican opponents as the “College of Cowardly Containment,” was adopted by them when they took power behind Dwight D. Eisenhower. We also know now that, after many ups and downs and following a period of retreat in the 1970s, the policy of containment was updated and reinvigorated in the 1980s by Ronald Reagan (albeit without admitting that this was what he was doing). And we now know as well that it was by thus building on the sound foundation laid by the Truman Doctrine that Reagan delivered on its original promise.
It is my contention that the Bush Doctrine is no more dead today than the Truman Doctrine was cowardly in its own early career. Bolstered by that analogy, I feel safe in predicting that, like the Truman Doctrine in 1952, the Bush Doctrine will prove irreversible by the time its author leaves the White House in 2008. And encouraged by the precedent of Ronald Reagan, I feel almost as confident in predicting that, three or four decades into the future, and after the inevitable missteps and reversals, there will come a president who, like Reagan in relation to Truman in World War III, will bring World War IV to a victorious end by building on the noble doctrine that George W. Bush promulgated when that war first began.
I’ve tried to excerpt the pieces that best make Podhoretz’s argument, but I urge you to read the entire piece.
Just yesterday I asked if there were machinations happening outside of public view that are actively in keeping with the Bush Doctrine as it had been sold to those of us who support it—because were there not such covert goings on, if all that was left of the Bush Doctrine was the President’s showy determination, I would, like many of the conservatives and neocons who have recently taken to despair, be myself ready to throw up my hands.
But as I said yesterday, I’m not ready to do so. Better to be shown the optimistic fool, I figure, than to believe that the only truly worthwhile and idealistic foreign policy of at least the last two decades has been effectively beaten back by an intentional return to the same easy and failed “realism” that has kept the middle east in the dark ages at least the last half century.
(h/t Terry Hastings)
Out of curiousity, what would these covert things be? Like we’re close to capturing bin laden, or we’re making a deal with syria bout something. Things like that?
Nobody is that stupid. This must be deliberate…
In fact, that was so cynical and clumsy, that I am going to go grab a cup of coffee and close my web browser for a while…
World War III – The Cold War.
In honor of Robert A. Heinlein:
World War IV – The Bug War.
Great article.
I could tell you, but then I’d have to kill you.
I can’t think of another situation in which so many parties were so committed to misreporting and misinterpreting the facts. J Pod does a nice job of pulling it all together.
I think I’m with Podhoretz on this one. Far too many people expecting far too much in far too little time.
I think the real test for Bush is in Iran, not in Iraq. If the Bush Doctrine is not dead, it certainly needs to be applied to the mullahs. They are a worse threat now than Saddam was in 2003, and I expect Security Council sanctions backed by the U.S. Navy, leading to the demise of the regime. Failing that, I expect a coalition of the willing and a war to remove the threat.
This, for me, will be the acid test. We know Bush will not withdraw from Iraq, but that is a less serious test.
Just so.
I’m still on board with the “Bush Doctrine”, primarily because no one has got a better friggin’ idea, now do they?
The Bush Doctrine, warts and all, is the only alternative to playing duck-n-cover with our kids lives, while occasionally using cruise missiles to play terrorist “whack-a-mole”.
Police actions and dictator coddling “realpolitik” is no longer an option.
If our experiment in Iraq fails and we withdraw, its only a matter of time before the terrorists hit us harder at home than 9/11, possibly with a dirty nuke or the real thing. And then, its going to be John Derbyshire time, if you get my drift. “Rubble don’t make trouble” and all that.
Given that that is a rock solid certainty (the Derbyshire Option following any WMD on the continental USA) you would think that the Left would get on board with the democratization project if only for humanitarian reasons. But BDS is so virulent and so wide-spread that they would rather lop off their principles to spite their politics.
I have to quibble about foreign policy “realism” keeping the middle east in the dark ages. I think it’s Islam that does that.
As an early proponent of the Bush Doctrine in general and the Iraq war in particular I have become more and more disillusioned over time. Disillusioned that Bush is unable or, most likely, unwilling to do the things necessary to promote moderation and democracy in the middle east. I am increasingly frustrated at his staunch unwillingness to go before the American people and tell them the truth, that Iran is actively fighting a proxy, guerrila war against us in Iraq, just as they did recently in Lebanon, and is responsible for many of the 2,600+ american lives lost in Iraq not to mention the huge number of innocent Iraqis killed. His timidity and political calculation have allowed Iran to wage multiple proxy wars against western nations while simultaneously developing nuclear weapons all without any negative consequences. Until he puts a stop to the foreign interference in Iraq we will never know if it is plausible to form a moderate Islamic government there.
I am also disillusioned by the actions of the Iraqi, Palistinian, Lebanese and pretty much all muslim people. In each case significant swaths of the populations have choosen hatred, death and mayhem over peace and stability. Most of the rest of these peoples, while taking no active part in the terrorist activities, are content to fester in their hellholes blaming jews and America and allowing terrorism and fanaticism to grow amongst their children. As we have seen in demonstrations from London to Detroit the Muslim menace does not spring from poverty or strife but from Islam itself.
At this point I am beginning to believe that the problem of Islamic terrorism can only be defeated through a blood soaked, all out war on Islam that would have economic consequences to terrible to risk or by the discover/invention of an alternative energy source that would drain Islam of the riches that it needs to continue to spread its diseased worldview and prop up its backwards, twisted societies.
Don’t forget the Turks and Indonesians.
Its good that there is some dissent from the blame america right. The middle east doesn’t need to avoid reality, but to face it. And they need a good dose of liberal feminist progress in order to get with the program of human liberation.
To be blunt, the TTP is a troll. The passive-aggressive, take no stands while demanding answers to slanted questions bit is classic trolling.
That Jeff tolerates the TTP says quite a bit about his patience.
I think that I’ve finally figured out Actus the telephone pole.
Selective contrarian.
Find what he perceives as the weakest point and make a short comment, then duck and cover by blaming “links” and “sourcing” and making little sarcastic or shoulder shrugging remarks. Then duck and cover again, never coming all the way out and taking a stand.
The troll needs to be dunked head first into a barrel of Mad-Dog 20/20.
Oh, and Actus, I’m suuuuuurrrrrreeeee that there is no double secret probation type stuff in this “crime wave” of global terrorism insomuch as the NYT has blown all of the covert ops.
Now please adjust your belt and your meds.
OK, Actus, let me guess. You have a plan for an army of liberal, feminist diplomats who will fan out over the middle east and end terrorism once and for all.
Oh, I’m sorry, you don’t actually have a plan, do you? After all, it’s so much easier to state an poofy, meaningless intellectual ideal than to actually put forth a working plan.
Is the sky blue in your world?
tw: unspeakable agony Feminist Liberalism
AAAAIIIIIEEEEEE!!!!!!
Loved it!
Podhoretz removes the media filter from our eyes in this piece. He succinctly lays out the four pillars of the “Bush Doctrine” as Bush himself has described them in his public speeches. Then he shows how all four pillars are still intact and standing.
I found the piece to be a much-needed defense of the doctrine, but was still struck by the fact Podhoretz saw the need to reprint so much of Bush’s speeches verbatim.
I saw all of his speeches at their time of delivery, and I thought Bush was crystal-clear on all of the Doctrine’s points. So, why is the populus still so ignorant of the Doctrine’s precepts that Podhoretz feels the need to so strongly confront it?
Could it be that the media boycotts of Bush’s primetime speeches, and it’s armies of talking heads has succeeded where the 2004 election failed? Has it prevented the American public from understanding a Republican President’s war-doctrine – while we’re, you know, at War?!
-Steve
Sadly, among all the major religions of the world, Islam has miserably failed it’s adherants.
While Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism have all managed to meld their doctrines with non-sectarian governments to create middle class-dominated populations with the inherent stability and economic opportunity therein.
Islam, instead, has significantly contributed to
an dynamic that creates dictators and tyrants that eschew economic opportunities for any but themselves. The result is a religion who’s practitioners, for the most part, eat dirt three squares a day and think camel dung is a condiment.
Any wonder why they’re “radicalized”?
ANTI-SEMITE!!1!
Nope. It won’t be once and for all. And there won’t be any guarantees either. I’ve said before—it took about a hundred years to bring equality and progressivism to the american south—and in some ways we’re not done—so it will take even longer in the middle east.
But I wouldn’t limit it to diplomats. There are much better ways of influencing culture than diplomacy. Things like the affirmative action we’ve put in place, requiring female members of parliament, also work.
Yes. Me. The guy commenting on blogs, doesn’t actually have a plan. Just ideas. Maybe I could put together some powerpoints?
Actus or should I say Mr Duck n Cover:
I find your thoughtless remarks very tiring. Hell, I used to laugh out loud at your awe inspiring rantings. But now, the only feeling left for you is nausea….
I also agree with Steve in regards to the 4 pillars still being aloft. Sometimes Bush needs to remind the American public a little more often…
I don’t know if you’ve been keeping up with current events, genius, but we ain’t got 100 years for your “mandatory female parlimentarians” plan to come to fruition.
Now, why don’t you get back to MIT and get busy splitting atoms…with your mind.
In the alternative, you can fetch me a juice box. Grape. Go. Go now!
After 9/11, it was clear that we had to do something to shake up the Middle East. My problem with Iraq is that it was not properly sold to the American people as a long term process requiring sacrifice. (the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform is noted but they and their dependents probably comprise no more than 1% or 2% of the American people.)
People are irritated because we were “supposed” to be out of Iraq a long time ago. That’s no one’s fault but this administration for not properly selling the war. They are not properly selling it now, and they still are not making any demands on the American people at large in terms of sacrifices or mobilization.
We can sit in Iraq until the cows come home but the internal dynamic of their social change is going to follow its own bloody course and there isn’t a whole lot we can do about it. I mean, we wanted to transform the place, and that’s what’s happening. It will just take longer and be bloodier than we were told it will be.
People have abandoned the Neocon concept of “growing democracy” because it isn’t easy (see Iraq), it takes a long time (see Iraq), and because antiseptic and largely safe (for us) long-distance destruction (see Iraq, Lebanon) is no substitute for the major effort and expense of boots on the ground, reconstruction, and careful monitoring. Explicitly, most have jumped the Neocon ship because after Afghanistan and Iraq the most recent argument has been for more military actions against Syria and Iran (which won’t be easy either.)
Calling this “World War IV” is not really meaningful. In the two WORLD wars, over 100 nations were involved. In the two WORLD wars, there was combat and contributed soldiers from over 100 nations. In the two WORLD wars, the major combatants were completely mobilized and had millions of men under arms. None of that applies here.
Well, im not the one that did that, I think it was the CPA. But if you want quicker solutions, Sherman had a plan for dealing with the South. But I think that sort of stuff is icky. And it still took 100 years from then.
100 years? Hmmm? How come there were more than twice as many black male heads of households in 1959 than there were in 1969?
Bush doctrine eh. One wonders what the ME would like today if GWB had done nothing after 9/11.
You know, we could just spray the whole country with large doses of estrogen. What do you say, actus?
God Damn! Now that’s what I’m talkin about! And who better qualified to go to the Middle East and preach the gospel of feminism and human rights than Actus and Amanda?
Once Zawahiri hears truth spoken to power from the people powered community I’m sure he’ll do the right thing.
What have we become?
Depending on your definition of liberal feminist progress this statement is either unassailably true or mostly true with some caveots. Bravo Actus! You have acknowledged that the west did not create the fetid, backwater hell that it the “modern” muslim society. In addition you have come close to the realization that western society is demonstrably better than muslim society in every way and that we need to eschew tolerance and multi-culturalism for an all out assualt on the muslim culture and it’s eggregious abuses of human rights.
Now the question is, how?
I don’t know enough about how that works. But I don’t think anyone can deny that the middle east would do good to get some gender equality. Don’t we usually get mad at the mullahs for stoning some woman?
Well, as a Democrat, you’d be well placed to learn all of the tricks behind obstruction that kept “egalitie” and “fraternity” from thriving in the American South.
Just saying is all…
Yeah, we really do, actus. And those mullahs should have to experience the repression of having to wear a bra.
Who’s we, actus?
I haven’t heard a word from you condemning your insurgent pals that want to install sharia from Canada to Melbourne and on, and murder people in the streets.
In fact, I’ve heard an awful lot about how terrible it is that we are killing those facists.
Buck up, kiddo. You can do it eventually [not contradict and indict yourself with every single word].
As a liberal, I’ll get my ass kicked by those Democrats. And then some of their fellow conservatives, Republicans this time, will write on their blogs about my attempts to “purge” the party and enforce my “netroots” totalitarianism on them.
So maybe even if I did spell out a plan, people would still not get it.
Well, If i’m sitting here saying that we need progressive, liberal feminism in hte middle east, it must follow that i’m quite happy with woman-hating bigoted theocrats of all stripes. Sure thing, you really got me this time.
The fact that the expectations of the poorly informed public, Big Media, the Left, the Angry Left, transnationalists, and other illiberal utopian statists are out of whack has been a hobby horse of mine for some time, though I have neither the command of the facts nor the rhetorical skills of Mr. Podhoretz or Mr. Goldstein. The remarkably total lack of perspective at what has been accomplished in a short period of time with so few casualties is understandable for most folks, but I really think the hard-minded, truely liberal crowd would get a grip and realize that it is a long hard slog and that the only way to get through it is to keep putting one foot in front of the other.
Our enemy has taken Patton’s admonition that “fixed fortifications are a monument to mankind’s stupidity” to heart. By doing so to an extent never before attempted they have made our job much more difficult. But we too shall adapt, improvise and overcome. Inthe meantime, we need to avoid the self serving false dichotomy of utopian perfection vice venal wickedness and incompetence. As always, the perfect remains the enemy of the good. Can anyone realistically hope for anything better than a good resolution to the GWOT?
It used to be fashionably said that the military was always fighting the last war. While this may have been true for most of mankind’s history, I think our military has managed to move the paradigm somewhat. Unfortunately, the purveyors of our received wisdom in Big Media and most of our elected represnetatives in the legislative branch of government (left and right) can’t seem to stop fighting not the last war, but …, wait for it …, Vietnam. If you don’t believe me, name another war since then where the word quagmire has so undeservedly come up.
The rebuilding of a culture and a society that was so corrupt and backward from the percpective of what we value in Western Civilization is going to take a painfully long time. Needless to say, the enemy continues to be willing to wait for us to throw our hands up in despair and depart. I hope we have the courage and foresight to keep up the good fight and bear the costs necessary to make the world a better place. Gee, didn’t that used to be a progressive slogan?
Turing Word: dead, as in, what the fuck happened to the neocons I used to know? Where’s the spirit? Where’s the guts, huh? “Ooh, we’re afraid to go with you Charles, we might get in trouble.” Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I’m not gonna take this. Bin laden, he’s a dead man! Ahmadenijad, dead! Nasrallah…
Maybe when we are done with that we can start on Massachusetts
steve wrote:
Where have you been, steve? Again, it’s all in Bush’s public speeches – as the Podhoretz piece attests. But, for some reason, the masses ain’t gettin’ the message.
Bush has repeatedly stressed this will be a long war. I think Rummy’s called it a “Long hard slog” line? Did you hear Bush’s Inaugural Speech after his re-election? Or was your opinion of his speech filtered through private media?
Purposeful obfuscation by an antagonistic media…
-Steve
“Out of curiousity, what would these covert things be?”
We can’t tell you – they’re covert.
Well, given that the only real, viable alternative to the “Bush Doctrine” is a return to the hard-core-Jacksonian twin “Mess with us at your peril” and “Corpses don’t cause trouble” doctrines, I’m gonna give it the benefit of the doubt.
Just because a radioactive middle east would be a bad thing, in my opinion.
SB: systems
analysis
Given your legandary proclivities for sussing out all kinds of top-of-the-pile solutions to the world’s thornier issues, acturd, I dying to learn of your followup to this gem specifically WRT contemporary western feminism:
Damn straight it could. So you go girl. Talk to me.
How can we debate the proper implementation of such a doctrine when a large swath of the American polity refuses to even acknowledge that our duly elected government has put forth said doctrine?
Oh, and rather than wishing liberal-progressive-feminism on the arab world how about we settle for just a few key points from the Enlightenment. Crawl before you walk and all that…
Oh. I aim for the stars. Soft bigotry of low expectations and all.
Nothing but empty hopes and blind assumptions is it then, actuse?
Oh, forget that. It’s a quagmire, a true lost cause. They’d have to want equality and they simply don’t. The Adams clan would die of shame were they to return to current day MA.
And both times the obstructionists have been the Democrat Party.
I agree. If muslim men weren’t the least secure of their manhood of all men on the planet it would help.
Not when he and his spokesmen claimed we would draw down in “three months”, not when he declared “major combat over” and not when he told the enemy to “bring it on.” Of course, the administration has been pitching the “long war” concept for awhile now, but it isn’t getting through. Possibly because no one is being asked to make any sacrifices, except our service people?
The explanation being offered for why the majority of Americans are against this war (give or take a margin of error) is that it’s the evil media. That’s just a conspiracy theory of sorts. No, the American people were not ready for a long war before 9/11, after 9/11, or now. The only reason the opposition is not more vociferous is because, so far, the only people affected by it are again our service people. If and when it does start to hit Mr and Mrs Sixpack in the pocketbook or at their empty dinner table, then you will likely see even more opposition.
I am not saying that this is necessarily good or right or wrong. I am saying: fact – the majority of the American people are not behind this war. Fact – the vast majority of the American people are not involved in this war. Fact – only a tiny fraction of the American people are sacrificing, or being made to sacrifice, for this war (putting a magnetic yellow ribbon on your SUV doesn’t count).
The only people who can be blamed for the flaccid support of the war are the people who want this war and other wars to take place. You have to persuade the people, if you don’t, then you have failed. Now basically NorPod has been making this kind of argument ever since October, 2001. I don’t necessarily disagree, but I do not believe you can win this kind of meta-war cheaply (w/o a lot of money and a lot of people), nor do I believe that you can bomb your way to success in this type of war. Therefore both the US (and Israel) are at a kind of tactical standstill.
Well, as you want to do exactly nothing to these same women-hating bigoted theocrats whereas I want them to attain biochemical equilibrium, I think it is fair to say that you are quite content with those facists.
Your ball, sister.
No, you don’t. Trotsky said, ‘You are not interested in war, but war is interested in you.’
If you don’t fight now, you will fight later. Just the nature of these things, jarhead. I thought that you would know.
OK steve, if you don’t like the current doctrine, what you YOU do? Starting at this exact moment, please give rough details of the “steve Doctrine”.
Please remember that events leading up to this exact moment have no bearing on what YOU do starting today. Any reference to previous events will be considered pissing and moaning. What’s done is done.
Please lay down a course of action. Thanks.
A quarter of tribal men died in battle, which occured every year, three or four times a summer. That percent has decreased inexorably every century until now.
And let’s face it. Materials are incredibly cheap today courtesy of the industrial revolution and globalization whereas it is time and productivity is incredibly expensive, the historical obverse.
What is it that we should be sacrificing? Or is that some kind of lame excuse for a serious thought that has absolutely no bearing on our reality?
Talking telephone poles?
Confronting Ms. actus with the hypocrisy of NOW-minded “feminists” is, as you know, only the first hurdle our intrepid trollster faces.
Asserting that we’ll then actually save mideastern women from being buried alive by way of our lovely American “gender equality” movement—their own chronic indifference to anything of the sort notwithstanding—is one of actus’ more amusing notions.
Jeez, what’s the point of trying to be a straight man?
On the Alter of Naivety.
Hey, its gotten us all this wonderful liberation we have here. I’m not the type that thinks that whats good for us is too good for them.
See. You can tell its going to take a long time there since people still don’t quite get it here.
Oh. I do nothing. But you want something. I see. I have to concede you win on this point. Like the last one, because I’m against woman hating theocrats, it means i’m quite content with them.
Uh, I don’t know about you, but they’re going to have to raise the enlistment age (or extend the IIRR coverage) a few more clicks before I am covered.
First thing we do is expand the size of our armed services. Reinstitute the draft. MANDATE ROTC on all campuses. Down the road, we are going to need many hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, to protect our interests.
Stop dropping bombs. It just creates more enemies.
In Iraq, we should be “hedgehogging” in strategic locations (that includes strategic=oil) and hunker down. Let the Iraqis solve their own problems. They don’t need us getting blown up. But—who’s kidding whom—we need the oil, and it is in our NATIONAL INTEREST to control world oil. Period. (That’s one of the reasons we need the people.)
We are not going to be able to “control” the transitional chaos in the middle east, which has to do with demographics and social changes, and a lot less with “madmen” running the show. What we want to do is “MANAGE” this transitional chaos IN OUR INTEREST. That means, on the one hand, we have to support corrupt monarchies, dictatorships, on the one hand, while at the same time, supporting whichever insurgency is more powerful. Cynical? No. I am concerned with America’s over-riding control of world oil, nothing else.
As far as Al Qaeda: these are symptoms of the larger issues, sort of like Anarchism and Syndicalism were symptomatic of pre-WW1 Europe’s problems. How do we deal with them? Kill them when we find them. This may not be “right”, but it is a legitimate survival issue.
I would also toy with the idea of very strict immigration and visa requirements which would specifically target Arabs and Muslims of all kinds. I have some misgivings about this. However this may be a necessary survival expedient.
Right now the US is not going to fight anywhere else because we don’t have the manpower to do it. I expect we will be in Iraq for many years to come now. So, unless we expand our armed services, raise taxes, and generally advocate the militarization of our culture, we will be short-handed as future war scenarios emerge. As recent events show, having all the smart bombs in the world but no small arms (or people to handle them) makes you a helpless giant.
First, taxes. Second, draft. Third, mobilization. If you want a real “war on terror” aka war for the control of world oil and war for the control of the islamic world in transition, there will be plenty to sacrifice. Unless you war want World War IV Lite, which is what we are doing now.
steve, besides you saying’ that the message ain’t gettin’ out “…because no one is being asked to make any sacrifices, except our service people,” I agree with everything else you’ve written.
I can think of one recent example of attempts at civil sacrifice that you may have forgotten, though: I call it the “Duct Tape Bind.”
Back in ‘03 or 04 (goin’ from memory here) our Department of Homeland Security attempted to enlist all us civilians in our own self-defense. DHS created an impressive safety list for home-owners to use should they be caught in a chemical attack, and one of the items recommended on the list was Duct tape. In the event of a chemical attack, it was to be used to seal our windows, doors and vents from the poisoned external air.
This serious, common-sense idea was pilloried in the mainstream press for days. At a time of war against terrorist sponsors with histories of chemical weapons use, exactly when the public most needed to learn about home-protective techniques like home-sealing, the MSM was ridiculing self-reliant Americans armed with Duct tape. [Why?]
Whatever you do, do NOT question their patriotism.
-Steve
Speaking purely as a current serving officer (and prior enlisted man)… NO, NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO! This is not WWII – more bodies does not equal a better military. I only want people that WANT to be there.
Creates more dead enemies, to be sure. Funny thing is, our enemies would sure like us to stop fighting back/”dropping bombs” too. The Talib would especially appreciate it if they stopped being killed by US and Coalition aircraft (or artillery).
I believe they still require military oversite, but are getting much closer to independantly performing that task.
I don’t know about raising taxes (perhaps redistributing more social program money), but we definately need more money for defense.
I think instituting the draft would go over like a lead-balloon, but mandatory civil service would be very effective (similar to the Israelis).
Mobilization. Absolutely.
Great response steve. I like your direction.
World War IV Lite? Better than Fort Pat Buchanan America/Let God sort ‘em out.
No. We won’t.
No, it doesn’t.
Jesus, precisely wrong. We need to draw down the number of troops as we replace them with Iraqis and keep a constant press into areas where even Saddam never controlled, which happens to be nearly everywhere. If you hunker down, you become immobile. If you lose mobility, you die. Period.
Perhaps like Abu Sayaf, the Taliban, Ansar Al Sunnah, Hamas, and Hezb’allah?
You. Need. To. “Re”-think. That.
We need to use our armed forces, not expand them. We could triple our forces in Iraq and have nothing to show for it, while if we cut the forces by 3/4s but allowed them to fight, we would smash our enemies.
First, would put us into recession and wouldn’t matter one bit. We don’t need 13,000 warships to destroy our enemies.
Second would give us inferior material and morale, both of which are critical to this battle where we need to minimize casualties [ed. you jackass] and fight in the world’s most difficult environments [ed. you jackass].
Third. To where? You fight small wars with small forces. This is not rocket science here, steve.
Why is it everytime some armchair strategist talks about “sacrifice” it usually ends up being the standard call for a draft, more taxes and the other Dem talking points?
Because of the LACK OF SACRIFICINGNESSTHINGIESTUFF!
I would see it more as a betterment of our youth. A civil service program where they choose between military enlistment, national forest improvement, logistics, paper pushing, ect. would teach them some values and help their country.
The brats these days are nerve-racking.
Hey, we could call ‘em…Komsomol? Little Octobrists?
The CCC and WPA were bad ideas back in the day, even the New Dealers let them die off? I’d rather not revive them.
Oh, and “teach them some values”? C’mon! Our flippin’ schools don’t/won’t/are not allowed to do that – but some sort of massive corvee run by the upstanding folks that inhabit AFSCME and the like are going to churn out lots of little libertarian freedom lovers?!
Oh and if the “youth” are all going to be dragged off to count trees or enlist or whatnot – what effect does that have on our economy? Do you forbid these kids from going to college until they have “served”? Who gets deferred? How long do they “serve”? Do they get paid? Do they get benefits/insurance? WHO is going to pay for this?
(…and Major John beats me to it and says it a lot better than I could.)
Nate,
OK, ranting over – you were just joshin’ right?
What war is that, steve? The war in Iraq? Or the war with Islamic fascism?
What exactly is it that the majority of the American people think we ought not be fighting?
tw: Group! Better yet. What group ought we disengage from?
I’m a product of the Boy Scouts and now recognize the values that helped transform me into a productive citizen. I think that a significant portion of our youth could benefit greatly from a structured environment.
Is it Pie In The Sky? Of course.
I see too many 20-somethings still living at home without any idea of how to enter society. There has to be a better way.
Also in my world, gum-drop trees dot the landscape with a river of chocolate winding along.
PSYCHE!
hehehehehehehe
Sorry Major John. I couldn’t resist it.
Electing the Dems = Sacrificing stuff.
You know what? I agree with that.
The non-facist version of Islam I have heard about supposedly teaches equality amoung the sexes but I haven’t seen it practically applied. However, if that change could be arranged I’d be on board with it.
I have to be even handed.
Actus, that’s a good idea.
Tw: We haven’t agreed often, but I’m with you on that statement.
OK, first-off: actus, in order for the soft bigotry of low expectations to equate to “only” pushing the ideas and ideals of the Enlightenment and not all the side-crap like modern “feminism” and modern “progressivism,” somehow I’d have to be brainwashed into believing that the side-crap is more important than the Enlightenment. I have serious doubts that you can make a convincing case. (I’m not speaking of universal suffrage, which grows out of the Enlightenment, but of a worldview that posits the superiority of the female on the basis that women don’t go to war very often. Pah!)
And second, Pablo, my husband is of the original Adams clan, and while so far he hasn’t dropped dead while passing through Massachusetts, he does tend to put the pedal to the metal.
well, its not so much that its more important. its that we had the enlightenment, and then we had plenty of work left to do in the 20th century.
But are you against men hating theocrats…or are you quite content with them? See, we need to make a distinction here right now. Because words have meaning, atcus.
The problem, Rob B., is that there is currently no official gender equality-seeking entity in the western world either. “Feminism” has been co-opted by gender feminists and gender feminists have nothing to do with either feminism or gender equality.
This is a vastly important distinction, one that need’s pointing out far prior to actus’ irresponsible fantasy of somehow inducing sudden gender equality in the mideast by using western “feminism” to do so. Ain’t happening, either ideologically or functionally.
As an organized entity eminating from Washington DC and your statehouse, feminism simply isn’t about gender equality. Using it to apply new values to the mideast is folly, and not just because the looney Left is so sanctimoniously culturally sensitive as they would have us believe they are.
Which may be one of the reasons it isn’t even close to happening: It’s simply impossible and the proponents of official misandry over here realize that. Although it’d be a complete hoot to watch them try, at least on the basis of the strategies and tactics that have corrupted “feminism” as badly as they clearly have.
More than likely there’s another dynamic at play: Organized feminism is simply all about the cash flow in and around Washington DC and those 50 statehouses. The name of that game is socialist law (and far worse) and hating both Republicans and conservatives is Job One.
In order to enact atcus’ little fantasy, NOW’ers would have to (1) abandon their sugardaddy’s leftist anti-war anti-US roots, (2) adopt conservative values and return to actually advocating gender equality, thus losing the economic prize, and (3) then translate that set of principles among the most uncivilized, bigoted bunch of louts on earth. I don’t see any of those things occuring and certainly not all of them in rapid succession.
Contemporary feminism has absolutely no interest in reforming the middle east and its very real economic disencentive explains why they appear to abhor the rights of middle eastern women. We shouldn’t think that any noble cause, including this one, will give up the power or the cash just for ideology. Assuming the ideology is itself principled, which this one in particular certainly is not.
tell you the truth I never heard of a woman hating theocrat that also did not have hate for men. Mysoginy isn’t so good for men you know.
See, I say its going to take a long time, and 6Gun reads ‘sudden.’ Maybe this helps explain other parts of your misdealings with what you imagine to represent all of feminism.
Whos talking about NOW?
Read: I still got nothing. Except a mouth.
You had plenty of opportunity to flesh out your little solution, actuse, but you characteristically squandered it. You got nothing.
6Gun sez:
Well, there is the Father’s Rights crowd, but I know you knew that. And I suppose they’re not “official”.
By official, I meant instituted and functioning as policy correcting legislated sexism, Pablo. Or even correcting PC misandry in society’s eye so as to directy do so.
To my knowledge, there’s no entity performing such a task although there is plenty of grass roots pushback that may yet coalesce into effective policy one day.
Meanwhile actus’ little “liberal feminist progress” can’t possibly represent the NOW, can it?
You know, i never imagined that we were going to expect national (the “N” part in “NOW”) lobbying organizations to be the ones doing this work. I know I have plenty of opportunity: its going to take a long time. To you I know that means ‘sudden,’ but i’m sure you have a practiced ear for listening when it comes to women’s issues. From the little i’ve discoursed with you, I have been able to realize your immense capacity to listen.
How could someone overlook the Father’s Rights people as a gender-equality movement? It really escapes me.
Everything does. Discoursing isn’t one of your talents, asshole, wriggling directly away from fact and reason is.
actus. The Gollum of the Internets.
I concur. And they’re not there yet, though they’re eligible for the nomenclature should the right circumstances come to pass.
But some
Typing Telephone Polesfolks have Daddy issues, and they know who’s somewhat less equal than others morequalifiedequal.Does it make any sense to you, actus?
That someone into Father’s rights would pitch it as being about ‘gender equality’? It makes perfect sense.
So what is it about actus?
tw: In English, please.
By the way, actus, this “liberal feminist progress†that could reform the mideast, is this to be an external influence or will it spring from within? After a thousand years.
You know what the “W” part in “NOW” is and what their work is about, don’t you counselor?
I sense you being somewhat less than forthcoming on this issue, actus. Please elaborate.
tw: myself
Well, fathers.
Some genius above talked about me “somehow inducing sudden gender equality” in the middle east. It looks like they got the part where we in the West are having in a hand in this. But they missed out the part where it would take a long time.
Fathers doing exactly what, actus?
How so, exactly?
(I can keep this shit up all day, actard, but it makes me feel guilty doing it on somebody else’s blog. You?
See, as usual you’re completely upside down in something you brought upon yourself. What should we call that chronic condition?
Anyway, how about we take this over to your space and I kick your rhetorical teeth in over there instead?
You haven’t done this poorly since, well, yesterday, a thread or two back…)
steve, look on the bright side.
YOU WILL BE RIGHT eventually. Taxes – the Democrats will raise taxes the very next time they have the power. Too bad congress will use it to buy more votes. Mobilization – right after the next major attack on the U.S. the American public will be mobilized. For a while. The draft – Democrats will panic and introduce the draft, sooner or later. Republicans will go along because they’re stupid. Half of boot camp will be sensitivity training. You will get to see how your plan works out. I hope you enjoy it.
Right now I want to see how the plan to stay in Iraq and keep fighting until after the Iraqi army is ready to go works out. I think the idea of stabbing the dagger of modernity into the heart of Islamic fascist territory was brilliant. Harder than I expected, sure. So what.
FYI, look up the Phoney War at the start of WWII in 1939. It didn’t look like a world war then. I hope we don’t look back on this period as our generation’s phoney war on terror.
tw: cost
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
(We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. But not until everyone else does it too.)
Having more rights than they do now, is what i’m guessing.
The part where they used the word ‘inducing.’ This same genius also started thinking that NOW would have to get involved. So they also were thinking about something happening here in the West, or being done in the West, to cause changes over there in the middle east. They were putting the onus in the wrong place—a lobbying organization, rather than someone that enacts policy, but they got the general gist that this wasn’t something what would spring up all on its own.
Yes. Discussing with you. I know. I bring it upon myself. Really.
So actus, how is that liberalizing the Middle East thing going?
When are you going to sign up to pass out flowers on the street corners of Riyadh?
Chickenfeminist.
So you’re guessing that fathers—men—are seeking more rights than they already have. Brilliant. And why would they undertake this mission, en masse?
How would you propose changing about a thousand years of criminal gender bias, actus? Injections?
Is “inducing” still not general enough to allow you to wriggle out of something you foolishly shot your mouth off about before thinking? Thought I was doing you a favor.
Let’s go with “installing” then. How will you install “feminism”, actus? What is this, the third time I’ve asked?
I’d asked you about your “liberal feminist progressâ€Â. Well? Not the NOW or it’s policy or its ideology? Some other liberals then?
Who? How?
Where else to acquire this “liberal feminist progressâ€Â, actus? Iran? The Sauds?
Lobbies don’t enact policy, actus?
Or are you asserting that since legislators in democratic constitutial republics actually, physically enact policy brought to them as proposed legislation by special interest that we need a democratic constitutional republic in, say, Iraq in order to give the voters, acting in spontaneous “feminist” fashion to lobby their representatives to seek only their special interest, their rather sudden opportunity to, well, install a “feminism” of sorts?
Which asks then, which feminism? Theirs? Erupting spontaneously amid a thousand years of gross discrimination?
You know, the kind that seeks gender equality and not gender opportunism.
Nate, I prefer a lake of stew and one of whisky too, you can paddle all around them in a big canoe…
I understand dubya’s got some sort of activity in that area. You can understand why I dont trust him, dick and rummy to spread liberal progressive feminist values. But htey have gotten some things right, like insisting on women in parliament, etc..
Because they want more rights.
They could help to make it. But usually its the government that does policy.
So it looks like all along we had the answer to your question: Its not going to spring from inside. All you had to do was think about it for a bit.
More about “spreading.” Same ways we’ve done it here. Legal and cultural changes, which sometimes require state force to maintain. Go back over time and read conservative commentators bemoaning the fall of old cultural hierarchies and norms. They’ll be pointing to things, blaming things for this. Those are the things we can use to spread freedom. Sometimes they’ll be guns. But they’ll also be culture.
So, when are you signing up, princess?
For legal and cultural changes? That’s my life’s work!
Talk about rolling the boulder up the hill…
So when are you shipping out?
What are these values that George Bush, dick, and rummy are working to curtail then, actus?
Why? Don’t they have enough? If so, why not? Please cite cause and effect, actus.
What policy should Bush, dick and rummy’s government initiate, advocate, enforce, create, etc., actus? How? Why? How would it then infiltrate the mideast?
Where, then? From whence your “liberal feminist progress”, actus? Non-NOW Liberals? Non-NOW progressives? Answer me.
Which “legal” changes and by what impetus and mechanism? From within or without? How? Why? Which state’s “force”? What do you mean by “force”?
Coercion? Subterfuge? Democratic process? Waiting another thousand years for something to change to then resemble undefined but presumably honorable non-NOW “feminism”?
So you support the war in Iraq then. Check. But which culture? One that’s yet to exist? Ours? Turkey’s? Ireland’s?
Can you elaborate or shall we deduce the flavor of this unbridled devotion to a new progressive utopia only you can see and need therefore share with nobody?
Seems we’ve done a fairly perceptive job of that already, wouldn’t you agree?
Dude, actus has to stay back and conduct key internal functions. This stuff isn’t for sissies.
tw: Space. The final frontier.
I’m amazed you guys keep banging your head against the actus.
Is it because it feels sooo good when you stop?