Sunnis Hit After Shiite Shrine Blast

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


May I suggest that Slowwhand is not a neo-con? His approach to foreign policy sounds more naively "jacksonian" in the Walter Russel Meade typology, and isnt leavened as much with Wilsonianism as "neoconism" is.

Do you have a link explaining that typology so that a layman non-Murkan may understand? Nothing leaves me more confused than when people start blathering about "jacksonians" et sim. as if those were commonly understood terms.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
It's not a matter of taking Iraq to raise.
If we stayed there for the foreseeable future, you're saying you would have no complaints?
The reason we're there, again, was to remove Hussein for breaking the cease fire, and he did break it.
Now, screw it. They had their elections, and now they'll have their civil war.

You may be trying to position this into a response you want, but these are the facts.

Brilliant. Leave them to their civil war then, eh? Even if one were to assume that we bear no responsibility for that civil war, how does that further our interests? Afganistan springs to mind. Letting Iraq fall into total chaos only helps our enemies (terrorists such as A-Q).

I reject the idea that we would bear no responsibility for an Iraqi civil war, however. If you remove a government and dismantle the entire power structure of a nation, you are responsible - at least in part - for replacing it (or, given that we're going for democracy here, facilitating its replacement). The occupying power (the coalition) has a responsibility here.

Of course, our government created this situation to remove the dire threat of Saddam, who was supposedly buying yellow cake, working on nukes, etc., etc. Except he wasn't, and was thoroughly contained. Oops. Bad man? Absolutely. Security threat? Not really. Worth "taking out" ? How's it looking, Sloww? How in the HELL did this cluster**** serve the interests of the United States?

-Arrian

p.s. note: said "cluster****" includes leaving now and the resulting civil war.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I'm calling Paleocons the old line and traditional conservatives which differ remarkablely from the Bush style conservative (which is now universally called a neo-con). The paleo-con actually believes in small government and cutting it, in low taxes, and limited government involvement. They're the people who got Reagan elected even if Reagan took a crap on them. People like Bush pretend to be old style conservatives but really they're all for massive pork spending if it helps his party and himself, they don't bother taking principled stands on issues like the old cons did, and basically they have all the downsides of old style conservatives (a government which doesn't bother looking after people) with none of the upside (a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility).

People like Bruce Bartlett are the old style conservatives who actually want a smaller government, a balanced budget, and respect for traditional checks and balances on government power along with limited government involvement in social issues. People like Bush love government involvement in social issues they just want the government to forced everyone to follow their views (in abortion, in euthinasia, in spying on citizens without warrents, etc...), they love to spend more if it gets the party reelected, and they're anti-science when ever doing so helps people who give them lots of money.

Many of the conservatives who want government involvement in social issues, are folks like Pat Buchanan and his followers, who are sworn enemies of the neocons, and are often called paleocons. OTOH Bill Kristol, afaict, is not too happy with the Bush spending initiatives.

So it seems to me that by Neocon you really mean "bush supporter" and by paleocon you really mean any conservative who opposes bush admin policies. Why not just say so, instead of using the misleading term neocon?

"(which is now universally called a neo-con). "

Er no, thats not the universal usage, by any means.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Do you have a link explaining that typology so that a layman non-Murkan may understand? Nothing leaves me more confused than when people start blathering about "jacksonians" et sim. as if those were commonly understood terms.

heres a somewhat simplistic and perhaps biased link, but best i could come up with with little effort

http://www.lts.com/~cprael/Meade_FAQ.htm

Meades article

http://www.lts.com/~cprael/jackson.html

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Do you have a link explaining that typology so that a layman non-Murkan may understand? Nothing leaves me more confused than when people start blathering about "jacksonians" et sim. as if those were commonly understood terms.

Jacksonian response - well, hell, why should i explain it to a damned foreigner?

Hamiltonian - I'll sell you a response.

Wilsonian - I'll provide you some links, so you can understand america better, and we can work with our european friends to make the world a better place

Jeffersonian - this isnt important, Id really like to learn more from you about socialism in Sweden, so we can make America a better place.

[Wycoff]

That first link lost me, LOTM. It calls W a Jacksonian. W. may have run for election in 2000 as a Jacksonian, his subsequent foreign policy is about as Wilsonian as they come.

[Arrian]

It's Jacksonian with a veneer of Wilson.

-Arrian

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Arrian
It's Jacksonian with a veneer of Wilson.

-Arrian

It's more than a veneer. The neocons are Wilsonian to the core... America's great moral crusade to convert the world to Democracy is 21st century Wilson.

Even if you're completely cynical and believe that Iraq was a complete product of corporate interest and without any real ideological component, that still wouldn't fall under Jacksonianism. That's more like Hamiltonian, with the elite business interests deciding foreign policy on what's best for their businesses, not on what's best for the country.

I'd say the paleocons are the Jacksonians. Nation building at the expense of America's national interests seems to be anathema to anything Jacksonian.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wycoff


Nation building at the expense of America's national interests seems to be anathema to anything Jacksonian.

but going in with a small force to show how tough we are, and not enough force to effectively nationbuild, does sound Jacksonian after a fashion. Combined with pissing off allies. Rummy certainly sounds Jacksonian, if Wolfowitz wasnt.

Actually im not sure the Meade typology really explains everything. I really dont think Bill Kristol is a Wilsonian, despite his stand on democratization. It does give a pretty good explanation of the reactions of some people, though.

[Arrian]

Ok, I can agree with most of that. I don't know that Bush himself is really a neocon (and thus Wilsonian). Perhaps more Rooseveltian?

-Arrian

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by lord of the mark but going in with a small force to show how tough we are, and not enough force to effectively nationbuild, does sound Jacksonian after a fashion. Combined with pissing off allies. Rummy certainly sounds Jacksonian, if Wolfowitz wasnt.

From his description, it seems as if it would have been more "Jacksonian" to have entered Iraq with overwhelming force.

What we did was largely predicated upon the belief that we'd come in and be welcomed as heroes because we were bringing Democracy. The "evil" Baathist leaders would be swept away, to be replaced by the democratic leaders (because all people are naturally liberal, of course). We wouldn't need as many soldiers, because we were making Iraq safe for democracy, and it would inevitably catch on, just like it did in Europe in the 20s and 30s.

This sounds pretty Wilsonian to me.

[lord of the mark]

maybe we should retire the term wilsonian?

Woodie believed that the internal working of states mattered, and that democracy would mean peace, AND that international organizations would be effective means of maintaining that organization and that peace. He didnt live to see the League in action, or the UN during the cold war. Its not clear if he would have dispensed with the mulilateralism (neocons) dispensed with the democracy promotion (the folks who think any US military action not triggered by imminent threat needs UNSC sanction, and who opposed Kosovo as well as the OIF) or somewhere in between (Clinton-Albright-Biden-Blair?)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wycoff


From his description, it seems as if it would have been more "Jacksonian" to have entered Iraq with overwhelming force.

What we did was largely predicated upon the belief that we'd come in and be welcomed as heroes because we were bringing Democracy. The "evil" Baathist leaders would be swept away, to be replaced by the democratic leaders (because all people are naturally liberal, of course). We wouldn't need as many soldiers, because we were making Iraq safe for democracy, and it would inevitably catch on, just like it did in Europe in the 20s and 30s.

This sounds pretty Wilsonian to me.

Did we go with so small a force cause we thought a big force would discourage the naturally liberal locals from solving their own problems, or cause we wanted to show the world what we could do with only 4 divisions (MtG has said it was really the latter, and he used some more choice language about it) I dont think we'll really know the answer for some time, till the memoirs are written, etc.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wycoff


From his description, it seems as if it would have been more "Jacksonian" to have entered Iraq with overwhelming force.

What we did was largely predicated upon the belief that we'd come in and be welcomed as heroes because we were bringing Democracy. The "evil" Baathist leaders would be swept away, to be replaced by the democratic leaders (because all people are naturally liberal, of course). We wouldn't need as many soldiers, because we were making Iraq safe for democracy, and it would inevitably catch on, just like it did in Europe in the 20s and 30s.

This sounds pretty Wilsonian to me.

Clinton-Albright-Blair were certainly following the same Wilsonian belieft in Kosovo, yet the ratio of boots on the ground to population and area was considerably greater, IIUC.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Woodie believed that the internal working of states mattered, and that democracy would mean peace, AND that international organizations would be effective means of maintaining that organization and that peace. He didnt live to see the League in action, or the UN during the cold war. Its not clear if he would have dispensed with the mulilateralism (neocons) dispensed with the democracy promotion (the folks who think any US military action not triggered by imminent threat needs UNSC sanction, and who opposed Kosovo as well as the OIF) or somewhere in between (Clinton-Albright-Biden-Blair?)

Wilson also refused any cooperation unless it was on his terms (hence his failure to compromise on the League of Nations with Lodge). He thought that he had a monopoly on what was right and what was wrong. I think that he would have supported Clinton in Kosovo and W in Iraq, so long as they framed it in the proper moral rhetoric.

I bet that he would have seen the UN rebuff to America's goals in Iraq as the manifestation of their moral corruption, and he would have endorsed the "coalition of the willing" as proof of multi-lateral support given to America's moral and just invasion. The fact that the U.N. was against him would have been meaningless. Wilson had no problem being a hypocrite (fighting a war to end imperialism by allying with the world's biggest empires, claiming to be at war with the German government but not the German peoples yet supporting the British blockade even after the war had ended, etc.)

As you can tell, I'm not a fan of Wilson.