(09-10-2009 11:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  A) You didn't know with any certainty prior to the release of the speech (which wouldn't have happened without the complaints) that the topic would be STRICTLY about education.

Nope, I didn't. I still would've been okay with letting President Pat Buchanan speak to my kids. I would've assumed going in that I disagreed with some of what he'd say, but I'd read the speech and talk out any issues.

(09-10-2009 11:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  B) Writing letters to the President about how they could help him has nothing to do with staying in school, but we let it slide. It has to do with another noble cause... service to the country. There is perhaps no greater service than our military. Is it REALLY that big a stretch to envision a direct "Uncle Sam Wants You" appeal to children in the even of a more hostile global environment as there was in WWII?? As a parent, do you want that appeal being made to your 9 yr old without you present?? I didn't think so. The Complaint is now, and always has been (at least from me) that I don't want ANY person of such great influence speaking to my children without my specific permission... and certainly wouldn't want "the school system" sanctioning it. I don't care if he IS the President... I'm the father.

If the appeal to my 9-year-old is something that could physically or psychologically harm him/her, then yes I'd want to be present. Otherwise, I'll read the speech and deal with any issues later. I just don't see it as big deal.

(09-10-2009 11:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It DID happen... They DID rally and many schools didn't show it, or required permission... and Obama released a transcript before the speech. Some parents even kept their children home. That is EXACTLY what should have happened... and it did... but it wasn't what Obama planned.

Not sure why you're saying that complaints before the fact are the same thing as a rebuttal, but it appears that what you wanted to happen, happened. So what's the issue?

(09-10-2009 11:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As to your suggestion... You just don't get the complaint. I have a job... I shouldn't have to skip work to keep my 9yr old child from listening to a speech DESCRIBED as being about education. There was no guarantee that it would stick to that topic... and while it wasn't eggregious, it didn't. Public Service isn't about staying in school... and not one single person on this or any other board can say with any certainty that the speech we heard was the speech originally intended before the complaints.

If it wasn't important enough for you to attend in person, there are other ways attend in spirit. Read the speech or watch the youtube video [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iqsxCWjCvI ] and discuss with your kids that evening. Heck, watch the video with them and let them have your real-time commentary.

(09-10-2009 11:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  THE PRESIDENT IS NOT MY CHILD'S PARENT. HE SHOULD NOT BE ADDRESSING MY CHILD WITHOUT MY PERMISSION ON ANY TOPIC AT ANY TIME WITHOUT MY CONSENT.

I don't know how much clearer I can be.

I AM AWARE HE IS NOT YOUR CHILD'S PARENT. I AM NOT SURE WHY WE ARE YELLING.

If you feel that strongly, a feeling I still don't understand, there were plenty of ways of withholding your consent and disallowing him to address your kids.

(09-10-2009 11:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I hate to paraphrase the nutjobs... but its not as if Hitler came to power by saying we should kill all the Jews. He came to power saying "serve your country".... and he made a big push with the children. NO, I don't believe that Obama or anyone else has designs like that... it is an extreme example to make a point.

Please clarify your point.

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Yet you are falling into the exact same trap. Reagan's speech in 1988 wasn't broadcast to millions of schoolchildren at the same time. This isn't in ANY WAY the same forum with the same impact. By comparing it to that, you completely miss the significance of context... which only serves to prove my point that just because THIS speech didn't go too far... that there is some guarantee that 20 years from now someone wont... and they'll be saying... C'mon... Obama did exactly the same thing in 2009 when he talked to kids about getting involved in the political process by writing letters to the President.

This slippery-slope argument of what might happen in 20yrs just doesn't do anything for me. If the president abuses such a forum, let's deal with it then.

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  C'mon people... this is a smart group of people... SURELY we're not this naive.

I see you're extremely concerned with what COULD have been said.
Please tell me, what in your mind would be the long term repercussions of the worst-case-scenario most politically influential speech?

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Nazi Germany is perhaps the worst case scenario of an influential politician who appealed directly to children. I don't have that personal fear... but there are an AWFUL lot of bad things between here and there. A continued move towards reliance upon the government is a real concern I have. Had he said something as simple as "I'm trying to provide afordable healthcare for EVERYONE"... so go home and tell your parents to support me... I'd have to either ignore my child... which makes him think I don't value him... or engage in a conversation with him perhaps WAY beyond his ability to comprehend.

Good, an example.
I don't think you'd just ignore your child on this point (not that I know you, but I think it's a reasonable guess), so that would leave you in a conversation with him. I'd think this would actually be a fantastic opportunity to expose your kid to your way of thinking. Certainly he wouldn't understand all the nuances, but it's a great time to expose him to some surprising and/or subtle concepts (e.g., just because we want to provide everyone with something doesn't mean we'll be capable of achieving it, or giving something for free actually harms people because they've got no motivation to work for it, or whatever your individual reasons are for opposing Obama's approach to universal healthcare.)

I think that could turn out be a good think. An example from the other side of the line would've been post-9/11 talk of America's enemies hating us for our freedoms and our beliefs. I think I would have taken that as a perfect time to talk to kids about how the 9/11 attacks were evil, and that there are in fact people out there who hate us, but that some of that hatred comes from the way we treat the rest of the world. And that we need to consider our actions by not just how they benefit us but how they impact everyone else.
I doubt I'd broach that topic apropos of nothing, even though I think it's very important and I'd want my kids to hear my beliefs on the issue.

edit: fixed the quote tags

(09-14-2009 09:00 AM)JOwl Wrote:  there are in fact people out there who hate us, but that some of that hatred comes from the way we treat the rest of the world.

elaborate with regard to 9/11?

because we've tried to broker peace on numerous occasions in the middle East?

because we buy their oil?

because we didn't completely wipe Iraq out in the Gulf War?

because we didn't allow Iraq to swallow up its neighbors a decade earlier?

because we supported economic sanctions of Iraq when they refused to comply with UN resolutions?

because of something that happened over 50 years ago with the shah in Iran?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we're perfect. Are you implying our actions have to be perfect with regard to everyone else on all occasions and at all times?

Should the British be universally hated dating back to the days of their colonial empire?

What would the world look like if the Taliban and al-Quida had their say?

What could the U.S. do to appease them for our wrongful behavior?

(09-14-2009 09:21 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 09:00 AM)JOwl Wrote:  there are in fact people out there who hate us, but that some of that hatred comes from the way we treat the rest of the world.

elaborate with regard to 9/11?
because we've tried to broker peace on numerous occasions in the middle East?
because we buy their oil?
because we didn't completely wipe Iraq out in the Gulf War?
because we didn't allow Iraq to swallow up its neighbors a decade earlier?
because we supported economic sanctions of Iraq when they refused to comply with UN resolutions?
because of something that happened over 50 years ago with the shah in Iran?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we're perfect. Are you implying our actions have to be perfect with regard to everyone else on all occasions and at all times?
Should the British be universally hated dating back to the days of their colonial empire?
What would the world look like if the Taliban and al-Quida had their say?
What could the U.S. do to appease them for our wrongful behavior?

Because we try to micromanage them into little westerners.
Because we tell them that their women's veils have to come off.
Because we come in and build roads and bridges and schools and hospitals and water and sewer systems when if Allah had meant for them to have those things he wouldn't have sent a bunch of infidels to provide them.

You may not agree with that line of reasoning. Some of it strikes westerners as patently ridiculous. But that's the thought process, particularly among many of the more militant mullahs, and we need to understand that if we are to accomplish anything.

Again, perhaps strange to westerners, but being brutal and destructive doesn't really bother them as much as some of these other things. They are brutal and destructive of others, and the others around them are brutal and destructive toward them, so it's a way of life they understand. They've lived that way for thousands of years. They understand force. They understand overwhelming force even more clearly. What they don't understand are western notions like feminism.

The British did some pretty brutal things, but they aren't hated nearly as much because they didn't go to the lengths to micromanage their colonies that we have. India was a commercial venture, and the Brits left the local rulers in charge of local affairs as long as Britain got the economic benefit.

China is making great headway in Africa right now as a commercial proposition. They're not getting Chinese soldiers killed to do it. They can do that because they are a producer nation with cash to burn. As a debtor nation, we must rely much more on military force to sustain our influence.

In the post-Cold-War era, economic power is going to be more significant than military power. We ignore that lesson at our peril. Right now the republicans are in love with military power and the democrats are in love with shackling our economy, so neither party has a clue.

(09-14-2009 10:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 09:21 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 09:00 AM)JOwl Wrote:  there are in fact people out there who hate us, but that some of that hatred comes from the way we treat the rest of the world.

elaborate with regard to 9/11?
because we've tried to broker peace on numerous occasions in the middle East?
because we buy their oil?
because we didn't completely wipe Iraq out in the Gulf War?
because we didn't allow Iraq to swallow up its neighbors a decade earlier?
because we supported economic sanctions of Iraq when they refused to comply with UN resolutions?
because of something that happened over 50 years ago with the shah in Iran?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we're perfect. Are you implying our actions have to be perfect with regard to everyone else on all occasions and at all times?
Should the British be universally hated dating back to the days of their colonial empire?
What would the world look like if the Taliban and al-Quida had their say?
What could the U.S. do to appease them for our wrongful behavior?

Because we try to micromanage them into little westerners.
Because we tell them that their women's veils have to come off.
Because we come in and build roads and bridges and schools and hospitals and water and sewer systems when if Allah had meant for them to have those things he wouldn't have sent a bunch of infidels to provide them.

I buy #3. Were #1 and #2 REALLY true, at least prior to our kicking the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan? or Saddam out of power in Iraq?

I thought Saddam was doing a little of #1 and #2 on this own.

(09-14-2009 11:44 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 10:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Because we try to micromanage them into little westerners.
Because we tell them that their women's veils have to come off.
Because we come in and build roads and bridges and schools and hospitals and water and sewer systems when if Allah had meant for them to have those things he wouldn't have sent a bunch of infidels to provide them.

I buy #3. Were #1 and #2 REALLY true, at least prior to our kicking the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan? or Saddam out of power in Iraq?
I thought Saddam was doing a little of #1 and #2 on this own.

I would say that #1 and #2 were true on some level at least as far back as I spent my first time in the Middle East (1970).

They were certainly true prior to 9/11, which is prior to our kicking the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan. The women in veils thing was specifically pushed (along with a number of other westernizations) by Osama bin Laden.

I would say that it was Shah Pahlevi, more so than Saddam, who tried to do #1 and #2. That's what got him kicked out. It wasn't his disdain for human rights; heck, the regime that replaced him has a much worse record of human rights violations (at least, measured by western standards) than he did. But the ayatollahs couldn't stand for the westernization and modernization that he was pushing.

We think we can solve the problems by turning them into nice little western democracies. The people who hate us don't want that. And the more we try to do it, the more they're going to hate us. So we can basically give up on the idea of western democracies or we can kill everybody who hates us--or we can expect another 9/11. I think that's an accurate listing of our options.

So basically the US is evil because we encourage democritization and that is why we should apologize, withdraw to our own borders, and understand how the hatred against us is our own fault? Mea culpa.

Now I begin to understand some things about current foreign policy, especailly vis-a-vis the Islamic terrorists. Fie on us for sticking to our principles. Hurrah for the Islamacists for sticking to theirs.

Aren't they trying to export their POV to us? I think their goal is for the whole world to be under Islamic law eventually.

Rick, you forgot:

"Because the Pope sent a lot of Christians to the Middle East 1000 years ago and they mostly came from countries that later sent a lot of emigrants to the New World that later became the United States?"

(09-14-2009 02:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So basically the US is evil because we encourage democritization and that is why we should apologize

Is that how you would characterize the primary objective of the US in the Middle East over the past 60 years?

(09-14-2009 12:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 11:44 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 10:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Because we try to micromanage them into little westerners.
Because we tell them that their women's veils have to come off.
Because we come in and build roads and bridges and schools and hospitals and water and sewer systems when if Allah had meant for them to have those things he wouldn't have sent a bunch of infidels to provide them.

I buy #3. Were #1 and #2 REALLY true, at least prior to our kicking the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan? or Saddam out of power in Iraq?
I thought Saddam was doing a little of #1 and #2 on this own.

I would say that #1 and #2 were true on some level at least as far back as I spent my first time in the Middle East (1970).

They were certainly true prior to 9/11, which is prior to our kicking the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan. The women in veils thing was specifically pushed (along with a number of other westernizations) by Osama bin Laden.

I would say that it was Shah Pahlevi, more so than Saddam, who tried to do #1 and #2. That's what got him kicked out. It wasn't his disdain for human rights; heck, the regime that replaced him has a much worse record of human rights violations (at least, measured by western standards) than he did. But the ayatollahs couldn't stand for the westernization and modernization that he was pushing.

We think we can solve the problems by turning them into nice little western democracies. The people who hate us don't want that. And the more we try to do it, the more they're going to hate us. So we can basically give up on the idea of western democracies or we can kill everybody who hates us--or we can expect another 9/11. I think that's an accurate listing of our options.

So are you saying the Shah was trying to modernize Iran under orders from the U.S.?

More specifically, did the U.S. make statements to the effect that the 'veils must come off'.

I understand we supported the Shah, but we support Saudi Arabia as well, and I don't see us materially impacting how they conduct their business.

Is the U.S. really to blame if we are economic partners with a country or regime, and elements in that regime want to modernize or otherwise appreciate what the U.S. brings to the table?

Which brings me back to my other question: If the elements who hate us "for all the bad things we've done" (or "the way we treat the rest of the world" as JOwl would explain to his children), had their way, what would the world look like?

Would there be more freedom? more opportunity? Would their Bill of Rights be the standard (tongue in cheek)?

Look, we aren't perfect. We have a CIA that for years was playing Cold War chess with Russia.

I've asked specifically what we do to micromanage or force cultural change on the folks in the middle east, and the example is that the Shah, who we supported, did things that involved the micromanaging or cultural attacking that the U.S. is blamed for.

The Shah has been gone for 30 plus years.

Personally, I think the U.S. has become the bogeyman for those elements in the middle east who 'hate us'. I understand that.

I'm just not quite on board with the need for us to focus on "the way we treat the rest of the world". I believe those who 'hate us' are going to 'hate us' whether we feel guilty or not, or whether we actually deserve it or not. I don't honestly know if the leaders of those movements really hate us as much as they exploit us as the big huge, honking target we are. If you need someone to blame. . . . .

And as far as U.S. non-involvement, isolationism . . . had the last century played out that way, where would Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and others have ended up? Would there be a South Korea? a Taiwan? an Israel (and I understand that some posting here might think that a good thing)?

I get your point about democracy in the middle East, but then what are our options?

1. Apologize for how badly we've treated these wonderful examples of human rights? You note that trying to Westernize them won't change them. Backing down and admitting we're the bad guys will?

2. Ignore them entirely (seems dangerous, what with Pakistan having the bomb, and the fact that ignoring them won't necessarily keep them from pushing on with their hatred, or their use of the U.S. as the bogeyman). I mean, between 1980 and 9/11, weren't we effectively doing that? How were we engaged negatively there? I guess pushing Iraq back out of Kuwait?

3. Try to change things, bring more freedom and discredit those who paint us as the bodeyman?

There are probably several ways to approach #3. Is there a better way than what we're doing now? If so, where has it worked before? Would that better way realistically produce any better results?

There was a column in today's Chronicle that lines up with a lot of what you've said. What I gleaned from that also supports other editorials I've read recently.

ie., despite the political posturing on the two wars we've been fighting, Iraq has always been the more 'winnable' of the two. And by 'winnable' what I mean is that the infrastructure, culture, levels of advancement, levels of tolerance for Western thought, desire of the population for freedom etc are all arguably much better there than in Afghanistan.

The recent conviction (bank robbery/murder) of guards who were politically connected at the highest level gave some indication that at least in some cases, the rule of law can actually work, even in Baghdad.

I wonder if in the future we'll ever look back and see that in the course of our own political blood-letting, we've let our own politics or the way we wage them, or our need to apologize for the fact that we're the bogeyman, lead us into a series of bad decisions all in the hopes of pleasing voters as opposed to what was in the U.S.'s best long-term interests.

That's not to say that every decision has been good heretofore, but that in our rush to label everything we've done as 'bad' or 'wrong', we've then turned around and made worse decisions.

Frankly if we could capture Bin Laden, I would be all in favor of leaving Afghanistan and focusing our efforts (not necessarily militarily) back on Iraq and in trying to establish better long-term relationships there. Granted it's very messy there. But it's not Iran, and it's not Afghanistan. We've already invested precious capital (and I'm not talking about material things) there, and our potential ROI (again, not talking material things) strikes me as much, much greater.

Eventually roads, bridges, schools and hospitals, water and sewer systems win out over fears of the bogeyman. (using your own point), or at least they have in the past.

(09-14-2009 12:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  [quote='Rick Gerlach' pid='4624273' dateline='1252946659']
We think we can solve the problems by turning them into nice little western democracies. The people who hate us don't want that.

And my question is what percentage of the population in Iraq and Afghanistan are numbered in "the people who hate us", who are absolutely sure that a democracy would be bad? I don't think it's the same number in those two countries.

(09-14-2009 02:41 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 02:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So basically the US is evil because we encourage democritization and that is why we should apologize

Is that how you would characterize the primary objective of the US in the Middle East over the past 60 years?

No. That is how I sarcastically would characterize the position that the hatred against us is the result of our own bad acts, especially the bad act of encouraging democracy, and the resultant idea that apologizing and stopping the encouragement of democracy will soothe the hatred and give us peace.

We are different from the Islamic fundamentalists. As long as we are not exactly like they are, they will hate us. They even hate other Islamic sects because they are different, and different is evil. Irrational? Sure. But religious zealotry is seldom rational.

So even if we withdraw from the Middle East, give up all our economic and military interests there, and abandon Israel to slaughter, they will hate us and target us. I don't see how apologizing is going to change that.

(09-14-2009 02:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So basically the US is evil because we encourage democritization and that is why we should apologize, withdraw to our own borders, and understand how the hatred against us is our own fault? Mea culpa.

Now I begin to understand some things about current foreign policy, especailly vis-a-vis the Islamic terrorists. Fie on us for sticking to our principles. Hurrah for the Islamacists for sticking to theirs.

Aren't they trying to export their POV to us? I think their goal is for the whole world to be under Islamic law eventually.

Rick, you forgot:

"Because the Pope sent a lot of Christians to the Middle East 1000 years ago and they mostly came from countries that later sent a lot of emigrants to the New World that later became the United States?"

And while it doesn't justify the Crusades, it could be added that Christianity was evicted from the Middle East and north Africa (forcibly in many instances) prior to that, but historically that's never part of the discussion.

I think it's because Jesus taught us to 'turn the other cheek' and 'love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.'

So Westerners have this understandable (and perhaps necessary one day) deep seated guilt because we haven't lived up to those commandments a lot of the time, which makes us hypocrites.

Which is why we feel the need to be 'guilty' while overlooking the cultural issues of those who 'make us the bogeyman'?

Maybe we have big, collective knowledge that we should be better than we are, but because the world has always failed miserably to live up to conditions that allow us to better than we are, we fail ourselves.

(09-14-2009 02:53 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 12:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  [quote='Rick Gerlach' pid='4624273' dateline='1252946659']
We think we can solve the problems by turning them into nice little western democracies. The people who hate us don't want that.

And my question is what percentage of the population in Iraq and Afghanistan are numbered in "the people who hate us", who are absolutely sure that a democracy would be bad? I don't think it's the same number in those two countries.

I think the number of people who hate us is pretty close to the same number in both countries, and it's a pretty small number. Unfortunately, when you fight the way they fight it doesn't take a large number to be a problem.

I'm reminded of a quote from Leo Durocher about managing a baseball team, "You've got 8 guys who love you, 8 guys who hate you, and 8 guys who don't give a s**t. The secret to success is keeping the 8 guys who hate you away from the 8 guys who don't give a s**t."

In that vein, I think the key to success is to keep the radicals from inciting the moderates. And that's easier done if we keep a low profile.

Long term, I see two keys to success:
1. Getting to an energy future where we are not dependent on imported oil, so that we can let Japan or Europe or whoever is dependent on their oil deal with the problems. I see nothing in Obama's energy plan to accomplish this.
2. Getting back to being a producer economy rather than a consumer economy, and consequently a creditor nation rather than a debtor nation, so that we can wield some economic muscle instead of having to rely totally on military muscle. I see nothing in Obama's economic plan to accomplish this.

(09-14-2009 02:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So basically the US is evil because we encourage democritization and that is why we should apologize

I would state it a bit differently.

We are stupid because we encourage democratization in an environment where it is not going to work (and if it did work it would make the situation less stable, not more), and that is why we should do something different.

I've found that dealing with Arabs goes pretty well as long as you observe two simple rules:
1. Respect them.
2. Insist that they respect you.

Forcing democracy on them breaks rule 1.
Apologizing for everything we've done breaks rule 2.

Niether Bush nor Obama got it right. Both of them should know a lot better, Bush becuase of his oilpatch connections and Obama because of his upbringing. But IMO each of them is too wedded to predetermined ideological concepts to think of the right approach.

(09-14-2009 02:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  So are you saying the Shah was trying to modernize Iran under orders from the U.S.?
More specifically, did the U.S. make statements to the effect that the 'veils must come off'.
I understand we supported the Shah, but we support Saudi Arabia as well, and I don't see us materially impacting how they conduct their business.
Is the U.S. really to blame if we are economic partners with a country or regime, and elements in that regime want to modernize or otherwise appreciate what the U.S. brings to the table?
Which brings me back to my other question: If the elements who hate us "for all the bad things we've done" (or "the way we treat the rest of the world" as JOwl would explain to his children), had their way, what would the world look like?
Would there be more freedom? more opportunity? Would their Bill of Rights be the standard (tongue in cheek)?
Look, we aren't perfect. We have a CIA that for years was playing Cold War chess with Russia.
I've asked specifically what we do to micromanage or force cultural change on the folks in the middle east, and the example is that the Shah, who we supported, did things that involved the micromanaging or cultural attacking that the U.S. is blamed for.
The Shah has been gone for 30 plus years.
Personally, I think the U.S. has become the bogeyman for those elements in the middle east who 'hate us'. I understand that.
I'm just not quite on board with the need for us to focus on "the way we treat the rest of the world". I believe those who 'hate us' are going to 'hate us' whether we feel guilty or not, or whether we actually deserve it or not. I don't honestly know if the leaders of those movements really hate us as much as they exploit us as the big huge, honking target we are. If you need someone to blame. . . . .
And as far as U.S. non-involvement, isolationism . . . had the last century played out that way, where would Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and others have ended up? Would there be a South Korea? a Taiwan? an Israel (and I understand that some posting here might think that a good thing)?
I get your point about democracy in the middle East, but then what are our options?
1. Apologize for how badly we've treated these wonderful examples of human rights? You note that trying to Westernize them won't change them. Backing down and admitting we're the bad guys will?
2. Ignore them entirely (seems dangerous, what with Pakistan having the bomb, and the fact that ignoring them won't necessarily keep them from pushing on with their hatred, or their use of the U.S. as the bogeyman). I mean, between 1980 and 9/11, weren't we effectively doing that? How were we engaged negatively there? I guess pushing Iraq back out of Kuwait?
3. Try to change things, bring more freedom and discredit those who paint us as the bodeyman?
There are probably several ways to approach #3. Is there a better way than what we're doing now? If so, where has it worked before? Would that better way realistically produce any better results?
There was a column in today's Chronicle that lines up with a lot of what you've said. What I gleaned from that also supports other editorials I've read recently. ie., despite the political posturing on the two wars we've been fighting, Iraq has always been the more 'winnable' of the two. And by 'winnable' what I mean is that the infrastructure, culture, levels of advancement, levels of tolerance for Western thought, desire of the population for freedom etc are all arguably much better there than in Afghanistan.
The recent conviction (bank robbery/murder) of guards who were politically connected at the highest level gave some indication that at least in some cases, the rule of law can actually work, even in Baghdad.
I wonder if in the future we'll ever look back and see that in the course of our own political blood-letting, we've let our own politics or the way we wage them, or our need to apologize for the fact that we're the bogeyman, lead us into a series of bad decisions all in the hopes of pleasing voters as opposed to what was in the U.S.'s best long-term interests.
That's not to say that every decision has been good heretofore, but that in our rush to label everything we've done as 'bad' or 'wrong', we've then turned around and made worse decisions.
Frankly if we could capture Bin Laden, I would be all in favor of leaving Afghanistan and focusing our efforts (not necessarily militarily) back on Iraq and in trying to establish better long-term relationships there. Granted it's very messy there. But it's not Iran, and it's not Afghanistan. We've already invested precious capital (and I'm not talking about material things) there, and our potential ROI (again, not talking material things) strikes me as much, much greater.
Eventually roads, bridges, schools and hospitals, water and sewer systems win out over fears of the bogeyman. (using your own point), or at least they have in the past.

No, I'm not saying the Shah was under orders from the US, although I'd tend to guess that we were in the loop on what he was doing, at least until the Carter administration. I remember sitting in an intel situation brief given to CNO in December 1978, at which the briefing officer stated the official opinion that the Shah was under no imminent threat, and therefore we could push him hard toward reform without risk to him or us. The Shah was gone in February 1979. We were that far out of touch with what was going on in Iran. I don't think we were that out of touch when I was there in 1970-71, and I really don't know how we lost the bubble so badly, but we did.

When I was there the first time, here's how the workings of the situation were explained to me then. Israel was our ally, and we needed Arab oil. So we had this unwritten (and largely unspoken) deal that everybody bought off on. We'd run our relationship with Israel through State Department, and we'd run our relationship with the Muslim countries through Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, Chevron, and Gulf. I always thought it spoke volumes that the foreign embassies to Saudi were located not in Mecca (the legal capital) or Riyadh (the administrative capital and home of the royal family) but in Dhahran (the headquarters for Aramco).

We didn't force the Shah or anyone else to modernize, but we were pretty supportive when they did. That was coming through State Department channels rather than the oil company channels. I think after 1973 the oil company channels largely broke down, and that left State Department channels that were grotesquely out of touch in many cases. Do I think the oil companies did a better job of conducting relations with Arab countries before 1973 than State Department has done since? Probably, but in all fairness it was a different world then.

As for what to do, IMO there are two rules for dealing effectively with Arabs and Iranians:
1. Respect them and their way of life.
2. Demand that they respect you and yours.

Apologizing breaks rule 2. Trying to change them breaks rule 1. We can't ignore them until we can end our dependence on their oil. And as long as we are importing oil from anywhere, we are inexorably linked to their oil and their problems. Most of our oil comes from places outside the Middle East, and most of the Middle East's oil goes to places other than here, but we still can't ignore them.

By the way, I've had several Arabs and several Iranians explain to me that nobody cares about our taking their oil as long as we pay what they want for it, and that while Israel is not their favorite thing, they are willing to live with it ("We have a saying that 'my brother and I will fight my cousin, my cousin and I will fight the world', and we never forget that Ishmael and Isaac were brothers," is what one [admittedly low-ranking] member of the Saudi royal family once told me). I think both of these sentiments would be more the moderate Muslim position than the radical one, but they are still widespread.

Things like roads and bridges, schools and hospitals do win out in the end in cultures that respect and desire those things. Moderate Muslims/Arabs might well want those things. But radicals don't, and providing those things makes us lightning rods for radical anger.

Some of this is hard to explain unless you've been there. It's just, well, different. And as long as we don't respect those differences we're going to have problems. And it looks to me like there's one set of those differences that Shrub didn't respect and now a different set that Obama doesn't respect.

(09-14-2009 03:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 02:53 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 12:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  [quote='Rick Gerlach' pid='4624273' dateline='1252946659']
We think we can solve the problems by turning them into nice little western democracies. The people who hate us don't want that.

And my question is what percentage of the population in Iraq and Afghanistan are numbered in "the people who hate us", who are absolutely sure that a democracy would be bad? I don't think it's the same number in those two countries.

I think the number of people who hate us is pretty close to the same number in both countries, and it's a pretty small number. Unfortunately, when you fight the way they fight it doesn't take a large number to be a problem.

I'm reminded of a quote from Leo Durocher about managing a baseball team, "You've got 8 guys who love you, 8 guys who hate you, and 8 guys who don't give a s**t. The secret to success is keeping the 8 guys who hate you away from the 8 guys who don't give a s**t."

In that vein, I think the key to success is to keep the radicals away from the moderates.

Long term, I see two keys to success:
1. Getting to an energy future where we are not dependent on imported oil, so that we can let Japan or Europe or whoever is dependent on their oil deal with the problems. I see nothing in Obama's energy plan to accomplish this.
2. Getting back to being a producer economy rather than a consumer economy, so that we can wield some economic muscle instead of having to rely totally on military muscle. I see nothing in Obama's economic plan to accomplish this.

Remember the Durocher quote as well (thought it was 5, 15 and 5, but the point is valid regardless of the proportions). Nice.

Been following this thread (and its evolution) with interest. Was struck by the clarity of 69/70/75's recent posts regarding the Middle East, however, and wanted to chime in and say so. I usually find myself disagreeing with 69/70/75 on various issues (including the issue of President Obama), but here I think we are in agreement.

(09-14-2009 04:16 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Been following this thread (and its evolution) with interest. Was struck by the clarity of 69/70/75's recent posts regarding the Middle East, however, and wanted to chime in and say so. I usually find myself disagreeing with 69/70/75 on various issues (including the issue of President Obama), but here I think we are in agreement.

My, but you are an intelligent observer. Just kidding, but thanks for the support.

I think we have a huge problem because we have been trying to play such a significant role in the Middle East, without much understanding of how the people there think and act. Good old American ethno-centrism.

Bad news--we'll probably continue to disagree about Obama. The next six months will tell a lot, IMO.

(09-14-2009 03:57 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Remember the Durocher quote as well (thought it was 5, 15 and 5, but the point is valid regardless of the proportions). Nice.

Actually, I couldn't remember whether it was 8-8-8 or 5-15-5, and I couldn't find it with a quick net search, so I just went with 8-8-8. I actually think 5-15-5 was the correct quote, and thus will defer to you.

Either way, I agree that the point is valid. Thank you.

(09-14-2009 03:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As for what to do, IMO there are two rules for dealing effectively with Arabs and Iranians:
1. Respect them and their way of life.
2. Demand that they respect you and yours.

Does "Arabs and Iranians" equate to Muslims in general? For example, would this hold true of Indonesian Muslims, French, American?

(09-14-2009 02:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I believe those who 'hate us' are going to 'hate us' whether we feel guilty or not, or whether we actually deserve it or not.

Well said.

(09-14-2009 02:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I'm just not quite on board with the need for us to focus on "the way we treat the rest of the world".

In some ways, I think it would be great if people DID focus on it -- if they could do so holistically and objectively, instead of selectively and with the foregone conclusion that the US is evil. I'll stack up the way the United States treats the rest of the world against the way any other major power in human history has treated other nations. In the entire history of mankind, no other country has ever given so many of its own lives for the freedom of others, or been a more consistent champion of liberty and progress, than the United States has in past 100 years. None of this is to claim perfection, or even anything remotely close to perfection. But it is to claim that, by the standards of human history, Americans have given and still give far more light than darkness to the world. And a couple centuries from now, when current apologist fads have joined their more murderous sibling "isms" in the dustbin of history, and the distance of time allows a greater measure of judgment, historians will write with admiration that the world's most powerful country was also its freest, its most inventive, and its most generous.