I'm going to respond to this in two parts, because part of my original reply was cut off.
--- Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> Nor have I said that we can't work > > with/use someone who is less-than-stellar in the > > moral > > department, but I _do_ object to publicly ignoring > > their shortcomings. In the long run, dealing with > > treacherous people nearly always comes back to > haunt > > you - and if this Iraqi general who was held in > > Denmark "for humanitarian crimes" turns up in > Iraq, and is promoted by the US government as a > candidate > > for position in the new Iraqi government -- well, > > the cycle begins anew. > > But, the only people out there in the world are > treacherous people. Take a look at the Middle East. > > Outside of Israel and Turkey, the best thing you can > say about most of the leaders is "not a sociopath" > (my > comment about Abdullah of Jordan, in one of my few > witty moments, actually). If we aren't allowed to > work with treacherous people, we're not allowed to > do anything in the Middle East. Or France, for that > matter :-) <wry grin> I agree that many leaders are treacherous; as I noted above, I understand that you must work with the "less-than-stellar" - but you must also accept and deal with the consequences of your choices. <snip> > I think you're engaging here in the Fallacy of Good > Outcomes - the belief that there is some more > palatable alternative than, say, Hosni Mubarak in > Egypt. There really isn't. In Iraq, for example, > my assessment of the most likely outcome is that it > ends > up something like Jordan - not a democracy, but not > bad. If that's what happens - then from the > perspective of the people of Iraq, we will have done > a great and wonderful thing. They will be _vastly_ > better off. I agree with (or at least hope for) your assessment of the Iraqi outcome; but that is not what the Admin has been trying to sell to us, the American public. "Democracy in the Middle East" is what they are claiming to deliver. If 'that is what must be said because the American people won't support the war effort otherwise,' what does that say about their opinion of the public? Worse, is such a low opinion of "us" as a whole justified? *I* don't think so, despite the current (non)"reality TV" popularity; I do believe that if expectations/set goals are made low (as in "the lowest common denominator"), then the lazy (and let's face it, we often tend to go the easiest route) will not make the effort to 'rise to the occasion.' Well, that got a bit off-topic, didn't it? :} > As for ignoring their shortcomings - I agree with > you. > The single worst offender among American Presidents > in that regard is Jimmy Carter, who never met a > dictator for whom he did not have kind words. I'll > be > second in line to go after him if you're first :-) Actually, I think that Jimmy C is a very good *man,* but was a sadly ineffective *president.* What makes me a very effective physician (empathy, kindness, genuine interest) would cripple me as a political leader. [That's sort of answering somebody else's probe, BTW.] > > Motives count in murder trials; motives count in > > the > > current debate on religious groups who feed the > > poor; > > the motives of interventionists matter as their > > future > > actions may be determined by them. If much of the > > world thinks that US motives include world > > domination > > in a sort of "Pax Americana," it matters very much > > indeed. > > A Pax Americana is the only type of Pax the world is > likely to see. So you can have that, or you can > have war. Those are your options, sadly enough. Actually, I sort of agree; but the route this Admin is taking to get there is, I believe, bass-ackwards. I think the influence and benefits of American *culture* are what should be exported (and in fact are, just not as effectively as they could), or 'leading by example.' You don't get folks to follow you by insulting them - that will just make them 'rear back on their haunches.' It is a slower, non-showy, and subtler way, but it allows _them_ to make the choice. [Of course, there are still times you're going to have to crack the whip or even strike the dangerous ones; a rare few will have to be shot.] > But actually the central insight of the Founding > Fathers is that motives don't matter at all. > Actions do. The purpose of the American system of > government > is to make people with selfish motives act for the > collective good... But the *perceptions* of others as to motives *does matter!* Else why would there have been a search for an "acceptable cause?" 'Danger to his neighbors' - 'Direct threat to the US' - 'WoMD' - 'Liberation of the Iraqi people.' "Intent" and "motive" still count under the law. <sniplet> Not even you, who (in my opinion) take > despising Bush to remarkable heights, could believe > that the Administration would create a regime that > even vaguely resembles that of Iraq. Of course not. (And for the record, I find some of the people Bush has _surrounded himself_ with the most objectionable: Ashcroft, Cheney, Perle (or is he totally out of the picture now?), Poindexter. To me, they seem to have significant comtempt for the "average guy" as well as for the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Multiple posts about this have been made on-list, so I will not repeat the examples.) <sniplet> The focus on motives allows you to speculate > on > things which no one can know and attack Bush, but it > doesn't really do anything for the people of Iraq. Not in the short-term (Saddam out); but in the long run motives *do* matter: if the 'new' Iraqi government is (or is seen as) an American puppet, it will not be stable; if it is a genuine governance *for and by* the Iraqi people (or a dedicated and humane elite), it has at least a chance of surviving. > > You did not address my point: that we the public > >are being asked to trust those <sniplet> who > > are curtailing our civil liberties <sniplet>... > > I did address it - motives don't matter. But beyond > that, I think your civil liberties thing is, to be > honest, a product of the paranoid fantasies of the > civil liberties extremists - never has a society so > threatened reacted with such restraint in terms of > civil liberties. <snipped rest of paragraph> <very serious> Gautam, have you been reading the posts/articles about what has already happened? About the legislation some in the Admin would like to see enacted? Public outcry/criticism is our best defense against the formation of a police state. >The fact > that the far more egregious violations of civil > liberties made by the Clinton Administration (with > far > less motivation) were not criticized also tells me > something, actually. Could you point me to a site or article(s) about that last? I don't want to take up your time, but I would like to know more. (During the early nineties I was very preoccupied with health concerns, so most political - heck, 'most everything else - wasn't even on my radar. :( ) <snip> > But, finally, this isn't a matter of trust. Let's > suppose you're right and Bush and his people are > malicious and malign. If that makes you happy, I'll > accept it as a point of argument. So what? Their > actions will be _exactly the same_ because the need > to reconstruct Iraq is a product of the interests of > the United States and has nothing to do with their > motives whatsoever. <wry grin> I actually don't think Bush *is* malign - but misguided, yes, and I _definitely_ do not trust many of "his" people -- they have given me ample reason not to. Ah, "product of the interests of the United States" -- that is *their* interpretation of interests -- which I do not trust, because of their motives/goals (as set forth and exemplified by their actions and statements). Rest of this response is in a second post (so hopefully won't be cut off!). Debbi __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
