Posted by Andreas from dtm2-t7-2.mcbone.net (62.104.210.93) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 at 12:30PM :
Shlama kulle,
This gem of self-revelation/de-masking - panically written by Daniel Pipes - marks another turn in the aggressive ideological marketing of US interests.
Now the neo-cons are even gradually backstepping from the "Iraqi Liberation/Freedom" spin.
Highlights:
"The difficulties in fixing Iraq are being used to cast doubt on the whole
military venture. The Afghan and Iraqi wars, in other words, are judged more
by the welfare of the defeated than by the gains to the victors."
That's scandalous, indeed, as it would turn any Hobbesian world view upside
down.
The victor would not be allowed to behave as a victor, and the wolf not as a
wolf anymore:
The sacred principle of "homo homine lupus est" * to be abandoned?
[*i.e. Man is man's wolf = dog eats dog etc]?
Never !
Preventively and preemptively, the neocons' emergency unit rolls out, Danny lits another Pipe and blows any amount of fog necessary to smoke out the philanthrops and to
re-align the revolting public mind back to hysterical patriotic group-think.
"Almost unnoticed, war as social work has become the expectation."
That's a stark one, they simply misunderstood our killing intentions?
No respect, no fear ?
No shock and NO AWE ?
Can't be. At least we have this overkill argument on our side:
"Each state's obligations, in other words, are ultimately to its own
citizens."
A rather recent discovery of yours, Danny ....
"So, by all means, bring on "Iraqi Freedom." But always keep in mind, as
President Bush has done, that the ultimate war goal is to enhance American
security."
Danny, what was in the pipe, you said?
be-Sheyna le-kullokhun
Andreas
------------
War as Social Work?
By Daniel Pipes
CNSNews.com Commentary
May 06, 2003
When Bill Clinton deployed American troops in places like Bosnia and Haiti,
he was criticized for turning foreign policy into "social work" (as Michael
Mandelbaum pungently put it). By what authority, many asked in the 1990s,
did the president place troops in harm's way without discernable American
interests at stake?
George W. Bush has made sure not to repeat this error. He deployed force
twice - in Afghanistan and Iraq - and both times he made a convincing case
for U.S. security requiring the elimination of the enemy regimes.
But some in Congress, many in the media, and even more on campuses, not to
speak of the demonstrators on the streets, are judging the hostilities in
those two countries less in terms of what they do for Americans than how
they affect the other side.
Note the many voices from allied countries arguing that because Afghanistan
continues to suffer from a range of maladies (warlordism, female repression,
poverty, drug trafficking), U.S. efforts there failed.
* Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.): the Afghan experience is a "cautionary
tale of the problems that result from engaging the world too haphazardly,
too arrogantly, and too belatedly."
* World Bank president James Wolfensohn: Afghanistan has been "stranded" and
the continued presence of drug lords and poverty could undermine the moral
case for invading Iraq.
* The Philadelphia Inquirer : "Frustration [and] failure mark the rebuilding
of Afghanistan."
* The Herald of Glasgow, Scotland: "Afghanistan has been well and truly
betrayed."
Even Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, when asked about U.S.
"failures in Afghanistan," did not dispute the premise but defensively noted
that on being liberated, Afghans "were singing; they were flying kites; they
were happy."
But this view forgets the substantial security benefits Americans derived
from the elimination of Al-Qaeda's headquarters. The Taliban are no longer
in business, sponsoring terrorism's headquarters.
Something similar is now occurring on the subject of Iraq: gains to
Americans and Britons from getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of
mass destruction seem to matter less than the outcome of plans to
rehabilitate Iraq. The difficulties in fixing Iraq are being used to cast
doubt on the whole military venture. The Afghan and Iraqi wars, in other
words, are judged more by the welfare of the defeated than by the gains to
the victors.
Almost unnoticed, war as social work has become the expectation.
To point out this strange turn of events is not to argue against Afghans and
Iraqis benefiting from U.S. military action. They should; and in doing so
they are joining a long list of former adversaries liberated by the United
States:
* Second World War : Germans, Austrians, Italians, and Japanese.
* Cold War : Russians, Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Azerbaijanis, Armenians,
Georgians, Mongols, Poles, East Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks,
Romanians, Bulgarians, Albanians, and many others.
Iraqi gains are very welcome, but they come as a happy byproduct of the
coalition pursuing its own interests, not as the primary goal. It is proper
to put coalition forces' lives at risk only to the extent that liberating
and rehabilitating Iraq benefits the United States, the United Kingdom, and
the other partners.
Each state's obligations, in other words, are ultimately to its own
citizens.
This is in no way to argue against providing benefits to Afghanistan and
Iraq; but it is to say that these are not a moral obligation. Nor should
wars be launched for humanitarian reasons alone. Should democratic leaders
forget this iron law and decide to launch purely philanthropic efforts, the
results will be unpleasant.
Take the American case; when the population does not see the benefits to
themselves of warfare, their soldiers flee the battlefield, as in Lebanon in
1983 and Somalia in 1992. There simply is no readiness to take casualties
for the purposes of social work.
So, by all means, bring on "Iraqi Freedom." But always keep in mind, as
President Bush has done, that the ultimate war goal is to enhance American
security.
(Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Militant
Islam Reaches America.)
Copyright 2003, Daniel Pipes
http://www.danielpipes.org/
-- Andreas
-- signature .