perhaps a heavy post for sunday afternoon
Feb. 2nd, 2003 01:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lauralhBut anyway. FGM. Often it's one subject that feminists and conservatives agree on. (That it's bad, I mean.) This is honestly one reason I'm no longer much of a cultural relativist. That is, I now feel secure in saying yes, western cultures are superior to others. And not merely because of human rights issues. Democracy is better than fascism and dictatorships and theocracies. Having freedom of speech and religion guaranteed is better than, well, not. Being able to have the choice of eating beef - well, you get the idea. It's having the option to chose that makes western cultures superior to others. We may choose to live in a nude commune where we have to worship Cthulhu in order to eat bread. Hell, if an adult wants to cut off parts of her genitals, well, after making sure she's not crazy, she can go for it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-02-02 09:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-02 10:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-03 11:50 am (UTC)Um, yeah. We CAN'T really fix other countries' human rights problems for them. Not without annexing them, and neither we nor the rest of the world is prepared for that.
The only way to create a free government is to create an educated, healthy, self-supporting, active citizen populace. In a country full of people who have been brutally repressed by warlords for generations upon generations, you CAN'T make them "free" by deposing the current warlord - all you do is create a power vacuum for the NEXT warlord to take his place, and, well... you KNOW he's going to HAVE to SECURE that place, which means...
Yeah.
Like it or not, the best thing we can do for repressed populations in third world countries is to support the governments they have, and maybe politically try to pressure them gently more towards policies that will improve the status quo of the general populace... and it ain't gonna produce fast results.
"You can have it: 1. functional, 2. pretty, 3. right now. Pick one."
no subject
Date: 2003-02-03 07:10 pm (UTC)What you don't quite seem to understand is that a warlord is a war-lord. That is, his success is predicated on his military power and control of the use of force. If a military leader or militaristic culture can no longer produce military success or exercise its force effectively, then it collapses. Prussianism and Japanese militarism both suffered this fate, and the mujhadeen are starting to. Yes, we will have to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan and any other country we go to temporarily in order to ensure democratic institutions. So what? It would have taken roughly five years of occupation in Iraq after the last Gulf War to sort things out. In other words, the Iraq situation would have been sorted out in 1995-96, seven years ago.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-03 08:43 pm (UTC)> Japanese and Russians, all of whom _were_ ruled
> by warlords for generations and who are now in
> various stages of democracy and comparative
> material prosperity after having the shit kicked
> out of them in one war or another.
Wait wait wait - Germany was a third world country when they got beaten in World War II? Or Japan? Or Russia? Fuck me for an idiot, I thought they were three of the richest countries in the world! For that matter, precisely what conquering war convinced the USSR to disband and become democratic? Fuck me AGAIN, was there a great big land invasion in the 90's that I missed? (I could have SWORN it eventually dissolved under its own weight and the dissatisfaction of its own citizens in the total absence of any outright war. Huh.) About Japan - didn't we, well, DISARM Japan entirely in return for offering them the protection of our own military, freeing them to expend all of their productivity towards education and industrial expansion?
Turkey, I don't know shit about. Other than it produces some of the finest retards IRC has ever seen, and does so in alarming quantities. Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't a bastion of democracy and individual freedom, for all I know.
> Yes, we will have to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan
> and any other country we go to temporarily in
> order to ensure democratic institutions. So what?
So we have proven ourselves utterly unwilling ever to do any such thing. We have NEVER occupied another country, in the history of our nation. Our citizens aren't particularly willing to invest the sorts of manpower or resources required, the rest of the world is already scared as hell of us and isn't prepared to see us entering an expansionistic imperialist role.
And there's more to it than "occupation for four or five years." Democracy relies on an educated, empowered, self-supporting, politically active citizenship. It takes GENERATIONS of relative prosperity and stability to accomplish that - not five years of occupation.
If you want to look at the typical product of a generation or so of military occupation of a third world environment, I suggest you check out the US Virgin Islands. The Navy administered the USVI as a military property from 1917-1954, and pumped a hell of a lot of money as well as stability into the area. While things ran generally smoothly, and fifty years later there's no real political turmoil, the original natives are still largely an economically depressed underclass. The vast majority of the money and power in the area is resident in the hands of the VI equivalent of "carpetbaggers", white people from Stateside, FIFTY YEARS LATER. A disturbing number of native families live in, I shit you not, HAND BUILT SHACKS MADE OUT OF DRIFTWOOD and take "sea baths", which are precisely what they sound like.
I know this because I *lived* there, incidentally - that's not something out of a book.
It's a hell of a lot harder to produce an American-style citizen-supported and BASICALLY citizen-controlled government than you seem to think it is. You might even want to worry more about how quickly WE seem to be slipping away from a government of, by, and for the people than whether or not we can force an ideal government in fast, cheap, easy steps on impoverished countries that frankly don't have the resources for it.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-03 11:40 pm (UTC)Well then, you'd be wrong, son. By the end of World War Two Germany and Japan had a level of industrial development comparable to the more desolate parts of the Gobi. Wacky but true: When you blow up all the factories and infrastructure, industrial society collapses. Crazy, I know. Russia had almost no wealth in it - that was kind of y'know, the problem. It could produce a lot, but it wasn't actually all that rich, which made keeping up with those Western imperialsit dogs kind of hard.
For that matter, precisely what conquering war convinced the USSR to disband and become democratic?
Who said anything about a conquering war? Russia was involved in the Cold War, which led to its collapse as it was unable to match the US militarily without causing a revolution. The fact that it was getting the shit kicked out of it in Afghanistan didn't hurt any.
I could have SWORN it eventually dissolved under its own weight and the dissatisfaction of its own citizens in the total absence of any outright war. Huh.)
Wacky. So this world you come from, where people pointing nuclear weapons and threatening one another doesn't count as a war, does it also have magic fairies? Did a passel of mischevious pixies just fake the Afghanistan campaign in that world?
About Japan - didn't we, well, DISARM Japan entirely in return for offering them the protection of our own military, freeing them to expend all of their productivity towards education and industrial expansion?
Sure we did. Since I guess you're not quite up to listening to this whole crazy "news" thing that's going on, American forces are still stationed in Afghanistan, and they'd remain stationed in Iraq in the event of an invasion. What's that got to do with anything?
We have NEVER occupied another country, in the history of our nation.
Wait, didn't you just say America occupied Japan? And didn't America occupy West Germany for seven years after World War Two. Wait, yes they did. Gosh. I guess that makes you just plain flat out wrong, doesn't it?
It takes GENERATIONS of relative prosperity and stability to accomplish that - not five years of occupation.
Actually, it took seven years in West Germany to convert it from a militocracy run by Prussians into a working democracy. Are those rabbit generations, or fruit fly generations, then?
I know this because I *lived* there, incidentally - that's not something out of a book.
So your argument is that it's anecdotal evidence? I agree wholeheartedly. Somehow, I'm of the crazy opinion that "political turmoil" with all those crazy weapons of mass destruction and secret police and public beheadings is somewhat less preferable than simply being "an economically depressed underclass". Colour me nutty, but I'd rather be poor than dead. That of course, ignores the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan both have exploitable resources, whereas the Virgin Islands have what, beaches and ocean?
no subject
Date: 2003-02-03 11:40 pm (UTC)And it's much easier than you think it is. Especially when we have a bunch of popular democratic nationals (the Iraqi National Congress) ready to go in. Especially since, y'know, Iraq was a democracy for a while. Especially since, y'know, the whole "relative peace and prosperity" of post-war Germany is certainly no better than that of post-Saddam Iraq would be.
You might even want to worry more about how quickly WE seem to be slipping away from a government of, by, and for the people than whether or not we can force an ideal government in fast, cheap, easy steps on impoverished countries that frankly don't have the resources for it.
Wait, you mean the level of industrial development that 18th century farmers did when you say "resources"? It's all very well and good to bring up a red herring and say "Oh, we're losing our civil liberties," but that's not the issue under debate. I don't like losing my civil liberties, but that has nothing to do with whether I support an invasion of Iraq, unless you are somehow of the ludicrous opinion that they are causally connected.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-04 01:36 am (UTC)> that 18th century farmers did when you say "resources"?
Those 18th century farmers didn't have to worry about some yobbo and twenty of his buddies coming along with cheap imported assault rifles to fuck up the program. It took a lot more manpower to subdue - or just raid - an area effectively with 18th century technology than it does with 21st century technology.
Incidentally, pouring assault rifles and grenades and rocket launchers into a country and giving them to the first bunch of thugs - no better than the ones currently in power - who will say "god bless teh usa!!11" is exactly what we're infamous for doing. The ultimate goal, of course, being destabilisation, not stabilisation. God knows if a regime ever attained any real stability, we might actually have to NEGOTIATE with it... oh, the horror...
Sorry, that last sentence's flippancy wasn't aimed at you. I'm just seriously disgusted with our own political policies.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-04 02:46 am (UTC)Yes. Luckily, they only had to put up with the British Army and Navy at the time, eh?
And I'll admit that during the latter half of the 20th century, the US fucked up a bit. However, that was during the Cold War, where it was the US versus the Soviets and the only thing that mattered was fucking up the Soviets as hard as possible (and vice versa for them). However, if you look at the post-Soviet/post-Vietnam paradigm of operations for American foreign military policy, the only time problems emerge is when you have a failure of will. Rwanda and Somalia and the first Gulf War failed because the US pulled out too soon. Afghanistan and Kosovo succeeded because they didn't. Sure, it's not easy to build a democracy, but the effort it takes is better for us than putting up with "generations" of terrorists and hostile powers.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-04 01:30 am (UTC)Short version, without meticulous quoting:
1. We didn't occupy Germany by ourselves, and we didn't administer it either. Germany was administered by the Control Council, and occupied by four separate nations - us, the French, the British, and the Russians.
2. It took us seven years and an UNGODLY amount of tax money to turn a population of preexisting factory workers, office workers, engineers, and academics from a militocracy to a working democracy. The money from the Marshall Plan would certainly never have been approved for any other reason than the creation of buffer states between us and the looming might of the Soviet Union. The USSR, as we have discussed already, is no more.
3. Germany's post-WWII population was not largely consistent of illiterate uneducated peasants incapable of operating machinery more complex than a rifle. Afghanistan's current population is not largely consistent of trained factory workers, office workers, engineers, and academics. You CANNOT produce a working democracy out of Afghanistan's population as easily as you could out of Germany's. Period.
4. Regarding whether pointing missiles at somebody constitutes a war: it ain't a boxing match if nobody throws a punch, it's just a staring contest. Furthermore, the USSR could have stopped the Cold War anytime they felt like it - they weren't protecting themselves from us, they were attempting to further their own clearly stated political goal of eventual and uncontested world domination, by any means necessary.
5. The USSR certainly did NOT "have very little wealth in it." It did a shitty job of distributing said wealth evenly, but it had ENORMOUS amounts of wealth available to it in sum. All the way into the nineties, American metallurgical science lagged VERY heavily behind Soviet metallurgical science, even with the superiority of American academia, because the USSR simply had a hell of a lot more rare metal to play with. And in spite of the fact that there were a hell of a lot of illiterate peasants in the USSR, there was still a VERY large industrialized population, as evidenced by the fact that by the end of WWII, the Soviets were producing the finest engineered tanks the world had ever seen. Again all the way into the nineties, they also produced some SERIOUSLY fine products in the nuclear submarine field. Their CREWS, on the other hand, were pretty shoddy compared to their American counterparts, because the general Soviet concept of folks on the front line was "so what, there's more where those came from." This attitude is a large part of what led to the eventual demise of the USSR itself as a viable political body, as efficiency of organization has increasingly become more and more important relative to amount of resources available, as the scope of human endeavor increases.
6. Regarding whether it's better to be "a poor underclass or in political turmoil" - American Indians had a hell of a lot of internecine warfare when Europeans showed up, too. So did Aztecs, Mayas, and Incas. Had any chats recently with any American Indians about whether they're happy that the nice Europeans showed up to Show Them The Light and give them nice safe reservations? Perhaps you would be happier if the Afghanis and Iraqis were subjugated underclasses. Doesn't mean they would necessarily agree with you.
7. Even if the american public were willing to make the investment in lives and money that annexing, pacifying, and industrializing third world countries would represent, the rest of the world isn't. Even our ALLIES are nervous about us. Read any foreign political cartoons recently?
no subject
Date: 2003-02-04 03:19 am (UTC)Unimportant. The French left as quick as they could, the Russians fucked up their half, and the British let America more or less run their chunk of it. The point though, isn't that any one particular western democracy managed to set up democracy in Germany, but that it was set up at all after the conflagration.
2. It took us seven years and an UNGODLY amount of tax money to turn a population of preexisting factory workers, office workers, engineers, and academics from a militocracy to a working democracy. The money from the Marshall Plan would certainly never have been approved for any other reason than the creation of buffer states between us and the looming might of the Soviet Union. The USSR, as we have discussed already, is no more.
And Iraq is. Rebuilding Iraq won't cost as much as the Marshall plan, partially because Iraqi oil will be used to pay for it, partially because the Marshall plan rebuilt half of Europe. Iraq though, of all the Middle Eastern countries, is the best candidate. It has that population of "population of preexisting factory workers, office workers, engineers, and academics" - where do you think the thousands of people involved in Saddam's weapons programs come from? Imagine the material wealth that might result for the average Iraqi if bioweapons experts became doctors, nuclear engineers built power plants instead of bombs, and factories currently producing warheads and sarin gas instead started turning out blenders and cars and potato chips? This is entirely possible, and Iraq and Iran are both ideal candidates for it to happen in.
3. Germany's post-WWII population was not largely consistent of illiterate uneducated peasants incapable of operating machinery more complex than a rifle.
18th century Americans qualify for that definition, and they did all right without billions of dollars in aid.
Afghanistan's current population is not largely consistent of trained factory workers, office workers, engineers, and academics. You CANNOT produce a working democracy out of Afghanistan's population as easily as you could out of Germany's. Period.
No, merely as easily as you could out of the continental colonies in the 18th century. Beyond that, Afghanistan has a large number of people who emigrated when the Taliban took over who are starting to go back now that the area is safer, many of whom possess university degrees and other higher education. Remigration, combined with the current efforts in mass education are making a big difference over there. Industrialisation and democracy are not actually causally connected though (at least, not in such a way that industrialisation causes democracy).
no subject
Date: 2003-02-04 03:21 am (UTC)And they lost out in doing so. The USSR and the US fought one another in many proxy battles across the world, committed espionage (an act of war) against one another, and dedicated a large portion of their respective economies to building weapons to wipe out or threaten the other side. That's war. If that doesn't count, the USSR invasion of Afghanistan, the failure of which caused the rebellion of former apparatchniks in the CP certainly counts.
5. The USSR certainly did NOT "have very little wealth in it." It did a shitty job of distributing said wealth evenly, but it had ENORMOUS amounts of wealth available to it in sum.
Nyet. Like I said, it had a lot of productive capability, but not much wealth. It had serious trouble collecting taxes from its citizens, and if you look at what the various financial and industrial capitalisation programs it tried, they were almost universal failures. You yourself pointed out why they managed to beat the Americans at anything - they trashed their country and its economy to do so. They built factories everywhere, true, but try producing much of anything with them, and you wouldn't get shit.
Perhaps you would be happier if the Afghanis and Iraqis were subjugated underclasses. Doesn't mean they would necessarily agree with you.
So long as the Iraqis and Afghanis want to blow up my way of life, I'm not particularly concerned what they think. The comparison to the Indians is merely facetious.
7. Even if the american public were willing to make the investment in lives and money that annexing, pacifying, and industrializing third world countries would represent, the rest of the world isn't. Even our ALLIES are nervous about us. Read any foreign political cartoons recently?
No, I'm too busy reading the news. You know, like the news that says that ten different European countries support us, as do a large number of other nations? Or comparing South Korea, one of the places America interfered and "inflicted" democracy on a bunch of starving uneducated illiterate peasants with North Korea, where we used "political pressure" over "generations" to change their minds. Because that political pressure has worked so well that it's North Korea which is a well to do democracy and South Korea which is a backwater totalitarian hell-hole, right?
no subject
Date: 2003-02-04 09:13 am (UTC)Woefully inadequate colorization.
the Russians fucked up their half
The USSR's goal was to create a fascistic buffer zone between themselves and the Western blocs. They succeeded, and it lasted for thirty years. This constitutes "fucking up?"
and the British let America more or less run their chunk of it.
Utter bullshit. The British were extremely active in their occupaton, and were focal in ramming more than a little bit of administrative policy through the control council. Banning public display of Nazi symbols is one example of administrative policy that begun in the British zone and eventually was propagated through the Control Council to occupied Germany at large.
> The USSR, as we have discussed already, is no more.
And Iraq is. Rebuilding Iraq won't cost as much as the Marshall plan...
You're missing the point. If we could easily and with impunity have just bombed the Soviet Union until it couldn't manufacture military materiel anymore, we would have. The Marshall plan didn't go towards rebuilding the USSR, it went towards rebuilding OTHER countries to create buffers between us and the USSR.
This is entirely possible, and Iraq and Iran are both ideal candidates for it to happen in.
::coughs:: I'm sorry, did I read that wrong, or are you wanting to conquer and impose a puppet regime on IRAN too? I know the USA and Iran aren't exactly bestest of buddies, but was there a war somewhere that I missed out on?
18th century Americans qualify for that definition, and they did all right without billions of dollars in aid.
This is an egregious red herring. 18th century Americans were never conquered and forcibly subjected to a change of regime. The American colonies voluntarily constructing their own democratic society are NOT equivalent to us imposing a puppet regime on countries full of people who resent the hell out of us for destabilising their home for generations, have wildly divergent political and religious ideologies that fuel an ongoing current of downright hatred for our society, and are at wash in a sea of dissidence and malcontent, as well as open to constant injections of infantry weapons to any guerilla group discontent enough to use them.
You have also consistently failed to address the problems of the rest of the world's likely reaction to outright imperialism on America's part, or the likelihood of the American political system to approve spending anything like the amount of manpower and tax money necessary to even TRY to establish anything permanent in a country that we could far more easily just bomb into abject, groveling impotence every time they show a hint of being able to resist our demands.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-04 09:23 pm (UTC)So basically what you're arguing is that the occupying powers of Western Germany managed to work together to maintain control of it? Great. Thanks for the assist.
You're missing the point. If we could easily and with impunity have just bombed the Soviet Union until it couldn't manufacture military materiel anymore, we would have. The Marshall plan didn't go towards rebuilding the USSR, it went towards rebuilding OTHER countries to create buffers between us and the USSR.
I never said that the Marshall plan rebuilt the USSR, and it confuses me where you got that idea from. Yes, we rebuilt Western Europe to buffer the Soviets. You seem fixated on the "buffer the Soviets" and are ignoring the "we rebuilt Western Europe" part. If we don't have the Soviets interfering, well, great!
::coughs:: I'm sorry, did I read that wrong, or are you wanting to conquer and impose a puppet regime on IRAN too? I know the USA and Iran aren't exactly bestest of buddies, but was there a war somewhere that I missed out on?
Yes, I did just say that. Since you're obviously not too up on the news, Iran has a strong secular and democratic opposition which has the support of the majority of the population and which is rather fervently pro-American. Hell, don't forget that the original opposition to the Shah was a social democracy movement which was co-opted by the mullahs, but which still survives despite having most of its leaders thrown into jail for long stretches of time.
18th century Americans were never conquered and forcibly subjected to a change of regime.
Except for that time when the British established martial law and disbanded the assemblies of the colonies and stationed troops everywhere to put down possible tax revolts, right?
If anything the Americans coming in now and providing the Iraqis with money to educate and support their population will make it easier than it was for the Americans, who had to do everything themselves. You've yet to actually explain why 18th century American farmers subject to British martial law can found a democracy but the Iraqi National Congress supported by American money and troops and a sympathetic, industrialised populace can't.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-04 09:24 pm (UTC)Well, it's a good thing the Iraqis aren't those people either, then. Iraq is one of the most secular states in the Middle East. Iraq's civilian population is disarmed. Iraq's population is fervently anti-Saddam, as the riots during the last Gulf War show. Iraq had democracy within living memory. You can spout hyperbole about how much the Americans are hated in the Middle East, but it's just that - hyperbole - when it comes to Iraq and Iran (and Afghanistan, now).
You have also consistently failed to address the problems of the rest of the world's likely reaction to outright imperialism on America's part
Absolutely nothing, unless it's to bandwagon. Even France is planning to get on board now, though Chirac's going to wait until the last second before announcing it officially. France, China and Russia are all imperial powers, and they're not interested in actually stopping America from its imperial adventures, except if it will get them concessions. Because they know that if they do, they're likely to have the UN come around and bite them in the ass.
the likelihood of the American political system to approve spending anything like the amount of manpower and tax money necessary to even TRY to establish anything permanent in a country that we could far more easily just bomb into abject, groveling impotence every time they show a hint of being able to resist our demands.
Just like America didn't in Afghanistan, right? Or like America didn't in South Korea? Or exactly like it didn't in Japan or Germany? America has shown itself in the past to be quite willing to commit large amounts of men and material to foreign countries. I fail to see why that pattern would continue, especially in as high profile a case as Iraq. If Iraq and Afghanistan succeed in being rebuilt (which I think they will), the senators and congressmen who supported those campaigns will win a major PR victory, and they know this.