« Social software = Kool Aid dispenser? | Home | Mainstream media's humiliating defeat »
January 27, 2004
Our Hundred Years' War
A fascinating piece by Clark S. Judge, managing director of the White House Writers Group, entitled "Our Own Hundred Years’ War." Judge makes the argument that the war we are waging currently is part of an epochal struggle dating back to the end of World War I, and, encouragingly, the end is in sight. It's a persuasive argument.
Excerpts:
-- "The First World War led to a shattering of three imperial systems, and it is not too much to say that the world is still struggling with their demise and that of the international system of which they were so integral a part."
-- "The three imperial systems were the uneasy German imperial brotherhood of Prussian-dominated German and Vienna-centered Austria-Hungary, the Russian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire."
-- "The three major post-[World War I] struggles have been part of a single struggle about the character of the successor regimes [to those empires] and whether they or the democracies -- particularly the United States and Britain -- would establish the norms of the international system that would eventually emerge."
-- "In World War II, we dealt with Nazi Germany, the successor to the Germanic Empires. In the Cold War, we dealt with the Soviet Union, the successor to the tsarist Russian Empire. Now we are grappling with those who followed the Ottomans."
-- "And what of the world after the hundred years' war truly ends? ... [W]e appear to be entering something akin to the Concert of Europe following the Napoleonic Wars. Powers sharing common values are determining that they also share a common interest in other nations reflecting those values.
-- "[I]n classic democratic form, this new international concert appears to be evolving into a kind of party system -- with the United States the leader of the governing party and France the leader of the opposition."
-- "Woodrow Wilson called World War I 'the war to make the world safe for democracy.' He may well have been right, but the war into which he led us is not yet over. It will be soon."
-- "[I]n classic democratic form, this new international concert appears to be evolving into a kind of party system -- with the United States the leader of the governing party and France the leader of the opposition."
Excuse me? Is this fella off his rocker? Maybe you have quoted this out of context (which I am more than sure is going on), but how is the current geo-political situation an 'international concert' of 'democracy'? It sounds almost like an apoligist making amends for US economic, political, and military (dare I say it in these internet halls of r21?) imperialism based on pre-emption, free-market neo-liberalism, and military might. 'Our hundred years' war' and 'epochal battles'? Come off the noble sounding battle against terrorism and let's bring in some realpolitik to the discussion of US domination of global political economy vis a vis France (why is the right obsessed with bashing the French? Can't they have their own 'freedom' to decide what the French nation finds compelling or not [i.e. evidence of WMDs and the threat of Iraq]?). Similarly, I find this division of the world into neat little packages of 'good' nations and 'bad' nations incredibly offensive, let alone simple-minded and short-sighted. It makes political sense for those in power, but come off it already! Hussein wasn't so 'bad' when he was fighting the Iranians now was he? Black and white misses a great deal of very important grey in the march of history.
Perhaps you should read the piece, and take a breath, before responding. Here is the link again: http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/034/judge.html
Interesting how you spare your scorn for everyone but the US. You don't like neat little packages, except the "imperialist" one that you wrap the USA in. I just don't think that the tired Noam Chomsky POV that the US is the root of all global evil stands up well to scrutiny or thought.
As for the French, if you think that they opposed Iraqi intervention on the grounds that there were no WMD you simply haven't been paying attention. No one, not the UN, not Clinton, not the Chinese, and certainly not the French, made the case that Iraq had no weapons or didn't aspire to obtain WMD. French opposition to intervention had a lot more to do with their commercial interests and America envy than what you suggest.
You may be "offended" by the assertion that Hussein and his regime (and those like him) are bad, but if you can't bring yourself to make even rudimentary moral judgements about clearly tyrannical regimes than what credibility do you have in bashing the US? What a weak argument: the Hussein regime is not bad because it was in US interests to support him against a greater evil, Iran, in the 1980s and to prevent an alliance with the other greater evil, the Soviet Union. Saddam was a lesser of evils perhaps in the 1980s, but he was evil, and he only has himself to blame by becoming the greater evil. In fact, to the extent that the US was complicit in helping Hussein in the 1980s, the US had therefore a unique obligation to do something about it.
Guess I'll have to actually go on the Hoover website and read it then (do you read anything outside of Hoover, AEI, and Cato? just curious. If so I have a great book to recommend on environmental issues you might actually agree with that actually takes on your pal Lomborg)
Anyway, I think my point I was trying to make was that the definitions of 'evil' and 'good' are transitory (except of course the Nazis) and political and you (and many many others) aren't fessing up to this fact. The weak arguement in my opinion is that Hussein was 'evil' and we therefore had to destroy him/take over Iraq. Let's talk about it in terms of realpolitik and not this shallow 'good' (US) versus 'evil' arguement and really get more of a discussion going. There is much much more to it than Hussein was 'evi' and those arguements get shunted aside in the search for the Adminstration (and you) to justify the war (and over 500 dead I might add).
At least we are getting beyond the France 'evil' arguement and talking about their economic interests. American envy? Please, it's old and tired; maybe it's involved, but let's get over it and not keep dumping French wine down the sewers and renaming our fried potatos.
BTW, imperialism isn't evil in and of itself: its about political, economic, cultural, and military might and the exertion of that might; you are putting words in my mouth about US imperialism being 'evil' a la Chomsky (who, while making some fascinating points, tends to go a bit far to make them). My point: be a realist about American global interventionism: it's pragmatic to maintain power and is a reality, not and 'evil'; don't let flag waving (or the Dinesh D'Souza tract) blind you to the realities of realpolitik of US material and discursive global moves.
"It sounds almost like an apoligist making amends for US economic, political, and military (dare I say it in these internet halls of r21?) imperialism based on pre-emption, free-market neo-liberalism, and military might. 'Our hundred years' war' and 'epochal battles'?"
As they say on Seinfeld ... "NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT"
Seriously, what in USA's hegomony, pro-freedom, neo-liberal free trading free economy, religious tolerant and women's-rights-abiding open society, all-powerful kicking-butt-of-evil-dictators-and-terrorists policy is there to apologize for? That we didnt ask permission of the other dictators first?
Are we really supposed to apolize for ending Saddam's and the Taliban regimes? Why, because we found 250 mass grave sites in Iraq instead of WMD stockpiles (although we found plenty of UN-violating weapons programs and missile developments kept from inspectors)?
I see no reason to "apologize" in the victory of freedom over tyranny ... NONE!!!