Thanks for the very thoughtful and thought-provoking essay. Couple of thoughts:

1). The tension between intervening to address human rights issues one one hand, and respecting national sovereignty on the other, has been around a long time. Where’s the line? When are things “bad enough” to intervene?

A specific question: www.nationmaster.com has Iraq as the 9th worst country (as of 2001) for human rights. The 8 countries which are worse are Turkmenistan, Libya, N. Korea, Sudan, Syria, Burma, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Why no boots on the ground in any of those countries?

In particular: 15 of 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi. We’ve seen financial links between Saudi’s and the hijackers, and between Saudis and any number of other terror organizations. Saudis fund the madrassas that spawned the Taliban. Why haven’t we ripped the House of Saud a new one?

Another question: the death penalty is common in the US. Not so in Europe. Assuming they had the horsepower, would the EU be justified in “intervening” in the US to put an end to the death penalty? (This is not a question about whether the death penalty is legitimate or not — it’s a question about the limits of national sovereignty).

Whose “universals” are really universal?

2). A point of fact: historically, there have been governments in the middle east that have been based on democratic principles, or at least the constitutional rule of law. To say “they have never known freedom” is not really correct. Unfortunately, some of those governments (ex. Mossadegh) have been overthrown by the US and/or other western governments.

3). I reject the analogy of what Bush is trying to do in the Middle East with WWII. We did not go to war with Germany or Japan to insert democracy. We went to war with the nation of Japan because we were attacked by the nation of Japan. Germany was their ally and declared war on us as a result. Injecting democratic institutions was not the agenda. There is **no** analogy to the invasion of Iraq.

It would be great for governments based on the rule of law to emerge in the middle east. Unfortunately, the US and the west in general have a piss-poor record of supporting them. This is not a “hate America first” thing, it’s simply a matter of the historical record.

I understand that you see the neocon agenda as being one of forceful insertion of democratic values into the middle east as a long-term strategy of liberation. If that was the actual motivation, I’d applaud it (although probably not military intervention as the tactical means). From what I’ve read by that crew, and from what I see of how they’ve carried out the Iraq adventure, however, I don’t buy it. There are a variety of interests at play, but the well-being and political enfranchisement of the middle eastern people is fairly low on the list, IMO. Follow the money.

Best -

I have been to Seoul, South Korea and lived in Japan for a number of years within North Korean Nodong missile range. Do you realize how close Seoul is to the DMZ? It’s about 26 miles - easily within artillery range. Any fight in NK, ANY, would result in tens of thousands of dead South Koreans and possibly Japanese.
War is simply not an option in North Korea.

Turkmenistan? Would upset the Russians. They are still pissed about our new arrangements with Uzbekistan.

Libya is reforming. That said there are good reasons not to attack all the countries you list.

But look at Iraq.
Sanctions were failing (as the oil-for-atrocities investigation deepens), troops to “protect” Saudi Arabia were instead inflaming the muslim world. My question becomes, why not Iraq?

Death Penalty
Europe has every right to levy sanctions against us or threaten us over the use of the death penalty. In fact, they are already doing so. For example, I live in the metro Philly area. A generation ago hippy activist Ira Einhorn killed his girlfriend, stuffed her body in a trunk, and disappeared. He was tried in abstentia and sentenced to death. He later was found in France.
France refused to extradite him until the PA prosecutor promised a new trial WITHOUT the death penalty.

Whose “universals” are “universal”? I would hope that we could all agree that basic human rights are universal. If not, then we are in deep trouble.

2. Mossadagh’s reign was brief and limited in scope (Iran). At the time the USA viewed the world in terms of Communist/Non. Given the events in Europe after WW2 (sham elections in eastern block under Soviet control, Soviet attempts at overthrowing democries in Western Europe), the Soviets were seen as the true threat and the countries in the world as pawns. The USA feared Mossadagh leaned towards Soviets and so overthrew him - yes to guarantee oil supply, but also to keep oil out of Soviet hands.

Nations act in their own self-interest. Past policies have consistently shown that what is best in the short term (Israeli funding of Hamas to balance PLO, US support of Mujahadeen in Afghanistan) are often worse in the long term. The problem becomes, without hindsight, how do you know which policy is preferable in the long-term?

I think that much of your criticism is “Monday morning quarterbacking” that ignores the challenges, and information available, at the time. That said I agree with you that looking back on it, it was a mistake to support non-democratic regimes during the Cold War.

While it may have made sense in the short run to support non-democratic states (Zaire, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Iran) during the Cold War, in the long-run I think it was a mistake. I believe that America has learned that its best defense is to encourage freedom around the globe.

Call that the “neocon” agenda, but it stinks of Jimmy Carter circa 1977 to me.
Scott

Why not Iraq?

1. “Why not” is not a strong enough case for going to war.
2. Iraq posed no realistic threat to the US, and the arguments for thinking otherwise were known to be weak by decision makers at that time.
3. An intervention for reasons other than national security (violating sanctions, humanitarian reasons) were arguable, but we had much, much bigger fish to fry.

We disagree about this. I understand your argument — draining the swamp — but I do not believe what we’re presently engaged in is going to make that happen.

Fundamentally, I believe, for good reason, that Iraq was on the agenda prior to 9/11 for reasons having nothing to do with terrorism, humanitarian goals, or threats to the US, and Bush (or at least his crew) seized on 9/11 as the excuse to go ahead. Frankly, I think that is criminal. I also think it was stupid, and is being stupidly carried out. We, you and I, are paying for those decisions, and will continue to. It would be great if things turned out as you expect, but I’m not holding my breath.

Regarding “Monday morning quarterbacking”, I’m not interested in second-guessing decisions made 50 years ago. I am interested in noticing if history can tell us anything about our present circumstances.

Best -

R