International Affairs: May 2004 Archives

I've been thinking more about South America recently, so when I saw this image of the capability ranges of America's Marine Expeditionary Units it struck me as odd that none are within five days travel of the shores of our southern neighbors.

Bill Hobbs points to some recent developments in the tiny, oil-rich African nation of Sao Tome.

It's important that -- although the focus of our attention must be on terrorist nations and the Middle East -- American should not lose sight of the rest of the world. I'm glad to see that our military is working with Sao Tome to protect their oil reserves, and I'd like to see America get more engaged in South America, too.

As Mr. Hobbs writes:

One of the more interesting and important - and, therefore, less covered by the American media - developments in American foreign policy is the United States' increasingly close relationship with the tiny island nation of Sao Tome & Principe, off the west coast of Africa, south of Nigeria and west of Gabon. Sao Tome is small, pro-American, and is predominantly Christian, unlike Nigeria, which is 50 percent Muslim is increasingly wracked by extremist Muslim violence against Christians.

Oh, and Sao Tome sits atop a whole lot of undeveloped oil.

Perhaps our enemies won't notice these fringe developments, and we should take advantage of whatever distraction the War on Terror affords us to flank our adversaries diplomatically.

So I guess everyone (including Lynndie England) will now be willing to agree that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners was committed by the participating criminals entirely on their own initiative?

SDB has written about the current state of the world as a three-way war (my take), and Francis Porretto has upped the ante with two more sides! Mr. Porretto identifies the sides by their material goals rather than their philosophies, and to that end I think he is right in calling out Red China and the "Pacific Enterprise Bloc" as significant players, in addition to SDB's Empiricists, Idealists, and Islamists.

In a sense, both China and the PEB are Empiricists who just don't have the same goals as the Anglosphere (SDB's main Empiricist group).

Mr. Porretto also briefly mentions the various "Hispanic states" (presumably most of South America, and the like; is that the right term for the group?) as "uninterested in the war, incapable of taking a hand in it, or both", and perhaps Africa falls into the same category. Still, South America strikes me as far less backward and troubled than Africa, and I'd say they're closer to the PEB in their desires (to make money and to be left alone).

I think it would be very advantageous for the Anglosphere to court these Hispanic states through freer trade and cultural exchange. We spend a lot of time and money on our enemies, but these mostly-neutral states could be developed into strong allies over the next few decades if we play our cards right. We need a more workable approach to the War on Drugs, and we need open trade from Canada to Argentina.

Victor Davis Hanson has a really long piece about "The Wages of Appeasement", and even though it's too long for me to focus on, there are some real gems.

In the face of such visceral anti-Americanism, the problem may not be real differences over the West Bank, much less that "we are not getting the message out"; rather, in the decade since 1991 the Middle East saw us as a great power that neither could nor would use its strength to advance its ideas--that lacked even the intellectual confidence to argue for our civilization before the likes of a tenth-century monarchy. The autocratic Arab world neither respects nor fears a democratic United States, because it rightly senses that we often talk in principled terms but rarely are willing to invest the time, blood and treasure to match such rhetoric with concrete action. That's why it is crucial for us to stay in Iraq to finish the reconstruction and cement the achievement of our three-week victory over Saddam.

As Sun Tzu said millenia ago, the best way to win is to convince your enemy not to fight. The best way to convince your enemy not to fight is to demonstrate that the results of fighting will be disasterous for them. And that means sometimes you have to fight, just to prove the point.

Further, as VDH points out, many Americans just don't realize how good we've got it. Many Americans don't have the intellectual confidence to argue that the United States is the greatest nation that has ever existed on the face of the earth. They waffle, yes, but..., and it's true, America isn't a perfect country. But there's a reason everyone in the world wants to come live here. We're wealthier and more free than any place else, bar none, and it's no accident.

Capitalism and liberal democracy work. It's not a crime against multiculturalism to say that the Middle East would be better off without madrassas, female circumcision, and Islamofacism -- it's just a fact. Similarly, those on the left who pine for disappearing cultures should ask themselves why the cultures are disappearing. Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution, has some thoughts on the matter.

Reason: Environmental activists often oppose road building. They say such roads will lead to the destruction of the rain forests or other wildernesses. What would you say to them?

Borlaug: These extremists who are living in great affluence...are saying that poor people shouldn't have roads. I would like to see them not just go out in the bush backpacking for a week but be forced to spend the rest of their lives out there and have their children raised out there. Let's see whether they'd have the same point of view then.

I should point out that I was originally trained as a forester. I worked for the U.S. Forest Service, and during one of my assignments I was reputed to be the most isolated member of the Forest Service, back in the middle fork of the Salmon River, the biggest primitive area in the southern 48 states. I like the back country, wildlife and all of that, but it's wrong to force poor people to live that way.

Once people from backwards cultures are exposed to modern life, they don't want to keep living in the wilderness. I don't blame them. Being a tribal nomad would suck. Everyone knows that, including members of the cultures the left wants to "preserve" (by denying poor people the opportunity to leave). It's not at all unreasonable to say that American culture is simply better than the rest. Just look at the evidence.

I think the primary cause of past American appeasement was moral ignorance. We look at other cultures as museum pieces, all equally valuable just because they're different. But these primitive, barbaric cultures oppress real people, just like you and me, who don't deserve to be refused entrance to modernity just because we (and the elite of a given culture, who profit off the misery of others) want to preserve their culture as a curiousity.

Plus, as VDH notes, we were fat, happy, and invulnerable -- or so we thought.

The self-flagellation continues as President Bush apologizes yet again.

President Bush (news - web sites) acknowledged "times are tough" for the United States and the Middle East and repeatedly apologized for U.S. soldiers' conduct in Iraq (news - web sites) in an interview published by an Egyptian newspaper Friday.

... neatly handing the Islamofacists a new arrow for their quiver of terror.

And if you don't think the press is driving this "story", consider the third paragraph:

The editors of Egypt's Al-Ahram newspaper who conducted the interview didn't ask about the future of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Critics have called upon Rumsfeld to resign for his handling of the prisoner-abuse scandal.

No word on what other questions weren't asked, but at least we know AP's position on the matter. This is a PR debacle. Some short colonel should have been answering questions and issuing apologies, if necessary; instead, we've got the President of the United States bending over and taking it.

Bush didn't apologize in two television interviews Wednesday, but he made up for it in the Al-Ahram interview, saying the word "sorry" six times.

"I can't tell you how sorry I am to them and their families for the humiliation," he said. "I'm also sorry because people are then able to say, `Look how terrible America is.'"

Bush conceded that the issue has cost the United States standing in the Middle East.

"I think that things in the Middle East for the United States are difficult right now," Bush said. "I think they're difficult because people don't really understand our intentions. ... I'd say right now times are tough for the United States and the Middle East."

Utterly insane. The media lost interest in January after the initial report, and they would have lost interest again if the only response they got was from a PR flack, but now that they've got the President himself on the scaffold we're never going to hear the end of it.

At least the President still has some backbone.

Bush declined to offer any guarantees on two issues of special concern to Arabs — that an eventual Palestinian state would encompass almost all the West Bank, and that Palestinian refugees who fled in 1948 from land that now lies in Israel be allowed to return.

Of course, it doesn't take much guts to refuse to promise the impossible -- unless you're a diplomat, maybe. Both those issues of "special concern" are 100% guaranteed to be rejected by Israel, and everyone in the game knows it, so why does the media keep acting as if they're on the table? Because the media wants to see the eventual destruction of the Zionist entity?

Meanwhile, the Vatican points out the obvious:

The abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers is a scandal offensive to God himself, the Vatican (news - web sites) said, in its first public comment.

"Violence against people offends God himself, who made humans in his own image," the Vatican's foreign minister, Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, said in a pre-recorded television interview due to be broadcast later on Friday.

Lots of stuff that people do every day offends God, so this is hardly news. You steal? You lie? You offend "God himself". So what's the Vatican's agenda?

Lajolo said he hoped Iraq (news - web sites) would regain its independence and sovereignty as soon as possible, that the country would be led by "a competent Iraqi leader, recognized as such by the people", and that the United Nations (news - web sites) would be given "a defining role" in the oil-rich country.

He said he was optimistic that the return to Iraq on Thursday of UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi meant the UN could soon assume that role.

Right, it's definitely time to put Kofi Annan et al back in charge of Iraq's oil.

"The pope had reasons for denouncing the idea of a preventive war and it is clear that this war has not done away with terrorism," he said.

Uh, yeah... terrorism still exists. We're working on it!

Fortunately, the American people in general aren't as quick to worship at the altar of lip-biting apologies as the Administration, the media, and most of the blogosphere. An ABC poll shows that most Americans don't think the abuse is a big deal.

Most Americans express dismay about the abuse of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers, and the nation divides on whether the Bush administration sought at first to investigate the scandal — or to cover it up.

Right, the Administration tried to cover it up by issuing a report about it four months ago. Or maybe the media is just trying to give that impression.

Three-quarters of the public are closely following the story, a level of attention reserved for some of the most gripping news events.

Translation: whatever the media decides is "gripping" and then reports on 24/7.

Two-thirds favor criminal charges against the soldiers involved; fewer — but still a majority — 54 percent, say punishment should go up the chain of command to higher-level officers who allowed a breakdown of training and discipline.

That's all?! Those numbers would be high for a presidential popularity poll, but they're remarkably low for a question about punishing obvious criminals.

Still, given current knowledge, most say the buck should stop before it gets to Rumsfeld. Twenty percent in this ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll say he should resign, while many more, 69 percent, say he should retain his position. Even most Democrats — hardly the administration's fondest fans — say Rumsfeld should stay.

The the pollsters didn't ask about the future of the media. Critics have accused the mainstream press of creating this scandal themselves for the purpose of hurting the Republicans in the upcoming election.

Update:
James Joyner says it best. (HT: Donald Sensing.)

Allah is on the right track, too.

Is it just me, or does most of the "outrage" over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners look almost completely feigned? From every side of the political spectrum, from reporters to politicians to bloggers, everyone acts shocked and appalled. Am I alone in thinking that, although the abuse shouldn't have happened, it's just not that big of a deal?

I mean, some pictures were taken of unclothed prisoners, and some prisoners were threatened with mild forms of torture. They weren't actually tortured, were they? Maybe I just haven't been following the story closely enough. I've heard some reports that some prisoners were murdered, but are those incidents related to the photos currently circulating, or are they completely different?

Look, prisons aren't nice places to be. Even prisons here in America are far more brutal than they should be, in all the wrong ways. Prison shouldn't be pleasant, but prisoners shouldn't be subject to rape and torture by as a matter of course, either. As I've written before, other forms of punishment would probably be cheaper, more humane, and more effective than prison. The whole prison paradigm needs to be re-examined, in my opinion. If you think the abuse in Iraq is unusual or outstanding, you need to get more familiar with prisons in general, in America and elsewhere. The only interesting feature here is that these idiots took pictures of their crimes.

I'm going to save my outrage for more important matters. This is small potatoes, not a matter for the President or his cabinet to worry about. Let the system work, or even better, revamp the system. In my opinion, this just isn't news; it's a high-profile example of a widespread, low-level problem.

Update:
Some commenters think I'm out of line here, but c'mon -- the Pentagon issued a report about these incidents in January. The only reason this is news now is because the media is hyping it. We need to get these guys and punish them, but the public humilation and self-flagellation by the President and Rumsfeld et al is just playing into the hands of the anti-Americans. It should have been enough for some colonel to say "we're aware of the situation, it's terrible, and we're dealing with it in the standard fashion."

Abu Ghraib prison.