I can respect an honest and sincere criticism of the whatever-you-want-to-call-it in Iraq, but to use it as a prefabricated excuse for inaction is just plain pathetic.
I'm not saying that "action" in Darfur (particularly America-led military action) is necessarily a good idea.
Just that using Iraq as an excuse BEFOREHAND for the F-A-C-T that this one particular conflict will not be solved by the next president, even if he's a democrat is less than admirable.
As if - but for Bush - the Democrats would be getting the cavalry all revved up to swoop in and save Darfur, bloodlessly, cleanly, nobody-gets-madly.
Layers and layers of BS. It's almost enough to get a guy sour on politics.
I think they'd swiftly regret getting rid of Guantanamo - an oubliette comes in handy, and a publicly-known one [despite the apparent contradiction] is much better than the necessary alternative.
Just that using Iraq as an excuse BEFOREHAND for the F-A-C-T that this one particular conflict will not be solved by the next president, even if he's a democrat is less than admirable.
Perhaps, but it's realistic.
Although Dave's analysis is more sanguine than my own. I expect a repeat of the Carter Years Redux myself...
Snippet
One of the reasons why the US failed to intervene in Rwanda in 1994 was the trouble Somalia caused us. So it's not a stretch to state that the trouble we've had with Iraq has influenced our behavior in Darfur. It has definitely constrained our actions with Iran.
There are other, more important factors in the case of Darfur, namely China's protection of Sudan in exchange for it's oil. However that' doesn't diminish Dave's argument.
And if we hadn't gone into Somalia, Rwanda would have been our "Somalia," probably a lot worse.
Also, if Holbroke is correct, George Bush's Iraq adventure has saved the democrats from their own Darfur quagmire. He should be thankful.
It's not necessarily false that Iraq is preventing an American Darfur intervention. What is false is that a Darfur intervention:
1) Should happen
2) Would turn out well
3) Should be led by America
Holbroke is using Iraq for cover and political advantage. He's using it in a way that is cynical even for politics.
He's looking at an example of how bad it could be, and claiming that that example CAUSED, rather than illuminated the futility of, the course of action he can claim credit for wishing would happen.
>> He's looking at an example of how bad it could be, and claiming that that example CAUSED, rather than illuminated the futility of, the course of action he can claim credit for wishing would happen
That's awkward.
He's looking at an example of how bad it could be, and claiming that that example prevents a noble course of action he can claim credit for advocating, rather than illuminating the futility of that course of action.
Holbroke's off the hook, completely. No Darfur fiasco, plus a nice little excuse for not doing the "right" thing.
And if we hadn't gone into Somalia, Rwanda would have been our "Somalia," probably a lot worse.
That's arguable. Rwanda wasn't as militarized. The most commonly used weapon during the slaughter was the machete. Plus the nation is Christian/Animist for the most part, so you wouldn't have had al-Qaeda in operation there.
Be that as it may, Iraq may be the reason America will be uninterested in saving Darfur, but there's no reason the other 189 countries on the planet can't give it a shot.
They can show us how it's done. We'll all learn from the experience.
1) I doubt you will see "an Obama administration." Much more likely is a Clinton administration, a McCain administration, or a Giuliani administration.
2) American elections tend to be about matters other than foreign policy.
>> 2) American elections tend to be about matters other than foreign policy
I am beginning to wonder if Reagan's great appeal had far less to do with his vaunted anti-communism than with his equally vaunted anti-welfarequeenism.
A LOT of people who were sick and tired of people getting a free ride on their dollar may not have really gotten all the bent out shape over the Soviet Union's efforts to see how much wealth they could stop people in unfortunate parts of the world from creating.
Your 'kust a thought' is an appropriate one, Snippet.
Reagan's 28 years ago was about more or less everything other than the foreign stuff. The "misery" index cited by Reagan in his campaign against James Earl Carter, for example, comprised the numeric total of the inflation rate plus the unemployment rate.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
1.9.2008 2:49pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
I'm not saying that "action" in Darfur (particularly America-led military action) is necessarily a good idea.
Just that using Iraq as an excuse BEFOREHAND for the F-A-C-T that this one particular conflict will not be solved by the next president, even if he's a democrat is less than admirable.
As if - but for Bush - the Democrats would be getting the cavalry all revved up to swoop in and save Darfur, bloodlessly, cleanly, nobody-gets-madly.
Layers and layers of BS. It's almost enough to get a guy sour on politics.
Perhaps, but it's realistic.
Although Dave's analysis is more sanguine than my own. I expect a repeat of the Carter Years Redux myself...
Suggesting that the invasion of Iraq is the reason that the USAF won't "get" to save Darfur is ludicrous.
One of the reasons why the US failed to intervene in Rwanda in 1994 was the trouble Somalia caused us. So it's not a stretch to state that the trouble we've had with Iraq has influenced our behavior in Darfur. It has definitely constrained our actions with Iran.
There are other, more important factors in the case of Darfur, namely China's protection of Sudan in exchange for it's oil. However that' doesn't diminish Dave's argument.
And if we hadn't gone into Somalia, Rwanda would have been our "Somalia," probably a lot worse.
Also, if Holbroke is correct, George Bush's Iraq adventure has saved the democrats from their own Darfur quagmire. He should be thankful.
It's not necessarily false that Iraq is preventing an American Darfur intervention. What is false is that a Darfur intervention:
1) Should happen
2) Would turn out well
3) Should be led by America
Holbroke is using Iraq for cover and political advantage. He's using it in a way that is cynical even for politics.
He's looking at an example of how bad it could be, and claiming that that example CAUSED, rather than illuminated the futility of, the course of action he can claim credit for wishing would happen.
That's awkward.
He's looking at an example of how bad it could be, and claiming that that example prevents a noble course of action he can claim credit for advocating, rather than illuminating the futility of that course of action.
Holbroke's off the hook, completely. No Darfur fiasco, plus a nice little excuse for not doing the "right" thing.
That's arguable. Rwanda wasn't as militarized. The most commonly used weapon during the slaughter was the machete. Plus the nation is Christian/Animist for the most part, so you wouldn't have had al-Qaeda in operation there.
Be that as it may, Iraq may be the reason America will be uninterested in saving Darfur, but there's no reason the other 189 countries on the planet can't give it a shot.
They can show us how it's done. We'll all learn from the experience.
2) American elections tend to be about matters other than foreign policy.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I am beginning to wonder if Reagan's great appeal had far less to do with his vaunted anti-communism than with his equally vaunted anti-welfarequeenism.
A LOT of people who were sick and tired of people getting a free ride on their dollar may not have really gotten all the bent out shape over the Soviet Union's efforts to see how much wealth they could stop people in unfortunate parts of the world from creating.
Just a thought.
Reagan's 28 years ago was about more or less everything other than the foreign stuff. The "misery" index cited by Reagan in his campaign against James Earl Carter, for example, comprised the numeric total of the inflation rate plus the unemployment rate.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.