Via Kevin Drum.
Barry’s BlueSky- Untitled September 6, 2024A Concise History of Keeping The Immigrants Out Transcript and blogpost (featuring Becky’s thoughts on drawing this #PoliCartoon and some of her research photos): https://www.patreon.com/posts/concise-history-111121390 If you enjoy our cartoons, a $1-3 pledge really helps there be more! patreon.com/barry
- Untitled September 6, 2024Weird headline: "Harris ran her office like a prosecutor. Not everyone liked that." I mean, duh: No boss in a highly stressful job is liked by "everyone." But the article isn't anti-Harris. Goofy headline aside, it paints Harris as a tough, smart, knowledgeable and engaged boss. archive.ph/WZmJ9 https://archive.ph/WZmJ9
- Untitled September 6, 2024Trump lies about his sanctions record. No President has ever used sanctions more, and Trump never once lifted sanctions. (Sanctions are awful under Biden, too, but Trump is even worse on this issue.) https://daniellarison.substack.com/p/trumps-sanctions-lies
- Untitled September 6, 2024You‘ve been kidnapped. The characters from the last tv show you watched are trying to rescue you. Who is coming to save you? (Probably I'm dead meat, but at least my kidnappers/murderers are certain to be caught.) [contains quote post or other embedded content]
- Untitled September 6, 2024I saw the author of the book on the left claim that the poster on the right, for a Netflix documentary, is a rip-off of the book cover. And... How? Why would anyone think that the one on the right ripped off the one on the left? They're entirely different images, moods, and layouts.
- Untitled September 5, 2024Or imagine having bigots take my cartoons and relettering them to be "bigotry yay!" cartoons. But I don't have to imagine it, because it's happened at least a dozen times. I still think copyright law is way too all-encompassing and should be, not abolished, but scaled way back. [contains quote post or other embedded content]
- Untitled September 6, 2024
Sadly, I don’t think that the poll gives the option that is the closest to reality: the US opposes democracy in Muslim countries (and all less developed countries) especially those countries in which the government cooperates with the US. The US’s general policy towards dictators is to support friendly dictators absolutely. Witness Saudi Arabia: horrific human rights record, one of the worst in the region and possibly the world, not even pretending to be a democracy, point of origin of terrorists and terrorist organizations, completely supported by the US under both Republican and Democratic governments.
The US prefers “stable” dictators to unpredictable democracies which might actually respond to their people’s best interests rather than the US’s. The only time the US gets interested in “democracy” in other countries is when the dictator (or democratically elected official) in a given country doesn’t cooperate with the US. See examples from Saddam Hussein to Allende.
I think you’ll find that the U.S.’s relationship with countries like Saudi Arabia is driven not by any particular opinion or desire to encourage or discourage democracy there but by the fact that right now we are dependent on them for oil. It’s an issue of national interests. We have a national interest to see democratic countries in the world. We also have a national interest to see a steady supply of oil at a certain price.
Don’t take that as an argument for our current policies towards Saudi Arabia. I think that a theocratic monarchy is about the worst kind of government to have. What would you propose as a plan that would a) drive change to democracy in Saudi Arabia while b) maintaining the current standard of living in America?
I think you’ll find that the U.S.’s relationship with countries like Saudi Arabia is driven not by any particular opinion or desire to encourage or discourage democracy there but by the fact that right now we are dependent on them for oil.
But because we are or perceive ourselves as being dependent on them for oil, we are much happier with a “predictable” dictator than an unpredictable democratically elected government. Thus, we discourage democracy in Saudi Arabia. Not out of desire to do evil, but simply out of fear of losing our standard of living.
What would you propose as a plan that would a) drive change to democracy in Saudi Arabia while b) maintaining the current standard of living in America?
If these two goals are, indeed, incompatible (and it’s by no means clear to me that they are) then the first question to consider is which is more important? Does your need to drive to work or my desire for A/C in the summer outweigh the need of women in Saudi Arabia to be able to walk the streets without fear or for Saudi Arabian men to be able to discuss theology without risking execution?
To the poll – how reputable is PIPA, how did they do their sampling, are those statements the actual questions or what PIPA summarizes as what the questions they actually asked mean – and finally, note that none of those adds up to 100%; in some cases, not even close. Also, remember that in most of those countries the government has at least some control over what the populace sees and hears on the news.
Dianne, I’m not proposing that those two goals are incompatible. I’m asking how to accomplish it. Because what I figure is that this is what an American government is bound to try to do if it wants to continue to get re-elected. American governments’ desire to be re-elected far outweighs their desire to do the right thing, and I certainly don’t expect the current administration to change that. President Obama’s political history in Illinois is one of accomodating power, not changing it.
Does your need to drive to work or my desire for A/C in the summer outweigh the need of women in Saudi Arabia to be able to walk the streets without fear or for Saudi Arabian men to be able to discuss theology without risking execution?
What do you think a general survey of these questions among the American electorate would show?
The economic impact of a temporary raise in oil prices was a contributing factor to the economic problems that helped Obama win election. And this recession is actually less severe than either of the last two in terms of the percentage of people out of work. If the oil supply from Saudi Arabia is disrupted, the question I’d worry about wouldn’t be your need to drive to work but your need to HAVE work. I have no idea what you do for a living, but think more along the lines of whether your employer would stay in business.
The other thing I’ll ask is this; why is it our job to fix the kinds of problems internal to Saudi Arabia that you described? We’re going to buy oil from Saudi Arabia regardless of what kind of government they have. As long as a Saudi government is willing to sell us oil and isn’t invading other countries we’re going to support it. We’ll protect the current Saudi government from external threats but I’m not aware that we’re interceding to discourage internal change. Doesn’t the primary responsibility for what kind of government Saudi Arabia has lie with the residents (currently properly described as subjects) of Saudi Arabia?
But it’s not like our foreign policy involves just sitting on our hands and allowing internal events to unfold as they will. And decisions that look like good short-term maneuvers to protect our access to cheap oil can really end up back-firing.
Getting rid of Mossadegh probably seemed like a no-brainer at the time. But would the Islamic Revolution have occurred if people hadn’t had it up to there with the U.S.-backed and -protected Shah? Or if the clerics’ opposition to the Shah hadn’t given them enough credibility to help them to consolidate power even though many people weren’t too keen to see a theocracy?
I have no idea what you do for a living, but think more along the lines of whether your employer would stay in business.
I work for the government. A state government, not the feds, but still…If they lay me off because of budget cuts, no big deal to anyone but me, but if they actually manage to go out of business, WORRY!
Slightly more seriously, in response to ron’s concern about the effect of the US distancing itself from Saudi Arabia, allowing any internal changes to happen as determined by the people of the country and risking events such as an oil boycott:
Back a year or so ago when oil was over $200 a barrel, my financial situation was actually better than it is now. I’m from Texas. I have relatives, whom I sometimes help financially, who have a farm in Texas. And the mineral rights to the land…You see where this is going, right? A friend of mine who is working on a more efficient design for a solar panel also had a better time financially then: he was able to get grants that would no longer be available now.
The point of the above anecdotes is that the economy of a large, relatively stable democracy has a lot of flexibility and niches where even a crisis can actually improve things for some people. Not to say that the country wouldn’t suffer from losing Saudi oil. It probably would. But the country and the economy would almost certainly survive. And, with any luck, Saudi Arabia would evolve into a happier, freer, more peaceful country. Which would, ultimately, be good for the US economy: fewer al Qaeda and al Qaeda-ish terrorist organizations with fewer recruits (9/11 wasn’t so good for the economy, you may remember), a more open market with richer and more educated consumers, less war and chaos in the region, maybe even a country not hostile to Israel…all those things would be better for the US economy and the world in general than continued cheap oil.
(Of course, that is not to say that if Saudi Arabia had elections, it would instantly become utopia. They might elect a religious fanatic that would make Bush look reasonable. They might elect bin Laden. They might go the other way entirely and elect Trotsky’s intellectual heir. Whatever. As long as they retain the ability to throw the bum out, it’s still their choice and a choice that the rest of the world just has to cope with.)
Dianne:
Hm. Well, actually, I’d like to see my state’s government here in Illinois go out of business. That would let us bust the public union contracts and a few other things, save some money, and kill off some programs and projects.
chingona:
True. Continuance of the current support for the Saudi government could easily end up with a revolution led by people who have been taught to hate the U.S., and that won’t be good for us. OTOH, they’ll have to sell their oil somewhere to have money to run the state – they have just about no other source of income, regardless of who’s in charge. Overthrowing governments to put kings and despots in charge is not a good idea. It’s going to be fascinating to see what the result is of overthrowing a despot and putting a democratic government in charge will be, especially in a country that has more oil reserves than any other except Saudi Arabia.
If I were the Saudi royal family I might be a little nervous of what the change in Iraq means to them. People are going to start asking “Why can’t we be a democracy?” Who knows – they may start calling on us to help them get rid of the royals and put a democracy in their country.
Yeah. I know if lived next door to Iraq, I’d be asking, “Where can I get me some of that?”
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Job losses in this recession versus the previous five
If I were the Saudi royal family I might be a little nervous of what the change in Iraq means to them.
If I were a member of the Saudi royal family or a higher up in the Iranian government or a member of any government in the Middle East here’s the lesson I’d draw from Iraq’s experience (especially given the experiences of other governments in the area–and that of North Korea):
1. Don’t annoy the US. At least not in public. No matter what it does to your country, placate them.
2. Get WMD-quickly and quietly. The US won’t attack any country with nukes no matter what it does. But don’t brag about what you’re going to do ahead of time.
Yeah, I don’t think that it would be the best thing for the world if the Saudis or Iranians followed my advice. But it’s what I’d do if I were a politico in an less developed country looking to survive and escape Big Brother’s scrutiny.
Hey, I’m all for part of the answer being “Let’s get less dependent on oil.” I’m on record here as saying that I think that taxpayer support of alternative energy development is justifiable on a national security basis.
Yeah. I know if lived next door to Iraq, I’d be asking, “Where can I get me some of that?”
I realize you mean that mockingly, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the reaction is just that, and that it will tend to increase as time passes.
Ron, what would have to happen, in the real world, for you to conclude that the invasion of Iraq was not a good idea?
I ask because it seems to me that ANY policy failure, no matter how extreme, [can be excused] by saying “if we wait long enough, this will lead to positive results.” Which is essentially what you’re saying now.
When asked about the significance of the 1789 French Revolution, Zhou En-lai, premier of China (1949-76) responded thusly:
“Too soon to tell.”
If I am not mistaken,for those interested there is a more detailed account of the conditions under which the poll was conducted at(Europe News)
I have a theory; no on second thoughts its a certainty.
I call it the (we are gonna blame the West for everything it did,nt/did/should have/is really planing/what ever it does or does,nt do /certainty-theory.
Now please don,t misunderstand me.
I would not be to keen on being an apologist for all Western foreign policy.
But it is interesting to play the “If ” game.
What if “we”had not pushed Saddam out of Kuwait.
What if we had just continued the oil for food program.
Remember the entire blame for the Iraqy infant mortality rate being,.no doubt, with the help of Georgeous George,put squarely on the blame of the Allies.
Once again,every tyrant gets of scot free,Saddam,Mao,Stalin,Castro;Ayatolla;Its as if “Left World “only goes into protest mode when in cannot be accused of being a right-wing,white,capitalist,neo-con….you know the rest.
Why not rage at all injustice?But then again,the”left”is notorious for group-think/knee-jerk/lock-step/dogma.
Orwell wrote a scathing condemnation of this tendency of the British,Left ,intelligencia,just before WW2,in placing Nazism and Communism on the same moral plain as democracy.
Although I believe the West should extricate itself if at all possible from every connection with Islam,and yes it is guilty of cynical,double standard exploitation of convieniance,in hypocritically betraying our own values for economic gain,
Only by total dis-engagement can the West,undermine the Islamic juggernaut,and its trojan horse,the left.
Of course,total chaos would ensue,perhaps Russia,China and India
jockying to fill the vacuum.
And who would be blamed…the West,and would blame them…the Muslims and the Left.
Yup its quiet a mind-bending conumdrum,is,nt it?
Frankly, when the invasion of Iraq happened I suspected that a major reason we were doing it was because Bush II was pissed that Hussein tried to have Bush I whacked.
At the time it was hard to evaluate. Hussein was definitely a Bad Guy, and if he didn’t have WMD he had tried before and would try again – and all that oil meant that he had resources that other notorious Bad Guys didn’t. God knew that nobody else was going to do anything about him; in fact, while they were telling everyone how bad he was they were happy to pass him money under the table to undermine the whole effort. Hussein was willing to starve his populace so he could pour his money into self-aggrandizement and a military he’d already used to conquer one country and to attack another. So I wasn’t thrilled about it, but I didn’t hit the streets. There were good reasons to get rid of Saddam.
Even if it works out it might still have been a bad idea; I’ve acted on plenty of bad ideas only to get lucky, and plenty of good ideas that failed spectacularly. It could still fail, especially if the new administration tries to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by using a political schedule rather than events determine when we pull out. If Iraq collapses into a tolitarian state (whether secular or theological) I’ll say it was a bad idea and I won’t say “Oh, wait a few more years.” If it ends up as a democratic state that can defend it’s own borders and isn’t sending money to support homicidal bombers in Palestine I’ll say it was a good idea. But if it does work out that doesn’t mean that I’ll be right; it just might mean that we were lucky.
We’ll never know what would have happened if we hadn’t invaded. Iran would have done their damndest to split off southern Iraq and turn it into a Shia state or even a part of Iran, but I don’t know if they’ve have succeeded, or how many people might have died in the attempt. Northern Iraq might have tried to become the founding center of Kurdistan – after killing (or at least trying to kill) all the non-Kurds that Hussein settled up there. That might well have prompted Turkey to invade. And you can spin out multiple scenarios about what would have happened to Baghdad and environs, or what the Shia majority would have done to the Sunni minority that had dominated them for so long. I doubt that a final judgement will be worked out in my lifetime at least. But I’d give low odds on the non-invasion development of a democracy.
There were good reasons to get rid of Saddam.
To paraphrase you in an earlier post, shouldn’t the responsibility for who is going to run Iraq be primarily that of the Iraqis? I don’t think you’re going to get many people arguing that Saddam Hussein was a wonderful ruler, but why should he be the target of “regime change” wheras the house of Saud is our BFF? Likewise, the Shah of Iran, Pinochet, etc. The US’s decision to invade a county on a flimsy excuse rarely seems to have much to do with how “nice” the country’s leader is. Or even if he/she is elected or not.