[lit-ideas] Neoconservatism replaced by Realpolitik
- From: "Lawrence Helm"<lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:44:56 +0000
Andreas:
I don't believe you read Hersh's entire article -- much too long for you. This
is evidenced further by your note below. Do you interact with Hersh, with
Young, or with me? No, of course not -- way too much reading required for
that; so you continue building not upon any of the three notes, but upon your
original taunt, a statement not only taken out of context but plausibly
disagreed with by the Lebanese Opinion Editor.
If you had actually read these notes, we might have a discussion about
realpolitik, and how it is a continuation of the European "balance of power."
The British and Germans were both very good at that. Actually, World War One
could have been avoided had the various nations been more open about their
treaties and commitments. It does no good to swing over onto the side of a
weaker power if your potential enemy doesn't know it.
Now in regard to the Middle East, I mentioned that one of the reasons I never
took them seriously before 9/11 was that they seemed too busy fighting amongst
themselves to ever want to fight us. After 9/11 we took them seriously, but
they have probably never been that far away from going back to the good old
days of fighting amongst themselves. From a realpolitik standpoint we erred in
applying our European approach to the Middle East. When those pesky Europeans
fight they do it in grand style -- best keep them away from each other's
military throats if at all possible, and we have managed to do that for the
most part since WWII, but now that Militant Islam has discovered the joys of
attacking the West, it serves no good purpose from a realpolitik standpoint to
keep those guys from each other's throats. Let them go back to fighting
amongst themselves and maybe they'll leave us alone.
Hersh's article doesn't describe a clean realpolitik approach to the Middle
East, however. From a desirability standpoint, yes, we would like the Iraqi
Shiites to gain control of their government and remain our allies. But we
would also like the Sunnis who are most opposed to Iran to be our allies
against Iran.
Realpolitik works even if the warriors know about it. We supported Saddam
Hussein against Iran because we considered him the lesser of two evils. We
didn't believe in his ambitions and he knew it. He knew exactly why we
supported him, but he didn't care because he needed our support. The same
thing applies in the Middle East -- even in Shiite Iraq, for example. Neocons
here in the US believed in the idealism of a Liberal Democratic Iraq, but did
the Shiite Iraqis ever embrace that ideal? I don't think so. Nevertheless
they need US support. They need it to survive, and they don't want to move so
far toward an antagonistic Sharia-Law approach that they antagonize the US.
They are well aware that we are unhappy with Iran for several reasons including
Iran's support of the forces opposing the US and Iraqi forces in Iraq. So we
could get by with supporting Shiite Iraq and opposing Shiite Iran, but where it
becomes complicated is in accepting nations like Saudi Arabia as our allies
against Iran. They don't oppose Iran for the same reasons we do. They oppose
them because they hate Shi'ism. That is the part I think difficult to manage.
Unfortunately, realpolitik won't help us with Olivier Roy's alienated
expatriate Muslims. Roy, and after him Fukuyama, believes that they rather
then national Muslims are the real Islamic threat. They function as
paramilitary organizations and owe allegiance to no Middle Eastern nation. If
they operated out of a Middle Eastern nation like Afghanistan or Iran, the do
it for reasons of convenience and not allegiance. These guys are still out
there.
Lawrence
------------Original Message------------
From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, Mar-11-2007 10:41 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: For Lawrence
From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Lawrence, what do you say to the fact that the Bush White House is now
>> arming al
>> Qaeda-affiliated jihadi groups?
> On the face of it, it doesn't sound plausible.
Ah, so you admit it's plausible.
Note Lawrence's reply. Lawrence of Arabia doesn't immediately dismiss as
ludicrous or absurd
the idea that Bush is collaborating with Islamic jihadi. Instead, Lawrence
weakly says
"well... on the face of it..."
Lawrence realizes it is indeed plausible. It was these same Sunni Saudi
militants who
carried out 9.11, destroyed the WTC and attacked the Pentagon, but hey, what's
a little
misunderstanding among friends?
Bush is preparing for a war with Iran. Bush and Israel are trying to provoke a
general war
between Sunni and Shiite. He is gathering the Sunni countries, namely, Egypt,
Syria, and
Saudi Arabia, which are threatened by Shiite Iran, into a coalition. Bush's
tactic to
support the Sunni jihadi is a short-term move, done in order to annoy Iran.
I wouldn't be surprised at all when we find out the US is training the
prisoners at
Guantanamo, arming them, and sending them out to wage new wars.
That's it, Lawrence. No more threat-of-militant-Islam from you. They are your
friends now.
You will now start cheering jihadi. Yesterday, you hated Leftists because they
supported
jihadi. Tomorrow, you'll hate Leftists because they are against the jihadi.
This reminds me of something... ah, yes. The Communists. Remember in the 1930s
how the
Communists around the world fought against Hitler? And suddenly, there was the
Hitler-Stalin
Pact and Communists were dismayed to find they had to suddenly support their
new allies? And
then Hitler invaded the USSR and became the mortal enemy once again? Whipsawed
back and
forth.
That's Lawrence's situation. The enemy is suddenly his ally, who one day will
be enemy
again. Lawrence of clear principles and total certaincy has to switch back and
forth.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
