[United States of America]Presidential inauguration.

[Serious Paul]

So Mr. Bush has been sworn in for hsi second term, and already people are discussing his "big" plans for his second term. Some feel he has some pretty damn big ambitions.

I figured we could start sorting some of them out and discussing them here. Feel free to include gripes and concerns too, after all there's no good witout evil neh?

[Daki]

Saw a preview of an article in this week's Newsweek that discusses Bush's plans and ambitions for the coming year and compares it to other presidents in history. I'd recommend it as a good read-through. If I can find the article on Msn.com, I will link it. I'll hold off on addressing his points until I read the address (missed it at work).

[FlameBlade]

four years of lame duck. Take it from me.

[Alareth]

after all there's no good witout evil neh?

OSLO, Norway (AP) - Many Norwegian television viewers were shocked to see U.S. President George W. Bush and family apparently saluting Satan during the U.S. inauguration.

But in reality, it was just a sign of respect for the University of Texas Longhorns, whose fans are known to shout out "Hook 'em, horns!" at athletic events.

The president and family were photographed lifting their right hands with their index and pinky fingers raised up, much like a horn.

But in much of the world those "horns" are a sign of the devil. In the Nordics, the hand gesture is popular among death metal and black metal groups and fans.

"Shock greeting from Bush daughter," a headline in the Norwegian Internet newspaper Nettavisen said late Wednesday above a photograph of Bush's daughter, Jenna, smiling and showing the sign.

Bush, a former Texas governor, was simply greeting the Texas Longhorn marching band as it passed during a Washington D.C. parade in the president's honor, explained Verdens Gang, Norway's largest newspaper.

Just the same, the Internet was abuzz Thursday with speculation about what the Bushes really mean by the sign.

[Gunny]

You've got to be kidding me.

[Wounded Ronin]

You've got to be kidding me.

Nope.

And in Italy, that hand sign means that you just screwed someone's wife.

[Caine Hazen]

Well as long as our foriegn relations policy is right up front like that....

[DV8]

You've got to be kidding me.

I'm sure the swastika is just a Tibetan good luck charm, too.

[3278]

I think the inaugural address was the most clear statement yet of the Bush Doctrine, a formalization of the incredibly questionable philosophy that democracy and freedom should be universal. As a statement, it succeeds admirably, telling everyone in flowery words what our plans are, and even managing to deflect attention from some of the more difficult elements of the philosophy.

As brief as it was, it couldn't go into great detail about solutions, and for an address of this sort, that's good. Too much time spent in defense or anticipating possible avenues of attack and the address loses its purity of message. As an address, then, this did more or less precisely what it set out to do.

My problem, then, isn't with the address, but the notions that brought it about. The speech clevery calls some of the most debateable philosophical elements of the Doctrine "common sense," making anyone who argues against them seem to be bereft of such. In reality, the idea that the United States should ignore the ideals of self-determination and take up an interventionist policy worldwide is anything /but/ common sense, although it's being made to look like it [much like it was made to be common sense that Iraq should be attacked].

I think democracy that is not earned is unlikely to be successful. I think freedom by force of arms is likely to degenerate into something quite different. I do not believe there is a particularly good example of a US-forced freedom producing a successful nation. I also think it's simply dead wrong to say with one breath that liberty is the most essential ideal, and with the next say that we are going to alter the structure of another nation's government to be more in line with the structure of our own. The intolerable arrogance it takes to assume the US way is the best or only way is simply anathema to my own vision of liberty and freedom.

My objections aside, the specifics left out in the address will have to be taken up elsewhere. For instance, the US has a number of foreign allies whose human rights records and lack of democracy equal or exceed that of pre-war Iraq; what are we to do about them? The pundits say we're allies of these nations because only through trade and influence can we alter them, but the fact is that most of them are allies for political or economic reasons, and no serious attempt to alter their cultures has been undertaken.

I also wonder what manner of strategy will be developed for this doctrine. Victory in war has generally been clear-cut, and we've been able, for thousands of years, to build doctrines of war that allow us to pursue war with a clear agenda and achieve clear success. The democratization-by-force of Iraq has shown clearly that we have no clear method of fulfilling the aegis of the Bush Doctrine, no strategy that clearly lays out the techniques necessary for turning a dictatorship into a democracy, while maintaining peace elsewhere, not losing allies, without massive loss of life or economic hardship at home or abroad, and so on.

In short, I believe President Bush's address was acceptably successful - although I could certainly criticize its details and delivery - but that his Doctrine is ill-thought-out, untolerably nonspecific, and ultimately completely and totally wrong.

[Eliahad]

Did anyone else think it strange that he used the inaugural address of the United States of America to talk a lot about /other/ countries? Not that he didn't talk about the US...but it's not like he started there.

[Marius]

It's not the State of the Union. That speech comes up soon enough.

[Game Master]

Thanks 3278, I appreciate that. our post gives me something to think about, and helps put my own thoughts in perspective.

Marius do yuo think his State of the Union will run along the lines of this speech, or maybe I should say do you think his State of the Union will contain a healthy chunk of this? Versus say Social Security reforms (Not so sure his ideas are bad, but still not sure they're fiscally responsible), or tort "reform"? (My opinion is still out on that one.)

[Marius]

The SotU will focus more on the domestic agenda for the second term. That's really what that speech is for.

[Ratoslov]

I liked how he said he wanted to 'expand democracy', rather than 'spread' or 'nurture' it.

[mrmooky]

The speech cleverly calls some of the most debateable philosophical elements of the Doctrine "common sense," making anyone who argues against them seem to be bereft of such.

"Cleverly"? I don't see how such a line is particularly clever. Maybe if it was the first time it had ever been used in an argument, it would be clever, but it ain't.

Calling something "just common sense" in the absence of a compelling argument, and in the presence of devastating criticism, is the oldest - and cheapest - rhetorical trick in the book.

I think democracy that is not earned is unlikely to be successful.

Amen.

Oh. And that doesn't just apply to Iraq, either.

[Game Master]

Never forget that you, like 99% of the posters here are far more intelligent than a lot of Americans. Clever, my friend, is in the eye of the beholder.

[lorg]

But in much of the world those "horns" are a sign of the devil. In the Nordics, the hand gesture is popular among death metal and black metal groups and fans.

I knew it! Bullshit sports excuse, yeah right ... Devil worship!! :D


About the speech.

The balls on that man has got to be freakin' huge. Standing there talking about "freedom" and spreading it to the darkest corners of the globe, blah blah blah. What a complete pack of bull that was. He mentioned a few countries in "special need" of enlightment, but he failed to mention all that are just as oppressed as the next with the exception that they are "friends and allies" of the USA such as Saudi Arabi and Pakistan, yeah there you have a couple of more that could use his "freedom". But that ain't ever going to happened.

I think democracy that is not earned is unlikely to be successful.

So do you think Iraq will be a failure within the next four years? OK so it is one already but is what you are saying that you think the situation won't improve. All SNAFU all the time.

In general, imposing your type of "freedom" on others by force is rarely ever going to work in the long run. In the short perspective as long as you are there with the barrel of a gun presed against them then sure they are going to behave but once you leave they'll hate you more then they did before. One week now until we get to see how the so called election goes in Iraq.


Hm I wonder how all this relates to the Seymour Hershs piece about the special forces in Iran and the other news piece about Rumsfeldts "new" spy and covert ops organization (SSB).

[Paul]

In some ways it may fail, Iraq that is, in others it may succeed. I think we can't be linear in our thinking here. Success is measured in a number of different ways.

[lorg]

Naturally one can't be static when it comes to these things but I would think (or hope) most would agree that peace or freedom imposed in the way it was done in Iraq doesn't exactlly have the best possible start or perhaps one should say it has got a more "shaky" foundation and would for that reason alone be more prone to failure. There are naturally even more factors in play here that makes the situation even more volatile and prone to failure.

Would it be great if it did work? Sure, it would be super. But I just don't think it will be.

[3278]

The balls on that man has got to be freakin' huge. Standing there talking about "freedom" and spreading it to the darkest corners of the globe, blah blah blah. What a complete pack of bull that was.

I'd like to make absolutely certain that you understand this has nothing to do with balls, and that President Bush does not, apparently, believe this is a pack of bull. There is a very large portion of the American populace that believes it is our duty as a free nation to spread freedom throughout the world, much as many other nations believe it is their duty as rich nations to fund reconstruction efforts after natural disasters.

I don't agree with them, but I think their point is quite arguable, and certainly deserving of more consideration than a summary judgement of "bull." The US - and other nations - have a long tradition of taking it as our responsibility to help those less fortunate, and to spread what we feel is "right" and "just" and "best" everywhere we go. It's one of the many things we keep going to war for: World War I and World War II, certainly, as well as about a ton and a half of UN actions. We've been brought up to believe that, since we're all rich and powerful, it's our responsibility to take care of everyone else.

My problem with this is fairly simple: I don't think it's our responsibility at all. I don't think our government should fund disaster relief efforts in other nations. I don't think our government should fight wars on behalf of other nations. I don't think our government should decide for other nations what the best form of government is. [And I think the equation of "freedom" with "democracy," when freedom is forced and not chosen, and when in our own nation, our democracy pays often only lip-service to true liberty, is appalling.]

He mentioned a few countries in "special need" of enlightment, but he failed to mention all that are just as oppressed as the next with the exception that they are "friends and allies" of the USA such as Saudi Arabi and Pakistan, yeah there you have a couple of more that could use his "freedom". But that ain't ever going to happened.

I think it's too bad that he failed to mention it, but as I noted, this was not the venue for such comments, from a social or political standpoint. However, these are issues which merit serious debate; I understand that these concerns are actually receiving the benefit of such discussion in our government at this time. I find it likely, though, that when the debate is over, the results will look much like our current reasoning: we need these nations to be our allies, and any attempt to force change will result in a lack of alliance with them. Whatever we may feel ideologically - and you can be sure that Bush has every enmity for the behavior of certain Saudis and Pakistanis - pragmatism forces us into unfortunate alliances.

There is some merit, I believe, in the pundit's excuse that by dealing with these nations, we allow ourselves to make changes to them without the use of force or coersion. In fact, I believe this is the /only/ way we should alter other cultures. To change someone else's behavior on the basis that you don't support it personally is emphatically at odds with our stated position on freedom.

I think democracy that is not earned is unlikely to be successful.

So do you think Iraq will be a failure within the next four years? OK so it is one already but is what you are saying that you think the situation won't improve. All SNAFU all the time.

I think that would be a radical misinterpretation of my words. My intent was to convey my conviction that democracies brought about by outside force - and not by popular or governmental concensus - are unlikely to be long-lasting or particularly beneficial.

In general, imposing your type of "freedom" on others by force is rarely ever going to work in the long run.

I emphatically agreed. I have always believed that which is not earned is not appreciated. In addition to this sentiment, I think that a culture must be prepared for democracy and the rights and responsibilities that come with it before democracy can succeed particularly well. I believe some cultures, some societies, are simply ungovernable by anything other than absolute centralized control; this was certainly true for long periods of time in the histories of our own respective cultures.

And I believe that cultures must run their course, only taking a given turn when they desire it, and not simply because people ahead of them are turning in that direction, as well. Just as with any convoy, there are leaders, and there are followers, and if every car turns exactly when the lead car turns, there are going to be an awful lot of cars that miss the road, not having gotten to the junction yet. [I don't want this to sound as though I believe there's one path civilizations follow: that's certainly not true. If it helps, think of the road as a branching path, with leaders and followers and many roads to different places.]

One week now until we get to see how the so called election goes in Iraq.

I think we'll likely have to wait quite a bit longer than that. The elections are Sunday, but results won't be in for another two weeks, and it's what happens then, and for the three or so years following then, that really counts.

I think the Iraqis have a number of challenges facing them, and while I don't believe them insurmountable, nothing I have seen so far suggests that Iraq is particularly likely to succeed in this matter without grave errors along the way. The foremost risk, I believe, is fragmentation. "Civil war" is a word you hear a lot in Iraq coverage recently, and for good reasons. You have Sunnis and Shiites, Iraqis and Kurds, and what's worse, the groups overlap so that you have Sunni Iraqis and Shia Kurds, and Sunni Kurds and Shia Kurds, along with a handful of other ethnicities, races, cultures, and religions. You have a powerful group of formerly exiled religious leaders with strong connections to the Iranian government, and terrorist insurgents loyal to various factions, clerics, or political figures. There are too many parties with too much self-interest and vastly too much to gain.

The worst aspect of this division, to me, is that no one seems to be asking so much, "What's best for Iraq?" but rather, "How can my party/religion/ethnicity most benefit from this?" There is no unity of purpose, only a general jockeying for position; it is as if these people have lived so long under the power of someone else that the power vacuum itself is an object of obsession. Many groups are so scared of being under the control of someone else that they will do whatever they can to make certain they are under their own control, and in the meantime, no one seems to be wondering what this control should actually do for the people of Iraq. It's one of the many cues that tells me - largely ignorant, sitting in my chair, half a world away - that Iraq is not ready for democracy and self-rule.

[Salvation122]

The worst aspect of this division, to me, is that no one seems to be asking so much, "What's best for Iraq?" but rather, "How can my party/religion/ethnicity most benefit from this?"

There's Sistani, though you haven't been hearing much from him lately.

[mrmooky]

The worst aspect of this division, to me, is that no one seems to be asking so much, "What's best for Iraq?" but rather, "How can my party/religion/ethnicity most benefit from this?"

Iraq as a unit was never anything more than a political construct, first of the British Empire, and later of Saddam Hussein (and now of the Coalition of the Willing). In reality, many if not most Iraqis are more loyal to their religious and tribal groups than to a common national identity, which only ever really existed insofar as it was promoted by various invaders and dictators.

[3278]

Absolutely. I think it's quite possible that it would actually be best, in the long term, for Iraq to balkanize - or yugoslavize, really - into two or more different nations. Certainly the Kurds would like their own country.

[lorg]

I'd like to make absolutely certain that you understand this has nothing to do with balls, and that President Bush does not, apparently, believe this is a pack of bull. There is a very large portion of the American populace that believes it is our duty as a free nation to spread freedom throughout the world, much as many other nations believe it is their duty as rich nations to fund reconstruction efforts after natural disasters.

It is quite possible that that is the case even thou I don't belief that the method used to share it with the world is the best one. Freedom from the barrel of a gun and all.

Whatever we may feel ideologically - and you can be sure that Bush has every enmity for the behavior of certain Saudis and Pakistanis - pragmatism forces us into unfortunate alliances.

Well yes theory and what is or might be practical doesn't always go hand in hand. But one would heop they took note of that and not just brushed it aside cause that makes his speech sound so much more hypocritical than it might have actually been.

I think democracy that is not earned is unlikely to be successful.

So do you think Iraq will be a failure within the next four years? OK so it is one already but is what you are saying that you think the situation won't improve. All SNAFU all the time.

I think that would be a radical misinterpretation of my words. My intent was to convey my conviction that democracies brought about by outside force - and not by popular or governmental concensus - are unlikely to be long-lasting or particularly beneficial.

That wasn't ment as any kind of statement or interpretation on my behalf but instead just a question. A question if you thought the current action(s) to bring freedom and light to the darkest corners of Iraq would succeed or fail.

One week now until we get to see how the so called election goes in Iraq.

I think we'll likely have to wait quite a bit longer than that. The elections are Sunday, but results won't be in for another two weeks, and it's what happens then, and for the three or so years following then, that really counts.

Well the turnout was comparable to most western nations, something between 60-75% went out. I don't know if I would have gone to the polls durring their circumstances. So kudos to them for that. As noted it could take up to two weeks for them all to be counted and in the end it could be a nightmare of a goverment with hoards of small parties and such making governing more or less impossible. Not to mention that the two weeks to count doesn't exactlly inspire confidence and I could only imagine that it would be another source to claim that 'the great satan' rigged the election in some puppets favour etc.

[3278]

That wasn't ment as any kind of statement or interpretation on my behalf but instead just a question. A question if you thought the current action(s) to bring freedom and light to the darkest corners of Iraq would succeed or fail.

I wish I could make an accurate prediction. I think it's pretty likely that there'll be civil war within a decade. I think continuing insurgent attacks are likely, as well. I really do think it's possible that Iraq will eventually have a stable democratic government and a relatively peaceful climate, but I believe there will be a great deal of strife along the way. [There always is, but I think the circumstances of Iraq's liberation maximize the potential for it.]

Not to mention that the two weeks to count doesn't exactlly inspire confidence and I could only imagine that it would be another source to claim that 'the great satan' rigged the election in some puppets favour etc.

I heard today that they're expecting now that it'll be more like a week to ten days, so that's good. Any delay is likely, as you say, to cause controversy. I think the Iraqi public and in particular the people who organized this voting effort should feel a great measure of pride. They've done something quite amazing under circumstances most dire.

[lorg]

BTW have anyone yet to see any kind of voting breakdown, saying that 60-75% voted in the election is somewhat hollow since one could assume that the people in north and south were out in force while well it was a bit less so in the middle of the country.

[lorg]

With a 58% turnout, a bit lower then previously mentioned. But still quite close to the low end of the estimate. But 58% is still a great number concidering the circumstanses and well there are "real" democracies with history that votes with the same frequency in their elections.

But there appears to have been great diffrences between various locations. The Shia in the south was out in force, but not as much force as they had hoped for. I have yet to see any kind of city of area breakdown of the votes, for example it would be interesting to see how many people voted in say Falluja and whom they voted for.

So now the giant tradeoff show begins as they all scramble for power. Who is going to sell out to whom and what are they going to to cut back on. But Concidering the Shia didn't get sole power I guess we are not going to see Iraq being transformed into Iran Jr or something like that.


BTW how come the US government pays to have google sponsored links when you search for the "Iraq Election results"? (usinfo.state.gov)