But perhaps I can still persuade him—or a few of our readers.

Nope.

Bruce would prefer that the next president focus his or her energy on improving U.S.-China relations, promoting the responsibility to protect, and combating global climate change. All three are noble goals, but as Rachel points out, they don’t amount to a vision that will mobilize the American public.

Neither does the CoD.

Bruce would prefer that the next president focus his or her energy on improving U.S.-China relations, promoting the responsibility to protect, and combating global climate change. All three are noble goals, but as Rachel points out, they don’t amount to a vision that will mobilize the American public.

I may be wrong James, and perhaps you have some empirical evidence that shows otherwise, but it is my sense that the US public is not terribly interested right now in creating new organizations that will make it easier to intervene in foreign countries, and make those interventions more likely to occur. The vast majority think the current war was a mistake, and are now convinced that the whole crowd in Washington - White House and Congress alike - is made up of incompetent bunglers. They are in "bring the boys home" mode. And I can't think of any water cooler or donut shop conversation I have had recently that suggested to me there was a great public yearning for a concert of democracies or something like it. So it's hard for me to envision a major public mobilization behind the idea of the concert.

On the other hand there is a certain contingent on the right that is always in favor of anything that promises to further weaken the UN. So you might be able to round up a good deal of support from the Boltonistas.

I suspect global climate change is now a much bigger issue than you suspect. The background of inflexible and ostrich-like right-wing skepticism about climate change seems to be fading away palpably, and the anti-global warming cause has picked up allies in parts of the evangelical community. Perhaps it still has something to do with which the part of the country you live in. But the issue seems to generate a lot of talk up here in New Hampshire across the political spectrum, especially since average temperature changes have been more dramatic here than in any other section of the country. Weird unseasonable weather is something people can feel and understand, and they are getting it.

And the public is now completely on board with the idea of the importance of energy politics to our national security, and the costs of our dependence on foreign oil. This is an issue that generates intense interest and anger from the populist right to the progressive ledft. Most Americans are extremely frustrated that our energy needs have tied our security to the goings on in religiously wacked-out, unstable hellholes around the world. If you are looking for a big theme to motivate a foreign policy agenda, this is it. I don't fully understand why centrist liberals have been so slow to get on board with this one in a convincing way. Could it be that with their total infatuation with flat earth globalization and interdependence, they actually like the fact that we are dependent on foreign countries for our energy needs? Or maybe they are content with the fact that US security is bound up with the stability of basket-case regions in the Middle East and Africa, because that makes it more likely that we will be called on to intervene there at some point?

Another big issue which has a global dimension that ordinary Americans readily grasp is jobs. Working Americans are desperate for leaders to give them a convincing plan to arrest the flow of American jobs overseas. But this is another issue where neoliberal centrists Dems are either tone deaf, or prevented by their free-trading ideological commitments from doing anything constructive other than lecture middle-aged Americans on getting more education so that they can compete when creative destruction eradicates the job they have held for years.

The C.o.D. seems to be dreamed up for only two reasons. First, is to aid in arranging things so the very wealthy businessmen in the "democracies" can make still more money at the expense of non-wealthy citizens of "not the democracies". And, the second, which is really just to aid in accomplishing the first, is making it much easier to recruit allies the next time some little nation doesn't do what we want them to do and we feel a need to invade them. I wish someone would introduce the promoters of this Concert to Sudoku. That would keep their idle minds busy on something far less harmful.

I apologize for the insulting tone of this comment, but when I see such an obvious scam in the making I have a very hard time just keeping quiet.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Organizations that get to pick their members inevitably debate who qualifies for admission. But that’s the price of doing business...

Just this statement alone makes me dislike the sound of the Concert.

If it's a democratic organization, why don't the people decide who gets in, and who doesn't?

In Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival," he quickly reminds us that a) the elites make the decisions in our democracy; and b) elections are used to manipulate voters into herds that give the elites their mandate to rule.

After watching the UN a bit, I hardly think that humans are capable of forming a democratic organization. You only have to listen to the speakers at the last Republican Convention or, more recently, to John Bolton.

In my mind, you're promoting ivory tower ideals that can only be put onto plaques next to either the 10 commandments or Bill Bennett's "Book of Virtues."

I love the 10 commandments but have you seen the videos where conservative politicians are asked to name them?

Dan, you wrote:
"a strong general reticience to intervene militarily in the affairs of other countries is, on the whole, a virtuous national attribute and one that is conducive to international peace."

How about Intra-national peace? Why would you be satisfied with nations committing brutality within their own borders? Brutality is brutality whether it is nation vs. nation or government vs. it own peoples.
Judging by that standard, the Sudan is a peaceful place. So is Uganda and any number of other countries. Where is our justification for looking the other way while other people get slaughtered, or simply oppressed?

Haven't we learned anything from the Kitty Genovese incident?
The path you are suggesting is tacit approval of brutality. It seems to me that you are suggesting we "turn up our radio" so we don't hear the screams of the Kitty Genoveses of the world.

The "affairs" of other countries? How about the affairs of other human beings? Genovese's neighbors certainly had that same "a strong general reticience to intervene" in her affairs.

The Concert of Democracies sounds to me like a neighborhood watch designed to protect the Kitty Genoveses of the world and prevent the Winston Moseleys from committing brutal or repressive acts on our brothers and sisters around the world.

There is something about this kind of analogizing (Kitty G) that is fishy, but I can't pin it down precisely. Partly it is the suspicion that the urge to intervene is not quite the altruistic drive it advertises itelf to be.

Many of us note that this new-found do-gooderism ignored Zimbabwe and Sudan, being directed at Iraq, where we would save the poor oppressed Iraqis from their dictator. I note it still ignores Zimbabwe, and has no ideas for North Korea.

Using the Kitty G-type analogy, how do you propose distinguishing between domestic violence that calls for intervention and a simple shouting match? And unlike the domestic-crime metaphor, we don't have the luxury of directing the entire government at an individual. Instead, it is more like the town sheriff and a posse against a gang, and no federal backup. Success is far from assured, legitimacy is easily questioned (absent the imprimatur of the world at large), and unintended effects can include new enemies and worse security (see Iraq).

Especially since this argument, that it is morally required we police the world, was exactly opposed by its current proponents, until recently, (not that it was anything but a straw man), it does not sit well with me. Putting it bluntly, I don't buy it. Proponents are either exploiting psychology to further imperial ambition, or are simply snookered by the inside players.

I only recommended a greater reticence to intervene militarily, not a total and uncompromising opposition to all interventions. But looking at recent American history, if I had to choose between "too ready to intervene" and "not ready enough to intervene" as the bigger problem, I would say it is the former rather than the latter.

In setting rules for international conduct, we have to take account of our own fallibility and ignorance. It turned out that most of our self-appointed Iraq experts in the government, think tanks and the media didn't have the slightest f***ing idea what they were doing there, and have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people as a result. Do you have more confidence in their judgment when it comes to Iran or Darfur?

Countries throughout modern history have often thought they new best how to "fix" other countries, and about the need to liberate them or convert them to the correct ideology or religion, and have usually ended up causing more harm tha good. A general respect for the sovereignty of other countries, even those countries that don't appear to be deserving of that respect, is a guard aginst a descent into the total lawless chaos of violence and fanatical moral zealotry. It's one thing to be skeptical of the abuse of sovereignty. But your apparent complete disdain for the very concept of sovereignty is worrisome.

The Concert of Democracies sounds less like a neighborhood watch to me than an out-and-out vigilante group. But the thing is, it won't even be that. Like most such groupings, it will almost certainly evolve very quickly into a coalition for the promotion of the pure self-interest of its members.

Socialism is a losing idea. Empowered goverment bureaucrats may be a necessary evil but more often than not they are the real scam. The evil businessmen are already all over the world. Unless you are against risk taking and for chaos, stability, inovation and risk taking are the requirements for getting rich, not really the COD. If anything the COD might ameliorate some of the difficulties who can't keep up with the growing economies of China, India, Brazil, Poland and elsewhere.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

While we were in Iraq in the way that matters, enforcing no-fly and looking for weapons programs and stockpiles, it of course had nothing to do with either the first WTC attack, the embassy bombings, or the second WTC attack.

As many of us pointed out before we jumped the shark in Iraq, we were in Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda didn't give a shit about Iraq until we gave them a reason to do so. Shall we find another country to blunder into, cluelessly? How about Sudan? Remember there were AQ connections there, and they likely remain. Pehaps Somalia? Ditto. Let's stir up some more trouble; we still have some marginal reservists and national guard somewhere, I'm sure.

Ironic that the same people arguing for shared humanity and humane intervention have little actual respect for many of the people involved, such as Palestinians and Iranians. Don't get me wrong on sympathies; I think Islam is as much a delusion as any religion, and I find desert cultures too harsh for comfort. But I think there is a convenient exploitation of the moral card to act in ways that are purely self-interest. 

Tom,
You are right. We are ignoring Zimbabwe and other countries. I think the Sudan is on the radar, but we certainly should do more. In order to do more in the current system (the U.N.) we will have to act "unilaterally" against the wishes of the "international community" (China and Russia).
If China and Russia weren't holding up the progress on Darfur, maybe more lives would be saved already.

You also wrote:
"this argument, that it is morally required we police the world"

We are morally required, but it is not practically possible. The only way we could truly "do good" around the globe is if we were many times more powerful than we are now. That prospect scares many people.
I think what is scarier than the America being more powerful, is America not being powerful enough. If China took Taiwan tonight, what would we do? Nothing. We are not powerful enough to do anything meaningful.
We aren't powerful enough to go into Waziristan right now because Pakistan would implode into chaos that would make Iraq look like Sweden.

Krauthammer described the direction America should take with his speech at AEI entitled Democratic Realism. I don't know if you've read it, but here it is:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040227_book755text.pdf

The main guiding principle of Democratic Realism is :
"We will support democracy everywhere, but we will commit blood and treasure only in places where there is a strategic necessity—meaning, places central to the larger war against the existential enemy, the enemy that poses a global mortal threat to freedom."

The reason for the Concert is to get other Democracies to chip in some of that "blood and treasure." Why is fixing the Sudan up to America? Why can't Scandinavia and Japan take care of that while we take care of Iraq and Afghanistan with the British and N.A.T.O? Why don't France, Poland and India take care of Somalia?
There is no common direction, no common vision for the Democracies right now. There should be and that is why I support the Concert idea.

I take it the first paragraph is a joke. We kicked the Iraqis out of Kuwait and prevented them from invading Saudi Arabia. After the disgraceful encouragement of the Shite uprising the U.S. protected the lives of Kurds and Shites. To suggest that was why the WTC as attack is somewhere between silly and outrageous.

It is not a matter of a respect for Palestinians or Iranians. If anythings those explain away there violence, their brutality and their stupid acts are the ones who deny their humanity. Part of respecting the humanity of someone is giving them credit for making choices.

The idea that the United States is some great source of evil is repugnant and fortunately so little held as to be largely irrelevant, unless those who helped notimiated Ned Lamont get control of the Presidential nominating process and help elect a Republican.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Dan,
You have outlined the left-wing priorities, now give us the right-wing priorities, then move on to each democracy one by one, and break down the multiple ideas they have about where we should be going.

You wrote:
"End the global Black War over energy resources"

How do we do this? By finding alternative fuels? We are doing that already.

You wrote:
"Address global poverty, inequality, disease and economic insecurity; redistribute wealth toward the world's neediest people"

That is exactly what globalized capitalism (with the help of American companies, the IMF, the World Bank, etc.) is doing, but I get the impression that you think globalized capitalism is the problem, not the solution.

You wrote:
"Turn back the tide of nuclear proliferation"
Do we do this by invading Iran and toppling the regime? Do we start with North Korea? Do we invade Pakistan? Do you think there is a common strategy on this issue? Maybe we should just give up ours? Maybe North Korea will feel guilty and give up theirs?

You wrote:
"Protect traditional societies"
Does that mean prevent modernization from empowering them? Keep them simple and poor so that we can control them?

You wrote:
"Empower women everywhere to assume control over their reproductive lives"
Do we do this by getting in between rapists and their victims? Or is that a violation of the rapists sovereignty (see Uday and Qusay)?
Do we do this by attacking any country using Sharia Law? Do we try to convince Sadr that Sharia is oppressive and hope he believes us?

You wrote:
"Secure a century of peace"

Have you ever heard the saying, "If you want peace, work for justice" ?

You don't proofread so I'm a little confused by this:"To suggest that was why the WTC as attack is somewhere between silly and outrageous." I presume you meant to say "was attacked", not "as attack".

If so, you didn't read what I wrote: "...it of course had nothing to do with either the first WTC attack, the embassy bombings, or the second WTC attack." I was answering this from you: "The United States was not in Iraq in 1993..."

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, before or after. Our presence in Saudi Arabia was the public reason (AQ private strategy only guessed at).

"Which is more humane, this scenario or what actually happened?"

Ask the Kurds.

"If Saddam had not beed defeated in Kuwait and the Kurds did not rise up, many more might be alive."

You're right. I sure hope they learned their lesson. Those darn Kurds. If only Saddam had nuclear weapons, they would be too scared to rise up and they could have saved themselves the brutality.
That reminds me of a quote you'd probably agree with:
"If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it."

That mentality is exactly what I would have accused you of believing . . . but you actually admitted it before I had a chance!
Man, I hope Iran gets nuclear weapons so that their people don't rise up.
There really is peace in slavery.

Hey, let's give Nuclear weapons to the Janjaweed! That'll solve the problem of those pesky troublemakers in Darfur . . . or it would kill them all-- either way.
What where we talking about again?

Tom, stay focused. We were talking about Osirak.
Ask the Kurds if they were glad about Osirak. Ask the Kurds if they wish Saddam would have had Nuclear weapons.

If you want to talk about our invasion in 2003, that is another act, by a different country.
I don't think the Kurds were upset that we encouraged them to rise up, I think they were upset that we didn't have their backs once they did. Our president in '91 was too concerned about poll numbers to risk helping them topple Saddam. Luckily for the Kurds that survived the anfal, the guy we have in power now doesn't seem to care about poll numbers.

I am confused about one thing though-- are you blaming America for killing it's own soldiers? Are you blaming America for the 100,000+ Iraqi deaths?
Did I miss something? Is there some evidence that we are the ones behind the car bombs?
Let's get real. What are we talking about here? If you are against innocent people dying, how about supporting the one dog in this fight that agrees with you-- America.

Why don't we stop saying things like "a failed state beyond repair" and start trying to think of ways we can succeed?

Here's a post from Bill Roggio, an embed in Iraq. He does not sugar coat anything that is happening, but he isn't begging for us to lose because he hates evangelicals who made money in oil and baseball.
http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/12/the_military_transit.php

You seem like a bright guy, but you are wasting your talent as a thinker throwing in the towel. It doesn't take any creativity to quit. It does take creativity to think of strategies, solutions and fresh ideas.

Forget about quitting for a minute. Let's drop the "sit back and relax" approach just for a minute.
I would like to hear your ideas about how we can win. How can we get things stable? How can we get the Islamists in a corner? How can we support the moderates without spoiling their legitimacy? How do we get the talented, skilled Iraqis back into the country? How do we prevent corruption in the Iraqi Police force?

Libertine

I totally agree with you. There are as few proponents of effective socialism as big corporations. In the example you gave, it seems odd that we want to use less oil but are still subsidizing oil companies to pull oil out of the ground.

Part of the problem we have is twofold. If you are going to have a too regulated economy then those so regulated are going to try to control how they are regulated. Secondly, if you are going to have large government regulators bureaucrats are much more about avoiding makking decisions than in furthering the public good.

I would agree that Federal employees tend to be far better than local and state ones.

Daniel A. Greenbaum