I may say more later. For now, thank you, thank you, thank you.

Finally, a foreign policy voice around here that's opposed to Slaughter and Etzioni who, in the name of "security" would not only trample the rights of people around the world, but the rights of Americans as well.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I do not agree that the USNSS is directed just at the Islamic world. I see a better model as the military-industrial complex that is in search of perpetual enemies to justify its existence. Today it is Islam. In the 90's it was Serbia. I think today the propaganda machine is preparing us for the next enemy to justify more armaments. That enemy is likely Russia or possibly China.

Our immediate goal is to get out of Iraq. The danger of focusing just on this aspect of the problem is to blind us to the fact that the democratic party itself is deeply influenced by USNSS ideology so simply removing republicans from power will not solve the problem.

Ms. Slaughter wrote: "The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat."

Well la-de-da. New ideas. What were they, pray tell, these ideas that appealed to both Edwards and McCain?

There were some ideas that appealed to both Kerry and Bush in the last presidential election: Iraq War, Patriot Act, huge corporate welfare military budgets, private health care, drug war, free-reign trade, Palestine . . .What bipartisonship!! Perhaps that's why half the electorate didn't vote--their positions were not represented by the me-too candidates.

Since the election the bipartisonship has continued on the Iraq War, supreme court justices, patriot act, sending David 'the surger' Petraeus to Iraq etc.

Bunch of bobbing dolls, prattling on about the virtues of bipartisonship as America spirals downward.

Now the Will Marshalls, Ann-Marie Slaughters and Rachel Kleinfelds are waiting in the wings to pick up the tattered neocon banner, patch it up and carry it onward to --Iran?-- who knows what bipartisan conquests?

Speaking of Senator Webb, is HE speaking at all?

Nice post, Max. Yes, get out now.

Experts impose foreign policy on the rest of us and we buy it. They say we don't know what we're talking about and we buy it. They say you don't want to run a war based on the opinion of some orthodondist in a poll and we buy it even though the orthodondist was likely correct while the Pollacks O'Hanlons, Kristols, Kleinfelds and Slaughters of the world got it wrong.

What happened when last Slaughter came to visit TPMCafe? She had the temerity to tell us what American values are and why they mean that we have to have the foreign policy she wants. Slaughter didn't seem to care much at all that a lot of people differed with her choices for what American values are.

I was not convinced that either Kleinfeld or Slaughter, since they participated here actually no more about foreign policy than most of us who comment here. Collectively, we've beaten the experts many times if accuracy of outcomes has any importance at all.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I do.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Forget "bipartisanship." We need less Democratic Party sycophancy and more full-blooded anti-war commentary. To set the ship on a better course, you have to be ready to sink it.

Oh God, thank you Max! The lefty blogosphere has seriously lost its edge ever since someone declared the official start of The Election. This was the signal for everyone to shut up and start acting stupid. We're supposed to stop criticizing Democrats, no matter how lame, and just keep chanting "It's George Bush's war ... It's George Bush's War!"

Thing is, I remember being told the same thing back in 2002. We were supposed to shut up and support the resolution, so we could give Bush his war, get foreign policy off the table, and run the 2002 election on domestic policy.

The start date for these elections comes earlier every year. Some day, it will just be election season all the time, and we can be stupid permanently. Won't that be fun.

Reece,

I, for one, have bookmarked Max's website and plan to "stand more than five minutes" around him.

I invite others. Max is cool. You're not.

LOL , That's the left wing we know and love.
Sorry Max, I'm fiftyfour f**king years old. I've been there, done that and have too many T shirts.

*sarcasm alert* I love this quote
"To set the ship on a better course, you have to be ready to sink it."
That quote puts you and George Bush in the same bed, just mindless destroyers.

I'm a carpenter, Max, I build things and I want to build things that last. That's my approach if I'm building a house or bringing people together to form a block club.
One thing I've learned walking and talking in the neighborhood is to get anything done everybody has to give up a little. The opposite of that is not -you get everything you want-, it's -you sit there in the same pile of sh*t and nothing changes-

As far as I'm concerned the democratic left and the republican right are 2 sides of the same coin. You both want to tear the world up when you can't get your own way and at this point in my life I'm sick and tired of both of you.

Jack

how about non-ideological policy making?

There's no such thing. Every policy pursues some goal, and goals derive from ideology.

double post.

So you think most people do not have structured systems of belief, Reece?

yep. Generally, people do not have structured systems of belief.

Insofar as they do have structured belief systems, generally it isn't an ism. People don't believe in communism and socialism and capitalism and realism and liberalism.

I have to agree with Max. This has all been tried before. The Thousand Year Reich lasted twelve years. It is good that it ended.

Yes, and take that $350 billion and bribe the current defense contractors with new contracts in high-speed rail, alternative energy, electric cars, free high speed internet access, high-efficiency doo-dads. Whatever. Make it more profitable to do things that are good for us.
What is the quote which says that it is difficult for someone to do the right thing if his financial interest tells him to do something else?
But imagine the quality of infrastructure we could have if we spent the money on ourselves. Boggles the mind. $350 billion every single year. We would run out of ideas.

Me too. Maybe its the heat and humidity

Has to be global warming that makes us love Max.

Best, Terry

I heard Michael Ware (CNN) say that, while the surge appears to be working, it's partly because Patraeus is making deals with the insurgents and partly because the bloodletting and ethnic cleansing in the most peaceful areas is nearly complete. What the Republicans warn us could happen in Iraq if we leave has already happened. But that's not really what the Republicans are worried about anyway, is it?

From this weekend's Late Edition on CNN:

REP. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS (R-CT): But what we also don't want is, we don't want this to be a playground for Iran. Sixty-five percent of the world's energy is in this area. We just can't walk away. We need to leave in a very methodical and sensible way.

REP. CHARLES RANGEL (D-NY): You know, this is the most honest thing that's been said. If we are concerned about the oil, if that's the reason we went there, then forget all these weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaida 9/11. And he said it. That's why we want the defensive military bases there. It's all a question of oil.

SHAYS: It's about energy, Charlie.

RANGEL: Vice President Cheney. What is energy but oil? Come on, Chris.

Please don't feed the trolls.

There was a diary in the Daily Kos that touched on a manifestation of this in the current presidential race ... the bipartisan consensus on increasing the number of soldiers and marines we have ...

... it would seem basically so that we have a permanent ability to have a fruitless, counterproductive occupation of one nation while also having the capacity to invade the next one.

And example from the discussion:

Networks
The networks are there so we are able to respond to threats in specific regions. While I agree we do not belong occupying countries where we are not wanted I see no problem with us having bases outside the US.

by cwaltz on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 12:07:39 PM EDT

The networks are there largely because they ... ... have been established, and once an overseas military base becomes established, a purpose will be found for it.

We have bases whose founding purposes were as excuses to channel funding to the British before we entered WWII, to oversee the postwar occupation of the defeated Axis powers, and to contain the Communist bloc of Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, China and North Vietnam.
...
How long can we cannibalize the national interests that the network of bases is supposed to be defending, in order to maintain the network of bases?

SupportTheTroopsEndTheWar.com and Energize America
by BruceMcF on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 12:23:56 PM EDT

whskyjack with all due respect occupying Iraq isn't the solution to the problem, it IS the problem. Attacking Iran, a nation of 75 million that sits between the two nations of 25 million we're failing to subdue would be crazy.

It's not just the Bush Administration's execution that's flawed, the whole idea that American military power alone can accomplish such huge goals is wrong. It doesn't matter if you're talking about democratizing the middle east because you're a Wilsonian idealist or establishing imperial domination over the region and it's resources because you're as craven as Cheney. I don't care what the motives are forcing our will on people at the point of a gun doesn't work. It didn't work for the Soviets and
it sure as hell won't work for a nation that's supposed to adhere to the rule of law.

I don't want to destroy the Democratic party but like Sawicky I'll be damned if I want to leave it in the hands of oh so serious people like Slaughter who are so imbedded in their Ivy ivory towers that they no longer have a clue.

Brilliant!

And O'Hanlon has been one of the big promoters of growing the military to improve our capacity to occupy Muslim countries.

However, it will be much harder to sell these increases if we end the occupation of Iraq, and suddenly have all of those soldiers and equipment flowing back into our unused capacity. To sell the public on a bigger military in 2008 and 2009, it is necessary that the military continue to be "stressed" and "at the breaking point." Hence the war must be prolonged.

Part of that political activity is making sure that when those new Democratic representatives and senators are elected, they have committed themselves to a significantly different approach, and are not, say, fans of the O'Hanlon and Pollack approach.

Attacking Iran, a nation of 75 million that sits between the two nations of 25 million we're failing to subdue would be crazy.

How much crazier is it, then, to follow Obama's advice to shift the battlefield to Pakistan, a nation of 160m.

No, we need a supermajority and Republicans to make pulling the plug on the war stick. Bush has to be so politically isolated, and even more important to be seen by everyone as politically isolated, that he wouldn't dare throw away the Constitution and rule by fiat.

Stephen from Minneapolis

Hey Max

I generally enjoy your post. One reason is that you often have something smart to say. Also, you are irreverent and something of a provocateur without being condescending or too up on a pedestal. And you respond to us mortals.

My hunch is that though you believe we live in "a democracy", you believe that there is more democracy for some than others. You also seem to understand that our foreign policy is less than benign though my impression is that you tend to think that the modern day robber barrens driven by some kind of rationale self interest. And if it is true that this "oligarchy" of self-interested "captains of industry" control much of our foreign policy, then the best way to undermine their machinations is to WITHDRAWL NOW. But withdrawal is "an action", not a "policy". And it does not seem to suggest much in the way of "mission". My impression is that you tend to view any projection of American (U.S.) power as problematical because of its ties to imperial interests and, for this reason, you tend to view non-involvement a the best involvement. Am I on the right path here or do I misunderstand where you are going?
Stephen from Minneapolis

Stephen from Minneapolis

The bridge is depressing. thanks for your thoughts