Why Shouldn't Iraq Be The Litmus Test?
Does anybody remember the Levin amendment?
Offered 10 hours before the final vote authorizing the Iraq war, it would have postponed the use of force until the President went to the United Nations and received authorization. If the UN failed to act, the President could come back to Congress, explain why action was needed anyway and, at that point, Congress could authorize war.
Former Senator Lincoln Chafee, the one Republican to support it, described it earlier this year in the New York Times:
Senator Levin’s amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not “promptly adopted” or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened.
I thought then, and I think now, that there was no reason anyone at all skeptical about going to war would oppose it. After all, it kept the war option alive; it simply would have slowed down the rush.
Exactly 23 Democrats voted for it.
The importance of the Levin amendment is that it gave war skeptics an out.
Those too timid to stand up to the war fever of the day by voting a flatout NO could tell their constituents that they did not vote against a war declaration. They voted FOR going to war but only after the alternatives had been explored. In fact, Levin's amendment had as its stated purpose:
To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council, to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, long-range ballistic missiles, and related facilities, and for other purposes.
If a legislator had the slightest doubts about Iraq, this was where to express it. Levin was offering cover.
Only 23 Democrats accepted the offer.
Why?
Yeah, yeah, we've all heard about how Bush lied and they were tricked. Whatever.
But here their own Democratic Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee was offering a way to slow down the mad rush, in the hope that somehow war could either be averted or we could avoid waging war without international sanction. And our guys said "no, thanks."
The rest is history. The worst foreign policy debacle in our history and the loss of 4000 Americans and God knows how many Iraqis. Our country's standing in the world is at an all-time low. And every day (like on Thursday) we realize that we are in more peril than at any time since 1942.
It all might have been averted.
And yet we are told that the Iraq war should not be a "litmus test." Words fail.
Senator Levin voted for Kyl-Lieberman. He did not see it as a vote for an Iran war as Obama wishes to portray it.
December 28, 2007 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Levin should be condemned for that vote, unless he thought the Bush/Cheney gang had left office at that particular time.
The only reason for that amendment was to give Bush a reason/cover to take military action against Iran.
December 28, 2007 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reason both parties voted for it is because both parties are war parties. Both the Democrats and the Republicans operate on a foreign policy consensus deriving from the Cold War which claims that we have the right to intervene in foreign countries when they don't do what we want. This was an arguably important tenet of our foreign policy when intervening usually meant facing off against the Soviet Union in a proxy country as part of our general containment strategy. Certainly parts of our policy during the Cold War were based on false premises and maybe this proposition was not as essential as it seemed. Nonetheless, it has no place in our foreign policy now.
We can't merely renovate our foreign policy and put some liberal touches on a cracked foundation. We must tear it down and start again.
December 28, 2007 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reece,
if we didn't spend over $500 billion on the military industrial complex annually we wouldn't be getting into these wars. We got into Iraq because we could. The same as Vietnam, Granada, Panama, Desert Storm, etc.
Cut that $500 billion in half and enjoy a more peaceful existence.
By the way, $500 billion didn't stop us from getting attacked on 9/11. (both times)
December 28, 2007 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a gross distortion of reality that needs to be examined closely. It is a dangerous myth that must be countered at every turn.
The first claim is that the foreign policy "consensus" derives from the Cold War, implying that before the Cold War, American policy was admirably non-interventionist. In fact, American interventionism is as old as American history and owes much more to American expansionism and colonialism than it does to the Cold War. Much of that intervention was, of course, driven by greed and naked ambition and I don't defend it. However, it is vital to understand that in the post-WWII era, American interventions have been driven by different motivations and that those actions have been much MORE defensible. Furthermore, the history of the parties in that era shows that in fact the differences between Republicans and Democrats are quite striking and continue to be so. It is simply leftist claptrap to state, as Reece does, that the parties are essentially two peas in a pod.
For much of the past 60 years, a good chunk of the world has depended on the US to play the role of benign hegemon, with an interest in preserving stability and encouraging growth and trade. The consensus of opinion in Asia and Europe has been for much of that time that an American presence in those regions is a positive force, preventing the domination of those regions by China and/or Japan (Asia) and Russia and/or Germany (Europe), powers that are trusted far less than the US. For most of the postwar period, despite its many mistakes and excesses, the consensus that the US should lead has been remarkably consistent.
Inevitably, this leadership role involves "intervening in countries when they don't do what we want." The question is: what does "intervene" mean? If you look at the history, it can mean diplomacy, verbal rebuke, economic pressure, sanctions, sponsoring one side in a civil war or outright military intervention. The point to keep in mind is that the last one, the topic of current liberal ire, is far and away the LEAST common. Futhermore, it is far from a universally bad idea. Who regrets the intervention in Kosovo, which saved countless innocent lives? Who doesn't wish there had been MORE intervention in Rwanda, where an epic holocaust could have been avoided or at least ameliorated?
The problem with the idea that the fundamental foundations of the postwar international order are broken is while it sounds great to say that we shouldn't intervene in other countries' affairs, in fact, the alternative to doing so is far, far worse. For every stupid or silly American move, such as the Iraq War or the Cuban boycott, there are many more American policies that keep the peace, uphold decent values and prevent tragedy. This has not changed since the end of the Cold War.
That is why it is so important not to overreact to the Iraq War fiasco. While I agree that the US has suffered a terrible blow to its prestige and reputation as a result of this truly world-historical blunder, the remedy for this is NOT to adopt an absolutist stance of never intervening in the affairs of other countries. To do so would be to withdraw the pressure on China to improve its human rights record, to let Asia descend into a free-for-all of power competition, with Japan and China becoming more and more suspicious of each other and Taiwan imperiled. It would be to withdraw American efforts to solve the intractable problems around the world, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, the India-Pakistan conflict and many others.
No, the answer is to apply power judiciously. To use American power and influence and yes, intervention, to advance universal values AND, lest we forget, American interests. What neo-isolationists like Reece often forget is that for a good chunk of recent history, our policies were able to achieve BOTH of those at the same time.
The last point is the idea that both Republicans and Democrats are essentially indistiguishable when it comes to this foreign policy consensus. This grossly oversimplifies the differences between the parties as well as the differences within parties. After all, the GOP contains within its midst not only neo-conservatives (whose views, by the way, are more complex than simply saying they are for unilateral interventionism) but also classic realists as well as true isolationists like Ron Paul. The Democrats, meanwhile, are much more unified, with most of the party hewing closely to classic Establishment thinking.
And that's the point. Establishment thinking has served the country well, despite some egregious errors. It is the GOP, and in particular the strain of know-nothing conservatism that places great store on thumbing its nose at the Establishment and much of the rest of the world, that is responsible for the current Iraq debacle. It is they who have rejected the Establishment that are to blame, not the Establishment itself.
One should certainly criticize the Establishment for not defending its values more robustly. Clearly, a lot of people were intimidated by the aggressive GOP unilateralists. They were afraid of being called effete, out of touch elitist weaklings in the face of an attack on American soil. But let's have some perspective on this. The fact that clear-thinking foreign policy thinkers let themselves get railroaded into supporting a disastrous war and junking their values doesn't mean that those vaues have no value in the first place.
December 28, 2007 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad the Dad,
A sober and thoughtful response and analysis, and certainly bound to be rewarded with the standard troll-ratings and obligatory accusations of neo-conservatism.
That said, I must take issue with one particularly pivotal observation:
Such statements simply cannot be reduced strictly to "leftist claptrap," as virtually the same sentiment was stressed by George Wallace in his independent presidential run in 1968, for example. I submit, rather, that such statements be characterized more accurately as populist claptrap.
December 28, 2007 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista:
You write:
"I submit, rather, that such statements be characterized more accurately as populist claptrap."
Not to quibble, but I think the more appropriate characterization of the "both parties are the same notion" is sexy but eminently faux populist claptrap. Real populists, I submit, understand that there is a real and important difference between the two major parties, even if said same real populists might prefer to see even more daylight between the core positions of the two parties.
Bruce
December 28, 2007 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is a real populist, anyway?
December 28, 2007 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The 'two peas in a pod claptrap' is useful to the Right which wishes to blur its differences with the Democrats (compassionate conservatism was another such blur) and to depress turnout of the masses 'because what difference does it make' and is is useful to left splinter groups who want the discourage voters to come and work or vote for them So you have the unholy alliance of the Rethugs in selected setting funding the Nader and the Greens.
January 2, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with half of this statement, namely that we need to apply out power judiciously. I don't see any candidate offering a principled understanding of how our power ought to be applied. It seems to me that the Democratic candidates, especially Hillary Clinton, are nearly as likely to invade Iran as any of the Republicans.
The assumption remains that when we think we are right, we can use our military to force other countries to change their politics, i.e. we use war as a means to political ends. The foreign policy establishment accepts this principle, and this is evident form the fact that no anti-war establishment existed before the Iraq war. It was merely assumed by the establishment that in fact we could go invade even though the invasion had little basis in law.
Furthermore, if we are overly concerned about advancing our national interests, we need to set about clearly defining that interest. I would argue that the operating definition of our national interest is overextended and includes some things that truly don't really concern us or threaten our security. Can you tell me what our national interest is? JohnW above notes that our military spending did not stop the 9/11 attacks, so we might want to reconsider how much our hegemony actually contributes to our national interest.
Our national interest is not concerned, for example, with Darfur, Rwanda, Kosovo, or Somalia. These are certainly tragedies, but tragedy alone does not justify our intervention. I cannot understand the people who argue that we ought to get out of Iraq and into Darfur. So long as this definitional overextension remains, realism is essentially useless as a foreign policy.
The only thing that justifies intervention is compliance with international law and the assent of the community of nations. That is why in my view Kosovo was the least troubling use of our military in the past 60 years and, incidentally, apparently the most successful.
I wouldn't call myself a neo-isolationist. I do think that we need to seriously reexamine our foreign policy since the Cold War has ended, and I don't think that reexamination has happened. We can neither be responsible for the world's defense nor all it's problems. If WW2 woke us up as Yamamoto is purported to have said, I would not suggest that we go back to sleep. But I do think we could use a nap.
December 28, 2007 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
BtD,
You are presenting dangerous myths that must be countered at every turn.
Blowback from US interventions, military and otherwise, has caused many problems in the world (besides Iraq) and the situation would be far better if the US hadn't intervened. The most notable of course is Vietnam, but there are also others such as Nicaragua, Haiti and Kosovo (where the bombing intitiated most of the killing). The idea that the US has prevented post-WWII domination by China, Japan, Russia and Germany can't be substantiated.
"Establishment thinking has served the country well". It's certainly served the establishment well, but not the American people, who statistically, by many measures, are worse off than those in other developed countries. Whose cause do you promote, the Establishment or the people?
"The differences between Republicans and Democrats are quite striking and continue to be so." Wrong. The Truman Doctrine and Blue Dog Dems, tied in with the DLC, are little different from PNAC and the neocons regarding foreign interventions.
One person's "realist" is another's "extremist". For example Ron Paul isn't a "true isolationalist" as you charge just because he is against armed interventions. And the idea that "clear-thinking foreign policy thinkers let themselves get railroaded into supporting a disastrous war" certainly indicates to me, if not to you, that they weren't so "clear-thinking" after all. They were interventionist warmongers, which is the sort of Establishment thinking that has driven the US deeply in debt financially, morally and popularly.
December 28, 2007 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand your second paragraph. The United States defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Without the United States it is more than probably that the world would have been dominated by the Axis.
Given that there is no Soviet Union and that China is now communist in name only also provides evidence that the United States policy of avoiding direct war, using surrogates and economic power did block and ultimately defeated the two major communist powers.
Waht blowback from Vietnam? Indonesia and Malaysia did not go communist and Vietnam is banging on the door of the capitalist world. It is also starting to take low wage jobs away from China.
US. intervention prevented massive ethnic killing by the Serbians. Ethnic cleansing had already started. Had Europe hadn't been so unable to act NATO would not have had to.
Most of what transpired in Haiti was driven by Haitians. Unfortunately Haiti has never really been too stable a nation since the Hatiian Revolution. Papa Doc and Baby Doc Duvalier have much more to do with Haiti's suffering than the United States.
Paul is a "true" isolationists. He not only does not want armed intervention he also wants to eliminate most foreign aid. The whole tenor of his policy choices is a very small federal government with low taxes. This will lead to almost no involvement in the global affairs.
The United States from the Barbary Pirate Wras in the Jefferson Administration has been helping keep the global system protected and operation. First as a junior partner to the British and after with WWII as the senior partner.
The people who are basically out of step are those who post at the Cafe as if the United States has ever been uninvolved in the World or that most of the World really opposes American Intervenation. It it did other countires would spend more on defense and would have institutions to replace America.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 28, 2007 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that's nonsense. 8 out of 10 German soldiers killed in WWII were killed by the USSR. It's pretty clear that Nazi Germany was defeated by the USSR and was fated to be defeated by the USSR.
At best, the United States could claim that its presence prevented the Soviets from overrunning to France and Italy. Even that, I dunno.
On the other hand, the US beat Japan fair and square on its own.
China is now communist in name only? Tell that to the Chinese. They are still an autocratic, repressive regime which is committed to state control of the economy. I don't think that they were ever actually defeated. Rather, the better interpretation is that for a time they were squeezed out of superpower status by a changing international situation. Despite that, they're back in. By most estimates, the Chinese economy will overtake the American one within a generation or so.
Well, intervening in and screwing up Vietnam arguably brought down the governments of Laos and Cambodia. The war was starting to seep into Thailand.
Left alone, there wasn't any real chance of Indonesia, Malaysia or the Phillipines going over... so I don't see why anyone would claim the failure of an unexpected event to not happen is spectacular.
As for things turning out happily... well, loss of American influence and prestige in the region, the loss of American credibilityl worldwide, the stagflation, deficits and economic costs of America to fighting the Vietnam war. I don't think that there's any serious argument that the Vietnam war was bad for America. It was certainly bad for the innocent bystanders who got caught up in America's war.
It's very panglossian to chortle about how the Vietnamese are taking jobs from China, but realistically, the whole thing was an ugly mess and nothing good came out of it.
As for Haiti, it's all very well to blame Haiti on Haitians. But on the other hand, it's a bit dishonest to ignore a century of military intervention, some of it lastling decades. And its dishonest to ignore the effect of predatory trade agreements that allow America to dump subsidized rice onto the Haitian economy at less than the costs of actually growing it.
While the United States interventions in Kosovo might have been positive, I don't think that the people of Central America during the Reagan years... the ones who survived, have such a positive outlook on America. Almost a million people dead? Not good.
While some interventions were good, America's support for the Marcos dictatorship was, in the long run, not well received. Nor was overthrowing the Arbenz government in Guatemala or the Mossadeque government in Iran seen as a good thing.
I dunno, if American interventionism was seen as an unmitigated goodness, who or what were the coalitions of the willing in Iraq and Vietnam.
December 28, 2007 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post. It's good to see the words "panglossian" and "chortle" in the same sentence.
To add to the bit about Vietnam--it's no great claim that they are now taking jobs from China. Wages in Vietnam are artificially depressed by the communist regime.
December 28, 2007 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say the Soviet Union didn't play an important role. However, it is very unlikely that without the United States they alone would have defeated Germany. The invasion of France and the move east helped relieve the Sovieets.
It is all well and good to blame everything in the World on the United States it basically treats the rest of the world as children.
Haitis problems started long before American intervention. It has been a mess ever since its Revolution.
China, Vietman and many countries are authoritarian. They are, however, communist in name only. They are trying to avoid what happened to the Soviet Union which is too bad. China is a booming capitalist economy that is becoming second only to the United States in importance.
Your dicussion of post Vietnam leaves out about thirty years. The Vietnam War was stupid on our part. We should have allowed the murder and the like of non-communists by Ho and his supporters and we would have been better off. However, once the Carter era ended the United States economy boomed, becoming the richest and most powerful country in the history of the World. For the United States the Vietnam War was of no real significance.
In both Vietnam and the first Iraq War there were many other countries involved. It might take some years but the next President will be in a position to undo much of the evils that Bush has inflicted precisely because the World seems to have no interest in either opposing America or even lettng anyone other than the United States lead.
You also are mixing apples and oranges. In the Cold War from Roosevelt to Bush (1) the world was seen in black and white. The goal was to stop Soviet expansion without either a direct confrontation between the Soviet Union and America to avoid a third major war in Europe. These goals were acomplished. It would have better if America was more senitive to the surrogates who were caught in the middle. But there is no Soviet Union, outside of totalitarian Islam there is no replacement for the Soviets and much of the globe is joining the global trading system with the result that slowly the poorest people in the world have a chance of benefitting from growing economies everywhere.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 29, 2007 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Important role"? They killed eight out of ten german soldiers, they destroyed German armies, they cut the Nazi's off from their energy supplies in the Ukraine. Get over it and face reality. By the time the second front was opened, Hitler's armies were in retreat all along the eastern front. The germans were being beaten, period.
No, I'm only blaming the United States for the things that the United States actually did. Like displacing the Mossadegh government in Iran and imposing the Shah... Or overthrowing the Arbenz government in Guatemala, and replacing him with genocidal tinpot dictators. Or working to overthrow Allende and replaced by Pinochet.
It's not blaming the United States for 'everything in the world' to lay the blame for Central America's dirty war, at the door of Ronald Reagan. He was pretty upfront about it.
Now if you have a defense to these specific charges, fine with me. Present it. But don't be a whiner.
And did American interventions and involvement make the mess better or worse? There's a question you dodge.
What they're trying to avoid is any sort of political reform along the lines of perestroika or glasnost, and they've been pretty good at it.
I know its received wisdom among some that China is 'communist in name only' but what does that mean? Does it mean that the Communist party is no longer the ruling entity, nope, fraid not. Does it mean that state assets have been privatized? Sorry. Does it mean that the state does not plan and direct the economy, decide where investment goes, etc., sorry.
So, what does 'communist in name only' mean? Well, it seems to mean that a regressive, oligarchic, totalitarian police state ruled by a hierarchical communist party which controls all state assets and most of othe property, and which directs and regulates the economy through central planning, and controls levers of investment, dabbles in allowing private investment along Japanese or Swedish state/private arrangements. Okay.
From this I draw two conclusions: 1) 'Communist in name only' doesn't mean what you think it means. 2) You're wasting my time.
For very good reasons. Because a thirty year time span allows for so many intervening factors and evolution that your original conclusion becomes meaningless.
Using 30 year snapshots for instance, you could argue (and who knows maybe you do) that Japan won WWII notwithstanding Hiroshima, Nagasaki and all the rest, because the Japanese economy kicked ass in the 70's and 80's.
Or, even more ridiculously, you could argue (and who knows, maybe you do) that Hitler won WWI because gosh, 30 years later Germany had overrun Europe.
Actually, the American economy arguably peaked in 1973. From that point on, for the most part, the average wage and income for Americans (adjusted for inflation) stagnated or dropped. The eighties were also the era of deficit spending and the rise of colossal Reagan deficits which were only brought under control temporarily in the Reagan era. The eighties also saw the beginnings of massive deindustrialization (rust belt anyone) in which the fundamentals of the American economy shifted from actually making things and selling them to other people, to services. This continued through the Clinton era, and accelerated to catastrophic proportions during the Bush II era.
During this time, in both absolute and proportional terms, the US economy lost ground to just about every other major economy in the world, including Japan, East Asia, China, France, Germany and Europe.
In short, your happy story upon examination turns out to be three decades of accumulating decline. Something you would know if you bothered to do any real research.
If it's of no significance, why are you still trying to declare victory thirty years later? Why are you insisting on wasting my time?
Keep dreaming.
December 30, 2007 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
When a village with one blacksmith has a second blacksmith move into town it is wealthier but the first blacksmith is not. America is the first blacksmith.
As nations become developed of course our relative advantage declines.
As to China -- the Chinese Ambassador spoke and said that having rich people was a good thing. Oligarchical sure but sure not communism.
As to abrupt Glastnost it was a good start but turned sour. China is seeking a more controlled development. Capitalism overnight does not seem to work well.
January 2, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
WWII was a long, long time ago. We need a foreign policy that meets the needs of the future not one obsessed with the past.
As to other countries, heck, if I could have universal health care and no war, I'd be happy enough to have some other nation going without health care and investing in war.
December 28, 2007 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need a foreign policy that isn't based on a mythologized version of the past.
I hear one more idiot blather on about 'appeasement' by 'Chamberlain at Munich' and I'm going to throw up. That's a thoroughly dishonest, thoroughly false and superficial assessment of a complicated historical situation that then goes on to justify assholes being their assholiest.
The WWII nonsense goes further and deeper, with idiots making nonsensical comparisons to justify every goofy idea that can get a few people killed.
History is there to be learned from, not dressed up in silly clown suits in order to provide impetus to bad ideas.
December 28, 2007 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and it's funny how those who are most obsessed with "appeasement" seem least able to recognize impending fascism all around them.
December 28, 2007 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The appeasment line is that the West made concessions for peace in our time while the Axis armed. Sure it is more complicated than that but wasn't that the underlying problem? An answer that re-writes history prior to that point may help us from reaching that point again but evades the question of whether better policies than appeasement were possible.
Lots of rhetoric in this particular post of yours -- but not much substance as to why you think the 'appeasement line' is farcical.
January 2, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad here gives a good description of views of the Hairy Chested Liberal and we should understand that he does represent an important faction within the Democratic Party. For those of us that worry that the US is going to bankrupt itself maintaining itself as the world's hegemon, the undisputed only hyper power with the right to manipulate other nations via threats, sanctions or outright war should be remain very aware that getting rid of Bush is not going to solve our problems.
This is what the primary campaign comes down to. We know where Hillary stands on these issues -- she believes strongly in foreign interventions. With Obama we can hope that he will not be a war monger. Edwards sounds the best to me, but I would vote for Obama if he is the only one that can defeat Hillary.
These are not clear choices for us, but there is one thing that is clear -- Brad quite honestly presents that world view that is closest to Hillary. I think we all know this.
December 28, 2007 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing that I have said that is incompatible with anything that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards have said.
I did not argue for war. I did not argue for unfettered interventionism. I did not argue for unilateralism. I argued for a continuation of the classic policies of the postwar era - those that have been upended by the GOP and that have served the country and world well for more than 60 years. Most of all, I argued for judgement and prudence - exactly the opposite of "Hairy-Chest"-edness.
I like what Obama said:
That's what judgment is about. I don't oppose all wars or all interventions. I just oppose the dumb ones.
December 28, 2007 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad, what I think you fail to realize is that the policies of the post war establishment were essentially informed by the existence of the Soviet Union. We spent the entire Cold War trying to counterbalance the Communists. What are we trying to counterbalance now? Korea, Vietnam, the CIA in Central and South America, propping up Apartheid South Africa, the CIA in Afghanistan, the Shah of Iran. All of these things were based on stopping the spread of communism.
What policies do you think we should continue? When should we be intervening in other countries?
December 28, 2007 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am well aware of the origins of postwar foreign policy. However, I would suggest that while our basic policy assumptions have their origin in the Cold War, less has changed than meets the eye since the Cold War ended.
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and it became clear that the global threat it represented was eliminated, there was much talk about a "peace dividend" that would come from dramatically reducing military spending and pulling back from our commitments around the world. If NATO was formed primarily to deter a Soviet attack on Western Europe, why does it need to exist if the threat of that attack is eliminated?
So the argument went. But it never happened. It was soundly rejected when the consequences of an American withdrawal from Europe and Asia were contemplated. Thus the enemy NATO deters is no longer a country or army. Rather, it is an abstract concept - instability. The consensus, both here and abroad, is that an American military presence has a calming influence on regions that are prone to instability. That is why we still have thousands of troops in Germany, Japan and Korea, among other places. There are economic reasons why those countries want the US to stay, for sure, but the core argument is a security-oriented one. Both Europe and Asia still subscribe to that logic, despite the end of the Cold War. If they didn't they would have chucked us out years ago.
The difficulty with having security and stability as the cornerstones of your policy is that it quickly leads to a realist outlook. Why not prop up tyrants like Saddam if their dictatorship helps keep the peace? This was the logic during the Cold War when we were trying to prevent countries or regions from becoming communist. In many cases it led to support of regimes (Mobutu's Zaire comes to mind) that were by any measure among the worst in history. Clearly a different balance needs to be struck.
The challenge for progressives, I believe, is how to define the balance between the security and stability-related thinking that was paramount during the Cold War and the values-based arguments that should be a part of progressive thinking. Progressives, after all, are not the same as realists or isolationists. Both security and liberal values need to be in the mix of factors that influence American policy.
The danger I see is that in the minds of many progressives, security-related thinking is indistinguishable from hated neo-conservatism. It is not. Security and stability are just as much progressive values as they are realist or neo-conservative ones. The difference is whether other values as well come into the mix to influence policy. But make no mistake - security and stability do need to be in that mix as and that will sometimes lead to intervention. That is why I am opposed to blanket statements saying intervention is always wrong. Intervention, like empire, is not a good thing but it is not always the worst thing.
December 29, 2007 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad, you do see that this is just an assumption don't you? What evidence do we have that this is true? It was true in Europe in the post war period because we were facing the Soviet Union. As another poster noted above, the Normandy invasion probably helped to stop the Soviets in Berlin rather than Bordeaux.
Where else has it been true? China has never really been a threat to Japan. Our mere presence in Africa hasn't stopped the recurring instability. Our actual presence in Somalia didn't stop the collapse of that country--a country that still hasn't found it's feet.
There was a reason we didn't see the peace dividend from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and it is very simple: Our leaders did not bring it about. George H.W. Bush was castigated by his own party for trying to reduce military spending. The conservative movement worked a psychological change in this country such that politicians always supported military spending as a way of appearing strong and manly. Anyone opposed to lower military spending was a coward--a Chamberlain.
It's been a good discussion, Brad. Do you have anything that might show our presence around the world actually creates stability?
December 29, 2007 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think the only reason we didn't see a peace dividend from the collapse of the Soviety Union was politicians being afraid of being called wimps, then you weren't paying attention at the time. There was a very real fear on the part of other countries of the consequences of a US withdrawal.
Here's an article from 1998 quoting the South Korean leader Kim Dae Jung, hardly a reflexively pro-American figure, on the need to maintain an American military presence in Asia:
This is not a controversial point. Asians in particular are terrified of the implications of a US military withdrawal from the region.
December 29, 2007 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I'm terrified of Asian economic competition given our out of control military expenditures. No one is going to have to defeat us militarily. We are going to defeat ourselves.
If John Edwards wins in Iowa, it will be because he could speak to the closing of the Maytag plant and understands that the people of Newton, Iowa and their quality of life are as worthy of defense as some village abroad.
December 30, 2007 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry but you have given a passionate defense for America's right and need to intervene in other nations in many cases where America's interests are only remotely involved. You mention Kosovo as a good war. Please tell us what US national interests were served by this war. What was the justification?
December 28, 2007 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
There were two interests involved in Kosovo.
First, the stability of Europe has always been seen as a vital US interest, which is why we intervened in WWI and WWII and why we expended countless billions defending Europe during the Cold War. Collectively, Europe is our largest trading partner, among other reasons why we care what happens there. Anything that threatens the stability of Europe is something any US government is going to pay attention to.
Second, and this is more my opinion rather than the foreign policy consensus, the US has a vital interest in preventing genocide. If American values mean anything, they should mean that we will not stand idly by while genocide happens. I would have been for intervention in Rwanda and I would now be in favor of intervention in Darfur, in both cases at the head of an international coalition of like-minded armies. Clearly we cannot intervene everywhere there is a civil war and hard choices need to be made. But even Bill Clinton admitted that he could not morally justify intervening in Kosovo and not in Rwanda. This is one of the things that ought to separate progressive foreign policy from isolationism, realism and neo-conservatism.
December 29, 2007 5:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Realism in 2008 should include the recognition that Europe should be able to take care of its own problems without our continuing intervention. Realism in 2008 should include recognition that the United States cannot unilaterally act as the global dragon slayer protecting every maiden in distress from Darfur to Rwanda to Kosovo to Korea to Tel Aviv not to mention Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, China, and Moscow and did I leave out Latin America.
Unfortunately realism today means that we don't have the money for medical care for American girls or boys, or money to keep homes over their little heads, to fix up their schools, or to provide them a higher education. No not us! We're lost in our fantasy of America the Good, America the Great too blinded to see that we're rotting from the inside out.
December 29, 2007 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the classic "guns vs. butter" argument i.e. that we spend so much money on our military and foreign adventures that we have no money left over to take care of our domestic needs.
It is total nonsense. The reason we are lacking resources to improve healthcare or fix schools or reach other progressive goals is that we as a country have yet to figure out a way to defeat the forces that are ideologically opposed to these things. It is NOT a resource issue. It is a political issue. For the past 25 years, the conservative movement has been accumulating more and more power and as a result progressive goals have been thwarted. If we had made the strategic decision in the 1990s to reduce our commitments, do you really think we would have invested the savings in a universal healthcare scheme? More likely, it would have gone into another tax cut.
As a percent of GDP, military spending is well below its postwar high now. There is absolutely no reason to think that if the political will existed to achieve progressive goals, the money could not be found due to military spending.
December 29, 2007 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The forces that are ideologically opposed to these things are those that are obsessed with war and guns and power and solving problems by force and those that believe the US is great because it has the biggest arsenal. How can the forces of health, education, and quality of life be heard above them when our own party has surrendered to them and would rather campaign on killing than on healing!
Military spending below the postwar high? Below the postwar hysterical fear of the Soviet Union. I should hope so! Unfortunately, the US does not have the relative economic strength or power that it did post WWII.
It's well past time the US stopped reliving the glories of WWII and faced reality.
December 30, 2007 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was no genocide going on in Kosovo when we began bombing Serbia. None. There was a liberation struggle by the Albanians and a counter insurrection by the Serbs. The use of violence was initiated by the Moslem rebels. The total number of Moslem deaths prior to US intervention was about 2000. That is not genocide.
You now introduce a new issue that supports my initial claim. We have absolutely no business to send troops to Darfur. That is a civil war among 3 or 4 factions. Whose side do we fight on?
December 29, 2007 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's also a gross distortion to say that the US is a benign hegemon. That may play in Peoria but it doesn't play outside the US. It only plays when you don't count the bodies as we don't count them in Iraq. And it wouldn't even play very well in Peoria if they truly understood the financial cost to us and the decline in our of relative quality of life to other nations in Europe and elsewhere.
And WHAT pressure on China to improve its human rights record!
December 28, 2007 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
correct me if I'm wrong.
Bush and his gang make much of his going to the United Nations regarding the Iraq war. Is it not true that Bush needed final approval of the Security Council to go to war in Iraq? And is it not true that he knew the Seurity Council wasn't going to give him that approval so he never went back to them for this approval?
So when they mention the UN aren't they dissembling?
December 28, 2007 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
December 28, 2007 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the timeline as follows:
- First UN resolution. Inspectors re-enter Iraq.
- Blix and Elbaradei report back.
- Bush and Blair go back to UN for a second resolution.
- Realize (thanks mainly to Chirac) they don't have the votes, don't table the resolution.
- Go to war anyway.
From what I have read, there were some in the administration that did want the second resolution (Cheneyites never wanted to go to the UN in the first place). But they were ready to go to war regardless of whether the UN authorized it.
December 28, 2007 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
So everytime a Bush gangster insinuates the Iraq war was approved by the UN, they're lying.
They lie often by cleverly aligning certain words in the same sentence; "Saddam/9/11", Saddam/Terrorism", "Iraq war/UN",
Iran/al Qaeda".
December 28, 2007 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a note: the phrase "don't table the resolution" has exactly the opposite meaning(s) in UK and US English.
sPh
December 28, 2007 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
John, Didn't eat your Wheaties this morning?
So when they mention the UN aren't they dissembling?
No, they are lying, and spinning, and getting away with both, as usual.
Jan
December 28, 2007 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jan,
to me, dissembling is lying.
What he said was true, but it wasn't the 'whole' truth, so it was all a big lie.
December 28, 2007 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
John, Right, you said as much a little farther south. I just get so tired of using pretty words to describe ugly deeds. Like I said, you made it clear later on what you meant.
Still friends?
Jan
December 28, 2007 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan
Well, send me $10.00 and we're on again.
December 29, 2007 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
John, I didn't know you were such a cheap date! Done! A rip-off at twice the price!
Jan
December 29, 2007 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief aid, Powell thought the U.S. was going to go back to the UN.
It is still not obvious that getting rid of Saddem, if done with anything like competence, would not have been a very good thing.
Just as Ted Kennedy got snookered by Bush over education the Democrats took a while to realize what a liar Bush and his people were. Aren't these the people Obama thinks are just waiting to work with him?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 28, 2007 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush did go back to the UN for the second resolution. Chirac killed it. The rest is history.
December 28, 2007 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
If AIPAC and Zionist-neocons (a distinction w/o much rhetorical difference) are supposed to be the prime mover behind the invasion of Iraq, and Dick Durbin of Illinois was AIPAC's mule since defeating the anti-Zionist hero former Rep. Paul Findley (R-IL) for his House seat back in the 80s, then why would Durbin have voted for the Levin Amendment? If almighty AIPAC lost Durbin somewhere along the way to Senate Majority Whip, then why did Durbin win easily in 2002, at the peak of AIPAC/Zionist-neocon power on the Hill?
December 28, 2007 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Troublemaker.
December 28, 2007 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I'm only laying out the questions that the likes of nrglaw prefer no one see.
December 28, 2007 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't believe in a litmus test like this. Partly, I can, well, almost understand how so many were unable to stand up to not just Bush, but the willing press and public opinion he manipulated so easily. But mostly, I'm not looking for character in terms of a defining moment. (Wait, was that Obama's third-grade paper?) I'm looking for character as evidenced in a candidate's full record and behavior today.
I could deal quite well with Kerry's war vote. In fact, for all the bumbling of the campaign, he whipped Bush's butt on Iraq and terrorism in the debates, and it took the right's spin, the media, and our expectations to turn his mistakes into the paradigm of "flip-flopper." I can deal with Clinton's vote back then, and I don't even want her to apologize. Sorry, guys, this is not a family feud. (And even then, my mother and I aren't apologizing for ourselves at Christmas this year.)
For me, Clinton's to be judged by the tough talk and evasions on Iran, on her foreign-policy "experience," and on Obama's willingness to talk to other nations. I wouldn't care about the loss of face she took in 2003 if she didn't perpetuate the pattern of cowardice today.
The positions of the candidates are still very, very close and quite liberal, much more so than members here allow. I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination. But I want more now, and it isn't a litmus test. MJR has a good heart, and it helps him inspire hope for the Middle East. I still think, however, that it makes him shallow when he becomes a political commentator. He thinks too much with his gut.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 28, 2007 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't quite understand how this particular vote can, first and foremost in a practical sense, be a litmus test, since, including folks like Senator Feingold who is not a candidate but notably voted Nay, the list provided by senators voting against the Levin amendment reflect that the following senators who are currently running for president (in addition to Kerry who most of us voted for last time) also voted against the amendment: Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Edwards. For litmus test purposes, are we supposed to assume that all other candidates who were not then in the Senate, including Obama, would have voted for the Levin amendment?
December 28, 2007 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The vote on Levin is identical to the vote on authorizing the war. In other words, the same Dems who voted "yes" on Levin voted "no" on the joint resolution authorizing the war.
The exception is Feingold who, I recall, opposed Levin because he opposed war period, with or without the UN. He then voted
"no" on the joint resolution.
The other Dems rejected Levin and voted for going to war.
Obama says he would have voted against the war and that his position was identical to his Illinois Senator, Dick Durbin, who voted "yes" on Levin, "no" on war.
The significance of Levin is that it gave Senators who, in their gut, knew the war was a bad idea a way to vote for something that sounded hawkish while still opposing the rush to war.
The Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Kerry votes against Levin and for war were instances of bad judgment.
Litmus test? Why not? I have several including choice and Supreme Court nominees. Why not a terrible war.
December 28, 2007 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not opposed to litmus tests per se or by any stretch of the imagination; that wasn't my point. My point is that this particular litmus test requires one to presume that candidates not in the Senate in 2002 would have voted with Senator Levin. Fair enough, but such a presumption is not a test; it's simply a carryover of a presumption that cannot be proved, or more aptly in this instance, cannot be "tested".
December 28, 2007 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't presume to know that Obama would have voted against invading Iraq. I do know, without a shadow of a doubt, that Clinton and Edwards did vote in favor of that invasion. I knew at that time that such a vote was a terrible mistake. I said so then. I would not have voted to invade Iraq. So, of the leading candidates the only one who might have shown the judgment I require for my candidate for president is Obama. So, I very likely will vote for Obama. I don't threaten this as a litmus test. It really is one.
Hoppy in Sacramento
December 28, 2007 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like Obama also, I like him a lot frankly, but not because of what he did or did not do in the Senate when he was not in the Senate.
December 28, 2007 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. And Biden, for one, was a long time supporter of the war. Dodd, Edwards and Kerry backed away from it earlier than others. But what does it say when everyone seems to fail the test? IMO, Obama’s argument against “dumb” wars is not far from the sentiments of most of those who voted for the AUMF, as they were convinced of Saddam’s threat of WMD.
I think a broader litmus test applied to congress would involve enabling the whole 9/11-changed-everything GWOT Unitary Executive War President facilitating an incremental slide into a totalitarian government not accountable to the rule of law and the Constitution. Dodd has been the only one (of the Senators mentioned) to put his position on the line and stand up for the Constitution and only recently (though he has argued it for some time).
Anyway, a vote with strict litmus tests like these would have to be for Dodd, Kucinich, Paul, etc. who have been anointed “unelectable” and squeezed out by the parties and establishment media, and so, won’t register a blip in the election. Kucinich would seem to be the candidate that passes this and related litmus tests with the highest scores. It just seems artificial to have a litmus test but only applied to the front runners. I understand it but it is a discrepancy of principle and pragmatism.
December 28, 2007 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pedant moment - 22 Dems voted for it (+ Jeffords and Chafee), none of whom are running for the nomination.
Ps. I'd perhaps agree to make this the litmus test... If I were a one-issue litmus test voter. But I'm not and I don't think you are either so I don't know why you even ask the question.
December 28, 2007 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
IOW Senators Biden, Clinton and Dodd voted against the Amendment.
December 28, 2007 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards too.
December 28, 2007 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eddie-george,
Russ Feingold voted nay, too. If this is a genuine litmus test (on overall character, and not only applicable in the current primary season), then our flying progressive monkeys need to start hating on him awkwardly late. Fly, my pretties!
December 28, 2007 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't look it up in the local papers but to the best of my knowledge Feingold voted against this as it too was a declaration of war.
December 28, 2007 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was an amendment to the war powers bill, and a seperate vote. Feingold could have done what Durbin did, voting for the amendment to make it a better bill and voting against the bill -- with or without the amendment. But my point in bringing it up was not to condemn Feingold, but to illustrate the folly of creating litmus tests over individual votes as a way of overemphasizing personalities at the expense of a rational political discourse and reasonable analysis of the public record. And I don't really have any flying monkeys at my command.
December 28, 2007 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd entertain a two-part foreign policy litmus test comprising the vote on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 and the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment passed on September 26, 2007.
Two-part litmus test? Sounds more like epoxy; combine the parts and it sticks.
December 28, 2007 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is the word "populism" used by some of you in a derisive way.
The definition of populism is:
1. A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.
2. The movement organized around this philosophy.
That sounds fine to me.
December 28, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
I deride populism because it has no fundamental philosophy. Under the definition you provide, populism is less defined by what it is than what it is against; to understand what populism is, it is necessary to understand how both its leadership and rank and file identify or otherwise define a "privileged elite."
Consider the most recent success populism has had in America, where the greatest popular or electoral appeal to the idea of the privileged elite has been aimed at "political correctness," "the liberal nanny state" and "Hollywood values" -- imagery established as far back historically as Pat Buchanan's "silent majority" and Spiro Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negitivity." The nature of populism is more substantial as an anti-intellectual technique, exploiting and manipulating popular sentiment as a political formula -- because populism is entirely dependent upon divisive propaganda, not in spite of that fact -- than as a coherent philosophy.
December 29, 2007 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting critique: "I deride populism because it has no fundamental philosophy."
I think what you mean is that when poor and middle class vote for what they want, they are being "anti-intellectual"; but when rich people do it, they are channelling Aristotle.
December 29, 2007 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you should go back and read the rest of the comment -- if it would not be too intellectual, of course.
December 29, 2007 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd have a lot more sympathy with your argument if we weren't afflicted with a party establishment that believes "centrism" is a philosophy. If our party had a philosophy instead of a bunch of wonks who devoted their "intellectual" days in the ivory towers learning about process, message and spin maybe we'd have less trouble from the populists on the right.
Too bad we don't have more like Professor Wellstone who could take an intellectual argument and run a populist campaign.
December 29, 2007 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
bluebell,
First, my argument either stands or falls on the strength of its support, not on your sympathies. Next, the GOP and Democratic Party both invest heavily in process, message and spin, but the former is unfortunatey alot better at it. Their philosophy of industrial privatization and deregulation, prioritizing private shareholder interests over the greater public interest (particularly as it relates to the communications industry), is a real and formidable obstacle to liberal progress. Conservative constituencies can thank the populist drumbeat of anger and resentment against the "Liberal Media" for alot of that.
December 31, 2007 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP has been better at it because it has sought out people where they live and at least pretended to represent them. The "liberal elites" are too darn stuck up to do so. Wellstone was a significant exception. The fact that a left-wing Jewish Professor from a liberal arts college could travel through every ethnically German, Scandinavian, Polish and Czech hamlet in Minnesota and win over voters demonstrates it can be done by the most liberal of us all -- if that liberal doesn't have total contempt for the populace and their beliefs and values.
December 31, 2007 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mythbuster:
What an incredibly mean-spirited and ignorant response to the explanation provided by Zionista about his/her views on what I see as an incredibly fungible concept, to wit, "populism". And what a perfect example of faux populism that you provide in your self-righteous reply. In short, who the hell are you to presume for a single millisecond that you have any more connection to the poor and middle class than Zionista or anyone else on here has? Maybe you haven't read Zionista's posts for a year but I have and I know that Zionista is the kind of local community activist that all of us should be proud of.
==edited snark deletion==
December 29, 2007 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? --- interesting analysis of what happened when all these groups voted for Ronald Reagan.
There are two definitions of populism floating around and two aspects of populism that are at issue -- the right of the lower classes to vote their own interests against the elites -- whether liberal or wealthy --and the tendency of the politiicians to manipulate these same groups into voting their prejudices against their own interests. Huey Long was a master of using both impulses as tactics. An angry lower class has very little use for civil liberties.
January 2, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
For a litmus test, talk about what they want. It's worth considering The Nation's assessment, especially since they're not yet endorsing a candidate for the nomination:
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 28, 2007 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't seen any response to Rosenberg's post that states clearly enough why the Levin amendment vote makes a crappy litmus test, so here goes.
While a Yea vote can be construed as a vain attempt to place limits on a warmonger administration, a Nay cannot be construed to be tacit approval of the Bushco cabal. The wording of the legislation made clear that war could be authorized pending UN action. So a Nay vote could be a rejection of the requirement for UN approval, or it could be a principled statement that military force in Iraq was not appropriate whther the UN gave its blessing or not.
What the Levin amendment was, was a chickensh*t way to try a delay a fear-panicked political system reeling from 9/11.
December 28, 2007 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holding the reins of power of the US Presidency has come to mean reigning over the whole world by being CinC of our out-sized military which is being used to control or affect a whole chunk of the planet's resources and decisions.
That we are domestically becoming more and more like some third world countries [obscene income gaps, failing infrastructures, failing schools, lack of health care for millions, infant mortality rates and so forth] leads me to believe that our governmental leaders have a growing attraction to the simplicity of operating like military dictators, but on an international scale.
The corporate power which we can't fail to see being wielded within our Congress certainly wants to utilize at least the threat of our military to further the goals of corporate globalized power........our government leaders are serving that power.....and domestic programs for the common good of US citizens are being relegated at the least to back burners, but perhaps are not even on the decision-making stove that is busy cooking up the big international plays..... save for election rhetoric.
Anyway, that is the context I use when I think about why so many voted against the Levin Amendment. All the fear-mongering about 'out-sized threats' to our national security serves really well to pacify the struggling American populace. And, of course, fear is great at forestalling questions of why we have become a nation using an 'out-sized' military to be engaged in pre-emptive invasions and torture.... and questions about the continuing failures to protect human rights and human dignity both at home and abroad.
December 30, 2007 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the UN has largely become a tax dollar leeching joke, and is at least part of the reason for the Iraq war, due to its' failure to keep its' own fiscal house. I think we should stop paying for it, load the whole thing in a container ship and send it off to asia or something, seeing as how they have all our money now it's only fitting that someone else around the world start picking up the tab for the whole thing. The United States has been primary payor
and clean-up crew for the UN for HOW many decades, now, it's time for other countries to
pull up their socks and make it work, failing
that maybe they should just abolish it.
The US national debt is no joke, anymore, all
the UN does is add to it. We need to economize
on federal spending, and to me that looks like
a great place to start.
December 31, 2007 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I guess we've heard from the lunatic brigade now. Thanks.
The US in the past, and possibly currently, has been one of the biggest deadbeats. And with a permanent spot on the security council (and a veto) has pretty much used the UN as its tool for many a times. The UN has been a great investment.
December 31, 2007 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink