I Guess That Answers Glenn's Question

Glenn Reynolds chided Josh Marshall for ignoring recent developments in the Middle East; Dr. Marshall's current lack of interest was especially striking because just a few years back he had a long article about the neo-con plan for promoting democracy in the region.

But now the explanation for the non-coverage is in - Josh is away, and his stand-in, Ed Kilgore, is willing to post on the subject only while defiantly ignoring all news from the region.  His position: "it literally never crossed my mind that Bush's fans would credit him with for this positive event [in Lebanon]".

The Captain helps him out a bit with the background, quoting a local leader who says that "this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq".  And, although I reluctant to characterize them as "Bush's fans", let's add to the mix the voice of the NY Times:

The Bush administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances. It boldly proclaimed the cause of Middle East democracy at a time when few in the West thought it had any realistic chance. And for all the negative consequences that flowed from the American invasion of Iraq, there could have been no democratic elections there this January if Saddam Hussein had still been in power.

Thanks for obliging Glenn, Ed, but I think we have seen enough - please revert to Social Security.

MORE:  Don't stop the comedy!  The more I excerpt from Mr. Kilgore's post, the funnier it gets:

This is the kind of thinking, of course, that has convinced God knows how many people that Ronald Reagan personally won the Cold War. It's the old post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy.

Hugh Hewitt rises to the defense of Reagan, which makes him a better man that I, since I tend to avoid arguing with others about articles of their religious faith.  I also steer away from strawmen  - whom might Mr. Kilgore be rebutting when he suggests that Reagan did not "personally" win the Cold War?

However, Mr. Kilgore has been betrayed either by his Latin instructor, his logic instructor, or his calendar when he cites "post hoc ergo propter hoc".  This is not an "after" situation - Syria is not responding exclusively to the US invasion of Iraq two years ago.  Syria is being influenced by US diplomatic pressure being applied today.  Syria is being influenced by the presence of US troops in Iraq today.  There is a bit more at work than the notion that Bush's "pro-democracy speeches exercise some sort of rhetorical enchantment", as Mr. Kilgore would have it.

The noted philosopher Yogi Berra nailed the importance of locating oneself in time with the following Socratic exchange:

Student: What time is it?

Yogi: You mean now?

As to how this will turn out, time will tell.  But to suggest that President Bush has nothing to do with it is absurd.  And of course, if things turn out badly, Mr. Kilgore's position will turn on a dime, and this story will be all about what Bush did wrong.

MORE:  Nathan Newman wonders - we set 'em up, we knock 'em down, why should Bush get accolades?  Well, this AP history listen is sure to irk him, since it glides right past his point about the Gulf War (a point I am not disputing - we can all rally to the cry of "AP Incompetence").

And somewhat relatedly, back on the subject of Presidential speeches and "rhetorical enchantment", wasn't Bush I derided for encouraging Iraqis to rise up against Saddam and then abandoning them in 1991?

Comments

[RedDan]

The leader quoted might not be the best backup for your assertions or claims, TM.

Walid Jumblatt is just at good at spin, realpolitik and other forms of manipulation as any politician...and his previous (nay recent!) statements give quite a different perspective on his perspective (as it were).

Don't get me wrong, here - the goings on in Lebanon have all the earmarkings of "Good Things®" and I am all for people power, and think the Syrians are a pretty much odious lot...

But the history is a lot more complicated and a lot less promising than the cheerleading would have you think.

And the outcome, I predict, will not be at all something that the Right will want to have "credited" to Bush policy.

Just my $0.02

[RedDan]

PS - did you read Juan Cole's breakdown of Lebanese history?

It has some clues as to where all this might be going...and some of the more probably pathways are not particularly inviting, to say the least.

[TM]

The leader quoted might not be the best backup for your assertions or claims, TM.

Well, although I did not cite it, Ed Klgore says this quite clearly in his post:

Barring any specific evidence (provided, say, by Lebanese pro-democracy leaders)that Bush had anything in particular to do with Syria's setbacks in Lebanon, I see no particular reason to high-five him for being in office when they happened.

Look, obviously, things may not work out well (and I have NO doubt that Kilgore will feel comfortable blaming Bush if that becomes the case). But his current position is absurd.

And the alternative defense - well, Kilgore asked for evidence from "pro-democracy leaders", but not *this* leader - is pretty thin, too (not that you are necessarily making that defense, but you are getting close).

As to Juan Cole - you will experience shock and dismay if I admit to you how rarely I read him, or how unconvincing I find him to be.

Victor Davis Hanson, OTOH - now *there* is a scholar!

[MisterPundit]

"it literally never crossed my mind that Bush's fans would credit him with for this positive event [in Lebanon]"

Of course it crossed his mind. He just didn't like it. Poor lefties. Look what they are being reduced to. If they they're not telling lies about Bush's accomplishments, they simply ignore it. That won't change reality though, just the left's perception of it, which, as we all know, are two entirely different things.

[Nathan Newman]

So Tom, you're fair minded. Should US intervention get credit for ousting Syria, when we rewarded Syria in our last round of intevention in the First Gulf War by giving the country control of Lebanon. I have serious problems buying into a punch and judy show where the US builds up dictatorships, then wants brownie points for ending those dictatorships when it's politically useful.

See my post here: http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/002248.shtml

[Ripper]

Nathan, the U.S. doesn't get credit for this, only the NeoCons. Blame for any favors ever done for Assad lies on the Realists.

[Cecil Turner]

"Should US intervention get credit for ousting Syria . . ."

There is a certain, predictable consequence of putting a powerful US armed force on the border of two of the worst-performing totalitarianist states in the MidEast. And I think there's little doubt the Syrian reaction to the events in Lebanon is closely related to what they think the possible US reaction might be.

". . . when we rewarded Syria in our last round of intevention in the First Gulf War by giving the country control of Lebanon."

Syria had de facto control of Lebanon since the Israeli withdrawal (after the Sabra and Shatila massacre) in 1983, when Syria refused to withdraw its troops. We lost any real influence there the same year, after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. The 1989 Taif Accord had a plan for Syrian troop withdrawal, but again it went nowhere. Blaming Bush Sr. requires a time warp and more than a little bit of a stretch.

Last year, the dynamic changed a bit, with a new UN Resolution. What do you think was the pertinent change in the intervening period?

[TM]

Hmm, I should read the (judicious) comments before I follow the trackbacks and leave my semi-snarky replies.

Well, as to 1990, here is what I put on your site, and since I wrote it, I must have meant it:

[From NN]: Out of curiosity, have any of the conservative bloggers acknowledged Bush Senior's role in giving Syria control of Lebanon back in 1990?

[From TM]: I have no idea. But if we had a time machine, your suggestion in 1990 to Bush I would have been what - continue to hand-wring ineffectually about Lebanon and commence hand-wringing ineffectually about Kuwait, or accept the prevailing reality in Lebanon in exchange for useful concessions from Syria on Kuwait?

Maybe someone figured that by opposing both evils, we would prevail against neither; maybe someone figured that playing "divide and conquer" with our adversaries made sense at the time.

Maybe next, we can re-hash why we armed Saddam in the late 80's.

Or, following the lead of the Ripper, above, times change - one objection to US policy in the Arab world is that we are too cozy with, and prop up too many, useless dictatorships. Can't we change? And can't someone say "well done" if we do?

**All subject to the caveat that Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and the rest are WORKS IN PROGRESS**.

And all subject to the clear undersatanding that if things work badly, Ed Kilgore will blame Bush exclusively.

[Nathan Newman]

But Tom (reposting from my own comments for those too lazy to check it out there :), the point is that progressives rightly wonder how seriously to take this "democracy" talk. Sure, the US supports "democratic" change as long as it suits their realpolitick interest, but if it's so easily disposable-- trade Lebananese sovereignty in 1990 for oil back then, trade the crushing of democracy in Pakistan today for geopolitical support now, how can we take it seriously? I am not an uncompromising idealist; I accept step-by-step gains as needed, but where you directly trade the liberty of one people for another, you aren't in the realm of reasonable incrementalism, but merely cynical abuse of idealistic language.

[Lurking Observer]

NN:

So, by willingly trading the liberty of, say, Poles, East Germans, North Koreans, and Ukrainians, any claim that the US supported democracy in the just-finished Second World War are null-and-void?

Is one to presuppose that, in order for our words in support of democracy to mean anything, we should have followed Patton's conclusions and rolled eastward to at least liberate Prague? Or Churchill's arguments and spent a few tens of thousands of lives (or more) to have the western Allies liberate Berlin?

As important, one might conclude that it was wrong of Ike, in 1956, having floated the idea of supporting democracy in Eastern Europe, to not have gone to war on behalf of the valiant Hungarians, even at the possible risk of nuclear war, lest our commitment to democracy in fact be "merely cynical abuse of idealistic language"?

Somehow, the Left seems to have constructed a truly no-win world:

--Risking larger wars is unacceptable (see Cold War).
--Attacking only the enemies we can do something about, while leaving others alone, is unacceptable (see Iraq compared w/ North Korea).
--Engaging in realpolitik in order to secure gains elsewhere is unacceptable (see Lebanon for Kuwait).

(That, of course, assumes that the Left supported the war over Kuwait in the first place, which runs counter to my memories of the debate back in 1990-1991.)

[richard mcenroe]

RedDan — Hell, I'm not happy with having France and Germany credited to FDR and Truman, but facts are facts...

[Nathan Newman]

Lurking- The US didn't "trade" anything in Eastern Europe. That's one of the silliest canards out there, since the Soviets had troops on the ground and actually needed very little from us-- and we gave them very little and launched the Cold War within a couple of years.

If we traded anything, it was with Britain and France, who we gave back their colonies to. The fact that we so easily abandoned the demands for democracy of developing nations in the wake of WWII is actually the issue that does undermine the more idealist claims of WWII. It was definitely a war for democracy for white people, but democracy for non-whites was actually quite disposable by US leadership, unfortunately.

I can't speak for "the Left", god knows, but my position is that promotion of democracy is a good thing, that we could do so much more effectively around the world than one $200 billion war in Iraq. That same money devoted to education, disease prevention and general economic aid conditioned on recipients respecting democratic rights would make far more difference. But the US instead freely gives billions to countries violating the democratic rights of others-- in fact, Egypt, Israel and other such violators receive the lion's portion of such aid. So we are doing exactly the opposite of using our aid to encourage such democratization.

[Lurking Observer]

We launched the Cold War? With that as a starting premise, I'd say that we're through the Looking Glass. I can only wonder what your interpretation of the Berlin Blockade was?

[Jimmie]

Didn't Syria take de facto control of Syria in 1972 or 1973 when they were invited in and never quite left? Didn't the Elder Assad say something to the effect of "two nations, one government" when referring to the two countries back in 1976 or so?

Syria's been in military control of Lebanon since then and have directly controlled the Lebanese government since at least the early 1980s.

So what's this "control" that Bush 41 allegedly gave Syria in 1991?

[TM]

Sure, the US supports "democratic" change as long as it suits their realpolitick interest, but if it's so easily disposable...

I think that recently in the Ukraine, Bush got some credit for supporting the reformers even though it represented a poke in Putin's eye (and the window to his soul!) at a time when Putin's support in Iraq was useful.

You seem to have two other questions - is Bush II really a break from the US post WWI policy? Well, we won't know for a while.

(And I take exception to this:

[WWII] was definitely a war for democracy for white people, but democracy for non-whites was actually quite disposable by US leadership, unfortunately.

The Brits gave up a number of colonies, most notably India, after WWII. My uninformed guess is that the US encouraged that. In fact, I have seen some speculation that one of FDR's war aims was the dissolution of the British Empire.

Your second point is, roughly, I spent $200 billion to liberate Iraq and all I got was this lousy t-shirt?

Well, ask me about the money we are being asked to spend on global warming, and compare that to other ways to aid the third world (potential flooding in Manhattan is not an issue).

Or, to answer more directly, I have no idea how folks can decide that $200 billion plus over 1,500 US soldiers dead plus many more civilian and allied casualties was "worth it". And in some ways, this is a reprise of Osacar Wilde's old poser - "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars? How about five?"

What I mean is, I don't think the deeply committed anti-war crowd would take a different view of Iraq if the war cost was, say, $50 billion, and 300 US dead - that is still a lot of money, and a lot of deaths. OTOH, I expect US public opinion would be different, since many folks are doing some sort of a trade-off in their minds.

So no, I don't have any mathematical proof that Iraq was worth it, or will be worth it if we sweep the board in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

If I met a mom whose son or daughter died in Iraq, I would certainly encourage her to believe that her child's death was for a very noble cause, and not at all in vain.

But I would surely not argue with her about it if she felt differently.

[Cecil Turner]

"I'd say that we're through the Looking Glass."

I'd say we were there a while ago, starting with the attempt at a unified theory of promoting democracy (across a half-century of different administrations). I've also never truly appreciated the Chomskian practice of finding some symbolic act in the past to discredit current policies (e.g., "see, he shook Saddam's hand!"). Obviously I'm not enlightened enough.

[Lurking Observer]

TM:

Both FDR and Truman used Lend-Lease (especially in its post-war incarnation) to pressure the Brits (and to a lesser extent the French) into decolonization. Whether it was part of a larger effort to dismantle the British Empire is less clear.

[Ripper]

Re: Lend-Lease, I've heard that we traded LL for Imperial tarrif removal. Since tarrifs were the economic basis of the Empire, this was half the work of freeing the colonies. Switching the funding to another tax systems was still possible, but I can't think of one that would have worked for them.

[Just Passing Through]

Individual terrorists or terrorists organixations are not our primary target in this war. They cannot even dream of success without the refuge, financing, and support offered by terror states.

The war on terror will be won or lost depending on how effective the US is in forcing the terror states to trap themselves in the reactive mode. Assuming your strategic plan is sound, you force the enemy to react to your strategic plan and devote insufficient resources to or even abandon his own. That's how you win wars. Your tactical initiatives continue to support your strategy while his tactical initiatives begin to simply oppose yours with no coherent or rational strategy behind them.

We were in the reactive mode and were losing the WoT in the 90s. We haven't yet won it, and ultimately may not, but we are at this point in time winning it. The events unfolding in Lebanon are lose/lose for the terror states. If the Lebanese resist reforming a government with institutional division of power among the Christians, Sunnis, and Shites in favor of a general election, it will be another battle won in the WoT. If not, it will be a stalemate. Either way, Syria has lost it's hold on Lebanon. Either way, it is a no win situation for terrorism. Either way the status quo in the ME takes another blow.

It takes a particularly obtuse person to argue that the Muslim dictatorships - religious and secular - haven't abandoned past successful strategy and aren't reacting to the democratic reforms in Iraq. It takes a real blockhead to argue that the Lebanese people aren't reacting to the democratic reforms in Iraq. Only the densest and most obtuse blockhead would pay lip service to democratic reform as the primary weapona weapon in the WoT while arguing that the strategy of democratic reform as a weapon in the WoT is flawed because it wasn't used earlier.

Democratic reform is a tactical weapon in the WoT along with military operations and diplomatic initiatives and has already taken its place as the most effective one. The strategy we are using in the WoT was outlined on 9/20/01 in Bush's speech when he defined the new US policy concerning international terrorism. We will confront the terrorists whenever we find them, but it is the terror states that are our primary target.

[TM]

Your tactical initiatives continue to support your strategy while his tactical initiatives begin to simply oppose yours with no coherent or rational strategy behind them.

Hmm, been spending time evaluating the DNC, have you? I am hoping "Just Passing Through" will Just Stick Around.

However, please, go easy on phrases like "densest and most obtuse blockhead", no matter how sincerely felt. Of course, if the shoe does not fit, he won't wear it, but there is the vague possibility that Mr. Newman (who is most emphaticaly *not* either obtuse or a blockhead) will think your remarks are directed at him.

And having said that, yes, I did describe Ed Kilgore as "defiantly ignoring all news from the region", and I see the words "funnier" and "absurd" up there, too, in my description of his post, but for some reason that strikes me as a bit better - maybe it is the notion of "attack the idea, not the person".

[Cecil Turner]

"The strategy we are using in the WoT was outlined on 9/20/01 in Bush's speech when he defined the new US policy concerning international terrorism. We will confront the terrorists whenever we find them, but it is the terror states that are our primary target."

Yes. And he laid it out even better in this speech at last year's Air Force Academy graduation:

"We bring more than a vision to this conflict -- we bring a strategy that will lead to victory. And that strategy has four commitments:

• "First, we are using every available tool to dismantle, disrupt and destroy terrorists and their organizations. . . "
• "Secondly, we are denying terrorists places of sanctuary or support. . . "
• "Third, we are using all elements of our national power to deny terrorists the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons they seek. . ."
• "Fourth and finally, we are denying the terrorists the ideological victories they seek by working for freedom and reform in the broader Middle East. . . "

[Just Passing Through]

"...there is the vague possibility that Mr. Newman (who is most emphaticaly *not* either obtuse or a blockhead) will think your remarks are directed at him"

Tom,
It was a generic comment, and not directed at Mr Newman personally. Mr Newman seems willing to discuss the issue and present his rationale for his viewpoint. I do not agree with his interpretations and weighting of events, but coming to different conclusions than me doesn't put him in the blockhead camp. If I understand him correctly, he doesn't posit that any one of the three positions I mention doesn't exist or dismiss the possibility that the reasons for the changes we're seeing are what I believe they are or that those reasons don't exist at all. He weights the US' influence on these events differently than I. Having said that, I also think that there was fertile ground already, and I gave a much abridged version of what I think are the reasons also.

I read about a concept not too long ago - forget where, maybe even here - called 'Tipping Points'. It's now appearing everywhere in print and online. Basically, the theory is that events build to a point over time to where only a very small flucuation in the related environment is required to create completely new paradigms and wreck the old status quo. The buildup to the tipping point is related to the connections between many different people/viewpoints with an investment in some social construct slowly being stressed by the realization that the construct as it is no longer works. The buildup is seldom if ever recognized for what it is until after the fact. The theory can be related to many different social constructs - political, scientific, business, etc. The flucuation that I believe is responsible for the tipping point that is bringing such rapid change to the ME is the change in US policy towards the status quo and the realization that that policy is real and won't change.

Once a Tipping Point is realized, the connections to entities still maintaining the old status quo are stressed to and beyond the breaking point, new connections made between entities embracing the new paradigms, and the construct redefined. The left as we knew it is trying to maintain the old connections and as a result is being severed from any influence over the new social construct. That's causing a great deal of irrational thought and behavior right now. I don't count Mr Newman or for that matter any but a bare few commenters I've seen here among that crowd. That crowd tends to stay congregated in groups where the buy in to the new paradigms is commonly rejected.

You can count Old Europe and the UN among the entities that are not buying in. Old Europe still might but it will take some radical social changes. The UN is too moribund to accept the change in the status quo required.

[Just Passing Through]

Mr Turner,

GWB has reiterated the same policy position in quite a few speeches and addresses since 9/20/01. It just doesn't get through to the people invested in a reactive US policy towards terrorism. I doubt it ever will for a great many of them.

TM,

The DNC isn't really the type of entity that I think of as being left behind by the current changes in paradigms. I don't believe that they don't realize that a Tipping Point has been reached and won't accept the new international political constructs. They just want to strip any positive responsibility for the final few pushes required from GWB and the republicans. Not the same thing. The DNC is not the looney left, Dean notwithstanding (Dean will either clean up his act or be ousted next year.) The DNC will buy in. They just need to redefine and reinvent themselves. That's occurring right now in the NYTimes, the legislature, etc (even Jon Stewart). Historical revision just takes a little time. They need to position themselves as having bought into the strategy from the start without relaxing their sniping at the tactics that brought that strategy to fruition.

BTW: I don't think the DNC will be successful in revising history in this case. Too many records are too easily accessible over the the Net. If Ted Kennedy runs again he'll have to campaign a lot harder than he has in the past. Kerry also if he decides to go for the Senate again in 2008 instead of another run for the Oval Office. The records make these guys very vulnerable and if international events continue on the course they are on, they'll look even more foolish in 2 years. If Mitt Romney decides not to pursue a presidential run, he could give both of them a lot of sleepless nights.

As far as sticking around, I usually comment on the blogs only when other pressures in life (work) allow for the leisure time, and so appear and disappear periodically. I read, just don't comment.

[Nathan Newman]

Tom- Yes, Bush Pere was criticized for selling out the Kurds (both in the 1970s as CIA chief and in 1991), and I was one who did so. I didn't support the first Gulf War because I didn't see an invasion of one dictatorship by another as a great moral cause, but I've always been a fan of the Kurds. Hell, why wouldn't I be since they are all leftwing commies?

If we want to piss on the US some more, we can always go back to WWI when nationalism was bypassed in favor of handing chunks of the middle east to various monarchs and oil shieks. The Kurds were inconvenient, so they got nada at Versailles.

So color me skeptical and the long-range commitment of the US to promoting democracy.

[richard mcenroe]

"[WWII] was definitely a war for democracy for white people, but democracy for non-whites was actually quite disposable by US leadership, unfortunately."

Which is why we gave the Phillipines their independence in '48, I guess...

[Fredrik Nyman]

Nathan,

You are right to criticize the US when we drop the ball and don't live up to our ideals.

But shouldn't you temper that criticism with the recognition that the US, for all its flaws in execution, still does far more than anyone else to promote democracy?

Furthermore, shouldn't you also recognize that the US has generally had very good reasons for not living up to its ideals?

Finally, shouldn't you also recognize that by its very nature of government, with a term-limited presidency, separation of powers, and a government that's fairly responsive to public opinion, inconsistent execution is inevitable. Different administrations will have different priorities, different ambitions, different skills, and different political realities constraints.

And aren't you holding the US to an impossible and therefore meaningless standard when you demand perfection of the US, but refuse to hold any other nations accountable?

[dsquared]

Mate, the Syrians are under pressure in Lebanon because of the Lebanese, who are on the streets demonstrating because somebody killed their Prime Minister. Now I suppose that it is just about possible that the USA murdered Hairiri and framed the Syrians, but there's no evidence that they did and they're certainly not claiming it at present. So I suspect that there may be less to this one than meets the eye.

btw, since the US "diplomatic pressure" most recently came in the form of a joint statement with France, why no credit to the French?

[Cecil Turner]

"Mate, the Syrians are under pressure in Lebanon because of the Lebanese, who are on the streets demonstrating because somebody killed their Prime Minister."

Lebanese on the streets are "pressure"? Why didn't they respond with the infamous "Hama Rules"?

President Assad identified the rebellion as emanating from Syria's fourth-largest city — Hama — and he literally leveled it . . . Amnesty International estimated that 10,000 to 25,000 Syrians, mostly civilians, were killed in the merciless crackdown.

I'd submit the answer lies to the south.

[dsquared]

I'd submit that politically convenient, simple, monocausal explanations are usually wrong.

[Appalled Moderate]

dsquared:

...Which means people giving Bush all or none of the credit are likely wrong.

What would interest me -- whether the Cedar Revolution has an impact on Iraq. (Either by causing peaceful demonstrations against terror, peceful demonstrations against the "occupier", or both at the same time.)

[Cecil Turner]

"I'd submit that politically convenient, simple, monocausal explanations are usually wrong."

As opposed to the compelling argument that French diplomacy is responsible? If you'd rather believe in the efficacy of smooth talking, rather than the daunting effect of the prospect of a US invasion, be my guest. I'll go out on a limb, and predict diplomacy will continue to be more effective in the region, at least in the near future.

[TM]

If I can semi-hijack this thread for a moment, I want to come back to the "Tipping Point" notion mentioned by Just Passing (and I think it was Tom Friedman who just wrote on that).

My question, which is actually a recycling of an old post I wrote, is this - might the US be able to induce a Tipping Point in North Korea?

Our clever scheme - offer some large number of green cards to the first, say, million North Koreans to flee the country.

From an old WSJ editorial:

The historical model here is East Germany in 1989. Hungary permitted tens of thousands of East German refugees to pass through its borders en route to the West, contributing to the fall of communism in Eastern Europe.

Anyway, I still like the idea, although there are obviously lots of possible objections. I would love to get some feedback (and unless folks hate this idea, I will be posting it. Actually, I may post it *especially* if folks hate it...)

[Appalled Moderate]

TM:

I am sure China would love even more refugees swarming into their country trying to take advantage of this offer. This might be what makes this a good thing -- the Chinese might feel pressure to push NK into a China-type authoritarianism, which would be better than the current wackaloon state.

But, on the other hand, China might just get ticked at us and start selling off their stash of dollars....

In sum, a bit risky, as the success or failure of the strategy depends on a nation not well-disposed towards us.

[Just Passing Through]

Friedman did just write on the concept last week. For anyone's info, it was Malcolm Gladwell who wrote the book, Tipping Points.

It certainly looks like NK meets the requirements for a tipping point to occur. Your proposal sounds like it would bring the situation to a head.

BTW: There has been a lot in print and online using the phase 'Turning Point' to describe some of the same events that Gladwell would call Tipping Points. Not the same thing. A turning point implies a new direction - SOS situations just taking a new path. In politics, this means that the constructs bend to the stress but stay in place. A Tipping Point implies a whole new paradigm - a completely different way of looking at a situation that requires new constructs.

If Gladwell and Friedman are right, as I believe they are, this is a political Tipping Point as dramatic as the last one that saw the Berlin Wall come down. And if they are right, the turning point people are wrong. This may be because they have yet to understand what's happening and will buy in eventually.

It may also be because they need the turning point analogy to protect their investment in the status quo, or their fiefs if you look at it that way. To make that case, you need to maintain that the changes we're seeing are due to the patient implementation of the old UN or State Department policies - things would have changed in the same time frame anyway and are not a direct result of GWB's changing US policy. I think that's the reasoning that predominates in insitutionalized thinking right now. When you've institutionalized the idea that GWB is a dumb cowboy incapable of grasping the 'nuances' that smarter people did, it's hard to acknowledge that he saw the moment a lot clearer than you did all along.

[Just Passing Through]

AM,

If it is a Tipping Point, and TM's idea does push the situation into a new construct, the changes will occur within the NK polity. China could indeed pressure NK diplomatically or even take the military option and force the situation back into the status quo. If that is tried on GWB's watch, he'll react.

If the Chinese decide to sell off their dollars in response to GWB's reaction, they trash the trade balance with the US and threaten their best market (that's why they have the dollars in the first place). China would have to choose between opposing economic and political advantages.

Beats me which way they'd go, but wouldn't it be a hoot if the same Tipping Point TM hypothesizes in NK brings about a new social construct in China also.

That's what Tipping Points do. They change the whole picture.

[TM]

I am sure China would love even more refugees swarming into their country trying to take advantage of this offer.

I sense your skepticism. Presumably, we would want to discuss this with them, although whether we actually "clear" it with them is a matter for the diplos. (Or, if they truly hate it and can't see it representing a solution, we don't proceed.)

Well, I don't need much encouragement - this idea merits a promotion up to the blog.

Thanks very much.

[Nathan Newman]

Has the US promoted democracy better than other countries? That's a hard question to answer. We were one of the last countries to end slavery and we extended de facto slavery through peonage and Jim Crow throughout a large chunk of our country. We in turn supported Apartheid and a range of authoritarian governments throughout the 20th century, for the "good" reason for fighting communism, but often as a pretext to take out quite moderate social democratic governments-- which in the case of helping to overthrow Mosaddeq's democratic government in Iran in 1953 has led to a series of terrible effects around the world.

Since I don't think the US "overthrew" communism, but rather the East Bloc system collapsed due to internal changes and collapse, combined with pressure by dissidents, the positive side of the scale for US action in support of democracy is actually pretty thin. Lots of rhetoric but the substance has been either stupid or outright venal much of the time.

[Cecil Turner]

"But, on the other hand, China might just get ticked at us and start selling off their stash of dollars...."

I'm not sure how credible a threat that is, partly because their currency is linked to ours, and partly because they'd be devaluing their own stash of US securities. Also, that'd tend to undermine their policy of holding the value of the Yuan down vs the dollar (despite numerous requests to let it float up).

"In sum, a bit risky, as the success or failure of the strategy depends on a nation not well-disposed towards us."

I think your underlying premise (that we have little leverage with the DPRK) is sound. However, our huge trade imbalance with the PRC gives us rather more leverage with them, not less. And the road to diplomatic progress in Pyongyang goes through Beijing.

[Just Passing Through]

"Since I don't think the US "overthrew" communism,..."

No, it didn't. The US/West created an environment where Marxism as a social construct was no longer viable in the East Bloc, more and more people, entities, institutions, power blocks etc realized this, realigned themselves, and communism in the East Bloc collapsed.

What you maintaining is that no single US initiative or isolated policy can be pointed at as the reason that Communisn in the East Bloc collapsed. You're right. You're looking for a turning point, a single event where the US/West directly confronted the politiboro and won, and can't find one. Your conclusion is that the US/West was not then the reason the politiboro lost the game. That's wrong.

The effects of turning points occur in isolation. The effects of tipping points do not, they cascade. The wall coming down was not a turning point for Germany. The whole eastern bloc reacted. What the West did under US leadership was create the environment where the East Bloc was ready for change. That situation would not have been in place without SDI, Reagan and Thatcher rebuilding Nato, the rollback of Communism in Latin America, confronting the Red Army by proxy in Afganistan and on and on. Then Reagan stood there and said the wall must come down. The East Bloc believed him, pressure for change mounted in the next few years, and suddenly everything changed almost overnight. All the West did was nudge the situation. The polities in the East Bloc changed themselves. Exciting times. The process was unstoppable long before Yeltsin confronted the Red Army.

Here's another way to look at it. The US spent almost 40 years reacting to the strategy championed by Russia that increased the number of Marxist states almost yearly - as simply stated as 'Expand and cover the earth'. The tactical initiatives of Nato, Seato, the US itself - all were designed to react to local tactical intitiatives by Marxism. The West did not control the strategic arena. Under Reagan, that all changed. The US established a global strategy - as simply stated as 'No more status quo, the wall must come down'. Our tactical initiatives from that point on were designed to support that strategy and bring pressure to bear on Marxism in an entirely new and proactive way. Marxism abandoned the strategy of expansion in favor of maintaining the status quo. Their tactical initiatives fell into the trap of the reactive mode, and they lost the Cold War.

I guess the question is what changed the equation. I believe it was the US policy changes under Reagan that created the climate for internal collapse in the East Bloc. You agree that that climate existed. What then do you think changed in the East Bloc to bring about that change?

[Nathan Newman]

The silliness of giving credit to Reagan starts with ignoring that the politboro itself was moving towards reform long before Reagan was even President. Gorbachev did not magically become general secretary because of Reagan and he clearly set in motion many of these forces. Gorbachev's actions clearly had a more direct effect than Reagan's, so why not attribute all this new freedom to him.

Of course, it's all more complicated than that. "Marxism" doesn't and didn't exist in some monolithic structure, since much of Europe to this day is run by socialist governments descended from Marxist roots. "Marxists" in some sense also today control India, China, Brazil and much of Latin America.

So when people talk in terms of "Marxism" as an expansionary force, I kind of can't take them too seriousl-- I have a tendency to break into giggles remembering scenes from the original Manchurian Candidate.

Unlike the US, the Soviets expanded for years without having to invade other countries. The need to deploy troops is a sign of ideological weakness, not strength by the United States. It reflects that our ideas and values are so little respected that they need bayonets to be implemented.

[Just Passing Through]

"The silliness of giving credit to Reagan starts with ignoring that the politboro itself was moving towards reform long before Reagan was even President."

Baloney. One old guard Marxist after another took the reins and rather desparately tried to preserve the staus quo until Gorbachev. Reform was the last thing they wanted. Gorbachev gained power BECAUSE he was a reformist, but couldn't hold it together economically or politically while reacting to one Western initiative after another.

It's one thing to hold opinions about how historical events should be interpreted, it's quite another to reinvent the events themselves.

BTW: I use marxist as a shorthand rather than type some qualifier everytime I want to talk to some aspect of communism. Nevertheless, giggle away about expansionism. Better yet, read some history. Or giggle.

"The need to deploy troops is a sign of ideological weakness, not strength by the United States. It reflects that our ideas and values are so little respected that they need bayonets to be implemented."

Perhaps relocating to a better country with ideas and values you can respect is an option you should consider. With all due respect to TM, into the looney left clown bin you go.

[Nathan Newman]

Hey Just Passing-- I don't really care about your judgement, since you throw around unified edifices like "Marxism" while ignoring the governments of Europe, India, and Latin America all influenced by Marxism, yet completely independent of your "Marxist" expansionism.

But like most on the right, you just choose to create your little definitions and run away from anyone who challenges them.

One reason Tom gets respect around the blogosphere from progressives is that he's a conservative who actually acknowledges opposing arguments. He's snarky, gives and goods as he gets, but doesn't call on opponents to leave the country as his solution to political disagreement.

[Just Passing Through]

"the governments of Europe, India, and Latin America all influenced by Marxism, yet completely independent of your "Marxist" expansionism."

I don't know where to start. It's an utterly, totally, and abysmally ignorant statement given even a cursory look at Russia's place in history from 1945 to 1990. I think I'll just leave you in your ignorance.

"But like most on the right, you just choose to create your little definitions and run away from anyone who challenges them."

Well now, see you haven't actually challenged any of my little definitions. You simply make one claim after another that nothing the US has done has had any positive effect and base those claims on some pretty thin interpretations if not distortions of well recorded events. You're desparately fending off giving any credit to the US on any issue. All your statements source from one concept - the US had done no good - and you feel that building from that represents a mature political position. If that's your worldview, that's fine. As I said, giggle away at the folks who don't share it. But for Christ sakes, don't take umbrage when your giggling gets you discounted.

"doesn't call on opponents to leave the country as his solution to political disagreement."

Actually, I suggested that if YOUR opinion is that US values and ideals have no respect YOU would perhaps be better served someplace where you could respect the values and ideals prevailing there. It has nothing to do with solving political disagreement. It's simply a suggestion along the lines of what you'd say to someone in a restaurant who isn't in disagreement about the relative merits of the veal compared to the haddock, but who says that everything on the menu sucks and btw he can't stand the decor. Given your opinion of the joint, go eat elsewhere.