Skip to main content

"Polis" : Greek, old, hard to translate, the root of "political" , "police" , "polite", etc.

Sad State

    The state of the union is a sad state. President Obama, not ordinarily considered an ignorant or unintelligent man, stood before a joint session of congress and proclaimed that we would never let Iran come to possess a nuclear weapon. He amplified this statement by declaring that we would rule out no action needed to maintain this position.
    The president has just mostly ended one disastrous military adventure initiated by his dim-witted predecessor. We remain mired in another war, originally less easy to reject out-of-hand, but no less hopeless now, ten years later, the longest war in our history and absurd to carry on. Opinion polls say the public opposes both wars, in one way or another. Their costs, conveniently described outside the rest of the defense budget, have been ruinous. Yet. . . .
    When Mr. Obama implies that we will use any degree of military force to plunge into a third war on the mainland of Asia, the people's representatives stand and cheer lustily. To the casual viewer of television, those cheers were without notable exception. Stupidity? Insanity? Why did this happen?

    I put it to you: we are no longer the pragmatic lovers of Yankee ingenuity and struggling immigrant worker's ethics; we are no longer the restrained people who tended to try to disband their armies after every war. The world has changed, of course. It is smaller, and we are more vulnerable. We have the choice to remain peacefully conservative and less powerful, or something else. So now, with our only supreme power the power to destroy, we have become a Romantic people, and this trait continues to drive us to big trouble.
    In The Roots of Romanticism, Isaiah Berlin says the Romantic believes “[T]he only thing which is worthwhile . . . is the exfoliation of a particular self, its creative activity, . . . its creation of values, its dedication of itself to these values.” Well, that is a very pedantic way of saying, “if you really believe in something and try with all your might, the striving is a good thing, all by itself.” And this belief is exactly what we, as a representative democracy, have embraced in the cases of Iraq, Afghanistan and-- may it never happen-- Iran. Now the commander-in-chief exhorts us, and the obedient order-followers, to do it again.

    Please not, O-man. Put an end to ill-considered no ruling out anything. An end to bad examples. There is a measurable difference between being all that we can be and simply being really strong, brave, and indefatigable without asking what at.
    Does this mean we are reduced to pacifism? That we might never defend ourselves with force if attacked, as we were ten years ago? It does not. The pragmatist can defend with force, but only the Romantic thinks that the value lies in the force, rather than in the ability to mount a needed defense. Idiotic Romantic evaluation is why the congress cheers the thought of another war to be fought right between two others we have just lost, shattering, in the process, our attempt to rebuild an economy hijacked by scoundrels who hope to profit from the new version.
    We had to do something about the mostly-Saudi Arabian force which attacked us with help from their bases in Afghanistan. We should have been able to do something rather well. The Bush family had long had good commercial relations with the corrupt and vulnerable Saudi kingdom. America, also, has a history of successful covert subversion of other governments, far less justifiable than that in Afghanistan; e.g., the democratically-elected ones of Chile, Guatemala, and Iran itself. It could be well-argued that we and our British allies' brilliant installation of the so-called Shah of Iran is the basis for our present need for bellicose posturing in the chambers of congress. We would have done well to try some t kind of subversion of al Quaeda and the Taliban. That effort could hardly have paid off worse off than what we did.
    Or better yet, we could have tried to figure out why people who used to admire us came to hate us. When I went to London the first time in 1971, I could walk up to and into the American embassy in Grosvenor Square, then and now one of the more sedate parts of London, without anyone giving me more than a passing glance. In October, 2002, I walked into the same square and faced chain-link fences and concrete barriers. I never bothered to walk closer than the statue of Franklin Roosevelt, standing on a plinth in the heart of the plaza. London! Imagine what defenses we need in hostile places.
    So what should we do about an Iran? Watchful waiting is the way. Iran is no danger to this country. If it is a danger to Israel, as is often suggested, we should try to convince the Israelis to make it less so by peaceful means. This does not include continuing to send  billions of dollars to the Israelis and other near-by countries every year to buy our weapons and their own.
    This kind of suggestion often is equated with cowardly, craven Chamberlainism rather than brave, stalwart Churchillism. This is a false criticism. Churchill rightly appreciated the danger posed by Hitler, which many did not. But Chamberlain kept Britain out of war when Hitler would have destroyed its army. Churchill's was a recidivist military blunderer whose record already included the disastrous Romantic escapade of Gallipoli, and his inclinations might well have made Dunkirk the site of the disappearance of the British army rather than of its deliverance. You do not win by re-fighting the last wars, particularly when you've lost them. O-man, take heed.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Agree, more or less, with your analysis... (0+ / 0-)

    But I think your "Romantic" argument, in terms of motivations for imperialism is...kinda weak.

    It looks more to me like cynical machiavellian weaseling, for monopoly corporate fascist profiteering.

    Also, I have to take issue with your characterization of Obama's relative degrees of success in Iraq and Afghanistan, including both cracking down on US troops' rules of engagement, putting emphasis on infrastructure building, and fairly speedy and timely withdrawals of troops, compared to what could have been expected from a Republican president.

    Everything is relative.

    In many regards, the Prez has substantially reversed the propensities of the former administration, but this has not been without considerable resistance from some officers in the field and some troops on the ground, who still seem to think nothing of committing atrocities...not to mention the Right wing majorities he has been hostage to in the House and the Senate, since day one of his administration, with all those remnant Blue Dog ilk in there.

    We're all concerned about Iran here, and will be doing everything we can to prevent escalation of conflict...but ultimately, we are relatively powerless to very significantly influence the outcome, without more substantial progressive plurality in Congress.

    That harsh, cold, realpolitik is a bitch, but there it is.

    It seems very unlikely, because it's materially infeasible, for us to invade Iran, which is NOT anything like Iraq or Afghanistan.

    The worst case scenario, as I see it, would be a loose-cannon strike by Israel, which might provoke Iranian action in the straight, and thus drag us into what would be a more or less limited, but still awful, campaign of air strikes against Iran.

    I'd say pressure on Israel, especially by supporting their own rising popular opposition to the war mongering rhetoric and practices of the right wing reactionary conservative and fundamentalist Israeli government, is the best, and perhaps the only, way to prevent a war.

    One way to do that is through the international BDS movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel, which can be organized and agitated for at the local level, with local unions, universities, city and county governments, to send a clear message to Israel that they must stand down from their dangerous posturing, and their abuse of Palestinians, or else face increasingly onerous consequences.

    BDS

    Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle.

    by Radical def on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 11:21:45 AM PST

  •  First diary, First comment (0+ / 0-)

    O-man? srsly?

    •  Oh well, I've seen worse, heh (0+ / 0-)

      So far, nobody has objected to me calling him "the Prez", lol.

      But there does seem to be a hint of...oppositionalism here, which may not bode well for the diarist.

      Although, lax moderation of the venue, allowing purported left oppositionalist anti-Democratic tendencies to proliferate, does not bode well for the venue, either, I think, which will only be more and moar swamped by trolls of all stripes, going into the elections.

      Will you "follow" this diarist, with your jar of death, vowel man?

      Photobucket

      Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle.

      by Radical def on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 11:35:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  O-man is only barely disambiguated from 0-man (0+ / 0-)

        and the latter is unquestionably TRable.

        •  ambiguous indeed... (0+ / 0-)

          Not familiar with the...meme

          All I could find on google was Oman, the country, and a couple of weird videos, that also seemed unrelated...but then, I only went a few pages deep, heh.

          Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle.

          by Radical def on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:51:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site