catapult magazine

Cuba:

We already can’t buy good cigars here anymore. What more do you want? How much more must we sacrifice??

Rob,

Great post. Is proactive pacifism (for lack of a better name) too hard for a country or UN to implement with so many hot spots around the world? Who are the bin Ladens of 2010?

grant, I see Bush’s axis of evil comment as a self-fulfilling prophecy. North Korea and Iran both saw the characterization as a threat (and insulting to be equated with Iraq). I’m not sure what that accomplished. Name-calling isn’t a very effective way to win friends and influence people. On the other hand it’s a very effective way to give your diplomats some practice in dealing with crisis situations.

By the way, why wasn’t Cuba included in the axis? There was a time when regime change in Cuba was a primary objective. And the regime hasn’t changed.

What is Cuba’s threat to us now? As I understand it, many American states are talking with Castro about opening up more trade with Cuba (don’t worry, mrsanniep, the cigars are a-comin’). Things change. I don’t see any problem with the fact that our enemies change with time.

What I was trying to say about Bush’s “axis of evil” statement is that it’s not just name-calling. The phrase serves to express Bush’s view of our current situation. He wants the world to take the threat of these rogue nations as seriously as those of World War II. As we saw today with the dissenting voices at the U.N., the threat does not seem very immanent to some nations. Whether you like the language or not, Bush needs to find “a smoking gun”; he must liken the Iraq conflict to a “cuban missile crisis”; he has to warn the world that a “future Hitler” needs to be prevented. This is language that the world ought to understand, Bush thinks. So far, it would seem the world does not take such language seriously, calling it mere rhetoric and refusing to believe the U.S. is really threatened by Iraq.

I agree that the term “axis of evil” expresses Bush’s view. I just find his view repugnant. The fact that he is earnest, does not excuse him from making a mediocre relationship with N. Korea a potentially disastrous one, and similarly with Iran though to a lesser degree. I don’t doubt his earnestness, but I don’t understand what good he thought such a statement would bring.

Certainly I can understand identifying your chief perceived threats and acting accordingly, but the open declaration was (not surprisingly) understood by the North Koreans as a sort of declaration of war. Bush was speaking to the American people, telling them that he knows who the bad guys are and that he’s in control. I just don’t think he thought about how the leaders of those countries might react to being tangentially blamed for 9-11.

The world doesn’t buy the Iraq – Cuban Missile connection because it’s not even in the same league. Iraq presents a smaller threat to America than America’s own stockpiles of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Or global warming for that matter.

Trouble is: war is sexy. Bush is increasing his sex appeal. Hussein’s days of being a sexy dictator are over. I hope he’s enjoying his last days.

war is supposed to be sexy, but ever since viet nam it doesn’t work that way any more, does it? I think every president who has lead us into war since viet nam has actually lost popularity (at least after the initial “support our troups” phase fades and is replaced by the “now what” phase)

Everybody got their duct tape?

I refuse to boost the economy through wild purchases of sheets of plastic, duct tape and extra large gauze bandages.

I’d rather buy an SUV.

Turns out the threats were fake. But now everybody who has a an extra room, has it sealed off with plastic and duct tape (which won’t do much against biological weapons). Funny how the CIA and FBI can make such massive, simple mistakes one day, and the next day I’m supposed to just trust them about war in Iraq.

It’s well known that a population which perceives itself as threatened will rally around the perceived protector. Thus it is in Bush’s best interest to keep people feeling much more vulnerable than they actually are. Nothing better than a freaked out populace and a president who insults our intelligence with statements like “They brought war to us. Now we’re bringing it back to them” or some such shite.

I guess there’s just no convincing dan that Bush is a principled individual sincerely hoping to do what’s best for the American people and the world at large. Though I certainly can understand and share some of the criticisms against Bush’s principles, I don’t see any good in judging his actions only in terms of this popular one-dimensional caricature of a selfish idiot who is completely unaware of the rest of the world’s perceptions of things.

If one believes Bush’s intelligence is indeed so far below the world’s standard, then I can see how one would mistrust everything Bush and his administration does. And if the American people are just a typical dumb populace looking for a strong leader to protect them and losing all sanity (which is not the way things really are here right now, despite the media’s spin) when precautionary warnings about potential terrorist attacks are announced, then the world must indeed appear very dark and hopeless. What I’m saying is that such narrow characterizations of human beings, both Bush and the American populace, is a rather lifeless way of looking at the world.

At issue here is a battle of principles (principalities, even), which is going on between nations of the world. If we can refrain from simplifying the motivations of world leaders to “mere self-interest”, “stupidity”, “economic gain”, “political survival” or even “psychological make-up”, we can get down to the task at hand, which is to articulate the actual conflict, a conflict occuring between nations with different principles.

I realize that this discussion has already moved on from “Is war noble?” to “Is war sexy?”, but I want to go back—if I may—to this question of whether or in what manner we can find answers to such questions in the Bible. The entire Old Testament is full of conflict (wars and other kinds of strife) between nations and smaller groups of people, but does not seem to take a stand on issues of “peaceful demonstration vs. war” or “talks vs. military force”. I’m wondering if the Bible really does not focus on whether war is right or wrong at all, but instead focuses on conflict in general.

The New Testament’s answer to these Old Testament conflicts is that the Holy Spirit is supposed to bridge the gap between cultures, is supposed to help reconcile differences. Of course, much of the world has not received or accepted that Spirit. Those who have accepted that Spirit, the Christian community, aren’t quite sure what to make of this war against terror because it isn’t our war at all (and I’m sure many non-Christians feel the same way). Rather, this is a conflict between the spirit of American freedom, the spirit of renewed Moslem dominance, and the spirit of an egalitarian new world order with no outstanding superpowers.

Does this seem like an accurate description of the principalities in conflict right now? If so, then our question should be “Is this war between these spirits of our age a noble conflict?”

I think you’re coming down on Dan harder than needed Grant (if needed at all). Throughout this very lengthy thread, Dan has been representing a very valid opposing viewpoint, faithfully might I add. I don’t think Dan is calling the American people stupid (though there may be a point there) or Bush a “a selfish idiot who is completely unaware of the rest of the world’s perceptions of things”.
I think Bush definitely has something to lose. I think he has something to win. And I don’t think that all of his motivation is completely (100%) for the benefit of the American people or the world as a whole. Bush has an image and he has a bias and even if he wanted to negate that he couldn’t.
Simplifying the issue goes both ways. Calling Bush a simpleton (which I haven’t heard yet I don’t think) or calling Bush the savior of the Middle East (also not heard, thank goodness) is simplistic. Right now, I think Dan is doing a better job of seeing both sides as they are than anyone. And I appreciate that perspective. Keep challenging us Dan.