I’ve recently engaged in a very relevant and lively debate with a friend from undergrad. This friend is attending law school and is someone with whom I have intellectual respect. As it would be, it appears we fall in very different camps when it comes to American foreign policy. Feeling strongly about our perspectives, debates have been known to break out from time to time. Today was one of those occurrences. I suppose that we could categorize this as a civil libertarian (Wrady) and conservative(Miller) debate on American foreign policy, particularly in its consideration of 9/11 and the Iraq war.
While the debate started on facebook, our responses are constrained by a limited number of characters for posting. Additionally, I’m not sure that everyone who visits our page wants to read the dialog (although they would probably benefit from it).
Follow the comments for the debate so far:
Chris Miller wrote
at 2:14pm
Why am I not surprised that you are supporting Ron Paul? Well, I think the man is a hero… just not presidential material. Regardless, he is an improvement over Chotch-skey.
Wrady wrote
at 3:10pm
I would never support Chotch-sky for President or anything other than someone who has the stones to speak his mind … but Ron Paul is someone who is telling the truth, which means that that is exactley what he is-Presidential Material. If you watched the debates (and I know you did), you saw the man getting attacked for telling the truth. What does that say about those doing the attacking? I mean, lets be honest here …. we both saw how Rudy Guiliani twisted what Paul said regarding 9/11. It’s ridiculous and I think that, even though there is no support for him in the mainstream media, he’s got a TON of support out there, especially through the internet. Now, the real problem for him lies in getting the nomination of the Republican Party ….
Chris Miller wrote
at 3:46pm
Did the kool-aid taste good? Or was it bitter?
I guess we heard different things in the debate. I agree with Congressman Paul on many issues, but I could not be more ideologically opposed to his isolationist agenda. I though Rudy did the right thing drawing out the difference. Regardless, I’m glad to see this discussion taking place. Maybe I’ll have my mind changed.
Wrady wrote
at 4:40pm
Yeah, let’s keep playing the World’s Super Cowboy and see where that takes us. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk334TbliaY This link will take you back to the debate. Rudy clearly has little to no idea what’s going on. Ron Paul was clearly arguing that our foriegn policy has a lot to do with how people around the world see us, and how they feel toward us-good or bad. In the middle east, we have been much, much more involved than most people realize, and it pisses off the locals. This moron wants to take Paul’s statement as an opportunity to say something emotional, and rather stupid that will get a little applause from conservative, southern voters. Big deal – just because some poeple applauded after a comment that was emotional rather than rational, does not mean that what he said was correct. In fact, it just showed that he couldn’t keep up with what was going on. You’re an intelligent person … I know you see what I am talking about.
Chris Miller wrote
at 5:05pm
Political debate, facebook style! My wall continues to be intelligent.
I think that the cause of the 9/11 attack is much deeper than our presence in Iraq or the Middle East. The 1% element of radical Islam has been attacking Western Culture for much longer than we’ve been in Iraq. In addition, Congressman Paul says that the reason they attacked us is because we’ve been bombing Iraq for ten years. First, Iraq was run by a secular dictatorship (Saddam and Bathe party) and second, Bin-Laden did not agree with Saddam.
Besides, the terrorist action is not isolated to the U.S. Over the past 3 decades England, Germany, France, Spain and Italy have all felt the effects of radical Islam. We just happen to be located on the other end of an ocean; thus a single high-impact event.
Okay, so lets see if we actually agree on a point– Terrorist acted to strike against Ameirca and Western culture. Would you consider that to be a fair statement?
PS: Maybe we should move this discussion to my blog?
Wrady wrote
at 5:44pm
Ron Paul was NOT saying that the attacks on Iraq since 1991 were the reasons for the 9/11 attacks, he was citing that as one of the many examples of our involvement in what takes place in the Middle East, and how that affects the feelings of locals who have to deal with what we do there. And from that, how we are affected once their anger gets to a tipping point. Giuliana doesn’t seem to be aware of the many other examples of our involvement, hence the reading list proposed by Paul. The record is there. It comes down to whether or not people want to take a look at it.
Wrady wrote
at 5:47pm
I agree that we were attacked by terrorists. But it is my opinion that this took place due to years of foriegn policy abuses. It’s not simply because we wear designer clothes and have plenty of water.
Foreign policy abuse is such an interesting concept. I agree that we have mismanaged our foreign policy, but I think that Western civilization has collectively tolerated radical Islam for entirely too long. For the past three decades this fringe element has been taking swipes at our society. And, while we(Americans) seen to forget this fact, they have stuck many great nations in Western civilization– Great Britain, France, Spain, France and Italy.
This is a clash of civilizations. While we pay a price for our actions, the consequences of inaction are far greater. In the words of the philosopher Voltaire, we must remember that we are judged for those things we do as well as those things we don’t.
“The Founding Fathers saw it otherwise. Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.” How many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many champion Jefferson and the Constitution, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Washington similarly urged that the US must “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.” Since so many on Capitol Hill apparently now believe Washington was wrong, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it next time his name is being celebrated.” ~Ron Paul April 16, 2002
Sorry to jump in like this, i just read half of the debate on Josh’s facebook profile and was intrigued. If I need to mind my own business just let me know, I was just interested.
Wrady wrote
“Nations cannot be built”
Here is what I think about what he wrote regarding implementing democracy in Iraq. First of all, I agree with some of what he said. In my opinion, our dash to implement decomracy was basically an effort to keep alive our supossed reasons for going in the first place … but the only reason left was what was a fringe benefit. The standard line – once we realized that there was no connection between iraq and Al-Qieda and that there were no WMD’s – has been that we need to democratize Iraq-the fringe benefit of securing the WMDs and busting up the Al-Qaida/Sadaam connection.
Taking out the links to Al-Qaida and WMD’s, we are left with nothing more than a “we must secure the world for democracy” rationale for seeing this through. That is of course unless you start to look at why we really went: oil, big business, lack of control, ect …. But no one wants to admit this.
I don’t think for a second that our planners are so niave as to believe that we could trott into Iraq and make democracy. Instead, we have gone through the motions to make it look like there is progress being made, when in fact thats not the case at all. We have lost nearly 4,000 troops-dead. Nearly 30,000 more have been wounded, with nearly 12,000 of those injuries being serious. Perhaps these 12,000 can no longer walk, pick up their kids, or work at a job that requires any sort of exertion. That’s nearly 35,000 American families disrupted, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 15,000 destroyed. But beyond that, a quarter million Iraqi’s have died. Let’s be honest, not all of them were “terrorists” …. or whatever you call people who fight those who show up in their back yard unannounced and unwelcomed.
Bottom line, our military planners knew that we couldn’t go into Iraq and make it a democracy in short order. In the meantime, however, scores are gettting wealthier, even more are losing their lives, and we are putting our foot down on the region for our future.
Thoughts are welcome.
I thought you might enjoy the article. Sewell is probably one of the smartest men on the planet and has long been a critique of neo-con nation building mentality. His understanding of economics, history and cause-effect relationships on a global level is fascinating.
I’d prefer we interact on the blog, but here is something for consideration.
Here is something to think about— Irregardless of any speculative reasoning behind why we entered Iraq, do you think an immediate exit is the best policy? If so, do you disagree with the national security assessments that Iraq has become a magnet for terrorist, allowing us to fight them on foreign soil? Do you disagree with the vast majority of veteran military officials and scholars that we should stay engaged with Iraq at least through the end of the year?
We have learned that the terrorist were motivated enough to follow us into a secular country where they had little interest prior to our involvement. We also know that the terrorists have been actively striking against Great Britain over the past two weeks, which might I add was ever-so-conveniently during a leadership change. If they are willing to engage that aggressively, what prevents them from bringing the battle back to the mainland? That weighs pretty heavy on my mind. It would be much easier for me to support an exit in Iraq if I had confidence in our own borders.
Regarding exiting Iraq and National Security assessments, I have two points. First, I think that it is clear that five more months (through the end of the year) will accomplish very little more than a gurantee that Americans will be killed; I assure you that Iraq will still be in civil war and that democracy will not have taken hold five months from now. So to that question, I say yes, getting out now would be the best move. We are not winning in Iraq and the people of this country know it. We overwhelmingly oppose this war and Washington needs to listen.
Secondly, Iraq is not the magnet, our presence there is.
Regarding the “terrorist’s” determination to follow us to a secular country …. There may be differences between fundamentalist muslims and secular states such as Iraq, but there is an arab proverb that we need to learn and remember: “I and my brothers against my cousin; I and my cousins against a stranger.” My point is, of course they are going to show up in Iraq. Should we really have expected them not to? We attacked a secular state, but we should expect to have other muslims getting involved; again, the state is not the magnet, our presence there is, and muslims are going to come to the rescue of muslims in the same region, especially when we are the attackers.
We need to stop listening to the mainstream media, which is nothing more than mouth pieces for the most part, and start looking at these events objectively and independently, so far as that is an option.
Wrady Wrote:
Regarding exiting Iraq and National Security assessments, I have two points. First, I think that it is clear that five more months (through the end of the year) will accomplish very little more than a gurantee that Americans will be killed; I assure you that Iraq will still be in civil war and that democracy will not have taken hold five months from now. So to that question, I say yes, getting out now would be the best move. We are not winning in Iraq and the people of this country know it. We overwhelmingly oppose this war and Washington needs to listen.
Secondly, Iraq is not the magnet, our presence there is.
Regarding the “terrorist’s” determination to follow us to a secular country …. There may be differences between fundamentalist muslims and secular states such as Iraq, but there is an arab proverb that we need to learn and remember: “I and my brothers against my cousin; I and my cousins against a stranger.” My point is, of course they are going to show up in Iraq. Should we really have expected them not to? We attacked a secular state, but we should expect to have other muslims getting involved; again, the state is not the magnet, our presence there is, and muslims are going to come to the rescue of muslims in the same region, especially when we are the attackers.
We need to stop listening to the mainstream media, which is nothing more than mouth pieces for the most part, and start looking at these events objectively and independently, so far as that is an option.
While I share your skepticism of mainstream media, I’m curious about who you consider the media to be a mouthpiece for? It seems that you are ringing the same bell (and making the same points). If anything, they sound more like your mouthpiece than mine.
Bottom line, I’m not sure that I understand your push for looking at things “objectively and independently.” Who should conduct this analysis? You’ve made it clear that you don’t trust a military assessment or an intelligence assessment. You don’t trust the media. You don’t trust the government. Honestly, its starting to sound like you don’t trust anyone that disagrees with you. Polling data is not fact, just like Sunday morning quarterbacking is not leadership.
Who should we listen to? And what happens in Iraq when we leave?