(Published: 2005-02-02 05:40 AM)
In a November 2003 speech, George Bush declared that Iraq was to be but the first instalment in a new American project. He argued that 60 years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East - all in the name of stability and security - had only contributed to the poisoning of the political order.
(Published: 2005-02-02 05:20 AM)
A forum discussion in response to GWB's inauguration speech
(Published: 2005-02-02 01:29 AM)
Hitchens in November 2002: "Part of the charm of the regime-change argument (from the point of view of its supporters) is that it depends on premises and objectives that cannot, at least by the administration, be publicly avowed."
(Published: 2005-01-25 03:22 PM)
(Published: 2005-01-21 07:59 AM)
"We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny ...."
(Published: 2004-12-19 12:00 AM)
It’s clear that the Lastsuperpower ‘drain the swamp’ line has not penetrated any measurable level of the public conscience. I’m not really surprised by this, given the way the war has panned out. It’s more complex than expected by the bungling US leadership, the WMD excuse for war they ran with became a fiasco, and the abuse of prisoners further discredited the war.
However, I can detect a very small degree of penetration at the level of commentators and analysts, and I think that a collapse of, ‘this war is about oil’ reasoning is central to this breakthrough.
(Published: 2004-12-16 06:55 PM)
The 9/11 attacks demonstrated that the root cause of Islamist terrorism was a dysfunctional political order that succeeded only in producing unpalatable dictatorships, stagnant economies, and militant ideologies. For a brief moment, the administration was transfixed by a vision of using US power to remake the Middle East. But a crestfallen America entangled in Iraq seems to have abandoned its idealistic aspirations to the point that it now favors working with the same unsavory regimes that promise the chimera of stability.
(Published: 2004-12-16 07:08 AM)
The second fascinating political development in the expanding Arab reform industry this week was the blunt statement by the United Arab Emirates defense minister and Dubai crown prince, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al-Maktoum, who hosts a three-day gathering in Dubai called the Arab Strategy Forum. In his comments opening the meeting Monday, he spoke directly to his "fellow Arab leaders," and warned them that if they did not change, they would be changed. He said: "If you do not initiate radical reforms that restore respect for public duty and uphold principles of transparency, justice and accountability, then your people will resent you and history will judge you harshly." The very explicit warning was that lousy leaders would be changed, presumably by their own people, but, in view of recent American military moves in Afghanistan and Iraq, perhaps also by well-armed and interventionist foreign powers.
(Published: 2004-12-09 06:56 AM)
Some correspondence with Noam Chomsky about the current US strategy of "draining the swamps".
(Published: 2004-07-16 02:00 PM)
Lots of interesting insights from remarks by Paul Wolfowitz at Aspen institute, July 16, 2004. Including this: "Right now we’re in a very difficult position. But – and part of the problem has nothing to do with what we do and a lot to do with the poison that’s fed into the Arab media by Al Jazeera, by some official media. Part of it has to do with the Arab-Israeli issue which is unquestionably an albatross around our necks."
(Published: 2004-06-13 11:06 AM)
When Washington chooses short-term political gains over long-term strategic advantage, we repeat our worst past errors, from buttressing the Shah of Iran to supporting Saddam Hussein. Appeasement isn't a strategy. Quiet isn't peace. Iraq was quiet under the old regime.
(Published: 2004-05-01 05:47 AM)
MATTHEWS: What’s different?
RUMSFELD: Well, in Vietnam, you had a government that was not a popular government in the south. They didn’t have—hadn’t fashioned their own constitution. They hadn’t had their own elections. They were governments that were considered by the rest of the Vietnamese people to be puppet governments.
(Published: 2004-04-18 12:10 AM)
But even as he put up a united front on Iraq, Mr. Blair distanced himself a bit from Mr. Bush's new stand on the Arab-Israeli conflict....Mr. Blair signaled that he now wanted the emphasis to shift to helping the Palestinians achieve the promise of an independent, viable state.
(Published: 2004-04-13 07:15 AM)
They know it is a historic struggle. They know their victory would do far more than defeat America or Britain. It would defeat civilisation and democracy everywhere. They know it, but do we? The truth is, faced with this struggle, on which our own fate hangs, a significant part of Western opinion is sitting back, if not half-hoping we fail, certainly replete with schadenfreude at the difficulty we find.
(Published: 2003-11-19 08:20 AM)
A discussion that took place on the old LastSuperpower forum in September 2003.
What a difference a month makes . . .
The Iraqis have their say
Bush Supports Democratic revolution
Machiavelli in Mesopotamia
Forgot your password?
