Last time I checked, the Afghan president was being guarded by US contractors (essentially mercenaries). They had taken over from US special forces. It seems to me that supplying guards for the president of one of our “liberated” states points to a deep, deep involvement in the country.

Don’t misunderstand. I am glad that Afghanistan seems to be reverting to the collection of drug producing tribes living in uneasy coexistence that we all know and love from Kipling. This is infinitely preferable to the Taliban. (I am dead serious about this.)

The US forces seem to have brought a stability to the mix, just like in Bosnia. However, in the best case this means long term commitment of troops running a garrison. So we will be running three or four garrison states — Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Now, Iraq is much more important that the above three, because it is in such a critical area. Moreover, it borders on a state which will be hostile to US occupation (Iran) and another with a large proportion of its population that doesn’t want ‘infidels’ anywhere near its “sacred sites’ (Saudi Arabia). Thus there will be less margin for error and more pressure on the troops and any sort of occupation government we set up (and we will be drawing the ground rules, whatever Rumsfeld says). This would indicate a more intense occupation, both in terms of numbers and in terms of involvement in local affairs, and a longer term commitment.

And it won’t do a thing to prevent terrorist attacks from: Algerians, Indonesians, Egyptians, Saudi Arabians, etc etc.

(For the record, I served active duty in the US Navy. I did time in Bosnia, and I was involved as a contractor in intelligence operations during the Kosovo bombing. I know a little about occupations, nation buidling, civil affairs, etc.)

Mr. Young’s points are well taken.

I am begginning to think that we (Americans, and especially conservatives) may just have to get over our opposition to empire. Mr Young’s points are totally right and he should know, given his experience. Even if we adopt limited goals that do not envision attempting to create democracy in the Middle East, we are still essentially operating an empire. Removing the threat of Germany and Japan after WW2 involved imperial occupation and the creation of constitutional democracy in both countries. Both were succesful. I see no other way in the long run of ending Islamic terrorism for good.

I agree with Shawn. Americans are reflexively opposed to “empire” and “imperialism,” because we’ve been conditioned to assuming that all peoples are equally fitted to govern themselves. This conditioning started long before multiculturalist relativism took possession of our schools; we should look back to Wilson’s arguments in favor of self-determination during and after World War I. It’s a losing proposition, though, to try to counter this ideology, for anyone who does so can count on becoming an unperson, tagged a racist, than which nothing is more horrible.

Frieda raises an interesting point. Wilson’s idea of national self-determination is really liberal individualism as applied to nations. Just as liberal individualism assumes that every person has the same capacities for self-government and thus the same rights (for example the right to vote), whether or not that happens to be true in every case, Wilsonian national self-determination assumes that every prospective nation has the same capacity for self-government and for maintaining a viable sovereign existence. But this is manifestly not true in every case. Some supposed countries—e.g. Haiti and Somalia—are unable to govern themselves, and require continual outside intervention. Other supposed countries—e.g. Bosnia—are too divided to function as countries, and so require outside military forces in perpetuity to keep the warring factions apart. Other supposed countries—e.g. the Palestinians—would pose an existential threat to neighboring countries, and so cannot be considered as having a right of national self-determination.

The point is that not all entities that claim the rights of nationhood are actually able to function viably or safely as nations, and therefore do not have the rights of nationhood, such as the right of national self-determination or even the right of national existence. It is necessary to look at the particulars in each case. This contradicts the formulaic, universal approach of liberalism, which assumes that all entities that seem to belong to the same class or that have the same name (such as “nations”) are essentially alike and ought to be treated exactly alike. But since this isn’t true, anyone who subscribes to the liberal formula ends up behaving hypocritically, granting national rights in one case, and not in another, and is unable to provide a principled reason for the inconsistency. Thus Wilson, despite his universalist rhetoric of national self-determination, gave national independence to some self-defined national entities but denied it to others.

In any case, when a supposed national entity is unable to function as such, governing authority must come from outside, which means that some functioning nation must exercise hegemonic or colonial or imperial power over that non-functioning or non-viable nation. It then becomes a prudential matter to decide (1) which nation is best situated to provide the order that the non-nation is unable to provide for itself, and (2) what form that order should take.

I would be nice if reality fit Mr. Auster’s justification for benevolent imperialism (and that is what he is recommending). Unfortunately, history shows us that peoples seriously dislike being ruled by other peoples, even when foreign rule provides material or civilizational benefits. Haiti would surely be a better place if the US Marines were running it, as they did in first decade of the 20th century. But the Haitians fought against that rule. The Jews of Judea probably derived immense benefits from being part of the Roman Empire yet they rebelled repeatedly.

Moreover, empire always brings a demographic backlash. The cities of northern England are full of Pakistanis and Indians precisely because of the British Empire. We have millions of Puerto Ricans and Filipinos because of our imperial venture of 1898 and beyond. (Interestingly Spain seemed to avoid this backlash, probably because she was dirt poor herself. Yet today, Madrid is rapidly filling up with Peruvian Indians, Columbians, and others.) It seems to me that in the British case at least, the immigrants are not nearly so thankful to be in the country as our immigrants supposedly are. Rather, they see immigration to Britain as a right due them because of imperialism. Blair and his cronies see things the same way. Indeed, I heard a news presenter say that Britain didn’t have to worry about an ageing population, that it could just tap into the reserves of manpower “on the subcontinent”.

It seems to me that imperialism breaks down the very civilization that initiates it. Eventually the metropole becomes colonized by its own possessions.

I agree with all of Mr. Young’s warnings about the results of empire, and I wasn’t recommending empire as such. But clearly there are times when order cannot be provided by the inhabitants of a particular region or country, and if the disorder is sufficiently disturbing to neighboring countries, then willy nilly some power is going to get involved in some fashion to restore or assure order. That is simply the nature of political reality and it would be foolish to pretend that it could be otherwise. Such involvements don’t have to take the form of empire. Read The Savage Wars of Peace to get a sense of the continual interventions by the U.S. military in foreign countries (at an average rate of once a year) during the 19th century, the very period that Buchanan in A Republic Not An Empire lauds for the wise Washingtonian policy followed by a succession of U.S. Presidents who were not creating an American empire but assuring a modicum of viable order in our neighborhood.

A man is capable of talking and walking at the same time. Surely a great nation ought to be capable of involving itself in limited engagements in foreign countries when it is necessary while at the same time protecting itself from the kind of imperialism that leads to immigration. For example, the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries intervened many times in Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, but did not receive immigration from those countries. By contrast, the U.S. annexed Puerto Rico and in 1917 made it a U.S. territory with the inhabitants being given U.S. Citizenship, which by the mid 20th century led to the massive Puerto Rican influx. The annexation of Puerto Rico was an imperial act that could and should have been avoided. The more limited interventions in other countries were by and large helpful and did not lead to the unwanted consequence of immigration. (The post 1965 immigration from Latin America is another matter, resulting from other causes.)

“The Jews of Judea probably derived immense benefits from being part of the Roman Empire yet they rebelled repeatedly.” — Mitchell Young

The Jews of ancient Judea hardly compare to Haiti in terms of “ability to competently rule themselves.” In a contest over whether a modern or ancient people can or could rule themselves, I’ll put my money on the inventers of Judaism and Christianity, the authors of the Old and New Testaments, and the builders of King Solomon’s and King Herod’s Temples, the ancient city of Jerusalem, and surrounding society and nation, thank you very much indeed. They rebelled because Roman occupation meant little but a tax burden — money sucked out of their pockets to go straight to Rome — and defilement of their ethno-religious nationhood. Roman occupation was nothing but a hindrance for them. It benefitted them like the Yankee occupation starting in 1865 benefitted Dixie.

When Haiti or Somalia will have accomplished what the ancient Hebrews did, I’ll bet on them too.

The Jews of Judea benefitted by trade in the Roman empire. At first, the costs were minimal. The Iudamean converts Antipater and his son Herod were made Kings and the Hasmonean (Maccabees) line killed off. However, the Roman-installed Iudemean pretenders began to oppress the Jews.
First they imposed Hellenization and promoted the settlement of Hellenistic Syrian settlers, on siezed Jewish and Samaritan land.
The Sanhedrin (Jewish Religious Court/parliament) was decimated and replaced by Hellenizers and collaborators.
Jerusalem and the Temple was repeatedly defiled by Romans and subject ot pagan rites.
Oppressive taxes were laid to pay Rome and for building projects, which benefitted mostly the foreigners and Hellenized Jews.

The Great Revolt or 66-74 began over taxes, but escalated when Greek settlers used the army to cleanse an are of Jerusalem and the Galilee of Jewish settlement.

http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/jwar03.html

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Romans.html
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/revolt.html

http://www.jerusalem-archives.org/period1/1-19.html

I never said the Judeans were equal in accomplishment to Haitians. They did get security and trading opportunities by belonging to the Empire.

As for the early twentieth century interventions Mr Auster mentions, I would respond by saying the world is different now. Our civilization lacks the self confidence it had then. More importantly, the ‘65 immigration act and the ‘80 refugee act will not be repealed in order to avoid refugee flows from Iraq. Quite the contrary, “refugee resettlement ” agencies will go in behind the troops, and soon we will have brand new streams of immigrants. Bush will tell us this is great, as it enhances diversity. This has been the case in every intervention since Viet Nam, with the possible exceptions of Grenada and Panama.

On Mr. Young’s concerns about refugees from Iraq, we already have a million legal immigrants and refugees a year, so a war on Iraq and the possible increase of refugees from that country is not going to have much effect on that one way or another. If the war is a matter of vital national defense, then the fact that it might result in a marginal increase of our already huge immigrant intake does not seem a decisive factor to me on whether we should go to war. Is it decisive to Mr. Young?

Also, given the elevated fears about Arab and Muslim immigration, which even neocons are (between the lines) expressing, I’m not sure the political system will be open to any increase of Muslim immigrants from any country. As Mr. Young notes, not every U.S. intervention abroad results in a wave of refugees.

Ron writes,

“First they imposed Hellenization and promoted the settlement of Hellenistic Syrian settlers on … Jewish … land. The Sanhedrin … was decimated and replaced by Hellenizers … . The Great Revolt of 66-74 began over taxes, but escalated when Greek settlers used the army to [ethnically-]cleanse an area of Jerusalem and the Galilee of Jewish settlement.”

Sound familiar? It reminds me of what Bush-Rove are doing to the U.S. (And in case Bush thinks he’s following in Alexander’s footsteps by “Hellenizing” the U.S. with his and Rove’s sick multi-culti crusade, someone should tell him that Hellenization was the Greekifying of the rest of the world, not the Rest-of-the-Worldifying of Greece.)

Mitchell Young’s comment is yet another painful reminder of this president’s shenanigans:

” … ‘[R]efugee resettlement’ agencies will go in behind the troops [entering Iraq], and soon we will have brand new streams of immigrants. Bush will tell us this is great, as it enhances diversity.”

That’s exactly what will happen, too. Can anything be done to stop this multi-culti-fixated, immigration-obsessed president?

A Long Island lawyer named Joseph Sadowski is suing Bush for breaking the law by deliberately promoting a harmful immigration innundation.

I know, I know, I know — “Suing who??? THE PRESIDENT? Uhhhhhhhhhhhh ….. GOOD LUCK, Mr. Sadowski!”

Nevertheless, here are a couple of links about the lawsuit (and I, for one, am writing a letter to Judge Leon, as Mr. Sadowski requests we do):

http://www.tomflocco.com/judge_to_rule_on_illegal_alien.htm

http://www.tomflocco.com/Letter%20to%20AZ.htm

I posted my comment, above, before seeing the one above that by Mr. Auster. I agree that the points Mr. Auster makes on the possibility of additional Moslem immigration resulting from an eventual war are also well-taken.

I believe that Unadorned has it backwards regarding Hellenization.
Of course the expansion of the Roman Republic and evolution to Roman Empire created a Heterogenious society.
However, Bush is not going abroad to change America. He wishes to change the middle east.
While I understand and support some of this, the local Wahabbis will not go along quietly.

On the other hand, there is no way that we would occupy Mecca and Medina.

“However, Bush is not going abroad to change America. He wishes to change the middle east.” — Ron

What I was referring to was the Bush-Rove policy of excessively importing the Middle East (and other incompatible parts of the world) into the United States through immigration which is inappropriate to this country’s traditional ethno-culture, in terms of volumes and national origins of the newcomers. This country is not a blank slate. It has an ethnoculture, and those who were born and raised here and are part of that ethnoculture have a right not to see all that they recognize and value in terms of that ethnoculture, and all that they expected to pass on to their children in terms of it, erased before their eyes. Anyone want to talk about human rights? Well, that’s one too.

If I saw Saddam as a vital threat to national security the marginal increase in immigration would be worth it.

However, I see removing Saddam as only marginally improving our security situation (and increasing uncertainty). I have said this in other posts. Empirically, our attackers have been Muslims who have lived for long periods in the west and who have obtained the tools and training for their acts in western countries. From a forward looking threat assessment perspective, Saddam is contained and has been since 1991. He is in no position to attack anyone — even Israel, which will not be restrained from retailation should Saddam strike again. I don’t doubt that Saddam has a few gas cannisters lying around, maybe some anthrax. But he can use them and he would be insane to deliver them to terrorists.

Mr. Auster is using the word intervention as if this is going to be a replay of early 20th century gunboat diplomacy. For reasons stated earlier, I believe it is going to be a very complex, very long-term, very intense commitment. Resources will be tied down in Iraq that could be used more profitably elsewhere.

Sorry for being rather tangential, but how did it come about that people started suing American officeholders while they are still in office? Won’t the right to do this eventually cripple the executive branch? Isn’t it a fundamental tenet of republican government that officials get sued only *after* leaving office?

” … [H]ow did it come about that people started suing American officeholders while they are still in office? Won’t the right to do this eventually cripple the executive branch? Isn’t it a fundamental tenet of republican government that officials get sued only *after* leaving office?” — Ian Hare

Ian, you’re right about this, of course. Nevertheless, I posted that update on the Sadowski lawsuit because I view the suit as part of the open expression of what amounts to grass-roots outrage at what W and Rove are brazenly shoving down the country’s throat in regard to wildly inappropriate immigration. Every little bit of mutual support and cheering-on for the “immigration-sanity” side is, I think, worth indulging in or fostering and encouraging.