Hi PTB,
It is redundant now, but here is a list of the identified waves of disease that spread across Mexico and Peru in the 16th Century.
Disease/Mexico/Peru
Smallpox/1519-21/1524-28
Measles/1531-34/1531-33
Typhus and Pulmonary Plague/1545/1546
Mumps/1550/?
Measles, Inluenza, Mumps, Diptheria, Smallpox/1559-1563/1557-1562
Typhus, Smallpox, Measles, Mumps/1576-1580/?
Typhus, Smallpox, Measles/?/1585-1591
Measles/1595/1597
It should be noted that these diseases were far more virulent in the 16th Century than they are today. Some of these diseases killed a third of the Amerindian population in a single visitation. This is a similar mortality rate to the Black Death in Europe. However, in the New World in the 16th Century the equivalent of the Black Death occurred every ten or fifteen years for nearly a century. (The population continued to fall throughout the 17th Century and only stabilised in the 18th)
The reason why Indians form a higher proportion of the population today in North America than in the South are several.
For a start, the pre-Columbian density of population was far higher in Mexico and Peru than anywhere in North America. If immunities were similar, this would mean that far higher numbers of Amerindians would have survived in these areas to provide the stock for repopulation.
Secondly, the nature of colonisation was different. The Spanish sent limited numbers of soldiers, adminstrators, merchants etc. to exploit the Americas and there was widespread miscegenation - hence the mestizos.
There was no equivalent to the mass European migration that occurred in North America. Therefore Europeans formed a much lower proportion of the population in South America and Amerindians continued to form a higher proportion.
It should also be noted that the presence of African slaves in the Americas was a direct consequence of the mass deaths of Amerindians largely through the diseases listed above. They were brought in to replace the Amerindians the Spanish had hoped to exploit.
In areas of South America with similar pre-Columbian conditions and Amerindian population densities to North America and mass European immigration - i.e. Argentina and Uruguay - you will find that the proportion of Indians is as low as in the USA. Indeed, Uruguay has absolutely no Amerindians at all!
Elsewhere, you will find only in a few smaller countries that the Amerindians still form anything approaching a majority of the population. Guatemala and Paraguay spring to mind as contenders. Usually the mestizo population is in the ascendant.
In essence, most of South and Central America were repopulated by a resurgence in Indio and, more generally, Mestizo populations since the 18th Century. However, North America, Argentina and Uruguay were largely repopulated by European immigration. The repopulation of the circum-Caribbean was largely by Africans.
The "Holocaust" jibe was both a cheap shot and irrelevant. This issue stands or falls on its own merits.
Disease mortality was, without doubt, a central factor in allowing Europeans to dominate the Americas. European diseases arrived with the Spanish and devastated the Americas from end to end, often before Europeans actually set foot there (i.e. in Peru and the Mississippi Valley). Indeed, there are indications that influenza may have reached Mexico a good decade before Cortez.
This doesn't excuse or justify the conduct of European colonisation, but it does help explain its success.
Cheers,
Sid.
P.S. You will also find that European colonisation of most of Africa in the 1880s and 1890s followed in the wake of the cattle disease rinderpest, which devastated the continent's livestock and undermined some of its most powerful societies. For example, up to to-thirds of Kenya's Maasai may have died during these years of starvation.
Mainz divided over Bush visit
Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil
-
Rodger Herbst
- Associate
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 5:47 am
Well, this is the thread were we really get down to it, isn't it? 
I would prefer it to raise this discussion (about Bush, the Iraq war, Europe's arrogance, America's aggression and the other problems of this universe) on a more matter-of-factly level. ("Isn't it a bit late to be worried about your dignity? It didn't seem to matter so much for the 30 or 40 years when Ivan's tank armies were sitting on your border!"[...] You of all people, Reb! What do you want to hear? How about "well, who has helped them getting there in the first place?" But what about foregoing the usual niceties and discussing things in a more civilized way? We should be a bit more constructive, I think.)
But since I have to enter the resting cycle soon, I will leave it with some remarks for now.
1) The Bush visit. Well, Bush isn't overly popular here in Germany. True. But he isn't so all over Europe and that includes even Britain. The reasons for this are manyfold, but I will not discuss them here. Learn to live with it, because there is nothing you can do about it.
2) The "Karnevalswagen" depicting the Dubya's reopened butt. Well, you should know that it is an old and rather venerable custom here in the Rhineland to make fun of politicians during Carneval. During this time everyone may behave as a fool, and that includes drinking and behaving silly as well as critisizing the powers-that-be without having to fear being punished. Showing that Karnevalswagen out of context (i.e. other such wagons depicting German politicians in similiar unflattering way before and behind it) may make you draw the wrong conclusions. Otherwise there is only one other advice: learn to live with it, because there is nothing you can do about it.
We ridiculed the Prussians (to whom this custom is completely unknown as for most other Germans) this way, 150 years ago, and they had to accept it, too. (Albeit rather grudgingly).
3)Helmut Schmidt. Firstly he is indeed one of the most "respected elder statesmen" in Germany. And with good reason. One of which is, that he has a simply brilliant intellect. Which isn't necessarily so with Ex-Chancellors, as Helmut Kohl with his rather mediocre intellgence proves every day. If there is an interview on TV: Listen! The man knows a lot. (If there is one with Kohl...you may turn it off, though.)
Secondly, Stefan did quote him in a misleading way. (Although interestingly done). He transferred the "We Europeans don't want to be Americas vassals, we want to preserve our dignity," statement from the end to beginning, leaving the impression that it was aimed at Bush's visit. But it was aimed at the US tendency to use European nations as pawns for their foreign politicial objectives. And this tendency is a reality, I fear. Who made him the "European spokesmen"? Nobody. I think he said this because it is an obvious truth. Was he wrong? Well, do YOU want to be an pawn for American foreign political objectives, Sid? I surely don't. And I wager most Europeans do not want to be, either. I am almost certain of it, without any poll. For those who do not like it, my advice is, as usual, "learn to live with it, because there is nothing you can do about it."
I would prefer it to raise this discussion (about Bush, the Iraq war, Europe's arrogance, America's aggression and the other problems of this universe) on a more matter-of-factly level. ("Isn't it a bit late to be worried about your dignity? It didn't seem to matter so much for the 30 or 40 years when Ivan's tank armies were sitting on your border!"[...] You of all people, Reb! What do you want to hear? How about "well, who has helped them getting there in the first place?" But what about foregoing the usual niceties and discussing things in a more civilized way? We should be a bit more constructive, I think.)
But since I have to enter the resting cycle soon, I will leave it with some remarks for now.
1) The Bush visit. Well, Bush isn't overly popular here in Germany. True. But he isn't so all over Europe and that includes even Britain. The reasons for this are manyfold, but I will not discuss them here. Learn to live with it, because there is nothing you can do about it.
2) The "Karnevalswagen" depicting the Dubya's reopened butt. Well, you should know that it is an old and rather venerable custom here in the Rhineland to make fun of politicians during Carneval. During this time everyone may behave as a fool, and that includes drinking and behaving silly as well as critisizing the powers-that-be without having to fear being punished. Showing that Karnevalswagen out of context (i.e. other such wagons depicting German politicians in similiar unflattering way before and behind it) may make you draw the wrong conclusions. Otherwise there is only one other advice: learn to live with it, because there is nothing you can do about it.
We ridiculed the Prussians (to whom this custom is completely unknown as for most other Germans) this way, 150 years ago, and they had to accept it, too. (Albeit rather grudgingly).
3)Helmut Schmidt. Firstly he is indeed one of the most "respected elder statesmen" in Germany. And with good reason. One of which is, that he has a simply brilliant intellect. Which isn't necessarily so with Ex-Chancellors, as Helmut Kohl with his rather mediocre intellgence proves every day. If there is an interview on TV: Listen! The man knows a lot. (If there is one with Kohl...you may turn it off, though.)
Secondly, Stefan did quote him in a misleading way. (Although interestingly done). He transferred the "We Europeans don't want to be Americas vassals, we want to preserve our dignity," statement from the end to beginning, leaving the impression that it was aimed at Bush's visit. But it was aimed at the US tendency to use European nations as pawns for their foreign politicial objectives. And this tendency is a reality, I fear. Who made him the "European spokesmen"? Nobody. I think he said this because it is an obvious truth. Was he wrong? Well, do YOU want to be an pawn for American foreign political objectives, Sid? I surely don't. And I wager most Europeans do not want to be, either. I am almost certain of it, without any poll. For those who do not like it, my advice is, as usual, "learn to live with it, because there is nothing you can do about it."
"Tell my mother I died for my country. I did what I thought was best."
John Wilkes Booth
April 12, 1865
John Wilkes Booth
April 12, 1865
Now Kitsune - I confess I allowed Stefan to annoy me.
But consider the logic - the fact that I would prefer Stefan to agree with me does not necessarily mean I wish him to be my "vassal:" I just wish everybody agreed with me - then the world would of course, be perfect in every way!
Your implication that the cold war had rather more complicated implications than how I phrased it is of course quite true. But like anyone else I have my moments of sheer petulance - and I promise to get back into my more reasonable persona!
cheers
Reb
But consider the logic - the fact that I would prefer Stefan to agree with me does not necessarily mean I wish him to be my "vassal:" I just wish everybody agreed with me - then the world would of course, be perfect in every way!
Your implication that the cold war had rather more complicated implications than how I phrased it is of course quite true. But like anyone else I have my moments of sheer petulance - and I promise to get back into my more reasonable persona!
cheers
Reb
Strange sights in Germany
Time to leave Belgium and all the good friends we have made in our two days in the Crowne Plaza Hotel, sorry that should read country.
I have to report that not all in the White House press corps appreciated the nation's cuisine of which Belgians are (justly) very proud.
Faced with another round of exquisite jellied meat products I heard a secret service agent expressing in pithy terms a desire for hamburgers. Very old white house.
But to Germany and the strangest sight. There is nobody here. They've all been cleared away.
It's almost totalitarian in its reach and efficiency: the motorways are closed, whole towns we pass on the way from Frankfurt airport have been cleared of people. Our German colleagues say everyone on the motorcade route was told to stay indoors.
The result may be more secure but it is eerie nonetheless - a political meeting without any public involvement. Freedom on the march but no-one free to see it.
Justin Webb, BBC
Summary: Not only an insane warmonger, but also a paranoid coward.EMPTY TOWN
The Germans Bush Wasn't Able to See
Photo (above): Protesters made their feelings known in Mainz Wednesday as President Bush's itinerary avoided contact with everyday Germans. A meeting with the public was canceled for fear the audience would be hostile.
MAINZ, Germany, Feb. 23 - President Bush of course is not the first president named Bush to come to this town on the Rhine, but the very physical circumstances of this president's stopover here on Wednesday suggest how different, how less automatically warm, German-American relations are now than they were when his father stopped in Mainz 16 years ago.
Most conspicuous was the lack of contact between ordinary Germans and an American president visiting what could almost have been a stage setting: a town with buildings but no people, the shops and restaurants in the center of town closed, and only uniformed police officers on the streets.
Compare that with the main event of the first President Bush's trip here in 1989: a speech to an enthusiastic audience of 3,500 people gathered in a flag-draped hall, thrilling to Mr. Bush's declaration that Germany and America are more than "firm allies and friends," they are "partners in leadership."
After the speech, Mr. Bush and Chancellor Helmut Kohl - two men united in the great cause of winning, or at least surviving, the cold war - took a boat trip on the river, enjoying each other's company.
Of course, in the security-minded post-9/11 world, a visiting American president cannot just stand exposed before throngs of German citizens, as John F. Kennedy did in 1963 when he made his famous "I am a Berliner" speech, or as Ronald Reagan did in 1987 when he declared "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
But this president was entirely sealed off from Germans - other than Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and the German journalists at a news conference, and even a town-meeting-type encounter with Mainz residents was scrubbed out of worry the mood would be hostile. A meeting with a group of carefully screened "young leaders" was put in its place.
Still, Mr. Bush's seven-hour stopover was very successful, according to German and American officials focused on repairing German-American relations damaged by disagreements over the war in Iraq. But the isolation of Mr. Bush from everyday Germans seemed a metaphor for how far apart Germans and Americans have drifted.
"I think it was not only fine, but excellent," Karsten Voigt, a senior German Foreign Ministry official, said after Mr. Bush met with Mr. Schröder. "Both sides obviously want to symbolize, by language, by rhetoric and by body language that German-American relations are good. When politicians do that, it's more than symbolic, it's also substance, because it gives a signal to public opinion that this is the way they want it to be in the future."
"I'm not saying that all the differences have been solved," he said. "But the dialogue is no longer about whether a policy is right or wrong; it is now about developing the right strategy to deal with problems."
But what of the eerie absence of the population of Mainz, and the cancellation of the town meeting? Mr. Voigt said that, aside from restrictions imposed for security reasons, the invisibility of ordinary Germans illustrated the skepticism felt by a majority of Germans toward Mr. Bush.
"It's simply a fact that the German government is moving in this direction," Mr. Voigt said, meaning toward warmer ties with the United States, "but that the German population is skeptical."
To be sure, one purpose of Mr. Bush's visit was to erase the memories of those days two years ago when Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld called Europe "irrelevant," and Mr. Bush and Mr. Schröder were essentially not speaking.
Mr. Bush might have succeeded in his fence-mending; certainly in calling Mr. Schröder by his first name at their joint news conference and thanking Germany, France and Britain for "taking the lead" on Iran - an initiative toward which the Bush White House had been openly suspicious - Mr. Bush altered the oratory and perhaps the mood.
It may in this sense be unfair to compare Mainz 2005 with other, showier American presidential visits to Germany, from Kennedy's in 1963 to Bill Clinton's stroll through the Brandenburg Gate, marking the withdrawal of American troops from a reunified Berlin. Those were times when Germany lay exactly across history's main fault line, and, quite simply, it does not any more.
But the dispute over the Iraq war awoke German citizens to something new in their relationship with the United States, an unease over the price that they might have to pay to be members of an alliance led by a figure whose instincts they distrust.
"Most Germans are still emotionally averse to what Bush stands for - going it alone, not paying attention to due process, which we love in Europe," said Eberhard Sandschneider, the director of the German Council on Foreign Relations.
The Germans remain anxious that their country will yet be drawn into a foreign military venture by a president who, as Mr. Bush has affirmed several times so far on his European tour, keeps all options, including military action, on the table.
Richard Bernstein, NYT
"Das Attentat muß erfolgen, Coute que Coute. Denn es kommt nicht mehr auf den praktischen Zweck an, sondern darauf, daß die deutsche Widerstandsbewegung vor der Welt und vor der Geschichte den entscheidenden Wurf gewagt hat."
Stefan
Bush may be a lot of things but coward ain't one of 'em. Cowards don't fly fighter jets.
And tell me, just when did he become president of Germany? You seem to imply that Bush closed down the German streets? I must tell you - he most certainly does NOT have the power to do that in America!
cheers
Reb
Bush may be a lot of things but coward ain't one of 'em. Cowards don't fly fighter jets.
And tell me, just when did he become president of Germany? You seem to imply that Bush closed down the German streets? I must tell you - he most certainly does NOT have the power to do that in America!
cheers
Reb
Reb wrote:
... You seem to imply that Bush closed down the German streets? I must tell you - he most certainly does NOT have the power to do that in America!
cheers
Reb
Hi Reb!
Did you ever work "together" with your Secret Service or was you ever involved in such diplomatic afairs?
I take a guess - no.
But I had this experience with Regan, Bush and Clinton as a "tiny tiny sprocket in the big diplomatic machinery".
This turbulence in Mainz is new, in Mainz
Sven.
-
Herr Doktor
- Contributor
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 8:26 pm
Reb wrote:
And now with the USA Patriot Act, there are secret trials, no right to legal counsel or to a trial by a jury, wiretaps, surveillance, no checks and balances... sounds a lot like the Gestapo. KZ's at Gitmo and Abu Graib now (and who knows where else... ), not Dachau...
Yup, better keep toting the party line and only say good things about Herr Bush, if you know what's good for you...
HD
Bush never did see one day of combat anywhere, did he? In fact, was not his Reserve or ANG duty simply a way of escaping having to serve in Vietnam?Bush may be a lot of things but coward ain't one of 'em. Cowards don't fly fighter jets.
Bush has plenty of power, why not ask people who showed-up at Bush rallies in the USA expressing a different opinion (for example, through something as "serious" as wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt). Four middle-aged female elementary school teachers wearing such t-shirts at a Bush rally were detained and later kicked out by police, simply for exercising (or attempting to express, that is) their 1st Amendment right of free speech. Not violent protestors at all, and this happened to others, too... and plenty of streets are permanently closed around DC for "security," and you think Bush's visit had nothing to do with street closures in Mainz?And tell me, just when did he become president of Germany? You seem to imply that Bush closed down the German streets? I must tell you - he most certainly does NOT have the power to do that in America!
And now with the USA Patriot Act, there are secret trials, no right to legal counsel or to a trial by a jury, wiretaps, surveillance, no checks and balances... sounds a lot like the Gestapo. KZ's at Gitmo and Abu Graib now (and who knows where else... ), not Dachau...
Yup, better keep toting the party line and only say good things about Herr Bush, if you know what's good for you...
HD
Not so many years ago (5/6) the then Secretary of State or Secretary of Defence (I don't really care who it was) was out here and this coincided with a weekend in Sydney by my wife and I. I had never seen anything like it, streets were closed (main thoroughfares), foreign security, speeding big black cars full of foreign security, they just took over everything. It was disgusting.
The locals were not considered. Now as this was not the president and it was before 9/11, and Herr Busch (I want to be President, I want to do things) was not in power I'd hate to think what the situation would be today.
- Hans
The locals were not considered. Now as this was not the president and it was before 9/11, and Herr Busch (I want to be President, I want to do things) was not in power I'd hate to think what the situation would be today.
- Hans
Was haben wir für dich gewollt
Du deutsches Vaterland?
- H Gehr IR 21./17.ID
Du deutsches Vaterland?
- H Gehr IR 21./17.ID
HD
I surely do hope you are wrong. For several reasons. One of them is that I've never had a good thing to say about Bush. Don't like him, don't like his policies. And perhaps I'm getting old - memory getting soft - now that I think about it - the last time a big shot politician came to Atlanta they blocked the streets and screwed up traffic for miles around - and that was Al Gore!
You see, I'm a true conservative. An nearly extinct breed. Mind my own business and expect others to do the same. Not a healthy climate for the likes of me - but then, it never is!
Its really annoying in America today - you say you don't like Bush and everyone thinks you're a liberal. Terrible insult to a man like me.
However - "coward" is not a word I apply to fighter jocks. Their casualties in peacetime are about the same as in war time. Its just really dangerous work. And I think those of you who believe Bush to be a crook or unprincipled man are wrong as well - I wish I thought that in fact.
But no - ole Dubya is a true believer, a man with a mission. That scares me.
cheers
Reb
I surely do hope you are wrong. For several reasons. One of them is that I've never had a good thing to say about Bush. Don't like him, don't like his policies. And perhaps I'm getting old - memory getting soft - now that I think about it - the last time a big shot politician came to Atlanta they blocked the streets and screwed up traffic for miles around - and that was Al Gore!
You see, I'm a true conservative. An nearly extinct breed. Mind my own business and expect others to do the same. Not a healthy climate for the likes of me - but then, it never is!
Its really annoying in America today - you say you don't like Bush and everyone thinks you're a liberal. Terrible insult to a man like me.
However - "coward" is not a word I apply to fighter jocks. Their casualties in peacetime are about the same as in war time. Its just really dangerous work. And I think those of you who believe Bush to be a crook or unprincipled man are wrong as well - I wish I thought that in fact.
But no - ole Dubya is a true believer, a man with a mission. That scares me.
cheers
Reb
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Kitsune,
I am glad that such popular disrespect for politicians has a long tradition and is alive and well in the Rhineland.
In the revised context and version you supply, I can only approve Helmut Schmidt when he said, "We Europeans don't want to be America's vassals, we want to preserve our dignity." However, this is only to state the obvious and is therefore rather a redundant contribution.
Europeans should not oppose America blindly or be too determined to stand on their dignity when America is pursuing policies that are in mutual interests. If one is going to assert one's independence from the US, there must be better causes than one that would have preserved Saddam Hussein in power.
Cheers,
Sid.
I am glad that such popular disrespect for politicians has a long tradition and is alive and well in the Rhineland.
In the revised context and version you supply, I can only approve Helmut Schmidt when he said, "We Europeans don't want to be America's vassals, we want to preserve our dignity." However, this is only to state the obvious and is therefore rather a redundant contribution.
Europeans should not oppose America blindly or be too determined to stand on their dignity when America is pursuing policies that are in mutual interests. If one is going to assert one's independence from the US, there must be better causes than one that would have preserved Saddam Hussein in power.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Stefan,
Yet the Slovaks seem to have loved your "insane warmonger and paranoid coward". The papers today have pictures of him pressing the flesh in the crowd there.
And what on earth is wrong if Mr. Bush "keeps all options, including military action, on the table"? If the US took such an option off the table its 250 million people would have all the international clout of Malta's 250,000 or Lichtenstein's 25,000. This doesn't sound like a practicable proposal.
There were only UN inspectors in Iraq BECAUSE Saddam Hussein believed that US military action was on the table. Even if the UN had got a result in Iraq, it would only have been because of US military clout, which not only got its inspectors in, but, as we now know, had earlier obliged Saddam Hussein to get rid of his WMDs. Similarly, if Iran is dissuaded from acquiring nuclear weapons, it will only be because the US is there to play "bad cop" to the EU's "good cop". Pious hand wringing and bribes by the EU will fail on their own. Europe talking softly and America carrying a big stick are far more likely to get the desired result.
Long may the US both keep the option of military action open AND keep it on the table.
Cheers,
Sid.
Yet the Slovaks seem to have loved your "insane warmonger and paranoid coward". The papers today have pictures of him pressing the flesh in the crowd there.
And what on earth is wrong if Mr. Bush "keeps all options, including military action, on the table"? If the US took such an option off the table its 250 million people would have all the international clout of Malta's 250,000 or Lichtenstein's 25,000. This doesn't sound like a practicable proposal.
There were only UN inspectors in Iraq BECAUSE Saddam Hussein believed that US military action was on the table. Even if the UN had got a result in Iraq, it would only have been because of US military clout, which not only got its inspectors in, but, as we now know, had earlier obliged Saddam Hussein to get rid of his WMDs. Similarly, if Iran is dissuaded from acquiring nuclear weapons, it will only be because the US is there to play "bad cop" to the EU's "good cop". Pious hand wringing and bribes by the EU will fail on their own. Europe talking softly and America carrying a big stick are far more likely to get the desired result.
Long may the US both keep the option of military action open AND keep it on the table.
Cheers,
Sid.
i do not love president bush, and i don't have to.
but:
wmds: almost the whole world! was concerned about the possibility of wmds in irak. otherwise the presence of the un inspectors has been waste.
the war: have a look on the list of of the un resolutions.
how much resolutions have been made (i think 16?)
and the statements which have been made on every resolution and that every resolution has threaten saddam with serious consequenses.
what has happend?
nothing but saddam has laughed his ass off.
but:
wmds: almost the whole world! was concerned about the possibility of wmds in irak. otherwise the presence of the un inspectors has been waste.
the war: have a look on the list of of the un resolutions.
how much resolutions have been made (i think 16?)
and the statements which have been made on every resolution and that every resolution has threaten saddam with serious consequenses.
what has happend?
nothing but saddam has laughed his ass off.
Hells post may lead us to the question WHY "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was undertaken in the first place. While his certainly transgresses the general theme of this site, I nonetheless would like to discuss this a bit.
I came upon this interesting article about the men behind it, taken form the Online version of the Israeli Haaretz:
I came upon this interesting article about the men behind it, taken form the Online version of the Israeli Haaretz:
White man's burden
By Ari Shavit
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical
1. The doctrine
WASHINGTON - At the conclusion of its second week, the war to liberate Iraq wasn't looking good. Not even in Washington. The assumption of a swift collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime had itself collapsed. The presupposition that the Iraqi dictatorship would crumble as soon as mighty America entered the country proved unfounded. The Shi'ites didn't rise up, the Sunnis fought fiercely. Iraqi guerrilla warfare found the American generals unprepared and endangered their overextended supply lines. Nevertheless, 70 percent of the American people continued to support the war; 60 percent thought victory was certain; 74 percent expressed confidence in President George W. Bush.
Washington is a small city. It's a place of human dimensions. A kind of small town that happens to run an empire. A small town of government officials and members of Congress and personnel of research institutes and journalists who pretty well all know one another. Everyone is busy intriguing against everyone else; and everyone gossips about everyone else.
In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history. They believe that the right political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights and grit. The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington neoconservatives are the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke. They also admire Winston Churchill and the policy pursued by Ronald Reagan. They tend to read reality in terms of the failure of the 1930s (Munich) versus the success of the 1980s (the fall of the Berlin Wall).
Are they wrong? Have they committed an act of folly in leading Washington to Baghdad? They don't think so. They continue to cling to their belief. They are still pretending that everything is more or less fine. That things will work out. Occasionally, though, they seem to break out in a cold sweat. This is no longer an academic exercise, one of them says, we are responsible for what is happening. The ideas we put forward are now affecting the lives of millions of people. So there are moments when you're scared. You say, Hell, we came to help, but maybe we made a mistake.
2. William Kristol
Has America bitten off more than it can chew? Bill Kristol says no. True, the press is very negative, but when you examine the facts in the field you see that there is no terrorism, no mass destruction, no attacks on Israel. The oil fields in the south have been saved, air control has been achieved, American forces are deployed 50 miles from Baghdad. So, even if mistakes were made here and there, they are not serious. America is big enough to handle that. Kristol hasn't the slightest doubt that in the end, General Tommy Franks will achieve his goals. The 4th Cavalry Division will soon enter the fray, and another division is on its way from Texas. So it's possible that instead of an elegant war with 60 killed in two weeks it will be a less elegant affair with a thousand killed in two months, but nevertheless Bill Kristol has no doubt at all that the Iraq Liberation War is a just war, an obligatory war.
Kristol is pleasant-looking, of average height, in his late forties. In the past 18 months he has used his position as editor of the right-wing Weekly Standard and his status as one of the leaders of the neoconservative circle in Washington to induce the White House to do battle against Saddam Hussein. Because Kristol is believed to exercise considerable influence on the president, Vice President Richard Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he is also perceived as having been instrumental in getting Washington to launch this all-out campaign against Baghdad. Sitting behind the stacks of books that cover his desk at the offices of the Weekly Standard in Northwest Washington, he tries to convince me that he is not worried. It is simply inconceivable to him that America will not win. In that event, the consequences would be catastrophic. No one wants to think seriously about that possibility.
What is the war about? I ask. Kristol replies that at one level it is the war that George Bush is talking about: a war against a brutal regime that has in its possession weapons of mass destruction. But at a deeper level it is a greater war, for the shaping of a new Middle East. It is a war that is intended to change the political culture of the entire region. Because what happened on September 11, 2001, Kristol says, is that the Americans looked around and saw that the world is not what they thought it was. The world is a dangerous place. Therefore the Americans looked for a doctrine that would enable them to cope with this dangerous world. And the only doctrine they found was the neoconservative one.
That doctrine maintains that the problem with the Middle East is the absence of democracy and of freedom. It follows that the only way to block people like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is to disseminate democracy and freedom. To change radically the cultural and political dynamics that creates such people. And the way to fight the chaos is to create a new world order that will be based on freedom and human rights - and to be ready to use force in order to consolidate this new world. So that, really, is what the war is about. It is being fought to consolidate a new world order, to create a new Middle East.
Does that mean that the war in Iraq is effectively a neoconservative war? That's what people are saying, Kristol replies, laughing. But the truth is that it's an American war. The neoconservatives succeeded because they touched the bedrock of America. The thing is that America has a profound sense of mission. America has a need to offer something that transcends a life of comfort, that goes beyond material success. Therefore, because of their ideals, the Americans accepted what the neoconservatives proposed. They didn't want to fight a war over interests, but over values. They wanted a war driven by a moral vision. They wanted to hitch their wagon to something bigger than themselves.
Does this moral vision mean that after Iraq will come the turns of Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
Kristol says that he is at odds with the administration on the question of Saudi Arabia. But his opinion is that it is impossible to let Saudi Arabia just continue what it is doing. It is impossible to accept the anti-Americanism it is disseminating. The fanatic Wahhabism that Saudi Arabia engenders is undermining the stability of the entire region. It's the same with Egypt, he says: we mustn't accept the status quo there. For Egypt, too, the horizon has to be liberal democracy.
It has to be understood that in the final analysis, the stability that the corrupt Arab despots are offering is illusory. Just as the stability that Yitzhak Rabin received from Yasser Arafat was illusory. In the end, none of these decadent dictatorships will endure. The choice is between extremist Islam, secular fascism or democracy. And because of September 11, American understands that. America is in a position where it has no choice. It is obliged to be far more aggressive in promoting democracy. Hence this war. It's based on the new American understanding that if the United States does not shape the world in its image, the world will shape the United States in its own image.
3. Charles Krauthammer
Is this going to turn into a second Vietnam? Charles Krauthammer says no. There is no similarity to Vietnam. Unlike in the 1960s, there is no anti-establishment subculture in the United States now. Unlike in the 1960s, there is now an abiding love of the army in the United States. Unlike in the 1960s, there is a determined president, one with character, in the White House. And unlike in the 1960s, Americans are not deterred from making sacrifices. That is the sea-change that took place here on September 11, 2001. Since that morning, Americans have understood that if they don't act now and if weapons of mass destruction reach extremist terrorist organizations, millions of Americans will die. Therefore, because they understand that those others want to kill them by the millions, the Americans prefer to take to the field of battle and fight, rather than sit idly by and die at home.
Charles Krauthammer is handsome, swarthy and articulate. In his spacious office on 19th Street in Northwest Washington, he sits upright in a black wheelchair. Although his writing tends to be gloomy, his mood now is elevated. The well-known columnist (Washington Post, Time, Weekly Standard) has no real doubts about the outcome of the war that he promoted for 18 months. No, he does not accept the view that he helped lead America into the new killing fields between the Tigris and the Euphrates. But it is true that he is part of a conceptual stream that had something to offer in the aftermath of September 11. Within a few weeks after the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, he had singled out Baghdad in his columns as an essential target. And now, too, he is convinced that America has the strength to pull it off. The thought that America will not win has never even crossed his mind.
What is the war about? It's about three different issues. First of all, this is a war for disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. That's the basis, the self-evident cause, and it is also sufficient cause in itself. But beyond that, the war in Iraq is being fought to replace the demonic deal America cut with the Arab world decades ago. That deal said: you will send us oil and we will not intervene in your internal affairs. Send us oil and we will not demand from you what we are demanding of Chile, the Philippines, Korea and South Africa.
That deal effectively expired on September 11, 2001, Krauthammer says. Since that day, the Americans have understood that if they allow the Arab world to proceed in its evil ways - suppression, economic ruin, sowing despair - it will continue to produce more and more bin Ladens. America thus reached the conclusion that it has no choice: it has to take on itself the project of rebuilding the Arab world. Therefore, the Iraq war is really the beginning of a gigantic historical experiment whose purpose is to do in the Arab world what was done in Germany and Japan after World War II.
It's an ambitious experiment, Krauthammer admits, maybe even utopian, but not unrealistic. After all, it is inconceivable to accept the racist assumption that the Arabs are different from all other human beings, that the Arabs are incapable of conducting a democratic way of life.
However, according to the Jewish-American columnist, the present war has a further importance. If Iraq does become pro-Western and if it becomes the focus of American influence, that will be of immense geopolitical importance. An American presence in Iraq will project power across the region. It will suffuse the rebels in Iran with courage and strength, and it will deter and restrain Syria. It will accelerate the processes of change that the Middle East must undergo.
Isn't the idea of preemptive war a dangerous one that rattles the world order?
There is no choice, Krauthammer replies. In the 21st century we face a new and singular challenge: the democratization of mass destruction. There are three possible strategies in the face of that challenge: appeasement, deterrence and preemption. Because appeasement and deterrence will not work, preemption is the only strategy left. The United States must implement an aggressive policy of preemption. Which is exactly what it is now doing in Iraq. That is what Tommy Franks' soldiers are doing as we speak.
And what if the experiment fails? What if America is defeated?
This war will enhance the place of America in the world for the coming generation, Krauthammer says. Its outcome will shape the world for the next 25 years. There are three possibilities. If the United States wins quickly and without a bloodbath, it will be a colossus that will dictate the world order. If the victory is slow and contaminated, it will be impossible to go on to other Arab states after Iraq. It will stop there. But if America is beaten, the consequences will be catastrophic. Its deterrent capability will be weakened, its friends will abandon it and it will become insular. Extreme instability will be engendered in the Middle East.
You don't really want to think about what will happen, Krauthammer says looking me straight in the eye. But just because that's so, I am positive we will not lose. Because the administration understands the implications. The president understands that everything is riding on this. So he will throw everything we've got into this. He will do everything that has to be done. George W. Bush will not let America lose.
4. Thomas Friedman
Is this an American Lebanon War? Tom Friedman says he is afraid it is. He was there, in the Commodore Hotel in Beirut, in the summer of 1982, and he remembers it well. So he sees the lines of resemblance clearly. General Ahmed Chalabi (the Shi'ite leader that the neoconservatives want to install as the leader of a free Iraq) in the role of Bashir Jemayel. The Iraqi opposition in the role of the Phalange. Richard Perle and the conservative circle around him as Ariel Sharon. And a war that is at bottom a war of choice. A war that wants to utilize massive force in order to establish a new order.
Tom Friedman, The New York Times columnist, did not oppose the war. On the contrary. He too was severely shaken by September 11, he too wants to understand where these desperate fanatics are coming from who hate America more than they love their own lives. And he too reached the conclusion that the status quo in the Middle East is no longer acceptable. The status quo is terminal. And therefore it is urgent to foment a reform in the Arab world.
Some things are true even if George Bush believes them, Friedman says with a smile. And after September 11, it's impossible to tell Bush to drop it, ignore it. There was a certain basic justice in the overall American feeling that told the Arab world: we left you alone for a long time, you played with matches and in the end we were burned. So we're not going to leave you alone any longer.
He is sitting in a large rectangular room in the offices of The New York Times in northwest Washington, on the corner of 17th Street. One wall of the room is a huge map of the world. Hunched over his computer, he reads me witty lines from the article that will be going to press in two hours. He polishes, sharpens, plays word games. He ponders what's right to say now, what should be left for a later date. Turning to me, he says that democracies look soft until they're threatened. When threatened, they become very hard. Actually, the Iraq war is a kind of Jenin on a huge scale. Because in Jenin, too, what happened was that the Israelis told the Palestinians, We left you here alone and you played with matches until suddenly you blew up a Passover seder in Netanya. And therefore we are not going to leave you along any longer. We will go from house to house in the Casbah. And from America's point of view, Saddam's Iraq is Jenin. This war is a defensive shield. It follows that the danger is the same: that like Israel, America will make the mistake of using only force.
This is not an illegitimate war, Friedman says. But it is a very presumptuous war. You need a great deal of presumption to believe that you can rebuild a country half a world from home. But if such a presumptuous war is to have a chance, it needs international support. That international legitimacy is essential so you will have enough time and space to execute your presumptuous project. But George Bush didn't have the patience to glean international support. He gambled that the war would justify itself, that we would go in fast and conquer fast and that the Iraqis would greet us with rice and the war would thus be self-justifying. That did not happen. Maybe it will happen next week, but in the meantime it did not happen.
When I think about what is going to happen, I break into a sweat, Friedman says. I see us being forced to impose a siege on Baghdad. And I know what kind of insanity a siege on Baghdad can unleash. The thought of house-to-house combat in Baghdad without international legitimacy makes me lose my appetite. I see American embassies burning. I see windows of American businesses shattered. I see how the Iraqi resistance to America connects to the general Arab resistance to America and the worldwide resistance to America. The thought of what could happen is eating me up.
What George Bush did, Friedman says, is to show us a splendid mahogany table: the new democratic Iraq. But when you turn the table over, you see that it has only one leg. This war is resting on one leg. But on the other hand, anyone who thinks he can defeat George Bush had better think again. Bush will never give in. That's not what he's made of. Believe me, you don't want to be next to this guy when he thinks he's being backed into a corner. I don't suggest that anyone who holds his life dear mess with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush.
Is the Iraq war the great neoconservative war? It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.
Still, it's not all that simple, Friedman retracts. It's not some fantasy the neoconservatives invented. It's not that 25 people hijacked America. You don't take such a great nation into such a great adventure with Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard and another five or six influential columnists. In the final analysis, what fomented the war is America's over-reaction to September 11. The genuine sense of anxiety that spread in America after September 11. It is not only the neoconservatives who led us to the outskirts of Baghdad. What led us to the outskirts of Baghdad is a very American combination of anxiety and hubris.
"Tell my mother I died for my country. I did what I thought was best."
John Wilkes Booth
April 12, 1865
John Wilkes Booth
April 12, 1865
Kitsune
The ironic, almost amusing aspect of this, is that the neo-conservatives are almost to a man, "former" Marxists. Once again, as with Nazism and Fascism, the left masquerades as the right.
And in America - many "real" conservatives, in their political naivete' assume these jerks are the real McCoy.
The good news is that the neos are pissed at Bush for not being warlike enough - they (like the Nazis) believe war to be a good thing for the country and Bush has hesitated in "finishing" their little crusade. Hopefully Bush will return their ire and split from them. I certainly hope so - give me gridlock any day!
They want to take down Iran, Saudi and Syria as well. You'll note and probably not be surprised to learn, that not one of these bastards has ever been a soldier - all their warlike talk is about what they want our kids to do for them.
cheers
Reb
The ironic, almost amusing aspect of this, is that the neo-conservatives are almost to a man, "former" Marxists. Once again, as with Nazism and Fascism, the left masquerades as the right.
And in America - many "real" conservatives, in their political naivete' assume these jerks are the real McCoy.
The good news is that the neos are pissed at Bush for not being warlike enough - they (like the Nazis) believe war to be a good thing for the country and Bush has hesitated in "finishing" their little crusade. Hopefully Bush will return their ire and split from them. I certainly hope so - give me gridlock any day!
They want to take down Iran, Saudi and Syria as well. You'll note and probably not be surprised to learn, that not one of these bastards has ever been a soldier - all their warlike talk is about what they want our kids to do for them.
cheers
Reb