Eamonn Fitzgerald's Rainy Day

thanks, Eamon. First time poster, but long-time reader. We can always count on the Irish, as well as the Danes, Albanians, Romanians, Poles, Czechs, Brits, Hungarians, Lithuanians, and others to reassure us that Europe isn't ENTIRELY lost. Keep blogging and make Ireland proud

Sorry to disagree with Bryan but if 'counting on the Irish' means having their unconditional support in a long-term Foreign Policy project which calls for 'Total Spectrum Dominance' then you can count out the majority of us.
Eamonn's views on this matter are, I would suggest, somewhat unrepresentative of a nation where hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to protest at military action in Iraq.

"when fanaticism is combined with modern technology borders become irrelevant."

Certainly, when it comes to the US administration this appears to be the case. I don't know of any regime to whom this statement could more aptly apply. I am also an Irishman and can aver that the views of the average punter here chime with John's rather than Eamonn's views. Eamonn is a particular kind of Irish eejit. One need only juxtapose his comments on wine quaffing (dear Lord, the horror!) with his heather swaddled memories of growing up in an Irish bog with the beal bocht to him like twas black forty sheven and he abroad on the turf with never an arse to his ragged trousers.

Once again, the "(insert bad guy here) is bad, but Bush is worse" rubbish is dragged out...I'm not comparing Bush to Churchill, but the suggestion that Bush is somehow worse than any Communist or Fascist in the world today is like saying Churchill was worse than Hitler. Same with suggesting that somehow having Bush with high-tech weapons at his disposal is worse than Iran or N. Korea (odd how it's been LOW-tech weapons that have killed millions through the 20th century). Perhaps if you read some Iraqi blogs or newspapers, you'd see things about the war you wouldn't see in the Western media. Dr. Copernicus, you seem to have a superiority complex, deeming Eamon's country life to be "proof" of the rationale behind his views. Can you be more arrogrant? Also, anti-war doesn't neccessarily mean Anti-american, which I think was what Bryan was getting at. the Irish have consitently been pro-American, much like the Danes and Albanians, among whom pro-Americanism is high. Some anti-war protesters have legitimate claims, but for the most part I think many of them are ignorant bints with no grasp on reality and have done no research on the subject (like those idiots who pulled down a Bush statue a la Saddam in Trafalgar Square). But silly things like "facts" and "rationality" only obstruct a good protest. Hey, those unfortunate things might actually prove them WRONG

If anyone is an eejit, it's Copernicus for sure.

This Irish girl is sick to hell of Euro Anti-Americanism; a damn shame that bints like DrCopernicus choose to open their mouths before the brain waves are adjusted. America has done more for Ireland than any country in the world, not to mention that at least 45 million Americans claim Irish heritage, and many of them are more devoted to Ireland than most Irish citizens! When Iraq becomes a successful democracy (something that Anti-War "activists" positively dread as it will prove their assumptions false), Doctor, don't be surprised when the Iraqi people give thanks to the US, as most of them already do for saving them from one of the foulest tyrannies of the past century. Many prosperous, developed countries owe their success to the USA, but choose not to acknowledge it; here's hoping the Iraqi people do.

John says hundreds of thousands of Irish people took to the streets to protest at military action in Iraq.

In reality about ONE hundred thousand took part in a march organised by the Trotskyites. About four million others didn't.

First of all, I'm not going to quibble about the exact number of Irish people who took to the streets. It was a lot, and not just in Dublin. Whether it was a couple of hundred thousand or one hundred thousand the point still stands. I find it laughable when people like 'Edmund Burke' use the old 'Because the majority of people didn't participate in the march, it is an unrepresentative event' argument. Has there ever been a protest in history that was attended by a majority of a nation's inhabitants? Are all protests then unrepresentative? I never suggested that the whole of the Irish nation was anti-war, but I still believe that a significant portion of the populace was. In addition, I believe that many Irish people have deep reservations about the foreign policy strategies of the current US administration.

Secondly, it should go without saying that being opposed to certain actions of the Bush administration is NOT the same thing as being anti-American (whatever the hell that means). The suggestion that the two things are the same implies that to be pro-American one must support US actions whole-heartedly and unreservedly. I can't think of a more ignorant and close-minded position than that.

Finally, can someone please explain to me how an administration whose foreign policy has been guided by the 'Project for the New American Century' and whose stated goals include 'Total Spectrum Dominance' can be a good thing for democracy? They are quite open about the fact that they subscribe wholeheartedly to 'realpolitik' and are principally concerned with promoting American interests worldwide. Whatever the coincidental beneficial side-results of their actions are, it would be naive in the extreme to imagine that such actions are motivated by altruism, or a love of freedom and democracy.

John, you can't deny that much of the "anti-war" protests were motivated purely by hatred of the US (and don't pretend you don't know what anti-American means) rather than any concern for the Iraqi people. There's no doubt a large number of "peace activists" would rather Saddam murder thousands more than the US have any role in destroying him. And no, few people "whole-heartedly" support every American endeavor, so quit with the blanket statements. In regards to your complaints about the war, I suggest you read some Iraqi blogs and find IMPARTIAL news sources (i.e., NOT Indymedia, DU, BBC, Guardian, Mirror, et al) to form reasonable views on its necessity and justification. Also try to look into the so-called "New American century" and what it actually means, not what you're told it means

Excuse me Patrick but I HAVE looked into the "Project for the New American Century" and HAVE grasped what it seems to mean. It's not exactly like the architects of the Project are evasive about it. If you want to debate the contents of the 'Project' then I'm completely willing to do so. You'll notice I'm extending you the courtesy of allowing for the possibility that you are familiar with some of the stated aims of that project...a courtesy you ignorantly refused to afford me.

Any why are you focusing exclusively on the war? I only mentioned the anti-war protests in the first place in reaction to this cosy assumption that the Irish were ?with? the ?Indispensable Nation?. That was a casual and problematic assumption and needed to be challenged.

I am concerned with the wider implications of the US foreign policy project. I am aware that there are many, many Iraqis who are eternally grateful that Saddam is no longer free to terrorise them. This issue has absolutely nothing at all to do with a debate about the qualities of Saddam. The fact that a thug like Hussein has been removed is, in itself, a reason for celebration for many. Rightly so.

But to focus excessively on the ?plus? that is a Saddam-free Iraq (as a way of justifying American Foreign Policy) is to a) Play down the real foreign policy goals of the current US administration (Here?s a hint: Spreading sweetness, light and Freedom may not be among them), and, b) To focus on the micro, without due regard for the ?Big Picture?, where all this is heading.

Finally, the statement, ?There's no doubt a large number of "peace activists" would rather Saddam murder thousands more than the US have any role in destroying him,? may well have some truth in it, but then again it may (as I suspect) be a pretty absurd contention. How can one prove such a thing, or convincingly back up such a statement? Simply saying ?there?s no doubt? just won?t do it I?m afraid.

No, I don't think you have truly grasped the meaning of those terms or the war in general, only sought out info that proved a pre-determined view. The Bush adminstration isn't perfect (I'd prefer Lieberman to have the democratic ticket and run against him) but what you espouse is simply cynical, almost IndyMedia-esque paranoia about "American global dominance" and "the Bush cabal" (to name a few cliches). Its seriously doubtful that your theories about the intentions of the adminstration are little more than just grasping at straws from bitterness about disagreement with its policies. And I stand by my statement that Anti-Americanism has been a driving force of the anti-war movement (hence why I brought up the war)...to deny Anti-Americanism is a blatantly willful disregard for what lies in plain sight, evident in both the far left and right.

Not so much a fan of Bush myself, but then again, few of us Irish citizens actually care (nor do many Americans, as evidenced by my classmates at Boston College). I'd say John is just full of bitter, hot air, spewing only what supports his narrow-minded views about the "goals" of the Bush Administration. I sense a little "All about the Oil/All about Israel/All for the American Empire/All for globalization" trash in a few of his statements there.

Let me just deal with this Vinny character first.
I like the way you have to resort to statements like "I'd say..." and "I sense..." as a means of putting words into my mouth. The truth is you haven't a clue what my beliefs are, how could you? I don't profess to knowing what yours are, and to be honest, with your attitude, I care even less.
In case you're interested (though this will probably upset your psychological profile of me) I think blanket statements like "It's all about Oil" etc, are pretty ignorant and fail to address the complexities of the issue. Since I never actually said, "It's all about X/Y" then why don't you wait till you actually know my stance before opening your virtual gob?

As for Patrick...
Once again you resort to the following level of argument:
"You don't understand the issues, because I say you don't understand the issues".

You also throw in casual assumptions as to what I read/am influenced by to turn me into some 'tree-hugging', Lefty 'Straw Man'...an easy 'type' to put down. Your continuing attempts to mould me into an object of scorn that sits happily in your rogues? gallery is fairly pathetic.

As for my alleged failure to grasp the core elements of the "Project for the New American Century", what are you basing that assumption on? The 'Project' is self-professedly Reaganite, is it not? All, I?m claiming, despite what you suggest, is that the Neo-Con revival is pushing a robust foreign policy that is decidedly ?realpolitik?. Take this quote from the project?s own website: ?we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles?. What I am interested in debating (fat chance here) were some of the problematic issues associated with taking such a stance. What does it mean? Where will it lead us? What implications does it have for regional self-management etc?

My complaint, John, is that it SEEMS your rejection of issues is based purely on ideological grounds rather than practical, and have yet to prove that you don't. You can revel in your 'debating' skills all you want, but what I've asked is what are your grounds for rejecting 'realpolitik' when that certainly isn't the case with the Bush administration (why would a realpolitik government care about having allies or rebuilding another country when the focus is for one's own state? If, as you claim, bringing democracy to Iraq is not a real factor, why are they attempting to at all? Why would the administration want to spend more money on than it will get back from a third world country?) Besides that, what country DOESN'T want a world friendly not only to its own interests but to other democratic nations (i.e. "our principles) as well? I don't believe the "American Empire" BS pushed by many on the left and right. Winston Churchill said it himself: one cannot be a major player on the world stage by shrinking from its problems. "The price of greatness is responsibility"...America is vilified for doing what it already does, and would still be vilified if it didn't do enough, but continues on. How the desire to maintain our position in the world to ensure the survival of our prosperity, values, and interests amounts to 'robust realpolitik' is beyond me, as virtually anyone, Republican or Democrat, would agree with that sentiment.

?why would a realpolitik government care about having allies or rebuilding another country when the focus is for one's own state??
Here are a few POSSIBLE answers. Any ?realpolitik? govt with its head screwed on would realise that we live in an increasingly ?globalised? (problematic word that I?ll admit) world.
To be completely isolationist and dismissive of the views of one?s allies (or potential allies) is simply bad politics. Surely it goes without saying that it benefits a nation to have strong, influential allies. Saying a ?realpolitik? govt would have no concern for its public image, international relations etc, is like saying an elected politician wouldn?t care about the way voters perceived him/her, or would not try to cultivate influential friends.
One cannot fault the current US administration for trying to build an international consensus on its foreign policy objectives. It is surely not controversial to suggest that in International Relations (to put it very simply) Consensus=good & Instability=Bad.

The nation of Iraq is in need of being ?rebuilt? largely due to a combination of years of decay under sanctions, and recent military conflict/instability. I heartily agree that it is idiotic of those who opposed the war to now demand that the US abandon/surrender Iraq at the earliest opportunity (if indeed this idea is being seriously entertained). Whatever my own feelings on the war were, it happened, the troops are there now, and the US and its allies have to make a decent fist of sorting out the chaos that has ensued. In addition, it would be quite idiotic for a govt motivated by ?realpolitik? to abandon to chaos an area of significant importance after it had ousted its leader. To argue that it?s ?All about Oil? might, as I have suggested, be an oversimplification, but to argue that it ?Is not about oil at all? is extremely naﶥ (not that I am accusing you of that). Past American leaders (like Eisenhower) were a lot less wary of speaking openly about the supreme importance of ready/stable access to Mid-East oil. Oil is a factor it seems to me, simple as that. Is it only factor as some suggest? Probably not.
I am NOT claiming that I can spell out the exact, incontrovertible reasons that lie behind current US policy in Iraq. To do so would be to fall into a dogmatic trap, whereby all debate on the issue becomes polarised and each side tries to hammer the other into submission by swearing that they have access to absolute, unmediated, impartial ?fact?. What I have are suspicions, observations, questions etc, which have evolved over time as I?ve investigated the matter.

I take issue with your use of the term ?our principles? as you seem to be applying it to include the entirety of the democratic West. There is commonality to be sure, but this suggests a consensus for action that is problematic. In addition you ask how I could write off ?the desire to maintain our position in the world to ensure the survival of our prosperity, values, and interests? as ?realpolitik?. Might I suggest that the Neo-Cons are less interested in the survival of the above and more interested in their PROMOTION. That is a horse of a different colour. ?Promoting? ones values and interests internationally is not the same as simply trying to ensure their survival (domestically etc). The significant question remains (unanswered): What happens when this force for promotion comes up against a reactionary, nationalistic force, determined to oppose it? Where then democracy and freedom?

Allow me, as an American, to offer my thanks to Mr. Fitzgerald for his good wishes.

I admit that I'm intrigued by John's vehemence and apparent misunderstanding of American governance. Treating 'The Project for the New American Century' as official U.S. doctrine is foolish - the project is a private organisation promoting a particular viewpoint, not an official arm of the U.S. government. While some of the project's aims may coincide with current U.S. policy, that does not mean that the project is controlling U.S. policy.

I also find John's confusion about 'Total Spectrum Dominance' interesting; a quick Google search shows that the term is used in a military context, not a foreign policy context, referring to an integration of military capabilities across the board.

As a final note, why should America not promote American interests around the world? It would be ludicrous to suggest that other countries surrender their interests to a second party, so why should America be expected to do so.

aelfheld,

I am not suggesting that the project ?controls? US policy in a sort of cabalistic, conspiracist way. I am simply making the point that the PFTNAC doctrine has (perhaps significant) influence. How could it not when the signatories include: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz etc? To write off its influence simply because it is not ?an official arm of the U.S. government? is to ignore the real influence/significance of various Neo-Con think tanks and NGOs. You imply that any relationship between official US policy and the project?s interests are more or less coincidental. That is to imply an almost hermetically sealed Government whose policies/actions remain aloof from any perspective that doesn?t come with an ?official? stamp.

You stated: "I also find John's confusion about 'Total Spectrum Dominance' interesting; a quick Google search shows that the term is used in a military context, not a foreign policy context, referring to an integration of military capabilities across the board".

I find your own confusion about the interrelationship between military capabilities and foreign policy intriguing myself. The ambitious desire for the military?s ?Total Spectrum Dominance? is a project that walks hand in hand with an aspiration to impose/encourage/create a certain kind of international hegemonic order. One need not always resort to military force to achieve one?s foreign policy objectives but one must have a far-reaching military capacity that lends weight/gravity to one?s requests/demands. One cannot isolate the world of ?defence? spending and that of ?foreign policy? in such a cosy, unproblematic way.

Finally, I do not find it remotely surprising that the US wishes to promote its ?interests around the world?. But your statement completely oversimplifies the issue; as if ?promoting one?s own interests? was completely divorced from issues of national sovereignty, regional self-management etc. I am not suggesting for a moment that the US is alone in robustly pursuing/promoting its own interests. But simply to use the justifying argument that ?We should do it because other powerful nations do the same?, is, to say the least, somewhat immature. One of the key ethical debates of the early 21st Century is (in my opinion) concerned with what kind of international ?order? we wish to create. Is it one based primarily on the interests/values of powerful first-world nations OR can it be one where issues of trade, self-management, democratic choice can be worked out in a fair and equitable way? At the end of the day it comes down to one?s ethical/moral inclinations. One can never argue with the absolute logic of ?realpolitik? (for example), but the negative implications of powerful nations aggressively promoting their interests should be reasonably clear.