To all you Pro-Israeli supporters here

Good post and your correct to point out this reality

whats unclear about this?? :o

Sorry, I should have been more specific. :oops:

I was referring to:

They are a homogenous population but come from different backrounds to be sure and any policy doesn’t “blanket” their political dispositions.

The rest of your post sounded in agreement with mine, but I had specifically stated that they’re not a homogenous group, neither in the character of the people nor in the political/civic groups that the congregate in. This of course makes policy planning and prescriptions difficult, to say the least.

Incidentally, again based on poll and anecdotal data, most Palestinians appear okay with Israel’s existence, but not its policies. Of course, you tend to hear more of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad.

They are a homogenous population but come from different backrounds to be sure and any policy doesn’t “blanket” their political dispositions

As a whole they are a captive population within Isreal and have to share the same economic pie but with completely different values and ideas on what to do about their situation. So any policy presented against the violent groups within this community should not go against all these peoples.

They joined in an aggressive war against Isreal hoping that they could do a “Holcaust 2” when the arabs won. However, they lost, and as a consequence they lost land. To the victor goes the spoils. Or do you think had the war gone against Isreal that the kindly palastinians would have allowed Isreal to exist?

As to the garbage about Isreal taking thier land. Yep, they did. But the Palastinians are using the ame argument Hitler used to start WW2.

@cystic:

@marine36:

I support Israel, because the palestinians are terrorists, and hate the United States. Very simple, its obvious because they burnt our flag and celebrated during september 11th, that the palestinians are our enemies.

two words:
cause
and
effect

i’m guessing that if i were Palestinian, i would be hating the US as well. So would you - probably more vehemantly than anyone.

Ahh, I am glad you see things that way. So you condone US military action against the palastinians since we have them on tape celebrating 9-11? They obviously hate us, so that justifies us hating them and taking action against them. Oh, but wait. It is only fashionable to hate the US for the evils that it does. I keep forgetting that one.

@Zooey72:

@cystic:

@marine36:

I support Israel, because the palestinians are terrorists, and hate the United States. Very simple, its obvious because they burnt our flag and celebrated during september 11th, that the palestinians are our enemies.

two words:
cause
and
effect

i’m guessing that if i were Palestinian, i would be hating the US as well. So would you - probably more vehemantly than anyone.

Ahh, I am glad you see things that way. So you condone US military action against the palastinians since we have them on tape celebrating 9-11?

no, i’m saying "wake the f**k up! There is a reason that they are celebrating, and it’s not your simplistic “they are stupid and can only learn lessons by force” point.

They obviously hate us, so that justifies us hating them and taking action against them. Oh, but wait. It is only fashionable to hate the US for the evils that it does. I keep forgetting that one.

You like quoting The Bible so much - take a lesson from it.

@Zooey72:

As to the garbage about Isreal taking thier land. Yep, they did. But the Palastinians are using the ame argument Hitler used to start WW2.

WTF ?

@F_alk:

@Zooey72:

As to the garbage about Isreal taking thier land. Yep, they did. But the Palastinians are using the ame argument Hitler used to start WW2.

WTF ?

perhaps Zooey=Jen?

@Zooey72:

They joined in an aggressive war against Isreal hoping that they could do a “Holcaust 2” when the arabs won. However, they lost, and as a consequence they lost land. To the victor goes the spoils. Or do you think had the war gone against Isreal that the kindly palastinians would have allowed Isreal to exist?

As to the garbage about Isreal taking thier land. Yep, they did. But the Palastinians are using the ame argument Hitler used to start WW2.

You need to substantiate your points. What aggressive war are you talking about? 1967? Maybe. Certainly not 1956. And 1948 can’t really be called an aggressive war. It was a constitutive war, about whether Israel could exist, whereas an aggressive war runs from the premise that Israel already exists. Significantly different moral and strategic questions between the two. In addition, don’t forget that the Palestinians, rightly or wrongly, did not really participate in the wars until after the 1979 peace accord, or Sadat’s 1977 trip to the Knesset. Only then did the PLO emerge as the legitimate representative of the Palestinians, whereas before the Arab countries acted as caretakers of the Palestinian cause. As for what the Arabs would have done had they won, it’s a little difficult to talk in counterfactuals. You’re relying on the beliefs that Muslims are a blood-thirsty people to justify your argument, and in some sense projecting what European countries have done to their Jewish populations onto the Arabs. Logically and historically, this is all questionable. I remain unconvinced that Arabs in 1948 wanted a genocidal campaign. Even up to the rise of radical Islamic groups, I am unsure if the Arab regimes would have made no provisions for allowing Jews a place in their countries. They are a protected people in the Koran after all.

I am also disturbed by the constant refrain of “might makes right” on this board. While the norm has only been around for 50 years, territorial acquisition by military force is nearly unthinkable now. The remaining problems the world has over occupation pre-date this normative transition (with the possible exception of Cyprus). I would need lots more time to detail why normative values impact foreign policy planning, but let me just say that in all US military planning, the idea of forced acquisition is never considered. Same for most of the rest of the world. Clearly, there is something at work that might does not make right.

Your last point is, to be frank, inane and simplistic. The analogy is difficult to justify, if indeed it can be. The Tibetans talk about how the Chinese took their land, how they would like it back, and how they would okay with autonomy. Perhaps a superficially similar argument to Hitler’s, but certainly minus the racial undertones of lebensraum (spelling?). And they have the balance of history on their side as well. Just because one is militarily weaker, does that therefore mean they are wrong and deserve to have their lives destroyed or limited? Certainly not. Again, you’re not thinking critically. At some point, you must start appreciating the nuance of the particular situation and carefully analyze how that impacts policy decisions and prescriptions.

I dont think that "might makes right " is dead in some parts of the world. Its like you think that we are all so PC that we have took out mans propensity to make war because “its the right thing to do” . Their will allways be nations and leaders who will invade other nations for “Living Space”. Lets not be too superficial in this thinking either. Wars are here to stay, but we can try to avoid them with diplomacy. Wayward nations notwithstanding.

IL - Ah, seems like we’re in classic realism v. liberalism v. constructivism territory.

First, this has nothing to do with being PC. Rather, I give more credence to the impact that international norms have in shaping policy. There are exceptions, certainly, but they are also pretty clearly against global political trends. For more, see Fukuyama (although given my qualification later).

Second, I must contest your idea that people are inherently warlike. Conflict is endemic to human existence, but war, perhaps not. Sociobiological theories have not come up with a convincing explanation that does not assume the antecedent or avoid the either/or fallacy. If war is culturally, socially, or politically based, that’s a different story and that’s exactly what is in contention.

Third and finally, national interest does drive the policies of the major state actors (US and China being the most realist in pursuit of their interests). Yet even they are constrained by international norms, particularly towards occupation, non-intervention, and humanitarian action. I cannot in good judgment envision the US willingfully annexing territory. Nor can I see China violating its on five principles of peaceful coexistence. These are fundamentally normative decisions about how the structure of international society should be. Military and economic power really can’t stop the US from annexing Iraq, for example, but it does not do so. China’s overwhelming power in Tibet and Xinjiang hasn’t dulled criticism of its actions in either of those areas, and in many ways, it’s spurred it on. Here, the exception may prove the rule. Israel is condemned for any moves towards annexation, and not just by Arab or Muslim countries.

It is of course the outliers that complicate this picture, but even they are not held up as models of development. I don’t think any country seriously wants to emulate North Korea, Burma, or Iran. Undoubtedly, the structure of the international system can change such that these norms no longer hold as much power in themselves, and I think it troubling that China and Russia are hurtling down the path of order over liberalization. But as it currently stands, international action by states must be couched in a language of response to aggression, cooperation, and order. That, supported by the restraint on action, evinces just how much norms frame policy discussion, even in the absence of an international enforcer.

Obviously much more can be written about this very complex topic, but it’s probably best to leave it here for now. But I’m looking forward to your response!

Good post!!! Excellent writing style as well!!

I find contention with only this :

I must contest your idea that people are inherently warlike

I didnt really expouse this idea. I only point out that conflict cannot be pulled out of the human experience over any period of time and under my conception of Human nature is should never be so (I refer to nietzsche and Hegels ideas on this and is best saved for another topic). Their will be another war eventually and still more after that. In fact nobody can point out any trends to prove otherwise.

But clearly the intentions to cause war stem from our nature but is rather a discourse of Epistemology to solve it rather than some “global political order” which should be imposed as a leviation of thought in the current “state of nature”.

First off, knowing I am posting on a world war 2 board I took for granted you would see what I was relating to.

Germany lost land in world war 1. It (argueably) waged an aggressive war and lost. As a consequence it lost territory, and that territory still had Germans on it. Hitler took Austria and the sudetenland with the same kind of reasoning that the palastinians have. It was ours, you stole it, blah blah blah. The only differenece between the 2 situations is that Germany was a mitlary threat, where the Palastinians are only a terrorist threat. We will negotiate with other countries, we won’t with terrorist (who also hold no real power outside terrorism).

Mexican American war, niether side was comepletly right… but I would say the US was more wrong than mexico was. To this day Mexicans complain about how the west was stolen from them, and that may be true. But I’m not giving it back (any more than they would give the land back they stole from the indians that they wiped out that lived there before them).

As to “might making right”, you are being naive to say it does not work that way. It works that way in a school playground all the way up to the superpower of the world. It has many forms, but it all accomplishes the same thing. In its basic form lets say one man is born smarter than another man. Because of his intelegence he gets a better education, and has a higher standard of living because of it. In this case intelegence is the “might” and in the end, it is proven right because that is the reality of the world.

You are confusing lack of there being a world war 3 as being “we don’t wage wars of conquest any more”. Very very naive. Because there are no foot soldiers shooting people? Why do you think that the British colonial empire collapsed (or all colonial empires for that matter). The romantic notion is that the colonies “had had enough” and “forced” England to give them independence. Not the case at all. England was in economic ruin after WW2, they needed the US. The help did not come free. Pressure from our government forced the english (and everyone else) to let thier colonies go. Very nice of us eh? Not really. We knew we could make better cheaper products than the rest of the world. So an open market was to our advantage. And, like a loan shark we loaned $ out to 3rd world countries (and so did USSR). These countries for the most part were not going to be able to repay these loans, hence we have taken over the part of the British. Where they held these countries “in place” with a gun, we do it with a check book. And to be honest, I don’t see anything wrong with that. No one forced them to take the $. They did it on thier own. It is like a person who runs up credit cards putting himself in a hopeless situation, than complains that the credit card industry is “oppressing him”.

I have gotten off track. My point is that the power that we hold now in the world is a war of $ instead of with troops. After 911 troops were needed again (whole different conversation). But the “might is right” aspect of how human society works has not changed at all.

I apply darwin (and in evolution, might does make right) to all aspects of human society/life (someone suggested I quote the bible a lot here… although i do know it, I don’t ever remember quoting it or saying I was anywhere close to being a christian). This will not be popular, but I will say it anyway. The idea all human life is equal is total nonsense. If that were true than that would make both anne frank and Jeffery dalmer equals. And they aren’t. More “value” is placed on anne frank’s life than that of Jeffery Dalmer. If you recognize that as being true… the only arguement you can have with me is one of degree.

Human life is also not equal to the individual. This one should be a no brainer. Typicaly you hold more “worth” for people who first share the same genes, second the same society, third the same values. 1st one meaning, if your mother or my mother had to die of cancer… and you got to choose which one died, you obviously would say my mother should. As I would say yours should. Why, because we both have a genetic link to our mothers. 2nd point, who here would of rather that 911 happened in a different country? Lets say the planes crashed into the eifel tower instead. Now there would have still been an outcry in the US, but nowhere near as loud. Do you think the people of Paris would rather the planes hit them instead? Of course not, because they put more value (as do we) in people of thier own society. The last part is “values” is a hard one to explain comepletly. Using the middle east as an the example versus western values. Many people in the west have become desenitized to human rights violations in that region of the world. The sheer number of them is staggering, and adds to this. Thier cultural norms are not the same as ours (husbands having the right to hit thier wives, etc etc). So when people hear of these things in this part of the world they have a “that figures” kind of attitude. Now, if in England a new government was formed that had the same exact record of human rights violations and what not, we would all be up in arms. A better example might be Japan. Because before WW2 they were seen as the “that figures” group, now they have become very much like us culturaly and we can empathize more with them than we could 70 years ago.

I have been all over the place with this, sorry. But my general point is that might does make right. People/culturs/values are not all equal (unless you think the nazi government was the equal to ours) and the best will rise to the top. And best is defined by “might makes right”. The good guys never lost a war in the history of the world, beacuse they were the ones who wrote the history books :-?

Well, we’ve strayed rather considerably from the original focus of this thread, but as long as no one minds, I’m happy to continue here rather than start a new thread.

Anyway, notice that I said conflict is endemic to the human condition. War though is something entirely different. It is social aggression, and that certainly sets it apart from, say, an argument you may have with someone, or even criminality. I myself am skeptical of idealists claiming that all wars will end at some point. However, I am not skeptical that international norms and institutions can effectively channel conflict to avoid war.

But this points more closely to my conception of the state of nature, if indeed anything like this exists. Don’t forget that Hobbes posited only one form of this state. Locke and Rousseau gave two other famous examples. And ultimately, you don’t really see a Hobbesian state of nature in nature itself. Yes, life can be nasty, brutish, and short. But, I tend to think that Americans and to an extent the English see only the competitive side of natural selection because it is more in line with the competitive philosophies of economics, etc. After all, one of Darwin’s major influences was Adam Smith and spontaneous order.

However, this overlooks the enormous amount of cooperative behavior that exists as well, more than just in pair-bonding and genetic proximity, but also in things like symbiotic relationships. And while, yes, there may be genetically selfish reasons for the rise of altruism (see Matt Ridley’s 1993 to that effect), I find those ideas…interesting at best. Mostly because the genetic evidence really isn’t there. (but that’s a much larger topic)

In the end, my ideas on the international system and institutions stem from the fact that war and conflict are inherently a part of this system, but that institutions and the ideas that undergird them can fundamentally alter both the interest calculations that states make, and the overall environment in which states can act. It’s a much more complex idea than a simple “power trumps all” analysis can provide.

Incidentally, I’m glad to see that, Zooey, you recognize that the shift between economic and military power. However, the pursuit of economic power poses much different norms and challenges than military power. If you maintain that “might makes right”, one critical problem that you must face is the type of might you are talking about. Nye talks a lot about this, in that economic power requires cooperation. Military power doesn’t necessarily, unless you are thinking of collective security. That however really only gained traction through international institutions, where democratic norms were fairly firmly embedded. Again, a complex mixing of norms and power, and that is what a genuine analysis must contend with.

And CC, don’t hide behind christian “whatever” you want to call it. I could honestly care less about the church. I do not love people who want me dead, I want them dead before they kill me. That makes me evil right? But if I was a palastinian who said that, than I am justified… right?

and can only learn by using force doesn’t work right?

Force is what these people understand. That is the enviorment they live in. That is who they are. This really is quite laughable. How many Iraqis loved Saddam Hussien? Not too many. But he kept order through “winning thier minds” right? No, he kept it through FORCE! They had a lot of great reasons to hate the man, but they never rose up against him, because of force.

What your type of thinking does not comprehend is that you can not introduce into an enviorment like the middle east higher forms of government (and yes, democracy to me is better than dictatorship) without comepletely destroying all remenants of the former regime. We would not have let the germans after world war 2 protest in a pro nazi rally. Mien kamph is still a banned book there 60 years later. But we allow speech that does not lead to stabilization in the middle east? Did you know every family in Iraq is allowed to own (only one) one AK47?

I would rather be shortly brutal, and long term effective. Than long time passive, never being effective. This region of the world could turn into another vietnam if your type of thinking prevails. Don’t fight the war to win, fight the war to negotiate. Isreal should be left to do the same with the palastinians.

Zooey, the order you’re adovacting seems to be the “punish the majority for the actions of the minority” type. If we can’t identify insurgents (which is the main problem in Iraq), then you suggest we exact a heavy toll on the population until supporting the insurgency becomes so dangerous, it falls apart? Like Roman decimation or German liquidation?

There are two reasons heavy-handed techniques would never work:

1. The American people would never support indiscriminate killings. One of the reasons we invest so heavily in precision weapons is that despite our obsession with violence, Americans have a very low tolerance for having actual blood on the military’s hands. Summarily executing people, razing towns, rounding up young men of a certain ethnic make-up, etc. would absolutely tank public support for the war. Look at the outcry over Abu Gharib. Destroying a village in retaliation for anything the insurgents do would not go over well on the nightly news.

2. The insurgency would increase. It wouldn’t matter how much we punish people we suspect of helping insurgents. It would be like Nazi Germany trying to stop Russian Partisans. We are so fanatically hated by a segment of the population, that retaliation would simply feed into their justification for hating us even more. And also garner them even more recruits.

You are right and wrong.

You are right in that the general American population would not support the things you describe. You are wrong in thinking anything less than that will be effective. Mr. Bush either needs to do what has to be done (no matter how unclean it is) or get out. A protacted war over there the terrorist will win for the same reasons that they thought they would win. We will get sick of a mounting death toll. What I see happening is that as fast as possible (which has been as slow as possible so far - a huge discredit to the Bush administration) is that Iraq governs itself (and defends itself), and our troops go to heavily defended camps that are not easily attacked. American deaths go down, and the government in place does what is necesary (with our economic and miltary support as far as weapons are concerned).

The terms “puppet government” and what not are going to fly around. But I for one think the Iraqi people in general would support this. Because they are solving thier own problem. I am not saying that they should take out whole communities and shoot them. I am saying they can take the kid gloves off a lot more than what we are able to do. As in it is not the right of every Iraqi household to have an AK47.

Does this stampede all over thier civil rights, yes. But what alternative do you suggest? This kind of thing is not new to that part of the world. Eventualy, (after control is gained) the hard line “we must win this war at any cost” will die down because the insurgency will die down.

You have to have stability before you can have democracy in this situation. That is just the way it is. Letting would be dictators run around preaching thier way of thinking does not work. We introduced democracy to a country that was not ready for it after world war 1, and we got Hitler. Wouldn’t it have been better if the German Republic stampeded all over the nazis “rights” and “took care of them” even if it meant some German civilians who were innocent got unjustly persecuted? (same can be said with the communist in Germany in the 20s).

Many don’t like the methods I advocate, I don’t like them myself. But I am a realist, this is the only thing that will work. What won’t work is our current policy of “just getting by”.

In reguards to Isreal, I have thought for the longest time there needs to be a “winner” in that war. Thier policy of an attack here, an offensive there… won’t work. Crush the Palastinians utterly, than pick up the pieces and make do with what you have.

You are wrong in the assumption that it will just create more terrorist, in that even if it does you destroy them. You have to make it a “no win” situation for them, than you can start building again for something better. Stability is key, without it than all the democracy in the world won’t change a thing.

Fight to win, or don’t fight at all. We lost Vietnam because we conducted it w/o that way of thinking. We are entangled in this mess now because of Bush. The left likes to think of him as some christian zealout that wants to stamp out Islam or something. I do not like his christian “ideals” because they do not pertain to the war he started. There is no “nice war”. There is war.

I wrote this last night, so it might be a little dated for the conversation. Will post more pertinently later.

I’ll start with the concept of naiveté. Colloquially, it’s thought of an inability to accept the dark side of human nature, that only a stark, distrustful view of the world is reality. While I accept that people can be very bad to each other or themselves, true naiveté stems from the thought that one conception of the world can answer all the questions. International relations is extraordinarily complex, with lots of room for competing forces. Why a harsh view should trump all others is not clear, particularly when forces like economic liberalization and globalization have an impact much greater than any military force. Likewise, cultural and religious factors have an equally powerful influence that is not encompassed by standard military or political analysis. Would anyone now contend that the roles of non-state actors, development, and cultural exchange are any less important in winning the hearts and minds of hostile populations than military force? Would anyone also downplay the influence of exposure to Western norms, cultural, and products in evincing the disparity between democracy and the socialist governments of Eastern Europe? Granted, each of these factors waxes and wanes in influence depending on the situation. But it is hardly possible to say that the only interest that states pursue is naked self-aggrandizement at the expense of others.

This can be justified along economic lines, for example. The modern neo-classical models of international economics are all predicated on Ricardian comparative advantage. All people/countries/societies gain through free trade and the cooperative legal, political, and social structures that that generates. Of course, this is not to say that contention is not also an inherent part of the international system. The burgeoning trade tensions between the US and China are a clear example of that. My point, however, is that both operate, and it takes a multivariate view of the world to obtain a clear picture of the forces at play. Now, I fully recognize that political and military factors can and often do override economic, cultural, social, etc. influences. But it is naïve and illogical to dismiss these other factors and think that the entire world, in all its complexity, can be boiled down to a single first principle.

To come back full circle to the original point of this thread, once we begin to talk of institutions and treaties guiding policy decisions, we also allow for normative influences on the international system. Indeed, it can be readily argued that institutions are simply the formalization of norms. Look for example at the WTO, World Bank, NATO, IMF, UN, Warsaw Pact, ASEAN, OSCE, EU (especially), and the Shanghai Cooperative Group. Each of these is based on a particular ideological conception of how things should be run in the world or region. And in that regard, the concern that might, however conceived, automatically makes right is a fundamentally weak view because it cannot explain or encompass other variables. If that were so, then the tragedy of the Somalis, Tibetans, Uighurs, Rwandans, Kosovars, Cambodians and on and on wouldn’t even register in people’s moral conscience. What’s more, if it didn’t matter, no one would even have intervened or condemned. But that’s not the case, and that’s not what happened. Moral sentiment can sometimes direct policy, and at other times not so directly influence action. But it cannot be dismissed as if it were never there.

Well, first, I need to challenge your assumption that people in the Middle East only respect violence, either because of the environment they live in, cultural factors, etc. As I’ve mentioned earlier, it’s not logically correct, historically accurate, or thoughtfully fair to lump all Palestinians or Arabs into one innately hostile group. I can explain further how each of the radical groups are different from each other, how they’re much different from moderate groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, or how majorities in Arab countries disdain violence if you’d like. In any event, I think you need to read more on the subject, and I mean that as respectfully as possible. I have been studying and working on the region for years, and it is still fascinatingly complex. You’re using logical leaps between disparate examples to try to justify your positions, which is fine, except that for that to be credible, it must be backed with a stronger grasp of the situation.

For example, yes, Saddam Hussein used force to maintain control. But, equally important he relied on clan and regional loyalties, as well as preserving the Sunni yeoman tradition instituted by the British (see Charles Tripp’s excellent history on Iraq for more). Force was undoubtedly a component, but how do you maintain loyalty in the military to a dictator? What incentives need to be given in a divide-and-rule society? These are more important questions, and examining them provides better insight on how Iraq under Saddam functioned rather than a simple “force ruled all” mentality.

I can also tell you that you are absolutely wrong in your prescription that a transition to democracy must require the complete destruction of a former regime. Germany, Japan – post-WWII these countries still had a strong tradition of self-government and respect for the rule of law, however altered that may have been during the war. And those were essential building blocks for creating stable societies, along with a host of other factors. Nation-building in Bangladesh, say, notably did not involve the widespread destruction of government bureaucracies, nor was this true of Egypt, Taiwan, Russia, and most other countries. In fact, complete destruction of the regime is often counteractive to promoting democracy. What fills the void of old institutions while new ones are being built? What happens when you disband the army, and they go and become insurgents because you took away a huge source of livelihood? Of course, certain institutions must go to allow for democracy. Opening up the political process, liberalizing economics, etc. are needed. The critical question is which ones to dismantle, which ones to gradually transform, and which ones to preserve.

Finally, you’re assuming that brutality equates to necessity (or success). This is not historically validated either. Brutality has never coincided with long-term aims towards democratization. Indeed, if a democratic country gives sanction to inhumane treatment, then in what way have the occupied’s lives been improved? What impetus do they have to push for democracy? Vietnam was not lost because the military didn’t have free rein. Vietnam was lost because the gradual brutality and indiscriminate attack of the French and then US military alienated the population, forcing them to choose between a foreign occupier who evidently didn’t care about protection of civilians (in certain cases) versus irregulars who advocated self-determination (albeit under communism). Not an easy choice, but one in which the US should have been able to win the hearts and minds, but failed.

As applied to Iraq and Israel, you can see the degenerative spiral of occupation, and why nation-building is simply so damn hard. The occupant must maintain public support, it must be shown to be competent, and if the normative aim is democracy, then it must do so through democratic means. Otherwise, you could just as easily end up with an Iran (remember, the Shah wasn’t democratic, and the CIA toppled the leading indigenous nationalist figure in 1953) as you could with a Japan. And who wants that on their border or as a threat?

Also, you use counterfactuals, which is a really iffy method. For example, when you talk about Germany suppressing Nazis prior to WWII, you assume that it could have been done, that if it had been done it would have avoided Nazi aggression, and that we are in a much worse state because it didn’t happen. All of this could be contended, and you couldn’t give any evidence to the contrary. Indeed, how could you? It’s all speculative.

Ultimately, you’re not a realist. That’s just a mantle you adopt to buttress your idea that people are bad. A true realist sees all the factors and understands how they come together. It is complexity that defines reality, not brutality, and genuine realism must encompass that. The lesser side of human nature is a part of this, but so too is the better aspect. And the paucity of your view leads you to say, in the case of Iraq and Israel, just destroy the societies and governments, then pick up the pieces or let them rebuild. But you forget that the Israelis must then live with whatever result occurs, and there is all the more reason that that result will be inimical to Israel. In Iraq, you forget that the government does not have the capacity to support the country now, partly because the US destroyed some pretty key institutions, partly because the Bush administration did not plan for the post-war situation, and partly because the push for democracy has released underlying, antagonistic social tensions which make Iraq an extremely fragmented state. You could take the Edward Luttwak approach and suggest that a withdrawal will force the various factions into working with each other. But that’s a big gamble, and not one I’d like to take on a region where my country imports a major portion of their oil. It’s not going to be a puppet government (the political problems in Iraq already attest to that fact). It will be chaos, and it almost is chaos because of the overemphasis on purely instrumental, and not existentially focused, military force.