dagblog - Comments for "Down with doctrines"

Flav, I believe you've gone

artappraiser — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 04:47:36 +0000

Flav, I believe you've gone viral:

Obama Has No Doctrine

"We can make a difference" isn't a strategy. But is that really so bad? After all, the U.S. is going broke.
By Michael HIrsh, The Atlantic, March 29

Flav, seems they just

artappraiser — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:04:44 +0000

In reply to Down with doctrines

Flav, seems they just published an article especially for you over at the NYT, I hope you have access:

News Analysis: Doctrine for Libya: Not Carved in Stone
By Thom Shanker and Helene Cooper, March 29

WASHINGTON — So, is there an Obama doctrine?
[....]
....“There is no Obama doctrine because the president is not doctrinaire,” said Robert S. Litwak, vice president for programs at the Woodrow Wilson Center...
[.....]

(Later interestingly the article quotes Gary Hart basically saying it's high time Obama get himself some doctrine like Truman and stop doing the ad hoc thingie. But it is just the typical NYT roundup of analysts on topic if you don't want to waste one of 20 articles per month, it's not that special. Just thought you shouldn't miss the Litwak quote. )

He may be this guy:

we are stardust — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:36:29 +0000

In reply to I've been around for a long,

He may be this guy:

I've been around for a long,

Desider — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:57:21 +0000

In reply to Who is this guy calling

I've been around for a long, long year, stole many a man's soul and fate.

Whether you call that a "Doctrine" is your bag. Personally I always got along better with Doc Parnassus.

Who is this guy calling

The Decider — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:20:46 +0000

In reply to Humor about MacArthur aside,

Who is this guy calling himself the "Desider" and who looks like professor Snape? If he's trying to play act me then he needs to know that he's not very funny (and he doesn't have some cool doctrines named after him like I do).

Ok If I actually have

Flavius — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:57:54 +0000

In reply to Okay,1) I'm more persuaded by

Ok If I actually have something to say I'll insert it.

1) I'm more persuaded by having civilians in protests than by having armed rebels. The CNN video from Benghazi is impressive.

2) I never assumed the "rebels are Al Qaeda" was accurate, though imagined it could be a small part of truth. The bigger truth is that these people are likely to be incompetent to run their own democratic and economically prosperous government,

I recall when Kissinger predicted that Bangladesh would be an international basket case when it split from Pakistan. Turns out that it's better off separated from Pakistan

so someone is going to have to lend a lot of help. Not to say it shouldn't be done - likely much more rewarding with greater chance of success than Afghanistan - but it's not going to be a cakewalk.

3) In practical terms, the money that was being skimmed off by Qaddafi might pay for some of the effort, but never underestimate the amount of corruption that can balloon during a revolution, even one moving to democracy (and that corruption can sidetrack the democracy as well)

4) I'm much more persuaded about focusing on the ceasefire

agree

than the fan club for sponsoring the armed rebels. That doesn't even mean I don't support backing the rebels, but my main interest is peaceful civilian uprisings that overthrow dictatorships and move countries to democratic and relatively free market sustainable states. It's a test of character. Anyone can picke up a gun. Only responsible people can articulate a path to successful self-governance.

5) Cole's "who cares about precedent" is unnerving. The whole reason Libyan uprising is possible is because of precedent.

You and Cole are emphasizing such different meanings of the word that you may not really disagreeing but just talking past each other.There is the meaning referring to the things Justice Roberts follows -except when he doesn't. And there is the meaning you discuss just below. So I see no reason why I can't agree with both of you.And I do

We give hope by having models that people can strive for to get to greater freedoms, to enlist positive support. Not every country will have a Mandela or Gandhi, but if the roadmarks from the UN are clear: "Engage in this kind of responsible behavior and we're likely to support you", we can actively encourage successful transformations of government, and discourage the Sierra Leone "everybody grab a gun" model. We need positive behavior and positive institutions to integrate Africa and Mideast into larger positive structures that encourage and assist both ethical and prosperous behavior..

6) Did I mention that I'm more impressed actually that there are few professional soldiers in this?As am I.

But I'm disturbed by the focus on military process, rather than what the path is to UN recognition of a new civilian government. As much time should be being spent identifying who's the class of leadership to take over and shepherd a fledgling democracy as how to arm rebels. That the EU politicians and military advisors don't know who the dissident leadership might be 1 1/2 months in is a major failure. Part of it is from a security vetting aspect - we DO need to know who we're supporting, and there are limits to which people can be palatable. Part is from timelines and practical steps - parallel to bombing, since we've already stepped into this, we need to be walking them towards self-governance and effective international alliance. Yes

7) To respond to ArtAppraiser, I understand that there are lots of arbitrary lines drawn in the desert, and spitting up an artificially formed nation state makes me no nevermind. *EXCEPT* that encouraging people to spin off breakway republics without having an international way of dealing with them, and helping ensure they can survive just invites civilian atrocity, more refugee situations, and suffering on a grand scale. Or it means we'll be babysitting for decades, like Bosnia and Kosovo

.I'll leave that to AA

8) Much care is needed with the media - their main job is to sell ads and attract audience, not necessarily to get the story right.

A mixed bag. Certainly you describe much of it. But life throws up exceptions. Sometime extrerme ones like a self seeking Boyo Oscar Schindler behaving heroically. AOBTW , as did his straight- laced deeply religious wife

It's advantageous of them to build up an exciting story even if it doesn't fit the facts. The press is a sucker for access. Just because there's a story assuring great success doesn't mean the reporter hasn't jumped the shark, caught up in wishful thinking from the spirit of the times, or just spinning thread to attract viewers.

Overall your position seems to hang together altho it sounds patronizing to put it that way.

by Desider 3/27/2011 - 4:30 pm

Turkey sure gained some area

we are stardust — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:35:41 +0000

In reply to Thanks, I'm glad I read that.

Turkey sure gained some area mojo with the relief convoy for Gaza; then got permission (as they told the story) to negotiate a deal with Iran to store something like half their nuclear material to Russia, I think it was. Then Washington reneged on the deal; loss of face for Turkey, and some amount of anger with the State department. I forget, but there were some more messes since then...nope; can't recall them. Maybe later, or others will remember.

If I had an extra fiver to bet, I'd think they won't take Turkey up on the offer since they seem to be re-taking lots of cities and towns, and now some key oil towns. But I'm rooting for Turkey, too. Apparently they are making plans for another flotilla to Gaza in May. Good.

Thanks, I'm glad I read that.

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 22:41:33 +0000

In reply to Turkey is calling (loudly)

Thanks, I'm glad I read that. I think I am cheering for Turkey right now. They might be swinging enough weight and might be the most legitimate NATO country to throw their opinion around and the one with the closest by far understanding of the situation and possibilities, and the one with the best and most honest motivations. There is electricity in the air and it is sizzling pretty loud in Turkey's back yard.

Turkey is calling (loudly)

we are stardust — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 22:10:32 +0000

In reply to Down with doctrines

Turkey is calling (loudly) for mediation between Gadaffi's government and the Transitional Natl. Council, and they want to mediate a cease-fire, says PM Erdogan. They fear a stalemate could lead to another Iraq or Afghanistan, and Erdogan says Turkey is about ready to take over the harbor and airport at Benghazi to aid humanitarian relief. This, as NATO reps are meeting in Brussels to arrange the takeover of the no-fly zone; maybe the no-drive zones, too.

He, of course, mentions oil.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/27/libya-turkey-mediators-prime-minister

Thanks.Certainly defensible

Flavius — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 21:21:24 +0000

In reply to Okay,1) I'm more persuaded by

Thanks.

Certainly defensible positions. I'm probably going to leave it there . To be honest I don't want to make the intellectual effort -not to be convincing, who cares- but to get to what I really think.

But thanks for your making that effort.