Saturday, April 07, 2007
My response to Why We Fight Over Foreign Policy, an article written by the Hoover Institute, Henry R. Nau
The link is here too: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/6848097.html
Regarding a fact selectivity viewpoint...
"We have to neglect some facts not because we are ignorant or ideological but precisely because we can know something only if we exclude something else."
This is non-sensical.
Let's take this statement at face value. It's like saying we can only understand American history if we take it from a rich white man's point of view. Or, we can only understand the theory of evolution if we focus on a few facts, and ignore others.
What determines our world view is not just a matter of choosing facts selectively, but the convergence of a multitude of information and data we encounter in our daily lives.
If I only read one history book regarding the Civil War, I would have an incomplete understanding of the war. The best thing is to get as much information about the war, and to look at it from varying viewpoints to get a better understanding of it.
Same thing with things like science. In particular, the theory of evolution is not valid because of one or two pieces of data, its valid because there are massive volumes of data from biology, physics, geology, and chemistry which validate the theory. To fully discredit something like evolution would require a massive amount of research, and verifiable and observable data to the contrary. No such animal exists at this point.
Similarly, the more one studies history and politics from other perspectives, the broader sense of the world and human behavior one gets. If I look at American history from a Cuban or Guatemalan perspective, I'll get a radically different perspective about the US than if I look at it from an American perspective alone.
Also, if I look at other aspects of human civilization, I'll get a broader sense of history and politics itself. If I consider things like economics, psychology, sociology, and anthropology in relation to history and poltics I'm going to have a broader and better understanding of the world stage.
Herein lies the bias of a liberal arts education. Its difficult for me, and most likely other liberal arts types, to see the world from a limited point of view. You can see the viewpoint, but you just can't understand how a limited perspective is justifiable in a complicated world.
So, ultimately what we have is not a matter of individuals being selective about facts, it boils down to differences of opinion. Opinions are subjective and not objective in nature. However, some opinions can be valid if they are backed up with solid reasoning and observable evidence.
Bias comes from having a perspective and an inability to see things from another point of view. It also come from trying to steer and control someone's point of view.
Let's take our friends at Fox News. Does anyone really think that Fox News is a "fair and balanced" network? OK, a minority do, but still the majority have figured out that Fox is a shill for a neo-conservative, autocratic, hardline-Christian, Republican , and big business interests.
My problem with the network is not that it's so skewed to such a viewpoint, but that they try to argue that they're objective. This devalues their message and argument capabilities. If you're going to have an argument, state your case. Be upfront and matter of fact about what you think and believe. Don't hide behind a veil of journalistic integrity, just come out and say, "Hey, we're right-wing shills. This is our take on the world."
That would be far more preferable.
In contrast, look at Air America radio. They don't pretend to be balanced. They're upfront about being progressive liberals. You know if you listen to them, you'll hear arguments from that perspective. Do they pick and choose how they talk about facts.Certainly. Do they claim to be the total answer to all things? No. They tell you to go out and do your homework and decide for yourself.
Consider the "mainstream media." They're overwhemingly controlled by multinational corporations. Are they bastions of radical and overt liberalism and anti-Americanism? No. They are money making ventures and show thier bias in what they cover and don't cover. They exist to make money. Consider the non-stop coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and you get the idea. "This just in, Anna is festering in her grave. More at Eleven."
Ask the question, "how does this have any value to my life," and you'll understand what gets shown and not shown in the mainstream media. If it bleeds, it leads. If it's got big tits and bleeds, you got ratings gold.
Bottom line in this argument, people take positions because they have helped them to understand the world, because they come from a certain cultural, ethnic, religious background. Those who transcend their environment and look at the big picture tend to have a broader and more accurate viewpoint. The people who do so, tend to be in the minorty.
Fact selectivity is based on biases learned from a person's individual point of origin.
Regarding North Korea...
"The freeze agreement prevented further production of plutonium and thus capped the amount of weapons-grade materials available to produce nuclear weapons. The termination of the agreement allowed North Korea to resume plutonium production and test a bomb in October 2005. Thus, from this point of view, the termination of the agreement was a mistake even though North Korea had begun a separate enrichment project because that program was still a long way from producing weapons-grade materials."
This very statement and the way it's written overlooks a very key aspect and fact. It ignores the fact that President Bush called out North Korea as a member of the Axis of Evil club. Combine this with the fact that the United States invaded Iraq without just or due cause.
The author shows his bias by neglecting that fact. He then makes the case that people simplify their world views.
No, we have a simplified world view because we (Americans) live in a culture that encourages a simple world view. We want the quick 15 second sound bite about world affairs so that we can get on with our lives. We have a culture that encourages impatience, ignorance, and looking at things from a simplistic perspective.
The author is trying to excuse bad behavior because people have a lazy perspective on the world.
Iraq War perspective
"For example, proponents of the Iraq War saw the incomplete facts about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction as evidence of what he was hiding. Opponents of the war saw the same facts as evidence of what he did not have."
The pro-war and anti-war mind sets weren't simply about a disagreement about whether Iraq had WMDs. The argument was about whether the United States had just cause to attack Iraq.
We got attacked on 9/11.
We all agree on that fact.
We know that the hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia. None of them were from Iraq.
The group responsible for 9/11 was a radical Islamic group called Al Qaeda.
The leader of Al Qaeda is a man named Osama Bin Laden.
Osama is from a very rich family in Saudi Arabia.
Al Qaeda was very chummy with the Taliban.
The Taliban was, and still is, a radical Islamic group that ruled Afghanistan.
The origins of the Taliban have to do with the origins of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and the lack of support for Afghanistan after the Soviets left. By our inaction in Afghanistan post-invasion, we let the Taliban come to power. We triggered and supported the Soviet invasion as part of the Cold War, and Cold War politics. (Zbignew Brzeznski was the mastermind behind triggering the Afghan-Soviet war. Zbiggy was Carter's man. Side note: Watch the intro to Rambo III, "Dedicated to the freedom fighters in Afghanistan.")
This radical version of Islam, called Wahabi, is taught and promoted in madrassas.
Madrassas are heavily funded schools that teach Wahabi Islam, and also promote an anti-Israel, anti-West world view, they're also financed by Saudi Arabia.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. Nobody would argue that the man was due any kind of Nobel prize.
Saddam hated Osama Bin Laden. Hated him. He also hated radical Islamic groups. There was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There was no connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. There was no connection between Iraq and the Taliban. Saddam would not have embraced radical Islamic elements because they would work to undermine his authority. Dictators tend to hate people who desire to overthrow them.
The anti-war movement and mindset was not based on arguing over a fact or two about Iraq. It was about the justification for war with Iraq.
There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. The Bush administration made the CIA and others in intelligence find any tiny crumb of data to verify the the notion that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. They were so hell bent on getting a war in Iraq they were willing to do anything to get it. They even commited an act of treason by outing CIA agent Valerie Plame.
9/11 gave the Bush administration all the political capital needed to justify a war in Iraq. Bush argued, and still argues, that it's central to the war on terror. He never bothers to explain why.
Herein brings us back to the subject of perspective.
Americans as a whole are terribly ignorant about the world outside of the United States. Most would have trouble pointing out France on a map, let alone where Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan are.
All we see on the news is a bunch of angry Arabs burning the US flag. This has been par for the course since we were kids back in the 70s. It's pretty easy to fan the flames for war with people who burn our flag. After all, don't they see we're good people?
(Is this the byproduct of the deep liberal bias of the mainstream media, or a media geeked about getting higher ratings to justify higher costs for commerical air time?)
What they see, and what we see are two different things.
They see a country that supports Israel and that supports brutal regimes. They see a nation that is hypocritical and will change alliances at the drop of a hat, especially if it supports Israel or nations that favor American oil companies or military interests.
Going back to the 80s, we can see that the Reagan and Bush administrations supported Iraq and Saddam Hussein. They've been avid supporters of Saudi Arabia. They've also been avid supporters of American military and oil interests, and of fighting the Soviet Union, and communism, at all costs.
In 1991, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Saddam became the poster child of evil. What changed? Iraq was our friend in the 80s, and by the 90s, Iraq and Saddam were public enemy number one.
What changed was that Saddam messed with America's crack habit. By invading Kuwait he was upsetting the balance of control of the flow of oil. This would not stand with the Big Oil companies in the US who really like knowing that the flow of oil is controlled. Controlled oil flow means controlled oil profits.
Keep the junky fixed, but don't mess with the dealers.
The US had enough international support to boot Saddam out of Kuwait, but not enough to support toppling Hussein.
This ticked off a small cabal of neo-conservative elites in the US. They created and formed the Project for a New American Century.
One of their goals was going into Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein and instituting a neo-conservative version of "democracy" in Iraq.
That was Bush and Cheney's goal from day one. Look at who was in the PNAC, and look at who's in the Bush administration. Hello, McFly?! The fix for Saddam was in once Bush took office. (Also note, the return of Nixon, Ford, Bush I, and Reagan cronies. Including John Negroponte, among others. You might remember him from such scandals as the Iran-Contra affair.)
Herein lies the question of sources of information. Where did I get my opinion? Am I crack-pot conspiracy theorist? Nope.
First, do a Google search on the Project for a New American Century. Second, dig into the history of the Cold War and look at why Iran is in the state it's in, and why Iraq and Saddam came to power. Back in 1953, the US engineered a coup and toppled the democratically elected president of Iran. (Mossadegh) -- Source: see Stephen Kinzler's "All the Shah's Men", and "Overthrow." Also, read Sheldon and Rampton's books "Weapons of Mass Deception," "The Best War Ever," and "Trust Us, We're Experts." I highly recommend the latter.
After reading these I asked myself the Woodward/Bernstein questions of who profits from such action. Follow the money.
Saddam was planning on taking Iraq out of OPEC and using petroeuros instead of petrodollars.
Again, don't mess with the dealer, just the junky.
Perhaps my viewpoint is cynical in nature, but I base it on human behavior. People in positions of power are ambitious people. They may have good intentions, but ultimately they are self serving. People help their friends. If you're friends with rich oil barons and despotic sheiks, you'll work to help them out.
What's to be gained from the Iraq war? Plenty. The US will have a military base larger than the Vatican sitting in the Green Zone in Iraq. This will give the US direct military control over Iraq and access to Iraq's oil supplies. By having military control in the region, this gives the US the leverage it needs to wage economic war against anyone who opposes us.
It benefits Big Oil, it benefits military contractors, and it keeps American citizens on edge which justifies an out of control defense budget. It also gives more power to the government and allows for greater intervention in the lives of individuals in the US.
Also take into account that world oil production has hit peak production. From here on out, oil's going to get more expensive. The US wants to make sure it's in the best strategic position possible to guarantee a steady flow of oil.
Off on a tangent...
Frightened people don't think rationally. It's easier to control a frightened populace.
By not hunting down Bin Laden and working on making a democratic Afghanistan and Iraq, the US will continue to have a new boogie men to frighten the American people with; namely terrorists. We should be trembling in fear over terrorists the same way we quaked in our boots over communists. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Guess the Baby Boomers were too stoned to listen to their own lyrics. It would definitely explain how Bush got into office.
I'll admit I have a neo-Jeffersonian bias. I have a bit of that radical spirit of anti-government in me from studying the American Revolution and the 60s. I'm not so jaded or cynical that I don't believe in our system of government however. To paraphrase Mark Twain, "loyalty to country always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
I'm not a libertarian either. I do believe that government can be an effective means of making our lives better and easier. Government, in my opinion, is like a tool. Anyone can use the tool, but only those who understand its use can do so effectively. Giving a person who hates tools access to using them, is counter productive.
We got the leaders we deserve because we let others dictate opinions for us while we remain busy with our personal lives. Americans hate politics, and get really angry when they have to stop and pay attention to it. It's not that Americans don't do nuance, it's that they just don't want to be bothered with the affairs of governance. This ultimately lets corruption sink in, and this creates a jaded and cynical public opinion.
An active and informed public is necessary to keep the government honest. We can't let fear of anything let the government take away our rights and freedoms. We've sat back and traded our democracy for a comfy chair and a surround sound home theater system. We're more than happy to send some poor family's kid to die in a foreign country to keep our oil cheap, but don't let anything take away our comfort.
Lastly, regarding facts...
I've been reading a lot about evolution, global warming, and skepticism. What makes something truly believable is not one fact, or one reliable source, but a convergence of sources confirming something to be true. (See, Michael Schermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time")
I have found a common theme in so-called debunkers of global warming and evolution.
Here's what they do. They look for the troublesome minute details in some theory. Once they find some they use this to claim that a theory is invalid. At best, they muddy the waters and this stirs up controversy, and this results in non-action.
Anti-evolutionists claim that there are gaps in the fossil records. Sure, but there are also complete fossil records showing how one species transformed from one to another. Regardless, this kind of thing is a tit-for-tat kind of argument. It focuses on a small detail rather than the big picture at large.
Which is more plausible: a super powerful supernatural entity creates the universe in an unknowable fashion and makes everything in a six days, or that life was the result of natural forces that happened over billions of years?
Consider first a court case. Would you want someone to go to jail and be punished if that person's guilt was determined by faith or by evidence? Would you want that person to have a trial by a secret group in closed rooms, or out in the open and judged by a jury of peers? Should this person have the right to question his accuser or should he go to jail based on the hearsay of an anonymous individual?
This doesn't require a degree in quantum physics to answer. You want evidence. You want an open trial. Especially if you're the one on trial.
That's how science works. That's also how skepticism works. You don't just take somebody's word for granted, you do your homework and consider as many angles as possible about a complex subject. (See, "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design," also by Michael Schermer)
Regarding evolution, the facts show that living things, including humans, changed over time in a natural process.
Why bring up evolution? It points out how people view facts. What matters most to people is not a collection of facts, but whether facts support a persons world view and/or opinion. Inconvenient facts are ignored.
Herein is how I break down something like global warming or evolution. I then consider the sources of the information.
I also ask who benefits from this knowledge, then ask who get harmed by this knowledge.
If global warming is the greates hoax ever inflicted on mankind, as Senator Inhofe (R. Oklahoma) claims, who benefits? Who gets harmed if Americans have to conserve energy, become more mindful of the environment, and think about how pollution effects the world around them?
Why would someone want to inflict such a hoax? Why would the majority of the world's top climatologists and top scientists claim that humans are overwhelmingly responsible for global warming? Are they in league with polar bears to undermine humanity? Is it a communist/socialist plot to destroy capitalism?
Consider conspiracy theories for a moment. Most of them fall apart when they have no evidence to support their claims. What counter evidence has been produced to dispute global warming or evolution? What evidence has been put forth supporting such claims? Looking at the evidence, one finds an overwhelming amount of data supporting global warming is real, and that evolution is a fact.
People buy into conspiracy theories when the sources of information are questionable. As a rule, Americans hold the government in contempt. Also, when official sources tend to omit information, or overlook information, it doesn't help them remain reliable sources of information.
Herein lies the basis of my counter argument for the Hoover article. People don't just ignore facts because they can't consider all the facts. They do so because they have a world view and want it justified. If you have a radical view point, it's best to limit yourself to facts that only support your case. Then you denounce anyone who questions you as unpatriotic, a radical, ungodly, or some other defamatory expression.
The ultimate flaw in Nau's argument is that by limiting oneself to convenient facts, one can get a clearer and more accurate picture of the world. This is the key flaw in conservatism as a political philosophy. Dogmatic adherence to policy, regardless of evidence will bring about political damnation. (Liberals fall into this trap only if they remain dogmatic and rigid about an issue as well. Nobody escapes the trap of rigid thinking.)
Bottom line, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, but nobody is entitled to his/her own facts. Ignore and neglect annoying facts at your own peril. The Hoover Institute is merely trying to justify their pro-war, pro-conservative agenda. The author leads a weighted argument, which does nothing to promote a better comprehension of the world, or situation in Iraq, or the Bush administration's policies.
I will give the author credit, at least he attempts to make his case without resorting to name calling or belittling anyone who disagrees with his opinion. For that, we just have to watch the gang at Fox News.
The link is here too: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/6848097.html
Regarding a fact selectivity viewpoint...
"We have to neglect some facts not because we are ignorant or ideological but precisely because we can know something only if we exclude something else."
This is non-sensical.
Let's take this statement at face value. It's like saying we can only understand American history if we take it from a rich white man's point of view. Or, we can only understand the theory of evolution if we focus on a few facts, and ignore others.
What determines our world view is not just a matter of choosing facts selectively, but the convergence of a multitude of information and data we encounter in our daily lives.
If I only read one history book regarding the Civil War, I would have an incomplete understanding of the war. The best thing is to get as much information about the war, and to look at it from varying viewpoints to get a better understanding of it.
Same thing with things like science. In particular, the theory of evolution is not valid because of one or two pieces of data, its valid because there are massive volumes of data from biology, physics, geology, and chemistry which validate the theory. To fully discredit something like evolution would require a massive amount of research, and verifiable and observable data to the contrary. No such animal exists at this point.
Similarly, the more one studies history and politics from other perspectives, the broader sense of the world and human behavior one gets. If I look at American history from a Cuban or Guatemalan perspective, I'll get a radically different perspective about the US than if I look at it from an American perspective alone.
Also, if I look at other aspects of human civilization, I'll get a broader sense of history and politics itself. If I consider things like economics, psychology, sociology, and anthropology in relation to history and poltics I'm going to have a broader and better understanding of the world stage.
Herein lies the bias of a liberal arts education. Its difficult for me, and most likely other liberal arts types, to see the world from a limited point of view. You can see the viewpoint, but you just can't understand how a limited perspective is justifiable in a complicated world.
So, ultimately what we have is not a matter of individuals being selective about facts, it boils down to differences of opinion. Opinions are subjective and not objective in nature. However, some opinions can be valid if they are backed up with solid reasoning and observable evidence.
Bias comes from having a perspective and an inability to see things from another point of view. It also come from trying to steer and control someone's point of view.
Let's take our friends at Fox News. Does anyone really think that Fox News is a "fair and balanced" network? OK, a minority do, but still the majority have figured out that Fox is a shill for a neo-conservative, autocratic, hardline-Christian, Republican , and big business interests.
My problem with the network is not that it's so skewed to such a viewpoint, but that they try to argue that they're objective. This devalues their message and argument capabilities. If you're going to have an argument, state your case. Be upfront and matter of fact about what you think and believe. Don't hide behind a veil of journalistic integrity, just come out and say, "Hey, we're right-wing shills. This is our take on the world."
That would be far more preferable.
In contrast, look at Air America radio. They don't pretend to be balanced. They're upfront about being progressive liberals. You know if you listen to them, you'll hear arguments from that perspective. Do they pick and choose how they talk about facts.Certainly. Do they claim to be the total answer to all things? No. They tell you to go out and do your homework and decide for yourself.
Consider the "mainstream media." They're overwhemingly controlled by multinational corporations. Are they bastions of radical and overt liberalism and anti-Americanism? No. They are money making ventures and show thier bias in what they cover and don't cover. They exist to make money. Consider the non-stop coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and you get the idea. "This just in, Anna is festering in her grave. More at Eleven."
Ask the question, "how does this have any value to my life," and you'll understand what gets shown and not shown in the mainstream media. If it bleeds, it leads. If it's got big tits and bleeds, you got ratings gold.
Bottom line in this argument, people take positions because they have helped them to understand the world, because they come from a certain cultural, ethnic, religious background. Those who transcend their environment and look at the big picture tend to have a broader and more accurate viewpoint. The people who do so, tend to be in the minorty.
Fact selectivity is based on biases learned from a person's individual point of origin.
Regarding North Korea...
"The freeze agreement prevented further production of plutonium and thus capped the amount of weapons-grade materials available to produce nuclear weapons. The termination of the agreement allowed North Korea to resume plutonium production and test a bomb in October 2005. Thus, from this point of view, the termination of the agreement was a mistake even though North Korea had begun a separate enrichment project because that program was still a long way from producing weapons-grade materials."
This very statement and the way it's written overlooks a very key aspect and fact. It ignores the fact that President Bush called out North Korea as a member of the Axis of Evil club. Combine this with the fact that the United States invaded Iraq without just or due cause.
The author shows his bias by neglecting that fact. He then makes the case that people simplify their world views.
No, we have a simplified world view because we (Americans) live in a culture that encourages a simple world view. We want the quick 15 second sound bite about world affairs so that we can get on with our lives. We have a culture that encourages impatience, ignorance, and looking at things from a simplistic perspective.
The author is trying to excuse bad behavior because people have a lazy perspective on the world.
Iraq War perspective
"For example, proponents of the Iraq War saw the incomplete facts about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction as evidence of what he was hiding. Opponents of the war saw the same facts as evidence of what he did not have."
The pro-war and anti-war mind sets weren't simply about a disagreement about whether Iraq had WMDs. The argument was about whether the United States had just cause to attack Iraq.
We got attacked on 9/11.
We all agree on that fact.
We know that the hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia. None of them were from Iraq.
The group responsible for 9/11 was a radical Islamic group called Al Qaeda.
The leader of Al Qaeda is a man named Osama Bin Laden.
Osama is from a very rich family in Saudi Arabia.
Al Qaeda was very chummy with the Taliban.
The Taliban was, and still is, a radical Islamic group that ruled Afghanistan.
The origins of the Taliban have to do with the origins of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and the lack of support for Afghanistan after the Soviets left. By our inaction in Afghanistan post-invasion, we let the Taliban come to power. We triggered and supported the Soviet invasion as part of the Cold War, and Cold War politics. (Zbignew Brzeznski was the mastermind behind triggering the Afghan-Soviet war. Zbiggy was Carter's man. Side note: Watch the intro to Rambo III, "Dedicated to the freedom fighters in Afghanistan.")
This radical version of Islam, called Wahabi, is taught and promoted in madrassas.
Madrassas are heavily funded schools that teach Wahabi Islam, and also promote an anti-Israel, anti-West world view, they're also financed by Saudi Arabia.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. Nobody would argue that the man was due any kind of Nobel prize.
Saddam hated Osama Bin Laden. Hated him. He also hated radical Islamic groups. There was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There was no connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. There was no connection between Iraq and the Taliban. Saddam would not have embraced radical Islamic elements because they would work to undermine his authority. Dictators tend to hate people who desire to overthrow them.
The anti-war movement and mindset was not based on arguing over a fact or two about Iraq. It was about the justification for war with Iraq.
There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. The Bush administration made the CIA and others in intelligence find any tiny crumb of data to verify the the notion that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. They were so hell bent on getting a war in Iraq they were willing to do anything to get it. They even commited an act of treason by outing CIA agent Valerie Plame.
9/11 gave the Bush administration all the political capital needed to justify a war in Iraq. Bush argued, and still argues, that it's central to the war on terror. He never bothers to explain why.
Herein brings us back to the subject of perspective.
Americans as a whole are terribly ignorant about the world outside of the United States. Most would have trouble pointing out France on a map, let alone where Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan are.
All we see on the news is a bunch of angry Arabs burning the US flag. This has been par for the course since we were kids back in the 70s. It's pretty easy to fan the flames for war with people who burn our flag. After all, don't they see we're good people?
(Is this the byproduct of the deep liberal bias of the mainstream media, or a media geeked about getting higher ratings to justify higher costs for commerical air time?)
What they see, and what we see are two different things.
They see a country that supports Israel and that supports brutal regimes. They see a nation that is hypocritical and will change alliances at the drop of a hat, especially if it supports Israel or nations that favor American oil companies or military interests.
Going back to the 80s, we can see that the Reagan and Bush administrations supported Iraq and Saddam Hussein. They've been avid supporters of Saudi Arabia. They've also been avid supporters of American military and oil interests, and of fighting the Soviet Union, and communism, at all costs.
In 1991, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Saddam became the poster child of evil. What changed? Iraq was our friend in the 80s, and by the 90s, Iraq and Saddam were public enemy number one.
What changed was that Saddam messed with America's crack habit. By invading Kuwait he was upsetting the balance of control of the flow of oil. This would not stand with the Big Oil companies in the US who really like knowing that the flow of oil is controlled. Controlled oil flow means controlled oil profits.
Keep the junky fixed, but don't mess with the dealers.
The US had enough international support to boot Saddam out of Kuwait, but not enough to support toppling Hussein.
This ticked off a small cabal of neo-conservative elites in the US. They created and formed the Project for a New American Century.
One of their goals was going into Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein and instituting a neo-conservative version of "democracy" in Iraq.
That was Bush and Cheney's goal from day one. Look at who was in the PNAC, and look at who's in the Bush administration. Hello, McFly?! The fix for Saddam was in once Bush took office. (Also note, the return of Nixon, Ford, Bush I, and Reagan cronies. Including John Negroponte, among others. You might remember him from such scandals as the Iran-Contra affair.)
Herein lies the question of sources of information. Where did I get my opinion? Am I crack-pot conspiracy theorist? Nope.
First, do a Google search on the Project for a New American Century. Second, dig into the history of the Cold War and look at why Iran is in the state it's in, and why Iraq and Saddam came to power. Back in 1953, the US engineered a coup and toppled the democratically elected president of Iran. (Mossadegh) -- Source: see Stephen Kinzler's "All the Shah's Men", and "Overthrow." Also, read Sheldon and Rampton's books "Weapons of Mass Deception," "The Best War Ever," and "Trust Us, We're Experts." I highly recommend the latter.
After reading these I asked myself the Woodward/Bernstein questions of who profits from such action. Follow the money.
Saddam was planning on taking Iraq out of OPEC and using petroeuros instead of petrodollars.
Again, don't mess with the dealer, just the junky.
Perhaps my viewpoint is cynical in nature, but I base it on human behavior. People in positions of power are ambitious people. They may have good intentions, but ultimately they are self serving. People help their friends. If you're friends with rich oil barons and despotic sheiks, you'll work to help them out.
What's to be gained from the Iraq war? Plenty. The US will have a military base larger than the Vatican sitting in the Green Zone in Iraq. This will give the US direct military control over Iraq and access to Iraq's oil supplies. By having military control in the region, this gives the US the leverage it needs to wage economic war against anyone who opposes us.
It benefits Big Oil, it benefits military contractors, and it keeps American citizens on edge which justifies an out of control defense budget. It also gives more power to the government and allows for greater intervention in the lives of individuals in the US.
Also take into account that world oil production has hit peak production. From here on out, oil's going to get more expensive. The US wants to make sure it's in the best strategic position possible to guarantee a steady flow of oil.
Off on a tangent...
Frightened people don't think rationally. It's easier to control a frightened populace.
By not hunting down Bin Laden and working on making a democratic Afghanistan and Iraq, the US will continue to have a new boogie men to frighten the American people with; namely terrorists. We should be trembling in fear over terrorists the same way we quaked in our boots over communists. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Guess the Baby Boomers were too stoned to listen to their own lyrics. It would definitely explain how Bush got into office.
I'll admit I have a neo-Jeffersonian bias. I have a bit of that radical spirit of anti-government in me from studying the American Revolution and the 60s. I'm not so jaded or cynical that I don't believe in our system of government however. To paraphrase Mark Twain, "loyalty to country always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
I'm not a libertarian either. I do believe that government can be an effective means of making our lives better and easier. Government, in my opinion, is like a tool. Anyone can use the tool, but only those who understand its use can do so effectively. Giving a person who hates tools access to using them, is counter productive.
We got the leaders we deserve because we let others dictate opinions for us while we remain busy with our personal lives. Americans hate politics, and get really angry when they have to stop and pay attention to it. It's not that Americans don't do nuance, it's that they just don't want to be bothered with the affairs of governance. This ultimately lets corruption sink in, and this creates a jaded and cynical public opinion.
An active and informed public is necessary to keep the government honest. We can't let fear of anything let the government take away our rights and freedoms. We've sat back and traded our democracy for a comfy chair and a surround sound home theater system. We're more than happy to send some poor family's kid to die in a foreign country to keep our oil cheap, but don't let anything take away our comfort.
Lastly, regarding facts...
I've been reading a lot about evolution, global warming, and skepticism. What makes something truly believable is not one fact, or one reliable source, but a convergence of sources confirming something to be true. (See, Michael Schermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time")
I have found a common theme in so-called debunkers of global warming and evolution.
Here's what they do. They look for the troublesome minute details in some theory. Once they find some they use this to claim that a theory is invalid. At best, they muddy the waters and this stirs up controversy, and this results in non-action.
Anti-evolutionists claim that there are gaps in the fossil records. Sure, but there are also complete fossil records showing how one species transformed from one to another. Regardless, this kind of thing is a tit-for-tat kind of argument. It focuses on a small detail rather than the big picture at large.
Which is more plausible: a super powerful supernatural entity creates the universe in an unknowable fashion and makes everything in a six days, or that life was the result of natural forces that happened over billions of years?
Consider first a court case. Would you want someone to go to jail and be punished if that person's guilt was determined by faith or by evidence? Would you want that person to have a trial by a secret group in closed rooms, or out in the open and judged by a jury of peers? Should this person have the right to question his accuser or should he go to jail based on the hearsay of an anonymous individual?
This doesn't require a degree in quantum physics to answer. You want evidence. You want an open trial. Especially if you're the one on trial.
That's how science works. That's also how skepticism works. You don't just take somebody's word for granted, you do your homework and consider as many angles as possible about a complex subject. (See, "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design," also by Michael Schermer)
Regarding evolution, the facts show that living things, including humans, changed over time in a natural process.
Why bring up evolution? It points out how people view facts. What matters most to people is not a collection of facts, but whether facts support a persons world view and/or opinion. Inconvenient facts are ignored.
Herein is how I break down something like global warming or evolution. I then consider the sources of the information.
I also ask who benefits from this knowledge, then ask who get harmed by this knowledge.
If global warming is the greates hoax ever inflicted on mankind, as Senator Inhofe (R. Oklahoma) claims, who benefits? Who gets harmed if Americans have to conserve energy, become more mindful of the environment, and think about how pollution effects the world around them?
Why would someone want to inflict such a hoax? Why would the majority of the world's top climatologists and top scientists claim that humans are overwhelmingly responsible for global warming? Are they in league with polar bears to undermine humanity? Is it a communist/socialist plot to destroy capitalism?
Consider conspiracy theories for a moment. Most of them fall apart when they have no evidence to support their claims. What counter evidence has been produced to dispute global warming or evolution? What evidence has been put forth supporting such claims? Looking at the evidence, one finds an overwhelming amount of data supporting global warming is real, and that evolution is a fact.
People buy into conspiracy theories when the sources of information are questionable. As a rule, Americans hold the government in contempt. Also, when official sources tend to omit information, or overlook information, it doesn't help them remain reliable sources of information.
Herein lies the basis of my counter argument for the Hoover article. People don't just ignore facts because they can't consider all the facts. They do so because they have a world view and want it justified. If you have a radical view point, it's best to limit yourself to facts that only support your case. Then you denounce anyone who questions you as unpatriotic, a radical, ungodly, or some other defamatory expression.
The ultimate flaw in Nau's argument is that by limiting oneself to convenient facts, one can get a clearer and more accurate picture of the world. This is the key flaw in conservatism as a political philosophy. Dogmatic adherence to policy, regardless of evidence will bring about political damnation. (Liberals fall into this trap only if they remain dogmatic and rigid about an issue as well. Nobody escapes the trap of rigid thinking.)
Bottom line, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, but nobody is entitled to his/her own facts. Ignore and neglect annoying facts at your own peril. The Hoover Institute is merely trying to justify their pro-war, pro-conservative agenda. The author leads a weighted argument, which does nothing to promote a better comprehension of the world, or situation in Iraq, or the Bush administration's policies.
I will give the author credit, at least he attempts to make his case without resorting to name calling or belittling anyone who disagrees with his opinion. For that, we just have to watch the gang at Fox News.
