Sir,
If you hold Cardinal Newman to be but a caterer to effete gentlemen, what can be said of a man attired such as this one?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/17/arts/17CONS.final.html?ex=1247803200&en=828102e3a05108e4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

Good Lord!

The “interventionist class” that created the Iraq war is the Zionists and their political lackeys. The intended beneficiary is Israel, not the USA. The idealistic verbiage they spout is merely camouflage to hide this lapidary fact.

Great post. Interventionists, especially the spear carrying foot soldiers who parrot the opinions of the elites, have a completely pathological need for an enemy. If we don’t intervening then we are ALL GOING TO DIE. Once one enemy is gone, another will surely emerge. (Russia, China, etc.) And what I have observed is not so much conspicuous consumption as in we do because we can, but more we do because we must. If America the virtuous isn’t intervening then the world will stop spinning and evil will reign.

Fresh off the battle to deny neocon Alan Keyes the nomination of the Constitution Party, I am very familiar these days with the arguments of the interventionist grunts.

“Finally, the costs of aggressive war have become too high and the benefits (if any) too insignificant to justify. Occupying powers (even, on many occasions, the United States) tend to just get tired and leave, as the French left Algeria and the Israelis left Lebanon.”

When measured against the cost of American blood in former wars, I find this statement to be highly inaccurate.  The costs of aggressive wars have not become too high, instead, our willingness to endure bloodshed has decreased as has our willingness to wield the brutality necessary to wage wars of conquest.  Lets be fair to Israel, had they not been bound by morality or their need to perpetuate American popular support, they would have crushed their enemies in Lebanon into complete submission. A similar argument could be made of the way we are fighting our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are inhibited by our morality.  Whether or not we should be fighting these wars in another thing entirely, but because of the 24 hour media and its constant barrage of destruction and body counts, we are unwilling to wage the brutal warfare necessary to win wars.

A similar argument could be made of the way we are fighting our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are inhibited by our morality.

Was the Soviet Union?  They couldn’t passify Afghanistan either.  You be too aggressive and you’re an international pariah.  I suppose you could hypothetically kill every last citizen, but I don’t think we should pat ourselves on the back just because we don’t do that.

Was the Soviet Union?  They couldn’t passify Afghanistan either.  You be too aggressive and you’re an international pariah.  I suppose you could hypothetically kill every last citizen, but I don’t think we should pat ourselves on the back just because we don’t do that.

First of all, don’t make the mistake of giving too much credit to the Mujhadeen for driving out the Soviet Union. Internal economic issues within the Soviet nation and American CIA support in the form of intelligence, RPGs and training were the reason the Soviets withdrew.  I guess you could make the argument that Iran is now fulfilling this “necessary” role for the Iraqi insurgents, but their degree of support pales in comparison to the support given by Washington to the Mujhadeen forces.

Next, don’t mistake the Soviet military capacity with that of the United States. The US could inflict much more brutality to win these wars without having to kill every last civilian as you suggested. Would it be bloody, merciless and ugly? Yes. But would it work. Yes.

Mike Gavin are you just making a point, or are you advocating something?

Red,
You mean am I advocating the use of brutality in Iraq and Afghanistan? Maybe, maybe not. My true concern is that we are losing our will to preserve and advance our self-interest through the use of violence. What I am therefore advocating is a realignment of our priorities. We must begin to look at things from the perspective of what is good for the US is good for the world instead of what is good for the world is good for the US. We have lost belief in our superior value and quality and have subsequently lost our will to win wars.  Iraq and Afghanistan are two excellent examples of our deteriorating will to win wars. Perhaps we should not even be in these places as many paleoconservatives seem to argue. But I ask you this, if we cannot win in Iraq and Afghanistan against desert rabble, where can we win?

Kevin,
I suppose it can be said that such a man does not fit Newman’s definition of a gentleman as one who seeks never to inflict pain.

Austin,
Great retort! Though Newman would no doubt have found a boater the perfect complement to the retro-blazer. And Michael Gavin is making your point for you.

Are my eyes deceiving me? Did Takimag dare to criticize John Henry Newman, the fellow who helped destroy the Church of England and Roman Catholicism—and England itself?

“We have lost belief in our superior value and quality and have subsequently lost our will to win wars.”

Mike, I think you my be on the wrong forum. Paleos generally reject that sort of American exceptionalism. We should not act out of some hubristic belief in our superiority. We should simply act in our own self interests.

@Peter Ramus,
“Did Takimag dare to criticize John Henry Newman, the fellow who helped destroy the Church of England and Roman Catholicism—and England itself?”

You really should try a little hyperbole so as to garner more attention for your thoughtful, well-reasoned posts. Really, try it.

Red,

“I think you my be on the wrong forum. Paleos generally reject that sort of American exceptionalism. We should not act out of some hubristic belief in our superiority. We should simply act in our own self interests.”

It seems to me that the two are not unrelated. A people who believes in their superiority will be far more willing to act in their own self-interest than a people who do not. It is when we subscribe to the equalitarian politics of the Left that we find ourselves embracing universalism and the subsequent devaluing of American self-interest. I wish it were true that we could simply act in our own self-interest without any further moral justification than the desire to survive and prosper, but the reality we face in trying to convince Americans to look out for their own is that most Americans are good people who feel empathy for all mankind and they thus need a stronger moral justification to act in their self-interest when that self-interest conflicts with the interests of others. Unfortunately, not even Darwinian arguments that everyone is better off when everyone is competing does the trick. No, it will only be through the recognition that mankind is better off when Western Man is on top that we will truly be able to do what is necessary to preserve and advance our self-interest. To say that we should simply act in our own self-interest is not enough because this fails to address the important question of how to get Americans to want to do this. Many Americans think they want to do this, but have been socially engineered to believe that self-interest is served through advancing the interests of others. It is therefore the duty of those like you and me to alter this false conclusion in the minds of Americans.

I wish it were true that we could simply act in our own self-interest without any further moral justification than the desire to survive and prosper, but the reality we face in trying to convince Americans to look out for their own is that most Americans are good people who feel empathy for all mankind and they thus need a stronger moral justification to act in their self-interest when that self-interest conflicts with the interests of others.

I think that’s true for the elites, rather than most Americans.  The average American cares more about the roads in their town being clean than then worst killing in Sub-Sahara Africa.

The good Mr. Gavin is upset because “we” no longer will fight to advance our national interest.  Perhaps he could enlighten us as to how one might determine what a national interest is, and how it might be determined?  My personal interests boil down to the spiritual, where I seek to gain eternal salvation, and the temporal where I seek to live in modest comfort enjoying the companionship of family and friends.  Combat, of which I have some familiarity, is nowhere to be found in my personal interest.  Now, if my personal interest comes under attack, a quick calculation based on just war theory may get me to once again grab some firearms, and strap on a cartridge belt or two, and head into the fray, but this will not likely result in my crossing so much as a county line to defend my interests, much less an ocean.  It seems to me that those imperialists of Mr. Gavin’s stripe deal with things in the abstract, which is a sad heritage from the Endarkenment, and may well lead to the destruction of his own personal interests if they are at all congruent with mine.

“I think that’s true for the elites, rather than most Americans.  The average American cares more about the roads in their town being clean than then worst killing in Sub-Sahara Africa.”

I hope your right, Samuel. But the longer this elite class of big government loving equalitarians remains in power, the longer they control our education, media, publishing houses and nearly all other forms of information, the more likely they will succeed in resocializing the people of this nation to share their transnational loyalties.

Mr. Berg,

You said, “Now, if my personal interest comes under attack, a quick calculation based on just war theory may get me to once again grab some firearms, and strap on a cartridge belt or two, and head into the fray, but this will not likely result in my crossing so much as a county line to defend my interests, much less an ocean.  It seems to me that those imperialists of Mr. Gavin’s stripe deal with things in the abstract, which is a sad heritage from the Endarkenment, and may well lead to the destruction of his own personal interests if they are at all congruent with mine.”

Did you really just accuse me of dealing with things in the abstract and then in the same paragraph appeal to just war theory? That is too funny. The only just war theory is that which advances American national interest.

Mr. Berg, you also asked me to define national interest, something that cannot be done without sending this discussion spiraling into a million tangent discussions. However, since this thread was originally about the conduct of foreign policy, I would argue that for the purposes of this discussion, national interest is synonymous with strategic interest. We must protect our access to vital resources abroad, namely, oil. Yes, I admit it. If it were not for oil, I would advise us to treat the Middle East as we do Africa—ignore it entirely. Unfortunately, we are a country very much dependant upon oil and the price of oil is globally determined, so it is very much within our national interest to perpetuate regional stability in the Gulf States and prevent the rise of a regional hegemony that might gain monopolistic control of the Gulf oil reserves.

Does it make me an imperialist to recognize that defending national interest requires the defense of our borders, and yes, it does sometimes require action abroad?  Again, I have not advocated which wars we must fight nor do I agree with the neocon driven foreign policy to democratize the Middle East. But I am not naïve enough to believe that we can sit safely in our little localized bubbles and let the world take care of itself.  American national security requires large military forces capable and willing to advance our interests abroad with violence and the threat of violence. You isolationists need to understand that the world has been transformed significantly since the time our forefathers advised us to avoid entanglements with foreign affairs. Great oceans are no longer enough to keep us safe in an age of missiles, terrorists, airplanes and submarines. Nor can we rely on the British Empire to do the dirty work of Western Civilization. Does all this mean we must adhere to the interventionist policy of the neocons? No, the September 11th hijackers did not attack our homeland because they lacked democracy, but they did attack us because they did not fear us. Why? Because the restraint and apathy displayed by the United States in past contingencies with Islamic enemies has greatly reduced the credibility of the American military threat.

“so it is very much within our national interest to perpetuate regional stability in the Gulf States”

Yeah, we are really doing a bang up job of that. Do Switzerland or Sweden need to do the same also? Why are there no Swiss troops in the Middle East.

I happen to enjoy Swedish rifles, Italian motorcycles, and French and Italian wines.  I can do so without the need to express a national interest in conquering these fine countries.  Why is conquering countries for their oil in a national interest?  To the best of my knowledge, it is considered to be impossible to aggregate individual demand functions, yet that is what compiling a national interest would seem to require.  Theodore Roosevelt, whatever his faults at least would lead the charge.  He also advised that it is wisest to “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Swaggering around speaking loudly is bound to get one into trouble whether in the Middle East or a tough biker bar.  Just war theory counsels prudence and a calculus of the possibility of winning.  By reasonable standards, the U.S. has already won in Ira

My non-Mac system is acting strangely since I upgraded my anti-virus software.

We have already won in Iraq according to reasonable standards of military victory.  Their leader, our ex-puppet is dead.  Their state armed forces are destroyed.  We installed a puppet government, though it is hard to see whether it is effectively under American or Iranian control.  So why are our forces still tied up there in a nasty Fourth Generation conflict?  So, what is our national interest?

Red,

“Yeah, we are really doing a bang up job of that. Do Switzerland or Sweden need to do the same also? Why are there no Swiss troops in the Middle East.”

Criticism of the means does not make the end any less important. Yes, we are doing a poor job in the Middle East under the neo-con administration, but that does not change the strategic paradigm.

Why are there no Swiss troops in the Middle East? Because they can free ride off the global power of the United States.

Mr. Berg,

Are you suggesting that we have conquered Iraq? Or are you misinterpreting my words to mean that we should conquer oil rich nations?

Mr. Gavin, in my first post I noted that the mindset I witness is not “we do because we can,” but “we do because we must.” I submit your posts as exhibit #1. If America isn’t over there intervening then evil will reign and we will all surely die. Re-read Mr. Bramwell’s excellent original article. It just isn’t true.

Red,

I followed your advice and re-read Mr. Bramwell’s article. This part caught my eye:

“Unlike in the past, most nations today can be reasonably confident that their neighbors are not seriously interested in invading them. For these reasons, most nations’ security risks are trivial at best.”

Does this apply to the Middle East? And if a nation like Saudi Arabia does not have to fear an invasion from Iraq or even Iran, isn’t this confidence the direct result of the likelihood of an intervening American military?