Is History Over?

[rjaypeters]

Just on a footnote on Soviet Afghanistan:

It wasn't MANPADS, it was MAPADS plus a decoy that ran the Soviets out.

When I look up MANPADS, I find MAN-Portable Air-Defense Systems. Which seems to fit TallDave's intent.

When I look up MAPADS (or MAPAD), I find MAP ADs or Military Assistance Program Address Directory.

What do you mean?

[GW Johnson]

Sorry, old man's typing error. Supposed to be "MANPADS" both places. The point of the tale was the cheap decoy, though. It completely changed both tactics and outcomes.

[TallDave]

Now, imagine a decoy launched from behind one scrub bush by remote control, while several mujahadeen with stingers hide behind other scrub bushes. When the flight of Soviet aircraft go destroy the bush with the smoke trail, all the mujahadeen pop up at once behind them, and shoot them all down.

I was one of two men tasked with developing that decoy. We made it out of a folding-fin 2.75. A year or two after it was given to the mujahadeen, the Soviets left Afghanistan. Their aircraft losses were unsustainable.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

The gas and nerve gas bombs he used on the Iranians during the '80-88 Iran-Iraq war were given to him by us,

As best I can tell this claim is mostly an urban legend. About all they got from us was some pretty innocuous dual-use stuff, computers, and some germs the CDC was sort of tricked into giving them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_w ... MD_Program

Iraq was actually the world's largest arms importer for a period in the 1980s, but they never got much more than an approving wink and nod from the U.S. Nearly all their weapons came from Russia, Western Europe, and South America -- not coincidentally, generally the same countries that opposed the war.

As you can see from the AUMF below, there were many reasons for removing Saddam. The focus on WMD was another mistake of Powell's -- we should have ignored the U.N. instead of trying to get them to authorize the action on that basis. Of course, at the time everyone thought the WMD issue was pretty clear cut, but it should have been remembered that our intel in closed states was always bad (see the numerous surprises from the Soviets, including their collapse) and Saddam had already shown a propensity to move vital assets to neighboring countries that were also hostile to us (such as when he flew his air force to Iran in Gulf War I). The later Israeli bombing of a N Korean nuclear site in Syria has caused some to wonder if Iraqi WMDs ended up there there as well, perhaps as early as 1991.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, ARE (present tense) known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

[TallDave]

I'm also thinking about US democracy beset by tendencies away from democracy, e.g. theocracy (religious extremism), marxism (income and wealth disparities continue) and oligarchy (income and wealth disparities formalized in power disparities). Can you think of any others?

I think those are all things worth worrying about, and additionally creeping nanny-statism, meme infection, and technocracy. But as long as there are patriots like you and I who believe in a liberal, republican, democratic state it will be hard for any of them to topple a government. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but there's a lot of vigilance these days.

I find it difficult to wish the failure of anyone's liberal democracy to provide a counterexample.

Heh, indeed.

[Betruger]

The problem with technocracy IYO, in short?

[TallDave]

Sometime in the next 50 years, there will increasingly be expert systems with claimed abilities to organize human societies better than humans can (we've already seen the humble beginnings of such things for decades in ERP systems, GCMs, etc). The claims may even be largely correct. It may become very seductive to just assume "the computers must be right" and abdicate most decision-making to them, on an official or unofficial basis. John Barnes (among others) has an interesting series of novels that speculate how such a situation might develop.

Back in the early 20th, people were awed by the rising power of science, and it began to be believed that we could scientifically plan societies to produce superior outcomes. That led humanity down some very nasty roads -- Nazism, Communism. I don't think societies ordered by AI will be anything nearly as bad; it would be more of a benign, coddling, perhaps even overall beneficial despotism, but despotism nevertheless.

[Diogenes]

Sometime in the next 50 years, there are probably going to be expert systems with claimed abilities to organize society better than humans can. The claims may even be largely correct. It may become seductive to just assume "the computers must be right" and abdicate most decision-making to them, on an official or unofficial basis. John Barnes (among others) has an interesting series of novels that speculate how such a situation might develop.

Back in the early 20th, people were awed by the rising power of science, and it began to be believed that we could scientifically plan societies to produce superior outcomes. That led humanity down some very nasty roads -- Nazism, Communism. I don't think societies ordered by AI will be anything nearly as bad; it would be more of a benign, coddling, perhaps even overall beneficial despotism, but despotism nevertheless.

Ah, but who programs the machines and what is THEIR agenda?

[TallDave]

I don't worry so much about that; they're probably doing what we want them to -- that is, the programs are designed with goals (e.g. less hunger) and parameters for reaching them (e.g. mass sterilization is unacceptable) we would all generally agree with (that's actually what makes them so dangerous). There are long-established SDLC protocols to ensure software is doing what the functional designers intended, and they generally work reasonably well. To the extent functional designers have different goals, they would probably represent separate polities, or at least different constituencies.

Some amount of "trust the machines, they're always right" is inevitable, but we're going to have to be sure people are still allowed to be irrational, both individually and as a polity.

[rjaypeters]

...But as long as there are patriots like you and I who believe in a liberal, republican, democratic state it will be hard for any of them to topple a government. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but there's a lot of vigilance these days.

Thomas Jefferson, indeed. I haven't read enough of TJ, but did he also include 'unceasing toil' as the other price of freedom? I'm almost certain we are coasting on our forebearer's accomplishments to the detriment of our children.

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]...

Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
...
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

Forgive the cherry-picking. It is my understanding we are to be the guarantors of our own freedom, not of others. We are learning the difficulty of the second.
It is my thesis neither the invasion of Afghanistan nor Iraq are worth the human toll. The Taliban and Saddam Hussein needed to be removed, but it wasn't our job. It was the job of the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq.

[GIThruster]

The Taliban and Saddam Hussein needed to be removed, but it wasn't our job. It was the job of the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yes, well remember, Bush 1 was always regretful that he never entered Bagdad and removed the Despot. What he gave to his son was an understanding of just how bad Saddam was, and how badly he needed to be removed from office. What noone understood was how difficult it would be to have Iraq birth a replacement.

Whose fault is it that these nations, 6 thousand years old now, cannot manage to govern themselves without violence? Whose fault is it that they're all corrupt past mention? Not that the states in the west have politicians who are not corrupt, but the states in the middle east. . .why do they NEVER have men or women in powr that lead to a peaceful, productive life for their people?

Why? Because they don't much care about peace or harmony. They're all slimy scabs who need a bath in some volcano.

[MSimon]

"Concentration of wealth is a natural result of concentration of ability, and recurs in history. The rate of concentration varies (other factors being equal) with the economic freedom permitted by morals and the law... democracy, allowing the most liberty, accelerates it. -- Will and Ariel Durant

Now let us talk about real wealth.

Currently I live in the bottom decile. I have the following:

A car, a rented house, central air, gas heat, electricity, access to 250 GB a month (at 15 MBs when the pipes are empty - night time mostly), running water, running hot water, radios (I'd have to do a census to figure out how many), TVs, two phone lines (one for my occasionally used FAX), two cell phones, three computers, plenty of food. etc. etc. etc.

I really don't care a bit about income inequality. But envy was never a part of my makeup. I have millionaire friends, and access to a billionaire or two - if I want it.

I really do not get all the wailing about the poor in America. As far as I can tell real poverty in America is voluntary. Oh yeah. You can look at dollars and scream bloody murder. But if you look at how people live I just don't see it. Our poor people are fat. That is a big clue.

So tell me - if the rich are stealing all my money how come I'm living so well?

[MSimon]

Forgive the cherry-picking. It is my understanding we are to be the guarantors of our own freedom, not of others

A very sound position and very popular in the US in the 1930s. And then reality intruded.

It turns out, given the alpha male problem and the "smaller" world it is not a very pragmatic position.

We are in the position (or condition) of the world these days that either every one gets liberty or no one gets it. And it is going to cost us. But think of the cost of "no one gets liberty".

The intrusion of reality on 11 Sept. 2001 caused me to break with the doctrinaire Libertarian position.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/

[MSimon]

Doctrinaire Libertarians amuse me.

With them it is always: "the cost, the cost, the cost".

Well on a cost benefit basis the revolutionaries of 1776 were idiots. It wasn't until their children or grandchildren that the benefits accrued.

"Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; 'tis dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as Freedom should not be highly rated." Tom Paine

I think the Iraqis paid a very high price for the liberty they have. In a sense we are their France. We have our own objectives and their liberty was a side effect. A desired side effect to be sure. But still....

[TallDave]

The Taliban and Saddam Hussein needed to be removed, but it wasn't our job. It was the job of the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Well, that argument has a lot of merit, and it would probably be U.S. policy if those two countries kept their problems to themselves. But when the Taliban is sponsoring AQ and they fly 747s into our World Trade Center, bomb the Cole, bomb the Khobar Towers, bomb the WTC, bomb embassies in Nigeria, etc.... then it becomes our problem. Similarly, Iraq was left to fester in its own dysfunction until Saddam invaded Kuwait, sponsored terror attacks in the Philippines and Israel, attacked U.S. servicepeople from 1991-2003, etc.

We also liberated Western Europe, when we could have negotiated a separate peace with the Nazis, and we took actions to oppose Japan's horrific Pacific expansion in Korea, the Philippines, and China that led to them attacking us at Pearl Harbor. Later, we defended South Korea, keeping tens of millions from being living under a NK nightmare of repression and preserving what eventually became a glittering jewel of Asian freedom and prosperity. Most people would agree that those actions, while terribly costly to America, were ultimately worthwhile. I often wonder how much better off the U.S. and humanity would be today had we defended China, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam from Communism more successfully.

Liberal democracies are generally too pacifist for their own good.

[rjaypeters]

... Bush 1 was always regretful that he never entered Bagdad and removed the Despot.

Had Saddam Hussein been forcibly removed by the coalition of the time, G.H.W. Bush would have been **s deep in alligators while trying to drain the swamp. To start, there was no UN mandate to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Second, many of the coalition partners would have baulked.

Even though US military power was sufficient to remove Saddam Hussein during the first Bush administration, was the US or anyone else ready to do the necessary work afterward? Third point:

...What noone understood was how difficult it would be to have Iraq birth a replacement.

The record does not agree. Lots of people pointed out the difficulties of replacing governments, especially Iraq's. The best replacement for Saddam Hussein would have been a less-awful dictator because only a dictator can ruthlessly rule a people who are not ready for any other form of government. A straight-up monarchy would have achieved our goals; but no, G.W. Bush had to try and impose a democracy on a people WHO WERE NOT READY to keep a democracy. I hope the Iraqis will develop into a people who can keep a democracy, but they have the border problem (Khurdistan, anyone?) and deep division among people who are not Khurds.

Whose fault is it that these nations, 6 thousand years old now, cannot manage to govern themselves without violence?

Be fair, most of the nations in the area are relatively recent constructs of imperial and commercial interests who carved up the region to suit western powers. The lines on the map had/have nothing to do with the peoples who have lived in the area for thousands of years.

..why do they NEVER have men or women in powr that lead to a peaceful, productive life for their people?

I asked a similar question about Israel: Why does every leader who inclines to peace, so far, get killed? I don't know about bathing in a volcano, but think about being native son (or daughter) **s deep and trying to drain the swamp of your own homeland.

MSimon,

It is my understanding we are to be the guarantors of our own freedom, not of others

A very sound position and very popular in the US in the 1930s. And then reality intruded.

Is it your position Iraq, at any time, has posed the same existential threat to the United States as Deutschland in the 1930s and 1940s and the Soviet Union through the end of the Twentieth Century? Churchill and FDR faced a potential runaway situation. Truman and successors did very well with "Containment." Dealing with our problems in the world does NOT require us to declare war.

It turns out, given the alpha male problem and the "smaller" world it is not a very pragmatic position.

We are in the position (or condition) of the world these days that either every one gets liberty or no one gets it. And it is going to cost us. But think of the cost of "no one gets liberty".

I know about alpha males, but I'm not exactly sure what the "alpha male problem" is.

WRT to your quotation from Thomas Paine, neither the Afghanis nor the Iraqis won their freedom. How much will they esteem it?

I'm not arguing for strict isolationism, there is far too much power available for people to misuse. Some of the misused power is inevitably aimed at the liberal democracies and we, the liberal democracies, must dissuade people from misusing power against us lightly.

Do you now propose to "make the world safe for democracy?" Talk about mission creep! Where will our leaders draw the line and say "no further will we invade?"