The Importance of Democracy

[ICantSpellDawg]

I like Pat Buchanan - his articles can be hair brained (such as the recent one about "WW2 - good for whom?"), but his arguments are usually consistent with his premise whether they it was false or not to begin with. What do you think about this one?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Onward the Revolution!
By Patrick Buchanan

Having cheerfully confessed he knows little about economics, John McCain is advancing himself as a foreign-policy president, a "realistic idealist," he told the World Affairs Council of Los Angeles.

But judging from the content of his speech, McCain is no more a realist than he is a reflective man.

Speaking of our five-year war in Iraq, McCain declares, "It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possible genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible and premature withdrawal."

Fair point. There is surely a great risk in a too-rapid withdrawal.

But if a U.S. withdrawal, after 4,000 dead and 33,000 wounded, and a trillion dollars sunk, runs the risk of a genocidal calamity, what does that tell us about the wisdom of those who marched us into this war?

What threat did Saddam ever pose comparable to the cataclysm McCain says we face if we pull out? Who, Senator, put American on the horns of so horrible a dilemma?

"Whether they were in Iraq before is immaterial," McCain warns, "al-Qaida is there now." And that is surely true.

But if al-Qaida was not in Iraq before we invaded, why did we invade? And if al-Qaida is there now, what was the magnet that drew them in, if not the U.S. occupation McCain himself championed?

Like Condi Rice, who regularly disparages the policies of every president from FDR to Bill Clinton, McCain enjoys parading the higher morality of his devotion to democracy-uber-alles.

"For decades in the Middle East we had a strategy of relying upon autocrats to provide order and stability. We relied on the Shah, the autocratic rulers of Egypt, the generals of Pakistan, the Saudi royal family. ... We can no longer delude ourselves that relying on these outdated autocrats is the safest bet."

Speaking of self-delusion, does McCain believe the "democrats" lately elected in Pakistan will be tougher on al-Qaida and the Taliban than Pervez Musharraf, who has twice escaped assassination for having sided with us?

Does McCain think this new crowd in Islamabad will be more pro-American than the general, when the people who voted them in are among the most anti-American in the Islamic world?

From Richard Nixon to George Bush I, we expelled Moscow from Egypt, won the Cold War, brought peace between Egypt and Israel, and created a worldwide alliance, including Hafez al-Assad of Syria, that drove Saddam's army out of Kuwait.

What has the Bush-McCain democracy crusade produced, save electoral victories for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah and Hamas? And if we dump the sultan of Oman, President Mubarak, and the king of Saudi Arabia, who does McCain think will replace them?

If undermining Arab autocrats is good for America, why is that also the goal of Osama bin Laden?

McCain proposes a "League of Democracies" to unite a hundred nations for peace and freedom. "Revanchist Russia," however, is to be black-balled from McCain's league and thrown out of the G-8.

What would this accomplish other than undoing the work of Reagan in bringing Moscow in from the cold, driving Russia into the arms of China, restarting the Cold War and recreating the Beijing-Moscow axis it was Nixon's great achievement to break up?

What McCain is proposing is a re-division of the world into the forces of light and the forces of darkness. Moral clarity at last! Has he forgotten the fate of that earlier rabbit warren of the righteous, the League of Nations?

Does our "realistic idealist" think a NATO of 25 nations that has mustered a piddling 16,000 soldiers, most of them noncombatants, to stand beside us in Afghanistan is going to confront a nuclear-armed Russia?

"Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests," said Lord Palmerston.

What is critical, especially in wartime, is not whether a regime is autocratic or democratic, but whether it is hostile or friendly.

Gen. Washington, at war with democratic Great Britain, is said to have danced a jig when he heard we had Louis XVI as an ally. During our Civil War, Britain built blockade-runners for the Confederacy, while the czar docked his ships in Union harbors. Russia "was our friend/When the world was our foe," wrote Oliver Wendell Holmes.

When Nixon launched his airlift to save Israel in the Yom Kippur War, autocratic Portugal let us use the Azores. Democratic France denied Reagan over-flight permission in the 1986 raid on Libya. Two brave U.S. pilots died as a result.

When McCain was in the Hanoi Hilton, British and French ships were unloading goods in Haiphong, while Ferdinand Marcos and the South Korean generals sent troops to stand with us and fight beside us.

To root one's attitude toward nations based upon their internal politics rather than their foreign policies is ideology. And policies rooted in ideologies, from Trotskyism to democratism, end up on the Great Barrier Reef of reality.

btw - I disagree more than I agree with this particular idea of his.

[Papewaio]

To root one's attitude toward nations based upon their internal politics rather than their foreign policies is ideology. And policies rooted in ideologies, from Trotskyism to democratism, end up on the Great Barrier Reef of reality.

What on holidays enjoying the sun, surf and turf?

[ICantSpellDawg]

C'mon, no thoughts?

Other than Pape's tidbit?

[macsen rufus]

Meh! A string of soundbites doesn't make a coherent argument. Whilst he raises some valid points, he also raises some bunkum too.

The main impression I get, though, is that he's effectively saying we have a choice between pragmatism and principles - and if you choose pragmatism then you have to abandon the claim of holding the moral high ground. And IMHO that's a choice America's leaders are incapable of facing up to.

[Kralizec]

Democracies aren't necessarily friendly to eachother. And it's easier to win an autocrat over than to get an entire nation to like you. That said, I think that overall the long term benefits of having, say, a democratic middle east outweigh short-term realpolitik advantages.

[naut]

Meh! A string of soundbites doesn't make a coherent argument. Whilst he raises some valid points, he also raises some bunkum too.

Aye. Agreed. Some of those points are a fair stretch.

[Fragony]

What is critical, especially in wartime, is not whether a regime is autocratic or democratic, but whether it is hostile or friendly.

Agree with this. Democracy's tend not to fight eachother but it's a system that naturally evolved here it shouldn't be treated as something to export. I think you should always go for the short term solution because that is what you can currently understand, it might not help but it's less likely to make it worse, the world isn't a static place, deal with what you have if that happens to be autocrats do business with the autocrats.

[Adrian II]

[..] the world isn't a static place, deal with what you have if that happens to be autocrats do business with the autocrats.

I agree, do business with them, but only as far as necessary. And democracy may not be fit for export like porn, ammunition or tulip bulbs, but it is the most rational (i.e. least irrational) form of government and it should be encouraged wherever possible.

Dictatorships should know their place in the pecking order. Their leaders have no place in civilized company. Oh, and their Olympic Games are vulgar publicity stunts.

[Furious Mental]

"it might not help but it's less likely to make it worse"

I would say such things as the "secret bombing" of Cambodia and the backing of the Afghan mujahideen rather put paid to that claim.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree, do business with them, but only as far as necessary. And democracy may not be fit for export like porn, ammunition or tulip bulbs, but it is the most rational (i.e. least irrational) form of government and it should be encouraged wherever possible.

Dictatorships should know their place in the pecking order. Their leaders have no place in civilized company. Oh, and their Olympic Games are vulgar publicity stunts.

It's not really the most rational, but it seems to be the most beneficial to us in the long term. I say target the worst offenders & make alliances with the more benign dictators as friends.

[Fragony]

I agree, do business with them, but only as far as necessary. And democracy may not be fit for export like porn, ammunition or tulip bulbs, but it is the most rational (i.e. least irrational) form of government and it should be encouraged wherever possible.

Dictatorships should know their place in the pecking order. Their leaders have no place in civilized company. Oh, and their Olympic Games are vulgar publicity stunts.

Human beings are rational and democracy is inevitable in the long run, but it has to come from within, nobody wants to be disliked that is normal and in end leaders are also normal human beings. But if you enforce democracy it will work against you every time because enforced democracy is force like all other and people don't like being pushed around. Dictatorships actually do know their rank in the picking order and are cautiously trying to fit in but human nature also has a way of preservation that's why you need to be cautious, baby steps.

[Viking]

Onward the Revolution!
By Patrick Buchanan

To root one's attitude toward nations based upon their internal politics rather than their foreign policies is ideology. And policies rooted in ideologies, from Trotskyism to democratism, end up on the Great Barrier Reef of reality.

Good grief. Policies rooted in ideologies?? Just like what policy is rooted in an ideology?

If you act in accordance with an ideology and ignore the reality, you'll get smacked. If you follow an ideology but also take note of the reality and act thereafter, you'll not.

If one really believes in democracy, then it is something to fight for. Democracy is certainly not more "right" in some countries than other. What this merry fellow is talking about is what would benefit the US the most. It seems he could not care less about human rights and democracy elsewhere, after all America got it! Screw the rest.

But if you enforce democracy it will work against you every time because enforced democracy is force like all other and people don't like being pushed around. Dictatorships actually do know their rank in the picking order and are cautiously trying to fit in but human nature also has a way of preservation that's why you need to be cautious, baby steps.

Forced democracy? What's that?

[Fragony]

Forced democracy? What's that?

My point why?

[Adrian II]

Human beings are rational and democracy is inevitable in the long run [..]

Both notions are rightly disputed.

If pushed to put a percentage on it, I would say humans are 10% rational and 90% emotional/instinct-driven. That is not a bad thing, it helped us survive (until now...). Overestimating the human sense of reason, now that would be a bad thing. That's why democracy is good: it is a rational institution that serves man best because of what he is, an incomplete animal at best.

As to its inevitability, I don't agree with you either. After the demise of God, so bluntly announced by Nietzsche, humanity has yet to understand (and cope with) its full consequences. One of those consequences is that our sense of linear (hence predictable) history is false. That was originally a Christian notion. We must come to accept that progress, in every sense except sheer physical motion, is not guaranteed or even probable, it is just a possibility.

In short, I don't share wide your wide-eyed, pinko liberal optimism about mankind.

[Viking]

My point why?

Could you come up with some examples of forced democracy? When nation A invades nation B, removes the dictator and tells the people to vote or die? And how are people getting "pushed" by democracy? Sure those that had benefits of their gov friends and relatives will not like democracy; opposed to the masses that make up 8/10 of the population.

[Fragony]

If pushed to put a percentage on it, I would say humans are 10% rational and 90% emotional/instinct-driven.

When pushed they can do pretty amazing thing indeed, hence no pushing just let us be.

As to its inevitability, I don't agree with you either. After the demise of God, so bluntly announced by Nietzsche, humanity has yet to understand (and cope with) its full consequences. One of those consequences is that our sense of linear (hence predictable) history is false.

The baker's son might just become a lawyer instead of a baker huh.

In short, I don't share wide your wide-eyed, pinko liberal optimism about mankind.

Isn't that why you are a leftie (and ouch)

[HoreTore]

Could you come up with some examples of forced democracy? When nation A invades nation B, removes the dictator and tells the people to vote or die? And how are people getting "pushed" by democracy? Sure those that had benefits of their gov friends and relatives will not like democracy; opposed to the masses that make up 8/10 of the population.

I'd say that most African "democracies" can be called forced democracies, as well as Iraq and afghanistan and the russian zone. The elections in these places never result in anything remotely resembling "the will of the people", it will always come out as one group wants it. Also, there is no concept of power-sharing, it's more like electing a dictator, which is very different from a democracy.

Forced Democracy is a nice term, thanks Fragony.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Both notions are rightly disputed.

If pushed to put a percentage on it, I would say humans are 10% rational and 90% emotional/instinct-driven. That is not a bad thing, it helped us survive (until now...). Overestimating the human sense of reason, now that would be a bad thing. That's why democracy is good: it is a rational institution that serves man best because of what he is, an incomplete animal at best.

As to its inevitability, I don't agree with you either. After the demise of God, so bluntly announced by Nietzsche, humanity has yet to understand (and cope with) its full consequences. One of those consequences is that our sense of linear (hence predictable) history is false. That was originally a Christian notion. We must come to accept that progress, in every sense except sheer physical motion, is not guaranteed or even probable, it is just a possibility.

In short, I don't share wide your wide-eyed, pinko liberal optimism about mankind.

Haha! I agree with you! Human history as a roadway, democracy as a speedbump that were are standing on top of!

[Papewaio]

Both notions are rightly disputed.

If pushed to put a percentage on it, I would say humans are 10% rational and 90% emotional/instinct-driven. That is not a bad thing, it helped us survive (until now...). Overestimating the human sense of reason, now that would be a bad thing. That's why democracy is good: it is a rational institution that serves man best because of what he is, an incomplete animal at best.

Actually democracy is powerful because it allows a mass of dumb agents to work together. Ants rule! Cooperation thru self interest and numbers is a quality all of its own.

Democracy allows us to vote as a bunch of dumb agents. It does not rely on expert agents to rule, just the mass interest. And then also has the smart enough redundancy to have a more steady core of dumb agents in civil service.

[Ice]

Actually democracy is powerful because it allows a mass of dumb agents to work together. Ants rule! Cooperation thru self interest and numbers is a quality all of its own.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Could you come up with some examples of forced democracy? When nation A invades nation B, removes the dictator and tells the people to vote or die? And how are people getting "pushed" by democracy? Sure those that had benefits of their gov friends and relatives will not like democracy; opposed to the masses that make up 8/10 of the population.

Japan, post WW2.

[Furious Mental]

One of the notable things about Buchanan is that he doesn't understand that it is usually precisely the sort of tunnel vision, which sees only short-term political expediency, that has created the situations where he says it is necessary to cooperate with dictators, and which has generally come back to bite the US and others on the arse eventually.

A perfect example is the Arab autocrats whom he says have to be relied on- without decades of Western support for them and help from anti-communist crusades like the induced collapse of Afghanistan, where would Al Qaeda be now? Probably nowhere. But we have Al Qaeda and so now according to Buchanan we have to cooperate with whichever illegitimate despot will cooperate in killing them, even if being associated with such rulers guarantees that we will be fighting Al Qaeda forever.

Same goes for Hezbollah and Hamas- did it ever occur to him to that part of the reason for the ultimate rise of these movements is that the US government didn't dissuade its ally from putting its proverbial foot in it by blundering into Lebanon, colonising the West Bank and destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority?

And the Persian Gulf- first support the Shah and then when he gets turfed out support Saddam Hussein, and when he stabs you in the back what then? Put an army in the Arabian peninsula, bomb the buggery out of Iraq and raise the ire of Islamic nutcases I guess.

If Buchanan had half a brain he would realise that stable democracies, even if they don't always let the US use their air space to bomb other countries or help with pointless conflicts in the third world, don't generally start wars or have such a lack of control over their territory that other can use it to start wars.

[Kralizec]

One of the notable things about Buchanan is that he doesn't understand that it is usually precisely the sort of tunnel vision, which sees only short-term political expediency, that has created the situations where he says it is necessary to cooperate with dictators, and which has generally come back to bite the US and others on the arse eventually.

A perfect example is the Arab autocrats whom he says have to be relied on- without decades of Western support for them and help from anti-communist crusades like the induced collapse of Afghanistan, where would Al Qaeda be now? Probably nowhere. But we have Al Qaeda and so now according to Buchanan we have to cooperate with whichever illegitimate despot will cooperate in killing them, even if being associated with such rulers guarantees that we will be fighting Al Qaeda forever.

Same goes for Hezbollah and Hamas- did it ever occur to him to that part of the reason for the ultimate rise of these movements is that the US government didn't dissuade its ally from putting its proverbial foot in it by blundering into Lebanon, colonising the West Bank and destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority?

And the Persian Gulf- first support the Shah and then when he gets turfed out support Saddam Hussein, and when he stabs you in the back what then? Put an army in the Arabian peninsula, bomb the buggery out of Iraq and raise the ire of Islamic nutcases I guess.

If Buchanan had half a brain he would realise that stable democracies, even if they don't always let the US use their air space to bomb other countries or help with pointless conflicts in the third world, don't generally start wars or have such a lack of control over their territory that other can use it to start wars.

Good post.

I agree entirely.

[Fragony]

Reality is that among all nations whatever the system there already is interaction most country's have embassy's after all, it's more a defence of reality then an actual thought of where to go. Bringing democracy shouldn't be a priority, that just don't works.

[Redleg]

One of the notable things about Buchanan is that he doesn't understand that it is usually precisely the sort of tunnel vision, which sees only short-term political expediency, that has created the situations where he says it is necessary to cooperate with dictators, and which has generally come back to bite the US and others on the arse eventually.

All politicans see things in two aspects, short term gain and self interest for re-election. The rare exception is the politican that actually attempts to do something for the long term good without care for his/her own re-election. So to say its notable about Buchanan is a bit misleading since most if not all of US politians fall into the same catergory. Even the two front runners for the democrat party fall into this catergory just as McCain does.

A perfect example is the Arab autocrats whom he says have to be relied on- without decades of Western support for them and help from anti-communist crusades like the induced collapse of Afghanistan, where would Al Qaeda be now? Probably nowhere. But we have Al Qaeda and so now according to Buchanan we have to cooperate with whichever illegitimate despot will cooperate in killing them, even if being associated with such rulers guarantees that we will be fighting Al Qaeda forever.

So ignore short term de-stablizations because they might not have an impact. This seems also just as short sighted as your claim concerning Buchanan. This hindsight into the cold war is rather amusing to me. What did the world community do when the USSR decided to help its communist ally in Afganstan remain in power? Then one would have to review all of the human history of conflict to find out how many times allies have been made of less then savory nations to defeat a worse threat. A prime examble would be WW2 where the United States sent material aid to the USSR to help them survive and then beat Germany on the Eastern Front. Then there is the deals England made with Arabs during WW1 to break the Ottman Empire.

Same goes for Hezbollah and Hamas- did it ever occur to him to that part of the reason for the ultimate rise of these movements is that the US government didn't dissuade its ally from putting its proverbial foot in it by blundering into Lebanon, colonising the West Bank and destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority?

Did it ever occur that when Israel was formed by the United Nations that such organizations would develop? These groups all form not from the incursion of Israel into Lebanon but because Israel exists. Lebanon justs adds fuel to the alreadly existing fire.

And the Persian Gulf- first support the Shah and then when he gets turfed out support Saddam Hussein, and when he stabs you in the back what then? Put an army in the Arabian peninsula, bomb the buggery out of Iraq and raise the ire of Islamic nutcases I guess.

Again a rather simplistic reviw of the history of the Persian Gulf. Its also rather simplistic in its nature given the complexity of the relationships between the nations of the Persian Gulf and their relationships with the United States and Europe. For instance most dont realize that the United States did not begin to activitly support Israel until a certain year. That the two primary nations that supported Israel were responsible for its development of nuclear weapons, not the United States. Then there is the relationship with Jordan that is often overlooked because it is about the best model of state relationships between the United States and a Middle Eastern nation.

Then lets look at why the relationship between Iran, Iraq, and the United States. What events happened that caused the conflict between these three nations?

If Buchanan had half a brain he would realise that stable democracies, even if they don't always let the US use their air space to bomb other countries or help with pointless conflicts in the third world, don't generally start wars or have such a lack of control over their territory that other can use it to start wars.

You would be surprised - Buchanan probably realized this since he was not talking about stable democracies and issues with them. There are a few stable democracies that dont always allow the US to use their air space and are treated still as friends.

[Adrian II]

Actually democracy is powerful because it allows a mass of dumb agents to work together. Ants rule! Cooperation thru self interest and numbers is a quality all of its own.

Democracy allows us to vote as a bunch of dumb agents. It does not rely on expert agents to rule, just the mass interest. And then also has the smart enough redundancy to have a more steady core of dumb agents in civil service.

I am not sure that we agree.

Groups do not constitute a single organism. Therefore I don't think the terms 'smart' and 'dumb' apply to a mass of people, any mass of people, regardless of whether its members are gathered in a square, unified in the pursuit of certain supermarket articles or all alone in voting booths.

On the other hand modern democracy, like modern society as a whole, relies heavily on experts.

All in all I think democracy is preferable because it provides a check on man's will to power and his perpetual tendency to live by illusions, but without destrying his initiative and free will.

When theologian Reinhold Niebuhr had to sum up his view of democracy he said: "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary."

P.S. I am researching Niebuhr at the moment, after having read some of his books over the years. I just hit on a NYT article that assesses his importance, written by none other than the late Arthur Schlesinger, in which he refers to the above quote. The article is a good introduction to Niebuhr's thought. I am not a believer, but as Schlesinger writes: "Niebuhr's distinction between taking the Bible seriously and taking it literally invited symbolic interpretation and made it easy for seculars to join the club." That is my position exactly.

[Papewaio]

Dumb agent theory is that a large group of well informed dumb agents can beat small groups of expert ones. A democracy can have many individuals finding a solution while a dictatorship often has a smaller core that are responsible and have the allowed flexibility.

[Furious Mental]

"Then one would have to review all of the human history of conflict to find out how many times allies have been made of less then savory nations to defeat a worse threat"

Worse threat? Ha! The USSR was bound to collapse anyway, yet the mujahideen were funded so as to provoke an invasion and initiate a chain of events which has left the country in ruins. But more to the point, they continued to be funded even after the withdrawal of Soviet forces had become inevitable and the Cold War was clearly coming to an end, simply to precipitate a speedy collapse of the Afghan government and send the remaining Soviet advisors out clinging to their helicopters in a final humiliation. This was in spite of the fact that it was obvious that far from installing any sort of stable government (never mind democracy) in its place, they would be at each other's throats and still fighting, and that the country and the border of Pakistan had been turned into a hotbed of a brand of extremism that saw the West and the USSR in much the same light. This is not hindsight- it was blatantly obvious at the time.

"Did it ever occur that when Israel was formed by the United Nations that such organizations would develop? These groups all form not from the incursion of Israel into Lebanon but because Israel exists. Lebanon justs adds fuel to the alreadly existing fire."

No. Only the PLO and PFLP go back that far. The current crop of terrorists, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad exist because of events for which Israel bears substantial responsibility and which your government did nothing to dissuade it from, notably the colonisation of the West Bank and its acknowledged use of collective punishment in military operations. David Ben Gurion said in 1967 that it would doom his country to perpetual war, and it has. It has guaranteed that negotiations always break down and by continuing it up until the present day the Israeli government has made the now moderate PLO look weak, ineffective and useless.

Your claim in relation to Hezbollah is still more obviously wrong- it was not created before the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Without that invasion it would not exist. Recent poorly executed and indiscriminate military operations (aided and abetted by your government) have helped cement its hold on southern Lebanon.

Is Israel solely responsible for all this? Obviously not, but it was all foreseeable and foreseen and should have been avoided by any country that counts itself as a sensible democracy, and probably would have been avoided if it had ever received sensible counsel from its biggest ally. The situation there is a failure of, amongst other things, the foreign policy of both countries.

"Again a rather simplistic reviw of the history of the Persian Gulf."

Not simplistic at all. The Shah of Iran was an unpopular dictator who was obviously going to meet his end eventually. Saddam Hussein was well known to be a murderous tyrant with expansionist aspirations, and yet he received foreign aid right up until the invasion of Kuwait. His final arms spending spree for that conflict was made with a line of credit extended by your government. I can hardly think of a better example of diastrous short termism. At least the collosal Snafu that is Afghanistan took a few years or so to gestate into a haven of anti-Western terrorism.

"You would be surprised - Buchanan probably realized this since he was not talking about stable democracies and issues with them. There are a few stable democracies that dont always allow the US to use their air space and are treated still as friends."

The point of Buchanan's article is that a democracy that doesn't help the US government (and he largely seems to count help as meaning help in bombing people) is less use and less worthy as an ally than a dictatorship that does, in other words anyone that gets in the way of carpet bombing isn't a friend. More generally he is saying the US government should simply seek out malleable dictators rather than cultivate relations with single-minded democracies, even though the US has scarcely had one dictatorial ally that didn't eventually turn on it or get overthrown.

[Redleg]

"Then one would have to review all of the human history of conflict to find out how many times allies have been made of less then savory nations to defeat a worse threat"

Worse threat? Ha! The USSR was bound to collapse anyway, yet the mujahideen were funded so as to provoke an invasion and initiate a chain of events which has left the country in ruins. But more to the point, they continued to be funded even after the withdrawal of Soviet forces had become inevitable and the Cold War was clearly coming to an end, simply to precipitate a speedy collapse of the Afghan government and send the remaining Soviet advisors out clinging to their helicopters in a final humiliation. This was in spite of the fact that it was obvious that far from installing any sort of stable government (never mind democracy) in its place, they would be at each other's throats and still fighting, and that the country and the border of Pakistan had been turned into a hotbed of a brand of extremism that saw the West and the USSR in much the same light. This is not hindsight- it was blatantly obvious at the time.

Hindsight review is interesting to say the least. Having seen different writings of the time, there was not an understanding that the Soviet Union would collaspe in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
Now I also see that you have attempted to spin the statement. So here it is again - how many times have nations banded together to destory a worse threat in history? Here is one prime examble - the United States allied with the Soviet Union to fight against Germany.

"Did it ever occur that when Israel was formed by the United Nations that such organizations would develop? These groups all form not from the incursion of Israel into Lebanon but because Israel exists. Lebanon justs adds fuel to the alreadly existing fire."

No. Only the PLO and PFLP go back that far. The current crop of terrorists, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad exist because of events for which Israel bears substantial responsibility and which your government did nothing to dissuade it from, notably the colonisation of the West Bank and its acknowledged use of collective punishment in military operations. David Ben Gurion said in 1967 that it would doom his country to perpetual war, and it has. It has guaranteed that negotiations always break down and by continuing it up until the present day the Israeli government has made the now moderate PLO look weak, ineffective and useless.

Again not completely true either. I find this rather amusing in a sad way. A spinning of information that contains some truth but leaves significant portions of it out. You might want to check out when the United States became involved with Israel. Richard Nixon is the primary clue that should steer you toward the answer. Now it seems you require that the United States be responsible and accountable for Israel's actions, to use your own assumption standard that you have been protraying. I to find that amusing.

Then again I see your arguement discounts the role certain Palenstine groups have in defeating the peace process. Again I suggest you look the underlying cause of the problem, not just a timeline. The manifesto of Hamas will provide some clue for you also.

Now which government has tried several times to help the peace process in Israel? One could look at the peace accords which brought Israel and Egypt peace. Such a broad stroke of the brush that you are using is full of errors.

Your claim in relation to Hezbollah is still more obviously wrong- it was not created before the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Without that invasion it would not exist. Recent poorly executed and indiscriminate military operations (aided and abetted by your government) have helped cement its hold on southern Lebanon.

Actually the claim is correct - you might want to read what is actually written.

Is Israel solely responsible for all this? Obviously not, but it was all foreseeable and foreseen and should have been avoided by any country that counts itself as a sensible democracy, and probably would have been avoided if it had ever received sensible counsel from its biggest ally. The situation there is a failure of, amongst other things, the foreign policy of both countries.

LOL - ah blame the United States for not forcing Israel to comply to several unreasonable demands. Where do Britian and France fall into this equation of yours? I see your attempting to neglect a certain other peace process that worked also.

"Again a rather simplistic reviw of the history of the Persian Gulf."

Not simplistic at all. The Shah of Iran was an unpopular dictator who was obviously going to meet his end eventually. Saddam Hussein was well known to be a murderous tyrant with expansionist aspirations, and yet he received foreign aid right up until the invasion of Kuwait. His final arms spending spree for that conflict was made with a line of credit extended by your government. I can hardly think of a better example of diastrous short termism. At least the collosal Snafu that is Afghanistan took a few years or so to gestate into a haven of anti-Western terrorism.

Again simplistic. I didn't say it wasn't true only a simplistic view. Now look into why the relationships were the way they were. What actions were involved that placed the United States into an alliance with Iraq? Why did the politicial indenties at the time believe this was a good idea? What were the goals that they were attempting to accomplish? What actions were going on that were directly tied to Iran that the United States felt it should support anyone that was an enemy of Iran?

"You would be surprised - Buchanan probably realized this since he was not talking about stable democracies and issues with them. There are a few stable democracies that dont always allow the US to use their air space and are treated still as friends."

The point of Buchanan's article is that a democracy that doesn't help the US government (and he largely seems to count help as meaning help in bombing people) is less use and less worthy as an ally than a dictatorship that does, in other words anyone that gets in the way of carpet bombing isn't a friend. More generally he is saying the US government should simply seek out malleable dictators rather than cultivate relations with single-minded democracies, even though the US has scarcely had one dictatorial ally that didn't eventually turn on it or get overthrown.

Actually there are a few - but dont let that distract you. And I would have to disagree with your point about democracy being of less use and less worthy. What he actually states is "To root one's attitude toward nations based upon their internal politics rather than their foreign policies is ideology." That implies that a nation should deal with other nations based upon how that foreign policy matches there nation and benefits the nation as a whole. Now maybe I read the article from a slightly different viewpoint but I failed to see the quote that only nations that allow you to bomb others by using their airspace are of use in his article.

[Furious Mental]

"Hindsight review is interesting to say the least. Having seen different writings of the time, there was not an understanding that the Soviet Union would collaspe in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
Now I also see that you have attempted to spin the statement. So here it is again - how many times have nations banded together to destory a worse threat in history? Here is one prime examble - the United States allied with the Soviet Union to fight against Germany."

It seems to me that you are spinning the statement. As I said, "more to the point" aid to Afghan rebels continued after it became obvious that the USSR intended to withdraw and that it would ultimately either collapse or reform, and that if its ally in Afghanistan collapsed war there would simply continue but in a condition of a failed state (whose weapons would be up for grabs and its army working for the highest bidder) and anti-Western fundamentalism. This is not "hindsight review"; these were obvious facts at the time and the stated justification for the UN negotiations there. Continuing to pour fuel on the fire in Afghanistan to score cheap political points and help Pakistan install its annointed puppets there was at best grossly negligent and at worse extremely malevolent.

One could look at the peace accords which brought Israel and Egypt peace.

"You might want to check out when the United States became involved with Israel"

Right about the time that it began colonising the West Bank, and invaded Lebanon, which are the two major issues I referred to. Obviously there are other events which contributed. Contrary to what you are claiming, I explicitly disclaimed the notion that Israel is solely responsible for the situation or that the US is vicariously liable for what Israel does. However the fact is that it was within the power of both to stop the conflict developing to this point, both failed to. I don't see any need to go into other causal factors because they are not relevant to the discussion at hand. The point is that simply doing what is expedient today when it will perpetuate the problem in the long term, or create another problem, is just dumb.

"Now which government has tried several times to help the peace process in Israel?"

Sorry but the fact that US govt policy in relation to the matter is not even handed. It draws up roadmaps and such and sometimes makes some statements but the fact is that both its rhetoric and the way it uses its cheque book do not evince a genuine determination to achieve a solution to the matter. It was within the US govt's diplomatic power to pressure Israel not to do things such as settle in the West Bank (which as I said its own leader had rightly predicted would doom future peace efforts) and invade Lebanon- over a period of decades it not merely decided not to but materially supported these policies, even though any short term gain in security was clearly being paid for with the rise of movements such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Even over the period of the last few years, misconceived military operations and a general policy of collective punishment (which as I said the Israeli government itself admits it uses as a military-political weapon) have simply driven people into the arms of these extremists. I gave the example of destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority security infrastructure- no matter what its involvement in attacking Israel was, the acknowledged fact was that the only way that the conflict was going to be resolved was through negotiations with Fatah. Now, at the very time that the US govt wants to play it off against Hamas, it can't because, amongst other things, its infrastructure has been bombed or bulldozed

"That implies that a nation should deal with other nations based upon how that foreign policy matches there nation and benefits the nation as a whole."

Which, as I said, means that a democracy that does not give unreserved support to the US government is less use than a dictatorship that does. This is in spite of the fact that since World War Two the states which have clearly given the most support to the US and threatened it the least are fellow democracies, and vice versa and amongst other democracies also. As I said, Buchanan's views are pretty much based on short-term expediency.

"I failed to see the quote that only nations that allow you to bomb others by using their airspace are of use in his article."

Like I said, the way that he assesses the "friendliness" or "hostility" of countries is focused very heavily on where they stand on bombing the enemies of the US.