BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

The road to peace

28 comments on The road to peace

The road to peace
: German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer proposes a plan for peace in the Middle East:

“The Middle East is at the epicenter of the greatest threat to our regional and global security at the dawn of this century: destructive jihadist terrorism with its totalitarian ideology. This brand of terrorism does not only pose a threat to the societies of the West, but also and above all to the Islamic and Arab world.” …

“In order to succeed, the European Union and the US should, in view of this major challenge to our common security, pool their capabilities, assets and projects to form a new transatlantic initiative for the Middle East.”

Fischer proposes expanded economic ties to the MidEast and possible a free-trade zone. He calls for bringing in Arab countries to “create a binding agreement calling for them to disarm and renounce violence.” Don’t we all wish. Fischer said:

“We cannot counter the threat of this new totalitarianism by military means alone. Our response needs to be as all-encompassing as the threat. And this response cannot be issued by the West alone. If we were to adopt a paternalistic attitude, we would only inflict the first defeat upon ourselves. Instead we must formulate a serious offer based on genuine cooperation, an offer to work together with the states and societies of the region.”

The question, of course, is just how much military force will be needed. And no one knows. We’ll only know if we’re wrong.

: At the same conference, Rumsfeld came out shooting in defense of offense:

But he repeatedly defended the get-them-before-they-get-us doctrine in an age when terrorists are threatening to acquire and use biological, chemical and nuclear weapons as “something that has to be weighed and considered by all of us” given the possible catastrophic consequences….

Conference participants this week said they sensed that tensions had eased….

In this climate, many officials here expected a tempered, if not conciliatory speech on Saturday from Mr. Rumsfeld, who is still regarded by many Germans and French, in particular, as a villain for his dismissive remarks about “old Europe.” Instead, Mr. Rumsfeld, feisty and unyielding, appeared eager to put a potential adversary on the defensive as he laid out the administration’s rationale for the war in the absence of any illegal Iraqi weapons.

“Think about what was going on in Iraq a year ago with people being tortured, rape rooms, mass graves, gross corruption, a country that has used chemical weapons against its own people,” he said in response to a question, his voice rising, his hands chopping the air for emphasis.

He then turned the question back on the audience. “There were prominent people from representative countries in this room that opined that they really didn’t think it made a hell of a lot of difference who won,” he said, nearly shouting. “Shocking. Absolutely shocking.”

Yes, them’s fightin’ words.

The good news here is that Fischer is advocating a doctrine of democratizing and modernizing the Middle East. The bad news is that we’re no closer than ever on how to accomplish that.

: Go to the comments on this post and read the lengthy quote from Rumseld.

28 responses to “The road to peace”

  1. Ebb Tide Avatar
    Ebb Tide

    Transcript of Rumsfeld’s remarks here:
    http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040207-0427.html
    Evidently he really lost his temper during the question and answer period, but I can’t find a video of it anywhere, maybe it will turn up on C-Span later… but he is usually so measured and guarded when he speaks, I was surprised to hear how angry he got. I only heard a tiny little snippet on NPR earlier today.
    the end of Rumsfeld’s remarks….
    […]
    The advance of freedom does not come without cost or sacrifice. Last November, I was in South Korea during their debate on whether or not they should send South Korean forces to Iraq. A woman journalist came up to me and put a microphone in front of my face — she was clearly too young to have experienced the Korean war — and she said to me in a challenging voice: “Why should young South Koreans go halfway around the world to Iraq to get killed or wounded?”
    Now that’s a fair question. And I said it was a fair question. I also told her that I had just come from the Korean War memorial in Seoul and there’s a wall that has every state of the 50 states in the United States with [the names of] all the people who were killed in the Korean War. I was there to put a wreath on the memorial and before I walked down there I looked up at the wall and started studying the names and there, of course, was a very dear friend from high school who was on a football team with me, and he was killed the last day of the war — the very last day.
    And I said to this woman, you know, that would have been a fair question for an American journalist to ask 50 years ago — why in the world should an American go halfway around the world to South Korea and get wounded or killed?
    We were in a building that looked out on the city of Seoul and I said, I’ll tell you why. Look out the window. And out that window you could see lights and cars and energy and a vibrant economy and a robust democracy. And of course I said to her if you look above the demilitarized zone from satellite pictures of the Korean Peninsula, above the DMZ is darkness, nothing but darkness and a little portion (Inaudible.) of light where Pyongyang is. The same people had the same population, the same resources. And look at the difference. There are concentration camps. They’re starving.
    They’ve lowered the height for the people who go in the Army down to 4 feet 10 inches because people aren’t tall enough. They take people in the military below a hundred pounds. They’re 17, 18, 19 years old and frequently they look like they’re 13, 14, and 15 years old.
    Korea was won at a terrible cost of life — thousands and thousands and thousands of people from the countries in this room. And was it worth it? You bet.
    The world is a safer place today because the Coalition liberated 50 million people — 25 million in Afghanistan and 25 million in Iraq.
    ********

  2. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    Some of the choice Rumsfeld quotes:
    If the Iraqi regime had taken the same steps Libya is now taking, there would have been no war.
    -*cough*bullshit*cough*-
    This is the same Rumsfeld who said in the spring prior to war that the absence of evidence of weapons proved they existed. Who’s he kidding?
    Indeed, the quote later on about Saddam’s atrocities indicates this would have been used as a backup excuse regardless. Which, of course, isn’t much of an answer to those who expect the current course of events to end in another dictatorship pseudo-legitimized by a hasty “transfer” process. So who does he think should be impressed?
    The “blame al-Jazeera” maneuver is particularly intriguing. No, it couldn’t be that the Bush Administration overplayed their hand and tried to tie the Iraq War to larger issues — a policy of “preemption” and a disdain for internationalism — that few were willing to accept. No, the all-powerful “Arab media” did all that damage. Apparently, the conservative tradition of blaming the media for your mistakes is alive and well with the neocons.
    Pitiful.

  3. KMK Avatar
    KMK

    Bush is appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday morning with Tim Russert. Just an FYI.

  4. Ebb Tide Avatar
    Ebb Tide

    re: al jazeera
    The USA is beginning a new network based in Va and it is meant to rival Al jazeera, it is called Al Hurra and it will start next week. (It broadcasts to Iraq not the USA, however, I don’t think we can see it.)
    re: Rumsfeld
    If anyone can find a video link to the speech he gave in Munich, I would appreciate it if you could post the link. I can’t find one.
    re: Rumsfeld’s remarks
    The reason I wanted to see his remarks in full is because I heard a sound bite on NPR this morning, and TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT it was much like hearing the Dean Scream…. the clip they played portrayed a very pissed off Donald Rumsfeld and he made some crazy comment about “any monkey on mars looking down at the earth could see how many Nations there are in Nato….” or something like that, it was wacked out, AND NOW that I see what his remarks entailed I can see how things got emotional during the question and answer period, but I would very much like to see the whole thing and not just cut quotes from it.
    But here is another good quote:
    Rumsfeld:
    “Let me close by reminding us that in 1941 there were only about a dozen democracies on the face of the earth. Yet by the close of the 20th century, there were more than 120. And now at the start of the 21st century, two more nations—Afghanistan and Iraq– have thrown off the shackles of tyranny and are joining the ranks of the free. Some have expressed doubts about the capacity for Middle Eastern people for democracy and self-government. Many said the same about Germany and Japan at the end of World War II.”

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Doctor Slack writes that Rumsfeld’s remark “isn’t much of an answer to those who expect the current course of events to end in another dictatorship pseudo-legitimized by a hasty “transfer” process. So who does he think should be impressed?”
    Dr., to me your position about Iraq’s future doesn’t sound like prudent skepticism or even pessimism. To me it sounds like nihilism and defeatism. Am I wrong? Are you even hoping for a better gov’t in Iraq? Is every piece of bad news out of Iraq proof positive that everything is lost – a total failure? I suspect that you do wish the best for the Iraqis but you should realize that progress will be slow and it can’t be documented in daily headlines. Of all the possible future scenarios, I can hardly imagine one worse than Saddam for Iraq and for the world. Go scroll down and read Jeff’s link to Iraqi blogger Omar on progress in Iraq.
    Despite all the problems, I see nothing in Iraq that justifies labeling the efforts to create a democracy in Iraq a failure, unless your standard is perfection and you’re looking for convenient means to bash the current administration.

  6. Ebb Tide Avatar
    Ebb Tide

    Here is a link (don’t know how long it will be good) for the NPR audio story explaining the new Al Hurra news network they write it alhurra, but I have seen it written as Al Hurra other places):
    http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1658915.html

  7. Paul Branin Avatar
    Paul Branin

    Anonymous poster,
    Re Dr Slack:
    “I suspect that you do wish the best for the Iraqis but you should realize that progress will be slow and it can’t be documented in daily headlines…”
    Don’t kid yourself. He’s hoping for catastrophe and the refutation of the Bush Doctrine, Iraqis be damned. If his concern was for the Iraqi people he would be glad for the overthrow of Saddam, as the vast majority of the Iraqis are.
    He’s hoping the US economy flounders.
    He’s hoping for setbacks in the WOT.
    He’s hoping for a scandal to besmirch the administration.
    He’s hoping for anything that will unseat George W. Bush. And he doesn’t care who suffers as long as Bush is defeated.

  8. angell Avatar
    angell

    http://www.nato.int/multi/audio/2004/040206c.mp3
    Link to audio. I had video but can’t find it now!

  9. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    To me it sounds like nihilism and defeatism.
    These days (I’ve said this elsewhere) I find myself often reminded of the period of Soviet history in which Red Army commanders were forbidden to talk about bad news or its implications for fear of being labeled “defeatist.” The “you’re not smiling hard enough!” line has never impressed me.
    Is every piece of bad news out of Iraq proof positive that everything is lost – a total failure?
    Au contraire, I’m well aware that short-term successes and short-term failures are mixed. It’s the long-term picture that looks bleak to me, for two reasons: the dismal record of attempts to impose democracy by force (since WWII the US has exactly one success to its credit in this kind of endeavour, in Colombia), and the early indicators that neither brief nor lengthy occupations are good news for attempts to democratize Iraq. The pro-war position on this question has often struck me as militaristic, boosterish of rosy neocon scenarios and blind to complex human realities — like say, the fact that significant numbers of Iraqis might dislike both Saddam and occupation, and that the short-term gain of ousting Saddam might actually lead to worse long-term bloodshed.
    Ultimately, going into Iraq was probably a losing proposition for whatever Administration did it. This is realism, not “defeatism,” and it’s the main reason I was opposed to the war; the first Bush Administration was not, in fact, stupid or cowardly for refraining to invade. Now that you’re there, though, the best solution I could look for would be an Administration that’s willing to treat the problems on the ground seriously, to rethink strategies that are showing flaws (two words: Ahmed Chalabi), and to dedicate the resources needed to keep the invasion from sliding from “embarrassment” to “total disaster.”
    If you can give me some reason to think the Bush Administration will do any of those things, I’m all ears. I don’t see it, and I don’t have the least patience for kneejerk Bush-worship or those who demand it. Speaking of which:
    [yadda yadda yadda freep freep freep] He’s hoping for a scandal to besmirch the administration.
    The scandals that besmirched the Administration have already happened, and have been happening for years. I don’t need or want to see any more of them, though I suspect we’re going to. But do I think it’s time to turf these losers? Absolutely.

  10. angell Avatar
    angell

    From James Lileks–
    I

  11. Sandy P. Avatar
    Sandy P.

    To back up angell, via Occam’s Toothbrush:
    “The resistance movement [against the U.S. in Iraq] may not be able to remove the U.S. from Iraq within a year, but it will be able to remove Bush, [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld and [National Security Adviser] Condoleezza Rice, together with their Zionist friends, from the White House,” Nasrallah assured his listeners. Nasrallah’s scenario requires no deep understanding: Suicide attacks and sabotage operations against the American forces in Iraq will cause American public opinion to turn against the president and not re-elect him, thus bringing about the disappearance of this group of leaders from the White House.
    —
    From an article in Ha’aretz.
    —
    And then we can all live in the 9/10 world again and turn our sovereignty over to the UN and France. What utopia!

  12. Sandy P. Avatar
    Sandy P.

    Well, as far as this goes, “We cannot counter the threat of this new totalitarianism…offer to work together with the states and societies of the region.”
    1. We did last time.
    2. Sounds like a BIG tax increase. And why do I think it will be America which funds most of it?

  13. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    I’m getting pretty tired with debating the Iraqi campaign with people who already have their minds made up and, I’ve come to doubt that anyone in the entire blogosphere is really neutral on this so, what’s the point, really?
    I left this little snippet on Tim Blair’s blog earlier and kinda’ liked it so, I’m gonna’ share it here:
    “You know, it’s an interesting game that is being played here and elsewhere. Arguments are made and unmade but, the people making them are not really interested in them.
    The true believers on both sides made up their minds long ago. The arguments being proffered are almost all aimed at the muddled middle who can’t make up their minds.
    It’s kind of scary when you realize that the fate of humanity rests on the most clueless among us.”

  14. ic Avatar
    ic

    Read this: http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/
    be sure to click on the photo.

  15. GRL Avatar
    GRL

    You know Jarvis, Moveable Type may be just great for you, but for your commenters, it’s just like Blogger. Piece of dreck. Which is why I’ll not post here a second time. GRL

  16. Andrea Harris Avatar
    Andrea Harris

    That’s not the fault of Movable Type, GRL, but of Sitemeter, his hit count software. He has the code on the comments template as well as the main page in order to count hits. I have noticed that when Sitemeter’s server goes down, web pages that use it slow to a crawl.

  17. Andrea Harris Avatar
    Andrea Harris

    Though actually, now that I think about it, for some reason the javascript that runs this pop up window code is often a drag on the server Movable Type runs on.

  18. syn Avatar
    syn

    Dr. Slack
    Gulf War I did not end, it was declared a cease-fire because the anti-war platform pressured the adminstration to use the United Nation’s dubious diplomacy of appeasement and containment as a means with which to deal with a noted genocidal dictator.
    The anti-war crowd must feel such pride in knowing that their actions from Gulf War I helped in assisting Saddam’s reign of mass slaughter, torture, starvation, rape and, yes, propensity for developing horrific weapons. They must also be proud for assisting Saddam’s ability to financially support terrorist organizations around the world.
    The platform you present is the reason why I will vote President Bush to a second term.

  19. onecent Avatar
    onecent

    Doctor Slack:
    ….the best solution I could look for would be an Administration that’s willing to treat the problems on the ground
    And this Administration isn’t willing?
    ….to rethink strategies that are showing flaws (two words: Ahmed Chalabi)……
    You need to supply at little more detail on that one.

  20. angell Avatar
    angell

    Do you know, Dr. Slack, that while Clinton was in office trusting that pro-terrorist UN, Pakistan sold nukes to North Korea,etc. and offered them to Saddam. Now, I wonder what Saddam did with that–don’t you? Pakistan and OBL were in coloots in 96–long before Bush and at the time the islamic jihad to rid the world of all infidels was proclaimed. And meanwhile Hilary donned a burka and all was comfy and cozy as the terrorists kept marching on. Democrats empowered terrorists.

  21. Ebb Tide Avatar
    Ebb Tide

    Thanks Angell for the link to the audio, I appreciate it… I just got finished watching GWB on Meet the Press, I thought he handled himself well and even though he looked rehearsed on a few answers he did not contradict himeself, the debates with kerry will be interesting…. far more interesting then the gore debates with GWB.
    If anyone missed Meet the Press, CNBC, and MSNBC will be repeating it over the course of today, so check your local listings.

  22. Dean Avatar
    Dean

    Interesting corollary:
    Korea didn’t end, either. The Korean War terminated w/ an armistice, i.e., a temporary laying down of arms. Unlike Iraq, however, there was no obligation laid down on either side that required the other to do anything in order to maintain the cease-fire.
    But note what this means, and note it NOW:
    If war were to break out again on the peninsula (and especially if the North were to start the shooting), it would NOT require another UN resolution for the US to intervene. And whether France or Russia or even China vetoed any FURTHER actions, the Ch. VII resolutions passed back in 1950 remain in force.
    Lord knows that no one (south of the DMZ) wants a war on the peninsula, but I have to wonder just how much misrepresentation will occur if the Administration “unilaterally” responds to North Korean actions….

  23. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    Gulf War I did not end, it was declared a cease-fire
    Because the Administration of Bush the Elder was well aware of what a nightmare trying to invade and occupy Iraq could turn out to be, for both the US and Iraq. Too bad so many of them forgot.
    On a general note: Reid actually makes a fair point, to an extent, about the apparent immobility of two extreme camps of pro- and anti-war sentiment. I say “to an extent” because, while it’s obviously true of people like syn (who will, no doubt, conveniently forget all their crocodile tears for “the Iraqi people” should the occupation truly go to hell, or deliver them into the hands of another dictator), or like angell (who live in a lurid fantasy world where history before 9/11 was dominated by The Evil French) — and I’ve no doubt we can find nearly-as-boneheaded counterparts on the other side of the debate — it could just as easily be used to obscure two key lines of questioning:
    – Who was right about what? [May seem petty and pointless, but it will be relevant to future controversies, which is why it’s a Bad Idea to let, say, the kneejerk Bush supporters rewrite history to blame the oops-no-WMD debacle on the CIA, or to blame the rest of the planet for the neocon fear and loathing of diplomacy and international institutions. Anti-wars who got carried away into vastly overestimating the probable casualties of invasion or talking up scenarios of total, instant regional disaster have some rethinking to do, too.]
    – What happens now? [Here there are still plenty of fruitful arguments to be made and lots of thinking to be done, and though I don’t for one second credit the trust-Bush-he’s-Texan/Christian/makes-me-feel-tough crowd, I’m just as far from fully identifying with the get-the-hell-out-of-this-mess crowd… even though the occupation phase of things has gone much worse in the earlygoing than I expected.]
    So yeah, it’s tempting to simply throw in the towel and say “what’s the point of arguing”? OTOH there were serious people on both sides who are still re-evaluating the situation. Jeff’s tone, of course, sets the tone for comments here, which is why so many people seem to come here expecting an echo chamber and conduct themselves accordingly. But I have hopes that can change.

  24. angell Avatar
    angell

    I guess that is what you call a democracy. People disagree and can criticize without getting beheaded.
    I think this war is right as rain–I am not a war hawk. I thought Kosovo was wrong–I could not understand why they would bomb a village a train station from 30000 feet.
    In Iraq they never found WMD(yet) in Serbia they never found the mass graves(yet). UN human rights envoy, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, before he resigned, provided no conclusive evidence. The latest investigation by his successor, Elizabeth Rehn, turned up no new evidence. The troupe of foreign journalists have discovered nothing more. Officials examining the ‘mass graves’ have yet to find one body. Not a single photograph of a ‘mass grave’ taken with a terrestrial camera has been forthcoming. I am right in ideology but I liked Clinton. I admired JFK and Jackie. I can’t understand why the Left is so anti-Bush. Bush never lied–you can’t lie if you thought it was the truth. I don’t think Clinton lied about Kosovo–but I think he was wrong. But then I could be wrong as all get out too. Only God knows. Politicians test my faith.

  25. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    To angell — Interestingly, we agree about Kosovo (I was actually not much of a fan of Bill Clinton, and esp not his foreign policy calls, though I never shared what always seemed a weirdly extreme GOP hatred of him). Dislike of Bush increasingly spans the political spectrum. It’s not just that on a personal level he repulses a lot of people, though he does; people will often hold their nose and support a candidate they’re not wild about if his policies seem relatively inoffensive. Bush’s real problem is that on top of that, there’s really only so much cognitive dissonance the discourse can stand, and he’s really showing what those limits are. Have a look at this list of inconsistencies in his Meet the Press appearance. For that matter, look at the NRO’s review of the same event — even here he’s been called on just failing to respond to difficult (and, really, not-so-difficult) questions. The prize quote from John Derbyshire there: Now, the answers don’t bear any relation to the questions. They are just incoherent babbling. Sure, the guy’s heart is in the right place on national security — I don’t doubt that for a minute. “Language is the dress of thought,” though, and we are entitled to suspect that a man who can’t answer a question reasonably straight can’t think straight.
    And the NRO is speaking from his base. Not Good.

  26. Ebb Tide Avatar
    Ebb Tide

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/
    Peggy Noonan’s comments on MTP ^^^^
    His “base” seems disappointed that GWB isn’t eloquent like Tony Blair, well… Blair gets up in Parliament to play “Question Time” every week, and that is good training for something like meeting up with Tim Russert. GWB isn’t a deep thinker or even a fan of intellectual arguments, to expect him to be good at it all of a sudden is silly. Anyone with High Expectations was disappointed, anyone who hoped he could string a few sentences together and answer candidly was pleased with his “performance.” Most people who are not dyed in the wool Republicans like the fact he isn’t polished, and is candid, they don’t mind he can’t spout Talking Points, like noonan wants him to. So, it is a Rochak (sp?) test, you see what you want to see in his performance.
    I’m not voting for him, but I thought he did fine.

  27. Catherine Avatar
    Catherine

    Interesting Dr. Slack, that you find this an echo chamber. You are so brave to say what you think while the rest of us walk lock step with Jeff.
    Good for you! Pat on the back buddy!
    I am getting back in line behind Jeff, so….

  28. angell Avatar
    angell

    I thought he did fine too–Wesley Clark was quite polished on CNN–but I didn’t believe a word he said. Being a good speaker does not make you smart–hell, Baghdad Bob was full of words and little on substance.