A former spy by the name of Ion Mihai Pacepa comes out in support of John Bolton's nomination to U.N. Ambassador. What makes this so interesting? He was a spy for the other team.
I spent two decades of my other life as a Communist spy chief, struggling to transform the U.N. into a kind of international socialist republic. The Communist bloc threw millions of dollars and thousands of people into that gigantic project. According to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, all employees from Eastern Bloc nations were involved in espionage. The task of this espionage army was not to steal secrets but to use the U.N. to convert the historical Arab and Islamic hatred of the Jews into a new hatred for Israel’s main supporter, the United States. The U.N. became our petri dish, in which we nurtured a virulent strain of hatred for America, grown from the bacteria of Communism, anti-Semitism, nationalism, jingoism, and victimology.
Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest ranking intelligence officer to have defected from the Soviet bloc. Read the whole thing.
Maybe it's me, but I can't seem to discern the "Libertarian" component of Libertarian Leanings.
Not trying to be argumentative, it just seems to me that your views are more neocon than Libertarian.
Did they convert you? ;)
Posted by: Steve | June 18, 2005 at 09:00 PM
Perhaps the emphasis should be on "Leanings". I've come to realize the purist Libertarians are unrealistic. With regard to views being more neocon, keep in mind that the neocon aim and the neocon approach to security is the promotion of liberty and the spread of freedom. The capital "L" Liberarian is an isolationist. So, was I converted? No. I'm just part of the same baby boom era, and I identify with them.
Also, I'm very much in agreement with the writings of libertarian hero Friedrich Hayek. If you have time to read his book "Constitution of Liberty", I think you'll find that he's not the purist libertarian he's made out to be. If you read Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom", you may even detect the origins of the neocon viewpoint since his criticism of socialism is aimed specifically at the Nazis.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | June 18, 2005 at 09:41 PM
Nah, I'd disagree, Tom.
Neoconservatism (which is neither neo nor conservative) is imperial, interventionist, militaristic, big government, power centralizers, etc.
About the only thing they have in common with the Old Right and Libertarians is tax policy. (And even there, they're perfectly willing to spend a trillion dollars of their grandchildrens' money on an RX drug plan for medicare recips.) But, hey, if it helps get Bush re-elected, so be it...
Posted by: Steve | June 19, 2005 at 06:19 PM
I guess we'll disagree then. For one thing I don't agree that intervention in Iraq is imperial in nature, any more than it was in Kosovo. I differ from the big "L" Libertarians in that I believe intervention in Iraq was inevitable. The only solution to terrorism is reform in the middle east. I don't see any way that would ever happen without military action. You can pretend the Hussein boys were not an eventual inescapable threat, but by doing so you push the task of confronting them off onto our grandchildren.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | June 20, 2005 at 07:44 AM
I'm very unhappy with big government conservatism. That's the one of the reasons I won't be a Republican anytime soon.
Posted by: Scott | June 20, 2005 at 07:48 AM
I'm not thrilled with big government conservatism either, but I prefer it to big government liberalism which Janice Rogers Brown described as an addiction. The result of LBJ's Great Society was creation of a semi-permanent underclass. It has taken generations to undo the damage that was done, and I don't think we're done yet.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | June 20, 2005 at 09:39 AM
I'm not thrilled with big government conservatism either, but I prefer it to big government liberalism
Just because one is less worse than the other doesn't make it right. I'm a man without a party.
Posted by: Scott | June 20, 2005 at 11:08 AM
I used to be a man without a party. I decided when Reagan ran for President I would join the Republicans because they appeared to be swinging around to my direction. When I look back I see they've swung quite a ways, and I think that's something that's going to continue. The way I see it, you ought to pick the major party that's closest to your philosophy and by joining exert your influence to move it even more in your direction. It's a doable thing.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | June 20, 2005 at 12:12 PM
"I decided when Reagan ran for President I would join the Republicans because they appeared to be swinging around to my direction."
They're beginning to swing away from Reagan conservatism, that's what bothers me.
Posted by: Scott | June 20, 2005 at 03:51 PM
Tom, Iraq is an unqualified disaster and, far from making us safer, its made us decidedly less secure.
No native insurgency has ever been defeated. From the American Revolution to Iraq, nothing short of a political settlement has triumphed. (With the possible exception of the Turks v. Kurds, and the American people will never allow us to adopt the ruthless and brutal tactics of the Turks)
If the Bush/neocon plan is to throw endless dollars and bodies at the insurgents, it will merely delay the inevitable. We will withdraw.
Posted by: Steve | June 21, 2005 at 06:52 PM
Steve, what evidence do you have that indicates we're less secure? Can you point to any terrorist attacks against us since 9/11?
And about those "native insurgents". Those "natives" are coming across the border from Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran to blow themselves up in Iraq. And as far as "no native insurgency has ever been defeated", what about Hungary in 1956, or Czechoslovakia in 1968, or Tiananmen Square in 1989. Maybe they're a bit before your time, and while their defeat was not a desirable outcome, they were brutally put down.
In Iraq, the Iraqis are assuming more and more of the responsibility for fighting the "insurgents", which makes your statement about "native insurgents" completely false. It is a native security force fighting against foreign insurgents in Iraq.
It will be possible to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by withdrawing, but I see that happening only if the Democrats win the next couple of elections. Bush will stay the course.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | June 22, 2005 at 06:44 AM
>>Steve, what evidence do you have that indicates we're less secure?>>
Tom, how about the CIA? Iraq May Be Prime Place for Training of Militants, C.I.A. Report Concludes http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/22/international/middleeast/22intel.html
>>And about those "native insurgents". Those "natives" are coming across the border from Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran to blow themselves up in Iraq.>>
Some of them are, of course. Just like if Britain or Canada were invaded by Arab-Muslim armies, many Americans would make their way to those lands to stand with the resistance. Hell, I would.
>>And as far as "no native insurgency has ever been defeated", what about Hungary in 1956, or Czechoslovakia in 1968, or Tiananmen Square in 1989. Maybe they're a bit before your time, and while their defeat was not a desirable outcome, they were brutally put down.>>
Two things; one, they weren't full blown insurgencies, they were insurrections. And two, you made my point when you wrote "they were brutally put down" Americans wont stand for that.
>>It will be possible to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by withdrawing, but I see that happening only if the Democrats win the next couple of elections. Bush will stay the course.>>
Americans have no stomach for this war. Like Vietnam, it will end regardless of which party is in power.
Tom, I want to end by saying that, while we disagree, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss these issues. It's nice to have a sensible debate with an intelligent man.
Posted by: Steve | June 22, 2005 at 08:32 PM
Steve,
In the article you reference you have to read down to find this item:
"In an interview in the current issue of Time magazine, Mr. Goss is quoted as saying that he believed that the insurgents were 'not quite in the last throes, but I think they are very close to it,' though he did not say such a view was based on a formal intelligence assessment. 'I think that every day that goes by in Iraq where they have their own government, and it's moving forward, reinforces just how radical these people are and how unwanted they are,' Mr. Goss was quoted as saying of the insurgents."
And even though the New York Times thinks Iraq "may be a prime place for training", I'm not quite ready to concede that we're less secure because of it. Whether it's in Iraq or somewhere else, we were going to have to fight al Qaeda. It's noteworthy that the Times refers to them as "militants". In Afghanistan they were al Qaeda, but in Iraq, even though they are followers of Zarqawi, they're not al Qaeda, they're "militants". Wouldn't want to drop the sightest hint that it's not really the wrong war, would we now.
And isn't it interesting that "intelligence officials" (CIA?) are leaking this information. It brings to mind Valerie Plame sending hubby Joe off to Africa to clear up once and for all (in eight days no less) that Iraq couldn't possibly have been seeking uranium anywhere on the continent. Nothing political about that bunch.
As far as Americans having no stomach for war, Vietnam went on for nearly ten years with about 10 times the casualty rate. What everyone seems to overlook about Vietnam -- there was a "de-militarized zone" beyond which American troops were forbidden to carry the fight. That provided the enemy safe haven in the north, and put Americans in the position of being unable to win the war, much like the Korean conflict. Americans would have stood it much longer if that war was being fought with the goal of winning it.
Therein lies the big objection to this one. We're fighting to this one to win and we're winning it. That's unforgivable among those who look back with satisfaction at Vietnam. That would be the press, many of whom cut their teeth in the Vietnam era. It doesn't surprise me that the press is working mightily to make Iraq out to be a failure.
And though it seems a non sequitur, thanks for your complimentary words. It's a pleasure to have this discussion with you.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | June 22, 2005 at 10:39 PM
Just like if Britain or Canada were invaded by Arab-Muslim armies, many Americans would make their way to those lands to stand with the resistance.
If the Arab-Muslims armies came to promote democracy were tyranny to take hold in Canada and Britain, I would proudly join the Arabs in their fight.
Posted by: Scott | June 23, 2005 at 09:59 AM
Tom, the "last throes" line was directly contradicted by testimony this week by General Abizaid on Cap Hill. He said there's been no weakening of the insurgency in the past six months.
The length on Vietnam is irrelevant. Security, even in the closing days of the war, was far better than it is in Iraq. Additionally, it took years for public opinion to plunge to the level of the current anti-Iraq war numbers.
Scott, you're still buying the democracy line, eh? Remember when we started this misadventure, all the talk was about WMD.
Posted by: Steve | June 25, 2005 at 08:39 PM
Steve, to say there is no weakening of the insurgency does not necessarily mean they are not in there last throes. I'm sure you've heard the old saying, "The flame flickers brightest before it dies." And the fact is, there is nothing about Vietnam that can reasonably be compared to Iraq. We're fighting to win in Iraq. Finally, with regard to promoting democracy in Iraq, yes I buy it. It's real the real deal. The issue of WMD has been more than just a little misrepresented. Even Bill Clinton was surprised they didn't turn up.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | June 25, 2005 at 09:45 PM