According to a large group of our degenerate left, there seems to be only one source of evil in the World, Western- especially American- Imperialism. Reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins confirms that this imperialism is alive and well. But could it be that, while mperialism should be opposed, Islamic fascism is even a greater threat to the World? Most people on our left, because of their oedipal fixation, their hatred of daddy( Bush, traditional authority) can't fit more than one villain in their head.
The left needs to move away from antiamericanism, knee-jerk pacifism, sympathy with Islamism, disproportionate criticism of Israel. It needs to see the progressive possibilities in Iraq instead of whining about Bush lying to them. How about supporting Iraq's union, feminist, social democratic and environmental movements, all of which were illegal up and till the invasion? What is going to happen to the thousands of decent people who rolled up their sleeves and tried to make democracy work there if we leave precipitously? Let's face it. The "left" doesn't care about these people. They turn my stomach.
We need to the chat group format to form eustonite groups around the country. Seattle anyone?

I am coming to this late. But I must say that I am very pleased to find this discussion here on Telos. Being a thirty-something intellectual sort, I have been very discouraged by the knee-jerk anti-Americanism found among some on the Left. This I see as a hold over from the New Left, which does not serve Left leaning people well at all today. And I argee completely with the proposition that national security will be the dominant political electoral issue for sometime to come in the United States. If the Left refuses to see this, and refuses to work with the Democratic Party, then I am hard pressed to see how the United States, despite the terrible situation of the Republican Party at this moment, will not continue to drift rightward. Some young people - The Truman National Secuirty project, for instance - are beginning to see how important this issue is. To see a debate such as this, here at Telos, among intellectuals, is thus refreshing to say this least! Telos has had a history of fostering conversations between intellectuals in Europe and the United States. At this point in history, it is very important that intellectuals of the Left re-affirm thier commitment to social democratic values, and help Americans see their connection to others in Europe, in the face of the challenges we are sure to confront in the near future. Thank you for all your work! Patrick

"The notion that Islamic extremism is primarily a Frankenstein spin-off of US foreign policy . . . "

Those are not my words. They are a bit stronger than what I said, though I would concede that what I said was a bit too strong as well.

Of course one can trace extreme versions of all three Mosaic faiths to their origins. That's ahistorical and a red herring. It glosses over the extent to which atavistic tendencies move actors and have real effects.

More to the point is the U.S. record in propping up absolutist regimes, not just Arab ones, that tend to religious fundamentalism by default. What possible legitimacy from any modern standpoint, for instance, could we lend to those in places like Saudi Arabia, etc. The other side of propping up was encouraging or participating in the liquidation of secular, left-of-center forces. That left a vacuum that we now see being filled by the Islamicists.

The best face that can be put on this record in my view is that it was an expression of the Cold War. As far as the region is concerned, the desire for control for the sake of energy security (sic) is on point.

I have to think policy and events could have unfolded in a more propitious way. I could be wrong, but in any case seeing the past clearly is prerequisite to coping with the present..

Max:

What's this about the US "constructing Islamic extremism"? I know there's a political current that blames current metereology on Bush, but Islamic extremism--which predates the founding of the US?

True, the US was allied with Islamicist forces in the fight against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, but Islamic extremism has its own internal history: it didn't have to wait for the mavens of the CIA to be constructed. It's more like the US wanted to get in bed with it (pardon the image) opportunistically.

The notion that Islamic extremism is primarily a Frankenstein spin-off of US foreign policy is akin to the analysis that sees Lenin solely as a creature of Imperial German foreign policy, or the French Revolution as a Jacobin plot. Alas, there's plenty of that conspiracy thinking going around these days.

What, in your opinion are the causes "...of the history of bungles, follies and atrocities known as U.S. foreign policy."

In 50 words or less?

I think elites always run foreign policy, in any country. Being human, elites can be motivated by narrow interests (political and/or commercial), be captive to ideology, be vulnerable to miscalculation (imperial overstretch). I also think this admittedly conservative view was held by the Founders. If the Gov is going to screw up, I'd rather they do it trying to build low-income housing than trying to impose capitalism and democracy on some foreign land.

First and foremost, elites distrust democracy and markets, so they see control, which often entails the use of force, as the means of advancing the national interest. And often it isn't, like in Iraq.

Cheers.

Max

What, in your opinion are the causes "...of the history of bungles, follies and atrocities known as U.S. foreign policy."

Well you have a comment feature so it would be a shame not to use it.

I note that the list is full of serious people, as well as a few clowns, but it is not bulging with well-known liberals, and it includes some who are famous for bashing liberals, like my pal Will Marshall.

A few comments:

"Anti-American" is code for recognition and strong criticism of the history of bungles, follies, and atrocities known as U.S. foreign policy.

Viewing the prospect of a nuclear Iran "with alarm" is code for bombing Iran. (It could only be, since we have no available troops.) I suspect there is no plan for the aftermath of this lunacy.

The "now ossified and unproductive political polarization of American politics rooted as it is in the conflicts of the 1960s" looks pretty good to me. After all, on the two major pivots of this polarization -- Vietnam (military intervention) and race (cf. Katrina) -- national policy is still in the shitter.

The authors fail to acknowledge the role of the U.S. (see first point) in constructing Islamic extremism, failure that must cloud a clear liberal vision.

All must concede that terrorism is not an easy problem to solve. The dilemma for this project is the implicit advocacy of a facile and short-sighted resort to force. Upholding liberal values, edifying in and of itself, will be no protection from the whirlwind reaped by yet another U.S. military adventure in the Middle East.