Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Carolyn, Thedad, etc.: What's you opinion on a very controversial thread, "Backing out of E.D." currently under "College Admissions"?

The guy needs help.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 08:09 pm: Edit

I've read it and decided that I'm not obliged to stick in my two cents. Really.

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 08:13 pm: Edit

I think the student and her highschool counselor are going to have to handle the situation. Hopefully, they cover all of the implications of the decision.

By Bbstlchi (Bbstlchi) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 08:22 pm: Edit

Well...can someone expalin me the situation and the controversy....i really dont want to read a 100 posts long thread,
Thanks

By Theotherside (Theotherside) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 09:39 am: Edit

Well, Bbstichi, if you don't want to waste your time reading the whole thread, what makes you think anybody else wants to take the time to read it for you, and then summarize it?

By Massdad (Massdad) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 09:52 am: Edit

Summary:

- someone was accepted early to an east coast LAC

- applicant now believes said school is not the right choice

- applicant says (s)he applied to boost the odds for a twin co-applicant\

- school has already told applicant how to handle the situation and results of doing so.

For some reason applicant is looking for a better way? At any rate, IMHO the lessons here are that (1) long distance, anonymous good advice is difficult. I concur with the Dad. (2) ED is not for everyone, and is NOT a game, recent book titles notwithstanding.

By Garland (Garland) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 09:53 am: Edit

I just read through the thread, and I have a related question. It's just academic, since we've finished the process and S was fortunately accepted by his ED school. My question is about the "contract" that's refered to whenever ED is discussed. When my S applied to his school, he did it electronically. The only paper involved were counselor reports and recs, on which he checked "ED" at the top. When he applied online, he also checked ED, and that was that. There was no place to sign anything, beyond typing his name at the bottom. The counselor report reflected no acknowledgement from her; it was the same form as the RD one. Of course, we understood ED to be a binding commitment. However, as I later read postings refering to a contract that student/parent/counselor needed to sign, I practically broke out in hives! Had we missed something? WAs his application going to turn into RD, or get tossed as incomplete? He thought I was nuts, and subsequently of course, he was right. He was accepted, and in the package was the contract for me/him/counselor to sign. But this leaves me puzzled...why are we being asked to sign now, if it was already binding before? What would happen if we didn't sign? I thought I understood the process ,but this part is confusing.

Again, this is just an academic question; he went happily back to school today in his new Columbia hoodie (though, in the meantime, before we contacted Michigan to withdraw his acceptance there, they wrote us to say he was in line for a merit scholarship...ouch! wish I didn't know that.)

A belated happy new year to you all!

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 10:13 am: Edit

Garland:

ED can be broken if financial considerations make it impossible to attend the college. If the applicant backs out after s/he has been accepted with no good reason, the college will definitely feel aggrieved. How it reacts is not clear. It may alert other colleges about the applicant's move, which may have direct and immediate consequences for the applicant. It may discount the reliablity not only of other applicants from the same school but also of the GCs description of the school and its students. This will not affect the applicant, but it is something all involved should think about.

Given that ED implies a commitment on the part of the student to attend if it is financially possible, the signature that counts is the one that is required when the student is accepted.

Regarding contracts: with some exception (such as a house purchase) even oral contracts are considered binding, that is, they do not require a signature. So the fact that your S's application was online and did not have a signature is not material. Breaking an oral contract is a breach of promise (think about promises to marry). Colleges and universities operate largely on honor codes, whether implicitly or explicitly. A student who begins by breaking a commitment to abide by his or her decision to apply ED is not a very attractive proposition either for the original college or for others.

By Perry (Perry) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 10:25 am: Edit

I believe the courts now consider electronic signiatures viable for purposes of contracts.

By Garland (Garland) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 10:36 am: Edit

Marite,I understand about the oral commitment; I was just wondering why they have a serious written contract at this point in the process.

Perry: that's interesting about electronic signatures. Just out of curiosity, how do they determine they're real? (Answering my own question, I guess because it's a pincoded application?)

Anyway, as I've said, we would never break a commitment like that, and have no desire to. ED is uncommon where we live, so it's actual processes are new to me.

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 10:57 am: Edit

Garland:

The written contract after an ED applicant has been accepted is the same as for RD. The implied contract in ED is that the student: 1. will not apply ED or EA anywhere else; 2. will accept if offered admission unless financial reasons make it impossible; 3. will withdraw all other (i.e. RD) applications if offered admission and if finances make it possible to accept. Because of the "if" involved in financial considerations, it is important for the college to have the student's written contract. The college can then have a better sense of the number of available slots left for RD applicants and how to shape the entering class.
Remember that the RD process produces waiting lists. Colleges are anxious to know as early as possible how many RD students will accept so that they can work on their waiting lists. Even though the slots may be very few, it is a matter of courtesy to those on the waiting list to let them know their fate as soon as possible, and colleges try to accommodate them. In a way, the ED and RD processes are analogous.

At this point, I do not think there is any online acceptance form, unlike the application forms. When (if) these become available, I am sure electronic signatures will be considered binding.

By Penguin (Penguin) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 11:10 am: Edit

Surely no college would actually sue an ED admit who backed out on them, so the legal tenability of the ED vow isn't really important; the ethical force is. When a parent is actually promising to pay $xx,xxx in exchange for a child's education, however, there's need for a full-blown written, signed contract governing the terms of the service.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 11:15 am: Edit

Marite, Perry et al:

- an oral contract may or may not be binding. It depends on when the action is to be performed. In theory, a home purchase oral contract could be binding.

- minors can enter into contracts in some circumstances.

- like all contract matters, the law on e-signatures varies from state to state.

Some colleges have the parents sign an ED agreement. That would remove any question of contract validity.

This discussion of contract validity misses a key point. Even given a valid contract, enforcement is a problem. Generally, breach remedies take one of two forms:

(1) specific performance. Imagine forcing a kid to attend? Hardly. Scratch that one.

(2) damages. What were the damages if the kid does not attend? Foregone tuition? No, because common law requres mitigation of damages. The college could, and would, fill the seat, and collect the tuition.

So, from a contract position, not much would be done. But, the college still could, and frequently does, notify others of the breach.

I'm surprised all the posters looking to get out of ED commitments don't realise how easy it is for adcoms to communicate with one another, particularly given the professional associations for adcoms. I would not be a bit surprised if there is a list-serve that adcoms use for such issues. I for one, would not want to take the chance. As Marite pointed out, integrity is a key issue for colleges everywhere. Who would want to send the slightest hint of an integrity problem?

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 11:17 am: Edit

Though we have used and occaisionally tell kids to use online apps, I do not like them, in part, because, among other things, I have found pieces of them that are inconsistent and unresolved. Mostly because it is a new technology, I believe. But most the problems I have heard about apps have been with the online ones. When it works, it's short, sweet and beautiful, but when something does not, it is a problem because sometimes the college has not made a provision for something or the system breaks down while you are in the middle of the app or it won't transmit, or transmits scrambled or incompletely.
Regarding binding ED, I take the contract very seriously as do the schools I have worked with, colleges and highschools alike. But that is not always the case. There are colleges, many colleges,who do not subscribe to the ED agreement, so that a student who breaks the agreement is not necessarily blacklisted everywhere. There are guidance counselors who do not follow up on the ED acceptance and insist that the student send a note to all the other schools. That is why some school and counselors are held in high regard than others. I know at my son's school, there is a lot of back and forth between the two departments, and the instant the EDs came out, the other college were told so that other candidates from the school are given a brief spotlight. The selective colleges appreciate this kind of information due to yield issues. I am not saying this type of relationship is always beneficial to the applicant. I have known cases where it has not been , but it does help those kids who are well qualified and have a school they really want. The counselor misses no opportunity to tell the college how much that kid wants to go that school. These little things can make a difference.

By Perry (Perry) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 11:33 am: Edit

Marite, Massdad, Garland, Jamimom, Penquin:

I think this specific case illustrates what is wrong with ED. In many cases, kids and their parents now feel tremendous pressure to apply ED to get the addtional edge in the college applications process, when in fact, they may be wholly unprepared to make this commitment. This is just one of many problems with ED, which, according to national news accounts, is causing concern in Congress.

By Mom2003 (Mom2003) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 11:35 am: Edit

I don't know why but I really feel sorry for the kid on the original thread. Growing up is really hard! The college application process is the first time I have seen my son and his friends deal with really difficult issues such as choosing a school, dealing with rejection, acknowledging the consequences of that bad sophomore year or not preparing for the SAT exam. This is part and parcel of preparing for the adult life but somehow that does not make it easier to watch as a parent or friend. I wonder if I will feel differently in a few years once I see them making these transitions?

This is not meant to be a comment on the original thread, just expressing my own trepidation at all the hardships and heartache my little one has yet to face...and feeling some compassion for a kid who is finding it hard to face upto the consequences of his choices.

By Bobmcc (Bobmcc) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 11:50 am: Edit

Wow..i'm so glad our son didn't express any interest in ED. He didn't make up his mind about which of 5 schools he'd attend until he'd visited the last school of the five on the last weekend before May..Which is where he's been very happy ever since. As i've mentioned elsewhere..his "preference ranking" of schools totally reversed after visiting (mostly on "accepted students" weekends).

I have wondered whether ED has been legally challenged in court anytime. Antitrust - if there really IS a "blacklist"?

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 11:58 am: Edit

Perry:

I agree about ED. When my older S was selecting schools, I asked him whether he wanted to apply ED or EA anywhere. He was adamant that he was not ready to commit to any particular college. He applied RD, was admitted to several colleges and did not make a decision until a couple of days before the deadline. However, there is some possibility that my younger may apply ED or EA. The latter is my preference since the commitment would be on the part of the college, not the student; I would not want my S to break a commitment. He has more defined academic plans than his brother and has begun the process of thinking about colleges earlier. In general, however, I dislike both ED and EA. I think they contribute to senioritis, which begins earlier and earlier all the time.

The concern over ED (expressed by Ted Kennedy) has less to do with kids' unpreparedness than with the unfair advantage it gives to those who do not need financial aid and to legacies and others who benefit from a boost in the ED process.

By Garland (Garland) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 11:58 am: Edit

Perry, I think it somewhat depends on where you live/go to school. I never heard of the concept of "playing your ED card" until I read it on these boards. My D did not apply anywhere ED, because she hadn't made her mind up yet. I assumed my S wouldn't either, but early in the process (last spring) he realized he had a very clear first choice school. This never waivered, though I frequently checked and prodded. This being a school with an extremely low RD acceptance rate, it then made sense for him to apply ED. In this case, it worked the way it was supposed to: indicating his clear first choice to the school. SCEA does that too, but does not require the same level of commitment. I think ED is fine for the truly committed applicant, and a mistake for anyone else.

Mom2003: I somewhat sympathize with the young man, too, though I find him exasperating at the same time. I'm persuaded that he was not deliberately gaming the system, but showed some spectacularly bad/immature judgment which he seems to acknowledge and hopefully has grown from. He probably shouldn't go to Haverford (would you want your kid to be his roommate?), and it does seem that Haverford intends to let him go w/o blacklisting him or his school.

The process *is* tremendously difficult. My D essentially made a hash of it and was very unhappy her freshman year; luckily she transfered to a college she loves. Some of my S's friends are feeling the effects of low freshman/soph GPA's--they'd love to be able to go back and change that, and I do feel sympathy for them; they learned a lesson, at a great price (one already turned down by his first choice, the other probably going to be.)

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 12:05 pm: Edit

Mom2003:

Some of us would feel more compassion for the OP if he had been more honest about his reasons for backing out of ED. A poster on College Admissions strung together some of the posts he had made over the months (and Northstarmom uncovered another one) and they do not add up to the picture of a student with a lot of integrity.
If I were an adcom officer at Haverford, I would be delighted to accept his refusal of the admission offer!

Bobmcc:

I do not think that ED has been challenged in court. The Ivies and a few other universitie (in particular MIT) used to get together to compare financial packages in order to prevent bidding wars. That was challenged by the Justice Dept and stopped. I, for one, dislike the result, which is that colleges now bid for the top students with merit offers regardless of their financial situations, leaving far less money for really needy students.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 12:07 pm: Edit

"I have wondered whether ED has been legally challenged in court anytime. Antitrust - if there really IS a "blacklist"?"

What is there to challenge? There is no "blacklist". Rather, colleges may circulate factual information about whom they've accepted, released from the obligation and so forth. How the recipient of such information acts is up to the recipient.

Think of it like credit reports, but with less opportunity for error? Our legal/business system has allowed participants to exchange information for years.

Garland, Mom, I had a bit of sympathy until I saw the recent post recapping other posts by the same person. Then I decided the person was another prestige seeker more than a victim. It appears the person saw other "lesser' folks at his HS get into better schools.

By Perry (Perry) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 12:28 pm: Edit

I don't like ED or EA either. Although it's certainly used by some with integrity, it's opened the process to manipulation by both colleges and applicants. As Marite has pointed out, Ted Kennedy and others have also expressed concern about the unfair advantage it provides to the already privileged. In my daughter's case, she elected not to apply ED because there were simply too many good schools to choose from. Although now she has a first choice, this could change with a few additional visits and research. Perhaps it is getting to the point where some colleges will return to a one-time applicant pool. It's hard to see how colleges can maintain the integrity of the applicant process if they do choose to do nothing about the situation.

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 12:41 pm: Edit

It is not a "blacklist". It is just the list of students who signed the ED contract saying that they will withdraw all other applications upon acceptance from their ED school. The schools who subscribe to such a contract then circulate the list of acceptances to ED so that the kids can be removed from consideration from the other colleges.
The contract requires signature from the counselor and parent, but as above post indicates, things can go awry there. I have known kids who forgot to get their counselors signatures and still got in. There are all sorts of things that go awry in the application process, and I always dread looking at the sent files because that is when all of those mistakes jump out in glaring light. I proofed my son's apps many times, and I worked many years as an excellent proofreader, and yet I found a typo and some errors.
The problem with ED is that it has become a strategy game. I have expressed many concerns about this situation in my posts and there is a thread regarding ED strategy on this thread that covers many of the situations. People are forgetting the original purpose of ED, which is to allow the colleges and the students who want a specific college, first and foremost to make that commitment clear. It is a beautiful thing when it works. Kid loves Wesleyan, clear , first choice, he lets Wesleyan know with a binding contract, saying "I love you so much that I am willing to make a commitment right now". Wesleyan can now accept the kid, knowing that he will be coming and with a group of EDs, they can hit the rest of the applicant stacks working around a group that they know will be at the school. Many athletes apply ED to the selective schools rather than going "the letter of intent" route. It allows the coach to get the core of his next years team together and diminish the amount of scrambling in May when the decisions come in from the kids. The same situation occurs for the rest of the school. Which is why we now have the enormous waitlists. If the anthro department or French department screams that they are light for the next year, you better believe the anthro and French majors move up on the wait list. That is why these wait lists are not numbered. You get pulled up as your profile becomes desiraable. But the whole situation with ED becomes a strategy game when kids start using the fact that your chances are enhances going this route, and start picking colleges with the idea of getting into the most prestigious and selective instead of where they want to go. Most of these kids are like Bobmc 's son who have no clear idea where they want to go early in the process. My son had no idea where he wanted to apply and needed help in that departement. As the process evolved, he got a stronger sense of where he might want to go. But, I can tell you that even kids who seem to know exactly where they want to go, have visited, done overnights, done research sometime end up despising their first choice school once they end up there. Most kids fortunately are adaptable and end up enjoying whereever they go.
I would hate the early option disappearing because it does allow those kids who really know where they want to go to get the process done. But I also hate what the ED/EA game has become and many of these kids are players without an idea of what they are doing and the consequence thereof. What parent or counselor would permit a kid to apply binding ED just to give her sister an edge without making the condition expressedly clear in the app?
Though colleges do give some consideration to siblings or team acts, it is not a heavy consideration, just a tip, and will not make that big of a difference most of the time. For this applicant, the counselor, parents, child, should have a big powwow, discussing exactly what happened, what was wrong with what happened and for the best solution. The implications of breaking the ED contract extends beyond the penalties that the applicant will get. The school and counselor will get some backwash from all of this that could affect future Haverford candidates from that school.
There is a thread on this board from kids whose parents are not involved in the college process. I was one of those kids many years ago, but it seemed that things where less complex then. I did not have much counselor assistance either, as I went to a school where only 20-30% went to college and most of those colleges were state schools or local colleges. And it was unheard of to apply to many schools. I was very unusual in that I applied to 6 schools, and it was considered quite an extravagence. I did so because I HAD to get a good aid package to go to college since my parents did not make enough or have enough to pay for me. Still a reason for multiple applications. And I remember to this day the difficulty in getting my dad to fill out the financial aid stuff because he felt the info was "none of their damned business" and was insulted to have to show his "assets". I ended up mostly on merit aid, I remember. I also remember wishing that someone who knew more than my parents or counselor could give me some advice, but there was no one there. Kids these days seem to have too much advice, too many angles, viewpoints, stratgies, issues. Which is just as confusing. Also they talk more among themselves, fueling the frenzy for competitive schools.
I am at the point where I am beginning to think that every kid should just automatically apply to the top 15 schools as a crapshoot and their state school and then sit down and look for some other schools that fit their profile and interests. Just get the inevitable and prestige stuff out of the way so they can then do the real college search. Instead we have all of these kids obsessing and focusing on their lottery tickets instead of looking for schools that would love to have them and would be better fits. For kids that I see in the uppermiddle socioecon bracket, this is what happens anyways. They have to get the Harvard, Duke, ivy, MIT out of their system before they can sit down and look at the picture realistically.

By Perry (Perry) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 12:56 pm: Edit

Jamimon --

Interesting post.

I don't think the case of the Haveford kid is very complicated. The student evidently feels the college is not prestigious enough. No sympathy here.

By Mauimom (Mauimom) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 12:56 pm: Edit

I read the whole long list of posts, and frankly [particularly based on the kid's ever-evolving line of excuses] I have little/no sympathy for him. It's all "I'm the victim; I felt pressured. Why should I be concerned for anyone else?"

I do agree that Haverford should send him a "don't let the door hit your *** on the way out" letter and be glad it's rid of him.

Making decisions and accepting the consequences is a key part of being an adult. That said, I think he CAN back out of his ED, but he needs to accept the consequences of doing so, and quit saying "those consequences shouldn't apply to me because of the following special circumstances." Far better to say, "I goofed. I was wrong. I would like to withdraw because I think that would be the best course of action for the school and myself. I am willing to take whatever consequences result from my action."

Just my [unwanted?] 2 cents.

By Soozievt (Soozievt) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Aside from all the ethical and honesty issues....what I do not get is that the student now has a complete turnaround as to not liking Haverford (after at one point it was a first choice after seven visits), BUT is still saying he would attend if his sister gets in RD or his sister gets into Bryn Mawr. So, he is willing to attend under certain circumstances.

I also think that this student is saying poor poor me (plus only cares about ME ME ME in his posts) over the fact that he may now not be attending his first choice school (based on today's choice of schools) and believe me, LOTS of kids cannot attend their first choice school cause the school has not accepted them. They all live with this circumstance.

While it may seem like oh well, this kid took up one slot that another kid would have died to have, if all students did not go by the rules, it would really be quite the mess.

Also this students' posts tend to contradict themselves often as someone has posted snippets of a variety of posts by this student on other threads, so this colors my perception a bit. Also the student wrote an essay for Haverford around the whole honesty/ honor/ intergrity issue. The words in the essay contradict his actions to the point that the essay no longer speaks of the student but simply of writing what adcoms want to hear.

The whole process is difficult for all students. In that one regard I feel sorry for the dilemmas this kid faces but they are no different than all the kids. Also this student never seemed to weigh that one possibility was that one twin would get admitted and one not and what then. Not sure why this now is an issue cause it was always in the realm of possibilities. Plus my personal view is to choose your own college and not follow a twin or boy/girlfriend in the first place but that is a different issue.

I think the discussion for the most part has been polite and I hope this student can meet with adults who can advise him of what the right thing to do is and do it promptly without gaming the system anymore. And to also be aware of consequences of actions cause if the kid gives up Haverford, there is no guarantee that he will get into the other schools either. And I am not convinced he KNOWS he will not like Haverford all of a sudden. Anyway, sure was an interesting discussion over there!!!

Susan

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 01:22 pm: Edit

If Haverford is not prestigious enough, any other school higher on the selectivity list is not going to release him from the ED commitment. My understanding is that being released from the binding ED is not a problem with the school where you do not want to go. You just don't send your check and don't show up. It happens all of the time where kids and families change their minds, particularly with regular decision and waitlists, or coldfeet. No one can make you go where you do not want to go. It is the other schools that will not release you--I've heard this topic covered by admissions at Dartmouth and Princeton. Very rarely would they accept a student who is on an accepted ED list with reason being that the student came from an area and background where he was totally ignorant of the implications fo the contract when he signed it. Otherwise, you are no longer a candidate for their school once the ED list comes out--unless there is a letter stating that for financial reasons the ED offer cannot be accepted as the financial package is inadequate to cover that student's expenses and nothing can be worked out with the ED school. When that happens, the student remains a RD candidate at his other schools. All of the ivies and most of the selective schools are on that ED list.

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 01:36 pm: Edit

Jamimom is right. Nobody can force a student to attend a particular school if he does not want to, whether or not he committed to ED. But colleges are leery of applicants who show so little respect for commitments they have made. The OP may find himself with nowhere to go, epecially if Haverford releases him with all alacrity from his ED commitment.

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 01:37 pm: Edit

It is ironic that he chose to attend Haverford but changed his mind after making the decision, Haverford being a Quaker school which is big on the honor system and personal responsibility.

I hope he is reading the thread about cold feet as I think that is what is happening. That is something that isn't going to be solved by switching schools. Even if he attended Harvard, he would find things that weren't how he expected/wanted them to be.
It can be overwhelming living in the 21st century in teh USA with so many choices, that some never are sure they have made the right decision or can stick with it once they make it.

everything needs be bigger and better, then the burden is on the purchase or the spouse to make us happy rather than on ourselves.
Some parents set their kids up for this, it isn't enough to research your purchase, but some have to trade it in as soon as they perceive someone has something shinier.
They also may have allowed their kids to flake out on decisions like attending a birthday party or committing to caring for a pet.
Hopefully my expecting my kids to make decisions under my guidance when they were younger, will carry over to adults whose word means something.
( I still have to remind them about the pets though)

By Sac (Sac) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 01:42 pm: Edit

I'm curious. Do colleges send out EA lists, too, or only ED lists?

By Momcat (Momcat) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 01:43 pm: Edit

I would like to feel more sympathy for the original poster, but I find it very difficult. He's obviously well-versed in the differences b/w EA, ED, and RD. He was well aware of the level of commitment he was making. Changing his mind now that he's already received the ED advantage, for whatever reason, should have consequences. Of course everyone is allowed to make mistakes, but this one is well within his control. So if he chooses to back out, then he should expect repercussions, and not a lot of sympathy.

I say this as someone whose S didn't apply ED anywhere, but sure would have liked that slight admission advantage. Choices were made.

By Carolyn (Carolyn) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 01:44 pm: Edit

I just read the post and messages this morning. I think it's clear that the poster is suffering from cold-feet. I think this is not an uncommon feeling for many kids when they've been accepted (there's another post from a student talking about the let down after getting into UChicago). Let's face it, kids don't have much experience making such life changing decisions so I think a certain amount of self-doubt is to be expected. Unfortunately, the ED process adds another dimension to the entire issue.

What bothered me MUCH more than this poster was the poster who talked about applying ED to both Bowdoin and Brown and then, after others said he couldn't, posted he was going to change his Brown ED to RD. Later, he posted that he'd been accepted to BOTH Brown and Bowdoin ED and backtracked when Susan and I called him on it. To me, that smacks much more of working the system illegally and unethically than a kid having second thoughts after getting in ED to one school.

I expect we'll see many more second-thought panic posts in the months ahead.

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 01:46 pm: Edit

SAC:

I doubt very much that colleges send out EA lists because EA lets student apply RD to other colleges, so no college can take an applicant off its list as is the case with ED. There is no presumption that a student will accept an EA offer before May 1, unless, of course, the student chooses to do so right away before the review of RD applications begins.

By Northstarmom (Northstarmom) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 01:59 pm: Edit

I would bet money, too, that the admissions officers at the schools that he's considering all know each other. Haverford's alleged promise not to blacklist him may also have been based on what he said when he prevaricated as he tried to get out of ED. The OP also may have been hearing only what he wanted to hear in his conversations with the adcoms.

In addition, I am sure that the OP is very identifiable. First, he seemed so certain of being right that there's probably a good chance that he has told his friends about his predicament and that he already has become the subject of extensive gossip in school, including possibly to the GC.

By posting here, he brought further attention to himself. After all, exactly how many fraternal twins from the Philadelphia area applied to Haverford for ED? More than likely either an adcom at Haverford, an acquaintance of a Haverford adcom or of the OP's counselor, or a classmate of his has seen his various posts here and has let the powers that be know what is going on.

I would bet that by now, Haverford, his counselor and some of the OP's classmates know what the full story is. Other Quaker schools probably know as do other colleges in the Philadelphia area.

What the OP is attempting to do may be considered such a flagrant violation of Quaker ethics as well as what is expected of students applying ED that he may have become a poster child for what not to do when applying ED.

The other thing that might happen is that due to the posts that the OP made on these boards which indicated that his attempt to turn down the ED acceptance was well planned in advance, Haverford, his guidance counselor and other colleges to which he applied may scrutinize his applications for other deceptions.

Just as Harvard found a reason to withdraw admission to Blair Hornstein, who had become a national embarassment for Harvard, Haverford may find reason to withdraw the ED admission, and other colleges may reasons to reject him.

Meanwhile, this situation will not bode well for the OP or, unfortunately, for his twin. It's too bad that she probably will be hurt by association even though she seems to be the innocent party here.

By Sac (Sac) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 02:05 pm: Edit

While I recognize the buyer's remorse, and wish ED did not exist, I agree with those who think this student should stand by his original decision to attend Haverford. It is precisely because so many students do not really know what they want so early in the senior year, or change their minds later, that we advised our son not to apply ED. He lost a considerable advantage at what is very likely to be his first choice school that way, since it is one of those with about a %30 admit rate early compared to about a 10% admit rate in RD. He will have to abide by the consequences of that decision, should he not get in RD. Why shouldn't the poster abide by the consequences of his decision, as well? He should go to Haverford and, then, if it doesn't suit him, transfer.

What kind of lesson is it if all the adults in this student's life let him off the hook? What will happen when he decides on the person he wants to marry and, sometime between the ceremony and returning from the honeymoon, starts thinking about how another partner might have been a better choice?

By Garland (Garland) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 02:12 pm: Edit

Actually, Sac, if my spouse decided after the ceremony that someone else might have been a better choice, I think I'd want to know!

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 02:13 pm: Edit

Sac:
"What will happen when he decides on the person he wants to marry and, sometime between the ceremony and returning from the honeymoon, starts thinking about how another partner might have been a better choice? "

LOL. I think, though, a better analogy is between the betrothal and the wedding. After all, the prospective bridegroom is awfully reluctant to march down the aisle!

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 02:20 pm: Edit

We have this situation ( well kinda) in our school district.
We have 14 high schools and assignment is by choice ( and tiebreakers). Students will only get on the waiting list for their first choice. Often students will be forced to attend another choice for a month or two before they are placed into their first choice school, but oftentimes they decide to stay at the school they began the year with.

To the wedding analogy, I think it is more like before the wedding rather than after. I actually was freaking out the day of the wedding ( and for a few months after to be honest), but that was more about I wasn't sure what really being a grownup meant I think ( I was only 22) and didn't realize that most adults are playing it by ear!

By Penguin (Penguin) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 02:30 pm: Edit

Northstarmom,

Now you've made me paranoid. Do you really think admissions officers read these boards? I've said enough about myself to be identifiable to anyone who's read my application. As far as I know, I haven't written anything horrible that would torpedo my applications, but there are some things I'd just as soon adcoms didn't know (e.g. applied EA to one first choice, was deferred, applied ED II to other first choice - which, by the way, is a place where I'd be ridiculously happy and am 100%+ ready to attend if admitted.)

By Lhm501 (Lhm501) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 02:31 pm: Edit

Carolyn, I remember that Bowdoin/Brown poster also and was somewhat surprised that those postings did not cause much of a ripple, at least as compared to this one. Neither that poster nor this one was naive, in fact they both showed a complete understanding of the "system". They just didn't want the rules to apply to them. The fault lies not in the system but in the players.

By Sac (Sac) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 02:46 pm: Edit

I chose after the wedding because the concept of "betrothal" in this country seems rather quaint, while I think of the ceremony as a contract. But you all are right, if the ED contract is signed after the admittance, than the betrothal is more like the agreement before the contract. Whew. Feel like I've just taken the analogy section of the SAT.

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 02:49 pm: Edit

Penguin:

There is nothing wrong about applying EA then applying EDII to another college, as long as you accept admission to the EDII college if it is offered (and inform the EA college adcom of your decision). It's different from backing out of an ED commitment for reasons that colleges are likely to have little sympathy for, i.e., prestige grubbing.

By Soozievt (Soozievt) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 02:53 pm: Edit

Sac, your post about the SAT analogy just cracked me up totally!

In any case, I took my marriage committment quite seriously and 26 1/2 years later, I still do.

And yes, there was less ripple on the kid who applied early to both Brown and Bowdoin and when we all advised to let Brown know she would switch to RD, she claimed to have done so. Then a month or so later, voila...she says she got into Brown ED and on another post said she got into Bowdoin early. You know guys, our sons/daughters on this thread are starting to look like saints and model citizens if I say so myself.

Susan

By Northstarmom (Northstarmom) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 02:57 pm: Edit

Penguin,
I agree with Marite that what you did was not unethical, and IMO posting about it on a board isn't going to hurt you.

What I was referring to in my previous post is the fact that it's never a good idea to post on a public board any personal information that one wouldn't want one's worst enemy to know. In fact, it's never a good idea to even put in a private e-mail anything that one wouldn't want one's worst enemy to know.

I have recognized on anonymous message boards people whom I knew and who probably had no idea that I posted or lurked on those boards. Examples included one woman who was in hiding after an attempted murder attempt by a spurned suiter. This actually ended up being a good thing for me because I was worried about her and was glad that she was OK.

Another example was someone whom I knew from work who was posting graphic details about her sex life on a board about relationships. This was embarassing because after I sent an e-mail to her, using her board name, and warned her that she had posted so much info that she was identifiable, I realized that I actually did know her.

In a related example, once when I attempted to download my e-mail from the place where I then worked, instead of getting my own e-mail, because of some weird computer glitch, I got hundreds of a coworker's personal e-mails. This occurred even though I had logged in from my home laptop and had logged in under my own name and password.

There are thousands of adcoms, guidance counselors and alumni interviewers in this country. Those people have thousands of friends and relatives. Odds are that at least some of those people read these boards.

Murphy's Law would mean that if there's some potentially damaging information that a person posts here, if s/he posts in any way that's identifiable, the last person in the world whom s/he would wish to read the post will manage to see the post.

That's technology. That's life. That's why it pays to be cautious.

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Sac:

In some countries--and in Europe through the Middle Ages--, a betrothal was binding (like ED). I remember reading a story by the Chinese writer Lin Yutang about a virgin widow: a young woman who had been engaged to marry but whose intended bridegroom died before the wedding. For all intents and purposes, she was his widow and could not (re)marry. The engagement period was not considered a time when either party could back off if they found out they did not suit (or found a more attractive alternative) but to give both sides time to assemble the goods they would bring to the marriage (dowries, brideprices, trousseaus and so forth). In the 1970s, my brother went to a wedding in France of two young people whose families drew up a marriage contract straight out of Balzac (that was well before prenups had been dreamed up), detailing things like bedlinens, furniture and other properties that each was bringing to the union.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 03:07 pm: Edit

Marite,

How do you know all this stuff? Fascinating...

By Carolyn (Carolyn) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 03:07 pm: Edit

My first reaction to both the Bowdoin/Brown and this poster was: where the heck are the parents? I didn't buy that both claimed their parents "weren't very involved" for a second. The Bowdoin/Bates double-ED saga in particular just smelled like an adult was pulling the strings to me. I also was stunned that whole series of posts caused so little furror among the kids on the board. I mean, they're upset about an poster denying someone else a spot at ONE ED school --- that kid did it at TWO!

By Perry (Perry) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 03:15 pm: Edit

"What will happen when he decides on the person he wants to marry and, somtime between the ceremony and returning from the honeymoon, starts thinkinng about how another partner might have been a better choice"
-- Sac

This has the ring of the "Graduate" with Dustin Hoffman. Remember the ending? Doesn't the bride flee from the altar at the last possible moment to elope with Hoffman? (can't quite remember).

By Perry (Perry) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 03:18 pm: Edit

Balzac -- "Behind every great fortune is a great crime."

By Thedad (Thedad) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 03:24 pm: Edit

A few random notes:

1. I succumbed and went through that whole dreary thread. I'm usually supportive of the students on this board, even when I don't particularly *like* them (very few...nobody get paranoid) but for the OP, I'll make an exception. I left one of the more eviscerating posts I've made on CC.

2. I think binding ED stinks. It's too much pressure and there's too much game playing. I don't see the colleges below the very top tier that use it change it any...they want to lock in a high percentage of their class. Harvard, Yale, and Stanford can get away with SCEA because they know they'll get a high matriculation rate...most other colleges won't.

3. Never post anything on-line you wouldn't be willing to read on the front page of the New York Times with you identified by name. I can't say that I haven't thought that I'm a, ah...highly visible poster and that my D might be recognizable to any adcom member who cared. I decided, "Karma." Maybe they'll peg our family as likely to volunteer in one of the school's organizations or something.

By Wjk323 (Wjk323) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 03:24 pm: Edit

Hmm...

Hey I remember reading that! I dont know how I remember that but I clearly remember that I read in in Santa Monica...this place called "3rd Street."

Wow...I'm sorry. I just pulled an all-nighter. Funny how we think of our childhood memories when you havent slept for 2 days.

By Sac (Sac) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Perry,
You remind me that the "Graduate" is a film I've been meaning to rent for a long time. I think you're right about the ending. Mostly, I remember there was great hoo-hawing in the theater because they filmed Dustin Hoffman driving the wrong way on the Golden Gate Bridge, a tidbit the Bay Area locals picked up.

By Soozievt (Soozievt) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 03:28 pm: Edit

Carolyn, you and I both. I also wonder in some of these instances where the parents are. And yes, that other situation was even worse....was way more gaming the system than this one was.

The way Marite knows all this great stuff is that she is a highly intelligent educated woman, particularly in history (though in parent stuff too).

And you know, guys, the length of this thread is beginning to rival the one on the other board on this matter!!

By Lhm501 (Lhm501) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 04:00 pm: Edit

Too sweet. Before you are too sick of this thread, go back to the original, scroll down to the end and see what Obiwan wrote. I couldn't love a post or moderator more!!

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 04:06 pm: Edit

Soozie:

thanks! I also thought about the length of this thread, especially after the very tentative way it began here.
As for the Brown/Bowdoin ED saga, I think that the reason it did not generate as much heat is that the OP claimed to have withdrawn her ED application at Brown so as to be eligible for the Bowdoin scholarhip and told everybody to get off her back. Not everybody picked up on the fact that she later claimed to have been accepted ED at Brown. But you and Carolyn are right: her transgression is even more flagrant.

By Mike (Mike) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Back in the old days when I was a counselor I had a sign above my desk:

Ask and you will receive
Seek and you will find
Whine and forget it.

I didn't post on that thread. I don't think he would have liked my counseling.

Mike's Dad

By Massdad (Massdad) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 04:42 pm: Edit

IMHO, the other reason the Brown/Bowdoin topic did not generate as much traffic is that the kids were too busy then, with app deadlines and such. Now, many of them are just, just waiting....

...so watch the flame wars on these controversial topics. Personally, I'm glad someone else is talking ethics. Last time I did, I got slammed by others for being too tough!

By Blossom (Blossom) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 05:50 pm: Edit

ok guys let's back-off. This is a kid, for goodness sakes, and we'd all be candidates for parent of the year if our own kids never did anything stupid or short-sighted, or used poor judgement, or whatever. Let's let the thread die the death it deserves.
I remember a few months ago we had a vigorous discussion of choosing colleges on the basis of non-frizzy weather, or following a high school BF/GF to some god-forsaken place, or pursuing the country's best program in forensic science only to discover you can't stand the sight of blood, or whatever..... We've all been 17; let's show some maturity and leave this poor kid alone.

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Massdad:

Totally off-topic, but concerns the subject of betrothal vs. marriage. This excerpt from Wikipedia about Anne Neville, younger daughter of Warwick the Kingmaker and wife of Richard III:
"At fourteen, Anne was betrothed by her father to Edward, Prince of Wales, heir to the deposed King Henry VI of England. Anne's father, dissatisfied with the favours he had received in return for helping King Edward IV of England to the throne, had changed sides and allied himself with Margaret of Anjou, Henry's wife. Margaret harboured suspicions about Warwick's motives, particularly since Anne's sister, Isabel, had by now married the reigning king's brother, George, Duke of Clarence. It is not certain that a formal marriage ceremony ever took place between Anne and Edward -- and, if so, whether their marriage was ever consummated -- but they were either married or formally betrothed (the legal equivalent of marriage) at the Chateau d'Amboise in France, probably on December 13, 1470."

By Mike (Mike) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 05:57 pm: Edit

High school seniors aren't kids. Society (that's us) holds them esponsible by that age. You get to smoke, sign up for the draft and do hard time in adult prisons and in some states you can even be executed. Mike understood the rules of ED admission. And any parent needs to make sure they do. the ones I have seen expect parents to sign too. MIke didn't think he was sure enough about where he wanted to go so skiped ED taking a chance that his schools may be less likely to take him RD.

Mike's Dad

By Lhm501 (Lhm501) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 06:02 pm: Edit

In case you haven't noticed, the admin came and took out Obiwan's post along with a slew of others and shut down the thread. The OPs id is changed in the originating thread, weirdly, it is the same further on in the thread. I thought Obiwan was on the money but my posts in support were deleted too. I will probably be banned, but I thought this censorship of a serious topic was heavy-handed and inappropriate.

Obiwan thanks you for your thoughts but I would not regard the removal of posts as censorship. For the record, Obiwan has no problem with his post being deleted and the thread being closed. The Mod staff is discussing parts of this off-line. There is no thought to banning anyone as a result of that discussion but I would ask that you not criticize "Admin" or any other part of the Mod staff. It was a sad thread and there are a number of conflicting takes about what to do in response that are valid. By the way, the OP's change of identity was the OP's original doing. Nothing sinister there.

As a final request, it would probably be better if there were no follow-up discussion to THIS post or to THAT thread here.

Thanks.

--Obiwan

By Northstarmom (Northstarmom) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 06:20 pm: Edit

I thought the thread had run its course, and had done an excellent job of reminding everyone that if one attempts to trade one's integrity to buy happiness, one will leave empty handed.

As we all in one way or another face decisions about college and about life in general, that lesson is something important to keep in mind.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 08:32 pm: Edit

Obiwan, aw shucks...now we gotta go back to giving (bad?) advice to other kids.

Marite, geesh, I thought genetics was complicated. It is interesting, though, how different the concept of marriage and relationships was then. But, marriage was more of a business deal back then wasn't it? More like a merger of estates and clans?

By Thedad (Thedad) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 08:42 pm: Edit

To go really OT, I've been privileged to see some high-level contrarian assessments about the lack of planning with respect to Iraq on the political/social level. One of the things that I hadn't stopped to consider is the degree of intermarriage over there is astoundingly high by our standards (marriage between cousins). In the social structure, nepotism is not only not a crime but a virtue and obligation on the part of the family/clan/tribe. Makes assumptions about grafting Western-style democracy onto the body politic...ludicrous in the time scale of a few months.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 08:56 pm: Edit

Thedad,

Iraq. A painful topic. I would suggest we carefully distinguish between TALK of democracy and the implementation of the same. The talk is for us here, especially in an election year, especially when they drilled a dry hole w/r/t WMD (analogy not accidental). We got what we wanted, a base in the middle east without strings. I'm not sure what the locals will get, but heck, we didn't go in there for them, did we?

Lack of knowledge and consideration of cultures other than ours? We'll, the commander in chief did visit Mexico once before he was elected, didn't he? And that was it for world travel? Hmmm. Besides, they were supposed to greet us as liberators, darnit.

By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 09:35 pm: Edit

Getting out of an ED commitment is a minor ethical infraction compared to some of the things students on CC have spoken about. "Not getting caught" seems to be topmost in their minds when contemplating breaking some rule or law. No one who reads a newspaper should be surprised.

The bright side is in the numbers of students who do things the right way, have a functioning conscience, and understand that their word means something.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 09:52 pm: Edit

Morgantruce,

Unfortunately, I don't think the attitude "it's OK if we don't get caught" is unique to the students, as you point out. I was the target not long ago of the most amazing exchange, where I was criticized by a poster for forcing a moral code on someone, because I questioned someone's integrity. It may have been the earlier Brown ED thread. I did not even try to respond, as the attack reminded me of some of the things I went through in HS - moral relativism versus absolutes etc. It was curious and a bit scary.

By Carolyn (Carolyn) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 09:55 pm: Edit

The bright side is in the numbers of students who do things the right way, have a functioning conscience, and understand that their word means something.
>>

MT, I agree. There are some wonderful kids here on CC in spite of a few bad apples. A few of them astound me with their level of maturity and politeness.

By Perry (Perry) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 10:00 pm: Edit

Massdad --

It wasn't WMD's that compelled the U.S. to move into Iraq (albeit this served as public relations cover); rather, it was the much broader ambition to rearrange the calculus of the Middle East.

At any rate, I agree with Morgantruce that withdrawing from ED would seem a minor transgression compared to "some of the things that students on CC have spoken about." Nonetheless, it is refreshing to see that many of the kids on this board do appear to act with integrity. It is the kids that want to dissemble, even in the college process, that I worry about down the road.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 10:28 pm: Edit

Lack of knowledge and consideration of cultures other than ours? We'll, the commander in chief did visit Mexico once before he was elected, didn't he? And that was it for world travel?

This is an interesting comment, as it seems to imply that President Bush -and his staff- must lack knowledge in foreign affairs. I am afraid that you might have to turn your clocks back a few generation to find a president with more understanding of international affairs, especially if you overlook Bush Senior. I sure hope that you wont count Slick Willie's draft-dodging escapade to England as a possible introduction to foreign affairs.

The reality is that it may take a few generations to correctly weigh the impact of political decisions. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan might turn out to be one of the absolute worst decisions ever by a White House, but it may also end up being a magistral stroke of genius for world peace. After all, wasn't the Star Wars program of Reagan not ridiculed until it caused the main crack in the former Soviet empire and hastened its collapse? Adversaries can focus on the tremendous costs of a program and refuse to see the long term benefits of responding to threats.

Considering the scorecard on international affairs of the predecessor of Dubya and his laconic laissez-faire policies, one has to shudder at the tought of the Clintons being at the helm of our country in late 2001.

Even our French friends easily admit that La critique est aisée, mais l’art est difficile...

By Thedad (Thedad) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 10:50 pm: Edit

In any language: Xiggi, Xiggi, Xiggi.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 10:54 pm: Edit

Xiggi,

Where ya been? We need to get some discussion going. Actually, I DO consider living in London for a year or two to be a bit more mentally enriching than a quick trip to a Mexican resort. I'm not sure I follow your comment about Bush having a good understanding of world affairs. His administration is the least travelled of any administration in years. Not just Bush, but his cabinet, too. Many have said Bush admires administrations at the turn of the century, when imperial Brittania still ruled. Sometimes, I think he views the imperial era as his real model.

Regarding Starwars, I think you are confusing the bogus science program that planned to shoot down missiles with the real defense buildup in conventional arms. Many have said the latter is ultimately what led to the downfall of the Soviet Union, not star wars.

At any rate, many of us view the current strategy of preventative war (a step beyond pre-emptive even) to be highly destabilizing. We've established a new approach, fight/attack first, ask questions later. This, of course, encourages others to be first, too - use it or lose it. One problem is our real lack of resources to handle these things - look at Iraq now. If Korea goes critical, we're in a real bind. Next, look at the cost. $200+ billion is real money.

I've lived through enough of these "wars". And yes, I do question the value, in dollars, of course, but also in lives, ours and the other side. Is Haiti better off for what we did a few years back? Viet Nam? Afganistan? (Osama, where ya hidin?)

Xiggi, I'm glad you support these military adventures, because it is your classmates that will have their careers disrupted supporting it, and you will be paying the bills long after I pass on. At least you are willing.

By Metz (Metz) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 11:05 pm: Edit

I'd have to say that I do think Bush does lack knowledge in foreign affairs (though I think his staff is well-educated). To be fair, Clinton did go to Georgetown's school of foreign services and majored in International Affairs(not to mention he was a Rhodes Scholar while doing it). I think he was as educated as anyone on the topic.

But I totally agree with the idea that we can only wait and see as far as how successful we have been. Every time I hear the left bring up another dead soldier, or the right bring up another successful attack, I feel like saying "have some patience." It's really almost irrelavent in the scheme of things. It won't be until Bush is out of office (assuming he wins the next election) before we even know how sucessful or how big of a failure our involvement in the Middle East is/was.

By Reidmc (Reidmc) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 11:10 pm: Edit

I missed the Brown/Bowdoin double-EA thread. . .did anyone consider that the poster was not truthful when he/she claimed to have been accepted to both ED?

Kids claim some wild stuff to impress others. My nephew has an acquaintance who this fall claimed to have been accepted to Yale EA -- before the responses were sent out. Even more interesting - he is a hs junior.

By Coureur (Coureur) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 11:39 pm: Edit

>>This has the ring of the "Graduate" with Dustin Hoffman. Remember the ending? Doesn't the bride flee from the altar at the last possible moment to elope with Hoffman? (can't quite remember).<

In the book Elaine Robinson runs off with Benjamin at the very last second, just before the completion of the wedding ceremony. In the movie, however, Benjamin is too late - they are already married, but Elaine runs off with him anyway. A completely different ending IMHO.

By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 11:51 pm: Edit

What better way to destroy a foe who is more powerful? Always show him a big smile. Convince him that it is the small terrorist element within your neighborhood that is the root of all the problems he is having. Feign friendship while your foe allows himself to be destroyed. By the time he figures out your deceit, he will be too demoralized and spent to do anything about it.

By Garland (Garland) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 08:32 am: Edit

Xiggi, I believe student deferments were legal. As was using family connections to get into the Texas National Guard. (Not finishing your tour of duty with them, though, is another question...)

By Dadx (Dadx) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 08:46 am: Edit

Since someone else brought it up, I suppose I'm free to say that I have little patience with these positions. It is abundantly clear to me that if we had done nothing, the same critics would be all over GW for inaction. As someone from a town which lost two fathers and a son in the WTC collapse, I think we have to respond to this business. I would say that even if Bill Clinton or AL Gore were acting.

If Iraq had not expelled the UN inspectors, and if the UN had not had a spineless response, none of this would have been necessary. We had twenty or so misguided middle easterners and others kill about 3,000 people not long ago with a relatively small amount of dollars, using only boxcutters and hatred. WIthout doubt, if they could have killed 300,000, or 3,000,000 they would have in a blink. It seems to me common sense to take control of an unsettled situation where there was a potential danger that one of their buddies might develop a more destructive approach.

By Dadx (Dadx) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 08:57 am: Edit

The USSR was going to collapse of its own economic systemic failings. What hastened it was the collapse in oil prices, triggered by Econ 101 and markets at work. Oil was the only hard dollar export that they had. The Soviets couldn't produce a single thing that anyone wanted or needed in a free market. It became prohibitively expensive to keep the military empire together, as history has always shown, and the drop in the price of their only export was a major factor in the timing of the collapse. Star wars may have helped raise the price of poker, but the collapse was on its way anyway.

By Momcat (Momcat) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 09:02 am: Edit

And the title of this thread remains appropriate.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 09:35 am: Edit

Ah, some healthy exchange, and with honest respect for the views of others. To me, the debate between force and accomodation w/r/t enemies is a fascinating one, with interesting implications. It is easy to advocate force in the abstract, and it is viscerally rather satisfying, beating a foe and all. It is harder when your friends and loved ones die in the process, as happened to me during Viet Nam (fortunately not touched closely by Iraq). Yet accomodation has its problems, too, especially when one does not understand the foe, or the foe plays by different rules.

What makes the cold war fascinating to me is that in many ways it was a set piece conflict, reminding me of some of the slow paced, largely symbolic conflicts of another era. What the "war on terrorism" is now, I'm not sure. I wonder what's even different about it from what has happened for years in Europe (IRA, Baeder Meinhoff, France's Algeria problem etc) or other parts of the world (e.g. Indian subcontinent). Quantitatively, WTC was out of proportion to what has happened elsewhere, of course. But I don't know that that fundamentally changed the game?

By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 09:51 am: Edit

Some straight information on joining Army/Air National Guard during the Vietnam era:

Before joining you were told that:
1. You were signing up for a 6 year commitment.
2. You were expected to attend monthly and annual drills---after your basic training and advanced training active duty period.
3. You may be activated at any time---and, in fact, the unit you are considering joining was activated X number of times in the past Y number of years. You figure the odds. The odds were not good.

After joining, you were constantly reminded that missing drills was all the reason the Guard unit needed to:
1. discharge you, and
2. recommend to your local draft board that you immediately be drafted into whichever service had the most need. (At the time, the Marine Corps was very needy.)

-----

I joined the New Jersey Air National Guard in 1965 and (after basic and tech school) began attending drills. Just after the Tet offensive in 1968, I was called to active duty and spent a year in Vietnam. You would not believe how many lawyers, accountants, and even doctors were loading bombs, fueling planes, and working maintenance by day---and doing perimeter guard by night.

----

Anyone who includes the terms "National Guard" and "draft-dodger" in the same sentence is:

(1) showing great disrespect for honorable service.
(2) showing much ignorance of historical facts.
(3) causing a lot of pain.

-----

The huge majority of Guardsmen served honorably before, during, and since the Vietnam conflict---in the face of little support from the public. Many Guardsman shared the same reservations about the Vietnam War as the public---but they did so while serving. Many were active in the anti-war movement after their honorable discharge. Very, very few shunned their civic duty.

So, if you want to search for draft dodgers and others who refused to serve their country, look elsewhere. They really aren't difficult to spot. The keenest searchers should check their mirror first.

By Garland (Garland) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 10:09 am: Edit

MT--you misunderstand my post: neither college deferment nor National Guard service is draft-dodging (Xiggi's word). But Dubya probably never finished his service with them.

By Perry (Perry) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 10:40 am: Edit

The forces behind the Soviet Union's collapse were many -- social, economic, and ideological stagnation; the infusion of western material culture, the rise of international human rights and environmental movements, the outbreak of nationalist sentiments among the USSR's many ethnic people's, corruption among the Soviet ruling cadres, restive populations in the satelite countries of eastern Europe, and so forth. Communism had run its course; it was a spent ideology that brought nothing but totalitarianism, domination of neighboring countries, and proxy wars with the West. Now, in its place, the world has a new radical ideology with which to contend -- based on a nihilistic form of Islam. What a world...

By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 11:11 am: Edit

What irks me is the necessity of even bringing up the National Guard in the context of draft dodging.

----

I joined the Guard at a time when draft boards were working overtime---even filling quotas for the Marines. I drove down to the Guard unit and signed my name on an agreement. My grandfather's name was not Prescott Bush; my father did not hold high office; no strings were---or needed to be---pulled. I lived up to the agreement---as did many thousands of others.

Also, pardon me for suggesting that serving in the Guard and obtaining a student deferrment were two quite dissimilar experiences involving vastly different committments and risks. The fact that both were "legal" activities is just about the only thread that binds the two. Deferrments for college was a scheme cooked up by the nation's powerful to keep their sons out of harm's way. The Guard was not such a plan---and is still not. Ask yourself, "How many of those with student deferrments tried to get into a Guard unit and were turned away?"

In a nutshell, members of the Guard took their training, drilled year-round and said, "We are ready to serve on a moment's notice---if, when, and wherever you need us." Those with student deferrments were saying, "I'll study anything for any length of time in order to never serve." So much for "legal" activities.

By Garland (Garland) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 11:31 am: Edit

Morgantruce--again, no one is questioning your actions. Joining the Texas Air National Guard was a totally different sitiuation--it had a long waiting list which Bush leapfrogged over despite scoring low on the test.

This link from the Boston Globe seems a fair and balanced account of what's known:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000619121358/http:/www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/One_year_gap_in_Bush_s_Guard_duty+.shtml

Here's a relevant quote:

"Ben Barnes, who was speaker of the Texas House in 1968, said in a sworn deposition in a civil lawsuit that he called Guard officials seeking a Guard slot for Bush after a friend of Bush's father asked him to do so."

By Massdad (Massdad) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 11:52 am: Edit

Morgantruce,

As an army veteran from the same era, I beg to differ with you slightly. Some people may have joined the reserve/guard with the expectation of serving. Most did not, and knew there was little risk of ever going to 'nam, probably less risk than the risk of screwing up at school and being drafted. Also, once the draft lottery began (remember those days?) the guard became even more important, as the value of the student deferment

And again, the issue with GWB, in addition to how he got into a unit, was that he never even completed his obligation for training. See the link above.

Where we differ, I guess, is that I was (and am still not) resentful of those that chose other routes. I don't resent those that took student deferments. I don't even resent those that left the country to avoid the draft. In fact, I admire their principled stand and willingness to take a risk for principles.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 12:11 pm: Edit

Garland~

Great research on GWB. But, how about Bill?

Unless I am mistaken, I believe that President Johnson abolished the graduate deferment in February 1968. "Unexplainable" delays caused the induction of Bill Clinton to be postponed until July 1969. Clinton used the delays to succesfully (ab)using the ROTC -a program he was not eligible for- rules to continue to avoid the draft. He signed up for the ROTC and promised to attend Arkansas Law School, only to return to Oxford where he organized and participated in Anti-War demonstration.

In fact, Bill said it best: "I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason only, to maintain my political viability ... Finally, on September 12 I stayed up all night writing a letter to the chairman of my draft board, saying basically what is in the preceding paragraph, thanking him for trying to help in a case where he really couldn't, and stating that I couldn't do the ROTC after all and would he please draft me as soon as possible... I never mailed the letter, but I did carry it with me every day".

The definition of what is considered "legal" might again hinge on the meaning of the word "is"!

Read it all at:

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/bill-clinton-draft.htm

By Massdad (Massdad) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 12:34 pm: Edit

Xiggi,

What is the point? Which is worse? Using family influence to get an air guard slot, then skipping training in order to run a political campaign, or using connections to avoid the draft?

Seems to me to be variations on the same theme. The difference is that one styles himself to be a warrior and all (holding up port call of thousands of sailors for a photo op? give me a break), the other is retired, no longer a factor, but never claimed to be something he wasn't w/r/t military expertise and duty. IMHO, both stink. You'd think our country could do better.

By Bobmcc (Bobmcc) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 12:42 pm: Edit

As long as we're incredibly OT..My fave prez in re knowing where we were vis a vis the rest of the world was FDR. During one of his cabinet meeting during WWII, the topic turned to Japan attacking a relatively minor Chinese port. No one had a regional map handy; FDR pulled out a pen, and drew, freehand, a detailed map of China's coastline w/ the port in the right place. When a "real" map was finally brought in to the room, FDR's sketch was almost dead on. All growing from his childhood interest in stamp collecting, evidently.

By Soozievt (Soozievt) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 12:53 pm: Edit

Momcat, I love your post this morning about the title of this thread still being appropriate. AND.....we can all thank that kid who wanted to back out of his ED to Haverford for it!!
Susan

By Garland (Garland) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Massdad--agree with your last line (I'm certainly no fan of Bill.)

LOL, Susan!

By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 01:19 pm: Edit

MassDad,
One of the distinct memries I have of joining an Air Guard unit was the lecture we got about our chances of activation. We were told that our unit had been activated for every minor skirmish since the early 1950's---from the Berlin Airlift to local bar-fights. We were told that if we didn't like the idea of active duty, THIS was not the unit to be joining. Perhaps that's why there was no waiting line! Maybe I was a jerk---should have looked for a unit that had never been activated. I already had my degree and a good job. I was not by any means "gung ho" but I did want to have a bit of control over what became of me. In 1965 they were drafting guys into the Marines... and I thought that service in the Air Force was more my style. Another distinct memory was in 1968 when I got orders for Vietnam---thinking briefly about making a run for Canada or just living up to the paper I had signed. That one was easy to figure out: civilians heading to Canada were draft dodgers; active duty personnel heading for Canada were deserters---two totally different things. In the end, I listened carefully to what my Guard unit was saying to everyone: "Don't worry men---we've been assigned to a very safe air base in Vietnam..." Boy, was that ever a load of (expletive deleted)!

As for "principled stands", I made mine after returning from Vietnam---in a very emotional and public way.

Those were some dreadful times. Anyone who watches the tail end of the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour on PBS these days gets a glimpse into that same awful feeling---as the most recent scroll of names and pictures rolls by. Anyone who writes about foreign policy should watch those pictures carefully.

By Sooky6 (Sooky6) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 01:22 pm: Edit

Perhaps mercifully, Clinton and GWB cancel each other out in terms of shady evasions of military service...now if we can just get Clark in there, there won't even be a contest on that issue.

By Dadx (Dadx) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 01:26 pm: Edit

Massdad

What is worse is to use influence (and deceit) to avoid the draft, and THEN to attempt to position yourself to deny that you did it by writing a self-serving letter suggesting that you had made a decision to "expose" yourself to being drafted three months ago, when the week before you wrote the letter you became effectively ineligible by pulling a high number in the draft lottery. All in order to get yourself elected to some high office. This was actually the point not raised when this issue came up the first time. No one argued that anyone was rushing to join up in 1969. But most people who were looking to avoid the war werent calculating enough to write after-the-fact letters indicating that they decided that they really would have served anyway.

Ziggi's post has it right on. (Imagine how angry that ROTC colonel must have been to have been motivated to retain that letter for over 20 years.) And the backing out of ED applies to this as much as GW's attendance at the National Guard. One wonders if the ED admittee's correspondence will be kept as the guy on Ziggis link kept WJeffersons.

By the way I agree that that neither one is any great prize. Neither was Al Gore.

In any case, what we ought to do about the war in Iraq has not much to do with either choice we had several years ago.

You can tell that there is a long time to go here before admissions decisions start to surface.

By May_1 (May_1) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 01:33 pm: Edit

Sooky6

True, but after examining the track records of former generals who have resided in the Oval Office, you get the feeling that a good president a successful general does not make.

By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 01:36 pm: Edit

"In any case, what we ought to do about the war in Iraq has not much to do with either choice we had several years ago."

With a slightly different switch:

We ought to have some way to convince those who would hurl themselves at us in suicide bomb vests and airliners---that we once before figured out a way to deal a very harsh blow to those who used the suicide card.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Massdad~

I was not trying to make a "point" but simply answer to an earlier post that called the draft-dodging of Clinton perfectly legal. Neither was I drawing a parallel to GWB's military record. Despite the fact that the article mostly questioned the 72-73 period -and not 68-69-, I called it good research.

The only point I made in this thread is that I believe that the current administration has AN agenda when it gets to foreign affairs, and that it is a nice departure to the prior eight years, when we had none. I am not particularly fond of the most hardline and imperialistic policies that some cabinet members endorse, but I still believe that the alternative like relying on endless and fruitless diplomatic negotiations ends up being more costly in the long-run.

But this is only my opinion and we all know that the country -and the world, for that matter- is and will remain utterly divided on the subject. Only history will tell!

By Soozievt (Soozievt) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 01:53 pm: Edit

Xiggi, are you a student or a parent? I thought you were a student so might be confused as I see you posting during the school day. Also you are quite articulate in an adult way. If you are a student, as I originally thought, how do you get to post during the school day?
Susan

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 01:53 pm: Edit

BTW, I believe that the military records of the various candidates will show up again and again during the year.

This morning on the Today Show, Katie Couric interviewed Douglas Brinkley, the author of a book written about John Forbes Kerry's naval career. It is called Tour of Duty and should portray Kerry in the best of lights.

As everything in politics, it's all about timing. The release of this book seems exquisite.

By Perry (Perry) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 01:59 pm: Edit

"The only point I made in this threat is that I believe that the current administration has AN agenda when it gets to foreign affairs, and that it is a nice departure to the prior eight years." -- Xiggi

Well, this is not a particularly accurate statement. Whether or not one is a supporter of Clinton, his administration accomplished a fairly ambitious agenda that included NAFTA, U.S./NATO intervention that put an end to the genocidal wars in the former Yugoslavia, improved relations with Europe and Russia in the wake of the Cold War, a Middle East peace proposal that aimed to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that is unlikely ever to be surpassed (but which was submarined by Arafat), and sound economic policies that greatly bolstered the world economy. Any nation at war has by necessity a more coherent foreign policy -- namely to defeat the enemy...

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 02:01 pm: Edit

Susan:

Hehe, I must have paid too much attention to our Government and History classes.

School starts tomorrow for me. I also admit to check the boards during the day, as I have three classes in the computer lab. Ah, the beauty of proxy servers!

By Sac (Sac) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 02:05 pm: Edit

I make a point of reading the small box in the NYT every morning listing soldiers killed in Iraq. It seems the least I can do, but perhaps it's also a residual regret that my generation's anger at the situation in Vietnam sometimes turned into misguided blame of those who served there. Add to that, an 18-year-old son who -- in the midst of the college application process -- registered for the draft. Given the toll on our troops, including the extended deployment of the national guard units, re-instatement of the draft doesn't seem out of the range of possibility and responding to Selective Service does not seem as benign as it might have a year ago.

While he was writing those essays and personal statements, I kept thinking how much more valuable it would have been to really be pondering what that Selective Service registration meant. We talked about it some and he read the book: "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning." His conclusion was, that there are some wars he would fight, and he couldn't see allowing someone else to go in his place. However, he and I agree, that Iraq is not a war he would fight. I don't believe it has anything to do with terrorism (unlike Afghanistan) and I'm quite convinced that, so far, the war in Iraq has added to the startling tidal wave of anti-Americanism that makes us less rather than more safe. As to whether this administration has any understanding of other cultures, just go back to some of the statements they made about how our troops would be greeted with candy and flowers or Bush's tone-deaf use of the word "crusade".

We send our children off to college at a time that is likelier to resemble the 70s era when many of us were in school than the bubble-wrapped 90s. At least they have the vote.

By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 02:06 pm: Edit

If you wish to see the full measure of John Kerry, read about The "Winter Soldier"

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 02:09 pm: Edit

Perry:

You are a bit too kind:

From On Balance So Far, Clinton's Foreign Policy Record Is Negative

By William Pfaff - International Herald Tribune - 1999

PARIS - The Clinton administration enters its own and the century's final year with a foreign policy record of few major accomplishments, and serious miscalculations.
On the positive side are the intervention to end the war in Bosnia and a weighty contribution to peace in Ireland (both prompted by domestic political pressures), measures to stabilize Macedonia, the (insecure) Kosovo cease-fire, and mediation in the Cyprus affair.

The failures include Russia, an Iraq policy that has steadily worsened the Middle Eastern situation, a destructive failure of nerve and political courage in dealing with Israel and Palestinian peace, a business- and trade-driven China policy that has foolishly and perhaps fatefully damaged U.S. relations with Japan, a politically hyped African initiative without substance, which has already vanished, and an implicitly hegemonic approach to Europe, NATO expansion and NATO policy redefinition, which may produce a trans-Atlantic crisis as early as this coming spring.

The Clinton economic ideology has been that of unregulated global market supremacy, which contributed to ruining Russia and to the Asian crisis. The ideology of market supremacy also has a metaphysical character, in that it holds the market by definition benevolent and self-correcting.

Market supremacy is confused with democracy. Thus Washington's conviction that democracies by nature are capitalist, and capitalist societies are by nature democratic, which is demonstrably untrue. Also untrue is the conviction that market liberalization leads to political liberalization - as in today's China!

A second fundamental error in foreign policy may be called the personal relations fallacy. This administration, like its recent predecessors, conceives of foreign policy and diplomacy in terms of friendship among leaders, and intervenes to promote leadership by chosen individuals in countries of which Washington actually understands little.

Instead of dealing with China or Russia in terms of American national interest, while leaving those countries' internal politics to their own determination, Washington has consistently lent its prestige to individual actors. This does them no good, while making the United States co-responsible for their failures.

By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 02:09 pm: Edit

Geez! How has this thread morphed from one controversial topic to another controversial topic?

By May_1 (May_1) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 02:16 pm: Edit

This could become the OT thread of all threads. Who knows?

By Perry (Perry) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 02:16 pm: Edit

Whatever anyone thinks about U.S. involvement in Iraq, it has produced one undeniable beneficial consequence -- the end to Saddam Hussein's murderous regime and the uncovering of huge numbers of mass graves. The trial of Saddam Hussein and other members of his senior leadership will stand as the most important prosecution of an outlaw regime since the Nuremburg trails after WW II. This, is a good thing.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 02:20 pm: Edit

What, politics and world affairs controversial? Nah, just the stuff of good exchange! It's when we STOP talking about this stuff that I get worried.

Actually, this exchange so far has been very civilized - no name calling, no questioning of motives and so forth. It's nice when we can take differing views on such topics and actually share and contrast our thoughts and information.

By Perry (Perry) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 02:22 pm: Edit

Xiggi --

The article you cite is but one political pundit's opinion -- it's fact by assertion, nothing more. It's never wise to accept as authority one view of an issue or, much less, of an entire era.

By Sac (Sac) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 02:40 pm: Edit

Marite,
Well, I did try to relate it to college admissions. Pretty transparent, huh?

Xiggi,
Bravo for your interest in public affairs.You're an impressive student. Keep educating yourself.

By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 02:44 pm: Edit

Sac,
Back in the 1980's when my wife and I finally started thinking about having children, she came up with names like Daniel. All I could come up with were names like Jane and Leslie---girl's names. To put it bluntly, I could not fathom having boys. To me, having a son would not only mean teaching someone to fish or play ball---it would mean sitting at home some day waiting for an awful telegram from the Secretary of Defense. Now, that's pretty screwed up thinking---but that is what I carried out of the '60's and '70's.

By either divine mercy or pure chance, we were blessed with two girls. Whenever I am confronted by some well-meaning soul who asks, "Wouldn't you rather have a son?" I just smile and try to stay focused. Of course the world is a bit different now. The military is loaded with women---who have parents that worry about them.

Some times it seems I paid a high price for my experiences.

By Sac (Sac) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 03:00 pm: Edit

Morgantruce,
It sounds as if you did pay a high price for your experiences. I'm sure, though, that you would have loved having two daughters in any case. I hope you got to teach them to fish and to play ball.
As for women in the military, they are there by choice and I respect their choice. However, they do not have to register for Selective Service. Having had a daughter first, I never realized how efficient our government could be until that notice arrived on the morning of our son's 18th birthday.

By Garland (Garland) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 03:10 pm: Edit

Sac, we just had that experience last month. It was chilling...came the same day as his acceptance to Columbia. We put it aside till after the holidays.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 03:39 pm: Edit

It's probably good for the board to have as much OT stuff packed into one thread to the keep the rest of the board on topic.

VERY LONG POST

Xiggi, I make distinction between Afghanistan, which was harboring Osama bin Laden, and Iraq, which was only governed by a Very Bad Man. I make a distinction between quick-and-dirty (if still necessary) military ops to take care of an immediate problem [Afghanistan] and non-time dependent invasion of a country [Iraq] without a well thought consideration of the consequences *and* a plan for the future that was based in some reality on the ground.

In terms of consequences we have squandered not an inconsiderable amount of international political capital...and I don't mean relations with the French. Compare the amount of international military and economic support we've received in Iraq vs. that of Desert Shield/Desert Storm (a completely justified reponse to SH's invasion of Kuwait, imo). Compare the careful statecraft and coalition building of Bush the Elder with the blustering, swaggering machismo-burdened go-it-alone approach of Bush the Younger.

In terms of plans, look at both Afghanistan and Iraq: in both cases, the military part is the simple part. The Rubik's Cube of cultural, political, religious, and economic factors of ensuring subsequent stability were completely ignored by the current administration.

The Afghan central government has very tenuous control outside the capital. Tax collection and corresponding civic development are minimal, military/police forces are still largely in the hands of the warlords. Afghanistan may have been an emergency but afterwards it has received little but salutory neglect and the conditions for provoking, nurturing, and growing lethal anti-American passions are as bad if not worse than they were before. (For a real nightmare emergency, consider an Islamist coup in Pakistan that puts nuclear warheads within reach of terrorists.)

As for Iraq, we get cartoon-character dialogue about evil-doers who hate us for our freedom and bringing democracy to Iraq. The administration apparently thought that it would be as simple as being greeted as liberators and transplanting Chalabi as a new head on the body politic, transforming Iraq into a peaceful land of youth soccer teams, Rotary Clubs, and Republican County Central Committees. Actually, the State Department's Futures of Iraq project, which gathered several hundred Iraqis and American academics together, put together a pretty good assessment along with some solutions but it was ignored by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et alia because of Not Invented Here syndrome and that it ran against the entrenched notion of Chalabi as flavor du jour...but I digress. The notion that many Iraqis might want to be rid of Hussein *and* be rid of us, the infidels, as occupiers rather than liberators, seems never to have crossed the mind of Bush.

The problem that I pose to *anyone* about the future of Iraq, now that we're responsible for it, is to draw a picture of a democratic Iraq that's sustainable and that we're willing to live with. I predict the silence will be deafening. (I am privileged to participate in a private ListServe on foreign and military affairs, dominated by retired and Reserve military officers, mostly majors and colonels, and the best *they* have come up with is one of them telling me stop running the question into the ground.)

Simply put, you can't: the Sunnis hate our guts, the Shiites want revenge on the Sunnis and many are tied to hardline mullahs in Iran who are behind Hezbollah in Lebanon and who (or their antecedents) were behind the American Embassy hostage taking some 20+ years ago. And then there are the Kurds, who have been diddled by everyone for decades and simply want to be left alone...but being left alone leads to consternation and instability with both Turkey and Iran as well as being a strong force towards the dismemberment of the Iraqi state, a result that leads towards more instability, not less. Only about a quarter to a third of all Iraqis what a secular state; the remainder all want an Islamic state of one flavor or another. Oh, joy.

Of course, even given the problems outlined, invasion of Iraq could have been justified if it were an emergency. But the WMD, for which we gave U.N. inspection teams limited time to find, we haven't found after months of occupation with 100,000+ troops on the ground as well as having the scientists, technicians, officers, and now Saddam Hussein himself in our pocket. I cynically wonder if the failure of the army to secure the Tuwalitha nuclear research center in its dash to Baghdad was because the chain of command knew there was nothing of military significance there. (Locals got in and looted the place, many getting sick from contamination.)

A strong link to terrorism might have constituted such an emergency and the administration's rhetoric has been so successful that polls show a majority of Americans believe that SH was behind 9/11, that the majority of hijackers were Iraqi (bzonnk! majority were our Saudi allies, NONE were Iraqi), that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were working in concert and that Iraq was aiding Al Qaeda. All of this is wrong, of course. The Ansar al-Islam group, which *is* linked to Al Qaeda, was operating in areas of northeast Iraq in nominally Kurdish areas beyond Saddam Hussein's control; the comparison is saying that George Bush support cocaine sales because of the drug dealing that goes on in Washington, D.C. or any other urban center. (For that matter, Ansar al-Islam is *still* operating in Iraq, so that by the same logic it could now be said that *we* support terrorism.)

The closest you can link SH to terrorism is his PR tactic of payments to the families of martyrs of suicide bombers on the West Bank.

On balance, we have gotten rid of one murderous dictator. In exchange, we have an operations tempo that is wearing out military units and equipment and has left us almost impossibly thin in terms of responding to any other medium sized crisis. (I know that some neo-con dreamers envision occupation of Syria, Iran, and Sudan as well...right now, after subtracting the forces scheduled to be withdrawn from Iraq and those being deployed to Iraq, we've got about enough left over to occupy Charleston, South Carolina...now there's a thought.) We have a staggering expense of cash and a sad and steady drain of blood. We have spiked Islamist terrorist recruiting around the world. And against that we don't have anything but whistling past the graveyard about how we're going to get out of Iraq and what the next step in the "war on terrorism is."

As I slither towards conclusion, I'll leave you with a couple of bits of personal memory lane. I wrote an on-line essay in the mid-90's saying that biggest threats to the U.S. were going to be transnational non-state organizations and that we weren't prepared, either psychologically or in terms of tools, to deal with this. I stand by that assessment.

Secondly, back in the year , I was part of the Iraqi team in a multi-university Middle East foreign policy simulation. Based on historical, military, and political reasons, our team made a move to invade Kuwait. It was vetoed by the professor on the grounds that only an idiot would resort to military force. Thus I am familiar with ideologues of any persuasion trying to arrange Iraq to their convenience.

Finally, when I compare to the lies of a President about receiving a **** *** to the lies of a President about the premises for an invasion, what the current situation is, and what the outlook is, I know which one is more deserving of perdition. The current occupant deserves to be ejected so forcibly that his teeth bounce like Chiclets down Pennsylvania Avenue...I don't see it happening. The anti-military streak that has plagued the Democratic party since 1972 is alive enough that it will alienate centrist voters; being pro-military but anti-Bush/anti-policy-in-Iraq is too nuanced for most voters at this point. I don't think the backlash will come until 2008.

By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 03:52 pm: Edit

Well, our school sent parent of boys (9th grade on up) a memo asking whether we agreed to have particulars about our ons divulged to the Selective Service. If we did not, we had to send the form back; otherwise, the school would send in the information. They don't wait until the kids turn 18.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 04:25 pm: Edit

TheDad,

Well put. I always wondered why lying about a personal matter where no one was even harmed (to the contrary...) much less killed has been considered worse than lying to justify an action where several hundred military folk have been killed as well as thousands of innocent civilians. And that does not even consider the huge number of soldiers sent back badly wounded and now sitting in bases and hospitals around the country. (Or consider the Jessica Lynch story).

sigh.

By Sac (Sac) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 04:44 pm: Edit

TheDad: Applause.

By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 04:58 pm: Edit

Ditto to both Massdad and Thedad.

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 05:04 pm: Edit

TheDad
I'm clapping too! But I hope you're not correct in thinking the backlash won't come till 2008.

Where were you all when a poster asked about the democratic presidential candidates?

And Xiggi, I echo Susans post. I was beginning to think you were an adult.

Massdad, I agree with you about the importance of talking about this subject and the wonderfully informed and civil exchange that has taken place.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 05:15 pm: Edit

TheDad~

Thank you for that great post. I think that it was a wonderful analysis of the situation in Iraq and I agree entirely that one cannot compare Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the fact that I cannot force myself to agree with the last paragraph of your post, I am pasting and copying it for posterity ... and for family discussions.

One of the benefits to have grown up in a multi-cultural family has been to hear many divergent viewpoints. My extended family must represent about every political viewpoint possible, especially on the role of the United States in foreign affairs. Half our family would be happy to build an effigy of Rush Limbaugh in the backyard, while the remaining members would not hesitate to douse it with kerosene. I always look forward to the ski trip that is an excuse for the annual family reunion and cannot wait to hear the discussion among my grand-parents and my aunts and uncles. In a way, I have to admit that the 8 years of Clinton-bashing have probably left me with indelible marks on my judgment, as well as much quotation material.

That being said, I respect and try to learn from the opinions of others, especially when the truth does not come in black or white but in many shades of grey.

Thanks for your patience!

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 05:22 pm: Edit

And Xiggi, I echo Susans post. I was beginning to think you were an adult.

I'll be one pretty soon, I think. I wish my mother would think the same. I'll print your comment ... maybe it will give me extended curfew on Fridays?

By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 05:31 pm: Edit

I'm drawing parallels between Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia in 1978 and the US invasion of Iraq. In both cases, egregious violations of human rights had been known for a long time, though in the case of the DK, it was the leadership that chose to close the country to all contacts. Both Vietnam and the US invoked human rights violations to justify their invasion of another country, though both had other interests to protect and promote. Both believed the occupation would be of short duration. They'd instal regimes sympathetic to themselves and leave. In the case of Cambodia, the Vietnamese encountered no reistance, the Khmer Rouge all fled without firing a shot. The only casualty was a visiting British academic. But the Vietnamese encountered an administrative void as no one would admit to being able to read or write (an offence in the eyes of the Khmer Rouge). The Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia lasted until 1990 (and only now are preparations being made for an international tribunal to judge Khmer Rouge atrocities). I won't repeat Thedad's decription of the messy ethno-religious politics in Iraq. The major difference between Cambodia and Irag is that Vietnam was ostracized by the international community, with the US leading the campaign, for violating international norms by invading a sovereign nation. That other countrie have limited themselves to expressing lack of support for the Iraqi invasion has less to do with international norms and evertything with American power. The major similarity between the two cases is that Cambodia was Vietnam's Vietnam--a quagmire from which it could not extricate itself--and Iraq seems to be becoming a quagmire for the US as well.
When Bush sr. invaded Iraq in retaliation for Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, he and others proclaimed that the Vietnam syndrome was over. It seems to have been revived under Bush jr. with a vengeance. Perhaps, at some point, another Kissinger will come along to declare that the US has achieved "peace with honor."

By Perry (Perry) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 05:35 pm: Edit

Well, I'm not quite applauding because I believe the situation is considerably more complicated than presented by thedad. There has been a downside and an upside to the regrettable war in Iraq. On the one hand the Bush administration certainly exaggerated the immediacy of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, but the administration's concern about WMD were credible given Iraq's past widespread use of chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds during the Iraq-Iran war, and Hussein's past nuclear and biological ambitions. Given the extraordinary shift in national security concerns after 9/11, it was not difficult to see that at some point Hussein and Bin Laden could *conceivably* join forces with Iraq clandestinely providing weapons of mass destruction to Bin Laden operatives, although there was no proof that such a relationship then currently existed or ever would exist.

No doubt there has been unfortunate loss of life on both sides, but much less on the Iraqi side if Hussein would have remained in power. Since his rise to authoritarian rule in the mid 1970s, he operated a murderous regime. There may never be an exact accounting of how many hundreds of thousands his regime killed and buried in mass graves. Nonetheless, one must be pessimistic about Iraq's chances of ever being a unified country with minority rights and a constitutional democracy given the ethnic and religious differences among the Kurds, Shiites, and the Sunnis. In this sense, the United States may have walked into a situation that it may never be able to resolve.

At the same time, the Iraq invasion has had its advantages aside from eliminating one of the most brutal dictatorships of the later 20th century. It has caused Libya to give up its nuclear ambitions; it has put both Iran and Syria, both of which have been long supporters of international terrorism, on notice; and it appears to have had a profound effect on the pathological regime of North Korea.

Given these and numerous other factors, I or we can only hope for the best.

By Curioustoo (Curioustoo) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 06:43 pm: Edit

"Well put. I always wondered why lying about a personal matter where no one was even harmed (to the contrary...)"

Odd. I thought the President committed felony perjury when the plantive in a sexual harrassment lawsuit was trying establish that he had a pattern of inappropriate relationships with women. Sexual harrassment harms no one? Did I miss your meaning? Didn't the "personal matter" as you put it became a public matter when it was addressed in open court?

Interesting perspective. The highest official in the land can lie under oath but it's inappropriate for a child to try to back out of a non-binding agreement many people consider coersive. I'm not sure what ethical lesson you're trying to teach here.

By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 07:18 pm: Edit

The Clinton case was another instance of something (Whitewater) morphing into something else totally different (illicit sex--not sexual harassment).

But to get back to the ED issue, NO ONE is compelled or coerced to apply ED. Where is the coercion there?

By Massdad (Massdad) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 09:10 pm: Edit

Curioustoo,

If you consider The Bill/Monica story to be sexual harrassment, then honest adults differ. Otherwise, I think Marite summarized it well. Any personal matter can become a "public matter" in the hands of an empowered prosecuter with a political agenda. Starr has shown his agenda many times, then and recently.

Perry,

If you believe "could *conceivably* join forces" is enough justification for invasion, that's your right. I don't. I don't think we can afford to go after every "conceivably" possible circumstance. I can "conceive" of many threats, but I don't preventatively attack every one. For many of us, this is the thrust of the problem. We suspected WMD, so we went in, doing a good bit of damage. We were wrong. (but we don't have to say "we're sorry..") You can say "mistakes happen", but I say too much is at stake to begin invading countries bases on speculative problems.

Regarding Iraq being "most brutal"? I don't think so. I bet several of us could give you a long list of far worse, beginning with Stalin and ending recently in the African continent. But the others either did not have strategic interest for us, or else actually posed a risk of fighting back .

By Perry (Perry) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 09:50 pm: Edit

Massdad --

I was trying to put the matter in context given the attack on Sept 11 on the U.S. The terrorist attacks dramatically changed the international security situation for the United States to the point where the administration and others felt that this nation could not wait for another catastrophic situation. Saddam Hussein had long been pursuing nuclear and biological weapons; Bin Laden has been on an international quest to acquire and use these weapons. Nonetheless, the larger purpose for the administration's actions, I believe, has been to remake the middle east, to put nation states that directly support terrorism on notice, to carry the war on terrorism to the very region from which it originates, and to establish an outpost of sorts -- like the Roman Empire -- against outlaw regimes. This is mostly conjecture on my part, and if correct, I do not necessarily support all these aims.

I do not, moreover, either support or think that the U.S. can "go after every conceivably possible circumstance." This is not what I said. What I did say was that the current administration's belief that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD was credible given his past use of these weapons and his nuclear and biological ambitions. His evasive manuevers concerning the international weapons inspectors did not help much either. Further, I did not say that Saddam Hussein was the "most brutal"; clearly, his murderous regime has been outperformed by the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot. What I did say is that his regime stands as "one" of the most murderous in the later twentieth century. The trial of Hussein and his henchmen will help establish international precedent concerning the prosecution of those who engage in genocide (unlike Idi Amin, for example, who lived in luxury in Saudi Arabia after his rampage in Uganda). I happen to think that the establishment of such a precdent is a very good thing.

By the way, this is an interesting discussion regardless where one stands on these issues.

By Lhm501 (Lhm501) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 09:58 pm: Edit

Just the sound of two hands clapping, for TheDad!

By Vadad (Vadad) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 10:04 pm: Edit

Oh, darn, I thought essays were over.

First, Xiggi, if you were my kid, I'd release you from any curfew. As I recall, you're headed to A&M; somebody needs to write the Aggies and alert them to the fine mind that's about to descend upon them so that they can spend a couple of months getting ready.

Second, as for the "lies" about the premises for war, the likelihood of WMD was supported by our intelligence agencies, British intelligence and, as Tony Blair memorably admonished, every intelligence agency in Europe (including the French and Germans). When someone demonstrates that GWB knew that all of this was hocum, I'll accept the lie accusation. Until then, I'll reserve judgment. If this is an intelligence failure, it is not the first over which Clinton-appointee Tenet has presided, and I hope he's gone long before 2008.

Third, there are a lot of bad guys all over the place. The question is whether we should, when we are reasonably able, do something about it. GWB was leaned toward the isolationist pre-9/11, as did I. The lesson he believes he learned is that engagement is more likely to protect us than something else. Free people tend to present less of a threat to us than the followers of despots. Engagement means talk and action. Talk is good, but only so long as it leads to something positive. When it doesn't, you act. As a result, you free the people you can, and SH was the most likely candidate of the moment for targeting by the arsenal of liberty. We get a clear shot at the guy in North Korea, I sure hope we take it. Same with the mullahs in Iran, whose humanitarianism really shines in the latest natural disaster there. In at least one aspect, the prior administration's policy was the same--it took down Milosevic. This seems to be a pretty good approach for lovers of liberty--we're safer and several million people get a shot at self-determination. Whether the price is worth it depends on what value you assign to those things and how confident you are in the method. The method seems to be working--Qaddafi is standing down. Doubt that would've happened if he hadn't feared winding up in a spider hole.

Fourth, as for the absence of plan, I don't see it. The plan was to take down SH as quickly as possible and set forces in motion to lead to self-determination. I say this only because I know it will make my buddies Massdad and Thedad wince-"Mission Accomplished." If a plan requires knowing whether the online balloting system will be in place on Tuesday, and the Shiite Libertarian Party primary will be held on Wednesday, I think that's asking a bit more of our government than is reasonable.

Fifth, those of who believe that market capitalism is the most humane and efficient method to allocate resources "always knew" communism would collapse--eventually. Trouble is, it took a few generations in Russia, a few too many if you ask me. And it still afflicts our brothers and sisters in China, Cuba and a few other places. Reagan set the example by hastening the collapse of Soviet communism through resolute pressure on many fronts. We need to do the same where that scourge still exists.

Finally, as for the "bluster" of GWB, again, I don't see it. Seems like a pretty humble guy to me, with a good sense of his own limitations. Unlike his predecessor, whose marital infidelity was only one manifestation of his arrogance and self-absorption.

Thanks all. My contribution to the civil discussion. I bet the essay would get me into the college where I in fact matriculated, yet to be discovered on any page of the USNWR survey.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 10:57 pm: Edit

Vadad:

" Free people tend to present less of a threat to us than the followers of despots. "

Hmmm. I seem to recall that the Nazi party in Germany rose to power through free elections. Sure some would argue that the elections were rigged and so forth...India and Pakistan both have had elected governments, yet the battles continue, and India a few years ago was no friend of the US. We weren't very happy when Turkey used its freely elected governmental perogatives to deny us basing rights recently. Egypt has been a terrorist hotbed for years...

OTOH, certain non freely elected governments have been among our staunchest allies over the years, too. And this analysis of freely elected government versus others is confounded by the fact that as economies evolve and climb the socioeconomic ladder, they tend to evolve to freely elected governments. As a minimum, I've not seen many poor countries support democratic governments, for reasons I don't understand.

If you said "free people who elect the right leaders..." where "right" means they like us, I might agree, but that's not really a free election, is it?

By Reidmc (Reidmc) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 01:54 am: Edit

Too many points made and too late in the evening for a full foreign policy statement, but the "Bush takedown of Iraq brings dangerous Libyan WMD programs to heel" claim needs correction on several points.

Review Libya's recent concilliatory and somewhat cooperative behavior, which began not only prior to the Iraq war, but prior to the installation of our current Rove/Cheney regime. Consider Libya's woeful economic situation. And then note that their biggest WMD revelation was . . . a boatload of mustard gas.

I'm very happy that Libya has become less of a terrorist sponsor and will become less of a threat to its neighbors. But this doesn't belong on Governor Bush's resume.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 02:26 am: Edit

Governor Bush? He was President, last I saw.

By Marite (Marite) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 07:12 am: Edit

VAdad:

One of the greatest nightmares for US policy-makers (and others) is that in Islamic countries, fundamentalists will gain power through free elections. That's why military regimes are considered better in countries ranging from Algeria to Pakistan. There's a book called Illiberal Democracies that addresses this problem.

Massdad: I remember making the case you make about the Nazis in my sophomore year to a fellow student whose jaw just dropped. He was from Texas. I think he became convinced that I was dangerous,

By Vadad (Vadad) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 07:49 am: Edit

I agree that democracy as a bulwark of personal freedom is over-rated. In our own country, we have seen the excesses of democracy, though fortunately not on the scale of Nazi Germany. One would hope that self-determination would lead to a shared consensus on respect for the rule of law, and for a legal system that would restrain government, which still largely works here (though some of us probably think less than it should). Democracy without separation of powers, staggered elections, constitutional limitations, a Bill of Rights, federalism and the other Madisonian systemic restraints could not be relied upon to guarantee freedom here, and I doubt very much that it could guarantee freedom elsewhere. Perhaps our friends in Iraq will be equally suspicious of governmental power after living under its excesses for so long, and an Iraqi Madison will come up with some of his own ideas for the protection of freedom there. I hope so; we've given them the opportunity. They surely need something to guarantee religious freedom in such a multi-ethnic place; otherwise they'll wind up like France.

As for whether they'll be our allies or not, you all rightfully point out that many democracies, some with even a semblance of freedom for their people, have not always toed our foreign policy line. Still, in the few countries with any sort of a history of personal freedom for their people, there seems to be a reluctance to make war, just because it's so cumbersome to get a consensus for it. This discussion is a good example.

Maybe it is the case that places in the world with no history of respect for individual freedom are condemned to its absence. I hope that's not the case.

By Vadad (Vadad) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 07:51 am: Edit

As for Libya, I may stand corrected. Reagan's probably responsible for that one.

By Dadx (Dadx) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 08:16 am: Edit

I'll add a clap for Vadad here, since it will likely be the only one. I wrote and abandoned several posts here last night. None were as simple and articulate as his.

By Marite (Marite) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 08:40 am: Edit

VAdad:

There is governmental power and there are different sources of oppression. A book that is a source of controversy is The Bookseller of Kabul, about a man who has been at the forefront of demands for freedom of expresion but mistreats and exploits his womenfolk. In this, he is no different from countless other Afghan men. Democracy--that is freedom from government oppression--is not a real bulwark against community pressure. think about female circumcision that has been banned by many African governments but continues to be performed--usually by mothers concerned that their daughters will not be marriageable if they have not undergone the procedure. Think about the role of our federal government in the civil rights movement.
It's actually very hard to observe religious or other types of freedom for individuals if the community demands certain behaviors. In our schools, we've recently have had a controversy over whether students should recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and whether all teachers should lead them in the recitation.
The French have belatedly addressed some of the issues involved with religious observances, but only because they are about Islam. The calendar of holidays is still Christian; schools let out early on Wednesdays so that students can attend religious (read Catholic) classes--and make up for the lost time by having classes on Saturday mornings. Until the later 1970s, children must be given names that appeared on the calendar--which contained only names of (Christian) saints).
Lastly, in a democracy, the purpose of foreign policy should be the pursuit of that country's national interests. In many instances, these national interests will run totally counter to those of the US.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 09:40 am: Edit

My cynicism over administration claims about supporting democracy in Iraq and the middle east stems from long time observation of support of regimes, and efforts to do just the opposite. My earliest recollection/understanding of this dates back to the era of George Papadopoulos in Greece in the late 60s. We backed a brutal, corrupt regime because it provided us with resources against our prime enemy - the Soviet Union.

Since then, we've repeated the pattern many times (Saudi Arabia? Kuwait?) and undermined or snubbed democracies that did not work with us to meet our goals (India is a great example). So, when any administration says "we've come to bring democracy.." my first reaction is "yea, right.."

It reminds me of the IRS auditor coming and announcing "we've come to help.."

By Vadad (Vadad) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 10:34 am: Edit

Gee, I think I agree with you both. The government is indeed not the only source of oppression, and perhaps is some places, not the worst. Regrettably, intolerance and violence will likely always be with us; hopefully, governments at least will not be tools for them.
As for the perfidy of our foreign policy past and the need to view any claim of our government with a jaundiced, even cynical, eye, I could not agree more, MassDad.

By Marite (Marite) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 10:45 am: Edit

An interesting look at the US role in the overthrow of a democratically elected government. Kinzer argues that much of the present turmoil in the Middle East can be traced to the overthrow of Mossadegh and the instalment of the US-backed and murderous Shah in Iran.

All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror
by Stephen Kinzer

Also take a look at the history of Guatemala and other so-called banana republics. The US has not always been convinced that democratic governments are best for their own people or for its national interests.

In Algeria, it's a toss-up which is worse: the secular military junta or the majority Islamic fundamentalists.

By Perry (Perry) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 10:57 am: Edit

I think it's a sure bet that governments will always exercise instruments of oppression. It's the nature of power, which the framers of the American constitution sought to keep in check. At the same time, constitutional democracies have always served a beneficial role in the lives of its citizens through the rule of law. It's the difference between resource rich Congo, a collapsed state plagued with lawnessness and over two million dead in the last decade, and the constitutional democracies of the West and East, which are prosperous.

The U.S. may have a blighted foreign policy past, but it also has a triumphant one. The U.S. is neither a benign giant nor an evil empire.

By Perry (Perry) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 11:15 am: Edit

U.S. actions in Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iran, Angola, etc. stemmed from the geopolitics of the Cold War. Many of these were essentially proxy conflicts with the former Soviet Union. I think we can all find fault with U.S. foreign policy over the past fifty years, but American power also saved Europe not once, but twice from their own self-destructive wars and curbed Soviet power after WW II. American foreign policy (under Carter) also legitimized human rights as an important issue on the agenda in foreign capitals. Talk to the eastern Europeans who endured under Soviet domination and you find expressions of gratitude. As with everything, the record is decidedly mixed.

By Marite (Marite) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 11:28 am: Edit

We need to be more precise about what we mean by democracies. Do we mean majority rule? Do we mean the protection of minority rights as well? Do we mean just the electoral process but not necessarily freedom of association,movement, expression? do we mean the rule of law (and laws that apply to all equally)? Much of the debate arises because of the fuzzy way the term is understood by various participants.
The meaning of the term has evolved in this country over the last two centuries. One of the best discussions both my kids have had in American history is over the meaning of "we, the people." Recent books have discussed fascinating aspects of the lives and thoughts of not only Jefferson but also Washington on the subject of slavery. Until 1945, French women did not have the right to vote (and in Switzerland women did not gain it until the 1990s, I believe).
Perry:
Would you suggest that the oppressive Algerian military junta pack its bags in favor of the majority and leave the non-Islamic minority to the mercy of the fundamentalists? It's a hard call.

By Garland (Garland) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 11:39 am: Edit

Perry, saying that our actions in South America were "essentially proxy conflicts with the former Soviet Union" would be cold comfort to the peoples of those countries; it explains but does not justify. In Chile, for instance, the date Sept. 11th meant something tragic long before 2001, when their democratically elected president was assassinated in a US backed coup. Allende may have been socialist, but the atrocities in the country's recent history occurred under the rule of the military dictator (and one-time US ally) Pinochet who followed him.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 11:41 am: Edit

Perry,

Did we take part in WW I and WW II to be nice to Europe, or for our own self interests? Does the proxy war with the Soviet Union justify our support of absolutely corrupt, repressive regimes?

I do not know the answer to the questions above, but I do know that our government has, and continues to, provide what are at best misleading justifications for its actions on many fronts. Yes, the US does some great things. Sometimes the greatness is accidental. More importantly, the greatness is NOT automatic. (The US has also done some pretty shabby things, but that's a separate topic)

Marite,

"Swiss women got the right to vote on the national level only in 1971. In two cantons, they have only participated in democratic life since the early 1990s." "The last area, a mountainous region called the Appenzel, finally surrendered in 1991 "

And the decision in Appenzel was a very controversial one!

By Marite (Marite) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 11:49 am: Edit

Perry:

And yet, Carter did not do a thing to save Cambodians from the murderous Khmer Rouge. Human rights have been used very selectively in US politics.
Echoing Garland, what right, except its own power, did the US have to wage proxy wars with the US in other countries and support murderous dictatorships? Did the sruvival of American democracy justify its snuffing abroad? And if so, should we be surprised that other countries are so cynical about US rhetoric and actions?

It is easy to say that all these transgressions are in the past, they were caused by the Cold War, and now it's over. All we have to guide our actions and beliefs is history. And this history yields very mixed lessons about American power.

By Perry (Perry) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 11:51 am: Edit

Marite --

In Algeria's case, I think it's a no win situation. There would be little difference between the current military junta and an authoritarian Islamic fundamentalist regime. In fact, by the experience in Afganistan with the Taliban, one could argue that the fundamentalists would be far worse. The difficulty is that the rule of force breeds resentment. I agree; it's a tough call.

I think when we talk of constitutional democracies, we mean those countries that respect the fundamental principles of free elections, rule of law, freedom of association and speech, freedom of religion and conscience, habeus corpus, and so forth. We don't mean China or Singapore, which operate more like authoritarian capitalist states. I wish that it was mandatory in our public schools that students actually *read* and study the Federalist Papers and the American Constitution in their U.S. history classes.

By Perry (Perry) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 12:16 pm: Edit

Garland, Marite, and Massdad --

I am not an apologist for U.S. actions in South America during the Cold War. American actions did indeed give cold comfort (to put it mildly) to the many relatives of the disappeared and other victims in Chile, Guatemala, etc.

In Cambodia's case, it would have been impossible for Carter to either convince the U.S. Congress or the American people to intervene in Cambodia. Do you think the American left would have countenanced such intervention after the debacle in Vietnam? At the time, they refused to believe that the North Vietnamese were operating reeducation camps and liquidating former officials of the former Saigon government. The political right also would have had no stomach for re-intervention. Carter made human rights a priority during his administration in the first two years of office, but quickly found that it had its practical limitation when dealing with other governments and that he could not remake the world in America's image overnight, or possibly at all. Nonetheless, he gave enormous impetus to a fledgling movement that has since made great strides in rearranging global affairs to the betterment of the international order.

By Marite (Marite) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 12:37 pm: Edit

Perry:

Agreed about the limits to Carter's ability to intervene (though he showed no sign of wanting to). Agreed as well about the blindness of many on the left to Communist excesses in Vietnam and elsewhere.
A big problem for US foreign policy is the gap between American rhetoric and actual American policy. How many colonial peoples were inspired by Wilsonian rhetoric only to have their hopes dashed or see the US support the colonial powers (as in the case of Indochina)?
I like the human rights policy; I believe, however, that it has been and continues to be applied very selectively, especially in Africa. This selectivity as well as the overheated rhetoric makes others cynical about American motives.
A friend of mine was in Shanghai on 9/11. She was horrified to see Chinese yuppies (many of them educated in the US) laugh at the pictures of the WTC going down in flames. They believed it was appropriate comeuppance for the US bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Kosovo (?, since Chinese did not believe that the bombing was accidental.

By Curioustoo (Curioustoo) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 01:06 pm: Edit

"The Clinton case was another instance of something (Whitewater) morphing into something else totally different (illicit sex--not sexual harassment)."

Forgive me for back tracking a bit here, but no, the President's perjury was not originally part of Whitewater and it was not really related merely to illicit sex. It occured in district court in Arkansas where the President was a defendent in a sexual harrassment lawsuit. Ken Starr did pick it up later and make it a Federal case, of course. If Whitewater (or the ill advised impeachment) had never occured, the judge in that case would still have imposed a heavy fine on the President and he still would have lost his license to practice law for that perjury.

Massdad, I wasn't speaking of Monica. Clinton lied to protect himself because his relationship with Monica would have been considered incriminating during that sexual harrassment case in Arkansas. It's never OK to lie under oath even if it's a "personal matter", especially one so pertinent to the case. To consider that acceptable is to minimize the seriousness of sexual harrassment. And BTW, most corporations consider a relationship between their CEO and an intern, voluntary or not, defacto sexual harrassement because of the enourmous power the CEO could exert over the intern. Think about it.

Whatever any of us may believe about the facts in the case in Arkansas (had you forgotten it completely?), it should be treated seriously, particularly if the individual accused has been accused of improper sexual conduct multiple times in the past.

Interesting thread. The US has consistently done whatever was necessary to protect what it considers its interests (rational or not, consistent with our ideals or not) over the past 228 years. Given the different administrations in power during all that time, you'd think it had nothing to do with political parties or specific Presidents at all.

BTW, things are so boring we have nothing left to say about our kids?

By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 04:13 pm: Edit

What we have to say about our kids is not as interesting as what they will have to say about us (and our times) thirty years from now.

By Perry (Perry) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 04:46 pm: Edit

Marite --

Agreed about the selectivity and self-interest with which the U.S (and other countries) conduct foreign policy and apply human rights standards. After the Carter administration, the Reagan White House used human rights effectively as an ideological weapon against the former Soviet Union -- that is , after Jeane Kirkpatrick, Elliot Abhrams, and others first tried to dismantle Carter's policies. Congress resisted, and the administration thereafter discovered the usefulness of human rights against its adversaries but did little to apply the same standards to its allies in Latin and Central America.

I believe this conduct is one reason why citizens and non-governmental organizations play such a critical role in both democratic and authoritarian societies throughout the world -- to hold their governments accountable to the laws and constitutions of their own countries, often times at a great price.

MT -- well said.

By Marite (Marite) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Perry:

I totally agree about the value of NGOs. Their presence is the single most important factor in maintaining whatever reforms are introduced. It is often the lack of NGOs that characterize authoritarian governments.

By Kissy (Kissy) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 07:32 am: Edit

More clapping for Vadad's post- January 6, 10:04 pm.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 12:57 pm: Edit

Goodness, what a stream of responses. I beg pardon for the long delay in returning but the Real World has been insistent in its intrusions and these are not posts to be knocked off in a quick moment. Also, my response time for the next four days will be very erratic: TheMom is having a cyst removed today--I will be bringing her home shortly--with several days recovery indicated and the weekend includes three college preview parties for D with Wellesley, Skidmore, and Smith (thereby getting mention of colleges into this thread).


===


Liz, I saw your post asking about the Dem candidates but did not respond because I'm wary of on-line political discussions (!!!). Only the fact that this thread is already OT and that it's in the Parent Forum makes me abandon my caution even this much. As to why I see no backlash until 2008, you have to look at the map of the Electoral College. All the Dem support in the Northeast, the industrial Midwest, and the West Coast means very little...it *has* to be a given. (N.B. My B.A. focused on survey research [polling], American elections, and foreign policy. I worked on paid staff on two presidential campaigns: Scoop Jackson, '76; John Anderson, '80.)


From the list of the following states, the Dems have to be competitive in many and win a few to win an election: New Hampshire, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, North Carolina,Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado. If the target list is too small, it's too easy for the GOP to spend heavily in 2-3 critical states and deny the Dems a victory.

You can tell how an electoral campaign is going by tracking the ad money. If the GOP is spending heavily in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Washington, then it looks good for the GOP. If the Dems are spending heavily in Georgia, Colorado, and Arizona, it looks good for them. (Note: you have to gauge how much spending is a serious offense and how much is just to tie the other side's resources down some.)

To win in those states, look at how candidates match up against the voter who will deliver the 49th percent of the vote. (Don't need 50 percent, there's always a smattering of minor party vote.)
Despite the talk in both parties this year about activating the base, elections are won and lost in the center...this has been true for every election for which there's been even rudimentary good polling beginning in 1960.

Most of the Dem candidates match up horribly for the 49th percent voter in those states, save for two, and one of *them* hasn't a prayer of getting the nomination.

Some of the early numbers--and I seldom pay attention to the top of the line numbers at this point--are ghastly for the Dems. Bush has whopping 35 percent advantage among white males when running against Generic Democratic Candidate, more than offsetting losses in every other demographic. Btw, something else to watch is the suburban vote. Everyone talks about the gender gap but the urban/rural divide is even starker.

MassDad, I'm not sure that nobody was hurt but it certainly was a matter best left between Bill, Hillary, and God...if I were Bill, I'm not sure who I'd want to face less. As my D observed after listening to a speech in the 2000 campaign, "Bill Clinton was one of the best Presidents we've ever had...from the waist up." Far more than any political shortcoming I damn Clinton for his lack of self-discipline and the ability to keep it zipped when so much was at stake. I'm enough of a student of history that the contrasts between public virtues and private vices should not disturb me; there are certainly enough examples in the arts, too...e.g., does Roman Polanski's predilection for underage (if consenting) nymphettes detract at all from THE PIANIST as a movie?

Perry, certainly SH used WMD, particularly gas against the Kurds and again in the Iran-Iraq war.
At which point I'll digress: it will be certainly interesting if SH is brought to trial. Testimony about how the U.S. funneled support to him against the Great Satan (Iran) will be very discomfiting in a wide range of circles. To a significant extent, we helped keep SH in power. And then there was the ugly aftermath of the Gulf War, when we encouraged the rebellion in southern Iraq and then stood by and did nothing (cf., Hungary 1956)...I think the thinking was that the Iraqi military would launch a coup. Instead, I remember the photos of insurgents hanged from tank muzzles...yet another reasons the Shiites in the south aren't extremely happy about us.

A standard of SH and OBL *conceivably* joining forces is a flimsy level of standard that could justify any action, any time, anywhere and flies in face of known facts and attitudes: SH's secular state was anathema to the fundamentalist OBL. OBL wants to eliminate Israel, SH's interest in Israel was in scoring propaganda points with the "Arab street."

As to the intelligence that led the U.S. to believe in SH's WMD's, Bush heard what he wanted to hear and the administration pressured CIA analysts and others for conforming views. There were certainly contrary views that were squashed or altered. It has been suggested, but not proved, that part of the "intelligence" was provided by Iraqi exile groups with their own agenda [obviously]. Some of what was printed in the press was hogwash at the time; mobile bio labs were certainly a possibility...none have been found and the stocks "ready for use on 45 minutes notice"--notice the credibility of the lie enhanced by the specificity--was pure bunkum. But a nuclear facility can not be hidden, the infrastructure required for nuclear weapons development is extensive, and the Tuwalitha nuclear research center was inspected many times without producing so much as a water pistol, let alone a smoking gun.


What you say about Clinton and Milosevich with respect to Kosovo was true. Clinton was certainly one of the less reluctant Democrats for using military force. I only wish he had overcome GOP naysayers and intervened in Bosnia much earlier; the siege of Sarajevo and the massacre at Srebenica were major tragedies and from a realpolitik point of view it would have been nice to intervene in cause where the Muslims were the good guys...opportunity lost. (I was jumping up and down about this at the time but nobody listens to *me*...call me Cassandra.)

When you say, "Mission Accomplished" I'll ask, "What mission?" Completing Daddy's Unfinished Business? The answer would be yes. Retaliating for 9/11? No. Hitting Al Qaeda? No. Eliminating WMD? No. Making the world safer from terrorism? Not only No but Hell No. (Do something about the madrassas of Pakistan and the tinderbox that is Saudi society and the House of Sa'ud and maybe you'll convince me.) SH was a nice emotionally satisfying target, easy to accomplish...but difficult to disengage from without leaving a problem as bad or worse behind.

As it, for standards, the U.S. has set itself contrary to decades of policy and diplomatic effort by engaging in a unilateral preemptive move on the basis of *conceivably,* a standard by which the PRC could invade Taiwan, India or Pakistan invade the other, or even Serbia attack Bosnia. Of course, I think the U.S. is somehow retaining the right to tell others what preemptive moves *they* may not make, a positively ughsome level of hypocrisy and double standard as well as a realpolitik that is almost Soviet in nature...no wonder so much world opinion is against us when it should be for us.

As for the numbers of Iraqis that SH killed, we've certainly supported despots who have done similar when it suited our purposes.

You can't dismiss the lack of plan for the aftermath. It's part of knowing what end result you want to achieve and what the road that leads there is. It's the difference between looking at a chess game two moves deep and ten moves deep. Otherwise, how do you know that you're not going to make the total situation worse instead of better? We know where the road of good intentions leads.

I think you vastly over state the matter of Libya, a false application of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
The arc of Kaddafi vis a vis the West has been building for years as a result of the tortuous path of a Lockerbie settlement. The Lockerbie-related isolation is crushing Libya economically. Also, Libya is a special case, extraordinarily vulnerable to U.S. power, a small population concentrated in a thin strip along a coastal littoral with easy access to seaborne forces...I could probably overthrow the country with little more than three troops of Boy Scouts were I so inclined. Iran and Syria are quite different matters. Consider this...Iraq is as *easy* as it is for us because SH was so widely despised. Nationalism and religious fervor, not to mention a much greater population, would make Iran and Syria very different cases. I fear the neo-con dreamers may think the Iranians who are anti-hardliners would be pro-American...boy, is that ever a lethal miscalculation.

If you think Bush is humble, I'd hate to see arrogant. "Bring it on," the unilateral approach and arm-twisting of allies and excoriation of those who disagree, and casting the conflict in terms of shallow pieties about evil doers that play right into the hands of Islamists who cast the U.S. as anti-Islamic all argue against Bush's humility. During his campaign, Bush said that the U.S. would be humble in its relationships with other nations. Bush's humble approach is such that he could drive the Germans into the arms of the French...his "Coalition of the Willing" might be, with the exception of Great Britain, "the Coalition of the Bribed and the Bullied" and in most cases the "support" has been the most tepid expression possible...again, the contrasts with Desert Shield/Desert Storm under Bush the Elder are compelling.

Marite, I must say that for Carter to intervene in Southeast Asia would have been anathema to the public. A miscarriage of justice, to be sure, but nothing to be done for it. However, the failure of the U.S. to intervene either in Bosnia under Clinton or Uganda under Bush is less defensible, whether due to lack of political resolution by Clinton or salutatory neglect under Bush. Good point about societies where the choice is between a military regime or the "democratic" fundamentalists. The case of Algeria as you cite is queasy-making; I incline towards the military regime out of a sense of pragmatism but I take no joy in it. Something that I hadn't thought of was recently pointed out to me by an Ph.D. who works for the Army up in Monterey: the Arab societies feature a very high, by our standards, rate of intermarriage between cousins. In such a social structure, family/clan/tribe remain paramount and nepotism not only is a virtue but a duty. Changing that cultural pattern will not come quickly and the expectations of what we think is in our best interests need to be adjusted according to that reality; democracy is implausible in such a situation. Having nuclear age weapons with a tribal structure is dizzyingly unstable.

VaDad, before you wish for an Iraqi Madison, you might first desperately wish [imnsvho] for Islam to experience both its Reformation and Enlightenment, a process that took the West centuries. The West also had the dubious benefit of the Hundred Years' War, a process that taught the West, "You may be a heretic who will burn in Hell but in the meanwhile I will [mostly] tolerate you, live with you, and work with you...and religion isn't worth fighting about." Not that there aren't enough would-be theocrats in the U.S. who have reservations about this.

Dadx, conflating 20 or so misguided Middle Easterners who attacked the WTC with SH is dangerously close to stereotyping all Middle Easterners as Arabic-speaking towel-heads. There is *no* connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks and I notice that Bush even finally got Cheney to shut up about this embarrassing assertion. If you want to look at the WTC attacks, look to state-sponsored Wahabi fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia, a repressive Saudi society, and a ruling house precariously perched, all of which produced OBL and a majority of the hijackers, none of whom were Iraqi. If Saudi Arabia fails to modernize its society and the House of Saud ever does blow we probably *will* have to intervene there and if you think Islamist passion against the U.S. is high now, just wait to see what it's like if U.S. troops occupy Mecca & Medina.

Curioustoo, I see the world in manifold shades of gray; one person's "moral clarity" is another's "simplemindedness." I was fairly sharp in my condemnation of the young man who was looking ways to weasel out of his ED commitment. But is that as bad as cheating on the SAT? Neither is admirable but I would say the latter is worse than the former. Noting that Clinton lied *in a sexual harassment case* about his relationship with Monica strikes me as at least a little disingenuous; it was a tangential matter about something that most of us would consider to be a private affair, only peripherally related to the sexual harassment case, itself a thinly disguised political vendetta...one only has to look so far as to who was paying the attorneys. In contrast pressuring intelligence agencies to produce the results you want to justify an invasion is something clearly in another realm.

MassDad again, just reading today's paper, Syria and Turkey are having high-level contacts, a rapprochement concerned about the autonomy that the Iraqi Kurds seem to be on the way to acquiring by fiat if not legally. Yet another facet of, "What is the situation we want when we leave?"

By the way, does anyone recall that there was once, within our lifetimes, an Arab democracy that more or less functioned with a pluralistic educated society?


(scroll down)


Lebanon.


-30-

By Massdad (Massdad) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 01:59 pm: Edit

Sadam Hussein and WMD? Depends on the definition. K can tell you that before recent times (i.e. the need to gain "moral" justification for actions), no one called anything but a nuclear weapon a "weapon of of mass destruction". In my military days, I had access to lots of weapons data, and I can tell you that chemical and biological weapons may be good "weapons of mass hysteria" but not mass destruction. The experience of the Japanese in the mid 90s is instructive - chemical release of saran in several packed subway cars at once. About a dozen people died. If it had been suitcase bombs, it would have been many dozen at least. Or, take the anthrax attacks. What we really learned is that anthrax is not very effective, especially when we are alert for it, as we are now. The harrassment value was great, but harrasment does not equal WMD, IMHO.

Truth is, high explosive is so effective, that the value of a chemical weapon is more for the shock, novelty and harrasment value than its lethality.

So, to suit political ends, we redefined the term WMD, and in the process, needlessly panic many people.

By Kluge (Kluge) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 02:29 pm: Edit

No way I can add analysis to that. But I do have to respond to one statement that VaDad made that no one else noted: "We get a clear shot at the guy in North Korea, I sure hope we take it." To quote Tonto from the comedy routine: "What do you mean 'we', white man?"
I don't mean to pick on you, VaDad, but the "we" who's going to be taking that shot isn't you and me. It's my teenage sons, and their friends, and thousands more young men and women like them.

And "the guy" is going to be shooting back.

I think I'm a lot slower to spend my children's lives in pursuit of a poorly thought out and uncertain "plan" than you (or the Bush Administration) are. I don't want people who are apparently unable to determine whether or not there actually are hundred of tons of WMD's in a country before invading it - despite having inspectors on the ground who are looking for them - deciding oh so casually to "take out" another country.

I apologize for the emotional tone - not usually my style - but the lack of apparent concern from the Bush administration and its apologists for the young Americans who are being killed and maimed on a daily basis is beginning to take its toll on my equanimity. They're not "eggs". They're not "a price." They are our children.

By Curioustoo (Curioustoo) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 02:32 pm: Edit

That was a thoughtful reply, TheDad. All I can counter with is that, much as a member of a state supreme court must honor a lawful order of the Supreme Court, so must any high offical tell the truth under oath. The man who didn't clearly believed his personal charm and power would let him get away with lying once again even if it was criminal to do so. Frankly he acted thoughout like someone who's spent his whole life thinking that the rules really don't apply to him -- just like the student in the ED thread that started all of this. Clinton knew exactly what he was doing from the begining.

As for an administration wanting to believe in a policy so much that it twisted and misinterpreted the evidence to make it fit, well, are we talking about FDR's, Eisenhower's, JFK's, LBJ's, Nixon's, Carter's, Reagan's or just about all of the others? That's a flaw so common it's hard to pin down who's had it worst (probably LBJ or Nixon over Vietnam although the nuclear arms race that resulted from Eisenhower and JFK's self-delusional misinterpretation of intelligence during the supposed "missile gap" in the Cold War very nearly prompted WWIII more than once). If there's a difference between us it's that I probably know Bush better than you. I voted against him in 1978. He really believed what he said however wrong he was for whatever reason. That sets him dramatically apart from Clinton.

PS, Lebanon was predominately Christian and not strictly speaking Arab (Semitic yes, Arab, no) when it was the Switzerland of the Middle East. While it has it's flaws and isn't Arab either, Turkey does a fair job of being a secular, democractic but predominately Islamic state. They even had a female Prime Minister for a while there.

By Garland (Garland) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 02:34 pm: Edit

Well-written, well-researched post, TD. The Dems could use you as a policy advisor/speechwriter!

By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 03:00 pm: Edit

MassDad:

WMD = " good "weapons of mass hysteria" but not mass destruction"

I am strangely not comforted by that thought. I am not hysterical, but I know darn well that there are more pleasant deaths than Sarin or Anthrax. I think most people sense that as well---when they allow themselves a moment to contemplate the various possiblities. Problem is: we aren't given a choice!

The military makes a big thing out of making their troops feel confident about surviving a chemical or biological attack. Civilians don't get that "training" (some would choose a different word).

Civilians "employ" the military to keep bad things from happening to them. Should we feel hysterical because we don't have chemical suits and self-injectors---I hope not.

By Curioustoo (Curioustoo) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 03:02 pm: Edit

Bless you, kluge, but North Korea's a completely different situation. No one wants to let them out of the bottle, particularly China who has been instrumental in keeping all the parties talking to this point. If war begins to look too likely, don't be surprised to hear of a coup by much more friendly, progressive leaders with vague and wispered hints of rumors they were sponsored by the Chinese.

BTW, I don't think anyone's comfortable with the bloodshed in Iraq. What troubles me as much is that American combat deaths there still haven't quite reached the number of gang related murders in the greater Los Angeles area. I'm extremely confident that the US will be out of Iraq in 18-24 months. It will be over for us.

Maybe the bigger question is why do we ignore the greater carnage here at home and what could we hope do about it? Are the people dying here at home less important? (PS, I have close family in both LA and Iraq, so it's a fair question to me.)

By Marite (Marite) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 03:10 pm: Edit

Thedad:

Applause again. I do not mean to suggest that Carter should have decided to invade Cambodia against the will of the American people. But therein lies the problem: the rhetoric of right and wrong, of evil empires and axis of evil cannot rest on the fickle will of the people. As well, Carter acquiesced to the PRC invading Vietnam in retaliation for Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia. The only reason why the US has not suffered the same fate is US power. Understandable, but again not a basis for preachng morality to others. It sticks in their gullets in a way that naked realpolitik calculations do not.

Curioustoo:
In no way do I condone Clinton's behavior. I do draw the line between private misbehavior and public crimes and misdemeanors.

By Marite (Marite) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Curioustoo:
The question is not so much how long will we be in Iraq, but what sort of shape will Iraq be when we leave? At any time, the US can declare victory and go home, limiting the number of US casualties. But will the Middle East be more rather than less unstable than when we went into Iraq?

Look at Vietnam. After the Tet Offensive, the US decided that the Vietnam war was not winnable. Nixon got elected because he promised he had a "secret plan to end the war."
Kissinger's plan was to extricate the US in such a way that, when South Vietnam fell, the US would be suffciently distanced from the event. That was the essence of his peace with honor plan. The US suffered 58,000+ casualties during the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese suffered over 3 millions deaths. The reason why the ensuing mess in Vietnam--the Communist victory, the re-education camps--has not had more international repercussions is that, pace the domino theory, the Indochinese peninsula and Southeast Asia in general was never the cauldron that the Middle East is. The Balkans, similarly, were a minor irritant, as far as the US was concerned--a reason why neither Bush senior nor Clinton were inclined to intervene. In the case of Iraq, unfortunately, I believe the US cannot simply declare victory and walk away and let the locals take revenge on one another. The stakes are too high, not just in terms of access to oil, but in political re-alignments throughout the Middle East.

By Curioustoo (Curioustoo) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 04:21 pm: Edit

Yes, Tet is often held up in military schools as an example of loosing the battle to win a war. It was a military disaster for the North Vietnamese, but it shattered the US's faith in the war paving the way for the North's ultimate victory. More reason not to simply pull up stakes and leave Iraq. (And thanks, the Domino Theory was the classic case of intelligence being interpreted to justify policy by a variety of administrations, Democrat and Republican. Self delusion is not the same as lying nore is it unique to this administration.)

Perhaps the difference is that the war in Iraq is not really a civil war in the same sense Viet Nam was. While it was never really part of the turmoil that's plagued the Middle East all these years, Iraq was never really an integrated state except under the cruel hand of one dictator or another. Maybe it should revert back to the way it was before the British sitting back in Europe ignored ethinic and religious regional differences and put some arbitrary lines on a map to make a new country. The Turks wouldn't tolerate that, I suppose. I don't pretend to have answers.

I do know this. Despite the fact that some people resent their loss of prestige and power, the majority of Iraqis are better off today than they were 12 months ago. Another 12 years of sanctions wouldn't have done that, it would have only driven the average people deeper into poverty while Saddam grew fatter. I don't think it was a wise war, but at least it accomplished that.

BTW, the Balkans are the only place on Earth where the centuries old tradition of ethinc strife equals that of the Middle East. If peace seems obtainable after the intervention in the Balkans, maybe there's hope in the Middle East after all.

By Emilyp114 (Emilyp114) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 04:23 pm: Edit

I'd like to thank all of you for such an interesting (and civil!) discussion. In my senior year of h/s, I did an independent study project on the middle east and one of the most interesting books which I read for it was Tribes with Flags by Charles Glass. It's a great combination of history, culture, and the present conflicts written beautifully, if any of you are interested.

The situation in Iraq is one that fills me with fear each night as I watch the news. I know two boys who are currently stationed there. I also have a cousin who is an aid worker in Afghanistan. I see the situations in the two countries as very different, and I worry how we will be able to extract ourselves from either in the near future. I just don't see it happening.

I look forward to the election later this year as it will be my first opportunity to vote. Oh, one last thing on this topic. I got Mariane Pearl's book for Christmas, A Mighty Heart, and it's wonderful, heartbreaking, and enlightening. I think that Pakistan may just be the most dangerous country of all in that part of the world.

By Curioustoo (Curioustoo) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 04:27 pm: Edit

"Curioustoo:
In no way do I condone Clinton's behavior. I do draw the line between private misbehavior and public crimes and misdemeanors."

We can agree to that. We differ only in that I believe that perjury in open court is a public matter. I could have cared less what happened in the Oval Office except that the evidence suggests he was not a considerate lover and the thing with the cigar was in remarkably poor taste.

By Marite (Marite) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 04:33 pm: Edit

Curioustoo:

Again, I agree. But there are degrees as well in crimes and misdemeanors.
As for being an inconsiderate lover or having poor taste: if it were a hanging offense, the gender balance in the world would change dramatically!

By Marite (Marite) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 04:39 pm: Edit

Curioustoo:

I cite Vietnam because the stakes in Vietnam kept changing, the goals were unclear and there was no exit strategy. The "lessons of Vietnam" made Powell reluctant to get involved in the Balkans and in the first Gulf War.

I am sorry to contradict you about Iraq. It is even more of a civil war than Vietnam: There are the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis. Through savage repression, SH kept Iraq together, the way Tito did with Yugoslavia. Immediately after Tito died, Yugoslavia fell apart. Now that SH is gone and there is a power vacuum, the Kurds, the Shiite majority and the Sunni minority are all trying to get the upper hand, and none of them are happy with the US presence.

By Vadad (Vadad) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 04:45 pm: Edit

Gee, this is fun. Want to start a pool on how long before Obiwan shuts us down?

TheDad—

First, best wishes for TheMom for a speedy and painless recovery and for you for the patience you will need to see her through it.
Were you in Baltimore for the Anderson/Reagan debate that Carter boycotted? That was back during my “radical libertarian” period, and we loved you guys for funding all the ballot access litigation. I stood around outside and watched various protesters at the debate. Most entertaining.
Also, thank you for your observations concerning campaign ad spending. It explains to me why we always feel strangely (though blissfully) left out of national political contests here in a non-battleground state.

A few years ago I would’ve branded anyone who thought I would support an interventionist foreign policy a nut. I opposed the Bosnian intervention. I was blinded by my contempt for the messenger (I had a lot more of a problem with Clinton from the neck up than from the waist down). I was wrong. Sad that it took 9/11 to shake me from my jingo complacency about the safety and sanctity of Fortress America. Surely, as you say, it would’ve been far better for us to be active earlier in the Bosnian conflict, just as it would have been for us to intervene in Rwanda and Uganda. Political considerations can hardly excuse our failure to do anything to stop the Cambodian genocide. Heck, think of the human misery that could’ve been avoided if we’d have gotten involved in WWI and WWII earlier.

The same is true in Iraq. Who can blame the Shiites for thinking we double-crossed them; looks to me like we did. A few miles further in Gulf War I and this whole debate might be academic now, with package tours to Baghdad leaving every Thursday from Dulles. We didn’t do that because of the “coalition”, which I think really meant sensitivity to the needs of the Saud family despots to the south.

So here we have SH precipitating another international incident by refusing weapons inspections. Apparently, the theory is now that he did this for the same reason some poor fellow over on the Financial Aid board said that his father over-reported income—pride. (Tied it back to college again; score!). I’m still unconvinced, but it may very well be that there were massive intelligence failures both in the Clinton and GWB administrations. (As for the assertion of results-oriented pressure on the CIA, if Tenet is that spineless, he certainly should go; I still don’t see any compelling evidence of intentional manipulation of data). Undoubtedly, SH is a bad man. Whatever his relationship or lack thereof with OBL, he harbored Abu Nidal and his butchers for as long as it suited him, had started two regional wars on a whim, and gassed, hung, raped, tortured, jailed and did other unspeakable things to his own people. We have the opportunity to get rid of him. Should we do it? Even if it can be pejoratively, if accurately, characterized as finishing daddy’s business, isn’t it business that needs finishing?

How much certainty do we need of outcome? There’s no absolute certainty in any human endeavor, so don’t you just make the best assessment you can? I have a hard time conceiving of a reasonably plausible outcome that would be worse than leaving SH in place. Will it encourage new terrorists to take up arms? Why, to vindicate some Baathist thug? Doing nothing—again—would almost certainly multiply human misery, perhaps on a very large scale. I think we may be in Iraq for a very long time; heck, we’re still (for some reason that escapes me) in Germany. I hope that both Iraq and we are the better for it.

I agree that you have to take these things on a case by case basis, but waiting around has not been a particularly effective policy in the past. It’s put us in the position we’re in with North Korea. A couple of generations of syphilitic madmen apparently have brainwashed millions into believing that the entire world is against them, while the poor people resort to eating songbirds to relieve their hunger.

Parenthetically, Kluge, I’m sorry about my ineloquence with respect to the “clear shot” comment. I probably should have said, if I get a clear shot at him, I’d exercise my Second Amendment rights. ;) Sadly, it is true that the actual liberating, if liberating is to be done, will be done by young folks in the military. About all I can say about that is that I’m glad it’s a volunteer army, I deeply respect their bravery and commitment to the protection and expansion of freedom, and hope that we continue to develop and provide them with the tools that will make their jobs as safe as possible. Again the choices seem to me to be to do something to relieve human suffering, or sit by and watch it happen.

As for the need for an Islamic Enlightenment, I thought Wahabism was a 20th Century phenomenon. I know this is a small data point, but my D2’s Arabic teacher is a Jordanian, seems most enlightened, has provided her with some fascinating Arab literature, and claims Wahabism is about as prevalent outside Saudi Arabia (and London) as Branch Davidians are, now, in Waco.

I have some stuff to say about the humility thing, but heck, I really don’t care to defend any politician on a personal level and the truth is that I really don’t care if he’s humble or not. I will say that the accusation of unilateralism does not resound with me—he went to the UN. If France and Russia had said OK, then would we have had a “real” coalition?

By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 04:49 pm: Edit

The only thing keeping things in Iraq from falling into a truly nasty civil war (none of them are pleasant) is the presense of the United States. The chances of getting the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shites to agree to just get along---by this summer---are slim.

By Curioustoo (Curioustoo) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 04:51 pm: Edit

Marite, I've said that the impeachment was ill advised, though, in truth, it would never have made to the Senate if the House leaders hadn't shown reluctant members evidence from one of the rape accusations against Clinton. Fortunately the evidence wasn't made public and we were spared THAT at least.

And what can I say? If being a inconsiderate lover was, as you say, a hanging offense, things would be more interesting for the rest of us.

But we agree on Iraq. The only difference is that I don't think they have enough in common to be considered a nation in the first place. It was artifical from the very beginning. The Yugoslavia example is very pertinent and may suggest a solution.

Viet Nam is much less relevant if anything because the last thing I think we'll do is ignore the Powell Doctrine. Half measures should not be tolerated.

By Marite (Marite) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 04:57 pm: Edit

VAdad:

Many good points. Watch out for disclosures in England about exaggerating threats from Iraq. Lord Hutton's report into the suicide of the weapons expert David Kelly is due by the end of the month.

By Sheeprun (Sheeprun) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 05:01 pm: Edit

Please continue controversy at Caroline, TheDad: A Controversial Thread -- Part 2