An attempt to neutralize a threat and a mission civilatrice are two different things.
--- On Mon, 6/8/09, Michael McIntyre <morbidsymptoms at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Michael McIntyre <morbidsymptoms at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] another DH loves BHO in Cairo
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 6:57 PM
> I must have missed Rubin's essay on
> "smart" intervention. Here's what he
> really thinks:
> http://bostonreview.net/BR34.1/rubin.php
>
> As for his "splendid insights" two decades ago - what the
> fuck do you care?
> However smart and well-informed, they were no doubt
> vitiated by his
> defective basic premises.
>
> MM
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 14:19:35 -0500
> > Michael McIntyre <morbidsymptoms at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Dismiss Rubin as a liberal imperialist if you
> want.
> >
> > Well, yes, I do. I spent a melancholy hour today
> skimming
> > through some of the great man's work, available on the
> Web.
> > Here's a sample, taken at random, from a 2007 Foreign
> Affairs
> > article presumptuously entitled "Saving Afghanistan":
> >
> >
> > http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62270/barnett-r-rubin/saving-afghanistan
> >
> > > Washington and its international partners must
> rethink their strategy
> > > and significantly increase both the resources
> they devote to
> > > Afghanistan and the effectiveness of those
> resources' use. Only
> > > dramatic action can reverse the perception,
> common among both Afghans
> > > and their neighbors, that Afghanistan is not a
> high priority for the
> > > United States -- and that the Taliban are winning
> as a result.
> > > Washington's appeasement of Pakistan, diversion
> of resources to Iraq,
> > > and perpetual underinvestment in Afghanistan --
> which gets less aid
> > > per capita than any other state with a recent
> postconflict rebuilding
> > > effort -- have fueled that suspicion.
> >
> > No doubt he's a smart fellow, and well-informed. But
> everything I've
> > seen from him is built on the tacit and apparently
> unexamined assumption
> > that it's the right and duty of the US to "do
> something" about places like
> > Afghanistan. Since I consider this mission-civilatrice
> a criminal
> > enterprise, it's difficult to know what common ground
> we might have.
> >
> > It's possible, of course, that if apologists for
> "smart" intervention
> > like Rubin (and his fans here on lbo-talk), and
> anti-interventionists
> > like me, were to confine our discussions to questions
> of fact and
> > reasonable inferences from fact (like "why did
> so-and-so do such-and-such")
> > we might be able to have a constructive conversation.
> But frankly, even
> > this seems unlikely. The basic premises from which we
> respectively begin
> > affect our reading of events too strongly. You can
> certainly see that
> > in action if you review this thread.
> >
> > > I first met him twenty years
> > > ago, and everything he said about Afghanistan
> that night turned out
> > > to be right. If Reagan, Casey, and the rest
> had been listening to
> > > this liberal imperialist, we could have saved
> ourselves and others a
> > > world of hurt.
> >
> > I'm curious -- what splendid insights did he share on
> that
> > occasion?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Michael Smith
> > mjs at smithbowen.net
> > http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>