I have a few problems with Berman and his ilk, not the least of which is implied support of the Iraq war while admitting that the instigators of that war are entirely clueless. In other words: The result of the war is good, although the reasons we went to war are all screwed up. He fails to heed his own advice about being wary of American leadership right now. If the Bush administration is promoting liberalism -- Ha! That's too funny -- for all the wrong reasons, then the circumstance that Berman warns may happen in the future is actually happening right now. And he's not doing much to speak out against it.

Berman's stance is based upon a rather chilling we-know-better-than-you philosophy, a rather bigoted position. He writes, "They are antiliberal insurgencies. They have identified a people of the good, who are the Arabs or Muslims. They believe that their own societies have been infested with a hideous inner corruption, which must be rooted out. They observe that the inner infestation is supported by powerful external forces. And they gird their swords. Their thinking is apocalyptic. They imagine that at the end they, too, will succeed in establishing a blocklike, unchanging society, freed of the inner corruption--a purified society: the victory of good. They are the heirs of the twentieth-century totalitarians."

Substitute "Americans" for "Arabs or Muslims". See what I mean?

Berman is a Wolfowitz in liberal's clothing.

No, I don't see what you mean. While there might be some faults with American exceptionalism (not that I find much wrong with it), you can't seriously compare it to totalitarian thinking. American exceptionalism says freedom is better. Totalitarianism says tyranny is better. Clearly, one is right and one is wrong. Since tyranny can only survive through suppression, murder and torture, and freedom only survives without those vices, I can't imagine any moral person arguing that tyranny is right and freedom is wrong.

That is essentially what you are required to do if you take exception with Berman's thesis.

It is a bit of illogic to argue that Berman is wrong merely because you don't like his position on the war or how he got there. That doesn't invalidate his historical analysis or his thesis that the war on terrorism is really a war on totalitarianism. It means he's wrong on the war, in your view, period.

Of course, he's right on the war. And I would argue that he doesn't understand Bush if he believes Bush fought this war for any other bottomline reason that what Berman would fight it for.

I don't see what's so odd about seeing Bush's foreign policy as liberal -- it is, after all, a neoconservative philosophy, which is, by definition, a liberal foreign policy.

Liberation has always been a liberal cause. The elevation of individual sovereignty over the central-control, statist philosophy has always been a liberal cause (for more than 200 years now). That is the very nature of classic liberalism.

Either liberalism is right or it is wrong. And if you are taking the position that it is wrong, and it sounds like you are, then you are falling into the trap of the totalitarians, which, as Berman says, base their tyranny on promoting the idea that liberal society is a fraud, a lie and the cause of all our problems.

Berman is a classic liberal, which is now more often described as a third-way liberal. A neoconservative, like Wolfowitz, is the next-door neighbor of a third-way liberal. Third-way liberals and neocons have pretty identical foreign policy views.

It seems to me that you're more concerned with attacking Berman than examining his ideas. That's too bad.

"That is essentially what you are required to do [accept that tyranny is right and freedom is wrong] if you take exception with Berman's thesis."

That's such a loaded statement, it's laughable. It's like asking the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

"It seems to me that you're more concerned with attacking Berman than examining his ideas."

Actually, I have examined Berman's ideas and I find him hypocritical. He fails to heed his own warnings; he justifies the end without any regard for the means.

Accepting your argument in support of Berman requires that I make a moral distinction between right and wrong in the case of foreign cultures. I'm not willing to do that. First of all, Islamic societies do not have to be tyrannical, yet Berman paints with a broad brush. Western societies have been both tyrannical and free; we have neither a lock on tyranny nor a lock on freedom. Berman states that society should be free of tyranny -- a point I agree with -- but he implies that the only way to achieve that goal is to impose Western values on other cultures. Indeed, he thinks we have a moral imperative to do so. Now that's immoral.

Accepting that Islamic societies can exist without tyranny, why not allows these societies to develop on their own rather than ramming alien values down their throats? Why is Berman so uncomfortable with his own beliefs that he has to change the rest of the world to fit his model? At the root of such evangelism -- especially when it is conversion by force -- is a deep-seated discomfort with one's own beliefs.

Recall that Berman states that in the future we have to be wary of the motivations of our leaders in conquering tyranny, so as to prevent sectarian goals from dominating American foreign policy. Then he questions the motives of the Bush administration. So why is Berman writing about future wariness? Why isn't he worried about now?

Such blatant disregard for the contradictions evident in his own thesis implies that he is either a liar or a fool. Either way, such a determination calls his entire body of work into question.

Is it part of the Islamic culture to deny equal rights to women? If it is, then Islamic culture is wrong. If it isn't, if it's just a regional custom or a perversion of Islamic culture, then it is an error that needs to be rooted out.

That is just one example where there are clear rights and wrongs that can't be denied.

Clearly, there are things that MUST be changed about how life in Islamic countries if we are to rid ourselves of the threat of terrorism and totalitarianism.

If Berman has these contradictions, as you say, and I'm not conceding that he does, than the fault lies with not being more militant about the need to promote freedom in the Arab world.

Freedom is not a cultural value, as you seem to think. It is also not something that we can afford to wait for. The imperative is to bring freedom to the Middle East, to all countries, as quickly as possible.

There is nothing cultural about the dignity of man. There is nothing cultural about equal rights. There is nothing cultural about the rule of law. There is nothing cultural about respect for private property. These are universal human rights.

We must establish these principles in the Middle East through all means necessary if we want to live in a safe and secure world.

Either you are for freedom or you are for tyranny.

I think the goal of liberating an oppressed people from tyranny is a noble one. And it is not necessarily wrong to achieve this goal with violence.

However, from that point it does not necessarily follow that every military operation against every villain is going to increase the sum total of freedom in the world. It also does not follow that "liberation" is a magic word that immediately legitimizes mass killing that is undertaken for wholly different reasons. It also does not follow that when a leader says the goal is to "liberate" a country he actually has a solid plan to do so and a sincere intention to follow through.

Plausibility, sincerity and intention are legitimate concerns. If you look coldly at the record of this Administration, it is impossible not to have massive doubts that what will unfold in Iraq will look anything like the vague but happy picture painted by the Administration's propaganda wing.

Plausibility--how are we going to achieve democracy in Iraq while at the same time holding off an Islamic government? The majority of people in Iraq WANT an Islamic government. We're far more likely to give Iraq the "democracy" WE want, and our record shows this to be a reasonable prediction. When/if it comes to our interests versus the Iraqi people's desires, we will choose our interests, and I don't know who in the world would call that "freedom."

Sincerity--Afghanistan.

Intention--since the Administration cannot be trusted to tell the truth (anyone who believes otherwise clearly is not acquainted with the facts), we have to try to discern its intentions through means other than its public statements. It is within the realm of possibility that its intentions are coincident with its public statements, but no body of evidence exists to create a presumption in this direction. And its actions to date are more consonant with a desire to exploit Iraq commercially than with an altruistic desire to liberate. The jury is still out, but the evidence so far suggests that the Bush Administration is indeed more interested in securing control over oil and handing massive contracts to political cronies (in secret) than in the welfare of Iraqis.

You write: "The majority of people in Iraq WANT an Islamic government." On what evidence? I haven't seen any interest of that. Even the million people in Karabla today, only a small majority carried anti-American, pro-theocracy signs. More people expressed appreciation for their new freedom.

Also, there is not necessarily any contradiction between establishing a government that establishes the rule of law and protects the rights of minorities and establishing an Islamic government. It's just a matter of what kind of Islamic government you get. Look to Turkey for an example.

There won't be an election in Iraq any time soon. There will be rebuilding first. There will be drafting a constitution. There will be establishing the rule of law. There will be building the separation of powers.

All of this can be done while respecting local culture and customs and Islamic tradition.

For those who want to establish an Islamic theoracy, a totalitarian state. They will fail. We cannot retire from the country so long as that threat exists, or else this war has been for nothing. Whatever it takes to beat back and defeat the totalitarians, it must be done. Both for the sake of the Iraqi people and our own national security.

As for the rest of your leftest rant -- just so much more spin, bullshit and partisan crap without a foundation in fact or realty.

Howard: Yes, I know I'm either with you or against you. I guess I'm against you, then. But I'm not FOR tyranny. That's a rather Romper Room distillation of the circumstances, really. Having lived in a free society all my life, of course, I'm FOR freedom. But had I lived in a tyrannical society up until this moment, I would probably be FOR tyranny; odds are good, anyway. You would make the argument that I would not be for tyranny except that I had never experienced freedom. But human psychology is not that simple. Long-term penitentiary inmates become institutionalized. Some of them can't function in the outside world, in a free society. They want to go back. Indeed, some of them commit crimes with the sole intent of being sent back for life.

What bothers me is not your distinction between right and wrong, but your insistence that you have the power to distinguish right and wrong for everyone else. You want to be God; not only for yourself, but also for everyone else. I'll grant you the right to play God for yourself, but not for the rest of us. Live to your own standards, for they have merit of themselves. They don't require the allegiance of others to be valid for you.

As far as the rights of women in Islam are concerned: See above. Further, the U.S. government supports some Islamic nations that do not offer equal rights to women because we consider them to be stable and pro-American. That is one of the greatest contradictions of our foreign policy. That is moral relativism at its peak.

Either freedom is right or freedom is wrong. You can't have it both ways, which seems to be what you're arguing. To argue that it is wrong is to argue for tyranny, which is to argue that murder is acceptable. Tyranny=murder.

Are you going to argue that murder is right? You would have to to prove that I can't distinguish an absolute right and wrong that is universal.

You can argue that I want to "impose" my version of right and wrong on Iraq. I would counter that I want to give the Iraqis the opportunity to live in an environment that tolerates all people, all religions (which is essential in a country as diverse as Iraq), and respects human dignity and the rule of law. If you want your moral relativism, you can't have it without a society that is liberal and not tyrannical.

You seem willing to condemn others to live in tyranny while keeping the fruits of freedom for yourself. How hypocritical is that?

You also seem to argue that because we can't fix all the tyrannies at once, we shouldn't fix any of them. That's like arguing that because we can't arrest all of the rapist at once, we shouldn't arrest any of them. We do what we can when we can. The circumstances for dealing with Iraq were ripe, so we did what needed to be done. The circumstances for dealing with Saudi Arabia or Syria are different and require different approaches. That isn't moral relativism (because the moral scope of the question remains the same); it's ethical realism.

Howard,

You wrote:

Also, there is not necessarily any contradiction between establishing a government that establishes the rule of law and protects the rights of minorities and establishing an Islamic government...

As for the rest of your leftest rant -- just so much more spin, bullshit and partisan crap without a foundation in fact or realty.

Working backwards ... my goal in this thread isn't to argue about Bush, but I just wanted to make a sweeping statement to clarify I disagree with your characterizations of Bush and his administration. I don't think you have the facts and evidence to back it up.

You'll find plenty of Muslims who disagree with your assetion that Islam is inherently anti-woman, or that women couldn't have equal rights in Islam. Some would argue that Islam is very much a feminist religion and that the Islamists have preverted this fact.

In fact, the anti-women element really arose after Arab's exposure to Greek philosophy a century or two after Mohammed.

I'm for Iraq's government taking on whatever form the Iraqi people want, so long as it isn't totalitarian. We can't leave that country until we can ensure totalitarianism is not a foreseeable consquence of our leaving.

I agree that if our longterm goal, and I believe it is, is to wipe out all totalitarian regimes, that the solution will sometimes require military intervention. But I don't believe military intervention will always be necessary, not even a majority of the time. We can, I believe, for example, effect regime change in Iran without military intervention.

Much will depend on how successful we are in establishing a free government in Iraq. If we're successful in Iraq, it will be our greatest propaganda. If we fail, our worst, and will probably spell our doom.

"Tyranny=murder." That's a blanket statement; rejected on the fact that it is blanket. You can control people without murdering them. You can torture them, imprison them, expel them, and the beat goes on.

"You seem willing to condemn others to live in tyranny while keeping the fruits of freedom for yourself. How hypocritical is that?"

Of course I do, because it is MY freedom. And I don't mean because I was born here. It means because it's the values I accept. Other cultures accept different values. I happen to live in a state with bizarre liquor laws. My nation makes liquor legal, but were I to want liquor I have to drive to hell and back to get it. My local voting majority limits my access to something that is legal in my country. Christ, I live under tyranny. Not only tyranny that affects me, but tyranny that further restricts the laws of my nation. Is it right that the view of some in my state supercede the rights of my nation? Is it right that the view of various countries supercedes the rights in the world?

Help me here, really. Because apparently I am losing perspective: How is that that some determine the rights of the many?

By the way, I live in Texas, not Kuwait.

Supercede. But who's counting "supercedes", anyway?

Oh, so torture is OK?

Yes ... restrictions on liquor sales are tyranny. I agree. Right up there with torture for advocating the right to vote.

Torture (or any form of tyranny) is not a cultural value. I can't believe you would defend torture as a cultural value. Seriously. Is that what you believe?

Here's the conversation you and I would have in 1941:

H: Nazi Germany is a tyranny.
S: The German people should choose their own government
H: Hitler is a dictator.
S: We should not impose our values on the German people
H: Hitler is gassing Jews
S: We are we to pass moral judgments on Hitler.

H.

Last, should be "Who are we?

Howard,

You wrote:

I just wanted to make a sweeping statement to clarify I disagree with your characterizations of Bush and his administration. I don't think you have the facts and evidence to back it up.

You'll find plenty of Muslims who disagree with your assetion that Islam is inherently anti-woman, or that women couldn't have equal rights in Islam.

Is it part of the Islamic culture to deny equal rights to women? If it is, then Islamic culture is wrong. If it isn't, if it's just a regional custom or a perversion of Islamic culture, then it is an error that needs to be rooted out.

Let me ask you two questions.

First, let's (for the sake of discussion) stipulate that the Iraqi people, can choose, if they want, to live under a tyrannical/Islamic regime. How do we ensure that is what they really want? I mean, matching in the streets, even engaging in violence, is not a reliable way to ensure a majority has expressed itself. Should a minority who desire such a state be able to dictate to the majority? So, outside of establishing the rule of law (etc.) and then having an election, can we ensure such a "desire" by the Iraqi people really reflects what the majority of Iraqis want? (A subset -- how do we know that the majority, for example, of Saudis want their current form of government? If that government is really an expression of Saudi culture, then surely that must be what the majority wants -- but how do we know? Otherwise, the arguemnt that we shouldn't impose "our culture" (as if freedom is our culture) on another country is moot.

To sum, taking your "we shouldn't impose our culture" on Iraq argument, how do we know what Iraq's culture is? Maybe Iraq's culture is freer than ours? How do we know that without an election -- and probably a series of elections over several years while Iraq sorts out for itself what it is. So, what is your answer, not only for Iraq but the other countries in tyranny, since none of them were chosen by the people, and some even imposed on them by western powers. I think this is the big weakness in your "all cultures are equal and we shouldn't impose our culture" argument. We've already imposed our culture on the Middle East, and (going back to Berman) the whole Islamist/Islamofascism thing is really a perversion of Islam based on European fascism. So how are you arriving at your formulation?

Second question: Since the basic idea of freedom is that it can encompass diversity (please, let's not quibble over how imperfectly this is practiced ... that's really beside the point), and tyranny can quarter no diversity, how do you gibe freedom and tyranny as moral equivalents? When is it ever moral to physically harm another individual to promote your own self interest?

"When is it ever moral to physically harm another individual to promote your own self interest?"

It's not my friend, it's not.

So, then, not all cultures -- by your seeming forumulation of what a culture is -- are not equal. If some cultures do immoral things, such as torture, then that culture must be evil.

Of course, I contend that no culture is a culture of torture. Therefore, we have an obligation to rid cultures hijacked by tyrants of those tyrants. We we care about other cultures, then we help them become free.

New plan: I can't stand keeping up with all this crap. If you want to talk to me about me: 214-680-0327. It's night now, so please respect that. I'll call you back.

I've rounded out my thoughts on this whole thread and posted them here: http://www.howardowens.com/index.cfm?action=full_text&ARTICLE_ID=1214