"Democratic Messianism" - by B.H.Levy

[marcinmoka]

Exerpt from an interview:

You say you're close to the anti-totalitarian thought of the neo-conservatives, who you also defend.

I don't defend them! Or rather: I only defend them against the demonisation they're subjected to - that's very different. I defend them against the inane reductionism of people who cast them as imperialists eager to wage war with Iraq to steal its oil. I say in my book: "No! It's not that simple! Their reasons for starting this war were neither base nor immoral! They started it for the reason they gave: the naive idea that in doing so they would spread democracy in the Arab world! If it had only been a question about oil they could have simply made a deal with Saddam Hussein, who asked for nothing better."

That's the extent of my defence, because the war in Iraq isn't the only issue. There are also questions of domestic policy where, in my view, they don't act like intellectuals in the sense of free spirits. Just because you support an administration on one issue, does that mean you have to toe their line on all the others? When you go to a restaurant, are you obliged to eat everything on the menu? I've had this debate with several of them, and it's a major source of contention between us.

And the war in Iraq?

That's something else again. That was a catastrophe. And it had to be one, bearing in mind how they conceived of it. On the political level they committed absolutely tragic errors. I'm convinced of that. My disagreements are of a political nature. I don't blame them for their immoralism, but for their political naivte. It's not that they didn't moralise enough (if anything they moralised too much!), but that they weren't actively enough engaged in politics (or more exactly, they were engaged in idiotic politics). As I said at the outset: this war was "morally right and politically wrong."

Which means...

Nothing is more moral than wanting to topple a dictator. But you have to have a plan for what happens next. You have to have solid allies on the ground. Like in Afghanistan with the Northern Alliance. And you're better off having a real international consensus behind you as well.

That's not the work of intellectuals!

But it is their work to think it through. Or to put it another way, the neo-conservatives' error was to nourished what I call the mirage of democratic messianism. That's roughly the idea that it's enough to decree democracy for it to come about, and that you don't need the patient work we call politics. These people don't believe in politics at home, and how could they? These are people who don't believe it's the job of politics to tackle poverty, the lack of medical care, the decline of the cities, and so on. How could they think so when they're busy constructing a democracy in a country that's emerging from decades of dictatorship? What we do share is the idea that democratic values are universal. Like them, I believe these aren't occidental values, or more exactly, that the fact that they were conceived in the West doesn't make them Western in an exclusive, fatalistic way. However I believe that to convince people who are not spontaneously convinced takes time - that is, politics.

You were against the war in 2003.

That's right. But for the reasons I've mentioned. Not moral ones, nor for reasons having to do with I don't know what sort of idiotic pacifism. What was needed was a multilateral alliance, and allies on the ground. And a plan for afterwards. In Afghanistan, at least two of these conditions were met. But not in Iraq. You know in 2003 I sepnt some time in Pakistan. Frankly it seemed to me quite clear that these people were doing themselves no favours. If the key question was radical Islamism, if our adversaries were Al Qaeda and similar organisations, then it was clear that the real target wasn't in Iraq but elsewhere, notably Karachi. Not in Arab Islam, but in Asian Islam. I wrote several articles saying that before the war. And I still hold to what I wrote back then.

What consequences will the debacle of the neo-conservatives have?

The worst would be if the most worthy aspect of their thinking was discredited - their universalism, their refusal of relativism and isolationism and what Bernard Kouchner and others called the "duty to interfere."

Despite the defeat of their thought, you are sympathetic to their anti-totalitarianism. Like some of them you speak of Islamism as a new totalitarianism, even as an "Islamo-fascism."

I think I was one of the very first - but you'd have to check it - to use the term "Islamofacism". It's not a neo-con term, it's just a reality.

Can we interpret this phenomenon, which is rooted in 1,400 years of religious tradition, in terms of something like fascism? Fascism was something completely different, with its mass formations and it's central power, il duce.

You talk as if Islamism only had one source. The Islamists also draw on fascism, real fascism, the fascism of Mussolini and Hitler. That's very clear when you look at Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, for example, the "mufti of Jerusalem" and one of the founders of Arab anti-Semitism. He was a member of the SS and he mobilised the Arabs for the Waffen SS in the last years of the war. And it's also clear when you take a look at the political origins of the Muslim Brotherhood. These movements and these men were and are inspired by real fascism, not just a metaphoric one.

Still, they function entirely differently.

Of course. But, you have to understand that this phenomenon of Islamism takes place in a double context. There is, if I dare say, the "little" context, the religious one. But there's also another context, what I call the "big" political context, which is tied up with the history of fascism. Some people would have us believe Islamism is a purely religious affair, that the whole problem lies in the Koran and all you have to do to correct matters is amend it. That's not my opinion. Of course I believe the Koran must be amended. I believe we need a generation - of Muslims of course - who will undertake with the Koran the work of religious Aggiornamento that the Jews and Christians did with their own sacred book. And I believe, to put it brutally, that a part of the problem will be resolved when Muslims accept that the divine word must be subjected to commentary - when, to put it another way, a sort of "talmudic" tradition emerges in Islam.

But at the same time, that condition is necessary but a far cry from sufficient. Because after that will come the major, perhaps essential work, of addressing the political sources of Islamism. Ian Buruma has made some impressive statements about this in his book on "occidentalism," as has my friend Paul Berman in "Terror's new clothes." And then there's the book "Halbmond und Hakenkreuz. Das Dritte Reich, die Araber und Palästina" (Half Moon and Swastika - The Third Reich the Arabs and Palestine) by Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers, two German authors. It established an - alas - essential fact. The book tells the little-known history of the project for an Arab contingent in Rommel's army, which was supposed to spread the final solution to the 600,000 Jews living in Palestine. This book pulverised one of the major arguments, if not the argument, of the leftist Islamicists, namely: "We had nothing to do with the Shoah; we had nothing to do with the history of Nazism; why should we have to pay for it, a crime committed by the Europeans, by tolerating Israel?" But in fact there was a real Arab Nazism. Some identified with the project of the Shoah. And if certain Arab regimes at the time, certain intellectuals, agitators and preachers rallied behind Hitler, it wasn't not just out of their hatred for the Anglo-Saxons or the desire to liberate themselves from colonialism. No. It also sprang from an ideology, a conviction.

How should we react to Islamism?

In two contexts. First of all the religious one, as I've said, and that's up to the Muslims: the time has come for commentary! Let 100 Talmudic flowers blossom! Secondly the Arab-Muslim world has to go through the mourning that we have in Europe. As long as the Arabs maintain that the history of European fascism doesn't concern them, nothing will get better - that's my conviction.

Let's get back to the intellectual panorama and the very particular relationship between France and America. Where does their love-hate relationship come from?

Each is indebted to the other. France participated to America's national liberation through Louis XVI, La Fayette, Beaumarchais and many others. And two centuries later, the Americans liberated France.

That's hard to excuse!

I'm sure you know Jules Renard's bon mot: "I've got no enemies because I've never helped a soul." That's exactly it. Add to that the countries' commitment to universalism, an almost messianism of the universal...

Is America moving away from Europe?

I don't think so. Or, more precisely, I think that as long as the United States remains the United States, the connection to Europe will remain very strong. Perhaps it will become more discrete, even clandestine. Perhaps it will express itself differently, more gently. But it's an integral part of America. What is America? It's a new Europe. I think Americans know that. They sense that it functions and olds, like Enée leaving Troy to found Lavinium: the new world instead of Europe. America is the fire of the European Enlightenment set alight on new shores. Without this idea, it would be nothing more than an amalgam of communities, a juxtaposition of bubbles, the sort of post-modern society some people dream of, but perhaps no longer the American dream. Jean Baudrillard, for example, thought that was where America was heading. I don't think so, however. I don't think, for example, that the Hispanization of society means a turning away from Europe. I don't think that America's commercial proximity to the Pacific realm is leading it away from the values of the Enlightenment, from Europe.

Yet it's in a crisis with the debacle in Iraq.

No more and no less than during the Vietnam War, or in the decades before, leading up to the civil rights movement. People seem to be completely taken aback by Bush. Why? Before Bush there was Nixon. And before that there was segregation, the Ku Klux Klan. And all that didn't stop American democracy from thriving, progressing and developing. And where are we today? People act as if America was going through a huge, irreversible shift to the right. But if you look at the last fifty years, you'll see that today America has progressed a lot. Bush's two victories, the triumph of the creationists and the religious fundamentalists is nothing compared with the – victorious! – battle for civil equality, for the equality between men and women, and the right to abortion. We've seen a democratic revolution the likes of which has happened nowhere else on earth. Compared with all that, the current shift to the right seems much more like the last shudder of a beast that knows it's doomed.

People sometimes say that's what Islamism is like as well: a last convulsion against an unavoidable modernisation…

Yes, I know. That's what certain Islamologues like Olivier Roy and Gilles Kepel say. But the two have nothing to do with each other. I'm afraid Islamism could have a strong future, with strong roots in religion and politics.

What did you learn about Europe in America?

I learned that it's possible. When I came to the USA I was in a melancholy mood over the question of Europe. It was the time of the French debate over the European constitution, the time when even the "yes" partisans didn't dare say you had to vote "yes" because Europe was a good thing in itself, but because it was good for France. I was close to thinking that the Europe was possible just an illusion of our generation. I said to myself: "I've spent my life thinking Europe was one with history, that it will come together no matter what happens, you just have to let it be. We could all go to bed and it would form, behind our backs. But perhaps it won't form itself at all, perhaps it's undoing itself before our eyes…"

And America made you see things differently?

Yes. I saw this federation of states, this national community made up of people who speak even less the same language than the Europeans and who are faced with problems of ethnicity far more weighty than those in Europe. And I think that miracles are possible, that the inorganic nation, the inorganic social body, can be constituted. I discover that constitutional patriotism, to speak with Habermas, is not just a philosophical reverie, that it's something that works. One can create an army, maintain schools, raise taxes, etc. When you cross the country as I did, when you see how a landowner in Alabama has nothing in common with a Mexican from San Diego or a European from Savannah or Charleston, and that despite all that America has been able to constitute itself, that rekindles your hope in Europe.

What will the French elections bring for Europe?

I've no idea. I hope above all that the next president – whoever it is – will accept that the most important task is to mend the broken thread of European hope.

That's not exactly topic number one in the campaign.

François Bayrou brings it up. So does Ségolène Royal. And you know Royal is probably – if not the most European of the three major candidates - certainly the one in the best position to bring part of the forces behind the "no" into the "yes" camp. That's one good reason to vote for her. It's not the only reason, but it's a good one.

She's come out in favour of Europe?

Of course. Many times. She was a partisan of the "yes". And today that's one of the major thrusts of her campaign. So there are grounds for hope. You know, the last time I was embarrassed about my country was a couple of weeks ago, when Madame Merkel gathered together the European countries in Madrid. She chose for this meeting the French name "Amis de la constitution." Yes. "Amis de la constitution" was the name of the Jacobin club during the French Revolution. But one country wasn't there that day. And that country was France.

[Figleaf]

B.H.Levy, eh?

Does B.H. stand for blow-hard?

[marcinmoka]

B.H.Levy, eh?

Does B.H. stand for blow-hard?

Clever. And very mature.

Bernard - Henry.

Author of American Vertigo which retraced Alxis de Toqueville's trip and analysis on American Democracy. An Algerian born French intellectual who was prominent on the center-left...but even he is not just tooting his own political horn but examining the situation from both sides. You should try it sometime.....

[kuzadd]

"Their reasons for starting this war were neither base nor immoral! They started it for the reason they gave: the naive idea that in doing so they would spread democracy in the Arab world!"

This alone is hilarious.

Spreading democracy and human rights too???

If this fellow starts from there he is on the wrong foot, from the get go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Inte...the_Middle_East

"On August 8, 1944, the Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement was signed, dividing Middle Eastern oil between the United States and Britain. Consequently, political scholar Fred H Lawson remarks, that ‘by mid-1944, U.S. officials had buttressed their country’s position on the peninsula by concluding an Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement that protected “all valid concession contracts and lawfully acquired rights” belonging to the signatories and established a principle of “equal opportunity” in those areas where no concession had yet been assigned.’ Furthermore, political scholar Irvine Anderson summarises American interests in the Middle East in the late 19th century and the early 20th century noting that, ‘the most significant event of the period was the transition of the United States from the position of net exporter to one of net importer of petroleum.’

By the end of the Second World War, the United States had come to consider the Middle East region as ‘the most strategically important area of the world’.[9]and ‘…one of the greatest material prizes in world history’. For that reason, it was not until around the period of the Second World War that America became directly involved in the Middle East region.

Politically, the Middle East was experiencing an upsurge in the popularity of nationalistic politics and an increase in the number of nationalistic political groups across the region, which was causing great trouble for the English and French colonial powers.

History scholar Jack Watson explains that ‘Europeans could not hold these lands indefinitely in the face of Arab nationalism’. Watson then continues, stating that ‘by the end of 1946 Palestine was the last remaining mandate, but it posed a major problem’. In truth, this nationalistic political trend clashed with American interests in the Middle East region, which were, as Middle East scholar Louise Fawcett argues, ‘about the Soviet Union, access to oil and the project for a Jewish state in Palestine.Hence, ‘‘‘Arabist’ ambassador Raymond Hare’ described the Second World War period, as ‘the great divide’ in United States’ relation with the Middle East, because these three interests would later serve as a backdrop and reasoning for a great deal of American interventions in the Middle East and thus also come to be the cause of several future conflicts between the United States and the Middle East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine

Carter Doctrine

"The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on 23 January 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. "

what are the US's national interests? oil!

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html

"After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.(3) The United States, as the heir to British imperialism in the region, has been a frequent object of suspicion. Since the end of World War II, the United States, like the European colonial powers before it, has been unable to resist becoming entangled in the region's political conflicts. Driven by a desire to keep the vast oil reserves in hands friendly to the United States, a wish to keep out potential rivals (such as the Soviet Union), opposition to neutrality in the cold war, and domestic political considerations, the United States has compiled a record of tragedy in the Middle East. The most recent part of that record, which includes U.S. alliances with Iraq to counter Iran and then with Iran and Syria to counter Iraq, illustrates a theme that has been played in Washington for the last 45 years."

It's always been control of the oil, for varying reasons, to have it forthemselves, to keep it away from others, whatever.

[kuzadd]

Since control of oil has always been the issue, Arab/Muslims must continually be demonized , so 'intervention' on the basis of "democracy' or 'human rights', can be used by western powers, to sell good old fashioned colonialism, to the inhabitants of the western interventionists.

It's got nothing to do with morality, just control of resources.

[myata]

Democratic messianism is no different from all other messianisms attempted before - religious, ideological or plain power dominance. No wonder that as in all earlier instances it's bound to fail - in the sense of achieving its proclaimed goals completely and in permanency.

I'll see it as the true second coming when we will learn to coexist according to our fashions without trying to impose our own way of life upon each other.

BTW, it's also my deeply held opinion that the only way to prevent the well-meaning "messiahs" from causing severe harm to innocent people will be to make this (and any) kind of international messianism criminally punishable. Who knows, maybe it'll make the messiahs to have a second thought - something as you rigthfully mentioned, everybody needs.

[kuzadd]

the author of the article defines Messianic democracy interestingly also." That's roughly the idea that it's enough to decree democracy for it to come about, and that you don't need the patient work we call politics."

but when I checked out the meaning of it, below is what I find.

Messianic democracy is a neologism originally used by Jacob Talmon is his book Origins of Totalitarian Democracy (1951) to describe the "democracy by force" doctrines of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and its philosophical decendents, as an effective tyranny that demotes democratic principle to rhetorical use only

It's not about decreeing democracy, it is democracy by force,as an effective tyranny, which demotes democratic principle, to rhetoric only.

slightly different?

[Mad_Michael]

I say in my book: "No! It's not that simple! Their reasons for starting this war were neither base nor immoral! They started it for the reason they gave: the naive idea that in doing so they would spread democracy in the Arab world!

My critique of 'so-called neoconservativism' is that this motive is base and immoral. No nation has the right to force their choice or form of government upon another. Externally imposed revolution is insanely dangerous, destablizing and a fundamental threat to all democratic liberties and freedom everywhere.

Indeed, if such action is morally just, is it not morally just for a fascist or communist nation to seek to impose their choice or form of government upon us via externally imposed revolution?

Alternatively, liberty and democracy cannot be imposed. It can only be fostered or encouraged.

Ergo, the US neoconservative faction is dangerous to everyone. They are like a bull in a china shop. Democracy is a fragile thing. It must grow naturally or it will not grow at all.

The greatest danger is to bestow the honourable lable of 'democracy' upon that which clearly is not. That debases the currency. Neocons are guilty of seeking this.

[marcinmoka]

Alternatively, liberty and democracy cannot be imposed. It can only be fostered or encouraged.

Agreed. But it is difficult to make a distinction between the two for a populations actions are never going to be uniformly spread out. It worked in post war Germany and Japan. It was overtly funded for decades in the old Soviet satelite states, until finally coming to fruition in the late 80's early 90's.

But having said that, I do agree the U.S put in FAR too little effort in organizing and encouraging a democracy.

On to the fun stuff, Kuzadd;

It's got nothing to do with morality, just control of resources.

Why not just do a deal, as with the Saudi's? It definitely would of facilitated production.

This alone is hilarious.

Alright. So you try to discredit one of the worlds most respected intellectuals by copying an article you found on Wikipedia.

[marcinmoka]

What I really cannot understand is your inconsistency.

In another thread, you argue the Americans to be some Christian Zealots, dictated by God and following their morality.

In this thread, you say morality is non existent, and it is but a quest for resources.

Alors, c'est le temps de choisir!!

[Figleaf]

"Their reasons for starting this war were neither base nor immoral! They started it for the reason they gave: the naive idea that in doing so they would spread democracy in the Arab world!"

This alone is hilarious.

And false. Spreading democracy was the last reason tendered, practically post-facto. They first falsely attempted to paint Iraq as a conspirator in 9/11, then fabricated the weapons-of-mass-deception gambit.

This BH fellow is either sloppy, ignorant, or revisionist.

(Edit: Or, of course, some combination of all three, bearing in mind the slight responsibility academics display for sense or wisdom of their statements.)

[kuzadd]

What I really cannot understand is your inconsistency.

In another thread, you argue the Americans to be some Christian Zealots, dictated by God and following their morality.

In this thread, you say morality is non existent, and it is but a quest for resources.

Alors, c'est le temps de choisir!!

Sorry, but there is no inconsistency, just your inability to comprehend basic facts and history, all war is fought for control of resources, what ever resources are deemed necessary, then the war mongers wrap themselves in morality.

In other words morality in war is the sales pitch. The reality, is entirely something else.

[kuzadd]

Alright. So you try to discredit one of the worlds most respected intellectuals by copying an article you found on Wikipedia.

so you assume. You do that alot.

IMO, he discredits himself, by writing this opinion piece, despite facts and history.

this is his opinion, it isn't anything else.

[kuzadd]

"Their reasons for starting this war were neither base nor immoral! They started it for the reason they gave: the naive idea that in doing so they would spread democracy in the Arab world!"

This alone is hilarious.

And false. Spreading democracy was the last reason tendered, practically post-facto. They first falsely attempted to paint Iraq as a conspirator in 9/11, then fabricated the weapons-of-mass-deception gambit.

This BH fellow is either sloppy, ignorant, or revisionist.

(Edit: Or, of course, some combination of all three, bearing in mind the slight responsibility academics display for sense or wisdom of their statements.)

Yes, the fact that it was blatantly false, was what made it hilarious.

It is very much like the author set's up this false premise of justifiable moral warfare, to topple a dictator, when absolutely nothing could be further from the truth, then this faulty premise is his entire arguement in defense of the neo-cons and there colonialism.

Throw in some insults against Arab/Muslims as undesirables, and it is all justified in a moral sense.

Hooey!

[kuzadd]

so I trod off to see who is this B.H Levy, what is his story, where is he from, etc., what has made this man?? (influences, experiences)

a number of writers point out he is hugely narcissistic, interesting.

This was was quite the eye-opener, though.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/the_li...enri_leacutevy/

The Lies of Bernard-Henri Lévy

Two French journalists—Nicolas Beau of Le Canard Enchainé and Olivier Toscer of Le Nouvel Observateur—have just published in Paris Une Imposture Francaise (A French Imposter), an inquest into how BHL has built his success. They write: "A philosopher who’s never taught the subject in any university, a journalist who creates a cocktail mingling the true, the possible, and the totally false, a patch-work filmmaker, a writer without a real literary oeuvre, he is the icon of a media-driven society in which simple appearance weighs more than the substance of things. BHL is thus first and foremost a great communicator, the PR man of the only product he really knows how to sell: himself."

"a journalist who creates a cocktail mingling the true, the possible, and the totally false"

Figleaf, he appears to be a revisionist.

Interesting, so is he an intellectual or a salesman???

He, IMO, appears to be an excellent pitchman, based on the, massaging of reality he does in article that starts this thread.

[myata]

And once again, using obscure terminology doesn't help (or was it the intent?) to keep arguments clear.

One can argue forever about the meaning of "messianism".

If instead we used "conversion" (that's what is really meant, and acted as, after all), the matters would seem a lot clearer. As another poster pointed out, "democratic conversion" is an oxymoron.

And no, Germany and Japan aren't the same thing (shouldn't take an extended study to see that).

More interesting example, in my view, would be India. It's interesting that they adopted to a significant extent the government model of the late colonial power, although only after colonisation has ended. This gives the "messiahs" of the world a good lesson, if they would listen: conversion by force and violence would probably fail. Sharing ideas and leading by example may bring positive results for all.

[bush_cheney2004]

so I trod off to see who is this B.H Levy, what is his story, where is he from, etc., what has made this man?? ...

....Interesting, so is he an intellectual or a salesman???

He, IMO, appears to be an excellent pitchman, based on the, massaging of reality he does in article that starts this thread.

Wow...this time you not only attack the messenger, but the messenger's messenger as well.

I've told you umpteen times that there is no morality in such matters.....tell us something that we don't already know.

But just for fun, why are Canadians slaying Afghans so far away from home?

[kuzadd]

And once again, using obscure terminology doesn't help (or was it the intent?) to keep arguments clear.

One can argue forever about the meaning of "messianism".

If instead we used "conversion" (that's what is really meant, and acted as, after all), the matters would seem a lot clearer. As another poster pointed out, "democratic conversion" is an oxymoron.

And no, Germany and Japan aren't the same thing (shouldn't take an extended study to see that).

More interesting example, in my view, would be India. It's interesting that they adopted to a significant extent the government model of the late colonial power, although only after colonisation has ended. This gives the "messiahs" of the world a good lesson, if they would listen: conversion by force and violence would probably fail. Sharing ideas and leading by example may bring positive results for all.

I'll admit to being a bit of a defintion stickler, but, the honest reason is, if a defintion is agreed upon,or understood, the discussion based around that can be clearer. Hopefully anyway?

i think my issue was this, the author of this piece said "Or to put it another way, the neo-conservatives' error was to nourished what I call the mirage of democratic messianism. That's roughly the idea that it's enough to decree democracy for it to come about, and that you don't need the patient work we call politics."

He seems to be putting forth the idea that, the neo-cons error (?)was that they nourished a "mirage" of democratic messianism. Mirage meaning illusion, IMO.

Back to the meaning of "Messianic democracy is a neologism originally used by Jacob Talmon is his book Origins of Totalitarian Democracy (1951) to describe the "democracy by force" doctrines of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and its philosophical decendents, [/b]as an effective tyranny that demotes democratic principle to rhetorical use only"

In fact there would seem to be no error, and no mirage, the neo-cons did in fact bring about democratic messianism, no illusion, at all. They certainly have tried to bring 'democracy by force' as an effective means of tyranny, that has demoted the principal's of democracy to rhetoric.

One can't deny it must seem tyrannical to the people of Iraq, under the guise of democratic rhetoric.

What it leaves me wondering is if the author is counting on people to not understand the correct meaning of the term, so he can pass it off as something else "it's enough to decree democracy" Like the neo-cons are passing a law or something, and they most certainly have not just passed a law, they have done much more then that to/in iraq.

I guess, I am left wondering, if the author is attempting misrepresentation of what the neo-cons are doing?

[myata]

I'm not sure I want to go deep into the lexical analysis of the piece. The logic seems to be limited to the eternal "because I think that I can and because I think that I'm better". Along with traditional bashing of Islamist as cause of this world's misery. Just using simple and unequivocal terminology (and facts ) usually makes the fallacy of such statements pretty obvious.

[marcinmoka]

So your "research" consists of a collaboration from a writer of a Communist Satirical magazine (granted, it can be funny), and Toscier, who's main claim to "fame" is this article. Quite the intellectual heavyweights to be preaching who is an intellectual and who is not.

But you definitely got the answer YOU were SEARCHING for.

You should check out Toscier other articles, such as "Nicolas' Sarkozy's Big ears".

In fact, that seems to be the main article of each issue of "Nouvelle Observateur", in between quibs on how evil the U.S., and how they oppress their minorities while thinking everything is rosy in France. The preferred News Source of RICH Parisian kids who sympathize with the kids in the "banlieus" (ghetto's) but have never actually stepped foot one.

I still think I choose Mr. Levy over you, in terms of cred.

In other words morality in war is the sales pitch.

It is how you sell a war to the masses if not all think it is morally correct. It can be difficult since morality always has been, and always will be a subjective force.

But I must ask why get your panties in a whirl if a lot of soldiers follow their religious beliefs?

There are four objectives in Foreign Policy (as I see it) Prestige, Sympathy, Resources and Power. All are a careful balance and not just mutually exclusive as some deem it to be.

Though I would think even you would realize that sometimes morality (i.e desire for stability, democratic processes) go hand in hand with greater stability in the supply of resources.

But yeah, what resources were our ladies and gents after in Afghanistan? "Grade A" smack? Or let me guess, a pipeline, right? Or what about in Bosnia? I know the Balkans have good food, but I wouldn't categorize it as a precious resource quite yet.

IMO, he discredits himself, by writing this opinion piece, despite facts and history.

this is his opinion, it isn't anything else

So what he writes is opinion, and what you write is history. Insha'Kuzadd I guess.

Throw in some insults against Arab/Muslims as undesirables, and it is all justified in a moral sense.

Say whaaaa????

a number of writers point out he is hugely narcissistic, interesting

And so does he. In fact, he routinely jokes about it. But I assume some people on this board also love the sound of their own voice (keyboard strokes). Especially if they consider themselves to be THE author(s) of history.

-------------------------------------------------------

They first falsely attempted to paint Iraq as a conspirator in 9/11, then fabricated the weapons-of-mass-deception gambit.

Granted. And this is not excusable. They did actively decieve. But again, it was just a sales tactic.

I'm not arguing that what they did was right. Their deception is wrong. I am arguing (just as B.H.L) that they (certain Neo Cons) genuinely believed themselves to be doing the right thing, both for the stability of their own nation (increased stability in petrolium production a.k.a America is happy) as well the elimination of a dictator (a.k.a Iraq is happy). Unfortunately, it did not turn out that way.

Even remotely.

And thus the reason for the use of the term "naivete".

[marcinmoka]

I am curious how many of you will one day become Neo-cons?

Remember, they all started out far more on the left (and in some measure, so have I), as Irving Kristol once said "liberals mugged by reality."

[kuzadd]

I'm not sure I want to go deep into the lexical analysis of the piece. The logic seems to be limited to the eternal "because I think that I can and because I think that I'm better". Along with traditional bashing of Islamist as cause of this world's misery. Just using simple and unequivocal terminology (and facts ) usually makes the fallacy of such statements pretty obvious.

True enough!

[kuzadd]

So your "research" consists of a collaboration from a writer of a Communist Satirical magazine (granted, it can be funny), and Toscier, who's main claim to "fame" is this article. Quite the intellectual heavyweights to be preaching who is an intellectual and who is not.

But you definitely got the answer YOU were SEARCHING for.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/

The magazine is In these Times is doesn't appear to be communist, nor satirical.

The author is Doug Ireland

so far you are wrong on every count.

You should check out Toscier other articles, such as "Nicolas' Sarkozy's Big ears".

In fact, that seems to be the main article of each issue of "Nouvelle Observateur", in between quibs on how evil the U.S., and how they oppress their minorities while thinking everything is rosy in France. The preferred News Source of RICH Parisian kids who sympathize with the kids in the "banlieus" (ghetto's) but have never actually stepped foot one.

But the article was NOT written by this person Toscier,no is it from this magaizne, so what is your point again?

I still think I choose Mr. Levy over you, in terms of cred.

good for you, In terms of credibility, I certainly would not choose you at all, nor Mr Levy for that matter.

There are four objectives in Foreign Policy (as I see it) Prestige, Sympathy, Resources and Power. All are a careful balance and not just mutually exclusive as some deem it to be.

sympathy is NEVER a foreign policy objective, purely nonsensical

Though I would think even you would realize that sometimes morality (i.e desire for stability, democratic processes) go hand in hand with greater stability in the supply of resources.

Morality does not equal a desire for stable democratic processes, that is pure service of political interests.

But yeah, what resources were our ladies and gents after in Afghanistan? "Grade A" smack? Or let me guess, a pipeline, right? Or what about in Bosnia? I know the Balkans have good food, but I wouldn't categorize it as a precious resource quite yet.

It was a pipeline, for starters, control of the pipeline, control of the flow of oil, having an obedient governement, obedient to US/British interests. It was NOT to help Afghanistan or Bosnia

So what he writes is opinion, and what you write is history. Insha'Kuzadd I guess.

Since you were passing him of as an intellectual, he , as an intellectual should have known his premise was bogus. You guess? Don't you read any history?

There was NO naievete on the part of the Bush/Blair govs wrt Iraq, they lied, they fixed the intelligence, this is calculated and in no way can even remotely be construed a naive, except in a "opinion" piece, where one can write whatever they want despite KNOWN facts.

This writer , like yourself, conveniently denied known history,( or was unaware of it , due to a lack of informing oneself) so he was able to gloss over reality, and write his opinion using 'morality' as justification, for the attack on Iraq. The moral issue is nothing new, it came straight out of the Bush/Blair government mouths.

[marcinmoka]

But the article was NOT written by this person Toscier,no is it from this magaizne, so what is your point again?

But your quotes supporting your view were:

Two French journalists—Nicolas Beau of Le Canard Enchainé and Olivier Toscer of Le Nouvel Observateur—have just published in Paris Une Imposture Francaise (A French Imposter), an inquest into how BHL has built his success. They write: "A philosopher who’s never taught the subject in any university, a journalist who creates a cocktail mingling the true, the possible, and the totally false, a patch-work filmmaker, a writer without a real literary oeuvre, he is the icon of a media-driven society in which simple appearance weighs more than the substance of things. BHL is thus first and foremost a great communicator, the PR man of the only product he really knows how to sell: himself."

I give up. Pat yourself on the back. Insha'Kuzadd.

[kuzadd]

But the article was NOT written by this person Toscier,no is it from this magaizne, so what is your point again?

But your quotes supporting your view were:

Two French journalists—Nicolas Beau of Le Canard Enchainé and Olivier Toscer of Le Nouvel Observateur—have just published in Paris Une Imposture Francaise (A French Imposter), an inquest into how BHL has built his success. They write: "A philosopher who’s never taught the subject in any university, a journalist who creates a cocktail mingling the true, the possible, and the totally false, a patch-work filmmaker, a writer without a real literary oeuvre, he is the icon of a media-driven society in which simple appearance weighs more than the substance of things. BHL is thus first and foremost a great communicator, the PR man of the only product he really knows how to sell: himself."

I give up. Pat yourself on the back. Insha'Kuzadd.

You could have clicked the link and checked the writer and magazine. The author of the article I posted, did quote TWO other writers,"They write" but that quotation was but a small part of the entire article written "In these Times" by Doug Ireland