

On Moral Superiority - loxs
http://www.gatchev.info/blog/?p=1017

======
gyardley
A nonsensical screed, since the nations of Western Europe have also been the
targets of radical Islamic terrorist groups. For example, what should the
Danes have done to prevent the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan in
2008? What heinous action did they commit to lose their 'moral superiority'
like the Americans? Since there's no Danish Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib to point
to, might I respectfully suggest the reasons for these attacks aren't quite as
simple as the author would suggest?

As for whether the actions of Bradley Manning will result in the deaths of
American soldiers or Afghan informants - I suspect none of us here has the
ability to properly evaluate this, and neither does the author of the article.

~~~
borism
there's a simple reason for attack on Danish Embassy and you must be perfectly
aware of it.

I was in a moderate islamic country when the cartoons were published and shall
I say it was not a comfortable feeling when communicating with locals.

~~~
gyardley
Yes, of course I'm aware of it. Just as I'm aware of the simple reason for the
attempts on Salman Rushdie's life.

Now read the parent article, which praises an earlier United States - one that
had not yet lost its 'moral authority', which primarily consisted of its
superior freedom and civil liberties.

If the author's logic is correct, the United States could reduce terrorism by
regaining and retaining its moral authority. Yet both the Danish attack and
the fatwa against Rushdie were specifically directed _against_ people
exercising their civil liberties, the same civil liberties that the author
argues were an essential component of the American 'moral authority' that
ultimately undermined the USSR.

This is why the author's article is an anti-American screed. However repugnant
we might find Abu Ghirab, and whatever our opinions about the war in Iraq,
these events are not the root cause of Islamic terrorism in the West.

~~~
borism
nowhere did the author claim they're the reason. they just don't help things.

besides, could you name "western country" not part of the "coalition of the
willing" that has seen similar increase in terrorist attacks?

------
jessriedel
Is this worth reading? I stopped after the ridiculous claim that "If you can
pay peanuts, you can produce tanks and ICBMs that cost peanuts."

I mean, if a small band of hunter-gatherers is led by a single tribal leader
with complete power, he can pay them nothing. But that doesn't mean he can
make ICBMs for peanuts. Likewise, the US had objectively more economic power
than the USSR, and, assuming that the USSR had to maintain military parity
with the US to remain stable, it would be quite possible for the US to beat
the USSR by out-producing it. (I'm not enough of a student of history to know
if this is _actually_ what happened.) Yes, things can be misleading if you use
straight exchange rates, but that doesn't mean it was _logically_ impossible
for the US to out-spend an authoritarian government.

~~~
rdl
He's pretty unclear on economics, yes.

Capitalism more efficiently allocates the labor of people than a
command/communist economy. Thus, for the same population, a capitalist economy
has more wealth -- it can spend this on better consumer goods AND better
military hardware. The tokens themselves don't matter.

As well, the "western world" was much bigger and better resourced than the
soviet bloc, and started from a much higher level of development.

It's amazing that the soviets were able to maintain some level of parity as
long as they did (maybe to 1960-1965 in most military forces); for some
things, playing catch-up was easier than initial development (nuclear tech,
lots of other weapons, many consumer products), so it was easier to remain in
a close second place than to potentially be the leader.

~~~
jbz
It doesn't seem right to state "He's pretty unclear on economics, yes." and
then go on to make an unqualified statement of amazement that soviets were
able to maintain some level of parity as long as they did.

Like it or not Russia defeated the bulwark of the German war machine, there is
no question they suffered the brunt of the German military force that would
have easily overwhelmed other allied nations, even possibly the US. Russia did
so using that inefficient system to allocate resources.

They did not do this by simply chucking their soldiers at the Germans with the
threat of being shot by a Peoples Party Officer if they tried to run back, and
often repeated myth of why Russia was able to halt and then pursue the Germans
back to Berlin.

~~~
rdl
I am fully aware of the quality of Russian military equipment and military
during WW2. (they had the best mass-produced tank in the war, one of the best
air support fighters, and they had much simplified logistics vs. the US)
However, after Stalin purged most of the officers, and the damage of WW2 to
the industrial base, and then the results of planned economy (shrinking the
overall size of the economy), it's pretty amazing they had the resources to
maintain near-parity with the US for ~10-20 years. They only really achieved
this by devoting a much larger fraction of their industrial base to the
military than was done in the west.

Also, any discussion of Russia during WW2 needs to include Simo Hayha ("White
Death"), just because he's the most amazing sniper in the history of the
world.

------
forinti
As a Latin-American, I laugh at the notion that the US have any sort of moral
authority. In fact, many communist movements in LA actually came to be in
response to oppression administered from Washington; if you had a nasty
dictator propped up by the US and the only people who would help were in
Moscow, then your best bet would be to become a communist, just as the Croats
cozied up to the Nazis in order to get rid of the Serbs.

~~~
jargon
I was reading a book about Roads that talks about roads from brazil to the
pacific. The author mentions a story about seeing a teen in South America,
Venezuela iirc, wearing a t-shirt with bin laden's picture on it and the
author asked the kid why he is wearing the shirt.

The teen says, "Because he is a defender of the world's poor."

Is this how people in South America see the war? Rich people killing poor
people? Is Bin Laden really revered down there like this? I'm not trying to
take sides, just curious about it because I can't even _imagine_ someone
wearing a bin laden t-shirt here.

Is bin Laden the new Che in South America?

~~~
rbanffy
> Is this how people in South America see the war? Rich people killing poor
> people? > Is bin Laden the new Che in South America?

No way. And, BTW, only angry teens wear Che t-shirts these days.

~~~
kragen
In Buenos Aires, most people don't wear T-shirts, but Che is a pretty popular
image. He's right up there with Homer Simpson and Bob Marley.

------
locopati
America's supposed moral superiority depended quite a bit on believing the
rhetoric and ignoring both our foreign policy (support for anti-democratic
forces in Iran, Iraq, Central & South America, Africa) and our internal
problems (civil rights, income inequality).

~~~
rdtsc
> America's supposed moral superiority depended quite a bit on believing the
> rhetoric...

That is one thing that America excels at -- propaganda. Along with some other
so called "democracies", it can at the same time install brutal regimes, kill
and start wars all over the world _and_ somehow mentain its relatively stable
propaganda image as a "peacemaker", "example of democracy", "human rights
advocate" and so on.

Anyone who studies history or is seriously interested in the current world
affairs will recognize the propaganda for what it is. But interestingly
enough, very few Americans do. A lot of them have a very skewed image about
their own country, they believe in "moral supperiority" that US has over any
other country in the world.

The level of self-censorship and delusion even among "educated" intellectuals,
the media, the majority of the population is astounding.

In the ex-Soviet Union, we knew propaganda was propaganda. Except for some
really crazy people, nobody believed in the system. Even those at the top. For
example, it was interesting to observe how ex KGB agents, supposedly the ones
most devoted to the communist cause, became uber-capatillists practically
overnight in the quick grab of power and resources after the collapse.

~~~
locopati
I suspect some of the political upheaval in America is growing from the
disjunction between American ideals with American reality (taking many forms
of expression - Tea Party, nativism, corporatism, escapism, back-to-the-land
movements, localism).

~~~
bpyne
What are the back-to-the-land and localism movements?

~~~
locopati
I see young people buying farms as a form of back-to-the-land. Localism seems
to capture eating locally grown foods & buying locally made goods. Not saying
these are real movements with web sites and books about them, just words to
capture trends.

~~~
bpyne
I was pretty sure that's what you meant by "localism" but didn't realize this
purchasing tendency had been raised to the level of an "ism". My family and I
started going in this direction around 10 years ago. To be clear, we prefer
locally grown and made goods, but we like variety in our diet, so we happily
purchase food that is out of season locally.

Back-to-the-land is a new one for me. I didn't realize young people were
eschewing modern office life for farming. It's a very respectable choice.

------
te_platt
So the Soviets under Stalin murdered 10's of millions before 1950 but
maintained moral equivalence with the United States until JFK was elected? I
guess I have a different sense of morality.

~~~
loxs
You know, things like nuking whole cities do count when measuring moral. Not
that USSR was highly moral, just the opposite. USA was not too moral that
days.

~~~
te_platt
You know, things like making a decision between ending a hellish war by
killing millions or by killing hundreds of thousands (was there another
option?) is terrible thing to have to do. Making a calculated political
decision to murder millions just isn't in the same category. I don't want to
justify any of the wrongdoings of anyone based on "the other guy is worse". I
also don't accept that the United States was morally equivalent to the Soviet
Union until JFK was elected.

~~~
rbanffy
> making a decision between ending a hellish war by killing millions or by
> killing hundreds of thousands (was there another option?)

There are always options. The simplest argument to be made is that, at most,
nuking one city would probably suffice. There was little need for nuking the
second one. Next, one could, conceivably, nuke a landmark instead of a city,
prove the destructive power of the device and, still, spare a lot of lives.

No. Nuking 2 cities was more a weapons test than a way to shorten a war.

~~~
astine
> No. Nuking 2 cities was more a weapons test than a way to shorten a war.

You'd think nuking one city would have been enough for that...

The Americans didn't have to nuke any cities to test the nuclear bomb, they
had already measured it's destructive capacity in the dessert. There is a
belief among some historians that dropping the bomb was a way to impress the
USSR and this idea does have merit.

As for the second bomb, the US only dropped the second one when the first one
failed to elicit the response they desired. Japanese scientists were actually
further along in designing their own weapon than the Nazi's were. They had a
notion that the bomb was incredibly expensive to make and were gambling that
the US couldn't make another.

~~~
rbanffy
> They had a notion that the bomb was incredibly expensive to make and were
> gambling that the US couldn't make another.

Is there any evidence of that? Any official communication inside the Japanese
government?

~~~
jwhitlark
There were three days in between the two nukes. The Japanese govt. had
observers report back at the end of the first day. People forget that the US
had already destroyed ~85% of the top 60 cities in Japan, Hiroshima and
Nagasaki were exempted so they could serve as _undamaged_ test cases.

The Japanese strategy, once it became clear they were losing the war, was to
increase the cost in order to force concessions from the Allies. The atomic
bomb, by changing the equation to one plane, one bomb, one city destroyed that
hope.

The Japanese high command didn't surrender because they lost two more cities,
they surrendered because the US demonstrated that it could annihilate cities
_without giving any opportunity to strike back._

For better or worse, wars aren't won by killing people, they're won by killing
hope.

------
kiba
The whole idea that the USSR central planning policy result in economic
decline is bunk?

I am suddenly reminded of Paul Samuelson and his economic textbook touting the
idea that the Soviet economy will surpass the USA's economy. Of course, it
never came true.

~~~
protomyth
For a really simple way to illustrate how bad the USSR central planning was,
look no further than some big companies IT shops. Managers not trained in the
specific area and very mistrustful / contemptuous of the actual workers giving
orders; defining process and schedule; and telling the workers what "best
practices" is. Now, imagine this crud applied to farms and factories.

------
xutopia
That was one heck of a good read. I wished more blogs had this kind of
content.

I'm saddened that a lot of people will not read it because it is so long
though.

------
lionhearted
> Things changed drastically under John Kennedy, and even more under Lyndon
> Johnson.

Whoa, Lyndon B. Johnson? You'd have to have severe blinders on to like him,
he's probably the worst President since the post-WWII era. Increased war,
crime, corruption, poverty (ironically), dysfunction, bureaucracy... dude
combines the worst aspects of both parties.

He massively screwed our international relations in a very corrupt fashion to
increase his votes among unions. This wasn't public until after his
presidency:

> In retrospect, audio tapes from the Johnson White House, revealed a quid pro
> quo unrelated to chicken. In January 1964, President Johnson attempted to
> convince United Auto Workers's president Walter Reuther _not to initiate a
> strike just prior the 1964 election_ and to support the president's civil
> rights platform. Reuther in turn wanted Johnson to respond to Volkswagen's
> increased shipments to the United States.[39] The Chicken Tax directly
> curtailed importation of German-built Volkswagen Type 2 vans in
> configurations that qualified them as light trucks—that is, commercial vans
> and pickups.[39] "In 1964 U.S. imports of "automobile trucks" from West
> Germany declined to a value of $5.7 million—about one-third the value
> imported in the previous year. Soon after, Volkswagen cargo vans and pickup
> trucks, the intended targets, "practically disappeared from the U.S.
> market."[38]

Vietnam, of course.

Immigration Act of '65, which had a good spirit but terrible bureaucratic
implementation and very poorly thought out.

Great Society - all of which pretty much backfired. You know when you hear
rappers say "I'm from the projects", meaning really dangerous crime-ridden
drugged out zones? Yeah, that was LBJ's "Great Housing Projects" - this
destroyed black communities, reduced black ownership of business, and
coincided with massive increases in violent black on black crime, black on
white crime, and addictive drug use.

Gun control.

Riots.

"Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" about Vietnam.

"At Kennedy's death, there were 16,000 American military advisors in Vietnam.
As President, Lyndon Johnson immediately reversed his predecessor's order to
withdraw 1,000 military personnel by the end of 1963... Johnson expanded the
numbers and roles of the American military following the Gulf of Tonkin
Incident ... The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave the President the
exclusive right to use military force without consulting the Senate, was based
on a _false pretext, as Johnson later admitted_.[62] It was Johnson who began
America's direct involvement in the ground war in Vietnam. _By 1968, over
550,000 American soldiers were inside Vietnam._ "

Should I keep going? Seriously, who was worse than LBJ? Carter or G.W.? Not
even close. LBJ was the worst of Carter and GW combined. As a result of his
policies, America's budgets, politics, immigration policy, international
relations, military all got screwed up, massively increased corruption and
bureaucracy, and increased poverty violence and drug use in black communities.
He gets credit for the Civil Rights Act, but it was already done under
Kennedy's watch at that point.

Clearly the worst President in the post-WWII era. How anyone could think he
did anything right is beyond me. You'd have to believe in what he said was his
goal as opposed to the real outcomes.

------
itistoday
Excellent read! My favorite paragraph:

 _The people from Western Europe would not go on a jihad. However, during the
last decade their opinion on the USA plummeted, too. Twenty years ago, if you
were an American in Berlin, you would be revered, and more honored than the
Berliners around… Not anymore. Now, you can often hear: “The country that lied
to the entire world about the Iraqi WMD? That created and still maintains the
Guantanamo gulag? That ran Abu Graib? That bombed to destruction the civilians
in Faluja? That shot the Italian hostage resque mission? That killed the BBC
journalists in Baghdad? That photographs, fingerprints and tracks every
visitor like a criminal? That created the ECHELON system? That is killing in
Afghanistan maybe more civilians than terrorists?… If it is decent, then
Stalin is, too. This country is a blemish to the humankind."_

Although it's really hard to pick, you should just read the entire thing.

If you still prefer the reader's digest:

 _… Remember the great support Obama had among the ordinary people abroad
before the president elections? Especially in Europe? There is a reason for
this support. The ordinary people hoped that he will restore the US moral
superiority, by bringing moral to the US politics… He failed to do it. The
Guantanamo gulag stays. Some measures are taken to prevent the worst things
the US Army does abroad – however, the “culture of concealment” is stronger
than ever. Slowly, but surely one trend emerges and grows in the thinking of
the people outside US. Namely, that this state has gone too far on the Evil
Empire road. That it cannot be stopped anymore, even by a good-intended
President. And that it is better late than never to say openly: “Things
changed. This is not anymore the moral leader of the world – this is just
another evil empire. One that the decent people must hate, loathe and oppose
to.”_

 _What will happen if this trend of thinking prevails? Easy guess. Al-Qaeda
will grow and attract more and more people, and will probably obstruct more of
the US activity abroad. In fact, it may gain enough support to carry its fight
on American soil. The support for US in Europe and the rest of the world will
gradually diminish, to the extent that even the pro-US politicians will have
to become blind and deaf to the USA needs. And very surely there will be new
“cold wars” – economic, cultural etc. – between USA and some other countries,
but it will not be possible anymore to win them through moral superiority._

 _[.. snip ..]_

 _To preserve moral superiority, the US must first learn what is the correct
move in situations like the current one. Whether Wikileaks is its enemy, or
the best friend they can find – one that is brave enough to tell you you have
a nasty problem, and to press on you to solve it on time. And whether people
like Mike Mullen are its best servants, or its best enemies – the ones that
tell you “There is no problem, continue this way, people will never learn of
the crimes, truth never comes out”._

 _If you are still not sure which is the correct position, ask one truly
outstanding soldier – Gen. David Petraeus. He will surely be able to tell you
the truth… Actually, you can tell it yourself, by using his simple principle –
which action decreases the number of your enemies, and increases the number of
your friends._

------
confuzatron
He's confused when he compares the Soviet Union with Al Quaeda, and proposes
that Al Quaeda is popular due to the loss of moral superiority of the US.

A more sensible comparison would be Soviet Union versus some hypothetical
repressive theocratic 'caliphate' that Al Quaeda would like to set up. No
doubt the unfortunate subjects of such a system would end up feeling the same
way as the unfortunate subjects of the Soviet Union.

I agree with him that the US should export their values. Unfortunately if they
do more than talk then they are going to come up against people who will
violently oppose such a project, and then he'll be denouncing the US as the
evil empire again, regardless of the conduct of the opposers.

PS: I feel like there's a lot of spittle flying around in this thread!

------
z92
Excellent read.

------
patrickk
_"Republicans don't actually stand for anything, they're just really good at
winning elections"_.

This is a quote from the movie Boogieman: The Lee Atwater Story. (Lee Atwater
was a Republican spin-doctor who influenced Karl Rove, the man who helped Bush
get elected.)

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1262863/>

It seems to me when people vote the Republicans into power that America slides
backwards for those years.

ps. I'm not American, so I don't really care one way or the other who America
elects as president, as long as he (or she) leaves my country alone.

