Dissecting Greenwald Posted by Michael Cohen

Glenn Greenwald has launched quite the missive about the Foreign Policy Community. My colleague, Shadi Hamid as well as Daniel Drezner have provided insightful critiques, but here are my two cents. Greenwald asserts:

The Foreign Policy Community -- a term which excludes those in primarily academic positions -- is not some apolitical pool of dispassionate experts examining objective evidence and engaging in academic debates. Rather, it is a highly ideological and politicized establishment, and its dominant bipartisan ideology is defined by extreme hawkishness, the casual use of military force as a foreign policy tool, the belief that war is justified not only in self-defense but for any "good result," and most of all, the view that the U.S. is inherently good and therefore ought to rule the world through superior military force.

Even though I am supposedly a member of the Very Serious People (VSP) Foreign Policy Community (FPC) I feel obliged to say that I don't agree with any of these sentiments (well except for the part about America being "inherently good.") Nor I imagine would any of my colleagues here at Democracy Arsenal or any of my colleagues at the National Security Network. Indeed we are not alone.

According to a recent Foreign Policy/Center for American Progress survey:

Though a majority—83 percent—do not believe Tehran when it says its nuclear program is intended for peaceful, civilian purposes, just 8 percent favor military strikes in response. Eight in 10, on the other hand, say the United States should use either sanctions or diplomatic talks to negotiate an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Similarly, a majority of the experts favor some kind of engagement with groups that may be labeled terrorist organizations but have gained popular support at the ballot box, such as Hamas in the Palestinian Territories or Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Counter to Mr. Greenwald's assertion, the VSP FPC seems to hold a very different view about the use of force then the one he ascribes to it. Mr. Greenwald has a problem with some people in the Foreign Policy Community, but he has painted with a rather broad brush.

Indeed, Mr. Greenwald attaches an extraordinary level of militarism to the Foreign Policy Community. He argues that with some exceptions the FPC “actively excludes anyone who does not subscribe to the right and wisdom of the U.S. to rule the world by military force.” I don’t think that even members of the Bush Administration ascribe to this disturbing viewpoint. If this is true, I'm not really sure how I got my VSP FPC membership card!

But honestly, where is the evidence to back up this rather incendiary charge? Mr. Greenwald offers none. He is right that members of the FPC did not take seriously enough the arguments of some in the anti-war community. Indeed as an opponent of the war in Iraq I am quite sympathetic to this argument - but to extrapolate that this means the FPC subscribes to the notion that US has the right to rule the world by military force is simply absurd.

As Daniel Drezner points out "There is a big difference between not taking force off the table as a policy option and vigorously advocating its use." Yet, that distinction is lost on Mr. Greenwald.

We could certainly argue over Cold War history until the cows come home, but looking back at recent history, I may have missed it when President Clinton invaded and occupied a foreign country. Indeed, his Administration was largely characterized by a disinclination to use force and generally when it did -- it was done in a multilateral form (Bosnia and Kosovo come to mind) in support of UN resolutions or on behalf of regional security (Iraq) and against clear and obvious enemies (Afghanistan and to a less defensible extent Sudan).Yet, this was an Administration staffed by many, many members of the Very, Serious Foreign Policy Community.

Mr. Greenwald makes a well-founded point that we "define when our 'interests' are promoted by war far more broadly than any other nation." Fair enough - we certainly use force more than other countries. But Mr. Greenwald surely recognizes that as a superpower and as the best and strongest military in the world, the United States has a far greater set of responsibilities than that of other nations. When the European Community was unable to end the terrible bloodletting in the Balkans, they didn't pick up the phone and call Sweden.

I don't mean to pick on the Swedes - they are lovely people -- but as the world's only superpower the United States has certain global responsibilities that other nations simply don't have to consider. Frankly, in the Clinton years the most sustained use of American force came in situations where our direct national interests were not at stake, but where America's global leadership was most crucial. To argue that we should only use force when our nation is directly threatened smacks of a new isolationism and ironically would leave the world a far more dangerous place. For better or for worse there are times and place where the US military is needed - both as soldiers and peacekeepers.

Now Mr. Greenwald suggests that this approach is indicative of an "imperial nation" and he asks “What defining acts have past empires undertaken that we refuse to undertake? I don't see any.” Really? I find this breathtaking and I am incredulous that Mr. Greenwald actually feels this way.

If America is an empire, well then we're pretty damn benign empire. Compare us to the British Empire, the Roman Empire, the Soviet Union, hell even the Belgians put us to shame . . . frankly there is no comparison between the American Empire and those empires of the past. We're a heck of a lot better than those guys. Don't believe me, read here, here and here. I don't remember any of these nations sending their young men and women into harm's way to stop ethnic cleansing (Bosnia and Kosovo), end humanitarian suffering (Somalia) or serve as peacekeepers (Bosnia again).

In the Clinton Administration the "American Empire," was primarily maintained through economic, diplomatic and cultural means and as I pointed out above, largely eschewed the typical imperial impulse to invade, occupy, pillage and generally ravage other nations.

Mr. Greenwald has a genuine beef with the neo-conservatives. Join the club! Yet he has lumped these folks in with those in the larger Foreign Policy Community far less in thrall of the use of military force - frankly to the detriment of his own argument. An examination of the military interventions of the United States, particularly in the post-Cold War era, would demonstrate that the Iraq War is the exception not the rule in American foreign policy. Indeed, the members of the FPC responsible for this conflict are the outliers, not the norm as he suggests. Drumming them out of the Foreign Policy Community should be a priority for all of us - as opposed to simply attacking the FPC writ large with ad hominem attacks.

For all the O'Hanlons and Pollacks who have become strawmen and enablers of the neo-cons, let us not forget Rand Beers, Les Gelb, Larry Korb, Susan Rice, Gayle Smith, Brian Katulis, Shadi Hamid, Ilan Goldenberg, Brent Scowcroft, Flynt Levrett, Jon Alterman, Steve Clemons, Rosa Brooks (and I could go on) who decisively and unambiguously reject this militant view of American foreign policy.

Now that's one community, I'd like to be a member of.

Comments

[SteveB]

So you "don’t think that even members of the Bush Administration" subscribe to "the right and wisdom of the U.S. to rule the world by military force"?

I'm still trying to get my head around this remarkable admission, but let's move on to Greenwald's larger point, which is that there may be a debate about whether any particular use of military force by the U.S. is "prudent", or whether the potential gains will outweigh the potential losses, but all "serious" foreign-policy discussion proceeds from an assumption that the U.S. has the right to use force when and where it sees fit. Because, as you say, the U.S. is "inherently good". And, as you admit, the use of force must always be "an option" to be placed "on the table."

Just look at the poll results you cite:

"Eight in 10 [of the Foreign Policy Community], on the other hand, say the United States should use either sanctions or diplomatic talks to negotiate an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

First of all, note that no distinction is made here between peaceful "nuclear amibtions" such as the pursuit of nuclear power and military "nuclear ambitions" like the development of nuclear weapons - any unspecified "nuclear ambitions" are enough to trigger the use of sanctions.

And, if those nonviolent means don't get us what we want, what then? Won't the calculations of the FPC change, with a larger percentage favoring military force? Is anyone interviewed for the poll you cite questioning the right of the U.S. to use force against Iran, if we conclude it is in our "national interest" to do so? Do you? Or is it just that you and those polled don't see military force against Iran as the best choice at this point in time?

[david]

"As Daniel Drezner points out "There is a big difference between not taking force off the table as a policy option and vigorously advocating its use.""

No, there's not. Both consider force an "option". That's the problem. You seem to be talking past Greenwald. Do you really not understand what he's saying or is this some kind of framing thing?

And by the way, you're kind of a smartass, aren't you? Are you supposed to be funny?

[Michael Cohen]

David, I understand Glenn's point - to a degree. He seems to think force should never be an option unless America faces imminent danger or must act in self-defense. As I tried to say, I think this would place great constraints on the conduct of US foreign policy.

However, my argument is with his critique of the FPC and the notion that merely putting force, as an option, on the table puts them in league with the neo-cons. He claims the most members of the FPC believe in the right and wisdom of the US to "rule the world with military force." To be honest, I'm not even exactly sure what this means, but as fatr as I can tell it bears no relation to the history of American foreign policy and I believe I made that point.

[Scott S.]

Indeed, the members of the FPC responsible for this conflict are the outliers, not the norm as he suggests. Drumming them out of the Foreign Policy Community should be a priority for all of us

Is that supposed to mean that you believe that support for Iraq War, at least those who continue to support it if any early support is insufficient, is beyond the pail? Are you saying that if Greenwald's essay was targeted more directly at the Iraq War supporters than at the broader FPC, that he would have been justified in writing that they are "defined by extreme hawkishness, the casual use of military force as a foreign policy tool, the belief that war is justified not only in self-defense but for any 'good result,' and most of all, the view that the U.S. is inherently good and therefore ought to rule the world through superior military force?" Would you say that the belief that America is inherently good and therefore does not need to police itself is a characteristic of any ideology supporting the Iraq War?

I would respectfully disagree with your belief that either we should not have started the Iraq War or that we should end it. However, there are legitimate reasons, such as democracy promotion, for continuing our efforts. You can disagree with them, find the goals unachievable or think that the counter-reasons outweigh them. But, if you believe in excluding from the FPC anyone who believes in those reasons and therefore we should continue our efforts in Iraq, you are no better than Greenwald.

[Chris]

Thanks for posting this. This debate has been raging the past few days (among foreign policy blogs, anyway) and this is the first post I've seen that discusses at-length the inherent responsibility the United States has as the world's sole superpower to engage in military action where other small, militarily weaker countries would not. Like you say, nothing against the Swedes but militarily they just aren't up to the task.

My understanding of Greenwald's complaint was that individuals who speak openly about bombing Iran are considered legitimate, but those who would advocate taking force off the table for anything except "direct aggression" are not. Then there was a lot of confusion, and some acrimony, and lots of talk about everything under the sun except what constituted "direct aggression" (though notably it did include our invasion into Afghanistan).

So it goes.

[Michael Cohen]

Scott S thanks for a great comment. I think you misunderstand me (but that is likely more my fault than yours). When I was referring to those "responsible" I was referring to the neo-con architects of this war, the Feiths, the Perles, the Kristols, the Ledeens, etc. I think their way of thinking about American foreign policy and the use of force as a means of scaring our enemies and building US credibility is bunk and has been exposed as much.

Unlike some of my critics, I don't hold the liberal hawks "responsible" for this war. As Greenwald himself concedes, no matter what they said about the war, George Bush was going to invade Iraq. Moreover, as I mentioned in an earlier post, many supported the war with pure intentions or with a hope that the war would be conducted in a competent and professional manner. Obviously they were wrong. They merit criticism for their position, but I would not say they should be drummed out of the FPC - just held to a much higher sense of scrutiny.

I hope that clarifies.

[Dan Kervick]

Michael, I thought this piece started off with some very sensible and appropriate criticisms of Greenwald, who had overstated his case, but it then goes quite off the rails with its Pollyanna accounts of the practice of US power, and kneejerk defenses of US "responsibilities".

There are so many things I want to say here that I'm afraid my comments are quite scattered, but here goes. You say,

As Daniel Drezner points out "There is a big difference between not taking force off the table as a policy option and vigorously advocating its use." Yet, that distinction is lost on Mr. Greenwald.

But the question is, for what purposes is it legitimate to leave force on the table, or actually to use it? I continually encounter in the writing of FPE professionals, from both parties, talk of military force as a "tool" in the national "tool kit". In the lead-up to Iraq, it was common to hear references to the need for the US to exert pressure on the domestic politics of foreign countries through occasional military "nudges". This euphemistic language has all the moral precision of the medieval inquisitor's description of thumb screws and racks as one of the "tools" of investigation. What often seems to be missing in these accounts is a lively sense that the application of military force consists in the enterprise of killing people.

A lot of us were raised to believe that the only legitimate reason to take the life of another human being is to defend one's own life, or the life of another, against that human being. Militarily "nudging" those human beings into practicing ones's preferred forms of government, applying or threatening to apply military "tools" as an aspect of coercive diplomacy for the purpose of advancing various "national interests" was not typically offered y our teachers as a justification for man-killing.

FPE folks always seem to think they deserve big bonus points for recognizing the importance of diplomacy and soft power, and other less brutal means of compulsion. But these are merely pragmatic judgments about efficacy: about means and ends. What you can't seem to get many FPE practitioners to defend is moral principles relating to the impermissibility of violence and killing for purposes other than defense against violence and killing.

On this issue of those vaunted US global "great power responsibilities", we've been hearing these Spider-Man defenses of US interventions for some time now. They're tired. For the FPE, it often just seems to be some sort of cosmic accident that the US has all of this amazing power, and thus that the correspondingly amazing responsibilities have just been thrust upon us by fate. But the US has, with deliberation and foresight, developed far-flung financial and military interests around the globe. These interests are mutually self-supporting and show a historic tendency toward expansion in unison.

And the military, bureaucratic and intellectual institutions that have grown up around the project of sustaining and expanding these interests are never short of justifications for further expansion, which will then of course create new "responsibilities", which will then be appealed to as justification for further expansion of interests. It's a neat little self-justifying circle. Because of our past interventions and aggrandizing behavior, we have grown powerful; and because of our power, we now have the "responsibility" to engage in more interventions.

Consider a nice example: Half a decade ago, there were no US bases in Iraq. Now, because we have invaded Iraq, we have new "responsibilities" toward Iraq, and "responsibilities" to protect the bases and embassy we have built there. And given the proximity of these newly inserted American forces to other important countries, one can bet with the same certainty that night turns into day that we will soon be hearing calls from the FPE for the US to step in to address its "responsibilities" in other nearby countries - which will then generate new interests, new bases, new America-stimulated blowback, new responsibilities, etc. etc.

And Michael, I can't accept your insouciant claims about the non-existence, or benignity, of the US empire. The US has a long record of aggressive, violent interventions in the affairs of others, for clearly imperial purposes. The entire westward expansion across the North American continent was an imperial expansion: conquering, settling, acquiring and annexing new territories, dramatically multiplying the territorial size of the country, and exterminating, relocating or repelling various human beings standing in its path.

Since that time the US has continued to practice imperialism across the oceans, though in a modified form. Notably, when the US leadership made the transition at the end of the 19th century from the closing of the frontier to expansion overseas, they were not so shy about calling it what it was: imperialism. An Anti-imperialist League arose to counter the new imperial doctrine that was being frankly advocated. Since then, FPE practitioners have learned a whole language of new euphemisms to clothe imperialism in various verbal disguises.

The US imperial style does not involve straightforwardly annexing territories and directly appointing their governors, the typical pattern of empires in the past. Nevertheless, it does involve a continual expansion of the US imperial orbit: establishing financial dependencies and commercial interests in other countries, positioning troops in and around those countries to defend those interests and compel local submission to US economic and strategic direction, and then using all of the "tools" at our government's disposal to change local regimes, and produce governments that are amenable to our wishes and run by committed clients. There is no need to appoint an imperial viceroy if the same purposes can be accomplished through other means, and one can use direct force, paid proxy force or covert activity to install a local client who speaks the local language and whose skin color is right for the part. Of course, Michael, since you work for corporations, helping them to promulgate their messages, cultivate local supporters and advance their interests abroad, it is not so surprising that you see nothing untoward in the broader enterprise of which this activity is a part.

And ask the people of Latin America, the Middle East and the Far East just how "benign" the US empire has been.

Returning to the question of responsibilities, global policing responsibility should be a collective affair. If the world is now dependent on a single nation performing policing functions, while that nation is at the same time committed to advancing its more selfish interests in the regions it is supposed to be policing, then we should all see that as a big problem. I would have a little more confidence in the FPE if I heard more of them from time to time acknowledge that this is a problem, and advocate ways of fixing it. But they never do.

The really sad thing is that I often sense that, at heart, many FPE practitioners share the moral compunctions and revulsion I have expressed. But they are so locked into their careers and dependent on the dubious esteem of their colleagues, that they fail to object or resist. They all seem positively terrified of the consequences of being seen defending policies that are not sufficiently "muscular." So then some Iraqi parent has to see their kid's guts blown all over the front yard in front of them, because it is so, so, so, so important for the American colossus to continue to shows its muscular muscles to the world.

Perhaps it is time for the American people to have an earnest national debate about precisely what kind of country they wish to have, rather than perpetually deferring these questions to Washington. The system we have now is a scam. Imperial apparatchiks spend their days expanding US economic and military interests into every bloody orifice of the globe, whether by getting tough or making nice, and then when some regional blowback shit hits a national interest fan, they run to the American people with duplicitous, ingenuous and disinformation-riddled accounts of what is actually going on out there in the world, what caused the blowback, and why Americans must now live up their "responsibilities" and "defend" themselves and the nation against these unmotivated attacks by hate-filled, inscrutable and irrational foreigners. It's a racket.

I continue to be amazed by the ease with which foreign policy practitioners raise the specter of "isolationism" in the face of any suggestions that the US should reorganize, retract or shift its global responsibilities. It's really stunning how little space they seem to see between running the world and being isolated from it.

[Dan Kervick]

He seems to think force should never be an option unless America faces imminent danger or must act in self-defense. As I tried to say, I think this would place great constraints on the conduct of US foreign policy.

Indeed. Some would call these "moral constraints". Similarly, my forbearing from breaking my business competitors' thumbs places great constraints on the conduct of my personal policy and the defense of my personal interests. Are all right-thinking Americans now opposed to the existence of constraints?

[JS]

I guess you guys just don't get it, do you? Last things first -- I started with the list of "luminaries" in your last paragraph, and tried to research their positions, as regards war with Iraq, BEFORE the 2003 invasion, and here's just one from the first 2 names of folks on your list (I didn't bother after that):

Les Gelb -- http://www.cfr.org/publication/5326/us_public_is_unconvinced_on_need_to_wage_war_against_iraq_says_council_on_foreign_relations_president_les_gelb.html

(Read the former President of the CFR's answer to the first interview question in the link).

Bringing up Bill Clinton's relatively "non-invasive" tenure at the White House, recent surveys on the FPC community which show their disdain for direct action on Iran RIGHT NOW and dancing around the definition of imperialism isn't taking away from the point that this disease of the FPC to be pliable to whoever needs it or feeds it or even misleads it is all pervasive and most of their positions err on the side of military adventurism, which in turn help the military-industrial complex.

[Dan Kervick]

When I was referring to those "responsible" I was referring to the neo-con architects of this war, the Feiths, the Perles, the Kristols, the Ledeens, etc. I think their way of thinking about American foreign policy and the use of force as a means of scaring our enemies and building US credibility is bunk and has been exposed as much.

Unlike some of my critics, I don't hold the liberal hawks "responsible" for this war. As Greenwald himself concedes, no matter what they said about the war, George Bush was going to invade Iraq. Moreover, as I mentioned in an earlier post, many supported the war with pure intentions or with a hope that the war would be conducted in a competent and professional manner. Obviously they were wrong. They merit criticism for their position, but I would not say they should be drummed out of the FPC - just held to a much higher sense of scrutiny.

This is a somewhat astonishing account of the division of responsibilities. I guess the defenders of the war are to be divided into mutually exclusive camps of "architects" and ... what? - "people who vigorously supported the war but were not architects?" Couldn't we just as easily say that George Bush would have invaded Iraq no matter what Michael Ledeen said, so he is not responsible either?

And I continue to be puzzled by the "pure intentions" defense. What does the purity of intentions have to do with it? Many people throughout history have acted with great and morally culpable recklessness, intemperance and even criminality, though motivated by the purest of intentions. There has never been a shortage of murdering revolutionaries driven by the fervent desire to actualize some brilliant and harmonious utopian future.

[Bob Narus]

"However, my argument is with his critique of the FPC and the notion that merely putting force, as an option, on the table puts them in league with the neo-cons."

To those of us who think American foreign policy ought to be governed by just war doctrine and international law, putting war with Iran "on the table" is morally indistinguishable from supporting war with Iran.

"He seems to think force should never be an option unless America faces imminent danger or must act in self-defense. As I tried to say, I think this would place great constraints on the conduct of US foreign policy."

In the current context, that would be a feature, not a bug. If the last six years have taught us anything, it's that a hegemon needs constraints, because it will not restrain itself. All you well-meaning VSPs think that if we just put some reasonable people in charge for a change, everything will be okay. But the world doesn't work that way. We need self-imposed restraints on our foreign policy for the same reason that we need self-imposed restraints on our police power--because power corrupts.

[Mike M.]

You think that America is "inherently good?"

[Michael Cohen]

Yes, I think that America is "inherently good." In fact, I think America (while obviously flawed in some respects) is an inherently great nation and I have hard time understanding anyone who thinks otherwise - but that's my personal bias.

Moreover, I think there is no greater privilege to be born an American in the second half of the 20th century.

And for those reasons I truly despise the people currently running this country - for despoiling this great nation.

[Bob Narus]

If you think that America is "inherently good," then you aren't a Morally Serious Person. No one and nothing can be inherently good; we are good only the the extent that we commit good acts. And the last five years should be evidence enough that there's nothing inherent about it. Which is why the presumption that America should be free to act as it chooses in the world is such a fallacy.

[Tim]

I concur with Bob. If the US is inherently good, then how do you explain Abu Ghraib? Korematsu? The trail of tears?
Mr. Cohen, just like the word empire, I think you need to reread your dictionary and step away from your reflexive patriotic responses.
"Empire" does not always mean "evil."
"Inherently good" and "obviously flawed in some respects" might contain a smidgen of a contradiction.

[Mike M.]

Michael, you misunderstood my question. Both Bob N. and Tim have shown you why. You answered me as if I'd asked "Do you like living in the US?" But that's not what I asked. I asked if our country is "inherently good" with all that such words entail. It might be the best place in all the world (though France seems nice) but that doesn't make it "inherently good."

We have acted badly and we have acted with bad intentions. And, my friend, presidents of both parties have acted in those ways.

Seriously try to defend what you wrote.

[Mike M.]

One more question... do you think the US is the only "inherently good" nation? If not, name some others. Hope they aren't all modeled after the US...

[david]

"Daniel Drezner ...provided insightful critiques"
For example, in the original Drezner:
"Greenwald believes that O'Hanlon and Pollack have not paid a steep enough price for their past mistakes:
...I disagree -- in fact, I'll bet Greenwald that neither Pollack nor O'Hanlon will be given a Senate-confirmable position in any Democratic administration."

The "insightful critique" being "because I said so"?

and

"The extent of the post-Iraq shift within the FPC. Greenwald writes:

[There have been] some rhetorical changes on the margins. But the central premises that led us into Iraq ... seem as strong as ever.
...
Drezner: OK, let's go to the latest Center for American Progress survey of foreign policy wonks. We find the following: (80% oppose Iran attack) ...
To me this is more than a marginal shift. These numbers would have looked radically different in 2003."

Because Dan says so?

The whole post of "insightful critiques" are in this vein. He is, however, a smart ass about it. Maybe that's what appeals to Mr. Cohen.

[Michael Cohen]

1) I don't think empires are inherently evil - but if America is an empire, we're the best of the bunch.

2) No nation is perfect and America has its flaws. Of course we have acted badly, it would be disingenuous to deny that and it pains me to no end that we have acted badly in Iraq and Guantanamo. However, I don't for a second believe that Abu Ghraib, as just one example, reflects what America is really about and I hope you don't either. The many good acts performed by the vast majority of our soldiers in Iraq is in my view, far more indicative of the basic goodness that defines this nation and its people.

3) Yes, I believe that America is inherently good. That goodness, if you will, comes from the basic values that I believe underpin this nation, from not only our founding documents and in particular the Bill of Rights, but from the ongoing efforts to ensure the spread of freedom and opporunity to all our citizens. If you think this sounds hackneyed that is your right - you have as much right to hate America as I do to love it, but I apologize to no one for my patriotism and basic faith in America and its people.

4) I'm not going to get into a debate about whether other nations are also inherently good. Most of course are. But I don't live in other nations, I live here and I wouldn't feel comfortable passing judgment.

[Bob Narus]

"you have as much right to hate America as I do to love it"

This slur is shameful, even by the standards of the Very Serious People. Sounds like you're channeling your inner Coulter.

[Michael CoheN]

I in no way meant to infer that you hate America - simply that you have the right to do so. I apologize if the implication was otherwise. I don't believe that you or anyone else on this comment board hates America.

[david]

"If you think this sounds hackneyed that is your right - you have as much right to hate America as I do to love it, but I apologize to no one for my patriotism and basic faith in America and its people."

You're a sanctimonious prick. You know who hates America? Assholes like you who accept and excuse every sick thing we do as not indicative of our fabulous intentions. I, for one, think a lot more of this country. I think it can stand criticism, in fact thrive on criticism. I think it can learn from its mistakes. I think it can take responsibility for its actions, even the bad ones, be held accountable and be all the stronger for it. I think it can be a shining beacon to the world. Not the out of control hegemon and perpetrator of CIA black prisons, rendition, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Iraq and warrantless surveillance of its citizens that the rest of the world plainly sees and you seem comfortable with, since that's not "what we're about". Hate America, my ass.

[Bob Narus]

Apology accepted. And I, for one, don't consider you a sanctimonious prick. I do think you're naive not to realize how the attitude that America is inherently good leads eventually to the Bush Administration.

[Dan Kervick]

I don't think empires are inherently evil - but if America is an empire, we're the best of the bunch.

Does "evil" here mean something other than "bad"? Because I don't see how a professed commitment to democracy can intellectually coexist with a moral tolerance for imperialism. Imperial government means the compulsory extension of one state's power over other states or peoples. If a state achieves a position of political domination over the affairs of another state, and the people of that latter state did not democratically choose that condition of political subordination to the former state, then we have a case of imperialism.

Democracy, on the other hand, is self-government. A population is democratically governed if the control of the political power that governs them is wielded by that population itself. If a population is subjected to the political or economic domination of another state, a state of which that population is not an equal constituent part participating in the state's self-government, then it is not democratically governed.

Empire and democracy are thus thoroughly incompatible. Every step in the direction of empire is a step away from democracy.

The casual and routine way in which most members of the FPE talk of extending US power over other places in the world, whether through hard or soft means, while at the same time waxing rhapsodic about democracy, shows that there is a systematic double-think built into FPE ideology, and that an atavistic attachment to pre-republican and pre-democratic notions of statecraft have corrupted the avowed republican and democratic ideals of FPE practitioners.

Of course there are democratic ways for a state to extend its power. If the US, for example, were to invite some other country to become a new state of the United States, and thus invite its people to become US citizens, and that offer was accepted and then ratified, that would be a democratically legitimate extension of US power. But if the extension of US power is accomplished in some other way, then I would say that it is by an inherently anti-democratic and anti-Republican process.

[masaccio]

Michael Cohen has made it clear that force is always an option for the US. So do all other respectable members of the FPE "community". That is the point Greenwald is making. He has said it repeatedly and has explained his reasons for disagreeing. That is the point Dan Kervick is making, and he disagrees and explains why. So have many others on this and other sites.

Michael Cohen says force is fine, because the US is inherently good, by which he means that many Americans have good values, by which he means they are nice people.

I don't agree. I think people work best under a real commitment to law. The UN Charter sets the standards for intervention, an international law which we agreed to accept. People in other countries should not have to rely on the goodness of my blockbuster counterman for their lives.

[Mike M.]

Michael Cohen, you said that you think that there are other countries out there that are "inherently good" as well. Has the US ever been in conflict with one of them. If the US is in conflict with one, do they cancel each other out or is the US "inherently better?" You said you don't want to judge other countries because you haven't lived in them but US foreign policy is inherently about judging other countries. If you won't do that, you can't justify most of our foreign policy. So, you are casting judgments. We're "inherently good," you say. You should list who's good, who's bad and who's in between. Let's see all your cards.

[masaccio]

Mr. Greenwald makes a well-founded point that we "define when our 'interests' are promoted by war far more broadly than any other nation." Fair enough - we certainly use force more than other countries.

When you talk about US interests, exactly what do you mean? We used to talk about "vital national interests", which meant matters bearing on our survival as a nation. Of course, it really meant the interests of Chiquita Bananas (f/k/a United Fruit), but there was at least the pretense that military action was directed at real threats. We don't even pretend anymore. We do what we want when we want to.

In what sense is this inherently "not evil", which I take to be the opposite of inherently "evil"?

[Dan Kervick]

I have to say I personally find this discussion of whether a country like the United States is "inherently good" to be rather disturbing.

Perhaps it is because I was raised with a Catholic background, but my disposition has always been to think of human beings, and the governments and communities they create, as inherently and originally sinful. This is an attitude that has stuck with me even after the theological background for the attitude fell away long ago in my childhood. To say people are inherently sinful doesn't mean that they are throughly evil. But it does mean that human beings, because of their innate weakness, fear, ignorance, and pathetic finitude, have a natural and ineradicable tendency to fall easily into very bad behavior. And the same goes for the governments people create, which are even more corrupt than the individuals that compose them.

Saying people and governments are sinful in this way also doesn't mean that we shouldn't continually strive to do the best we can, and it doesn't mean that some people and governments don't do a much better job than others at improving themselves. But for me, it does mean that there is something dangerously prideful and impious about declaring oneself or one's country "inherently good". This is what I find so disturbing about the Exceptionalist rhetoric that has been so prevalent in recent years. I can't get over the sense of cosmic effrontery involved in believing in the "moral excellence" of oneself or one's country.

This is also not a matter of "hating America". Abu Ghraib doesn't show a uniquely American kind of cruelty and malevolence. It shows a totally human kind of cruelty and malevolence into which people everywhere sometimes fall. American imperial behavior is no worse than the imperial behavior of other vanished empires, and it may indeed be better in several ways. But I think we should all still see something repulsive it it, and recognize that woven in among the history of very admirable struggles and achievements in the United States, there is an equally prevalent history of violence, barbarism, exploitation, greed and oppression.

[Lupin]

Dear Mr Cohen:

If America is an empire "we're the best of the bunch"?

I wonder if you have seen John Pilger's recent documentary, THE WAR ON DEMOCRACY, about the actions of the US in South and Central America?

Somehow, I doubt it, otherwise I doubt you'd write such tripe.

You are a sad and terribly misinformed man; what is even more tragic is that, to paraphrase the old cliché, there are two schools of thoughts on this issue: yours -- and the rest of the world's.

[Tim]

The problem with Mr. Cohen's assertion that America is inherently good is precisely as Bob stated: it leads to excesses like the Bush administration. I can tell you one group of patriotic Americans that we can all agree did not think the US was inherently good: the Founding Fathers. Read Federalist 10, about how to resolve the inherent corruptibility of government with the Federal system of divided powers; or just read President Washington's farewell address, beyond the point about entangling alliances. These intellectual giants (though morally entrenched in 18th century values, like slavery and genocide of the natives) knew that one does not simply trust that people or a government is "inherently good," they built an entire system of government designed to limit power because people, even politicians, are not inherently good. They did believe that the US was a special place and would do good in the world, but they did not assume it would do good, they crafted it knowing man's fallibility.
It really disturbs me that Mr. Cohen doesn't even understand what everyone in the comment section is so upset about. Mr. Greenwald's point, as has been stated over and over again, is that using US 'force' means killing people and we need to re-think our reflexive ideas that we can and should use force whenever the "national interest" is threatened. Remember that our "national interest" does not mean "always for the best." Remember the Carter Doctrine: any threat to US oil supplies shall be considered a direct threat to the security of the USA itself. There are a lot of good comments here about empire, use of force, etc. It's too bad Mr. Cohen doesn't even seem to understand them, let alone discuss them.

[IM]

"No nation is perfect and [Germany] has its flaws. Of course we have acted badly, it would be disingenuous to deny that and it pains me to no end that we have acted badly in [Poland]. However, I don't for a second believe that [Treblinka], as just one example, reflects what [Germany] is really about and I hope you don't either."

To put it bluntly: Anybody who believes in "inherently good countries" should go back to reading fairy tales and has no business to talk about foreign politics.
(You should avoid Tolkien, though. To complex)

[Tim]

Ouch, IM. Godwin's law strikes again. I wouldn't have put it that harshly, but I think I agree with your sentiment.

[IM]

I have somewhat of an excuse: Being german, I truly believe my nation cannot be reduced to the period of the shoah. But that is still not an defense, even for the little crimes of the current U.S.A.

[SteveB]

If we look back at the period before the Iraq war began and the views put forward by our Foreign Policy Elites, two dominant arguments were heard:

1) Iraq is a serious threat to the U.S., and we should invade NOW.

2) Yes, Iraq is a serious threat to the U.S., and an invasion, or some greater use of military force, should be an option on the table, but an invasion is not the best option, at this point in time.

The net effect of this "debate" was to produce the greatest foreign policy blunder in the history of our country.

What sort of debate would not have produced a war? First of all, you would have needed to have Foreign Policy Elites who were willing to question the idea that Iraq was a serious threat to the U.S., and were willing to question the right of the U.S. to go around the world, using military force to bend other countries to our will. This was missing in the runup to the Iraq war, and the willingness to question the legitimacy of the U.S. role as global cop is still missing within our elites today, as Cohen's remarks clearly indicate.

Cohen wants us to go through some checklist of foreign policy experts, grading them according to their enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion (a grading scale in which he would come off better than, say, Michael Ledeen) but those of us viewing the elites from the outside don't see individuals, we see a system that produces debates that aren't real debates, and which can't be trusted to keep us out of the next disastrous war.

In fact, I'm much more concerned about our future after reading Cohen's remarks. In his view, the problem was a few bad apples, called neocons, whose influence is quickly waning, and Bush will soon be gone, and the Good People will come to power, hiring other Good People (like, maybe, Michael Cohen?) to run their foreign policy, and then America will be Good again. He has learned nothing, the entire elite class to which he belongs has learned nothing, so they will continue to make the same mistakes, over and over again, until their stranglehold on what is considered "serious analysis" or "respectable opinion" is broken.

So thank you, Glenn Greenwald and others, for challenging the legitimacy of the entire foreign policy elite, for not confining your criticism to the few neocons that Michael Cohen wants us to focus our attention on. Cohen accuses you of painting with a broad brush. I say a broad brush, or more properly, a giant broom to sweep him and his whole corrupt class out of power, is exactly what is needed.

[kb]

"i don't remember any of these nations sending their young men and women into harm's way to stop ethnic cleansing (Bosnia and Kosovo), end humanitarian suffering (Somalia) or serve as peacekeepers (Bosnia again)."

Really ? Cos the belgians were in all of them.
The romans couldn't make it though their modern day descendants were present in all 3. As were the british.(and the british were in bosnia years before the US turned up).

And is america's genocide of the natives 'better' than the Congo Free State ?Or how about the 500,000 dead in the phillipines during the american occupation ?

Certainly the US is foremost amongst the nations in having commentators who marvel at how a good and wonderful nation they are.Even if they have to dismiss the latest atrocity as
not reflecting 'what America is really about '.

[David Nieporent]

KB -- he said "sending them into harm's way to stop ethnic cleansing." Merely putting on a blue hat and callling yourself a peacekeeper is not "stopping" anything. In fact, as we saw in Srebrenica, peacekeepers actually made the situation worse, herding a lot of people together under the guise of protecting them, and then standing aside and handing them over to the Serbs to be murdered.

And since someone else already invoked Godwin, let me point out that the Greenwaldian "imminent danger/self-defense only" standard would have kept the U.S. out of Europe in WW2. Germany threatened our national interests -- the standard that Greenwald and his supporters reject -- but not our nation.

[KB]

" the Greenwaldian "imminent danger/self-defense only" standard would have kept the U.S. out of Europe in WW2. Germany threatened our national interests -- the standard that Greenwald and his supporters reject -- but not our nation."

Which of course is what the US actually did as it stayed neutral until Hitler declared war on them.

[IM]

Meanwhile Chamberlain (may his name be damned!) declared war without germany attacking his nation.

Didn't he know that the inherently good nation would wait another two years to engage? Chamberlain, a noted far-lefty and hippie peacenik was just a premature anti-fascist.

[IM]

And we all remember how Britain and France, that limeys and frog-eaters left america alone at Munich, when only the U.S. was willing to defend the C.S.R.

[StO]

KB: US embargoes on Japan were calculated to lead into war, for what it's worth. See here: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930 ...
although Higgs also hates FDR for Social Security and probably everything else.

[David Nieporent]

Which of course is what the US actually did as it stayed neutral until Hitler declared war on them.

Yes. And many people -- me included -- think that this was a bad thing. But under Greenwald's standard, that was the right thing to do.

Except that even this statement is too favorable towards Greenwald's position. Hitler's declaration of war was purely verbal; even after the declaration, Germany posed no imminent threat to the U.S., so as per Greenwald, there was no reason to get involved in Europe. Why should we respond to mere words with a full-scale invasion? (Moreover, Germany's declaration of war only happened because FDR was already assisting the allies. If the U.S. had made clear since 1939 that we were not going to get involved, Hitler never would have declared war on us at all.)

Of course, not all wars are World War II; just because the U.S. should have gotten involved there without being attacked doesn't mean we should get involved in all wars without being attacked. But Greenwald's formulation provides no principle which justifies U.S. involvement in WW2. The only justification for us (or for France or the UK, for that matter) in 1939 was "national interest" -- the very standard Greenwalk rejects as illegitimate.

[rootless2]

Michael Cohen wants to make an equivalence between all interventions involving military force. But interventions for humanitarian reasons, and under legitimate interpretations of the UN Charter are very different from insane imperial adventures like our wars in Iraq and Vietnam. The argument that the US has an inherent right to use military force to advance some nebulous concept of national interest is very different from the argument that the US has some moral obligation to intervene to stop genocide. Greenwalds point is that by insisting as a matter of ideological axiom that (a) The US is good and (b) the US right to use force as a "tool" of national interest is not to be questioned, the FPC rules out honest discussion and clear ethical analysis of actual US policy. The FPC ideology which holds the intentions of the American government to be beyond debate is an enabler for neo-con ideology and explains part of why the "serious" FPC did not present an effective opposition to this catastrophic war. One does not have to "hate America" to wish that even hostile critics of US intentions were not censored from the national debate.

The fact that you cited as "brilliant" an essay in which opposition to the use of torture (in violation of US law) and enthusiasm for torture are characterized as two extremes that a judicious intellectual should avoid shows the moral dangers of this ideological approach.

It is not intellectually acceptable to advance "hate America" as the alternative to "believe America is inherently good." As Abraham Lincoln pointed out, God is not on our side, our obligation is to be on God's side.

[IM]

"Hitler's declaration of war was purely verbal; even after the declaration, Germany posed no imminent threat to the U.S., so as per Greenwald, there was no reason to get involved in Europe"

Would you care to repeat this statement to veterans of the american merchant navy?

[rootless2]

David Nieporent's argument fails on the difference between actual and propaganda "threats". If Iraq had actually been an imminent threat to the USA as Germany and Japan were, few of us would have objected to the use of military force. Greenwald's point, as I understand it, is that the FPC orthodoxy holds that the US, by virtue of its inherent goodness and power has rights to intervene for an undefined "national interest" that can be stretched to include nearly anything.

[Avedon]

"I in no way meant to infer that you hate America"

You certainly implied it, and shame on you.

It's all very well to say that the principles proclaimed in our founding documents represent a charter for "good", but this is meaningless if we fail to live by them.

We are failing to live by them. And if we were inherently good, we could not so fail.

We're a country made of people, and we hold some high ideals which, apparently, are not always shared by our leaders, and thus we - as a nation - do not always pursue good.

It is the failure to understand this fact that has led us to where we are now. It is not simply that bad guys decided to invade Iraq and do a terrible job of securing the peace. It is that we, as a nation, have somehow allowed such people to take the reins and continued to make excuses for how we let it happen.

Every moment you spend defending the use of force when it is unnecessary is more of the same.

The Iraqi people did nothing to deserve what we have done to them. The people of Iran have done nothing to deserve what we are threatening them with.

Inherently good people ought to be able to understand that.

[R.Mutt]

Here comes David Nieporent with the inevitable hypothetical historical parallel, which, as usual, completely ignores the context of Greenwald's critique.

[fat sam]

dear proprieters of DemocracyArsenal,

may I propose a humanitarian intervention to topple the regimes of Msrs. Hamid and Cohen, to be immediately replaced with the writings of the inherently good Mr. Kervick.

thank you.

[dadanarchist]

"1) I don't think empires are inherently evil - but if America is an empire, we're the best of the bunch."

And herein lies everything wrong with our foreign policy elite. This is simply an astounding statement. Perhaps I am not giving you the benefit of the doubt, but when you say that you "don't think that empires are inherently evil" I have to assume that you therefore assume empires to range from benign to good on your moral scale. This to me is befuddling. The fundamental premise of an empire is that it is an undemocratic entity. An imperial core (or metropole in the slang) excercises political, economic and military control over its satellites (periphery). In short, some people in the empire surrender (or more usually are relieved of) their rights to make important decisions regarding economic and foreign policy decisions, and this power is invested in an imperial elite. This confiscation of powers occurs equally in the imperial periphery, and in the imperial core, where decisions regarding foreign policy become the realm of experts rather than democratic decision making by the populous.

The only insight in Cohen's claims is that he provides an accurate description of the current status quo, but it buggers the imagination that anyone who can profess to be any sort of liberal or democrat could see this as a desirable state of affairs.

Sure, there have been attempts at "democratic" empire - I'm thinking of the Union Francaise experiment between 1946 and 1960 - but they have always collapsed under their blaringly obvious internal contradictions. I find the attempt to rehabilitate empire among the most disturbing current intellectual trends. It weds naivety, idealism and sometimes outright stupidity to the unprincipled use of arms. This is a recipe for disaster. That so-called "liberals" support this depresses me profoundly, as it proves that they cannot be bothered to pick up a decent history book.

But then again, empires run on apparatchiks, so perhaps our Very Serious foreign policy people get all hot thinking about being the consul of Djibouti or something. It would beat their sad-sack lives baking under the florescence of what ever think tank they infest. Perhaps it is the remarkable degree of correspondence in their general patterns of thinking: as experts, they know much better than the DFHs about what is good for this country, just as America knows much better than the f**kin w*gs how to run their country.

The arrogance is extraordinary. The blindness depressing. The failure to learn from history bemusing and frightening.

And as for the US as benevolent and/or benigh empire? Don't tell that to Nicaraugans, Salvadorans, Hondurans, Columbians, Argentinians, Brazilians, Chileans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, the Timorese, Iranians, Afghanis, Iraqis, or any of the other myriad peoples we've bombed, sold out, saddled with bloody dictators or otherwise f**ked over during the exercise of our magnificent beneficence. They might just spit in your face.

[Mike M.]

Ha ha. Whiskey Fire spanked Cohen.

http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2007/08/crybaby-says-by.html

[horatius]

Democracy Arsenal - There you have it. It's all in the name.

[bleh]

Being "inherently good" sure is handy for avoiding a lot of, well, thinking about the consequences of our actions, or intended or recommended actions. It's also very handy for minimizing or avoiding the consequences that maybe don't turn out quite as we might have hoped.

Sounds like an ideal standard for the current administration. Trust in our inherent goodness, charge ahead without thinking things through, and then wave away any objections (or better still, accuse people who dare to ask questions of treason or hatred).

I can see why this point of view is so popular among the Very Serious Foreign Policy Elite, and why they are recognized as such.

[Harold]

Hitler's declaration of war was "purely verbal" (??!!).

Germany and Japan were allies and therefore Hitler's declaration was not "purely verbal", he was obliged to go to war when his ally was attacked. In fact, he was planning to attack the USA all along, though at sometime in the future: parliamentary and constitutional democracies had no place in his thousand year plan. That we "provoked" Hitler into declaring war was Hitler's own line in his war declaration speech. Commenter David Nieporent prefers to take Hitler at his own word. In fact, the canard that our aiding of Britain deliberately "provoked" or "forced" us into the war is right-wing folklore of the Father Coughlin type. The greatest historian of the war Gerhard Weinberg has thoroughly lain it to rest, using newly available archivial research (See his magisterial study, "The World At War.")

***

Unless I misunderstand what he is trying to say, Michael Cohen rejoices that as an empire we are even better than Belgium, a record for setting the bar low. The Belgians committed genocide on an unparalleled scale and are numbered among history's most repugnant villains.

Rousseau stated (in words meant to startle) that man was "born good." He explained that by this he meant that even those who thought that man was "inherently bad" (he meant by this Mandeville, author of the "Fable of the Bees," which argued that individual mens' vices brought benefits to the many) conceded that man was born with a natural sentiment of compassion, which is possessed even by some animals. Rousseau would have been disgusted by the hubris of Michael Cohen's statement that the US Empire was "inherently good" (sorry we napalmed you, 5 million Vietnamese, we had pure intentions and were only trying to save you by killing you).

I assume Michael Cohen attended college somewhere, what a testament to the inefficacy of our educational system!

[jayackroyd]

But Mr. Greenwald surely recognizes that as a superpower and as the best and strongest military in the world, the United States has a far greater set of responsibilities than that of other nations.

So how does that differ from the Greenwald's characterization that you believe the US is uniquely permitted and should use force to support those responsibilities? How does this not completely reinforce the notion that you believe the US rightly declares that it only decides when those "responsibilities" come into play, and everyone else can go suck eggs.

[jayackroyd]

And America is "inherently good?" How far removed is that from "the white man's burden?"

In fact, we've just seen this whole "inherently good" doctrine be used as justification for everything from torture to a nuclear arms doctrine that has use of nuclear weapons as part of the standard diplomatic toolkit. Because the US is "inherently good."

Sheesh.

[jayackroyd]

Of course there are democratic ways for a state to extend its power.

There is another way as well. A democratic state can encourage the formation of other democratic states. This is the mythology we long have been fed--that America fights for freedom in the world, freeing oppressed peoples to enjoying the fruits of liberty. Therefore we need undermine Chavez, refuse to talk to Iran (which is the most democratic state in the middle east, bar Israel), support Mubarak, arm Saudi Arabia and set up an imperial occupation in Iraq.

This has always been a lie. The US has always used this rhetoric, but has always, first, pursued the geo-political interests as defined by the VSPs of that era. One of the interesting effects of the ham-handed use of this rhetoric by Bush is that it's not just marginalized people like Noam Chomsky who have noticed. Bush has lied so brazenly, has used the American exceptionalism so cynically and dishonestly, that he may well have made it toxic for some time to come.

For me, though, the biggest lie of all is this bizarre notion that the US wants democracy in Iraq. In the Sep/Sug Foreign Affairs, James Dobbins 'fesses up (behind subscription wall):

But democratization is no panacea for terrorism and no shortcut to a more pro-U.S. (or pro-Israel) Middle East. Established democracies may not make war on one another, but studies have shown that democratizing nations are highly prone to both internal and external conflicts. Furthermore, democratic governments in Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia would be more hostile to Israel and less aligned with the United States than the authoritarian regimes they replaced, since public opinion in those countries is more opposed to Israeli and U.S. policy than are their current leaders.

The goal is not, and never has been democracy. The goal of the "inherently good" American Foreign policy is the creation of pro-America and pro-Israel regimes. The claim that a "free Iraq" with open elections would choose a pro-America, pro-Israel, anti-Iran government is absolutely absurd.

The VSPs knew this. But, as they have for many, many years, they have always fallen in line behind this propaganda. Perhaps it's possible that Bush believed the propaganda; it's hard to explain pressing for Palestinian elections otherwise.

Oh, wait, he thought he could rig that election. That's a better explanation. That, of course, was the real plan for Iraq. Gather up the flower and candy, and elect Chalabi president for life by acclamation.

IAC, they can't hide behind this one anymore. Bush has poisoned that well.

[Loonesta]

What American democracy? We are a republic. If we were a democracy, we'd have no representative delegates. We would be on "one person - one vote" levels. That would possibly have meant that there'd be no debate involving Iraq & the really most sincerely dead Saddam Hussein, because the 'Bush crime family' would never have been "elected".

[val]

All of this brings to mind The Daily Show report from Rob Corrdry on Abu Ghraib:

"There's no question that what took place in that prison was horrible, but the Arab world has to realize that the U.S. shouldn't be judged on the actions of a...well, we shouldn't be judged on our actions. It's our principles that matter, our inspiring, abstract notions. Remember: just because torturing prisoners is something we DID, doesn't mean it's something we WOULD DO."

[harold]

Sheesh. We are a democratic republic.

[Max Renn]

in no way meant to infer that you hate America - simply that you have the right to do so. I apologize if the implication was otherwise. I don't believe that you or anyone else on this comment board hates America.

Posted by: Michael CoheN | August 21, 2007 at 10:00 PM

You really need to apologize fron page and in real time for this foul invective. You've put yourself forever beyond the pale of any of the bloggers you claim superiority over.

[DougJ]

I in no way meant to infer that you hate America - simply that you have the right to do so. I apologize if the implication was otherwise. I don't believe that you or anyone else on this comment board hates America.

I believe in the first amendment, so I think you have just as might right to lie as I do to tell the truth. And you have just as much right to say ignorant, hateful things as I do to say wise, patient things.

[DougJ]

I in no way meant to infer that you lie or say ignorant, hateful things - simply that you have the right to do so. I apologize if the implication was otherwise. I don't believe that you or anyone else on this comment board lies or says ignorant hateful things.

Hope that clears everything up.

[rt]

"Merely putting on a blue hat and callling yourself a peacekeeper is not "stopping" anything."

In the same way that putting a star spangled banner on your shoulder and caling yourslef a 'liberator' doesn't stop you being a murdering rapist. what is it 650,000 dead in iraq ?

[the dryyyyyyy cracker]

Y'know what's a)inherently good and b)the best of the bunch? The DA comment section. The only historical precedent I can think of is when Tupac was a back-up singer for Humpty Hump.

[John Caruso]

The belief that America is inherently good is what makes so many people impervious to mountains of evidence that the United States is, in fact, exactly like every other powerful nation throughout history: driven first and foremost by its interests (namely the interests of those who govern it and the groups they represent); bent on extending its control and influence; and concerned with human rights and international law mainly to the extent that they can be used to rationalize and provide cover for those actual underlying motivations.

When this Doctrine of the Inherent Goodness of the United States is fixed firmly in someone's mind, they literally can't get there from here. They've foreclosed the possibility of arriving at one entire set of conclusions before the questions are even considered. It's like asserting categorically that nothing heavier than air can fly under its own power, and then trying to explain how a jumbo jet gets from London to Rome; it's literally impossible to arrive at the correct explanation.

Adherents of the DOTIGOTUS are constantly faced with cognitive dissonance, which can only be resolved through increasingly tortured rationalizations and outright rejection of reality. The overthrow of Iranian democracy and support for the Shah of Iran (along with a host of other tyrants), the killing of millions of Vietnamese, the sponsorship of and bipartisan support for the genocidal Indonesian invasion of East Timor, the instigation of mass slaughter in Central America throughout the 1980s, the refusal even to call what was happening in Rwanda in 1994 "genocide" and the shameful lies that were offered for the failure to act--these are just a few of the endless examples in which reality and the DOTIGOTUS conflict. In each of these cases (and in the dozens I didn't mention) you'll find true believers doing everything in their power to avoid the simple, obvious conclusion that the US acts without any regard for human rights or international law.

(More here, if you're interested...this comment section is long enough as it is.)

[Michael Cohen]

I've been working on a longer blog piece to tackle this question of America's "inherent goodness," but I wanted to reference one of the comments made about me:

"You're a sanctimonious prick. You know who hates America? Assholes like you who accept and excuse every sick thing we do as not indicative of our fabulous intentions. I, for one, think a lot more of this country. I think it can stand criticism, in fact thrive on criticism. I think it can learn from its mistakes. I think it can take responsibility for its actions, even the bad ones, be held accountable and be all the stronger for it. I think it can be a shining beacon to the world. Not the out of control hegemon and perpetrator of CIA black prisons, rendition, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Iraq and warrantless surveillance of its citizens that the rest of the world plainly sees and you seem comfortable with, since that's not "what we're about".

Here's the funny thing: I agree with much of this (well except for the sanctimonious prick part). I believe America can, should be and 7 years ago was a shining beacon to the world; I think it can and has learned from its mistakes; I believe it can and will overcome all the terrible things that David cites; I think it can and should be constantly scrutinized and criticized for its failings. I believe that we are able to tackle these challenge, in part, because of our inherent good as a nation.

What I believe makes America great is the corrective nature of our democracy. It's amazing to consider that we were founded by a bunch of white male, landowners who condoned and allowed slavery and prevented half of all Americans from enjoying their full political rights. Yet, they put in place a political system based on a set of universal values that eventually would ensure the full realization of civil rights for all Americans. Over 230 years we have constantly improved and bettered ourselves as a nation - due in large measure to the political values instilled in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. This doesnt make us better than other countries, it just speaks, in my view, to the inherent good that is grounded in our founding documents and the values therein.

(On a personal note, let me also add that the political orthodoxy assigned to me by some of these posts is completely absurd. If you think I am comfortable with Gitmo, warrantless surveillance, Abu Ghraib, CIA black prisons or the war in Iraq you havent been reading my posts and frankly you know nothing about me. The notion that believing in America's inherent goodness is synonomous with supporting those un-American policies is something that I find highly offensive. One can believe in the inherent good of America and still be a progressive/liberal/Democrat. In fact, I would argue they go hand-in -hand.)

I have more to say on this subject, but I wanted to get that off my chest.

Thanks, Michael

[Dan Kervick]

What I believe makes America great is the corrective nature of our democracy. It's amazing to consider that we were founded by a bunch of white male, landowners who condoned and allowed slavery and prevented half of all Americans from enjoying their full political rights. Yet, they put in place a political system based on a set of universal values that eventually would ensure the full realization of civil rights for all Americans.

The political system certainly did not ensure the realization of civil rights for all Americans, Michael. Slavery was only ended by a civil war which, whatever else you think of it, clearly represents a collapse and interruption of the political system, not a triumph of that system.

The American political system has shown, very clearly in the past several decades, a systematic inability to generate needed progressive legislation; to call up and implement sound social and infrastructural planning and innovation; end even to lay out the necessary spending to maintain essential existing infrastructure and existing social institutions. The American system shows an overall historical tendency toward the nearly continuous flow of power out of the legislative branch and into the executive branch, while at the same time that executive branch has proven to be responsive only to the very largest, richest and most entrenched social actors. The top-heaviness, and lumbering and inefficient nature of our political system is probably one reason why our system is rarely copied by democratizing states, who almost always opt for more flexible and responsive parliamentary systems.

The US political system has so far failed in its chief historic task of turning its citizens into rational, empirically acute and far-seeing agents, capable of responsible self-government at the national level. While scientific knowledge continues to expand, and innovative ideas abound, our grossly inadequate educational system has proven itself incapable of transmitting those ideas effectively to the public, or in cultivating the habits of mind and moral and intellectual virtues needed for knowledge to be assimilated, rationally evaluated and acted upon. Instead we have an anxious, atomized, mindlessly acquisitive, superstitious and panicky populace, given to immediate-term obsessions, innumerable addictions and psychological dysfunctions, and successive waves of paranoia and hysteria while the most important national policies are determined by a permanent governing class that is largely shielded from democratic influence, and in some cases even from elections.

[IM]

"and frankly you know nothing about me. The notion that believing in America's inherent goodness is synonomous with supporting those un-American policies is something that I find highly offensive. One can believe in the inherent good of America and still be a progressive/liberal/Democrat. In fact, I would argue they go hand-in -hand.)"

Frankly, I don't give a damn about your personal characteristics. Your arguments should stand on their own. So, for arguments sake, I will stipulate that you are not only an inherent good person but a liberal democrat in good standing.
Now that this is out of the way, let my cite another liberal, Carl Schurz:
""Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right."
Now you probably don't want to listen to Schurz, he was not even an democrat after all and this idiot really believed that anti-imperialism was a good thing.
But a beg a boon of you: Lets assume for the moment that this dirty immigrant is as good an person, american and democrat like you - so we can assess his argument on the merits.
It is a quite simple argument after all: The U.S.A. (our country) can like any other country be act right or wrong. The duty of its citizens is to reward good behaviour to produce more good deeds and to act against bad behaviour to end it.

You on the other hand, faced with acts of the U.S. you have admitted are wrong, what do you do? Do you just say: My country is wrong and has to be righted?
No.
Instead you blather about "inherent goodness", that Hussein was even more wrong, civility, your good standing as a democrat and so on.

When Mr Schurz concluded that his party, the republicans, supported imperialism, he was not civil about it. He left his party, risked his political carrier and called Mr. McKinly an imperialist.

Now you may say, that you are not Mr. Schurz, just an person of not much acccount. Still you had and have a choice: Right the wrong opinions of your war-supporting friends and perhaps hurt their feelings or spare their tender feelings, because they are otherwise such good human beings.

You did not rock the boat of the foreign policy community; you are for truth, but only when it is cost-free; you admit wrongs, but only in the distant and safe past.
Understandable, perhaps. Still wrong.

Amicus Plato sed magis amica veritas.
Think about it.

[AlanDownunder]

There is nothing inherently good about a crony-corporate plutocracy with global reach and a revolving door into and out administrations of either hue (both extreme right-wing by by comparison to other first-world democracies) backed by the military-industrial complex that Ike - no liberal - warned y'all about and by a media that installed the travesty that is the Bush regime?

As for the imaginary march of inevitable progress from the C18 white landowners to now, how can it be argued that US inherent goodness hasn't gone retrograde over the last 40 years at least? Where's the glorious self-correction? Why are Watergate and Iran-Contra alumni populating the current regime?

With modesty comes wisdom. Both have been sadly lacking since WWII. With the end of the cold war came a wonderful opportunity, but the US amygdala just had to go looking for more "evil" against which to flex its steroid-junkie musculature. That is the prime international affairs tragedy of the last couple of decades.

"Yeah but look at the rest of the world"? Sorry, doesn't wash any more. Hasn't for decades now. Then there's global warming. Wake up, please! The world could use a genuine shining light, not the imaginary one that underlies exactly what Greenwald has barely begun to identify - and exactly what underlies your post, Mr Cohen.

[dadanarchist]

"This doesnt make us better than other countries, it just speaks, in my view, to the inherent good that is grounded in our founding documents and the values therein."

Pure metaphysical sophistry. Objects cannot be inherently good, nor can they be inherently bad. Only actions can be judged in moral terms. Did you not take an ethics course in college? Or has Judeo-Christian ideology so poisoned our nation's patterns of thought? Sheesh, even JK Rowling figured out that its actions, not attributes, that matter.

This is one of the reasons why people find your assertion that the US is, or even was, inherently good. A nation is not even an object, its an abstraction, and abstractions cannot act. So the US cannot be inherently good or bad - it can only commit good or bad acts. And the track record of the last 100 years, at least in the realm of foreign policy, does not support your contention that it even acts in the name of the good.

It's realpolitik. Let's just admit it and cut the b.s.

[Tim]

"Inherently good" is the same kind of rhetoric as the "God bless America over all other nations," and "My country, love it or leave it." It also smacks of the moral objectivism and unwillingness to reason that we so despise in the religious fundamentalists of the world.
America is a country, a government, a people, and a history. We've been through lots of highs and lows, and traditionally, (going back to the 18th century) we have been seen as a beacon of liberty. This is all true. But using phrases like "America is inherently good," and then inserting a stupid stab which insinuated, "if you disagree then you must hate America," and then trying to retract it like a freshman debater, is exactly why everyone was/is so pissed off at you, Mr. Cohen. It's also why we're so pissed off at the establishment of foreign policy intellectuals: just because we're the riff-raff, you assume you can/should ignore us. But that is the beauty of blogs: you can't ignore us, and soon enough, you'll see that you shouldn't ignore us. We all have something to add to this debate, and your demeanor, lack of arguments, and factually wrong assertions so far has simply amplified why we're so valuable.
You say America is inherently good, well how about an actual argument as to whether or not the US system produces policies which further liberty and democracy, or (as we claim) if our hegemonic position produces policies aimed to further our own power? What about a real discussion, you know, with facts, instead of your refrain of unfounded assertions.
Example: I, and many others, claim that the FPC is hawkish in its public face because the less hawkish members are either smaller in number, or appear less in media. You cited a poll that stated that FPC professionals are opposed to the coming war against Iran. I would counter that they only feel that way because they know the US is not in a position to win that war. One could ask them: "If the US had the additional forces necessary and ready for such an attack, but the UN Security Council had not authorized the use of force, should the US still invade to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power?" I would love to know what most FPC professionals' answers would be, because I hope it would remain negative; I fear it would change to a positive response. What do you think of this question?

[TimH]

I am not American, but British and have lived in Japan for over 30 years. I have great admiration for many aspects of the US but one thing I have come to have no time for whatsoever is the kind of infantile chauvinism apparent in Michael Cohen's belief in the 'inherent goodness' of his country and in his obvious belief in American exceptionalism. Equally, I have no time at all for the common British belief in the inherent niceness of their country or for the common Japanese belief, especially strong amongst the racist right-wing here, in Japanese 'uniqueness'; which does not mean to say either that I hate my country or that I hate Japan. So I am very glad to see someone like Michael Cohen being called out for his fundamental irresponsibility, moral dishonesty and hypocrisy. Please keep it up.

[luxury watches]

I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch

[tag hauer watches]

If you are looking for a watch to buy,tag hauer come to solve the problem of the not-so-rich category of people. A tag hauer watches can be purchased by many of us, due to the accessible price it can have. A fake rolex daytona will always cost only a few hundred dollars.

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[rado watches]

If you have PANERAI Watches , I still have my idea to achieve.

[bvlgari watches]

I am so with you FRANCK MULLER Watch

[some watches]

Good recommended website.

[laptop batteries]

which you will never get at your favorite store.? We offer cheap authentic Chanel handbags and they are all up for grabs!

[watches]

For those who have not used a 24-hour hand,it makes one full revolution of the dial over 24 hours which means that 12 pm is at 6 clock on the dial.This features allows you to track two timezones: one using the standard time hands,and the other using the GMT hand and the 24hr bezel.The bezel has a grippy coin edge and a light but clicky turn.The included bracelet is nice and light.Replica Casio Watches features solid end links (spring bars),and the outer links of the bracelet are screwed together.The clasp has a fold-over design with a signed safety.The bracelet is a perfect fit for the Replica Wittnauer Watches and integrates beautifully with the lugs.I will mention that the PVD on the bracelet is very light and after some considerable time on my wrists,there is noticeable wear.If PDV wear bothers you,go with the brushed/polished model instead (brushed on top and polished on the sides of the case).This is a Replica Vacheron Constantin that is up for just about any task and does so with little fuss or explanation.I wore it on a twelve day trip to San Francisco and Replica Ulysse Nardin Watches kept up perfectly.The Replica Zodiac Watches is light enough to be worn without consideration,classy enough to be worn with any attire,and with the GMT complication,it is a traveler's best friend.It's amazingly accurate; many days,it showed no deviance at all,and after a month,it is usually within +/-4 seconds.The G-1 starts at $549,which is an amazing price for a watch of this quality.Many other Replica Tommy Hilfiger Watches that feature this movement retail for hundreds to thousands more,and the G-1 is without a doubt the best design from OCEAN7 that we have reviewed to date.The model as reviewed is $599,and the buyer can choose from a series of bezel colors to suit either finish.OCEAN7 Watch Company have outdone themselves on the new G-1 GMT *** a very cool watch that doesn't sacrifice quality,features,looks,or everyday practicality; For updates on content,follow Watch Report on Twitter.

[Egitim]

thanks for sharing Sohbet many people are pay more attention to one's wearing than before, especially a watch. Chat .
Perhaps when you went to some place far away Chat you must borrow it from friends Sohbet you can get everything you want in this game
Chat money to invest in other industry which will return you good profit. Sohbet when you look at the surface of the watches
Egitim from the city you live in and thought you knew nobody there exsohbet

[Noi hoi]

Thanks for the post. This keeps me informed about the topic.

[Davi]

Thanks for the article. This keeps me informed about the topic.

[Nani]

Thanks for the post. This keeps me informed about the topic.

[kosmo disk]

Glenn Greenwald has launched quite the missive about the Foreign Policy Community. My colleague, Shadi Hamid as well as Daniel Drezner have provided insightful critiques, but here are my two cents. Greenwald asserts: