Thing is, the Hapsburgs weren't the problem - they were the solution to the problem.

You're stepping into unchartered territory. Please explain to me, a self-proclaimed expert on Austrian history, how the Habsburg Monarchy was the solution to the problem. I've studied the Habsburg monarchy for several years now and am awaiting an answer.

Never mind. I read the rest of your piece.

Ironically, your argument supports keeping the erstwhile Saddam Hussein in power. Does it not?

One of the most pernicious is the attempt to re-create the worst part of Wilsonism - carving up Iraq upon supposed ethnic lines, much as the Hapsburg Empire was carved up. President Bush is having none of that...
Posted by Mark Noonan
------------------------------------------------
President Bush is having none of that?

Hmmmm...Last time I checked the Iraq was a sovereign country, with a democratically elected prime minister, parliament, etc.

So what exact will Pres. Bush do if the Iraqi government decides to do something that Bush dislikes?

Mark, in case you havent realized it, we have ZERO control over the Iraqi government. None, nada, zilch..

It will be the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people that will decide their fate. If they choose to break off into 3 distinct countries, there is not a damn thing we can do about it.

Iran will control southern Iraq. Kurdistan is already autonomous.

You lack such a fundamental understanding of middle eastern culture. A centralized government based in Baghdad will never exercise control over the 3 regions of Iraq. Have you ever even spoken at length with anyone directly from the middle east?

1) Kurdistan; Why will they recognize the central government? They already have their own standing army. They already have a functioning government.

2) Shia dominated south: This will be effectively annexed by Iran. Along tribal lines (and thats really how politics work in the middle east), that go back centuries, it is natural they will lean more and more to Iran and not Baghdad based government.

3) Sunni triangle: They see the Baghdad government as being dominated by Shias that want to annilate them. Yes, I know you will point to the fact that their are sunni tribal leaders aligning themselves with American forces. but again you display your ignorance middle eastern culture. First and foremost: tribal loyalty. Tribal leaders will align themselves with anyone that provides money/services that they in turn can give to their tribal. This increases their stature among their people. The day we stop providing the money/services, they will shift their loyalties to the next bidder. A Baghdad government will not be the next bidder.

Ok, back to work. Im still laughing at your statement: Bush is having none of that..."
like he can really do anything about the Iraqi political process.
lol!

BuyRubles,

Not at all - bloodthirsty tyrants are never to be tolerated. Say whatever you want about Franz Joseph - or even Karl - but the Hapsburg Emperors were never bloodthirsty tyrants. I feel pretty confident that a more far seeing policy in 1918 would have worked with the young Emperor, or even someone from an appanage branch of the family, to preserve the unity of the Austro-Hungarian State while affording greater freedom for its constituent peoples.

Steve,

The Iraqis may carve themselves up - but we have no business carving them up; in other words, we have no business in setting up independent nations out of the body of Iraq.

Mark,
I agree 100%. But again, how would we go about carving them up?
You seem to think that our opinion and what we want to happen to Iraq really matters. It doesnt. The pundits, the political experts, etc. can talk about carving them up all they want.
If I read the intent of your topic correctly, you seem to think this is something we could force on the Iraqi's....when in fact, we can't.....unless we topple the democratically elected Iraqi government.
;)

It seems to me the question of whether or not carving up the Hapsburg empire was a good idea is moot. The real question is whether or not it was inevitable. After all, internal divisions within the Hapsburg Empire is what produced the spark that started the war in the first place.

And that seems to be the more relevant question with regard to Iraq as well.

"The Iraqis may carve themselves up - but we have no business carving them up; in other words, we have no business in setting up independent nations out of the body of Iraq." - Mark Noonan

We had no buisness imposing democracy or any government in the first place. Did Saddamn deserve to die? Yes, absolutely. But what gives us the right to then go on and form their new government? Bush seems to believe American style democracy is such a great system that should be imposed on the Iraqis, like we know more about the Iraqis and what best for them than than the Iraqis do themselves. Democracy is just a nice word for mob rule. Our government doesn't need to be the world's busybody looking around the world for governments that need "democratizing" or reforming through military occupation.

Not to mention your forcing American taxpayers to pay for these misadventures.

Robert,

Your post is so back-and-forth that it's difficult to even determine what your position is. I think it's essentially "America = bad".

Did SH deserve to die? You say yes - but you also imply he didn't deserve to be removed from power. Perhaps you can explain to me how it's possible for SH remain in power if he's dead?!?

You say we have no business imposing democracy on the Iraqi's. You then imply that Bush is arrogant in presuming he knows what's best for the Iraqi's better than the Iraqi's themselves do. It's almost like you really believe that the Iraqi's CHOSE to be ruled by Saddam. I've got news for you, Bob, before the US "imposed" democracy on the Iraqi's, THEY HAD NO CHOICE AND NO VOICE IN WHAT THEY FELT WAS BEST FOR THEM.

You also say that "democracy is a nice word for mob rule". I was told by all of the media and the democrats that the "mob" (I prefer to call them "US citizens") was demanding an immediate disengagement from Iraq and the people the "mob" elected were charged to "rule" with that task in mind. Hasn't happened yet....wonder why?!?

You can't have it both ways, Bob. Leading and governing means you HAVE to take a stand on an issue and not waiver. That's why Bush in seen in a more favorable light than Pelosi and Reid are.

Bush is not calling for war with Iran, The new sanctions just that reaffirm the world is not comfortable with Iran enriching uranium. Israel and others not just Bush are concerned. Recently 40 armor piercing missles used against U.S troops have been traced to Iran. If i had a russian made gun that was found at a crime scene would that mean the russian were responsible. No but there is someone going to Iran to purchase this stuff. This is a good case for not wanting Iran to have nukes. If they cannot control the flow of large arms they definately don't need nukes. My guess is that it is someone with some power, You probably can't get anti-tank rockets at a hardware store in Iran. someone like Moqtada AL Sadr could purchase that kind of stuff from the Iranian factories that. He seems popular with the people and probably could be a governor or something when the U.S leave. He should have to prove his allegience to Iraq and send some of his militia up to help fight the Turkish. If he won't I would think his is more concerned with doing Irans will.

Ricorun,

It wasn't inevitible - certainly, deep reforms were needed (and, indeed, that is one of the reasons the Serbs assasinated Franz Ferdinand - he planned on instituting major governmental reforms once he came to the throne), but there was no particular reason for the Hapsburg Empire to come apart - unless one is of the view that any particular ethnic or linguistic group not only should have its own nation, but MUST have its own nation.

Ethnic hate-mongers were plentiful in the Hapsburg dominion - and were one of the reasons for Franz Josef being wary of allowing a fully parlaimentary government from being formed. To him, all his subjects were equal - he wasn't about to allow some pan-German,anti-Semites to run roughshod over national minorities out of some stupid theory and Germans were inherently superior (a point of view agreed upon, remarkably, by both Marx and the anti-Semites). Hitler didn't make his ideology up - in fact, he rather slavishly followed the lead of various Austrian hate-mongers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Good to keep in mind that it wasn't just German racists at this game - the worst offenders were the Hungarians, who acted at times as if the entire purpose of the Hapsburg Empire was to make life good for 10 million Hungarians.

So, too, today in Iraq - plenty of hate-mongers, but that doesn't mean we should be fool enough to play into their hands. A person like al-Sadr wants to be the boss, even if its boss of a pissant remnant of Iraq under Iranian domination. Haters are like that - but most Iraqis realise that, for good or ill, over the past 80 years since Britain rather arbitrarily drew the borders, the State of Iraq has grown an organic life of its own - various economic, social and political connections which run right across ethnic and religious lines...plus the fact that a fractured Iraq is just easy prey for Turks, Syrians and Iranians; all these things argue in favor of getting everyone together, and that is what we must (and, indeed, are) foster in Iraq.

robert,

But we didn't impose Iraq's new government on the Iraqis...they created it on their own. We're just helping them out. If you want a case of America imposing its democratic will, then post-War Japan is your model - there MacArthur just went on and wrote various parts of the Japanese constitution in order to make it suit what he thought was best for the Japanese. It worked pretty well - only slight modifications by the Japanese since then...and it shows that, yes, we can impose Democracy at the point of a gun.

As for our right to be there? We have as much right to be there was anyone - because we are there, now, at the express invitation of the Iraqi government.

Mark: Ethnic hate-mongers were plentiful in the Hapsburg dominion - and were one of the reasons for Franz Josef being wary of allowing a fully parlaimentary government from being formed.

Gee, what were the others? So let me see if I got this straight... you're saying an autocracy is sometimes preferable to self-rule. Is that about right? It sure sounds like it. Further, I think this is about the first time I've heard Franz Joaeph described as a "benevolent dictator" -- at least by someone other than a Hapsburg, or a supporter of the Hapsburgs (then again, maybe it hasn't happened yet, lol!). I've heard Franz Joseph described as weak, and incompetent, and heading a corrupt regime rife with nepotism and cronyism, but never a benevolent dictator.

One could argue the same thing about the Ottomans. Except in their case much of their empire was taken over by the Brits, who eventually carved it up without regard to ethic demography -- much to Lawrence of Arabia's dismay.

And that has certainly made things exceedingly difficult for us, even if we hadn't screwed up for so long. At any rate, while I tend to agree that hard partitioning Iraq is likely to be a bad idea, there hasn't been much good news on the reconciliation front, either. Did you hear about this? I'm not talking about the suicide bomb. That's tragic. But this part could have greater implications: 11 tribal sheiks and a Shiite Muslim cleric were abducted on their way from Baghdad to their homes near Baqubah in Diyala province. The Sunni and Shiite sheiks, who have formed a grass-roots group to fight the presence of Islamist militants in their region, were returning from a meeting in the U.S.-protected Green Zone, according to Iraqi police. They were intercepted by gunmen in sedans after passing through a checkpoint as they left the capital.

Ricorun,

Franz Josef wasn't a dictator - but he was rather benevolent. To be sure, when he first came to the throne as an immature youth in 1848, he had pretensions of being the all-powerful autocrat...this notion was rather swiftly disposed of by various defeats military and political. It should be kept in mind that Franz Josef worked with a parlaiment through most of his reign...two of them, actually: one in Vienna, the other in Budapest. He wanted very much to give the democratic politicians their chance, but they kept on mucking it up - he held the reigns in his hands because without him, the parts would tear at each other mercilessly (as they were, indeed, to do once he and his monarchy were removed).

As for the cronyism and corruption - it was a government, ya know? Show me one where there isn't corruption and cronyism.

As for incompetance: that is an absurd accusation to make against him. Certainly, he let slip the dogs of war, but by that time (1914), he had been on the throne for 66 years, was very old and was tired unto death. The real responsibility for that was his ministers - all of whom arose out of democratic institutions, save for the command of the army and the foreign ministry. He kept things together and he made things work - not work perfectly, but work all the same...and the power vacuum created when shortsighted statesment dismantled his empire was a catastrophe both for the peoples of the empire, and for the world as a whole.

When considering the history of the world, the first step is to free the mind of cant, and after that is done go over things carefully with a mind to spotting the war propaganda which has slipped unchallenged into the historical record.

Mark: To be sure, when he first came to the throne as an immature youth in 1848, he had pretensions of being the all-powerful autocrat...this notion was rather swiftly disposed of by various defeats military and political.

Therein lies the key, I think. What you're basically saying is that the Hapsburg's hold on power was already disintegrating 60 years or more before WWI, which is true. There were calmer periods and stormier periods along the way but, generally speaking, waves of nationalism were sweeping all of Europe in that time. The causes were numerous, but one of the fundamental ones was a rising "middle" or mercantile class, fueled by industrialization, with rising economic power but largely shut out from real political power. It was a pretty hectic time. The French monarchy was the first to go, but by the end of WWI, they were essentially all gone. Sure, there were vestiges here and there, but for the most part they are exceptions that prove the rule: in any place of any consequence the monarchies became increasingly titular. At any rate, the aftermath in many places certainly wasn't pretty. The alternatives people latched onto were sometimes even more unsavory -- they were just authoritarianism in another guise. But there was, nonetheless, something different: power was not ordained by right of birth. As monarchies fell, if you wanted to be a tyrant you had to work at it.

He kept things together and he made things work - not work perfectly, but work all the same...and the power vacuum created when shortsighted statesment dismantled his empire was a catastrophe both for the peoples of the empire, and for the world as a whole.

Quite so. But it was nonetheless inevitable. And it is certainly not atypical -- once an established hierarchy is toppled a power vacuum is often created. You caution me to "When considering the history of the world, the first step is to free the mind of cant..." I ask of you the same. I suspect you have a certain affinity for the Hapsburg Empire because they claimed for themselves the mantel of the Holy Roman Empire, and established Roman Catholicism as its official religion. That appears to be your cant. But look around the world -- what happened to the Hapsburgs is not at all unusual, except that there were a number of powerful outside influences ready to prey on the internal turmoil. Generally speaking though, it works like this: first internal dissent rises to the point where the existing regime becomes unstable. Second, the regime is swept out (sometimes assisted by external forces, sometimes not), leading to a power vacuum where various groups vie for influence. Third, (again sometimes assisted by external forces, sometimes not) either one group succeeds in consolidating control over the whole, or the whole breaks apart, usually along ethnic lines. Some of those ethnic divisions prefer to join neighboring nations of similar heritage, sometimes they prefer to go it alone. The same general pattern happened in France, in Russia, in the Ottoman Empire, in Spain, in Germany, in Italy, in China, in Afghanistan, in Iran, in Cambodia, and plenty of other places -- as well as Austria-Hungary. Then it happened in Yugoslavia. Essentially the same dynamic is occurring now in Iraq, in Lebanon, and perhaps in Pakistan. Sometimes the general sequence can be circumvented by a dominant force or a dominant personality (or group of personalities): e.g., our founding fathers, Kamal Attaturk, or Gandhi -- or the Allied forces in the case of Germany, and Japan. Let's hope it works in Iraq.

Let's hope it works in Iraq

That was written well.

What is your métier?

BuyRubles: What is your métier?

I guess you could call me a free-lance scientist. My training is in neuroscience, but I don't work at a university anymore. Instead I have a small company that produces software and some hardware for biomedical basic research. I also moonlight sometimes for the government. History and to a lesser extent philosophy are avocations. In that respect I mostly concentrate on western thought and civilization, but I generalize somewhat.

How about you?

Ricorun,

I'll still say it was not inevitible. That is rather like reading history as a "because it happened so, it must necessarily have happened so". That is a determinist view of history which I reject because I am a believer in free will.

Fundamentally, the Empire fell because it lost a war to nations which thought ruling dynasties inherently wrong. Call it the tail end of the old "progressive" era when it was thought that the cure for whatever ailes you in politics was more and more democracy. There were varied results on this line of thinking - the direct election of US Senators in the United States, the termination or the Lord's ability to veto in Great Britain, are prime examples of this concept that if we could just get a broader count of noses, all would be made well - liberalism's apogee, as it were...based on liberalism's flawed view of the inherent goodness of mankind. Of course, I am of the other opinion - the Judeo-Christian opinion: humanity is inherently perverse, and has been since the Fall and will be until Our Lord returns and sets things right.

Given the nature of humanity, I don't support democracy because I think that we'll get wisdom from the mass of people, but that the mass of people are necessary as a corrective to the elite - both sides of the equation are just as likely to be wrong, but the more people involved the less likely we're to have a complete screw up.

A more far-seeing statesmanship would have secured a unitary Hapsburg empire - certainly with more democracy, but with the central authority maintained as a check upon popular passions.