In the midst of our current orgiastic paroxysm of vitriolic fervor over "history in the making" and (to quote the SF Chronicle,) seeing the coming of the "Jackie Robinson of politics," the Geek has to say, "Bah. Humbug."
Pace the recent pap from the current incumbent of the Oval, democracy is not what has made the US a great country. If George W. Bush wants complete refutation of his paean to the glories of elections he need look no further then himself.
The American style of democracy has tossed up some great leaders. Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower and Truman all come to mind. The country has survived, even flourished through the administrations of many, many lesser sorts. Names such as Harrison, Fillmore, Buchanan (no, not Patrick), Cleveland, Taft, Harding, Clinton and oh so many others are to be found on that list.
We have flirted with disaster when the elections tossed up men such as Wilson, Kennedy, Nixon, and H. W. Bush. We have even muddled our way through the overstretched ambitions of such as Lydon Johnson and Ronald Reagan.
George W. Bush occupies a special niche, a unique place in the results of democracy. With W. We the People managed to twice put a one man disaster area into the Oval. Never before has the electoral process produced such a result.
The manipulations of political operators and the skills of image creators convinced enough of us to put a man of such overweening arrogance and ineptitude into office. We were cozened in sufficient numbers to elevate a mediocre governor of a state where the term "hardball" is way too soft to describe the nature of the political game to the presidency.
No sooner were the votes (including those of the Supreme Court) counted then he surrounded himself with a coterie of ideologically driven cretins. The combined effect of W. and his neocon ninnie crew has been to plunge the world into economic chaos and involve our country in two unnecessary and unnecessarily prolonged wars.
As if that wasn't enough the bunch went on to warp the powers of the Executive Branch so as to make it a clear and present danger to each and every one of us. Finally, the current administration has sought successfully to distort the relation of government and business to a point which uncannily resembles the corporate state of the fascist countries of seventy years ago.
Admittedly, the numbers show that most of us had nothing to do with the debacle. We either voted for the other guy or we sat on our hands. Still, all of us are and will continue to pay the price for the sins of a minority.
We the People ought to get a grip on that reality.
This is important since from all the signs of MSM and pollsters alike we are about to do it again. We are about to admit through our votes that the spinners of image and the weavers of (specious) truth have manipulated our myths and emotions. We seem on the verge of electing an ideologue without experience but with both great ambition and a powerful commitment to a particular social/economic/political worldview and agenda.
The man, of course, is the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama.
From his mentors and advisers, speeches and votes we know that Senator Obama is, in European terms, a Left Socialist. We also know that the senator has little, if any, knowledge of how international affairs and national security policy might best be formulated and conducted.
In a real sense, the Obama embrace of the Left Socialist view of economic and social justice bothers the Geek less than his intellectual bankruptcy in foreign affairs. The reason for this is simple. The Republican, Senator McCain is a Right Socialist.
In American political terms both the Right and Left Socialists along with the "Center Socialists" of both parties are the descendants of the most pervasive and arguably pernicious political doctrine in US history--Progressive Interventionists. (Interventionist in this context does not mean intervening in the affairs of other countries but rather the direct intervening by government into the personal decision making of the individual citizen.)
Interventionist Progressivism arose from the late 19th Century Progressive movement. Progressivism was (and is) inherently elitist. But, the interventionist form outstrips its progenitor.
The progressives believed sincerely that the government could and should operate in a way such that the quality of life for each individual citizen would be improved materially, intellectually and even spiritually. At first, the belief expressed itself through emphasizing the role of government in regulating the worst abuses of corporate economic power and providing expert instruction to the individual in how to live better, healthier, more fulfilling lives.
When it became apparent that while government regulation could provide some admittedly limited benefits in the quality of individuals' lives, the educational orientation had failed. People kept making poor choices, bad decisions and suffering the consequences.
The interventionist progressive program emerged in fits and starts from just before World War I over the next three quarters of a century. The interventionist belief was and is that government must act directly upon the citizen to ensure that he cannot make bad choices, bad decisions and suffer the consequences.
Another, more recent term of British origin which epitomises the goal of the interventionist progressive perfectly is "Nanny State." Senator Obama is dedicated to the Nanny State both in principle and in practice.
That scares the Geek more than the harsh metallic click unexpectedly heard in the thick bush deep in hostile territory ever did. The Geek could take action to protect himself against the bullets which would shortly follow the metallic click. He (and you) can do little if anything to counter the threat of the all-embracing, warm, protecting (and stifling) arms of the Nanny State.
Senator Obama, in common with all interventionist progressives, undoubtedly is of the view that J.S. Mills' definition of state coercion being limited to the protection of the individual from direct, material and substantial harm resulting from actions of another is hopelessly outdated. Reactionary horse-and-buggy thinking.
They are, of course, wrong from a historical perspective in maintaining that limited government is bad government. This is every bit as anti-historical and anti-reality as George W. Bush's hosanna to democracy.
What brought America greatness both in the past and the present has been the willingness to take risks, and to learn from failures. To learn from experience and profit from what has been learned. To pursue happiness without the let or hindrance of government provided only that one's pursuit did not directly, substantially and materially harm another.
Exacerbating the ideological toxin of the current brand of interventionist progressivism is its affection for High Minded ideals such as ending global poverty or talking without preconditions with people who believe that they are absolutely in the right to stone thirteen year old rape victims and kill for "honor."
To enter the mindset of the High Minded, the True Believers in cultural and moral relativism, one must be a member of the elite. The High Minded True Believer cannot concern him or herself with the mundane realities which preoccupy the hoi polloi. To be a High Minded True Believer one must place one's self in some sort of perverted Platonic universe where the abstract is important and the grubby realities of the world and its peoples irrelevant.
Senator Obama's statements as well as those of so many of his most vocal supporters show a remarkable unwillingness or inability to live in the world of real people. In this respect the Senator and his ilk are joined shoulder and hip with their ideological opponents of the current administration.
Neither Obama nor Bush are able or willing to take the world and people as both actually are. Obama, like Bush, insists upon imposing an absolutely rigid ideological framework upon the lives and works of humanity in all its varied and opposing forms.
Bush spelled disaster because of this reality.
Obama in the Oval will do the same. For the same reason. Ideology over all else.
Get a grip on that.
Showing posts with label presidential race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label presidential race. Show all posts
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
To Tell The Truth Means To Be Attacked
Otero county is a sparsely populated area in south-central New Mexico best known as the home of the White Sands and (for those who are fans of nuclear history) Trinity Site. Other than that it is a place of nothing but miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles. Actually a goodly portion of the county reminds the Geek of the Arabian Peninsula and the vast emptiness of western Iraq.
Otero county is the sort of place where nothing much happens. Its major town, Alamagordo, is not noted as a culture medium for controversy.
Because of these factors the Geek was shocked when Otero county became the dateline for a series of stories relating to the presidential campaign.
It seems that Marcia Stirman, the head of the county Republican Women's Federation wrote a letter to the Alamagordo newspaper laying out nearly twenty reasons why she is a Republican. Most of them were standard conservative boilerplate regarding guns, lower taxes and personal responsibility. Totally unexceptional ya-dah, ya-dah.
She did make two statements which some have found both exceptional and objectionable. One of these was, "I believe Muslims are our enemies." The other denied that Senator Obama is "a messiah or a democrat."
Ms Stirman concluded by averring that in her view the junior Senator from Illinois is "a Muslim and a socialist."
The Geek takes the Senator at his word and accepts that he is not and never has been (at least in post-pubescence) a Muslim. The statement that the Senator is a socialist is accurate and should not disturb anyone, particularly the supporters of Mr Obama.
The Geek is unconcerned over the concluding statement in Ms Stirman's profession of faith. His interest is in her animadversion, "I believe Muslims are our enemies."
Ms Stirman's view brought a heated response from Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of the Council on American-islamic Relations (CAIR). He characterised the Stirman statement of opinon as "hate-filled remarks," and demanded that state and national Republican party officials "repudiate her divisive and intolerant views."
Stirman did not hang her head in shame and scuff the dust of the Otero county corral with the toe of her boot in proper aw-shucks, I've been a bad, bad girl manner. Not on your bippy. The interior decorator told the Las Cruces Sun, "...if the Islamic group doesn't like it, well, I don't like what's going on in their camp either."
OpEd News and the Huffington Post have ridden into the New Mexico desert on a search and distroy mission aimed at Ms Stirman. The posse would be joined by other stalwarts of the Left if there was time enough before the election.
Why all this concern over one woman's opinion? Why all the burrs under all sorts of saddles considering the words were in a letter to the editor in a very minor newspaper in the wide marches of a very large state?
The Geek cannot help but see this dust-up as one more sign of a very alarming and very large exercise in intellectual bankruptcy which has affected not only the US but Western Europe and other countries as well. Individually and collectively we have been and continue to be unwilling or unable to recognise that Ms Stirman's characterization of Islam is correct.
Notice. The Geek made one small but critical change in Ms Stirman's indictment. He wrote "Islam" in place of her word, "Muslims." Muslims, like members of other religions come in assorted sizes.
Some are nominal, cultural, occasional. They like their religion lite.
Other take their religion full strength. Full bore. Pedal to the metal.
The core of Islam, the Quran, the Hidith, the Sira demand that the the Message of the Prophet be taken without any dilution. The core of the belief system demands full and complete acceptance of and submission to the word of Allah as transmitted to the Prophet by the angel Gabriel. Anything less than that, anything less than the whole-hearted attempt to emulate the life of the "perfect man," Mohammad, is apostasy.
Islam admits of no compromise. It allows no adulteration. Islam is not open to attenuating interpretation. It is as harsh, stark and forbidding as the land of the desert that gave it birth.
Islam demands unending struggle against the infidels living in what the religion terms the "House of War." It demands as well an unending struggle against the apostates living in the House of Islam.
When our government searches for the "moderate" Muslim it is actually looking for the apostate. The Good, True Muslim cannot be moderate and adhere to the severe requirements of his religion.
Islam is not and cannot be as George W. Bush and other well-intentioned but totally gripless people have asserted, "the religion of peace." Peace can only come when and if the entire human race submits to the requirements of Islam. Period.
Islam, the Islam of the Quran, the Hidith, the Sira, the Islam of al-Qaeda, Taliban and the Islamists generally as well as those who quietly, tacitly offer support demands war in the name of Allah against the unbelievers, be they Christians, Jews, idolaters or whatever. Good and True Muslims accept the requirement for unending jihad against the House of War.
Islam is the unending enemy of every belief which underpins not only the West in general but the United States in particular. Islam is against all that is at the center of what makes us us. It is an enemy without rest, without mercy and without any chance of negotiated compromise.
With this as context, another question comes to mind. Why the extreme unwillingness to acknowledge the inherent hostility between Islam and us?
The short, misleading answer is political correctness. The use of this term is misleading because it ignores the historical background which resulted in the creation of the concept by those of us who came of age during the Cold War and its hot expression in Southeast Asia.
Those of us born during the Forties and Fifties spent our childhoods in the most chilling winds of the Cold War. We were indoctrinated to fear and loath the "commies." We were assured that these "commies" were the worst lying, god-hating, rape loving, freedom killing spawn of hell ever to have crept from the abysmal depths of human depravity.
It was the worst sort of rhetorical overkill. The Great Anti-Communist Crusade of the post-World War II era was overblown, overdrawn and overdone. It is small wonder that the generation which was the focus of these 'protective" actions by government, church and school reacted against the America-Is-Supremely-Good, Commies-Are-All-Evil message of our early years.
More than a few members of this generation hoped, vowed to be different from and better than their parents. This generation would not be so quick to judge. So eager to brand as evil and wrong beliefs that differed from ours. This generation would be tolerant.
No. It would be more than merely tolerant. It would be accepting. It would seek to embrace those who were different. It would welcome all views, all beliefs--even those antipodal to our own.
Can we say, "multi-culturalism?" Can we say, "cultural relativism?" Can we say, "moral relativism?"
Some of this generation, in the main those who have become members of the self-ascribed elite of politicians, journalists, academics and chattering class adherents in general went further than this. Their view became increasingly distorted as the decade of the Sixties wore on along with that long-ago, endless war in Asia and the seemingly futile struggle for economic, social, political and racial "justice" here at home.
This Amphyctony of the Disenchanted came to view America and the ideas or ideals which gave rise to the country as being inherently evil. In their eyes the US must withdraw from the world less the world suffer more from us. From their perspective the US must pay penance to the world as well as the wretched in our midst.
In sum, this Amphyctony of the Disenchanted agreed and agree with the Iranian mullahocracy: The US is the Great Satan.
This world view admits of no alternative to acceptance of the Muslim critique. It forces the conclusion that Islam is "the religion of peace," regardless of the words of the Quran, the Hidith or the life of the sociopath who elevated himself to the role of Final Prophet.
The world view of the Disenchanted provides the rich and fertile soil for the Muslim Brotherhood and its spin-offs such as CAIR to engage in the Islam-validated concept of war by "every stratagem" including lying. It demands ignoring the nature of Islam.
The Soviet Union may have lost the Cold War. The Soviet Union may exist no longer.
But, get a grip on this, the most horrible legacy of the fifty years of that "victorious" fight against the Kremlin soldiers on. The fanaticism of the counter-subversive anti-Communist Crusaders has bred another fanaticism. The convictions of the Disenchanted which open the US to a long term defeat by the Good and True Muslims marching under the sword emblazoned green banner of Islamism.
Ms Stirman's sin was recognising that--and writing it.
Poorly worded as her charge may have been, she was correct. To deny that is to claim that ignorance is bliss.
While ignorance may be blissful, it is also the door marked, "Defeat."
Otero county is the sort of place where nothing much happens. Its major town, Alamagordo, is not noted as a culture medium for controversy.
Because of these factors the Geek was shocked when Otero county became the dateline for a series of stories relating to the presidential campaign.
It seems that Marcia Stirman, the head of the county Republican Women's Federation wrote a letter to the Alamagordo newspaper laying out nearly twenty reasons why she is a Republican. Most of them were standard conservative boilerplate regarding guns, lower taxes and personal responsibility. Totally unexceptional ya-dah, ya-dah.
She did make two statements which some have found both exceptional and objectionable. One of these was, "I believe Muslims are our enemies." The other denied that Senator Obama is "a messiah or a democrat."
Ms Stirman concluded by averring that in her view the junior Senator from Illinois is "a Muslim and a socialist."
The Geek takes the Senator at his word and accepts that he is not and never has been (at least in post-pubescence) a Muslim. The statement that the Senator is a socialist is accurate and should not disturb anyone, particularly the supporters of Mr Obama.
The Geek is unconcerned over the concluding statement in Ms Stirman's profession of faith. His interest is in her animadversion, "I believe Muslims are our enemies."
Ms Stirman's view brought a heated response from Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of the Council on American-islamic Relations (CAIR). He characterised the Stirman statement of opinon as "hate-filled remarks," and demanded that state and national Republican party officials "repudiate her divisive and intolerant views."
Stirman did not hang her head in shame and scuff the dust of the Otero county corral with the toe of her boot in proper aw-shucks, I've been a bad, bad girl manner. Not on your bippy. The interior decorator told the Las Cruces Sun, "...if the Islamic group doesn't like it, well, I don't like what's going on in their camp either."
OpEd News and the Huffington Post have ridden into the New Mexico desert on a search and distroy mission aimed at Ms Stirman. The posse would be joined by other stalwarts of the Left if there was time enough before the election.
Why all this concern over one woman's opinion? Why all the burrs under all sorts of saddles considering the words were in a letter to the editor in a very minor newspaper in the wide marches of a very large state?
The Geek cannot help but see this dust-up as one more sign of a very alarming and very large exercise in intellectual bankruptcy which has affected not only the US but Western Europe and other countries as well. Individually and collectively we have been and continue to be unwilling or unable to recognise that Ms Stirman's characterization of Islam is correct.
Notice. The Geek made one small but critical change in Ms Stirman's indictment. He wrote "Islam" in place of her word, "Muslims." Muslims, like members of other religions come in assorted sizes.
Some are nominal, cultural, occasional. They like their religion lite.
Other take their religion full strength. Full bore. Pedal to the metal.
The core of Islam, the Quran, the Hidith, the Sira demand that the the Message of the Prophet be taken without any dilution. The core of the belief system demands full and complete acceptance of and submission to the word of Allah as transmitted to the Prophet by the angel Gabriel. Anything less than that, anything less than the whole-hearted attempt to emulate the life of the "perfect man," Mohammad, is apostasy.
Islam admits of no compromise. It allows no adulteration. Islam is not open to attenuating interpretation. It is as harsh, stark and forbidding as the land of the desert that gave it birth.
Islam demands unending struggle against the infidels living in what the religion terms the "House of War." It demands as well an unending struggle against the apostates living in the House of Islam.
When our government searches for the "moderate" Muslim it is actually looking for the apostate. The Good, True Muslim cannot be moderate and adhere to the severe requirements of his religion.
Islam is not and cannot be as George W. Bush and other well-intentioned but totally gripless people have asserted, "the religion of peace." Peace can only come when and if the entire human race submits to the requirements of Islam. Period.
Islam, the Islam of the Quran, the Hidith, the Sira, the Islam of al-Qaeda, Taliban and the Islamists generally as well as those who quietly, tacitly offer support demands war in the name of Allah against the unbelievers, be they Christians, Jews, idolaters or whatever. Good and True Muslims accept the requirement for unending jihad against the House of War.
Islam is the unending enemy of every belief which underpins not only the West in general but the United States in particular. Islam is against all that is at the center of what makes us us. It is an enemy without rest, without mercy and without any chance of negotiated compromise.
With this as context, another question comes to mind. Why the extreme unwillingness to acknowledge the inherent hostility between Islam and us?
The short, misleading answer is political correctness. The use of this term is misleading because it ignores the historical background which resulted in the creation of the concept by those of us who came of age during the Cold War and its hot expression in Southeast Asia.
Those of us born during the Forties and Fifties spent our childhoods in the most chilling winds of the Cold War. We were indoctrinated to fear and loath the "commies." We were assured that these "commies" were the worst lying, god-hating, rape loving, freedom killing spawn of hell ever to have crept from the abysmal depths of human depravity.
It was the worst sort of rhetorical overkill. The Great Anti-Communist Crusade of the post-World War II era was overblown, overdrawn and overdone. It is small wonder that the generation which was the focus of these 'protective" actions by government, church and school reacted against the America-Is-Supremely-Good, Commies-Are-All-Evil message of our early years.
More than a few members of this generation hoped, vowed to be different from and better than their parents. This generation would not be so quick to judge. So eager to brand as evil and wrong beliefs that differed from ours. This generation would be tolerant.
No. It would be more than merely tolerant. It would be accepting. It would seek to embrace those who were different. It would welcome all views, all beliefs--even those antipodal to our own.
Can we say, "multi-culturalism?" Can we say, "cultural relativism?" Can we say, "moral relativism?"
Some of this generation, in the main those who have become members of the self-ascribed elite of politicians, journalists, academics and chattering class adherents in general went further than this. Their view became increasingly distorted as the decade of the Sixties wore on along with that long-ago, endless war in Asia and the seemingly futile struggle for economic, social, political and racial "justice" here at home.
This Amphyctony of the Disenchanted came to view America and the ideas or ideals which gave rise to the country as being inherently evil. In their eyes the US must withdraw from the world less the world suffer more from us. From their perspective the US must pay penance to the world as well as the wretched in our midst.
In sum, this Amphyctony of the Disenchanted agreed and agree with the Iranian mullahocracy: The US is the Great Satan.
This world view admits of no alternative to acceptance of the Muslim critique. It forces the conclusion that Islam is "the religion of peace," regardless of the words of the Quran, the Hidith or the life of the sociopath who elevated himself to the role of Final Prophet.
The world view of the Disenchanted provides the rich and fertile soil for the Muslim Brotherhood and its spin-offs such as CAIR to engage in the Islam-validated concept of war by "every stratagem" including lying. It demands ignoring the nature of Islam.
The Soviet Union may have lost the Cold War. The Soviet Union may exist no longer.
But, get a grip on this, the most horrible legacy of the fifty years of that "victorious" fight against the Kremlin soldiers on. The fanaticism of the counter-subversive anti-Communist Crusaders has bred another fanaticism. The convictions of the Disenchanted which open the US to a long term defeat by the Good and True Muslims marching under the sword emblazoned green banner of Islamism.
Ms Stirman's sin was recognising that--and writing it.
Poorly worded as her charge may have been, she was correct. To deny that is to claim that ignorance is bliss.
While ignorance may be blissful, it is also the door marked, "Defeat."
Sunday, October 19, 2008
It's The Economy, Stupid!
We the People may hope that life is that simple. The politicos may fervently wish that the next four years will revolve around the economy alone. Even the MSM may wish to pretend that life is so one dimensional that economic man will occupy its attention to the exclusion of all else.
Heck, wouldn't that be nice? In comparison to foreign affairs and national security policy, economic matters--even the collapse of major banks--seems so simple. It's all a matter of money. And, money is just so manageable. Right?
Sure, spending money is easy. Appropriating money is easy as well. Collecting money is harder, but not so hard as solving foreign policy dilemmas.
The Geek has to admit it would be enjoyable for him if the world would simply go away for a few years. He has a backlog of books to read. And, he has gotten bored with watching the same global problems rise up every day defying the solution du jour from the Inside-the-Beltway deep thinkers.
The truth is the real world won't let us alone. Foreign affairs won't go away and leave us to feel our way out of the fiscal fog.
The Mideast is not going to suddenly break out in peace. The dove will not become the national bird of Israel. Nor will the symbol of peace replace the sword on assorted Arab flags. Hamas will not morph into the Woodstock Nation.
The US has accomplished its minimum strategic goal in Iraq. Our forces can withdraw without the odor of defeat attaching itself to our boots.
Beyond that one more-or-less happy thought, life for the next president will be demanding in the region. Unless we wish to continence defeat, more troops must be deployed to and die in Afghanistan. Reaching the minimum strategic goal of "not-losing" will be harder in Afghanistan than it was in Iraq. Not only is Pakistan a coterminous state, so also is Iran. The potential for Iranian proxy efforts in Afghanistan is lesser than it has been in Iraq due to the Sunni-Shia habit of mutual distaste. Still the Iranian proximity will be unhelpful. Equally unhelpful is the world wide appetite for Afghanistan's number one commodity--opium. (OK, to err on the side of accuracy, it's not the opium but the refined products of the poppy.)
Nor is it likely that Iran is going to join the ranks of adult, responsible global citizens. The mullahocracy is unlikely to discontinue its support for insurgents in Iraq, or Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas. It is not probable that the Iranians will abandon their quest for the bomb, particularly as they can continue to count on the PRC running interference for them.
Before anyone decides that North Korea can be relegated to the category of "no problem," we have to note that the recently agreed to (for the umpteenth time) framework, does not address the Hermit Kingdom of the North's highly enriched uranium production efforts. This means that even if the Northerners turn over a full and accurate accounting of every decigram of plutonium produced and even surrenders their stockpile to adult supervision, the denizens running the NKPA will continue to have the capacity to pursue bomb making.
Russia has problems. Lots of them. Economy and demography are among the number. So also is the running sore of separatist movements. A test launch of a new ICBM in no way addresses the larger scale deficiencies of the Russian military and the infrastructure which supports it.
In spite of its difficulties and arguably because of them, Russia may well become more of a global bad boy in the next few years. The US will have to deal with Russia realistically and hardheadedly. No more looking the Russian leader in the eyes and discerning some sort of hidden truth there as W. Bush apparently did.
If all those threats and challenges seem too far from home to concern us, then look down south. Hugo Chavez not only dislikes the US intensely (to put it mildly), he has donned the mantle once worn by Fidel Castro. Chavez intends to tweak the beard of Uncle Sam as often and hard as he can. To this end he has not only embarked upon an unprecedented arms purchasing campaign, but has joined hands with Hezbollah and Iran. Chavez and his running buddies, the jefes of Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua, are not inclined to make small plans in their opposition to the Colossus of the North, Neither are they the kind to back down without genuine cause.
Still too far from home to worry you, bucko? Then try Mexico. The shooting war between the drug gangs as well as between the gangsters and the government has made the Land Down South one of the most deadly environments in the world. Over the years there has been a strong tendency for violence and disruption in Mexico to spill over into the US. The Great Fence of Presumed Security is not likely to stop this predilection.
Mexico too far away? Jest kaint get all that fired up over what those taco benders are doing? Well, matey, how about the following
The US national debt is very large. Is all of it owed to Americans? No. Quite a bit of it is owed to foreigners. Quite a bit is held by Sovereign Wealth Funds. Some of those are controlled by states whose governments are not all that favorably inclined toward the US and its policy goals.
(Can we say, for example, Peoples Republic of China? Or, how about repeating after the Geek, "House of Saud?")
A diplomatically phrased but no less menacing version of, "Remember, boy, we hold your note," can have a significant inhibitory impact upon US policy initiatives.
OK, to again err on the side of accuracy, foreign ownership of US notes can do far more than simply inhibit policy demarches, but you get the point. The net effect of the current financial market morass will be a significant increase in national indebtedness. Much of that increase will end in the hands of foreign governments.
Then there is that old standby, foreign oil. Unless and until We the People and those who purportedly represent us in Congress and the Oval resolve to "drill, ye terriers, drill" in order to buy the time necessary to develop new and better forms of energy prime movers whether nuclear, clean coal or renewable, the US remains to some extent at the policy and self-interest mercy of foreign states.
This has been a (necessarily) abbreviated tour of the horizon. It should have been enough to illustrate the accuracy of the Geek's contention: The next administration will be a foreign policy oriented administration.
We have seen what can happen to our nation and its place in the world under an administration more controlled by ideology than a strong sense of realpolitik. We cannot afford another ideologically driven regime.
We cannot afford another Cheney. We cannot afford another loyal water carrier like Condy Rice. We cannot afford more ninnies whether neocon or progressive.
We have also seen what happens to our role in the world under an administration which was naive about foreign policy. The Clinton Administration was both naive and uninterested in foreign and national security matters. Beyond that, the President lacked experience and thus moral authority to deal with the senior military establishment.
We and our nation will not do well with another group of naive and disinterested folks in and near the Oval. Remember, we've been there. Done it. Have the scars to prove it.
The polls and the MSM to say nothing of most of the Gang of Five Hundred urge the Geek to accept the political reality. The Geek is urged by all other than Joe the Plumber to accept and embrace the coming of the Obama administration.
The Geek can accept much. Embrace much. Life and war have taught him the necessity of doing so. He is unwilling to embrace the prospect of more years of failure for our nation. Sixteen years of naivete, of ideology, of blown opportunities is enough.
Elections over the past forty years have more often than not revolved around choosing the lesser of two evils. This time around, for the first time in eight years the Geek must choose the Republicans. He must hope that change means less ideology and more realism in both foreign and economic policy--the inseparable twins.
He can only hope that enough people go along with the same choice.
Heck, wouldn't that be nice? In comparison to foreign affairs and national security policy, economic matters--even the collapse of major banks--seems so simple. It's all a matter of money. And, money is just so manageable. Right?
Sure, spending money is easy. Appropriating money is easy as well. Collecting money is harder, but not so hard as solving foreign policy dilemmas.
The Geek has to admit it would be enjoyable for him if the world would simply go away for a few years. He has a backlog of books to read. And, he has gotten bored with watching the same global problems rise up every day defying the solution du jour from the Inside-the-Beltway deep thinkers.
The truth is the real world won't let us alone. Foreign affairs won't go away and leave us to feel our way out of the fiscal fog.
The Mideast is not going to suddenly break out in peace. The dove will not become the national bird of Israel. Nor will the symbol of peace replace the sword on assorted Arab flags. Hamas will not morph into the Woodstock Nation.
The US has accomplished its minimum strategic goal in Iraq. Our forces can withdraw without the odor of defeat attaching itself to our boots.
Beyond that one more-or-less happy thought, life for the next president will be demanding in the region. Unless we wish to continence defeat, more troops must be deployed to and die in Afghanistan. Reaching the minimum strategic goal of "not-losing" will be harder in Afghanistan than it was in Iraq. Not only is Pakistan a coterminous state, so also is Iran. The potential for Iranian proxy efforts in Afghanistan is lesser than it has been in Iraq due to the Sunni-Shia habit of mutual distaste. Still the Iranian proximity will be unhelpful. Equally unhelpful is the world wide appetite for Afghanistan's number one commodity--opium. (OK, to err on the side of accuracy, it's not the opium but the refined products of the poppy.)
Nor is it likely that Iran is going to join the ranks of adult, responsible global citizens. The mullahocracy is unlikely to discontinue its support for insurgents in Iraq, or Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas. It is not probable that the Iranians will abandon their quest for the bomb, particularly as they can continue to count on the PRC running interference for them.
Before anyone decides that North Korea can be relegated to the category of "no problem," we have to note that the recently agreed to (for the umpteenth time) framework, does not address the Hermit Kingdom of the North's highly enriched uranium production efforts. This means that even if the Northerners turn over a full and accurate accounting of every decigram of plutonium produced and even surrenders their stockpile to adult supervision, the denizens running the NKPA will continue to have the capacity to pursue bomb making.
Russia has problems. Lots of them. Economy and demography are among the number. So also is the running sore of separatist movements. A test launch of a new ICBM in no way addresses the larger scale deficiencies of the Russian military and the infrastructure which supports it.
In spite of its difficulties and arguably because of them, Russia may well become more of a global bad boy in the next few years. The US will have to deal with Russia realistically and hardheadedly. No more looking the Russian leader in the eyes and discerning some sort of hidden truth there as W. Bush apparently did.
If all those threats and challenges seem too far from home to concern us, then look down south. Hugo Chavez not only dislikes the US intensely (to put it mildly), he has donned the mantle once worn by Fidel Castro. Chavez intends to tweak the beard of Uncle Sam as often and hard as he can. To this end he has not only embarked upon an unprecedented arms purchasing campaign, but has joined hands with Hezbollah and Iran. Chavez and his running buddies, the jefes of Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua, are not inclined to make small plans in their opposition to the Colossus of the North, Neither are they the kind to back down without genuine cause.
Still too far from home to worry you, bucko? Then try Mexico. The shooting war between the drug gangs as well as between the gangsters and the government has made the Land Down South one of the most deadly environments in the world. Over the years there has been a strong tendency for violence and disruption in Mexico to spill over into the US. The Great Fence of Presumed Security is not likely to stop this predilection.
Mexico too far away? Jest kaint get all that fired up over what those taco benders are doing? Well, matey, how about the following
The US national debt is very large. Is all of it owed to Americans? No. Quite a bit of it is owed to foreigners. Quite a bit is held by Sovereign Wealth Funds. Some of those are controlled by states whose governments are not all that favorably inclined toward the US and its policy goals.
(Can we say, for example, Peoples Republic of China? Or, how about repeating after the Geek, "House of Saud?")
A diplomatically phrased but no less menacing version of, "Remember, boy, we hold your note," can have a significant inhibitory impact upon US policy initiatives.
OK, to again err on the side of accuracy, foreign ownership of US notes can do far more than simply inhibit policy demarches, but you get the point. The net effect of the current financial market morass will be a significant increase in national indebtedness. Much of that increase will end in the hands of foreign governments.
Then there is that old standby, foreign oil. Unless and until We the People and those who purportedly represent us in Congress and the Oval resolve to "drill, ye terriers, drill" in order to buy the time necessary to develop new and better forms of energy prime movers whether nuclear, clean coal or renewable, the US remains to some extent at the policy and self-interest mercy of foreign states.
This has been a (necessarily) abbreviated tour of the horizon. It should have been enough to illustrate the accuracy of the Geek's contention: The next administration will be a foreign policy oriented administration.
We have seen what can happen to our nation and its place in the world under an administration more controlled by ideology than a strong sense of realpolitik. We cannot afford another ideologically driven regime.
We cannot afford another Cheney. We cannot afford another loyal water carrier like Condy Rice. We cannot afford more ninnies whether neocon or progressive.
We have also seen what happens to our role in the world under an administration which was naive about foreign policy. The Clinton Administration was both naive and uninterested in foreign and national security matters. Beyond that, the President lacked experience and thus moral authority to deal with the senior military establishment.
We and our nation will not do well with another group of naive and disinterested folks in and near the Oval. Remember, we've been there. Done it. Have the scars to prove it.
The polls and the MSM to say nothing of most of the Gang of Five Hundred urge the Geek to accept the political reality. The Geek is urged by all other than Joe the Plumber to accept and embrace the coming of the Obama administration.
The Geek can accept much. Embrace much. Life and war have taught him the necessity of doing so. He is unwilling to embrace the prospect of more years of failure for our nation. Sixteen years of naivete, of ideology, of blown opportunities is enough.
Elections over the past forty years have more often than not revolved around choosing the lesser of two evils. This time around, for the first time in eight years the Geek must choose the Republicans. He must hope that change means less ideology and more realism in both foreign and economic policy--the inseparable twins.
He can only hope that enough people go along with the same choice.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Joe Takes On The Elite
The saga of the MSM and the Gang of Five Hundred versus Joe the Plumber is definitely the "man bites dog" story of the campaign to date. The Geek admits that despite his academic degrees and past employment, he is closer to Joe than he is to the elite represented by the MSM, most of the Gang of Five Hundred, virtually all members of the professorate and beaucoup supporters of Senator Obama.
The reason for this is simply that the elite and their champion, the Nice Young Man From Chicago, have a view of the United States and its place in the world which is antipodal to that held by the Geek. And is probably held in pertinent part by the Joes of this country (other than Joe Biden obviously.)
Admittedly the Geek found Joe the Plumber's position on the US invasion of Iraq both poorly based and almost pathetic in its earnest wrongness. On the other hand the Geek has to salute Joe's view of those who denigrate and blame the United States for all the ills of the world.
During his years in the academy the Geek grew to hate the never ending crescendo from his coworkers regarding just how evil the United States was in each and every portion of its foreign policy. He grew tired, physically ill actually, listening to distortions of history made to prove the correctness of the blame-America-first agenda of these coworkers in the field of history.
While it is evident from the content of many posts that the Geek is not a cheerleader for many US foreign and national security policies, particularly those of the neocon ninnies of the current administration, he is quite unpersuaded that the US is either an imperialistic menace or the handyman of the devil in its foreign dealings.
Blindly and willfully ignorant? Yes. Too willing to carry water for Israel? Absolutely.
But venal and malign? No. Absolutely not.
Over the years the Geek has also grown tired of the repetitious serenade sung by the chattering classes to the superiority of foreign ways. Twenty-five years ago there was nothing but hosannas sung to and about Japan. Japan was the model of cooperation. The acme of concern for the equality and dignity of the individual worker on the factory floor or in the cubicle. Japan was hope and progress and prosperity and on and on and on.
More recently the object of the elite's affections has shifted. Now the worshipful songs and adoring stares are bestowed upon the European Union.
The EU is the model of post-racial, post-ethnic, post-national ideals and practices. The EU is the archetype of multi-cultural sensitivity, the apogee of collaborative egalitarianism, the height of assuring that no person will somehow be left (in Senator Obama's words) "standing behind," the more successful, the richer, the politically potent, the socially dominant.
Seventy-five years ago the progressives argued that if only the US aped the ways of the Soviet Union, life would be so much better for the common man. Forty-five years ago members of the Geek's generation who should have known better took the position that if only the US became more like Cuba, or North Vietnam or even, (the Geek shakes his head) the Peoples Republic of China, prejudice would vanish, economic and social justice (whatever those might be) would triumph and all would be right in the land.
From the Soviet Union to assorted semi-communist dictatorships to Japan and now to the European Union the American elite of academics, occupational chatterers and progressive politicos have found much to love elsewhere while discovering even more to hate here at home.
Get a grip!
Joe the Plumber and others of the oft times despised and usually patronised hoi polloi have a better handle on what is right here and not-right overseas. The Geek talks with Joe's peers out here in the wilderness. None of them think that life is perfect in the US. None think that improvements in the equity of economic and political life can not and should not be made.
But, none are of the view that the government is better suited than the individual to make decisions. None believe that the advantages of Ivy League education or possession of either a law degree or a journalist's notepad confer a unique ability to perceive what is best for the individual American, the American nation as a whole or the role of the US in the world.
The Geek has yet to hear a member of the hoi polloi express a longing sigh and wish he lived under the tender eye of the EU and its bureaucracy. The Geek has yet to read a single word written by a certified member of the hoi polloi averring to the belief that "experts" in government or academia or even the health care industry are better equipped by education and disinterested perspective to make decisions on behalf of the individual.
The concepts "individual" and "freedom" have long dominated the belief structure of Americans and continue to do so among the hoi polloi, among the Joe the Plumbers. It is only the elite, those who claim membership in the self-defined group of those-who-know-best, who find both the individual and his freedom somehow reprehensible, in some way atavistic.
The US has no special wisdom, no fount of knowledge denied to others in the world. Neither did the Soviet Union. Neither does Japan or the European Union.
Joe the Plumber may not have a plumber's license, he may owe back taxes but he is smarter than the elite represented by their anointed savior, Barack Obama, the Nice Young Man From Chicago. Joe knows something that escapes the elite.
He knows that the US, its success and its future, has been the work of Americans not Western Europeans. He knows that we are the product of a unique history and that we reject the legacy of that history only at great peril.
This is an insight that eludes Senator Obama and his cheering section in the MSM.
The reason for this is simply that the elite and their champion, the Nice Young Man From Chicago, have a view of the United States and its place in the world which is antipodal to that held by the Geek. And is probably held in pertinent part by the Joes of this country (other than Joe Biden obviously.)
Admittedly the Geek found Joe the Plumber's position on the US invasion of Iraq both poorly based and almost pathetic in its earnest wrongness. On the other hand the Geek has to salute Joe's view of those who denigrate and blame the United States for all the ills of the world.
During his years in the academy the Geek grew to hate the never ending crescendo from his coworkers regarding just how evil the United States was in each and every portion of its foreign policy. He grew tired, physically ill actually, listening to distortions of history made to prove the correctness of the blame-America-first agenda of these coworkers in the field of history.
While it is evident from the content of many posts that the Geek is not a cheerleader for many US foreign and national security policies, particularly those of the neocon ninnies of the current administration, he is quite unpersuaded that the US is either an imperialistic menace or the handyman of the devil in its foreign dealings.
Blindly and willfully ignorant? Yes. Too willing to carry water for Israel? Absolutely.
But venal and malign? No. Absolutely not.
Over the years the Geek has also grown tired of the repetitious serenade sung by the chattering classes to the superiority of foreign ways. Twenty-five years ago there was nothing but hosannas sung to and about Japan. Japan was the model of cooperation. The acme of concern for the equality and dignity of the individual worker on the factory floor or in the cubicle. Japan was hope and progress and prosperity and on and on and on.
More recently the object of the elite's affections has shifted. Now the worshipful songs and adoring stares are bestowed upon the European Union.
The EU is the model of post-racial, post-ethnic, post-national ideals and practices. The EU is the archetype of multi-cultural sensitivity, the apogee of collaborative egalitarianism, the height of assuring that no person will somehow be left (in Senator Obama's words) "standing behind," the more successful, the richer, the politically potent, the socially dominant.
Seventy-five years ago the progressives argued that if only the US aped the ways of the Soviet Union, life would be so much better for the common man. Forty-five years ago members of the Geek's generation who should have known better took the position that if only the US became more like Cuba, or North Vietnam or even, (the Geek shakes his head) the Peoples Republic of China, prejudice would vanish, economic and social justice (whatever those might be) would triumph and all would be right in the land.
From the Soviet Union to assorted semi-communist dictatorships to Japan and now to the European Union the American elite of academics, occupational chatterers and progressive politicos have found much to love elsewhere while discovering even more to hate here at home.
Get a grip!
Joe the Plumber and others of the oft times despised and usually patronised hoi polloi have a better handle on what is right here and not-right overseas. The Geek talks with Joe's peers out here in the wilderness. None of them think that life is perfect in the US. None think that improvements in the equity of economic and political life can not and should not be made.
But, none are of the view that the government is better suited than the individual to make decisions. None believe that the advantages of Ivy League education or possession of either a law degree or a journalist's notepad confer a unique ability to perceive what is best for the individual American, the American nation as a whole or the role of the US in the world.
The Geek has yet to hear a member of the hoi polloi express a longing sigh and wish he lived under the tender eye of the EU and its bureaucracy. The Geek has yet to read a single word written by a certified member of the hoi polloi averring to the belief that "experts" in government or academia or even the health care industry are better equipped by education and disinterested perspective to make decisions on behalf of the individual.
The concepts "individual" and "freedom" have long dominated the belief structure of Americans and continue to do so among the hoi polloi, among the Joe the Plumbers. It is only the elite, those who claim membership in the self-defined group of those-who-know-best, who find both the individual and his freedom somehow reprehensible, in some way atavistic.
The US has no special wisdom, no fount of knowledge denied to others in the world. Neither did the Soviet Union. Neither does Japan or the European Union.
Joe the Plumber may not have a plumber's license, he may owe back taxes but he is smarter than the elite represented by their anointed savior, Barack Obama, the Nice Young Man From Chicago. Joe knows something that escapes the elite.
He knows that the US, its success and its future, has been the work of Americans not Western Europeans. He knows that we are the product of a unique history and that we reject the legacy of that history only at great peril.
This is an insight that eludes Senator Obama and his cheering section in the MSM.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Not Made In America
The other day Senator Obama made reference to the desirability--no, the need to redistribute wealth in America. As the Geek watched the video of the encounter between the Senator and the plumber, he was reminded for an instant of another senator in another run for the Oval.
More than seventy years ago, Louisiana senator Huey (Kingfish) Long made a strong populist run against FDR which was terminated not at the polls but by bullets. The centerpiece of the Kingfish's campaign was "share the wealth." He proposed to assure every American a decent life by taxing the rich and passing the proceeds among the non-rich majority.
Not surprisingly Long's notion had a great deal of popularity. He even backed it by alleging as did Senator Obama that sharing the wealth would stimulate employment and business expansion.
Egalitarianism has a long history in the American view of life. The ideal of equality is embedded not only in our jurisprudence, it has become a part of our defining mythology.
Equality under law may be said to constitute a critical component of an authentically American ideology. It is an ideal which the nation has pursued in fits and starts for the entire history of our country. Some day we may achieve the ideal in practice.
Political equality is in the same category. Slowly, but certainly the nation has expanded the franchise and still aspires to limit--if not eliminate--the advantage that copious gobs of money gives some Americans in the political process.
Social equality is also part of our defining made-in-America ideology. We have never accepted deference as the natural role of any American. It is one of the hidden strengths of the long rejected draftee based military.
Economic equality is not a part of any made-in-America ideology. We long have espoused equality of economic opportunity. Remember the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in that magnificent piece of political propaganda, The Declaration of Independence?
Equality of economic or any other sort of opportunity does not and never has in the authentic American ideology guaranteed equality of outcome.
Equality of outcome, particularly equality of economic outcome, is a central portion of several foreign made political ideologies. It is part and parcel of Fascism, National Socialism, Communism and the dominant creed of post-war Western Europe, Democratic Socialism.
Senator Obama's comment to Joe the plumber was redolent not so much of Huey Long's hallucination of a long, long lifetime ago as it is of today's Western European elite.
It's no wonder that the Nice Young Man From Chicago was such a hit with the Europeans last spring. Heck, it would have been more of a wonder if he hadn't been.
To put it simply, Senator Obama speaks their language. He espouses their dominant political ideals. He was just as good a European as Angela Merkel or Nick Sarkozy.
European origin ideologies have held a deep appeal for many Americans for many, many decades. No shock here, we are a nation of immigrants. Also, many of these ideologies have an inherent appeal since they loop nicely with some of the centralities of the American life.
There are, however, two factors which serve to strongly characterise the authentically American ideology which are not found in the various "isms" made-in-Europe.
We are, and have been throughout our history, a nation of individuals. While there are times when the focus on individualism seems to be carried too far, it should never be overlooked that the American people have been repeatedly seen by foreigners as unique in their capacity for voluntary cooperative action.
As individuals we act, contend, succeed, and fail. As individuals we either take or choose not to take advantage of any or all equal opportunities.
Then there is that elusive thing called "freedom." Freedom, like its kin "liberty" have often been hard to define, difficult to appreciate no matter how easy they are to say--or to lose. Over the centuries we have often seen freedom and liberty only after they have been taken away. Or gleefully tossed aside in the search for security.
The inventors and practitioners of Democratic Socialism come from a historical context in which individualism and freedom are not major features. Submitting to the dictates of society as pronounced by government, be it monarchy, dictatorship or parliament is a long standing reality of the European experience.
Even the British who were our progenitors in the individualism and freedom game as illustrated by the brilliance of J.S. Mill and Adam Smith, have shucked that tradition over the past few generations as the search for security grew ever more potent. Countries of British ancestry such as Canada and Australia have also willfully eroded the historical trajectory of individualism and freedom as their societies came under stress and sought the refuge of government arranged security.
For reasons too lengthy and complex to be considered in the context of a single post, the left or progressive sector of the Democratic Party of which Senator Obama is a proud member has embraced an ideological agenda which was made-in-Europe not America. While many European plants have flourished in American soil, it is doubtful that this one will do so.
The question confronting Americans today is the same as that which presented itself to our British progenitors and cousins in Canada and Australia. Will we surrender the primacy of the individual and the freedom of the individual in an ultimately futile search for absolute security?
Will we spread the wealth of our individuality, our freedom, until they disappear as any but the thinnest of films?
Will we become the Europeans of the Western Hemisphere?
More than seventy years ago, Louisiana senator Huey (Kingfish) Long made a strong populist run against FDR which was terminated not at the polls but by bullets. The centerpiece of the Kingfish's campaign was "share the wealth." He proposed to assure every American a decent life by taxing the rich and passing the proceeds among the non-rich majority.
Not surprisingly Long's notion had a great deal of popularity. He even backed it by alleging as did Senator Obama that sharing the wealth would stimulate employment and business expansion.
Egalitarianism has a long history in the American view of life. The ideal of equality is embedded not only in our jurisprudence, it has become a part of our defining mythology.
Equality under law may be said to constitute a critical component of an authentically American ideology. It is an ideal which the nation has pursued in fits and starts for the entire history of our country. Some day we may achieve the ideal in practice.
Political equality is in the same category. Slowly, but certainly the nation has expanded the franchise and still aspires to limit--if not eliminate--the advantage that copious gobs of money gives some Americans in the political process.
Social equality is also part of our defining made-in-America ideology. We have never accepted deference as the natural role of any American. It is one of the hidden strengths of the long rejected draftee based military.
Economic equality is not a part of any made-in-America ideology. We long have espoused equality of economic opportunity. Remember the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in that magnificent piece of political propaganda, The Declaration of Independence?
Equality of economic or any other sort of opportunity does not and never has in the authentic American ideology guaranteed equality of outcome.
Equality of outcome, particularly equality of economic outcome, is a central portion of several foreign made political ideologies. It is part and parcel of Fascism, National Socialism, Communism and the dominant creed of post-war Western Europe, Democratic Socialism.
Senator Obama's comment to Joe the plumber was redolent not so much of Huey Long's hallucination of a long, long lifetime ago as it is of today's Western European elite.
It's no wonder that the Nice Young Man From Chicago was such a hit with the Europeans last spring. Heck, it would have been more of a wonder if he hadn't been.
To put it simply, Senator Obama speaks their language. He espouses their dominant political ideals. He was just as good a European as Angela Merkel or Nick Sarkozy.
European origin ideologies have held a deep appeal for many Americans for many, many decades. No shock here, we are a nation of immigrants. Also, many of these ideologies have an inherent appeal since they loop nicely with some of the centralities of the American life.
There are, however, two factors which serve to strongly characterise the authentically American ideology which are not found in the various "isms" made-in-Europe.
We are, and have been throughout our history, a nation of individuals. While there are times when the focus on individualism seems to be carried too far, it should never be overlooked that the American people have been repeatedly seen by foreigners as unique in their capacity for voluntary cooperative action.
As individuals we act, contend, succeed, and fail. As individuals we either take or choose not to take advantage of any or all equal opportunities.
Then there is that elusive thing called "freedom." Freedom, like its kin "liberty" have often been hard to define, difficult to appreciate no matter how easy they are to say--or to lose. Over the centuries we have often seen freedom and liberty only after they have been taken away. Or gleefully tossed aside in the search for security.
The inventors and practitioners of Democratic Socialism come from a historical context in which individualism and freedom are not major features. Submitting to the dictates of society as pronounced by government, be it monarchy, dictatorship or parliament is a long standing reality of the European experience.
Even the British who were our progenitors in the individualism and freedom game as illustrated by the brilliance of J.S. Mill and Adam Smith, have shucked that tradition over the past few generations as the search for security grew ever more potent. Countries of British ancestry such as Canada and Australia have also willfully eroded the historical trajectory of individualism and freedom as their societies came under stress and sought the refuge of government arranged security.
For reasons too lengthy and complex to be considered in the context of a single post, the left or progressive sector of the Democratic Party of which Senator Obama is a proud member has embraced an ideological agenda which was made-in-Europe not America. While many European plants have flourished in American soil, it is doubtful that this one will do so.
The question confronting Americans today is the same as that which presented itself to our British progenitors and cousins in Canada and Australia. Will we surrender the primacy of the individual and the freedom of the individual in an ultimately futile search for absolute security?
Will we spread the wealth of our individuality, our freedom, until they disappear as any but the thinnest of films?
Will we become the Europeans of the Western Hemisphere?
Sunday, October 12, 2008
The Geek Must Be A Racist
Even though the Geek is three-eights autocthonous American (which makes him only one-eighth less a "person of color" than Senator Obama) he would be branded a racist by the Obama campaign and other supporters of the Nice Young Man From Chicago. The reason is simple. The Geek is completely unpersuaded that elevating Obama from the Senate to the Oval is in the best interests of the United States.
Rather the Geek is convinced that the election of Obama would be another example of collective bad judgement by the American people. It would continue the disasterous trajectory of electing individuals who were ill-equipped by any factor beyond ideology and ambition for sitting behind the big desk in the Oval Office.
As a nation we survived (barely) Governor Clinton. As a nation we have been schnitzeled by Governor Bush. Given the parlous state of affairs today both domestically and in foreign relations, we may well not survive an Obama administration.
In so far as he has a record during his few years in elected office Senator Obama has demonstrated two things. He is a creature of the machine, whether Cook County or the Democratic Regulars. Second he has shown a remarkable ideological affinity for what might be politely called "left socialism."
The Geek has carefully and repeatedly read the Senator's two monuments to awesome hubris and ambition--his "autobiographies." Leaving aside the impossibility of filling a notebook let alone two monographs on one's life when only in the early part of one's fifth decade, the two memoirs are most notable for what they leave out, not what they include.
The books are a record of a remarkably empty life, devoid of details and misleading as to many of the few particulars referenced. Perhaps that is keeping with a man who has a charming smile, an empty suit and a reliance upon TelePrompters even in the most "informal" presentations.
Most disturbing to the Geek is Senator Obama's sketchy rendition of his relationship with William Ayres. Dr Ayres along with his partner, Bernadine Dohrn, were central to Senator Obama's political debut in Chicago a decade or so back.
The MSM have been remarkably laid-back in their search for the roots of the Obama-Ayres relation particularly in comparison with their hound-dog-on-the-trail barking after Sarah Palin. When the MSM have mentioned Ayres and Dohrn in connection with the terrorist group the Weathermen, it has been fashionable to characterise the group as being bombers with a high regard for human life, for planting bombs where Federal and other property might have been damaged but no lives taken.
Of course that approach requires a selective amnesia equivalent to Senator Obama's. The Weather Underground cell in New York City planned an attack against the NCO club at Ft Dix which would have claimed two hundred plus lives.
It didn't simply because the plotters were as inept at making bombs as they were skilled at planning the attack. The bombers blew themselves and a Greenwich Village house into small fragments while preparing their IED's.
Senator Obama and the MSM would also have us believe that the Weather Underground wasted away to nothingness more than thirty years ago as the leadership languished either in jail or on the run. This overlooks the reality that a Weather Underground successor organisation was alive, well and plotting in the Big Apple at the same time as Mr Obama was a student at Columbia. One of the Weatherman follow-ons was sentenced in 1990 and another remains a fugitive even today.
Overall, the Geek is reminded of another election which saw a likable, articulate man with a great smile running against a symbol of "failed Republicanism."
JFK was a man with a carefully shaded past. No, Kennedy didn't have a (perhaps close) acquaintance with an unrepentant terrorist. (Although he did get in the rack with a woman who was an intelligence agent for a hostile foreign power.)
Rather Kennedy had a history which was carefully crafted to turn an unfortunate act of maritime stupidity into war hero status. And, JFK had a ghost written book on courageous profiles which was both a best seller and the presumed basis of Kennedy's intellectual repute. Then there were the successful attempts to conceal both Senator Kennedy's medical conditions and the treatments for them.
Much has been made of Senator Obama's lack of experience--a couple of years in the senate and a time before that in the Illinois state legislature. In comparison Senator Kennedy was a powerhouse of expertise having been in Congress for twelve years, most of those in the Senate.
When considering the value of experience, and character, it is instructive to review Kennedy's actual accomplishments in the Oval as opposed to the myth of the Kennedy "Camelot."
Kennedy failed in his widely heralded Summit with the Soviet leader Khrushchev. This resulted, in part, in the Berlin Wall Crisis. It also resulted in Kennedy's vow to be "tough" with the Soviets.
Toughness drew a line which led to the commitment of support to South Vietnam. It led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, in which had the Soviets not shown more good sense than the Americans we would still be recovering from the nuclear exchange.
Toughness resulted in the wide open "covert" campaign against Castro which would have culminated in a well planned attack upon Cuba which was averted only because JFK was shot in Dallas.
Kennedy's administration also brought the Alliance for Progress--which failed--and the Peace Corps which didn't fail but has scarcely been a world altering institution.
Domestically the years of JFK brought a tax cut which did serve to boost the economy out of a very mild recession. Beyond that the Kennedy record is as skimpy as his war hero record.
Remember John Kennedy was far more experienced than Senator Obama. JFK was mildly lacking in character, integrity and personal history. Senator Obama is more challenged in all these areas.
John Kennedy was not an ideologue. Senator Obama is.
JFK faced challenging times as has every president in the past century. The next American president will face problems larger in scale and more vexing in complexity than did Kennedy.
Even though JFK was relatively advantaged in character, integrity, lack of ideological blinders and experience than is Senator Obama, his administration must be evaluated as long on image and short on accomplishment; long on risk-taking and short on rewards.
Is it legitimate to expect better from an Obama presidency?
The Geek thinks not. Color him a racist, Congressman Lewis.
Rather the Geek is convinced that the election of Obama would be another example of collective bad judgement by the American people. It would continue the disasterous trajectory of electing individuals who were ill-equipped by any factor beyond ideology and ambition for sitting behind the big desk in the Oval Office.
As a nation we survived (barely) Governor Clinton. As a nation we have been schnitzeled by Governor Bush. Given the parlous state of affairs today both domestically and in foreign relations, we may well not survive an Obama administration.
In so far as he has a record during his few years in elected office Senator Obama has demonstrated two things. He is a creature of the machine, whether Cook County or the Democratic Regulars. Second he has shown a remarkable ideological affinity for what might be politely called "left socialism."
The Geek has carefully and repeatedly read the Senator's two monuments to awesome hubris and ambition--his "autobiographies." Leaving aside the impossibility of filling a notebook let alone two monographs on one's life when only in the early part of one's fifth decade, the two memoirs are most notable for what they leave out, not what they include.
The books are a record of a remarkably empty life, devoid of details and misleading as to many of the few particulars referenced. Perhaps that is keeping with a man who has a charming smile, an empty suit and a reliance upon TelePrompters even in the most "informal" presentations.
Most disturbing to the Geek is Senator Obama's sketchy rendition of his relationship with William Ayres. Dr Ayres along with his partner, Bernadine Dohrn, were central to Senator Obama's political debut in Chicago a decade or so back.
The MSM have been remarkably laid-back in their search for the roots of the Obama-Ayres relation particularly in comparison with their hound-dog-on-the-trail barking after Sarah Palin. When the MSM have mentioned Ayres and Dohrn in connection with the terrorist group the Weathermen, it has been fashionable to characterise the group as being bombers with a high regard for human life, for planting bombs where Federal and other property might have been damaged but no lives taken.
Of course that approach requires a selective amnesia equivalent to Senator Obama's. The Weather Underground cell in New York City planned an attack against the NCO club at Ft Dix which would have claimed two hundred plus lives.
It didn't simply because the plotters were as inept at making bombs as they were skilled at planning the attack. The bombers blew themselves and a Greenwich Village house into small fragments while preparing their IED's.
Senator Obama and the MSM would also have us believe that the Weather Underground wasted away to nothingness more than thirty years ago as the leadership languished either in jail or on the run. This overlooks the reality that a Weather Underground successor organisation was alive, well and plotting in the Big Apple at the same time as Mr Obama was a student at Columbia. One of the Weatherman follow-ons was sentenced in 1990 and another remains a fugitive even today.
Overall, the Geek is reminded of another election which saw a likable, articulate man with a great smile running against a symbol of "failed Republicanism."
JFK was a man with a carefully shaded past. No, Kennedy didn't have a (perhaps close) acquaintance with an unrepentant terrorist. (Although he did get in the rack with a woman who was an intelligence agent for a hostile foreign power.)
Rather Kennedy had a history which was carefully crafted to turn an unfortunate act of maritime stupidity into war hero status. And, JFK had a ghost written book on courageous profiles which was both a best seller and the presumed basis of Kennedy's intellectual repute. Then there were the successful attempts to conceal both Senator Kennedy's medical conditions and the treatments for them.
Much has been made of Senator Obama's lack of experience--a couple of years in the senate and a time before that in the Illinois state legislature. In comparison Senator Kennedy was a powerhouse of expertise having been in Congress for twelve years, most of those in the Senate.
When considering the value of experience, and character, it is instructive to review Kennedy's actual accomplishments in the Oval as opposed to the myth of the Kennedy "Camelot."
Kennedy failed in his widely heralded Summit with the Soviet leader Khrushchev. This resulted, in part, in the Berlin Wall Crisis. It also resulted in Kennedy's vow to be "tough" with the Soviets.
Toughness drew a line which led to the commitment of support to South Vietnam. It led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, in which had the Soviets not shown more good sense than the Americans we would still be recovering from the nuclear exchange.
Toughness resulted in the wide open "covert" campaign against Castro which would have culminated in a well planned attack upon Cuba which was averted only because JFK was shot in Dallas.
Kennedy's administration also brought the Alliance for Progress--which failed--and the Peace Corps which didn't fail but has scarcely been a world altering institution.
Domestically the years of JFK brought a tax cut which did serve to boost the economy out of a very mild recession. Beyond that the Kennedy record is as skimpy as his war hero record.
Remember John Kennedy was far more experienced than Senator Obama. JFK was mildly lacking in character, integrity and personal history. Senator Obama is more challenged in all these areas.
John Kennedy was not an ideologue. Senator Obama is.
JFK faced challenging times as has every president in the past century. The next American president will face problems larger in scale and more vexing in complexity than did Kennedy.
Even though JFK was relatively advantaged in character, integrity, lack of ideological blinders and experience than is Senator Obama, his administration must be evaluated as long on image and short on accomplishment; long on risk-taking and short on rewards.
Is it legitimate to expect better from an Obama presidency?
The Geek thinks not. Color him a racist, Congressman Lewis.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Pakistan Is (A BIG) Part of the Problem--
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is most assuredly not part of the solution.
How's that again? Pakistan is our partner in the Global War on Terrorism. It is the key to defeating Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Right. Sure. So the current administration has said--repeatedly.
The happy talk out of the White House and other areas of D.C. are in the same league of accuracy as assurances more than five years ago that the Iraqis would welcome the US led invasion in the same way as the French welcomed the Liberation of Paris. Positive sentiments about Pakistan are signs of neocon ninny wishful thinking--not information. Not intelligence (in either the strategic/political sense or as applied to human thinking.)
The new, democratically elected civilian government of Pakistan is the process of acknowledging the existence of a Sharia based, Taliban controlled mini-state within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the North West Frontier Province (NWFP.)
This is the first step on a very slippery slope. The fall of the first domino.
Yes. The Geek is invoking the Domino Theory. While it was never true in the days of our wars in Southeast Asia, it has a genuine power today.
Walk it though with me.
The often stated goal of the Taliban in the NWFP and FATA is the creation of a truly Islamic government in which all aspects of Sharia are completely, fully imposed. Check out the following site regarding this. http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD193308.
A nearly seventy-five percent majority of Pakistanis outside the NWFP and FATA support the imposition of Sharia throughout the country. That's right, three out of four Paks want Sharia.(http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Pakistan%20Poll%20Report.pdf) Note that the support has been steady over time--although this earlier poll doesn't have solid numbers. (http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/Pakistan%20Poll%20Report.pdf)
The Pakistani politician Asif Ali Zardari has argued that his country and the US share "common values" (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/29/it-is-time-for-reconciliation-zardari-says/.) In the Geek's estimate Zardari must have been consuming one or another of Afghanistan's most popular commodities when he said that.
Nothing could be further from the core values of the US than Sharia. Not only does Sharia--and Islam--reject the separation of religion and state which is fundimental here, it defines crimes and punishments that revolt most Americans.
Right now, even before the formation of the Islamist Ministate of FATA and NWFP, Pakistan uses Sharia and has a Sharia component of its Federal judiciary. The powers of the Sharia courts are impressive. (http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part7.ch3a.html.)
It is the Sharia aspect of Pakistani law which has resulted in both torture and death sentences for offenses against the dignity of Islam--or at least being a non-Muslim. Check it out for yourself. The Geekmo has limited himself to a couple of representative examples. You can find more on your own.
(http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=8855&size=A
http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/appeals_pakistan_ASA330122007)
The spreading of Sharia from the emerging Islamist ministate, which is not only the stronghold of Taliban but the most probable hiding place for Osama bin Ladin and the rest of the al-Qaeda command and control echelon, to all of Pakistan will prove as hard as getting water to flow downhill.
Now it is important to remember that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a nuclear power and did not sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. As of now, the Pakistanis have generated enough fissionable material to make sixty or so atomic weapons. This is a conservative estimate.(http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/feb03/southAsia2.asp)
Get a grip on Taliban's position regarding the use of nuclear weapons. Watch the clip. It's scary.(http://www.memritv.org/en/1778.htm) The Pakistani Taliban chieftain states the bomb is needed to use against Islam's enemies, "the Jews and the Christians." This is pretty specific. Taliban is not fighting the US because of American policies. It is fighting as Muslim against non-Muslim. Period.
Perhaps it is this Taliban stance considered with the not-far-off Islamic success in capturing the levers of power in Pakistan that encouraged Iran's Maximum Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, to say last Friday that "terrorists" would soon acquire nuclear weapons. Even the gentle, multiculturally oriented New York Times acknowledged the Ayatollah's remark albeit in the last line of their story. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/world/middleeast/04iran.html?ref=middleeast.)
Even without the nuclear dimension, the Islamic ministate in FATA represents a threat to the US. Admiral Micheal Mullen made that clear during his current meeting with Pakistani defense chiefs. He also made it plain that the US would do nothing unilaterally or preemptively regarding the any action emerging from the mountains on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. See
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-uspak11-2008jun11,0,1456865.story. A different framing comes from Pakistan. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C06%5C11%5Cstory_11-6-2008_pg1_4
The inhibiting reality?
Admiral Mullen is nothing if not realistic. Any significant US action is precluded by the "instability" of the current Pakistani government. Of course, the word "instability" is both a monumental understatement and a codeword. (It is a codeword for "looming Islamist takeover.) Any action which resulted in more than a handful of dead bodies littering the rocky landscape of the FATA would result in a strengthening of the Islamist position in Pakistan.
The US is in a very sticky wicket in Pakistan. While the US government has been aware for decades about the Islamist orientation of the Pakistani people as well as critical elements of the Pakistani military and intelligence service, it has chosen to ignore the long term implications of the linkage between Islamism and threats to the US and other Western governments.
It is no longer possible to ignore Islamist Pakistan. The democratically elected parliament has called for an "international death penalty" for "blasphemy" against Islam. Blasphemy such as Danish cartoons and Dutch Internet videos. See http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C04%5C16%5Cstory_16-4-2008_pg7_6.
Backing this action, the Pakistani government, as previously posted, sent a high level delegation to meet with the European Union and demand an end to free speech under the threat of further terrorism directed against the EU member countries' embassies. The Pakistani ambassador to Norway has joined the threat brigade. (http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/06/norway-caricature-terror.html.)
In this fine piece of public diplomacy, the ambassador joined with his colleague in Copenhagen. See, http://www.cphpost.dk/get/107528.html.
Talk about blaming the victim!
The mess in Pakistan illustrates several critical lessons not yet learned by the US government or We the People. We damn well better learn them before time runs out.
First, be careful who you unthinkingly climb in political bed with. The Law of Unintended Consequences will apply sooner or later.
Second, small problems on the edge of what promises to be an easy war grow quickly into very large, nearly unsolvable ones. Again, the Law of Unintended (or Unforeseen) Consequences will apply--more likely sooner rather than later.
Third, know your enemy. You are more likely to be killed by the unknown enemy than the one you know.
It may be too late for the brain dead neocon rump of the current administration to learn these critical lessons. It is not too late for We the People to demand that the next administration demonstrate during the campaign that it has learned the lessons and will act appropriately upon them.
How's that again? Pakistan is our partner in the Global War on Terrorism. It is the key to defeating Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Right. Sure. So the current administration has said--repeatedly.
The happy talk out of the White House and other areas of D.C. are in the same league of accuracy as assurances more than five years ago that the Iraqis would welcome the US led invasion in the same way as the French welcomed the Liberation of Paris. Positive sentiments about Pakistan are signs of neocon ninny wishful thinking--not information. Not intelligence (in either the strategic/political sense or as applied to human thinking.)
The new, democratically elected civilian government of Pakistan is the process of acknowledging the existence of a Sharia based, Taliban controlled mini-state within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the North West Frontier Province (NWFP.)
This is the first step on a very slippery slope. The fall of the first domino.
Yes. The Geek is invoking the Domino Theory. While it was never true in the days of our wars in Southeast Asia, it has a genuine power today.
Walk it though with me.
The often stated goal of the Taliban in the NWFP and FATA is the creation of a truly Islamic government in which all aspects of Sharia are completely, fully imposed. Check out the following site regarding this. http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD193308.
A nearly seventy-five percent majority of Pakistanis outside the NWFP and FATA support the imposition of Sharia throughout the country. That's right, three out of four Paks want Sharia.(http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Pakistan%20Poll%20Report.pdf) Note that the support has been steady over time--although this earlier poll doesn't have solid numbers. (http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/Pakistan%20Poll%20Report.pdf)
The Pakistani politician Asif Ali Zardari has argued that his country and the US share "common values" (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/29/it-is-time-for-reconciliation-zardari-says/.) In the Geek's estimate Zardari must have been consuming one or another of Afghanistan's most popular commodities when he said that.
Nothing could be further from the core values of the US than Sharia. Not only does Sharia--and Islam--reject the separation of religion and state which is fundimental here, it defines crimes and punishments that revolt most Americans.
Right now, even before the formation of the Islamist Ministate of FATA and NWFP, Pakistan uses Sharia and has a Sharia component of its Federal judiciary. The powers of the Sharia courts are impressive. (http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part7.ch3a.html.)
It is the Sharia aspect of Pakistani law which has resulted in both torture and death sentences for offenses against the dignity of Islam--or at least being a non-Muslim. Check it out for yourself. The Geekmo has limited himself to a couple of representative examples. You can find more on your own.
(http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=8855&size=A
http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/appeals_pakistan_ASA330122007)
The spreading of Sharia from the emerging Islamist ministate, which is not only the stronghold of Taliban but the most probable hiding place for Osama bin Ladin and the rest of the al-Qaeda command and control echelon, to all of Pakistan will prove as hard as getting water to flow downhill.
Now it is important to remember that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a nuclear power and did not sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. As of now, the Pakistanis have generated enough fissionable material to make sixty or so atomic weapons. This is a conservative estimate.(http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/feb03/southAsia2.asp)
Get a grip on Taliban's position regarding the use of nuclear weapons. Watch the clip. It's scary.(http://www.memritv.org/en/1778.htm) The Pakistani Taliban chieftain states the bomb is needed to use against Islam's enemies, "the Jews and the Christians." This is pretty specific. Taliban is not fighting the US because of American policies. It is fighting as Muslim against non-Muslim. Period.
Perhaps it is this Taliban stance considered with the not-far-off Islamic success in capturing the levers of power in Pakistan that encouraged Iran's Maximum Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, to say last Friday that "terrorists" would soon acquire nuclear weapons. Even the gentle, multiculturally oriented New York Times acknowledged the Ayatollah's remark albeit in the last line of their story. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/world/middleeast/04iran.html?ref=middleeast.)
Even without the nuclear dimension, the Islamic ministate in FATA represents a threat to the US. Admiral Micheal Mullen made that clear during his current meeting with Pakistani defense chiefs. He also made it plain that the US would do nothing unilaterally or preemptively regarding the any action emerging from the mountains on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. See
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-uspak11-2008jun11,0,1456865.story. A different framing comes from Pakistan. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C06%5C11%5Cstory_11-6-2008_pg1_4
The inhibiting reality?
Admiral Mullen is nothing if not realistic. Any significant US action is precluded by the "instability" of the current Pakistani government. Of course, the word "instability" is both a monumental understatement and a codeword. (It is a codeword for "looming Islamist takeover.) Any action which resulted in more than a handful of dead bodies littering the rocky landscape of the FATA would result in a strengthening of the Islamist position in Pakistan.
The US is in a very sticky wicket in Pakistan. While the US government has been aware for decades about the Islamist orientation of the Pakistani people as well as critical elements of the Pakistani military and intelligence service, it has chosen to ignore the long term implications of the linkage between Islamism and threats to the US and other Western governments.
It is no longer possible to ignore Islamist Pakistan. The democratically elected parliament has called for an "international death penalty" for "blasphemy" against Islam. Blasphemy such as Danish cartoons and Dutch Internet videos. See http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C04%5C16%5Cstory_16-4-2008_pg7_6.
Backing this action, the Pakistani government, as previously posted, sent a high level delegation to meet with the European Union and demand an end to free speech under the threat of further terrorism directed against the EU member countries' embassies. The Pakistani ambassador to Norway has joined the threat brigade. (http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/06/norway-caricature-terror.html.)
In this fine piece of public diplomacy, the ambassador joined with his colleague in Copenhagen. See, http://www.cphpost.dk/get/107528.html.
Talk about blaming the victim!
The mess in Pakistan illustrates several critical lessons not yet learned by the US government or We the People. We damn well better learn them before time runs out.
First, be careful who you unthinkingly climb in political bed with. The Law of Unintended Consequences will apply sooner or later.
Second, small problems on the edge of what promises to be an easy war grow quickly into very large, nearly unsolvable ones. Again, the Law of Unintended (or Unforeseen) Consequences will apply--more likely sooner rather than later.
Third, know your enemy. You are more likely to be killed by the unknown enemy than the one you know.
It may be too late for the brain dead neocon rump of the current administration to learn these critical lessons. It is not too late for We the People to demand that the next administration demonstrate during the campaign that it has learned the lessons and will act appropriately upon them.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Americans Are Too Nice For Their Own Good
Senator Barrak Obama is a nice young man. He means well. He exudes goodness.
Americans are nice people--despite rumors to the contrary. We mean well. We want to do good.
We the People would generally much rather see our military forces used for disaster relief than for inflicting the disaster of war. We the People want the warlike use of our military to be covered by the flag of an international organisation. Heck, We the People would much rather talk with even our worst enemies than fight them.
It's no surprise that Senator Obama's reiterated declaration that he would talk without preconditions with the presidents of Syria, Venezuela, Cuba or Iran resonates deeply with the American public. The depth and breadth of this general American commitment to a faith in negotiations were brought out in a recent Gallup poll.
The Gallup organisation contacted 1,013 Americans between 19 and 21 May to ask their views on meeting generally with the leaders of countries considered hostile to the US and, more specifically, their views on a meeting with Iran's president.
The response?
Two thirds of those asked thought it was a good idea generally. Six out of every ten thought meeting with the Iranian president would be a good idea.
Among Democrats seventy-nine percent gave thumbs up to the face-to-face concept in general with the approval rating dipping only slightly with respect to Iran (seventy-one percent in favor.) Independents went for the general idea with seventy percent approving. Among this group the thumbs-up for gabbing with Ahmedinejad dropped to fifty-nine percent. Now the Republicans. Here the disapprovers held a very narrow advantage. In both the general and specific cases, the "no" vote won by a margin of fifty-one percent to forty-eight.
Check it out yourself, http://www.gallup.com/poll/107617/Americans-Favor-President-Meeting-US-Enemies.aspx.
Seems like the junior senator from Illinois has a winning issue.
More to the point, it appears that John McCain has a hell of a job persuading the American electorate that his hard nosed, realpolitik approach is better for US interests (to say nothing of the chances for peace in the world) than his opponent's sweetness-and-light view of international life.
That's going to be a very tough sell.
Talking for the sake of talking is undoubtedly preferable to shooting for the sake of shooting. That's a given. However, history demonstrates that talking without preconditions, without the necessary diplomatic grunt work and absent the right mix of inducements and (potential or actual) coercion is unlikely to produce more than unrealistic expectations, headlines and migraines for those who have to pick up the pieces later.
Obama's position is warm and fuzzy. It feels good. It resonates with the American public's long, long standing desire to be left in peace to get on with life unburdened by the potential or actuality of war. Hell, the Cold War was as much fun as having a root canal along with unpleasant surgery involving the anal region. All of us who lived through the half century of Soviet threat know that.
McCain's view of international relations is filled with cold sharpies. His world is a lot less pleasant than the one projected by Obama.
The position of the senator from Arizona is redeemed only by the fact that it is realistic and much more likely to result in enhanced security for the US and other nations. It is more likely to accomplish goals that we all want to see accomplished including an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without an ultimately disastrous American failure.
Throughout much of the world, and most particularly the Mideast and Northwest Asia, you either oppose the bully relentlessly or you pay him tribute or you join him. Strength and resolve are demanded both by diplomatic interlocutors and bystanders.
Beyond that, regardless of the so-called "tattered" image of the US in much of the world, now as during the Cold War, the leaders and citizens of other countries want the US to establish and maintain a firm position.
The operative word is "firm." That does not mean war fighting or war threatening. It does not mean inflexible. It most assuredly does not mean an arrogant, go-it-alone-come-what-may stance. It means a realistic view, consistently advanced without fits and starts, zigs and zags.
Realistic firmness means policy carefully crafted by professionals and executed by pragmatists. That's right, pragmatists, not ideologues or innocents.
Ideologues--the neocon ninnies--are behind the horrible failures of the past six years. This sort of narrow minded zeal must not be allowed to happen again.
Innocents ruled the Clinton Administration. Overall our foreign policy was a triumph of late out of the gate. Yes, we, in conjunction with allies had some successes, most notably in the wreckage of what was once called Yugoslavia. Then there were our failures ranging from limp wristed responses to the initial al-Qaeda provocations to the unseemly cut-and-run from the rubble of Somalia to the desperately misleading quasi-success in Haiti.
Innocents, naifs must be kept from the levers of foreign policy power. Not because there is anything inherently evil about naivete, but because someone later has to pick up the peaces--often with bloody hands.
Whether either of presumptive nominees like it or not, whether any of We the People like it our not, the next administration will be a foreign policy oriented administration. Our problems including the price of oil, the food crisis, the global warming affair, the nature of the global economy and its implications are all foreign policy concerns first and foremost. Over and above those problems is the looming mass of the ongoing conflict between the US and the sponsors or executors of terror and destabilization.
None of these challenges can be meaningfully addressed, let alone overcome by a combination of sweetness, light, kind words and a slogan of "change."
Americans are nice people--despite rumors to the contrary. We mean well. We want to do good.
We the People would generally much rather see our military forces used for disaster relief than for inflicting the disaster of war. We the People want the warlike use of our military to be covered by the flag of an international organisation. Heck, We the People would much rather talk with even our worst enemies than fight them.
It's no surprise that Senator Obama's reiterated declaration that he would talk without preconditions with the presidents of Syria, Venezuela, Cuba or Iran resonates deeply with the American public. The depth and breadth of this general American commitment to a faith in negotiations were brought out in a recent Gallup poll.
The Gallup organisation contacted 1,013 Americans between 19 and 21 May to ask their views on meeting generally with the leaders of countries considered hostile to the US and, more specifically, their views on a meeting with Iran's president.
The response?
Two thirds of those asked thought it was a good idea generally. Six out of every ten thought meeting with the Iranian president would be a good idea.
Among Democrats seventy-nine percent gave thumbs up to the face-to-face concept in general with the approval rating dipping only slightly with respect to Iran (seventy-one percent in favor.) Independents went for the general idea with seventy percent approving. Among this group the thumbs-up for gabbing with Ahmedinejad dropped to fifty-nine percent. Now the Republicans. Here the disapprovers held a very narrow advantage. In both the general and specific cases, the "no" vote won by a margin of fifty-one percent to forty-eight.
Check it out yourself, http://www.gallup.com/poll/107617/Americans-Favor-President-Meeting-US-Enemies.aspx.
Seems like the junior senator from Illinois has a winning issue.
More to the point, it appears that John McCain has a hell of a job persuading the American electorate that his hard nosed, realpolitik approach is better for US interests (to say nothing of the chances for peace in the world) than his opponent's sweetness-and-light view of international life.
That's going to be a very tough sell.
Talking for the sake of talking is undoubtedly preferable to shooting for the sake of shooting. That's a given. However, history demonstrates that talking without preconditions, without the necessary diplomatic grunt work and absent the right mix of inducements and (potential or actual) coercion is unlikely to produce more than unrealistic expectations, headlines and migraines for those who have to pick up the pieces later.
Obama's position is warm and fuzzy. It feels good. It resonates with the American public's long, long standing desire to be left in peace to get on with life unburdened by the potential or actuality of war. Hell, the Cold War was as much fun as having a root canal along with unpleasant surgery involving the anal region. All of us who lived through the half century of Soviet threat know that.
McCain's view of international relations is filled with cold sharpies. His world is a lot less pleasant than the one projected by Obama.
The position of the senator from Arizona is redeemed only by the fact that it is realistic and much more likely to result in enhanced security for the US and other nations. It is more likely to accomplish goals that we all want to see accomplished including an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without an ultimately disastrous American failure.
Throughout much of the world, and most particularly the Mideast and Northwest Asia, you either oppose the bully relentlessly or you pay him tribute or you join him. Strength and resolve are demanded both by diplomatic interlocutors and bystanders.
Beyond that, regardless of the so-called "tattered" image of the US in much of the world, now as during the Cold War, the leaders and citizens of other countries want the US to establish and maintain a firm position.
The operative word is "firm." That does not mean war fighting or war threatening. It does not mean inflexible. It most assuredly does not mean an arrogant, go-it-alone-come-what-may stance. It means a realistic view, consistently advanced without fits and starts, zigs and zags.
Realistic firmness means policy carefully crafted by professionals and executed by pragmatists. That's right, pragmatists, not ideologues or innocents.
Ideologues--the neocon ninnies--are behind the horrible failures of the past six years. This sort of narrow minded zeal must not be allowed to happen again.
Innocents ruled the Clinton Administration. Overall our foreign policy was a triumph of late out of the gate. Yes, we, in conjunction with allies had some successes, most notably in the wreckage of what was once called Yugoslavia. Then there were our failures ranging from limp wristed responses to the initial al-Qaeda provocations to the unseemly cut-and-run from the rubble of Somalia to the desperately misleading quasi-success in Haiti.
Innocents, naifs must be kept from the levers of foreign policy power. Not because there is anything inherently evil about naivete, but because someone later has to pick up the peaces--often with bloody hands.
Whether either of presumptive nominees like it or not, whether any of We the People like it our not, the next administration will be a foreign policy oriented administration. Our problems including the price of oil, the food crisis, the global warming affair, the nature of the global economy and its implications are all foreign policy concerns first and foremost. Over and above those problems is the looming mass of the ongoing conflict between the US and the sponsors or executors of terror and destabilization.
None of these challenges can be meaningfully addressed, let alone overcome by a combination of sweetness, light, kind words and a slogan of "change."
Friday, September 21, 2007
Gov. Bill Richardson Is Second Tier--And Should Go Lower!
Governor Bill, as we New Mexicans affectionately--or not--call our governor is still off and running for president. As the Geek has written before, the man is not well qualified on the basis of his past jobs in foreign policy implementation for the presidency. As was once said of the French Marshall, Joffre, "He has forgotten nothing--and learned nothing."
The Geek watched the clip of an interview Governor Bill gave to AP in which the paunchy and not particularly articulate candidate gave his views on what he would do regarding Iraq, Afghanistan and the US military. http://player.clipsyndicate.com/view/130/399429. It's a hoot. Compared to the guv, John Edwards and Barrak Obama are strategic geniuses.
(Attention, please. This is not a mere personal rant. The Geek promises there is real substance. It comes at the tail end of the post.)
Richardson proposes to pull all US forces out of Iraq. He would leave a small "contingency" force of "Special Forces" in Kuwait, "where they are needed." He does not explicate the reasons why this contingency deployment is needed in Kuwait more than some other country in the Arabian Peninsula. Perhaps it is because Richardson's advisers don't know the name of any other potential host in the region.
The Governor would send some of the withdrawn forces to Afghanistan. The number is uncertain but he says it would be "Whatever the military believes is necessary." It should be mentioned that the deep thinking Richardson and his team give no explanation as to why Afghanistan is more important to US interests than Iraq. Nor does he explain why it is so unnecessary or so remote to longer term American interests that we not finish cleaning up the mess we made in Iraq.
In an obvious bid to make himself look strong on American defense, the Governor states that he would mount a "recruiting drive" to "rebuild the "Army and Marines." He would also seek the purchase of new equipment.
Such obvious political pap needs (and deserves) no comment.
Suffice it to say that there is no apparent need to "rebuild" the ground combat forces of the US. The performance of the troops in the field has been good within the limits of current doctrine and command philosophy. What the governor might want to consider is that should the US prematurely withdraw from Iraq, the US might just need a considerable expansion of its ground combat capacities since there would be a better than excellent chance we would be facing an expanded threat from emboldened Islamists.
Bill Richardson, like the Geek, is a product of the Vietnam generation. Richardson evidently learned the wrong lesson from the Vietnam debacle. He learned that the US should never use force either in support of diplomacy or as the ultimate extension of diplomacy.
A military exists for the purposes of direct physical defense of critical national interests. Beyond that, it exists as the backer and extender of diplomacy. If Richardson actually was the diplomatic heavy hitter he so obviously thinks he is, then he would be aware of these twin, historically defined realities.
He would also be aware that, while the term "appeasement" was massively, and incorrectly overused to justify our failed effort in Vietnam, it is still a relevant term. While not the intent, the effect of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be the attempted appeasement of the Islamists in that country and elsewhere.
If Richardson was, as he thinks he is, the greatest gift to diplomacy since Talleyrand, he would know that appeasement is the international form of blackmail. The more that is given, the more that is demanded.
Get a grip, Governor Bill!
The Geek watched the clip of an interview Governor Bill gave to AP in which the paunchy and not particularly articulate candidate gave his views on what he would do regarding Iraq, Afghanistan and the US military. http://player.clipsyndicate.com/view/130/399429. It's a hoot. Compared to the guv, John Edwards and Barrak Obama are strategic geniuses.
(Attention, please. This is not a mere personal rant. The Geek promises there is real substance. It comes at the tail end of the post.)
Richardson proposes to pull all US forces out of Iraq. He would leave a small "contingency" force of "Special Forces" in Kuwait, "where they are needed." He does not explicate the reasons why this contingency deployment is needed in Kuwait more than some other country in the Arabian Peninsula. Perhaps it is because Richardson's advisers don't know the name of any other potential host in the region.
The Governor would send some of the withdrawn forces to Afghanistan. The number is uncertain but he says it would be "Whatever the military believes is necessary." It should be mentioned that the deep thinking Richardson and his team give no explanation as to why Afghanistan is more important to US interests than Iraq. Nor does he explain why it is so unnecessary or so remote to longer term American interests that we not finish cleaning up the mess we made in Iraq.
In an obvious bid to make himself look strong on American defense, the Governor states that he would mount a "recruiting drive" to "rebuild the "Army and Marines." He would also seek the purchase of new equipment.
Such obvious political pap needs (and deserves) no comment.
Suffice it to say that there is no apparent need to "rebuild" the ground combat forces of the US. The performance of the troops in the field has been good within the limits of current doctrine and command philosophy. What the governor might want to consider is that should the US prematurely withdraw from Iraq, the US might just need a considerable expansion of its ground combat capacities since there would be a better than excellent chance we would be facing an expanded threat from emboldened Islamists.
Bill Richardson, like the Geek, is a product of the Vietnam generation. Richardson evidently learned the wrong lesson from the Vietnam debacle. He learned that the US should never use force either in support of diplomacy or as the ultimate extension of diplomacy.
A military exists for the purposes of direct physical defense of critical national interests. Beyond that, it exists as the backer and extender of diplomacy. If Richardson actually was the diplomatic heavy hitter he so obviously thinks he is, then he would be aware of these twin, historically defined realities.
He would also be aware that, while the term "appeasement" was massively, and incorrectly overused to justify our failed effort in Vietnam, it is still a relevant term. While not the intent, the effect of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be the attempted appeasement of the Islamists in that country and elsewhere.
If Richardson was, as he thinks he is, the greatest gift to diplomacy since Talleyrand, he would know that appeasement is the international form of blackmail. The more that is given, the more that is demanded.
Get a grip, Governor Bill!
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Fred Thompson Joins the Out To Lunch Bunch
The Geek admits this is not the most timely post he's ever written. That's OK. He's a historian. Anyway, keeping up with the foreign policy idiocy is exhausting. Sometimes the old Geekmo just can't take anymore.
Now it is probably too much to expect an undistinguished, former short-time Senator and lobbyist to come to the presidential campaign with any knowledge of the intricacies of foreign policy, war, and peace. But, as a TV actor and Ronald Reagan imitator, he darn sure should understand the importance of symbolism.
When Thompson derided Osama bin Laden as "more of a symbolism than he is anything else," it knocked the Geek off his rock in the sun.
Get a grip, Fred!
There are many things Osama bin Laden is not. He is not a political-military strategist. He is not an organizational genius. His combat record in the anti-Russian jihad in Afghanistan is, to put in kindly, undistinguished. Heck, his stone face and black beard aren't even the stuff of which great video drama are made.
Now, Mr Thompson, there is one thing at which bin Laden is very, very good. Symbolism. That's what he is. A symbol. An icon.
And, Mr Thompson, that's all he needs to be. That is his power. That is his strength. His appeal.
Bin Laden comes across to his target audience as a hero, a saintly remake of earlier heroes of Islam during its historical prime a millennium and more ago. He is seen as the austere, self-denying exemplar of Islam by those inclined to the Islamist ideology.
He is a walking, talking recruiting poster. He is seen to have lived as he has preached. Pure, willing to die, willing to fight, willing to kill for the cause and vision of Islamism.
Osama bin Laden doesn't need to be brilliant. He doesn't need to make good decisions. He doesn't need to have a strategic or tactical vision. Others can fill in the awesome blanks in his abilities and knowledge.
All he needs is to be who he is. To be seen as he wishes to be seen. For him, being seen as he wishes is easy. He plays to type. He plays himself.
You should have recognised all of those features, Mr Thompson. You invoke the memory and image of Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator.
Reagan and bin Laden are the same under the skin. They both understood and played to the mythic imagery of their audiences. Bin Laden is what Reagan was--a symbol, an icon. As Reagan was "Morning in America," bin Laden is the "Dawn of Islamism."
Now, about your muddled thinking regarding "due process." Perhaps you've been playing a lawyer on TV too long to have a grip on this.
Capturing bin Laden, let alone giving him public exposure similar to that accorded Saddam Hussein or Manuel Noriega in handcuffs and orange jumpsuit would be the second most stupidly counterproductive thing that might be done. The most stupid thing would be to kill him with after-the-fact publicity of the fact.
Don't you or any of your aides realise that a symbol cannot be killed, an icon cannot die or be put on trial? Capture or publicly acknowledged killing would only elevate Osama bin Laden to the highest pinnacle of martyrdom.
Think how many young Islamist-leaning wannabe martyrs would be stimulated to offer their lives (and our deaths) at the metaphoric feet of bin Laden.
Mr Thompson, if you want to be something more than a second-generation facsimile of Ronald Reagan, you would be well advised to get a grip on the real nature of the war facing us and the centrality of symbolism--both their's and our's--to its prosecution.
A side note to John Edwards: Did you really, really mean it when you challenged Thompson on not understanding the "importance" of "capturing" bin Laden? If so, it is obvious that you still are totally clueless about what is happening in the world today (and have been for the past several decades.)
As a former Tarheel, the Geek will be happy to fill you in, Mr Edwards. And, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, the same goes for you, Mr Thompson.
Now it is probably too much to expect an undistinguished, former short-time Senator and lobbyist to come to the presidential campaign with any knowledge of the intricacies of foreign policy, war, and peace. But, as a TV actor and Ronald Reagan imitator, he darn sure should understand the importance of symbolism.
When Thompson derided Osama bin Laden as "more of a symbolism than he is anything else," it knocked the Geek off his rock in the sun.
Get a grip, Fred!
There are many things Osama bin Laden is not. He is not a political-military strategist. He is not an organizational genius. His combat record in the anti-Russian jihad in Afghanistan is, to put in kindly, undistinguished. Heck, his stone face and black beard aren't even the stuff of which great video drama are made.
Now, Mr Thompson, there is one thing at which bin Laden is very, very good. Symbolism. That's what he is. A symbol. An icon.
And, Mr Thompson, that's all he needs to be. That is his power. That is his strength. His appeal.
Bin Laden comes across to his target audience as a hero, a saintly remake of earlier heroes of Islam during its historical prime a millennium and more ago. He is seen as the austere, self-denying exemplar of Islam by those inclined to the Islamist ideology.
He is a walking, talking recruiting poster. He is seen to have lived as he has preached. Pure, willing to die, willing to fight, willing to kill for the cause and vision of Islamism.
Osama bin Laden doesn't need to be brilliant. He doesn't need to make good decisions. He doesn't need to have a strategic or tactical vision. Others can fill in the awesome blanks in his abilities and knowledge.
All he needs is to be who he is. To be seen as he wishes to be seen. For him, being seen as he wishes is easy. He plays to type. He plays himself.
You should have recognised all of those features, Mr Thompson. You invoke the memory and image of Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator.
Reagan and bin Laden are the same under the skin. They both understood and played to the mythic imagery of their audiences. Bin Laden is what Reagan was--a symbol, an icon. As Reagan was "Morning in America," bin Laden is the "Dawn of Islamism."
Now, about your muddled thinking regarding "due process." Perhaps you've been playing a lawyer on TV too long to have a grip on this.
Capturing bin Laden, let alone giving him public exposure similar to that accorded Saddam Hussein or Manuel Noriega in handcuffs and orange jumpsuit would be the second most stupidly counterproductive thing that might be done. The most stupid thing would be to kill him with after-the-fact publicity of the fact.
Don't you or any of your aides realise that a symbol cannot be killed, an icon cannot die or be put on trial? Capture or publicly acknowledged killing would only elevate Osama bin Laden to the highest pinnacle of martyrdom.
Think how many young Islamist-leaning wannabe martyrs would be stimulated to offer their lives (and our deaths) at the metaphoric feet of bin Laden.
Mr Thompson, if you want to be something more than a second-generation facsimile of Ronald Reagan, you would be well advised to get a grip on the real nature of the war facing us and the centrality of symbolism--both their's and our's--to its prosecution.
A side note to John Edwards: Did you really, really mean it when you challenged Thompson on not understanding the "importance" of "capturing" bin Laden? If so, it is obvious that you still are totally clueless about what is happening in the world today (and have been for the past several decades.)
As a former Tarheel, the Geek will be happy to fill you in, Mr Edwards. And, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, the same goes for you, Mr Thompson.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Former Sen Edwards Really Torques the Geek!
The Geek lived and worked in North Carolina for awhile back in the days that Senator Jesse Helms infuriated most of the country while delighting many Tarheels.
The Geek was not one of those amused by thinking that Senator Helms was a SOB, but he's our SOB. One major fact in favor of Helms is that he never would have stooped to the level of asininity demonstrated by former Senator and present presidential wannabe, John Edwards.
Apparently the good looking dude with the expensive haircut and gigabuck mansion wants not only to write off nearly four thousand Americans killed in Iraq as some sort of bad investment. That's not enough for the spine and brain challenged ex-North Carolina senator. Not by a long way.
He is demanding that Congress repeat the disastrous experiences of former Congresses during the War Between the States (that's the Civil War for you Yankees) and the Vietnam War. Edwards challenged the congresswallahs to "force" the current administration to withdraw "forty or fifty thousand" troops immediately with the rest to follow. Or so quoth the Boston Globe on-line: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/09/edwards_calls_o.html
Edwards utterly indifferent to what might happen in Iraq following the departure of American troops quipping, "I don't think anyone can predict with confidence what will happen in Iraq.
Get a grip Senator Blow dry!
The Geek has already predicted what must come with the dreary predictability of prognosticating that hurricanes bring high winds. So have many others in the military, diplomatic, and academic communities. Even the UN SecGen has said his view of Iraq following an overly rapid US withdrawal was "gloomy."
To make it simple for the lame brained ex-senator and his foreign policy advisers to understand what is going to occur, here is the future of Iraq in baby words. Death. Blood. More death. More blood. Bombs. More bombs. Folks running for their lives. Run. Run. Run. Invaders come. Can we say Iran? Syria? Turkey? How about Saudi Arabia? More blood. More killing. More running. More bombs.
How about it, Senator? Do you get the general picture?
In the past, Edwards has announced screwball notions such as honoring our dead in Iraq last Memorial Day by demanding the US quit the war. Now he has outdone his previous efforts.
If the congresswallahs were to take up his challenge and seek to manage the war, which at least some wish to do, they would be walking down the same path as congressional Republicans did during the War Between the States and the Democrats in congress during the closing days of the Vietnam War.
Because knowledge of history is not a strong point among the lawyers and others in congress, the Geek will consider only the second example of war managing by political committee.
Without going through the dismal litany of documentation, of congressional move and administrative counter move, suffice it to say that not only did the "date certain" resolutions and amendments to military funding acts force US troops out too early, in the last analysis, Congress caused the fall of South Vietnam.
You read that right. Congress caused the fall of South Vietnam.
How did the congresswallahs pull off that trick?
Simple. The US had repeatedly and formally promised the Saigon government that, if push came to shove, the US would provide logistics and air support. That was only right and proper. We had trained and equipped the South Vietnamese Army to fight an American style war--heavy on materiel and firepower, particularly air delivered firepower.
When the shove came, when the well-equipped and trained North Vietnamese army went on the attack, the South Vietnamese had roughly six shells for each of their artillery pieces. (That's about twenty seconds worth of shooting for the 105mm howitzer of the day.) They had no air force worthy of the name. No reserves of equipment, spare parts, munitions.
Nonetheless the South Vietnamese troops fought well. That is until they had nothing left with which to fight.
Saigon screamed for help. The government of South Vietnam demanded the US live up to the commitments it gave in order to gain the semblance of peace at Paris.
The administration of Gerald Ford agreed. Congress, to its everlasting shame, said, "NO." Using the power of the purse, the congresswallahs banned any funds being used to support or provide material assistance beyond a token level.
By this act of supreme moral and intellectual cowardliness, Congress not only flipped the ultimate bird at the sixty thousand Americans who died in the war, it delivered South Vietnam to the less than tender mercies of the Hanoi Politburo.
In a circular logic of self-fulfilling prophecy, Edward Kennedy, then as now a senator from Massachusetts, proclaimed South Vietnam was non-viable and voted to make it such.
Now, John Edwards wants, no, demands, Congress do the same in Iraq.
A note to congesswallahs: Your predecessors covered themselves (and the nation) with shame a little more than thirty years ago. If you choose to do the same today in a war which should never have been fought but now must be prosecuted to assure that we and the Iraqis do not lose, History Geek and other well-educated and insightful historians will be there to write the final verdict upon you.
Get a grip on this. It won't be pretty.
The Geek was not one of those amused by thinking that Senator Helms was a SOB, but he's our SOB. One major fact in favor of Helms is that he never would have stooped to the level of asininity demonstrated by former Senator and present presidential wannabe, John Edwards.
Apparently the good looking dude with the expensive haircut and gigabuck mansion wants not only to write off nearly four thousand Americans killed in Iraq as some sort of bad investment. That's not enough for the spine and brain challenged ex-North Carolina senator. Not by a long way.
He is demanding that Congress repeat the disastrous experiences of former Congresses during the War Between the States (that's the Civil War for you Yankees) and the Vietnam War. Edwards challenged the congresswallahs to "force" the current administration to withdraw "forty or fifty thousand" troops immediately with the rest to follow. Or so quoth the Boston Globe on-line: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/09/edwards_calls_o.html
Edwards utterly indifferent to what might happen in Iraq following the departure of American troops quipping, "I don't think anyone can predict with confidence what will happen in Iraq.
Get a grip Senator Blow dry!
The Geek has already predicted what must come with the dreary predictability of prognosticating that hurricanes bring high winds. So have many others in the military, diplomatic, and academic communities. Even the UN SecGen has said his view of Iraq following an overly rapid US withdrawal was "gloomy."
To make it simple for the lame brained ex-senator and his foreign policy advisers to understand what is going to occur, here is the future of Iraq in baby words. Death. Blood. More death. More blood. Bombs. More bombs. Folks running for their lives. Run. Run. Run. Invaders come. Can we say Iran? Syria? Turkey? How about Saudi Arabia? More blood. More killing. More running. More bombs.
How about it, Senator? Do you get the general picture?
In the past, Edwards has announced screwball notions such as honoring our dead in Iraq last Memorial Day by demanding the US quit the war. Now he has outdone his previous efforts.
If the congresswallahs were to take up his challenge and seek to manage the war, which at least some wish to do, they would be walking down the same path as congressional Republicans did during the War Between the States and the Democrats in congress during the closing days of the Vietnam War.
Because knowledge of history is not a strong point among the lawyers and others in congress, the Geek will consider only the second example of war managing by political committee.
Without going through the dismal litany of documentation, of congressional move and administrative counter move, suffice it to say that not only did the "date certain" resolutions and amendments to military funding acts force US troops out too early, in the last analysis, Congress caused the fall of South Vietnam.
You read that right. Congress caused the fall of South Vietnam.
How did the congresswallahs pull off that trick?
Simple. The US had repeatedly and formally promised the Saigon government that, if push came to shove, the US would provide logistics and air support. That was only right and proper. We had trained and equipped the South Vietnamese Army to fight an American style war--heavy on materiel and firepower, particularly air delivered firepower.
When the shove came, when the well-equipped and trained North Vietnamese army went on the attack, the South Vietnamese had roughly six shells for each of their artillery pieces. (That's about twenty seconds worth of shooting for the 105mm howitzer of the day.) They had no air force worthy of the name. No reserves of equipment, spare parts, munitions.
Nonetheless the South Vietnamese troops fought well. That is until they had nothing left with which to fight.
Saigon screamed for help. The government of South Vietnam demanded the US live up to the commitments it gave in order to gain the semblance of peace at Paris.
The administration of Gerald Ford agreed. Congress, to its everlasting shame, said, "NO." Using the power of the purse, the congresswallahs banned any funds being used to support or provide material assistance beyond a token level.
By this act of supreme moral and intellectual cowardliness, Congress not only flipped the ultimate bird at the sixty thousand Americans who died in the war, it delivered South Vietnam to the less than tender mercies of the Hanoi Politburo.
In a circular logic of self-fulfilling prophecy, Edward Kennedy, then as now a senator from Massachusetts, proclaimed South Vietnam was non-viable and voted to make it such.
Now, John Edwards wants, no, demands, Congress do the same in Iraq.
A note to congesswallahs: Your predecessors covered themselves (and the nation) with shame a little more than thirty years ago. If you choose to do the same today in a war which should never have been fought but now must be prosecuted to assure that we and the Iraqis do not lose, History Geek and other well-educated and insightful historians will be there to write the final verdict upon you.
Get a grip on this. It won't be pretty.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Politics Screws Foreign Policy Every Time
Way back when, in the Pleistocene, well, actually during the Cold War, there was a disgustingly hypocritical cliche in common use. "Politics stop at the water's edge."
This crock was always accompanied by pious blathering from the politicos of both parties about something they liked to call "bi-partisan foreign policy." Other times the sanctimonious Wallahs in Congress bloviated about "not making war into a political issue."
When he was young and listened to this tripe, the Geek would roll his eyes. Now he engages in projectile vomit.
Get a grip on this. Foreign policy has rarely, very rarely been bi-partisan. War has always been a political issue.
Even World War II, the so-called "Good War," the war which started for us when the American Eagle's perch in Pearl Harbor was broken and the eagle found himself beak down in the dreck on the bottom of the cage, was a political football. Senator Truman rode to prominence running investigations of defense contractor waste, fraud, and abuse. Governor Dewey was all fired up to use the very secret information about how the US had broken the enemy's codes and ciphers when the perfectly apolitical, country-first Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall prevailed upon the governor not to.
Less popular wars, and supposed foreign policy failures, became the centrality of political life after World War II. The Republicans barked and snapped successfully at the Democrats by alleging that FDR had "sold out" Poland and other Eastern European countries occupied by the Red Army because Democrats were "soft on communism."
The Republicans yowled all the louder when Mao's forces won in China. With an utter irresponsibility and a completely cavalier disregard for historical facts, one Republican red meat eater after another accused the Democrats generally and Harry Truman and FDR in particular of having "lost China."
Nor did the Korean War stop the high powered hype. After the dramatic turnaround of military fortune following the Inchon landings in September 1950, the demands that the US go all the way to total victory escalated on the political right. The US commander in the theater, Gen Douglas MacArthur, stoked the political fires of the right and his own presidential ambitions by totally off-the-wall statements to the press and supporters including the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars about invading China, turning the forces of Chaing lose from their Formosan cage, and alleging that there was "no substitute for victory."
In his campaign, Dwight Eisenhower invoked not only his military hero status but stated, "if elected, I will go to Korea," as if this meant he had a plan for ending the war. He went to Korea before his inauguration, but the war didn't end until Joe Stalin had the good grace to die and Ike made some carefully calculated comments regarding our supposed willingness to "use whatever weapons might be required."
Flash forward to the end of the Eisenhower years and the beginnings of the Camelot ascendancy of John Kennedy. The President and his brother, Attorney General Robert, not only went ahead with the tactical and strategic loonie tune plan to oust the communists from Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs invasion, but, after the invasion was readily defeated by Castro's forces, both plotted revenge against the successful bearded dictator.
In addition to pure personal spite, the Kennedy brothers had sound political reasons for seeking the death or overthrow of the Cuban communist regime. The Democrats had been burned, badly burned, by the "who lost China" blathering of the Republicans a decade earlier. Now, not only had the commies established a beachhead in the Western Hemisphere only ninety miles from Key West, the Reds had built the Berlin Wall, and, we thought, started pro-communist insurgencies in Africa, Latin America, and, most scarily, Southeast Asia. Looking ahead to the 1964 presidential cycle, both could hear, "Who lost Cuba? Who lost the Congo? Who lost South Vietnam? Laos? Who let the Berlin Wall be built?"
Domestic politics combined with personal anger to power bad policy regarding Cuba. With respect to South Vietnam the same political considerations applied.
The War in Vietnam was political from the giddy-up. LBJ was pleased to brand his opponent, Barry Goldwater, as a warmonger, too unstable to be trusted near the nuclear button. LBJ piously promised not to have "American boys die for Asian boys in an Asian war," while already planning the sustained bombing campaign dubbed ROLLING THUNDER and contemplating a major uptick in the number of US ground combat forces in country.
The 1968 presidential campaign was all about the War in Vietnam. LBJ tried to maneuver the North Vietnamese and the boys in Saigon to the peace table in Paris in time to help the Democratic nominee, Hubert Humphrey. At the same time, the Republican, Richard Nixon, was sending "secret" emissaries to the South Vietnamese government, urging them to stall on the talks because Saigon would get a better deal from the Republicans.
Nixon's underhanded (and probably illegal) ploy payed off better than LBJ's underhanded but legal gambit. Nixon won the White House and the war wound on, and on, and on.
In the endgame of the Vietnam War, both parties played the war as pure politics. Nixon went for the gold with air bombardments which worked. The North was willing to go along with the appearance of "peace with honor."
The Democrats in Congress played their game as well, seeming to bow to the desires of public opinion. From their perspective it appeared that We the People were so tired of the war that peace was all that mattered. To hell with the honor portion of it.
Congress passed its "date-certain" resolutions. Congress cut off funding. The troops came home. The POWs were released. Finally push came to shove in South Vietnam. In a final irony of an already irony laden war, the South Vietnamese Army fought well. They were fighting the type of supply heavy, munitions heavy, air power heavy war which we had taught them and showed them.
As Northern forces attacked, the South relied on the promises made years earlier that Uncle Sam would provide the supplies, the ammunition, the air power which would allow the South Vietnamese Army to resist. Hiding behind the will of We the People, the Wallahs in Congress refused the supplies, refused the munitions, refused the air power.
When the South fell, the same Wallahs had the unmitigated audacity to say, "See, we knew they wouldn't/couldn't fight. We did the right thing."
Now both parties are hard at it, using the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for political gain. The Democrats (and some Republicans) hope they are reading the tea leaves of public sourness on the war correctly. They apparently believe that by establishing "dates certain," time tables for withdrawal, or cutting funding, they will both end the war and gain votes.
Once again, in an uncanny analogy with the Vietnam War, Wallahs in Congress and Presidential Wannabes seek to truckle effectively, gain votes, write off our dead as a bad investment and sacrifice the notion that wars are fought to gain a better state of peace.
In the Vietnam War there were no long term losses to the US from the shortsighted political games playing. The Vietnam War, as the Geek has noted so often before, was the war that we could afford to lose.
In the current wars as in the long ago Korean War, the US is fighting a war it cannot, in its own better long term interests. afford to lose.
To truckle to the whims of opinion this time around is to trifle with our collective future. In this war, a determination not to lose may not be a crowd pleaser. Too bad.
A question for politicians: does it make sense to win an election while losing a future?
This crock was always accompanied by pious blathering from the politicos of both parties about something they liked to call "bi-partisan foreign policy." Other times the sanctimonious Wallahs in Congress bloviated about "not making war into a political issue."
When he was young and listened to this tripe, the Geek would roll his eyes. Now he engages in projectile vomit.
Get a grip on this. Foreign policy has rarely, very rarely been bi-partisan. War has always been a political issue.
Even World War II, the so-called "Good War," the war which started for us when the American Eagle's perch in Pearl Harbor was broken and the eagle found himself beak down in the dreck on the bottom of the cage, was a political football. Senator Truman rode to prominence running investigations of defense contractor waste, fraud, and abuse. Governor Dewey was all fired up to use the very secret information about how the US had broken the enemy's codes and ciphers when the perfectly apolitical, country-first Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall prevailed upon the governor not to.
Less popular wars, and supposed foreign policy failures, became the centrality of political life after World War II. The Republicans barked and snapped successfully at the Democrats by alleging that FDR had "sold out" Poland and other Eastern European countries occupied by the Red Army because Democrats were "soft on communism."
The Republicans yowled all the louder when Mao's forces won in China. With an utter irresponsibility and a completely cavalier disregard for historical facts, one Republican red meat eater after another accused the Democrats generally and Harry Truman and FDR in particular of having "lost China."
Nor did the Korean War stop the high powered hype. After the dramatic turnaround of military fortune following the Inchon landings in September 1950, the demands that the US go all the way to total victory escalated on the political right. The US commander in the theater, Gen Douglas MacArthur, stoked the political fires of the right and his own presidential ambitions by totally off-the-wall statements to the press and supporters including the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars about invading China, turning the forces of Chaing lose from their Formosan cage, and alleging that there was "no substitute for victory."
In his campaign, Dwight Eisenhower invoked not only his military hero status but stated, "if elected, I will go to Korea," as if this meant he had a plan for ending the war. He went to Korea before his inauguration, but the war didn't end until Joe Stalin had the good grace to die and Ike made some carefully calculated comments regarding our supposed willingness to "use whatever weapons might be required."
Flash forward to the end of the Eisenhower years and the beginnings of the Camelot ascendancy of John Kennedy. The President and his brother, Attorney General Robert, not only went ahead with the tactical and strategic loonie tune plan to oust the communists from Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs invasion, but, after the invasion was readily defeated by Castro's forces, both plotted revenge against the successful bearded dictator.
In addition to pure personal spite, the Kennedy brothers had sound political reasons for seeking the death or overthrow of the Cuban communist regime. The Democrats had been burned, badly burned, by the "who lost China" blathering of the Republicans a decade earlier. Now, not only had the commies established a beachhead in the Western Hemisphere only ninety miles from Key West, the Reds had built the Berlin Wall, and, we thought, started pro-communist insurgencies in Africa, Latin America, and, most scarily, Southeast Asia. Looking ahead to the 1964 presidential cycle, both could hear, "Who lost Cuba? Who lost the Congo? Who lost South Vietnam? Laos? Who let the Berlin Wall be built?"
Domestic politics combined with personal anger to power bad policy regarding Cuba. With respect to South Vietnam the same political considerations applied.
The War in Vietnam was political from the giddy-up. LBJ was pleased to brand his opponent, Barry Goldwater, as a warmonger, too unstable to be trusted near the nuclear button. LBJ piously promised not to have "American boys die for Asian boys in an Asian war," while already planning the sustained bombing campaign dubbed ROLLING THUNDER and contemplating a major uptick in the number of US ground combat forces in country.
The 1968 presidential campaign was all about the War in Vietnam. LBJ tried to maneuver the North Vietnamese and the boys in Saigon to the peace table in Paris in time to help the Democratic nominee, Hubert Humphrey. At the same time, the Republican, Richard Nixon, was sending "secret" emissaries to the South Vietnamese government, urging them to stall on the talks because Saigon would get a better deal from the Republicans.
Nixon's underhanded (and probably illegal) ploy payed off better than LBJ's underhanded but legal gambit. Nixon won the White House and the war wound on, and on, and on.
In the endgame of the Vietnam War, both parties played the war as pure politics. Nixon went for the gold with air bombardments which worked. The North was willing to go along with the appearance of "peace with honor."
The Democrats in Congress played their game as well, seeming to bow to the desires of public opinion. From their perspective it appeared that We the People were so tired of the war that peace was all that mattered. To hell with the honor portion of it.
Congress passed its "date-certain" resolutions. Congress cut off funding. The troops came home. The POWs were released. Finally push came to shove in South Vietnam. In a final irony of an already irony laden war, the South Vietnamese Army fought well. They were fighting the type of supply heavy, munitions heavy, air power heavy war which we had taught them and showed them.
As Northern forces attacked, the South relied on the promises made years earlier that Uncle Sam would provide the supplies, the ammunition, the air power which would allow the South Vietnamese Army to resist. Hiding behind the will of We the People, the Wallahs in Congress refused the supplies, refused the munitions, refused the air power.
When the South fell, the same Wallahs had the unmitigated audacity to say, "See, we knew they wouldn't/couldn't fight. We did the right thing."
Now both parties are hard at it, using the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for political gain. The Democrats (and some Republicans) hope they are reading the tea leaves of public sourness on the war correctly. They apparently believe that by establishing "dates certain," time tables for withdrawal, or cutting funding, they will both end the war and gain votes.
Once again, in an uncanny analogy with the Vietnam War, Wallahs in Congress and Presidential Wannabes seek to truckle effectively, gain votes, write off our dead as a bad investment and sacrifice the notion that wars are fought to gain a better state of peace.
In the Vietnam War there were no long term losses to the US from the shortsighted political games playing. The Vietnam War, as the Geek has noted so often before, was the war that we could afford to lose.
In the current wars as in the long ago Korean War, the US is fighting a war it cannot, in its own better long term interests. afford to lose.
To truckle to the whims of opinion this time around is to trifle with our collective future. In this war, a determination not to lose may not be a crowd pleaser. Too bad.
A question for politicians: does it make sense to win an election while losing a future?
Monday, August 20, 2007
Obama Is a Nice Young Man, But...
The Geek has a hard time keeping the "debates" between presidential candidates straight. They all look and sound the same.
In one the other day, Senator Obama again showed that he is a well meaning, terribly sincere fellow who doesn't have a clue about how diplomacy works or what the nature of foreign policy might be. He may know the politics of Chicago, but the realities of the world and how the US can craft and implement policy both elude him completely.
The senator delivers wholesome sounding generalities such as "new approaches" as he glibly alleges that the "old" ones have failed. Gosh! What's not to like about "new approaches?" We are Americans; we live in the land of "New and Improved!" The old has gotta be bad. Right?
Wrong! Says the Geek.
When not animadverting to spacious and undefined new approaches, the Senator gets back to his old notion of unprepared, without conditions summit talks with the leaders of countries such as Iran who wish us anything but good.
As the Geek has written before, this idea is as wrong as grilled watermelon.
There are some realities that Mr Obama needs to get a grip on.
Historically, "new approaches" to the old topic of diplomacy do not work. Examples litter the landscape of our past like beer cans on a back road. So we'll just look at a couple from the past century.
President Woodrow Wilson, a political scientist by education, promised "open covenants, openly arrived at" in his famed Fourteen Points upon which the Germans sought an armistice in November 1918. It sounds good. Feels good. All kinds of warm and fuzzy. The opposite of those icky-poo secret agreements reached by frock coated gents in plush conference rooms.
We Americans loved it. Just as much as we love the word "transparency" today and use it as a fetish to judge the legitimacy of elections, treaties, government actions generally.
The problem came with the simple fact that the cynical (that is to say, experienced and realistic) Europeans knew that agreements require tough trading, hard bargaining, and hard-to-swallow compromises that might unduly upset the voters or other power elites back home. The open covenants openly arrived at promise of the Fourteen Points was quickly shoved to the side. Wilson was realist enough to go along with the process and retired to the back room with the rest of the boys.
The resulting treaty was a disaster. It made World War II in Europe almost a dead on certainty. It was, however, the best that could be done. And, it could only have been achieved behind closed doors.
Franklin D. Roosevelt was one of the best, if not the best, practitioner of politics in recent US history. He was a master manipulator of public perceptions. An illusionist of the first rank when it came to assuring that the government appeared to be doing something effective regardless of reality.
The Geek admires FDR's professional skill in domestic politics.
At the same time, the Geek as historian must give FDR a severe downcheck for his "new" approach in diplomacy. FDR inaugurated the concept of the Summit Meeting during World War II. His first meeting was with Winston Churchill. To put it bluntly, the old boy from England played the American president like a piano. That didn't hurt. We were on the same side.
Later meetings, and in particular those involving Josef Stalin, were a disaster. FDR honestly believed that he could deal with "The Great Leader and Beloved Teacher" as though he was simply another machine politician. To consider, as FDR sincerely did, that Stalin was an American big city boss with a Russian accent is the same as thinking that the atomic bomb is just another firecracker.
(Note to the Obama campaign: File the FDR summit concept under both "new approaches" and "meetings with foreign leaders who wish the US something other than the very, very best.)
Then there was Jimmy Carter. In foreign policy, the gentleman from Georgia is best remembered for his new approach of making human rights the key component of our policy and diplomacy. Keep in mind that other presidents from both parties had acknowledged human rights had a place in US diplomacy, but these saw it correctly--a tool, not an end in itself.
Before anyone gets all prickly from the belief that the Geek doesn't like human rights, be assured that he does. What he does not believe in was Carter's new approach of making the concept the gold standard of foreign policy. To cite only one result of the Carter approach, it is only necessary to look at Iran and ask, "Have the Iranians enjoyed more human rights since 1979 under the mullahocracy than they did under the Shah?"
(Attention all of you who are youth-advantaged, Carter's human righs litmus test ruled the Shah to be too nasty to merit our support. Carter pulled the plug on the Shah so that the arrival of the mulllahs and ayatollas was inevitable.)
In diplomacy and foreign policy new ideas, fresh ways of viewing the world, its opportunities, and challenges are important, very important. All too often ideas fossilize into dogma so that eyes are blinded to changing realities in the globe. Quite often the pervasive idea of precedent ties the hands of policy makers and diplomats alike.
It is one thing to argue for new ideas, fresh views, even radical reinterpretations of American interests and relations. The Geek strongly supports from his platform of history each and every one of these concepts.
It is something quite different to promise "new approaches." If the words of Senator Obama are taken at face value, they indicate that he would change the way in which the US conducts its foreign policy and relations.
(If the words don't mean what they seem to, then the Geek wants to know just what in hell is the senator talking about? Cosmetic changes? Putting old wine in old bottles and slapping on new labels? Nothing in particular?)
Get a grip on this. Other countries do not want and do not welcome any significant change in the ways by which a Great Power conducts foreign policy and diplomacy. A key prerequisite to effective policy implementation is consistency and a fair degree of predictability. Other countries want to be able to assess in advance the probable range of reactions by the Great Power to any policy option or response they are considering.
A Great Power can seem unpredictable either at some risk to its own interests or as a carefully calculated gambit as the Reagan Administration demonstrated with its brief flirtation with the Crazy American Hypothesis. At all other times, the Great Power must be like a person with high serotonin--predictable, reliable, consistent.
An adrenaline rush of "new and improved" is likely to promote hyperventilating and thumping chests world wide. An administration is well advised to avoid pronounced, rapid change.
Senator Obama should also consider that the US foreign policy community, including the Foreign Service and the Central Intelligence Agency, have a good record of professionalism. Both provide excellent sources of information to the decision makers topside. Both will carry out the orders they receive from the All Highest in the White House with skill.
Along with the military forces, these organizations provide the line troops of foreign policy and diplomacy. A president (or presidential wannabe) who knows this and who knows that while new ideas and views are critical, new approaches are far more likely to fail than to succeed will have a good to excellent chance of performing well on the global stage.
Mr Obama might make a good president if he grows up, gets a good education in how the world works, and gets a grip on history.
In one the other day, Senator Obama again showed that he is a well meaning, terribly sincere fellow who doesn't have a clue about how diplomacy works or what the nature of foreign policy might be. He may know the politics of Chicago, but the realities of the world and how the US can craft and implement policy both elude him completely.
The senator delivers wholesome sounding generalities such as "new approaches" as he glibly alleges that the "old" ones have failed. Gosh! What's not to like about "new approaches?" We are Americans; we live in the land of "New and Improved!" The old has gotta be bad. Right?
Wrong! Says the Geek.
When not animadverting to spacious and undefined new approaches, the Senator gets back to his old notion of unprepared, without conditions summit talks with the leaders of countries such as Iran who wish us anything but good.
As the Geek has written before, this idea is as wrong as grilled watermelon.
There are some realities that Mr Obama needs to get a grip on.
Historically, "new approaches" to the old topic of diplomacy do not work. Examples litter the landscape of our past like beer cans on a back road. So we'll just look at a couple from the past century.
President Woodrow Wilson, a political scientist by education, promised "open covenants, openly arrived at" in his famed Fourteen Points upon which the Germans sought an armistice in November 1918. It sounds good. Feels good. All kinds of warm and fuzzy. The opposite of those icky-poo secret agreements reached by frock coated gents in plush conference rooms.
We Americans loved it. Just as much as we love the word "transparency" today and use it as a fetish to judge the legitimacy of elections, treaties, government actions generally.
The problem came with the simple fact that the cynical (that is to say, experienced and realistic) Europeans knew that agreements require tough trading, hard bargaining, and hard-to-swallow compromises that might unduly upset the voters or other power elites back home. The open covenants openly arrived at promise of the Fourteen Points was quickly shoved to the side. Wilson was realist enough to go along with the process and retired to the back room with the rest of the boys.
The resulting treaty was a disaster. It made World War II in Europe almost a dead on certainty. It was, however, the best that could be done. And, it could only have been achieved behind closed doors.
Franklin D. Roosevelt was one of the best, if not the best, practitioner of politics in recent US history. He was a master manipulator of public perceptions. An illusionist of the first rank when it came to assuring that the government appeared to be doing something effective regardless of reality.
The Geek admires FDR's professional skill in domestic politics.
At the same time, the Geek as historian must give FDR a severe downcheck for his "new" approach in diplomacy. FDR inaugurated the concept of the Summit Meeting during World War II. His first meeting was with Winston Churchill. To put it bluntly, the old boy from England played the American president like a piano. That didn't hurt. We were on the same side.
Later meetings, and in particular those involving Josef Stalin, were a disaster. FDR honestly believed that he could deal with "The Great Leader and Beloved Teacher" as though he was simply another machine politician. To consider, as FDR sincerely did, that Stalin was an American big city boss with a Russian accent is the same as thinking that the atomic bomb is just another firecracker.
(Note to the Obama campaign: File the FDR summit concept under both "new approaches" and "meetings with foreign leaders who wish the US something other than the very, very best.)
Then there was Jimmy Carter. In foreign policy, the gentleman from Georgia is best remembered for his new approach of making human rights the key component of our policy and diplomacy. Keep in mind that other presidents from both parties had acknowledged human rights had a place in US diplomacy, but these saw it correctly--a tool, not an end in itself.
Before anyone gets all prickly from the belief that the Geek doesn't like human rights, be assured that he does. What he does not believe in was Carter's new approach of making the concept the gold standard of foreign policy. To cite only one result of the Carter approach, it is only necessary to look at Iran and ask, "Have the Iranians enjoyed more human rights since 1979 under the mullahocracy than they did under the Shah?"
(Attention all of you who are youth-advantaged, Carter's human righs litmus test ruled the Shah to be too nasty to merit our support. Carter pulled the plug on the Shah so that the arrival of the mulllahs and ayatollas was inevitable.)
In diplomacy and foreign policy new ideas, fresh ways of viewing the world, its opportunities, and challenges are important, very important. All too often ideas fossilize into dogma so that eyes are blinded to changing realities in the globe. Quite often the pervasive idea of precedent ties the hands of policy makers and diplomats alike.
It is one thing to argue for new ideas, fresh views, even radical reinterpretations of American interests and relations. The Geek strongly supports from his platform of history each and every one of these concepts.
It is something quite different to promise "new approaches." If the words of Senator Obama are taken at face value, they indicate that he would change the way in which the US conducts its foreign policy and relations.
(If the words don't mean what they seem to, then the Geek wants to know just what in hell is the senator talking about? Cosmetic changes? Putting old wine in old bottles and slapping on new labels? Nothing in particular?)
Get a grip on this. Other countries do not want and do not welcome any significant change in the ways by which a Great Power conducts foreign policy and diplomacy. A key prerequisite to effective policy implementation is consistency and a fair degree of predictability. Other countries want to be able to assess in advance the probable range of reactions by the Great Power to any policy option or response they are considering.
A Great Power can seem unpredictable either at some risk to its own interests or as a carefully calculated gambit as the Reagan Administration demonstrated with its brief flirtation with the Crazy American Hypothesis. At all other times, the Great Power must be like a person with high serotonin--predictable, reliable, consistent.
An adrenaline rush of "new and improved" is likely to promote hyperventilating and thumping chests world wide. An administration is well advised to avoid pronounced, rapid change.
Senator Obama should also consider that the US foreign policy community, including the Foreign Service and the Central Intelligence Agency, have a good record of professionalism. Both provide excellent sources of information to the decision makers topside. Both will carry out the orders they receive from the All Highest in the White House with skill.
Along with the military forces, these organizations provide the line troops of foreign policy and diplomacy. A president (or presidential wannabe) who knows this and who knows that while new ideas and views are critical, new approaches are far more likely to fail than to succeed will have a good to excellent chance of performing well on the global stage.
Mr Obama might make a good president if he grows up, gets a good education in how the world works, and gets a grip on history.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Hey! Obama, Talking Tough isn't Talking Smart
Just where is Senator Barrack Obama's brain in relation to his mouth? The Geek would really like to know.
If the reports decorating the mainstream media today are correct and if the Obama campaign's website is to be believed, the Senator's brain is either off on an excursion or in sore need of repairs.
The Geek thinks that the Senator ought to get a grip on a few salient realities.
Defeating Islamist terrorists and their sponsors or facilitators will take more than leaving Iraq in a worse state of peace. Winning against Islamists and their supporters will take more than throwing fifty gigabucks into the foreign aid till. It will take more than public diplomacy even if led by the president.
Defeating al-Qaeda, Taliban and the like will take more, a lot more, than an additional two brigades on the ground in Afghanistan. Seven thousand more pairs of boots on the ground would be a nice addition--but that's not enough to bring any meaningful sort of victory.
The Senator from Illinois' final "policy" feature is enough in and of itself to assure that the war against al-Qaeda, Taliban and the like will be lost. That's right, lost. Lost by the US and the other civilized countries.
And, what was Obama's brainy idea for self-inflicted defeat?
The threat that the US would violate Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity if we received "actionable intelligence" regarding a high ranking terrorist and the Pakistanis didn't take appropriate action on their own.
Wow!
It was bad enough when the nice, well intended young man from Illinois stated that his administration would make Pakistan's foreign aid contingent upon demonstrated results in ejecting nasty al-Qaeda and Taliban types from its soil.
What game is Obama playing? Top-A-Threat? If the foreign aid threat ain't enough, well, Paks, how do you like my invasion threat?
The real name of the game is How To Lose the War on Terrorism.
Get a grip on this, Senator. Pakistan is already very unstable. The more or less secular military regime is in a world of hurt with the large and growing Islamist portion of its population. The military and the Interservices Intelligence agency are already filled with Islamists. The border territories, which are tribal, remote, and barely governed by the central regime, are filled with Islamists as well as a prickly sense of independence.
Now, Senator, take a very, very firm hold on this. Pakistan possesses a small but workable nuclear arsenal. Let the Geek spell it out for you slowly, in baby words: The Paks have the bomb. The A-bomb.
They don't have many. Their bombs are kind of crude by our technologically sophisticated standards. But they work. We know they work. After all, they were tested a few years ago.
The question for the Senator is this: How many bombs do the Islamists need to give a whale of a lot of people a very bad hair day?
Ten?
Five?
Perhaps one is enough.
Senator Obama, before you run off at the mouth trying to convince people that you are not as "naive" as Senator Clinton has alleged or too soft to be a firm commander-in-chief, why don't you try wrapping your brain around a few necessary, basic facts about Islamists, the appeal of their ideology, the limits of public diplomacy, the results of a bug out from Iraq and, most importantly, just why the hell it is not in US interests to destabilize further the Pakistani government.
The facts are out there. They are as easy to find as the facts about Iraq were back before our invasion. Find them now, understand them now and, you know what?
You won't ever have to do a Dick Cheney imitation on the Larry King Live show and admit that you were wrong about a world class blunder.
If the reports decorating the mainstream media today are correct and if the Obama campaign's website is to be believed, the Senator's brain is either off on an excursion or in sore need of repairs.
The Geek thinks that the Senator ought to get a grip on a few salient realities.
Defeating Islamist terrorists and their sponsors or facilitators will take more than leaving Iraq in a worse state of peace. Winning against Islamists and their supporters will take more than throwing fifty gigabucks into the foreign aid till. It will take more than public diplomacy even if led by the president.
Defeating al-Qaeda, Taliban and the like will take more, a lot more, than an additional two brigades on the ground in Afghanistan. Seven thousand more pairs of boots on the ground would be a nice addition--but that's not enough to bring any meaningful sort of victory.
The Senator from Illinois' final "policy" feature is enough in and of itself to assure that the war against al-Qaeda, Taliban and the like will be lost. That's right, lost. Lost by the US and the other civilized countries.
And, what was Obama's brainy idea for self-inflicted defeat?
The threat that the US would violate Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity if we received "actionable intelligence" regarding a high ranking terrorist and the Pakistanis didn't take appropriate action on their own.
Wow!
It was bad enough when the nice, well intended young man from Illinois stated that his administration would make Pakistan's foreign aid contingent upon demonstrated results in ejecting nasty al-Qaeda and Taliban types from its soil.
What game is Obama playing? Top-A-Threat? If the foreign aid threat ain't enough, well, Paks, how do you like my invasion threat?
The real name of the game is How To Lose the War on Terrorism.
Get a grip on this, Senator. Pakistan is already very unstable. The more or less secular military regime is in a world of hurt with the large and growing Islamist portion of its population. The military and the Interservices Intelligence agency are already filled with Islamists. The border territories, which are tribal, remote, and barely governed by the central regime, are filled with Islamists as well as a prickly sense of independence.
Now, Senator, take a very, very firm hold on this. Pakistan possesses a small but workable nuclear arsenal. Let the Geek spell it out for you slowly, in baby words: The Paks have the bomb. The A-bomb.
They don't have many. Their bombs are kind of crude by our technologically sophisticated standards. But they work. We know they work. After all, they were tested a few years ago.
The question for the Senator is this: How many bombs do the Islamists need to give a whale of a lot of people a very bad hair day?
Ten?
Five?
Perhaps one is enough.
Senator Obama, before you run off at the mouth trying to convince people that you are not as "naive" as Senator Clinton has alleged or too soft to be a firm commander-in-chief, why don't you try wrapping your brain around a few necessary, basic facts about Islamists, the appeal of their ideology, the limits of public diplomacy, the results of a bug out from Iraq and, most importantly, just why the hell it is not in US interests to destabilize further the Pakistani government.
The facts are out there. They are as easy to find as the facts about Iraq were back before our invasion. Find them now, understand them now and, you know what?
You won't ever have to do a Dick Cheney imitation on the Larry King Live show and admit that you were wrong about a world class blunder.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
It's Gonna Be a Foreign Policy Presidency
Like it or not, the next administration will have no choice except focusing on foreign policy. It won't be a four years given over to such crushing issues as school uniforms or smoking bans; it won't be "the economy, stupid," save as foreign affairs is inevitably linked to economic matters. Not even the ever popular health care issue(s) will loom larger than the messy realities of our relations with the rest of the world.
Of course, most Americans neither like nor understand foreign affairs, foreign policy and the strange doings of diplomats. Most Americans are like digital circuits when it comes to war: full on or full off.
Politicians, particularly those with eyes glassily fixated on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, are aware of the American distaste for the intricacies and nuances of foreign affairs. As a consequence, the current packs of Republicans and Democrats avoid the quagmire except to cater to the current prevalent disenchantment with the war in Iraq.
Get a grip on this. No matter how much people (including candidates) want to ignore the world, it isn't going away. Neither are the problems.
Problems?
Try the following partial list. The Islamist terrorists. They'll still be with us. Collapsing states. The number may well grow (try adding Pakistan to the roster and remember, the Pakistanis have the Bomb.) The Mideast. Do you really think that the Palestinian question is going to be finally resolved before January 2009?
Now consider these questions. The regrowth of Russia as an adversary? You bet, the Russians have never been satisfied with second class status. Then there is the Peoples' Republic of China. Trade deficit, anyone? How about the steroid injections Beijing has been giving its military?
By the way, don't forget about South America and the growth of neo-Castroism. Of course there is global warming. Consider the term "global," might not that imply a foreign dimension?
Ah, yes, that nifty term "global" as in "global economy," and "globalization." That brings the relation between economic and foreign policy into very sharp focus, doesn't it?
Yes. The next administration is going to have its plate plumb full of foreign dishes. Most of them won't be tasty.
If that view of the future doesn't upset you enough, stop and consider the foreign policy capacities so far demonstrated by various front running candidates.
First there is Senator Obama, who would meet with any hostile despot for face-to-face talks "without preconditions." Now the Geek is sure the Senator is a nice young man who means well but who is hopelessly out of touch with the realities of summit meetings--even with friendly foreign leaders of allied countries. He apparently thinks that face time with a foreign jefe is either an exercise in public relations or a mere shake and grin session.
Senator Clinton is a little sharper about the reality of summit meetings and acknowledges that they must be proceeded by serious and prolonged diplomatic interchanges if anything substantial is to emerge at the other end. Good for her.
Still, Senator Clinton has a major credibility problem: her vote on the Iraq invasion. The Geek admits he was bemused at the time. He considered the names that must have been on her Rolodex and the ease with which she (or some beaver on her staff) could have found out that the President's justifications for the invasion were not even up to the soup sandwich level.
(Heck. The Geek had no problem with concluding that the President and his henchpeople were lying using the intelligence analyst's favorite sources: the library and the newspapers both foreign and domestic as well as a modicum of brain power.)
But the Geek isn't in the Senate and Hillary Clinton was. With her finger stuck in the winds of public opinion she voted with the majority. This tells the objective observer that she lacks the intellectual and moral courage to deal with foreign affairs in any meaningful fashion.
The Republicans aren't any better. Mitt Romney thinks the American public is "sick" of the war in Iraq because of the "lack of progress." Duh? That's a no-brainer. So is the rest of his "thinking." He'll wait until after the mid-September report to say what he would do differently. Beyond that platitude, if he has any foreign policy notions, they aren't apparent to the Geek.
The former Mayor of New York City is so hazy on his view of the world beyond being opposed to terrorism that one wonders if he has ever stopped quacking about how "tough" he was as a prosecutor and mayor to think about the planet outside of the borough of Manhattan.
Senator McCain is right on Iraq. The US has to stay. His trouble is simply that he can't say why. He hasn't given a single reason to justify his conclusion good, bad, or indifferent. Other than that, his foreign policy seems to be a stale recycling of the usual Republican platitudes such as support for Israel and a love affair with free trade--whatever free trade might be these days.
Now, let's take a fast peek at Congress. The ham-handed, public opinion driven, brain dead efforts by that body--particularly the House--to meddle in foreign policy makes the Geek join spiritual hands with Colonel Pride (although without the presence of troops behind him) when dealing with the Parliament during the English Civil War.
If you think the Geek is being too hard on Congress, take a firm hold on the amendments to the new Anti-Terrorism bill designed to put pressure on countries such as Pakistan to take a more effective stance regarding al-Qaeda and their ilk. Mr Lantos, the Chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee and a man without any notable credentials in the field, sponsored these destructive amendments, which if passed into law will help further destabilize Pakistan and alienate other shaky "allies" such as Saudi Arabia. (The cliche "with friends like that who needs enemies?" comes to mind."
What choice have we got?
It's simple but oh, so hard. The politically articulate minority of this nation has to insist that foreign policy be given pride of place in the upcoming election. We have to ask the hardest of hard questions. We have to insist that individuals who aspire to leadership have the intellectual and moral courage to lead. We have to know, positively know, that they have a coherent vision of the United States' role in the world as well as a vision of how to get us there and the ability to sell their vision and road map.
In short, we have to demand that they be true leaders, willing to sail against the transient winds of opinion with a firm fix on the harbor ahead.
Of course, most Americans neither like nor understand foreign affairs, foreign policy and the strange doings of diplomats. Most Americans are like digital circuits when it comes to war: full on or full off.
Politicians, particularly those with eyes glassily fixated on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, are aware of the American distaste for the intricacies and nuances of foreign affairs. As a consequence, the current packs of Republicans and Democrats avoid the quagmire except to cater to the current prevalent disenchantment with the war in Iraq.
Get a grip on this. No matter how much people (including candidates) want to ignore the world, it isn't going away. Neither are the problems.
Problems?
Try the following partial list. The Islamist terrorists. They'll still be with us. Collapsing states. The number may well grow (try adding Pakistan to the roster and remember, the Pakistanis have the Bomb.) The Mideast. Do you really think that the Palestinian question is going to be finally resolved before January 2009?
Now consider these questions. The regrowth of Russia as an adversary? You bet, the Russians have never been satisfied with second class status. Then there is the Peoples' Republic of China. Trade deficit, anyone? How about the steroid injections Beijing has been giving its military?
By the way, don't forget about South America and the growth of neo-Castroism. Of course there is global warming. Consider the term "global," might not that imply a foreign dimension?
Ah, yes, that nifty term "global" as in "global economy," and "globalization." That brings the relation between economic and foreign policy into very sharp focus, doesn't it?
Yes. The next administration is going to have its plate plumb full of foreign dishes. Most of them won't be tasty.
If that view of the future doesn't upset you enough, stop and consider the foreign policy capacities so far demonstrated by various front running candidates.
First there is Senator Obama, who would meet with any hostile despot for face-to-face talks "without preconditions." Now the Geek is sure the Senator is a nice young man who means well but who is hopelessly out of touch with the realities of summit meetings--even with friendly foreign leaders of allied countries. He apparently thinks that face time with a foreign jefe is either an exercise in public relations or a mere shake and grin session.
Senator Clinton is a little sharper about the reality of summit meetings and acknowledges that they must be proceeded by serious and prolonged diplomatic interchanges if anything substantial is to emerge at the other end. Good for her.
Still, Senator Clinton has a major credibility problem: her vote on the Iraq invasion. The Geek admits he was bemused at the time. He considered the names that must have been on her Rolodex and the ease with which she (or some beaver on her staff) could have found out that the President's justifications for the invasion were not even up to the soup sandwich level.
(Heck. The Geek had no problem with concluding that the President and his henchpeople were lying using the intelligence analyst's favorite sources: the library and the newspapers both foreign and domestic as well as a modicum of brain power.)
But the Geek isn't in the Senate and Hillary Clinton was. With her finger stuck in the winds of public opinion she voted with the majority. This tells the objective observer that she lacks the intellectual and moral courage to deal with foreign affairs in any meaningful fashion.
The Republicans aren't any better. Mitt Romney thinks the American public is "sick" of the war in Iraq because of the "lack of progress." Duh? That's a no-brainer. So is the rest of his "thinking." He'll wait until after the mid-September report to say what he would do differently. Beyond that platitude, if he has any foreign policy notions, they aren't apparent to the Geek.
The former Mayor of New York City is so hazy on his view of the world beyond being opposed to terrorism that one wonders if he has ever stopped quacking about how "tough" he was as a prosecutor and mayor to think about the planet outside of the borough of Manhattan.
Senator McCain is right on Iraq. The US has to stay. His trouble is simply that he can't say why. He hasn't given a single reason to justify his conclusion good, bad, or indifferent. Other than that, his foreign policy seems to be a stale recycling of the usual Republican platitudes such as support for Israel and a love affair with free trade--whatever free trade might be these days.
Now, let's take a fast peek at Congress. The ham-handed, public opinion driven, brain dead efforts by that body--particularly the House--to meddle in foreign policy makes the Geek join spiritual hands with Colonel Pride (although without the presence of troops behind him) when dealing with the Parliament during the English Civil War.
If you think the Geek is being too hard on Congress, take a firm hold on the amendments to the new Anti-Terrorism bill designed to put pressure on countries such as Pakistan to take a more effective stance regarding al-Qaeda and their ilk. Mr Lantos, the Chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee and a man without any notable credentials in the field, sponsored these destructive amendments, which if passed into law will help further destabilize Pakistan and alienate other shaky "allies" such as Saudi Arabia. (The cliche "with friends like that who needs enemies?" comes to mind."
What choice have we got?
It's simple but oh, so hard. The politically articulate minority of this nation has to insist that foreign policy be given pride of place in the upcoming election. We have to ask the hardest of hard questions. We have to insist that individuals who aspire to leadership have the intellectual and moral courage to lead. We have to know, positively know, that they have a coherent vision of the United States' role in the world as well as a vision of how to get us there and the ability to sell their vision and road map.
In short, we have to demand that they be true leaders, willing to sail against the transient winds of opinion with a firm fix on the harbor ahead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)