RICK PERRY BASHES RAND PAUL: IGNORANCE OR MERETRICIOUSNESS?

7/14/14

On Face the Nation this weekend, Texas Governor Rick Perry took his limited air time to bash fellow Republican, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.  Governor Perry accused Mr. Paul of being an “isolationist,” and wanting to draw a “red line around the United States” because Mr. Paul urges us to stay out of the religious battles and internecine conflicts that now characterize much of the Middle East.  Governor Perry accused Mr. Paul of having his head in the sand because the Islamic State is a dangerous terrorist group that will not be satisfied in establishing a caliphate in large swaths of Iraq and Syria but also doubtless wants to inflict great harm on the United States itself.  How, Mr. Perry asked, can Mr. Paul ignore this threat?

Mr. Perry apparently made all these accusations with a straight face.   That he was able to do so is remarkable given that it was Mr. Perry and those of his ilk who were, just a few short months ago, urging us to join the conflict in Syria on the side of what is now called the Islamic State, the very terror group he (in all likelihood correctly) accuses of wanting to inflict great harm on the U.S. homeland.   It was Mr. Perry (and John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and all the other usual suspects) who was urging us to bomb Bashar Assad’s forces, which are fighting the forces of the Islamic State.   Messrs. Perry, McCain, and Graham deny that they wanted to help out the Islamic State…no sir, they wanted to help the “moderates” in Syria.   That defense for their militaristic impulse is laughable.  Even assuming that these “moderates” are genuine and are not, as are so many of our “friends” in the Middle East, merely striking a pose in order to get access to American money and start numbered offshore bank accounts, the real force behind the opposition to Bashar Assad is provided by the most radical elements of his opposition, most saliently the Islamic State.  Any action against Mr. Assad is de facto support for the Islamic State that Mr. Perry and his pals purport to oppose.

We can draw one of two conclusions about the inherent contradictions behind the Perry/McCain/Graham approach to the Islamic State, professing to be so opposed to the State while urging action to fight its battles for it.

First, Messrs. McCain, Perry and Graham are completely ignorant of the Middle East and/or are completely delusional about the array of forces in the area.  They are either complete dullards and/or they simply cannot fathom a Syria or Iraq in which the U.S. has no visible support among anyone who is not on its payroll.   These pols seem to think that there are legions of people in the Middle East who are absolutely delighted that we have inflicted massive casualties on them and their families in Iraq and Afghanistan and thus have been rendered “moderate” and “pro-Western,” ready to vanquish dictators and establish Arab versions of Jeffersonian democracy at our mere request.

Second, Messrs. McCain, Perry, and Graham are no fools and are completely aware that we have few friends in the Middle East.  Further, they know that they are being completely self-contradictory in urging action against both the Islamic State and its most salient enemy, the regime of Bashar Assad.   But Messrs. McCain, Perry, and Graham simply don’t care.  They want American involvement in every conflict in which such involvement is possible.   They have to make good IOUs to the “defense contractors” who finance their positions of power and prestige, who enable them to remain in jobs in which their most urgent and constant task is to have their hindquarters smooched.   So if going to war anywhere with anyone will make the “defense” contractors happy, the money flowing, and thus the likes of Messrs. McCain, Perry, and Graham comfortably ensconced in the lifelong sinecures they call careers, going to war anywhere with anyone must be a very good thing.

Which one is it, Messrs. Perry, McCain, and Graham?   Are you ignorant or merely servicing the people who keep you in your cushy jobs that would make a Middle Eastern suzerain envious?

QUINN ON SYRIA, PRAYER AT PUBLIC MEETINGS, AND EMANUEL’S DISPENSING HIS WISDOM ON WABASH

5/9/14

Time is tight, as it has been for the last several months, but a man’s gotta write what a man’s gotta write…

WHY DO SO MANY IN WASHINGTON WANT TO HELP AL QAEDA IN SYRIA?

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/05/09/why-do-so-many-people-in-washington-want-to-help-al-qaeda-in-syria/

Contrary to what the likes of John McCain would have you believe, militarism and meddling does not equate to patriotism.

CAPTAIN OBVIOUS STRIKES AGAIN:  SUPREME COURT SAYS IT’S OKAY TO PRAY

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/05/06/captain-obvious-strikes-supreme-court-says-okay-pray/

Maybe this is the beginning of the end of all the silliness inflicted on us by the freedom from religion crowd…but probably not.

RAHM EMANUEL TO DOWNTOWN BUSINESSPEOPLE:  JUST SHUT UP AND PAY

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/05/03/rahm-emanuel-downtown-business-people-shut-pay/

And have you noticed how the local media, or at least elements of the Chicago Tribune, seem to have turned on their consanguineous champion?  Still…bet heavily on the wise and mighty Rahm’s reelection.  In the screwed up politics of enlightened, modern day America, it’s all about money, and Mr. Emanuel has boatloads of it.

Have a great weekend, everybody, and God bless and thank all of you out there who are mothers.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN SYRIA: ESCALATING EVEN BEFORE IT STARTS

9/6/13

President Obama a few days ago was promising that his intentions for Syria were limited to a pinpoint attack, designed to punish Bashar Assad for using chemical weapons on his own people.  He and his minions initially assured us that the attack would feature Tomahawk cruise missiles and the like, weapons that enable us to keep our guys out of harm’s way, to the extent such a thing is possible once combat starts.  (See my 9/2/13 post, OBAMA’S EXCELLENT SYRIAN ADVENTURE: THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER GETS BY WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM HIS ENEMIES? for only my latest, until now, comments on Syria.)

But now talk turns to the use of manned bombers, perhaps B-1s stationed in the Gulf, B-2s stationed in Missouri, or B-52s stationed in a variety of locations.   The use of B-2s is especially troubling; they are stealth bombers designed not to stand off and fire cruise missiles and the like from afar, like B-52s and B-1s, but, rather, to use their stealthy features to fly right over the target and deliver smart bombs.   So using B-2s means having actual live Air Force personnel penetrating the airspace of Syria, which has among the best anti-aircraft defenses in the world, defenses so formidable that the Israeli Air Force fears to figuratively tread there.

Perhaps this talk of expanding beyond Tomahawks and graduating to weapons systems that put Americans in harm’s way is designed to mollify the likes of Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham who are, as is their wont, hell-bent on getting us deeply immersed in another centuries old, irresolvable, Middle Eastern secular conflict.  And what better way to get a reluctant American public on board for all out war in a place in which we have few vital interests and no chance of coming out on top than the death of a few American soldiers and airmen?  Is this too cynical and conspiratorial?   Does it take too dark a view of the War Party and its most fervent members?   Probably not.   But I digress.

The major lesson to take away from this talk of manned bombers over Syria is that this conflict, which the President promised not to escalate, is escalating even before it starts.   The broader lesson is to never, ever trust a politician, especially when he is preparing to send your kids and your money to war.  In fact, it would be wise to check your driver’s license should a politician tell you your name.

OBAMA’S EXCELLENT SYRIAN ADVENTURE: THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER GETS BY WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM HIS ENEMIES?

9/2/13

President Obama has finally done the right thing regarding the ghastly situation in Syria.

He may have looked more indecisive than the Dane himself in doing so.   Further, he may be doing so for the wrong reasons; a lot of people think the President is seeking Congressional approval of military action against Bashar Assad only as a ruse for changing his mind once again.   All this doesn’t matter.  We can’t count on people’s good motives; Francis of Assisi long ago vacated this mortal coil and there are few decent replacements.  We can only count on people’s actions.   And, regardless of his motivations, the President has finally done the right thing and gone the Constitutional route in asking Congressional approval before sending American blood and treasure on yet another foreign adventure with dubious, yet frightful, potential consequences.  In so doing, Mr. Obama has reversed the approach of every post-War president, with the possible and ironic exception of Richard Nixon, in committing American firepower, money, and troops to combat, which has been, effectively, I am the State.

This circuitous, stumbling in the dark path to righteousness has come at some cost to American credibility.   In his alternating red lines, expressions of outrage, and admonitions to caution, Mr. Obama has displayed more flip-flops than will be seen on the Jersey Shore this Labor Day weekend.   As Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University put it, the President

“…is becoming a laughingstock in the eyes of friends and foe alike.”

While it is hard in the Middle East, or anywhere, for that matter, to distinguish friend from foe (Was it Kissinger, Metternich, or Richelieu who said “Countries don’t have permanent friends; they only have permanent interests?), Mr. Inbar has a point.  Mr. Obama could have saved himself, and this country, a lot of humiliation by saying early on, and unequivocally, that the U.S. has no interests in Syria sufficiently salient to commit American resources and kids to the conflict.   (See 8/27/13’s  SYRIA:  “WE (WILL) GET FOOLED AGAIN!” for only my latest expostulation on why getting involved in yet another Middle Eastern centuries old irresolvable sectarian conflict would be ruinous, or worse, for the United States and the world.)   But the President, as is his wont, blew that opportunity.  

More importantly, if it took an embarrassing to the point of pain Hamlet act on the international stage on the part of the President to finally get him to do what no president since Roosevelt has done, i.e., abide by the Constitution in committing American troops to conflict, that is a small price to pay.

Will the President be able to persuade the Congress to go along with this latest Bushite adventure for who knows what reason in the Middle East?   Or will he suffer the type of heaven sent humiliation that the clear-headed British Parliament sent to the starry-eyed David Cameron?

First, while things can change rapidly and political predictions are thus always perilous, the odds are not good that the Congress will give the President the nod he ostensibly seeks.   Mr. Obama must persuade not only those Congresspersons with the good sense to stay as far away from Syria as one does from a rabid dog; he also must also mollify the likes of Senators John McCain and his mini-me, Senator Lindsey Graham, who seem to have visions of mushroom clouds, and generous payment of IOUs to the “defense” industry, once again dancing in their febrile brains.   One can only hope that the Republican impulse to oppose anything that Mr. Obama proposes will override the GOP reflexive equation of militarism with patriotism and that they will thus join the Democrats, and the libertarian oriented corners of the GOP, to slap Mr. Obama’s hand and save us from another quagmire in the cradle of civilization.

Second, one does get the impression that the President is secretly hoping that Congress will not go along with the Bushite militarism that has led Mr. Obama and his team to ostensibly flak for another folly in the Middle East.   This will enable the President to avoid conflict, blame it on Congress, and breathe a heavy sigh of relief.   The nation ought to join him in that sigh should that be the outcome of this entire fiasco.

SYRIA: “WE (WILL) GET FOOLED AGAIN!”

8/27/13

Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech yesterday calling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s chemical attack on Syrian civilians a “moral obscenity” left little doubt that we are going to take military action, in some form, against Mr. Assad’s regime.   My opposition to such military action, or to any kind of meddling in the affairs of other states in which our interests are non-existent or indefinable, is well known to my readers.  See, for example, 6/17/13’s SYRIA AND THE WAR PARTY:  “AFTER YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT YOU DON’T WANT IT…”, only my latest post on Syria.

The ultimate irony, and idiocy, of intervention in Syria is that after spending billions of American treasure and incalculable quantities of irreplaceable American blood supposedly fighting Al-Qaeda and terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other venues in the Middle East and in Africa, we are now intervening, with more American treasure and, nearly inevitably, more American blood on behalf of terrorism and Al Qaeda in Syria.

Oh, yes, we comfort ourselves in our pure motives.   After all, Mr. Assad is a thug of major league proportions and we aren’t supporting the more radical, Al-Qaeda linked elements in Syria; we are supporting the “moderate” opposition to Mr. Assad.  By supporting these “moderate” elements, we are, indeed, thwarting Al-Qaeda’s evil designs in Syria.   One of these arguments is true but flawed; the other is a pile of horse excrement.

Mr. Assad is a thug; no one can argue with that.  But the Middle East, and much of the world, is peppered with thugs, and their thuggery never seems to bother us until they oppose our imagined interests and/or provide an excuse for War Party members in this country to enrich the “defense” contractors who sustain the lifelong sinecures those pols call careers.  Mr. Assad is no more of a thug than the likes of Shah Reza Pahlavi in Iran, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, or maybe even Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, with whom we did business quite happily until it became more profitable for some pols in this country to cease such business.  The consequences in all cases have been disastrous.  The consequences will be at least equally horrific in Syria as well because, just as in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, and countless other places, we don’t consider the alternatives before we go off on our neocon adventures of vainly attempting to make the whole world think just like us.

The second argument, that we are supporting the “moderate” elements in the Syrian opposition, reeks like the equine fecal matter that it is.   While there are plenty of people who will proclaim that they are “moderate” if doing so results in getting American cash and sponsorship, there probably are no “moderate” elements in Syria.   And if there are a few such types there, they are overwhelmed, in numbers, influence, and ferocity, by the radical elements we claim to oppose.   A victory by such imagined “moderates,” therefore, will be a victory by Al Qaeda and its wannabes, the very people we supposedly went to Iraq and Afghanistan to oppose.   Those like former President Bush, Senators McCain and Graham, and now President Obama, ought to get their stories straight before embarking on their missions to make the world comfortable for the arms merchants.

The Russians seem to understand what is happening in Syria.  They like Mr. Assad because he is their only friend in the Arab world and because they seem to be predisposed, perhaps because of certain affinities of their leadership, toward sponsorship of thugs.    But even if they had a clearer picture of the genuine evil of Mr. Assad, their sense of realpolitik would lead them to support his regime, and not only because Syria contains their only military base in the Arab world and on the Mediterranean Sea.   The Russians know that if Mr. Assad falls, Syria becomes a terrorist haven.   Russia not only has a huge problem with terrorists in its southern Republics but sits in far close proximity to Syria than we do.   Further, the Russians actually believed us when we said we opposed Al Qaeda and worldwide terrorism.  Silly Russians.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE SNOWDEN SITUATION

8/4/13

Having been away for some time (See my already seminal CLARK GRISWOLD, MR. PEABODY, AND ME, 8/2/13), I haven’t had the chance to comment on national politics.   So, to get back in the groove, a comment on l’affaire Snowden is in order.

There are those who think Edward Snowden is a hero or better.  There are more who think that Edward Snowden is a scoundrel, a traitor, or worse.  But regardless of what one thinks of Mr. Snowden, one should remain alert to the real danger Edward Snowden presents.  This danger was best illustrated by the reaction of Senator John McCain to the Russians’ granting temporary asylum to Mr. Snowden.  Mr. McCain called Russia’s action

“…a disgrace and deliberate effort to embarrass the United States.”

He went on to call for

--an increase in U.S. advocacy for human rights and civil liberties in Russia (as if such things are our business),

--a build-up of European missile defense programs, and

--a further expansion of NATO to include Georgia.

Therein lies the real danger of the Snowden affair…it gives people like John McCain, who never saw a conflict he didn’t want us to get involved in and never missed an opportunity to press for military conflict, an excuse to rekindle the Cold War and thus reward the “defense” contractors who underwrite the lifelong sinecures such politicians call careers.

And why did the Russians grant asylum to Mr. Snowden?   Surely to stick it in our eye, but also because they could.   America isn’t what it was in the post-war hegemonic world, unchallenged economically, diplomatically, industrially, financially, and militarily, the last despite the fervent efforts of the likes of Mr. McCain to set up Potemkin threats like the hapless Soviet Union, which couldn’t produce a decent car or washing machine, let alone threaten world domination or destruction.  We are still the world’s preeminent power, but our trajectory is clearly a downward one.

Some would like to blame our diminished status on Barack Obama.   Mr. Obama is surely complicit, largely through his pursuit of roughly the same policies as his predecessor, especially on in foreign affairs.  But Mr. Obama, and even Mr. Bush, has little to do with it.   Our decline is a reflection of the tides of history.  And those tides have surely been exacerbated by some bone-headed, and self-absorbed, moves by our politicians and large swaths of our population.   For example, we have long forgotten how to delay gratification and save money, to educate ourselves in things that matter, and generally assume the responsibilities of citizens of a great world power.  Instead, we have chosen to indulge our desires for general silliness in vain attempts at filling the holes in our lives that result from the abandonment of duty, honor, and responsibility.   And, buying the notion peddled by the likes of Mr. McCain that patriotism equates with militarism, we have gotten involved militarily and otherwise in places in which we had no interests or rights to intervene, further sapping our rapidly depleting resources.   Sounds a lot like ancient Rome, but I digress.  

We can blame Obama.  We can blame Bush.  We can blame the government and the politicians.  But we should also blame ourselves; we elected these people because they flattered us, telling us how wonderful we were as we submerged ourselves into decadence and silliness.

And so Vladimir Putin can stick it to us while we helplessly flail for ways to retaliate.  We’d better get used to such treatment.

SYRIA AND THE WAR PARTY: “AFTER YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT YOU DON’T WANT IT…”

6/17/13

President Barack “W” Obama has decided it’s a good idea to take sides in the Sunni/Shia civil war in Syria (See my 5/24/13 post THE SYRIAN CIVIL WAR:  A FRIGHTENING HISTORICAL ANALOGY for a not surprisingly amazingly prescient piece on this aspect of the war for which Mr. Obama now has such enthusiasm.) and has authorized sending arms to the Sunnis radicals to fight the Alawite/Shia radicals; see my 6/15/13 piece SYRIA:   HOW LONG BEFORE WE’RE CALLING OUR STOOGES “BRUTAL DICTATORS”?, only my latest piece on this impending next disaster for U.S. foreign policy.

Suddenly, though, the bipartisan War Party, of which, apparently, “W” Obama is now seeking to become the most salient member, is not satisfied with the small arms it was demanding we send to the Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria.   Prominent War Party mouthpiece Senator Bob Menendez (D., but really War Party, NJ) says

“You can’t simply send a pea shooter against a blunderbuss.”

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R., but really War Party, Ga.) talks of sending more powerful weapons to the “moderates” he is confident we have found in Syria and of enforcing no-fly zones.   Penultimate War Party leader Lindsey Graham (R., but really War Party, SC, pictured with the Dr. Frankenstein to whom he plays Igor, John McCain) says that the rebels can’t bring Bashar Assad down with small arms; they need something stronger.

The old expression regarding giving people inches only to have them demand yards immediately comes to mind.

Senator Mark Udall (D., but really War Party, Colo.) whimpers that he is afraid of a slippery slope but, lest he fall out of favor with the “defense” contractors who keep War Party members well larded and comfortably ensconced in Washington, says

“But I think we ought to be listening to the president, we ought to be listening to the military leadership.”

What Mr. Udall doesn’t understand, or understands but delights in, is that we are already on a slippery slope.  First it’s non-lethal aid, then it’s small arms, next it’s a no-fly zone, then it’s American “trainers” (what the Kennedy and Johnson administrations used to call “advisers,” only the “advisers” knew that they were really “troops,” but I digress.), then it’s….well, you know the logical conclusion of this game.  

Among all this craziness, the voice of reason comes from, of all people, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who asked the West, referring to the Al Qaeda dominated Syrian rebels,

“You want to support these people?  You want to supply arms to these people?  This bears little relation to the humanitarian values that countries all across Europe have been propagating for hundreds of years.” 

It’s not as if Mr. Putin’s horse in this race, Bashar Assad, has his feet firmly planted in the soil from which sprang the Magna Carta, either.   Mr. Putin is backing his thug not only out of a degree of affinity but also out of self-interest; not only is Syria Russia’s sole friend in the Arab world  (See my 5/17/13 post, AMERICAN ASSURANCES IN SYRIA:  A RUSSIAN GUANTANAMO IN AL QAEDA’S COURT?), but if the rebels win in Syria and it either descends into an ungovernable dystopia or becomes a radical Sunni dominated state (the only two options, despite the War Party’s disingenuous reassurances to the contrary), Russia’s terrorist problem, which makes ours look quite mild by comparison, will become virtually uncontrollable.   Mr. Putin is understandably bewildered that the West is so gung-ho about supporting people who mean the West, and Russia, so much harm.   This makes absolutely no sense to him, and understandably so.   For all his faults, the Russian president has something that most western leaders, and certainly the two U.S. presidents he has had to suffer through, lack…a sense of strategic perspective and, well, common sense.  Mr. Putin must be baffled as the United States and its allies sink further into the miasma of another deadly, expensive, and unwinnable conflict in a place we have no business being.

Somewhere, however, LBJ is smiling.  But not nearly as broadly as John McCain, the War Party’s leader, and the arms merchants who support the lifelong ego trip he and his fellow War Party members call careers.

OBAMA AND SYRIA: “…AND A MAN IN MY POSITION CANNOT AFFORD TO LOOK RIDICULOUS!”

4/28/13

Much criticism is being directed toward President Obama due to his clumsy handling of the Syrian situation.   The President had previously said that the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would be a “red line,” presumably tripping more vigorous U.S. action on behalf of the amorphous bands of rebels seeking to seize power in Syria.  (See my 4/11/13 piece, SYRIA:  GROUNDHOG DAY FOR AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY.)   When both the Israelis and our own intelligence sources confirmed that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons against its own population, the President hemmed and hawed, talking about wanting to be very careful before taking further steps toward active military involvement in Syria.   It’s easy to understand, and encourage, the President’s caution; there are those of us who have not forgotten the eagerness of the Bush crowd to get us into the huge military mistakes known as Iraq and Afghanistan.  But the President’s caution looks like pusillanimousness to his enemies and even to objective observers.  What once looked was a red line is starting to fade to a pink line, as some of his critics are fond of saying.

Mr. Obama is indeed looking quite ridiculous at this juncture, but not for the reasons the likes of Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham would have you believe.  The President does not look silly and indecisive because he is not reacting to Mr. Assad’s use of chemical weapons, but because Mr. Obama drew a red line in the first place.   Rather than saying that use of chemical weapons would be the tripwire for further U.S. involvement in Syria, the President should have stated unequivocally that the conflict in Syria is none of our business, that we have no dog in that fight, and that we are not going to get involved in that conflict.   Period.

Why is yours truly so adamant about keeping us out of Syria?   Again, see my 4/11 piece, but also note the arguments of Senator Lindsey Graham, John McCain’s mini-me, on Face the Nation this (Sunday, 4/28) morning.   Mr. Graham is, of course, urging greater involvement in Syria but not “boots on the ground,” no sir.  He instead favors such restrained measure as enforcing no-fly zones, using “cruise missiles” to destroy Syrian airfields, and vague measures to “secure Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles.”  Mr. Graham argues that if we do nothing, some combination of four things is going to happen.

1. Syria will become a failed state.
2. Syria’s chemical weapons will fall into the “wrong hands.”
3. Jordan will be overrun with refugees, threatening the regime of King Abdullah, whom Mr. Graham cites as a “loyal ally.”
4. The Iranians, emboldened by our lack of action, will move more quickly to develop nuclear weapons and foment trouble in the Middle East and beyond.

Well, guess what, Senator?   All those things, with the possible exception of the fourth, either have taken place or are going to take place regardless of what we do in Syria.   We have little to no influence on the parties fighting in Syria and, despite elements of our foreign policy apparatus again having fallen for the usual song and dance about “moderate, pro-Western elements,” we have no friends on either side of the Syrian conflict.   We have plenty of people who will flit around Washington professing friendship with America in order to line their own pockets, but we have no genuine friends in Syria.   We can’t influence the outcome of the war and, even if we could, no outcome will be favorable to us or to broad swaths of the Syrian people.   Syria is a mess and has become a hellhole.  Nothing we do can change that; the only impact of American involvement will be further shedding of American blood and expenditure of American money.   Funny how all this concern about the precarious state of federal finances goes out the window when the War Party sees a conflict in which it can get us involved, but I digress.

One would have thought that intelligent, or even sentient, people would have learned something about the limits of American power and influence from the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which are failed states, bristling with weapons and breeding legions of terrorists and one of which may very well become an Iranian satellite.  Both of have cost us plenty of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars we don’t have… and to no good end.

But we don’t learn.   Or, more properly, in a society that seems to equate militarism with patriotism and in which politicians need money from “defense” contractors to sustain their fantasy lives they call careers, we decide not to learn and rush to the next opportunity to prolong conflict, destroy lives, and create enemies.

SYRIA: GROUNDHOG DAY FOR AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

4/11/13

The Obama Administration, after doing a passingly decent job of keeping us out of yet another war in which we don’t belong, is succumbing to domestic and international pressure by moving toward authorizing our further involvement in the Syrian civil war by providing body armor and night vision goggles for the rebel groups in that troubled “nation.”

Why in the world should we be doing anything to help the “opposition” in Syria?   We know that the core of the opposition, certainly on the ground, is composed of people who are al-Qaeda affiliates or wannabes.   They wish us no good whatsoever.   Maybe even more importantly, toppling of the Assad dynasty, out of a misplaced, unquestioning enthusiasm for what the knee jerkers call “democracy” (perhaps not realizing that what we have in this country is, thank God, not democracy but representative government in the form of a democratic republic.   There is more than semantics involved here.   And there is also the question, given the American tendency to squander our time, and prominent slots in the news, on celebrity gossip and other such cotton candy for the mind, of whether even we here in America are ready for representative government, but I digress.  At least I do so parenthetically.) will not lead to some Valhalla of self-determination but, rather, to chaos.  

Look at Egypt and Libya, where western do-gooders decided that we no longer wanted those very bad men Mubarak and Qadafi.  Egypt is on the verge of, and Libya is thoroughly immersed in, complete chaos, with Colonel Qadafi’s former caches of arms feeding the growing flames to Libya’s south and roving, free lance gangs of armed men having their way with the populace and with, lest we forget, foreign consulates.   Even Tunisia, where the numb-skulled panters for “democracy” first had their way by cheering, and then engineering, the overthrow of Zine Ben Ali, things are spinning out of control, with assassination replacing the ballot as a means of transferring power.   Perhaps a less obvious example (And you heard it here first, folks.), is Myanmar, where the military regime is loosening things up in response to western pressure for “democracy”…and where, suddenly, after years of admittedly uneasy yet peaceful coexistence, the Muslims and Buddhists are fighting pitched battles in the streets and burning each other’s schools and places of worship.   Progress indeed.

No one is arguing that the Assads, Mubarak, Qadafi, Ben Ali, or the Myanmarese (?) generals are/were nice people.  They are/were brutal and repressive.   But now we are seeing why, to some extent, they have/had to be.   They are/were in charge of countries whose borders were drawn to suit Western imperial designs, not to account for the ethnic and religious divergences among their populations.  These countries were designed to fail, albeit perhaps inadvertently, by placing ethnic and religious groups whose most salient trait was their hatred for their neighbors, in the same country.   One can’t keep order in such a boiling, dyspeptic stew of toxins by being a nice guy who adheres to democratic principles and respects the Jeffersonian rights of everyone regardless of literacy, education, etc.   And so these countries were ruled by authoritarians who exercised their despotism in varying degrees according to their predispositions and the conditions over which they had charge.   Nice people?   No.  Necessary people?   Probably.

When these types of leaders are overthrown, the result is not the kind of democracy exercised in the debate clubs of the Ivy League and the discussion desks at CNN; the result is a dystopic hell.   The consequences are horrific for the region, the world, and especially for our ally Israel, which now finds itself, courtesy of the “democratic” impulses of its western friends, on the border of two failed states in which “democracy” translates into hatred of Israel and its very existence.

Yet the European powers charge ahead, seeking the overthrow of the Assad dynasty and pressuring us to join them in creating the conditions for dystopia.   And Mr. Obama goes along with the Europeans and with the members of the War Party in this country, led by Senator John “I’ve Never Seen a War I Didn’t Want Us (Meaning you) to Participate In” McCain and his mini-me from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, who would have us, at a minimum, bombing Syrian airfield and positioning more Patriot missiles in Turkey’s south to enforce a no-fly zone in northern Syria.

At best this is a case of Americans’ and other Westerners’ never learning from their mistakes and their hubris due to their being overly enamored with a concept, democracy, with which they are at best passingly familiar and which they assume requires no preconditions.

At worst, and I used to think that this was too cynical a view, something more sinister is at work here.   Perhaps the bipartisan War Party’s entire aim is to foment chaos throughout the Middle East and beyond.   This would create more opportunities for deploying U.S. troops in pointless conflicts…and rewarding the arms merchants who finance the endless exercises is self-aggrandizement these patheticos call careers.

CHRIS CHRISTIE AND CHUCK HAGEL NEED NOT APPLY

2/28/13

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, long time champion of lean, efficient, and limited governance and stalwart opponent of pubic employee unions’ efforts to highjack state and local government, was, er, disinvited to something that calls itself, still with a straight face, the “Conservative Political Action Conference (“CPAC”).”  

Former Senator Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran and genuine war hero who favors a defense policy that defends and a foreign policy that cultivates foreign friends and encourages reason over hysteria, was confirmed as Secretary of Defense…but with only four votes from senators from the Republican Party, which still laughingly calls itself the conservative party.   See my 2/1/13 post JOHN McCAIN, CHUCK HAGEL, AND DEFERRING TO HISTORY, only the latest in a series of posts here and at the now defunct Rant Political that argued enthusiastically for Mr. Hagel’s confirmation.

What is going on in the “conservative movement” and the Republican Party?   Why are such good men with solid values, deep seated beliefs in the primacy of the people over their government, and optimism about and confidence in the American people (misplaced in yours truly’s opinion, but that is another issue) no longer welcome among the self-styled keepers of the conservative flame?

One “conservative” beef with Mr. Christie is that he, never a poltroonish type given to the hemming, hawing, and equivocating that characterizes most of the invited guests at CPAC, very clearly let it be known that he was fed up with Congress’s delay, or worse, in passing a relief package for his state of New Jersey and other areas affected by Super Storm Sandy.   Another complaint about Governor Christies is that he appeared too chummy with President Obama when the President toured New Jersey in the wake of Sandy.

Admittedly, the “Sandy relief” bill that emerged from Congress was a crummy bill.  It was loaded with provisions and spending that had little, if anything, to do with Sandy.   But that only reinforces Mr. Christies’s point.   The reason the bill took so long to, and almost didn’t, become law is because the Congressional popinjays insisted on seizing on the hardship of those affected by Sandy to get taxpayer money for their districts.   If they just passed a clean bill, relief would have gotten to the affected areas sooner and at a lower price.   But they didn’t pass such a clean bill.   And Mr. Christie realized that his constituents needed help right away.   He didn’t put Party ahead of his state and his job serving that state.  

And, yes, Mr. Christie was courteous toward Mr. Obama when the President visited Sandy ravaged New Jersey.   Since when is civility and gentlemanliness not a conservative value?    Does calling one’s self a “conservative” require that one be so consumed with hated for the president of another party that one treats that president with coolness, or contempt, when he is there to help in a time of need?   Is it a mark of honor and “true blueness,” if you will, to dump on the president of the United States, especially when he holds the key to getting relief to people who badly need it?   Mr. Christie has a job that makes him responsible for the welfare of the people of his state; unlike that of, say, Paul Ryan, a hero of the “conservative” movement, Mr. Christie’s job does not consist of preening for the cameras and assuming that the American people are badly in need of the type of wisdom that can only be gleaned from a lifetime of bloviating from Washington.   See my 1/26/13 post, PAUL RYAN:   MORE PAP AND PABULUM FROM THE MASTER OF HYPOCRISY.

Mr. Hagel’s unpardonable sin was finally seeing the light and opposing George Bush’s excellent adventure in Iraq that has already cost us billions of treasure and the incalculable value of thousands of American lives and will cost of us for generations not only in dollars but in enmity throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds and the legions of aspiring terrorists that will result.   Mr. Hagel also has the temerity to suggest that perhaps we think before going off on ill-considered crusades designed primarily to enrich those who bankroll the lifelong ego trips those who attend CPAC call careers.   (My words, not Mr. Hagel’s.  He is too circumspect to say the things that I can say.)   The War Party is now firmly in control of the foreign policy apparatus at the likes of CPAC and those who, like Mr. Hagel, favor a foreign policy grounded in the principles of limited government and careful consideration of national interests are no longer welcome.  CPAC’s view of the world can be summarized by the admonition to shoot first, aim later, and keep the campaign (?) cash flowing from the “defense” contractors.   Who needs a skunk like Mr. Hagel at such a wonderful garden party?

I’ve spent most of my life as a conservative.   That started to change as Ronald Reagan, after a pretty good start, decided that we could give ourselves goodies without paying for them and started us on the fiscal train wreck from which we are currently suffering.   The change picked up as the despicable George W. Bush decided that big government was just fine at home and was especially advisable overseas and that score settling, or who knows what, rather than national interests, should be the guiding light in foreign and military policy.   Now the banishment of Mr. Christie and Mr. Hagel, two of the few people in public life whom I respect and admire, has completed my metamorphosis.   Into what, I don’t know.   But if the people who find Messrs. Christie and Hagel so dyspeptic are “conservatives,” I know what I am not.

JOHN McCAIN, CHUCK HAGEL, AND DEFERRING TO HISTORY

2/1/13

As anyone, and certainly anyone who reads my blogs, could have predicted, the War Party and its majordomo John McCain, are giving former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel one heck of a hard time in Mr. Hagel’s hearings for his confirmation as Secretary of Defense.   It seems that Mr. Hagel has the preposterous notion that we ought to be circumspect in military affairs and think long and hard before we send young men and women into combat for questionable goals.  Mr. Hagel apparently believes that further enriching the “defense” contractors who subsidize the lifelong sinecures War Party members occupy in the city they vociferously claim to detest is not sufficient justification for sending kids to their deaths.  Such apostasy is clearly anathema to Mr. McCain and his colleagues.

Fortunately for Mr. Hagel and for those of us who favor a defense that defends, Mr. McCain is not the brightest bulb in the Congressional chandelier.   Note the following exchange between Mr. McCain and Mr. Hagel on the “surge” in Iraq, of which Mr. McCain was the most salient and ardent champion:

McCain:

“Were you correct or incorrect when you said that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder…since Vietnam?”

Hagel:

“It’s far more complicated than that…My answer is ‘I’ll defer that judgment to history.’”

McCain:

“I think history has already made a judgment about the surge, sir, and you’re on the wrong side of it.”

John McCain is, as is his usual custom, clearly wrong on at least one issue here.  History does not make judgments in the space of 5, 10, 20, or even 30 years.  History, unlike current events, takes a long time go play out.   So history has yet to make a judgment on the surge.

Mr. McCain’s narrative is that the “surge” led to pacification in Iraq that gave the United States the opportunity to leave, more or less, Iraq without the guilt of leaving behind a failed state in which anarchy and violence ruled the day.   This former may or may not be true and the latter seems to be turning out to be wishful thinking.

We do know that the “surge” cost 1,200 American lives and, less importantly, billions of dollars.  We don’t know if the “surge” led to pacification, even temporarily, of Iraq.   At the same time we were “surging,” we were stepping up a program of payouts (bribes, really) to various warring factions in Iraq to come over to our side, or at least to behave themselves for awhile.   Whether the surge or the payoffs led to Iraq’s temporary pacification we don’t know.  And we also don’t know whether we would have left regardless of conditions in Iraq; the American people were, even long before we left, sick and tired of George Bush’s Excellent Adventure in Iraq, an Adventure that John McCain was critical of only in the sense that it was not pursued aggressively enough for his tastes.

We also know that the pacification, whether the result of the surge or the expenditures of plenty of spondulicks, was temporary.   Just about every day, we hear of car bombings, kidnappings, or other such goings-on in Iraq.   The minority Sunnis, who used to run the country, are disdainful, or worse, of the now ruling majority Shiites, who are very cozy with their Shiite brethren in Iran.  The Kurds in the north have more or less seceded from Iraq, and neither the Sunnis nor the Shiites are happy about what that means for their access to Iraq’s oil wealth, much of which is located in the Kurdish north, which is now openly called Kurdistan.

It looks like Iraq will wind up being a failed state and will descend into anarchy and civil war.  It may become, or at least parts of it will become, an Iranian satellite.   Thus we will have left either another breeding ground for terrorism or have handed the Iranians a client state at the expense of American blood and treasure.   And John McCain accuses Chuck Hagel of not being sufficiently tough on Iran!

Iraq’s either descending into a hellish dystopia, becoming an Iranian satellite, or both seems to have been inevitable from the moment George Bush decided, for reasons no one has yet been able to discern, that it would be a good idea to invade Iraq.    The only difference the “surge” has made it is to delay this outcome for perhaps a few years.   Was that delay worth 1,200 human lives?

One more thought…

If Iraq keeps heading in the direction it seems to be going, it, too, will become a breeding ground for terrorism, if it has not already become one, as seems likely given the hatred the Iraqi people have developed for Americans after George Bush, er, had his way, with their country.  Note that the justification for our going into Afghanistan was that it had become a breeding ground for terrorism.  So perhaps Mr. McCain and his henchmen are brighter than I think and are simply laying the groundwork for more military adventures in Iraq, which would make the “defense” contractors even richer…and more grateful to the likes of Mr. McCain, his mini-me from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of those who find Mr. Hagel’s talk of prudent exercise of military power so reprehensible.

History, a subject that Mr. McCain clearly does not understand, will have to tell us.