DENNY HASTERT AND H.L. MENCKEN

5/31/15

When I first learned of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s problems with federal law enforcement, my first thought was “Good.  Glad they nailed the SOB.”   These perhaps uncharitable thoughts arose not only from the schadenfreude that, to varying degrees, afflicts us all, but also from my never having liked Mr. Hastert.   From the get go, I considered him a complete lackey, a toady, a Bush lapdog whose role in getting our once great country involved in the Iraq fiasco was, if such a thing were possible, nearly as heinous a crime as those that were driven by Mr. Hastert’s (hopefully) erstwhile enthusiasm for young boys and the glaringly misplaced hubris he displayed in his clumsy attempts to cover up the disgusting, vile consequences of his perverted propensities.  

After briefly enjoying the guilty pleasure that arose from Mr. Hastert’s having his taste of karma, my thoughts quickly turned to one of my heroes, H.L. Mencken.   As some of you might suspect, I have been told on numerous occasions that I am a modern version of that late great Baltimore Sun scribe.   While that might sound braggadocious, it is an occasion not only for great pride but also great fear; can I possibly be that cynical?   But I digress.

Mr. Hastert’s sudden and well deserved defenestration immediately brought to mind what is perhaps Mr. Mencken’s greatest, though far from his most celebrated, utterance, to wit…

“All men are frauds.”  

The “aw, shucks, I’m just a wrestling coach from a small town west of Chicago” Mr. Hastert is the living embodiment of what, frightfully, may be an entirely true statement by Mr. Mencken.   There is hope, though, that this condition exemplified by Mr. Hastert is not universal; those of us not caught up in the hype that surrounds the professional narcissists who inhabit our governing class knew all along that Mr. Hastert was a fraud.   So maybe at least some men who appear not to be frauds indeed are not frauds.   At least we hope so.

Quickly, though, I asked myself where Mr. Hastert was getting all these spondulicks to pay off the former object of his misguided lust.  Again, Mr. Mencken has the answer:

“Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.”

There’s a lot of money in public service; the selfless public servant, the big hearted Mr. Hastert was cashing in on his years of good works for the people.   No wonder he was in such a hurry to hit the jackpot that he resigned as Speaker, and exited Congress, in what looked like mid-career; he wanted, and as it turned out, needed the money.

Finally, Mr. Hastert’s particular manifestation of perversity is not, at least we hope, nearly universal among the barnacles on the ship of state that inhabit Washington, D.C.   But his clearly misplaced hubris, his grossly inflated opinion of his craftiness, and his unrelenting thirst for the boodle that accompanies public service are indeed universal, firmly planted in the DNA of those who go to Washington brimming with messianic certainty that they have all the answers to all the problems that afflict the benighted folks back home who yearn for the wisdom that these modern day Olympians deign to impart to us.   So, again, Mr. Mencken comes to mind…

“Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.”

Thank you, Mr. Mencken.   Good riddance, Mr. Hastert.  One down, (at least) 535 to go.

THE JOURNAL URGES US TO FIGHT ON BOTH SIDES IN SYRIA: BELLUM GRATIA BELLI?

9/17/14

In its lead editorial this (Wednesday, 9/17/14, page A14) morning, the Wall Street Journal urges the Obama Administration to lift the siege on Aleppo by bombing Syrian President Bashar Assad’s airfields.  This would put the United States, explicitly, on both sides of the Syrian conflict and clearly on one side of the larger Sunni/Shiite conflict in the Middle East.  Who but someone who urges us to fight a war for the sake of fighting a war would urge such an insane policy?

Even dedicated non-interventionists like yours truly can see some merit in a bombing campaign against ISIS, ISIL, the Islamic State, or whatever it is being called today, especially after this especially cold-blooded group of terrorists has beheaded two Americans and one Brit.   We don’t like our country putting its considerable proboscis where it doesn’t belong, but we also can’t see our country standing idly by while its citizens are tortured, killed, and otherwise abused.  

But I have also urged caution, reminding members of the War Party, and its most stentorian voice at the Wall Street Journal, that only a few months ago, they were urging the United States to bomb Syria in support of the Syrian rebels, the most salient group of which was, and is, ISIS.  (See, for example, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ON THE ISLAMIC STATE:  “I WAS FOR IT UNTIL I WAS AGAINST IT”?,  8/21/14, MORE ENLIGHTENED THINKING FROM WASHINGTON: LET’S FIGHT IN BOTH IRAQ AND SYRIA!, 6/25/14)  A military campaign against ISIS, however, would put us on the side of Mr. Assad, a guy that the Journal and its fellow neocons were urging us to oppose only a few months ago.   Fighting ISIS thus would have the implicit effect of our fighting on both sides of the Syrian Civil War.  Only the geniuses at the State Department and other bastions of deep thinking foreign policy formulation in Washington would put us on both sides of a war.

Now the Journal, by urging the Obama Administration to bomb Syrian airfields and take other steps to lift the siege of Aleppo, is advocating explicitly placing us on both sides of the Syrian Civil War, fighting both the Assad regime and its most powerful and visible opponent, ISIS.

The rationale the Journal provides for getting us on both sides of the Syrian conflict is that

Sunnis will not support the campaign against Islamic State if they think our air strikes are intended to help the regime in Damascus and its Shiite allies in Beirut and Tehran.

This might indeed be the case, though we could, by the intensity and targeting of our air campaign, show the world that our objective, and only objective, is to rid the world, to the extent we can, of a group of extremists who have committed what ought to be the worst of sins on the international stage, i.e., the cold-blooded killing of American citizens.  But I digress.

More to the point, though, is that while the Sunnis may misinterpret an effort solely directed against ISIS as our taking the sides of the Shiites in Syria and in the larger Middle East, what will be the reaction of the Shiites if they see us fighting explicitly on the side of the Sunnis in Syria?  Perhaps they will take solace in that we are supporting the Shiite dominated government in Iraq, but I wouldn’t bet on it.  

The larger point is that it’s easy to see how byzantine the politics of the Middle East are and the best policy is to stay as far away from such intrigue as we can, limiting our involvement to making it clear that killing and torturing American citizens will not go unanswered.

One suspects, though, that the neocons, their manifesto writers at the Wall Street Journal, and the rest of the War Party in Washington care little for either the complexities of the Middle East or the rationalizations they provide for military action there.  Their sole, or at least their paramount, goal in urging us to bomb both the Assad regime and the Islamic State that opposes it is to get us involved in a war, any war…doing so is good for the “defense” contractors who keep War Party members comfortably ensconced in their Washington, D.C. sinecures.  And what could be more important than that?

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ON THE ISLAMIC STATE: “I WAS FOR IT UNTIL I WAS AGAINST IT”?

8/21/14

The Wall Street Journal editorialized this morning (Friday, 8/21/14, “So What Will You Do, Mr. President”) that the U.S. should “do what it takes to defeat these enemies of American and a civilized world.”  The editorial urged President Obama to take some concrete action, apparently beyond the air strikes he has already authorized, to defeat the Islamic State (“IS”), the band of terrorist thugs and crazies also known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (“ISIS”) and the Islamic State in the Levant (“ISIL”) depending on the day and the mood of the politicians and the media.

Even hard core non-interventionists like yours truly are at the point at which we would advocate some action, including heavy and concentrated U.S. air strikes, against IS, especially in the wake of IS’s unspeakable beheading of American citizen and journalist James Foley.   We have few arguments with the Wall Street Journal in that regard, though we suspect the Journal would like to see more than air strikes; the Journal has long seemed to back a recommitment of U.S. ground troops to Iraq after loudly protesting the withdrawal of our troops from the untenable nation.

The Wall Street Journal’s argument weakens, however, when we consider that, just a few months ago, that voice of the neocons was arguing for air strikes in support of IS in Syria.  The Journal wanted the U.S. to conduct air strikes to support the rebels against Syrian President Bashar Assad, whose most salient opponent in Syria was not the reportedly “moderate” Free Syrian Army, but the already radicalized ISIS.   While the Journal, and the neocons for which it is the major mouthpiece, expressed no sympathy for ISIS, the actions it advocated, and the toppling of Mr. Assad in which it helped those actions would result, would have been an injection of some pretty high-powered steroids into ISIS and its zeal to terrorize and radicalize the Middle East.

Further, the Journal was all for the American invasion of Iraq, perhaps the most salient result of which was the establishment of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which morphed into IS.  See 8/19/14’s DAN COATS BLASTS THEISLAMIC STATE…BUT IGNORES HIS OWN CULPABILITY at Rant Lifestyle.

The Journal and its neocon fellow travelers first prescribed an action that created the Islamic State.  Now they want to fight the Islamic State in Iraq but ally ourselves with the Islamic State in Syria.  Such apparently contradictory advocacy does not appear contradictory at all to those of us who believe that the basic neocon tenet is “Any way, any time, anywhere”…as long as the arms merchants, who support neocon pols and the neocon movement in general, can make some money.

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 EMANUEL’S PHONE TAX, U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN SYRIA AND IRAQ, EXPORTING CRUDE OIL, AND TRADING BASICS

6/27/14

Summer is finally getting to be some fun, and writing these screeds is a major element of said fun.  This week, I feature posts on basic trading and economics, Iraq and Syria (of course)…and a masterpiece, if I can say so myself, on the phone tax increase that illuminates much of Rahm Emanuel’s thinking.

CHICAGO’S PROPOSED PHONE TAX INCREASE:  RAHM EMANUEL’S IDEA OF “CONSTITUENT SERVICE”

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/06/26/chicagos-proposed-phone-tax-increase-rahm-emanuels-idea-of-constituent-service/

You think the property tax can be regressive?  Try this phone tax.  Do you think Rahm Emanuel gives a rat’s hindquarters?   He’s just serving his natural constituency.

MORE ENLIGHTENED THINKING FROM WASHINGTON:  LET’S FIGHT IN BOTH IRAQ AND SYRIA!

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/06/25/more-enlightened-thinking-from-washington-lets-fight-in-both-iraq-and-syria/

There is no limit to the world’s battlefields and potential battlefields, which Washington sees as more opportunities to keep the “defense” contractors happy…and writing checks.

KEEP ALL CRUDE OIL AT HOME?   “LAST NIGHT I HAD A WONDERFUL DREAM…”

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/06/25/last-night-i-had-a-wonderful-dream-keep-all-crude-oil-at-home/

I suppose we’d all like to be swimming in cheap domestic crude, but the world doesn’t work that way.   It looks like somebody in Washington understand this, but it’s not who you’d think.

BAD ECONOMIC NEWS = A HEALTHY STOCK MARKET?  BUT OF COURSE!

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/06/25/bad-economic-news-yielding-a-healthy-stock-market-goes-against-logic-right/

Pretty basic stuff for many of my readers, not so basic for others.  However, in trading and investing, as in so many other fields of human endeavor, ignoring the basics is the source of much misery.   One of those basic points is that you don’t have to like a particular policy or approach to act on, and profit from, that policy or approach.  Ideology and investing, and certainly trading, don’t mix.

Have a great weekend, everybody.  While I don’t pretend to understand this World Cup stuff (For example, why is losing such a good thing?), it’s sort of fun.

For more on Chicago’s politics, see my books:

The Chairman:

http://www.amazon.com/Chairman-Novel-Big-City-Politics/dp/1439255598/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355257845&sr=1-1&keywords=Mark+M.+Quinn

The Chairman’s Challenge:

http://www.amazon.com/Chairmans-Challenge-Continuing-Novel-Politics/dp/1426939108/ref=sr_1_3_title_1_pap?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360098045&sr=1-3&keywords=Mark+M.+Quinn

QUINN ON IRAQ, SHAKMAN...AND THINGS FAR WORSE THAN PATRONAGE HIRING

6/20/14

Yes, I am a bit consumed with Iraq of late, but this story deserves plenty of attention; rarely do we find ourselves on the brink of catastrophic (at least) regionwide conflict in which at least some of the major players are clueless, fanatical, or both.  

Despite the time spent on Iraq, I did mention to commit some apostasy on Chicago politics, still one of my favorite topics, in my first (and thus the last in this reverse chronological list)  post this week.

This week’s paragons of insight included

“ADVISERS” TO IRAQ:   DOES OBAMA REMEMBER VIETNAM?

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/06/20/sending-advisers-to-iraq-does-obama-remember-vietnam/

Our clueless commander-in-chief apparently can’t remember the major foreign policy debacle of his youth.   This post not only afforded me the opportunity to rant in a Cassandric fashion but also gave me an excuse to relate a few stories from the St. Walter School of my youth.  Such stories are bound to be included in my upcoming third book, still in its formative stages.

JOHN KERRY TO IRAQIS TRYING TO STAY ALIVE:   (WESTERN DEMOCRACY) IS WHAT YOU NEED 

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/06/18/john-kerry-tells-iraqis-trying-to-stay-alive-that-western-democracy-is-what-they-need/

Mr. Kerry failed to propose mandatory nightly renderings of Kumbayah.  One wonders why he committed such an oversight.

PARTITION IRAQ?   ANOTHER LOUSY IDEA FROM WASHINGTON

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/06/18/partitioning-iraq-just-another-lousy-idea-from-washington/

Modern day Metternichs pore over the map of the Middle East.  Oh, yeah, they’re qualified to redraw the world…just like the guys at Versailles in 1919.

PATRONAGE, THE SHAKMAN DECREE, THE CITY THAT ONCE WORKED…AND DAVID COPPERFIELD
http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/06/16/patronage-the-shakman-decree-the-city-that-once-worked-and-david-copperfield/
Yes, Mr. Shakman, et. al., there are worse things than patronage hiring.

For more on Chicago’s politics, see my books:

The Chairman:

http://www.amazon.com/Chairman-Novel-Big-City-Politics/dp/1439255598/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355257845&sr=1-1&keywords=Mark+M.+Quinn

The Chairman’s Challenge:

http://www.amazon.com/Chairmans-Challenge-Continuing-Novel-Politics/dp/1426939108/ref=sr_1_3_title_1_pap?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360098045&sr=1-3&keywords=Mark+M.+Quinn

QUINN ON IRAQ, SYRIA, ERIC CANTOR…AND $5,000 SUITS

6/13/14

Somehow I was under the mistaken notion that things would slow down with the summer and the consequent lightening of my teaching load, but that has not been the case.  Still, I’ve managed to comment on what I consider the big story of perhaps the year, or maybe even the decade, the goings on in Iraq, and a few other items for good measure:

SYRIA AND IRAQ:  THE BUSH/OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PUTS US ON BOTH SIDES OF A RELIGIOUS WAR

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/06/13/bushobama-adminstration-put-us-on-both-sides-of-syria-and-iraq-religious-war/

..and we continue to elect these Bozos from both parties who are apparently completely ill-equipped to deal with a dangerous world…or any world in which they are not completely insulated from reality, for that matter.

IRAQ ON THE VERGE OF BECOMING A TERRORIST PETRI DISH:   THANK THE BUSH/OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/06/13/iraq-on-the-verge-of-becoming-a-terrorist-petri-dish-thanks-to-the-bushobama-administration/

Yes, I will blame Bush…and Obama and Hillary Clinton.  They are all guilty of making the Middle East a fiasco…but none is more guilty than George W. Bush, an utter and complete disaster of a president.

WALL STREET DRESSES DOWN TO SEAL A DEAL

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/06/11/wall-street-dresses-down-to-seal-a-deal/

The smart money guys wear $5,000 suits?  O tempora, o mores!

ERIC CANTOR AND THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT GO DOWN HARD IN VIRGINIA

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/06/11/eric-cantor-and-the-gop-establishment-go-down-hard-in-virginia/

Few elections have ever made yours truly happier.

THE BIGGEST FAILURE OF HILLARY CLINTON AT STATE

http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/06/09/highlighting-hillary-clintons-biggest-failure-in-current-administration/

Benghazi is only a symptom of a much larger policy failure.

Have a great weekend and a great Father’s Day.  I will.

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. 

THE SYRIAN CIVIL WAR: A FRIGHTENING HISTORICAL ANALOGY

5/24/13

How about a scary historical analogy to put the Syrian Civil War in perspective?

 (See my many posts on that conflict, mostly written from the perspective of U.S. policy, the most recent of which is WHAT IF BASHAR ASSAD WINS IN SYRIA?, 5/21/13)

The Assad family is of the Alawite branch of Islam, which is closely related to the Shiite branch of Islam.   One might go so far as to say that the Alawites are a branch of the Shiites, but experts in these matters might consider that too simplistic.  The Assads are backed in this civil war by Shiite led Iran and it clients in Lebanon, including Hezbollah, and its clients in Iraq, a majority Shiite country once run by the Sunni Saddam Hussein until the American occupation, which at least temporarily resulted in the Shiites regaining shaky control of that country which itself is riven by what is not yet, but soon will be, called a civil war.

The opposition to Mr. Assad is composed of Sunnis, largely Al Qaeda related groups and Al Qaeda wannabes, and is backed by Sunni dominated regimes, primarily in the Persian Gulf, the most salient of which in the Syrian endeavor is Qatar.  

So what we have in Syria is a civil war, but also much more.   Syria appears to be a smaller theater in which the larger, cooler Sunni-Shiite conflict, which spans at least the greater Middle East, is manifesting itself in much hotter form.

Think back to the late 1930s and the Spanish Civil War.  In that conflict, the Nationalists, most of whom were genuine nationalists but many of whom, including their leader, Francisco Franco, also had Fascist tendencies, were backed by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.  The Republicans, many of whom were genuine republicans but many of whom had Communist tendencies, were backed by the Soviet Union.   The Nationalists eventually prevailed and Franco remained in power until his death in 1975.

The Spanish Civil War is largely seen by historians as something of a trial run, or a dress rehearsal, if you will, for the larger European conflict to follow, or perhaps even a first round in the fighting on the eastern front of the European theater in World War II.  The Fascists and the Communists, it is speculated, were just readying their weaponry for the big one to follow.

Could we be seeing the same thing in Syria?   Could we be seeing the Shiite powers, led by Iran, and the Sunni powers, led by the Gulf States, just testing their weaponry, their influence, and their wealth for the big one to follow?

To say we hope not is to understate the case.

WHAT IF BASHAR ASSAD WINS IN SYRIA?

5/21/13

News of Syrian government forces’ making major strides in the civil war in that troubled “nation” afforded Senator John McCain the opportunity to (what else?) call for deeper military involvement in the latest quagmire that has drawn his attention.

“This is a significant and dramatic indicator of the Obama administration’s passivity.  For this administration to sit idly by and watch these events unfold, (sic) is writing a shameful chapter in American history.”

After further ripping the Obama Administration for not racing headlong over this cliff without taking a nanosecond to consider the consequences “optimistic to the point of fantasy,” Mr. McCain then fell back on his standard Cold War rhetoric, pointing out that Russia sees and raises us each time we increase our assistance to the rebels.   What Mr. McCain’s point is in this instance is difficult to fathom, perhaps as much for him as for his listeners, but I digress.

We know what Mr. McCain’s motivation is in urging that American blood and treasure be fulsomely expended in this latest Middle Eastern rabbit hole; he has to look for every opportunity he can to pay back, with your money, the “defense” contractors who have so generously bankrolled the lifelong ego trip he calls a career.   We, as citizens, however, have no debt to repay to the contractors.  Unlike Mr. McCain and his colleagues whose “jobs” consist of having their hindquarters smooched by obsequiants who want a piece of your wallet, we work for our livings, and a good portion of what we make goes to support the likes of Mr. McCain and his fellow barnacles on the ship of state. Before we follow Mr. McCain’s advice to repeat what he considers the stunning successes of Iraq and Afghanistan, we are duty bound to examine the three major assumptions behind the argument that we should get more involved in Syria.

The first assumption is that we can influence the outcome in Syria.  Take a look at Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam before you accept the idea that we can guide outcomes of civil wars born of centuries of antagonism halfway around the world.  (See my 5/17/13 piece AMERICAN ASSURANCES IN SYRIA:  A RUSSIAN GUANTANAMO IN AL QAEDA’S COURT?)  At least in the case of Vietnam, the civil war was brewing before we got there.   We rekindled a largely dormant civil war in Afghanistan and started the now rampaging civil war in Iraq.  In none of those cases was the outcome good for America.  Well, ultimately things may have worked out for us in Vietnam, but only because our side lost.

The second assumption behind Mr. McCain’s and his bipartisan War Party’s enthusiasm for intervention in Syria is that it would be a good thing if the Assad dynasty was overthrown. 

There is not doubt that Bashar Assad is a thug, as was his father before him.  Neither shows, or showed, any compunction about slaughtering his own people to keep himself in power.   But what is the alternative?  Thugs were overthrown in Libya and, to a lesser extent, in Egypt.  They were replaced with a brutal stew of chaos and dueling thugs striving for power, only the new thugs like us even less, or hate us even more, than the old thugs. 

Furthermore, in Libya and Egypt, Mr. McCain (and Mr. Obama and the entire Western media and foreign policy establishments) seemed to have been surprised that the revolutionaries they backed did not turn out to be the Jeffersonian democrats they had supposed them to be.   In Syria, the War Party can’t even pretend that it is on the side of the angels; there is no doubt (except perhaps in Mr. McCain’s febrile brain) that the Syrian opposition is dominated by Al Qaeda and others who us ill.  As I said in my 4/28/13 piece OBAMA AND SYRIA:  “…AND A MAN IN MY POSITION CANNOT AFFORD TO LOOK RIDICULOUS!”

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.

The third assumption behind Mr. McCain’s war whoop-whoop is that Al Qaeda and its allies in Syria will win, that Mr. Assad will give up and leave the country.   But given the advances Mr. Assad and his Hezbollah allies have made of late, his defeat is far from a foregone conclusion.  As I said to a friend of mine in the Fall of 2011 (in a White Castle on Cicero Avenue in Alsip), when this conflict was just getting started, Assad could very well win this thing because he is at least as brutal as his father, who killed 30,000, many with chemical weapons, of his own people to maintain power.  

So suppose that Mr. Assad does wipe out the rebellion and emerges victorious, a very realistic possibility.  Not only will that expose us to the charges of flaccidity that Mr. McCain, Lindsey Graham, and other bi-partisan War Party members are always hyper-ventilating about, but we would then have to deal with a Syria that owes us nothing but owes the Russians, the Iranians, and, most dangerous of all, Hezbollah big time.   How receptive will a newly entrenched Mr. Assad feel about peace overtures then?  How will he regard Israel, one of our greatest allies whom he regards as little more than a surrogate for Western domination of an area he feels is rightly his?   Yes, Mr. Assad and his father have always despised Israel, but the Assads have kept an uneasy peace, albeit largely out of necessity, with their far more powerful neighbor for the last forty years.   Would that change if Mr. Assad were to defeat the rebels, and their Western backers, with help from Hezbollah and Iran?   Would you like to take the chance that it wouldn’t?

Of course, Mr. McCain and his fellow messenger boys for the “defense” industry will use the growing chance that Assad can win to argue for further U.S. military involvement in Syria; they will use anything to argue for more U.S. military involvement in Syria.  But wouldn’t a saner, and more enlightened, self-interested policy be to stay completely out of this latest Middle Eastern civil war and try to maintain the uneasy peace with the winner?

But who gets rich, or gets his campaign fund generously stocked, with a policy of enlightened non-intervention?

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.

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.