Juan Cole argued yesterday that we should remain engaged in Libya based on our obligation to support our NATO allies, and invokes their support of us in Afghanistan under Article 5. That article, to refresh your memory, is the one that says “an attack on one is considered an attack on all,” and brought NATO into Afghanistan because of the 9/11 attack on the US.
I certainly respect Juan Cole and defer to his knowledge and opinions on the Middle East. He is, in fact, one of my frequent sources for information on that subject. And I would agree with him that, insofar as humanitarian concerns might be the determinant, our intervention in Libya might be worthwhile. I am of the opinion, though, that there are factors other than the well being of the Libyan people at stake here.
First, I consider his argument about supporting NATO to be rather circular. Article 5 is irrelevant because no NATO nation has been attacked by Libya. Saying that we should support our allies in what they decided to do is just plain weird, since NATO cannot act unless all 28 members agree to that action. No member was forced into this action, and NATO can bail out without cost to itself if it finds the going too tough, which rather limits our obligation to our allies under the concept of “mutual defense.”
In any case, with NATO being a mutual defense treaty, urging support of allies which are engaged in attacking a nation which has not attacked anyone is a bit odd, to say the least.
I have been claiming from the very beginning that the idea that we “prevented the slaughter of hundreds of thousands” was questionable, since we were merely going into action based on the ranting of a madman, and Daniel Larison has an analysis today which supports that position.
So, NATO aside, while this adventure may be helpful to the Libyan people, I’ll take Juan Cole’s word for that, it’s highly questionable that it qualifies under the UN mandate of “responsibility to protect,” and it is seriously harmful to America in many ways.
It harms our standing in the international community because it demonstrates that once again we have started a military adventure that we cannot finish and, in this case are unwilling to even try to finish.
It harms our military because, support role or not, it is another theater in which we are engaged and strains our forces by putting them in conflict on three fronts.
It harms the people of this nation because they are being subjected to cuts in social programs in order to support the bloated military budget to support endless wars overseas that are not in defense of this nation, that are not in pursuit of clear national interests, and that are neither explained to or supported by the people of this country.
As a final touch, this war is initiated by a president using circuitous rhetoric and evasive language to avoid calling it a war and to avoid acknowledging that it was not begun in accordance with the constitution of this nation, a move that is supported by Congress and the media and which confirms that we are no longer a nation of law but are ruled at the whims of men.
Update: See Glenn Greenwald on "endless war."
And it adds the the climate of endless war which furthers the deepening of the erosion of civil liberties and the permanence of the climate of fear and intolerance bred by war. Remember that the background of Orwell's 1984 was the endless war with Eurasia, and it was that war which permitted the excesses of that totalarian, "Big Brother is watching" state.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Fall of Empires (updated)
Yesterday I spoke of college kids protesting the likelihood of higher tuition and chanting, “Tax the rich.” I did not ask, then, why those kids are even attending college in the first place.
A few of them are probably there in pursuit of quenching a thirst for knowledge, but I suspect they are in a very small minority. Many are there because they cannot find a job, and going to college is a way to continue living at home on your parents’ health insurance and with others paying the bills. Others are there because college is the ticket to greater income, and their goals are about income. Other are there for no reason other than that Obama has been prattling that every child should have a college education and those kids’ parents have been listening to his nonsensical mantra of “the jobs of the future will require a college education.” As if we will no longer need truck drivers, or construction workers, or machinists…
None of them expect that they should have to pay for their own education.
Each side in this tribal war has its mantra. For conservatives it’s “Big government is bad,” for liberals it’s “Tax the rich.” Well, when another Katrina or the big earthquake hits the conservatives are damned well going to wish they had a bigger government, and for liberals, get a clue. If you taxed the income of people making more than $250,000 at a 100% rate, leaving them nothing to eat on and no ability to pay their bills, you would raise $1.4 trillion, which would not even erase the current annual deficit.
Democrats are calling Republicans idiots and Republicans are calling Obama a Socialist, when they aren’t calling him something worse, and nobody is being an adult and admitting that there is no free lunch. There will need to be some cuts in spending, but those cuts will need to be made by people who actually know what we are spending money on, not by politicians catering to an emotional mob which thinks that foreign aid is a substantial portion of our budget, and taxes will need to be raised, but they will need to be raised for the purpose of increasing revenue and not as a form of class warfare.
Whatever America wants to call itself, it is an empire, and empires fall when its citizenry becomes fat, lazy and unwilling to pay the cost of maintaining its way of life. We are there.
Update: Monday morning
I have no problem with people who are going to college on a scholarship or grant that they have earned through academic achievement, or on a GI Bill earned through military service, or on what their own family members are able to pay in their behalf. The vast majority of these students are going to school in a genuine search for knowledge, or are devoted to improving the lives of others, or to improving the community in which they live, or simply are committed to becoming better persons. And they are not out in the street chanting "Tax the rich."
A few of them are probably there in pursuit of quenching a thirst for knowledge, but I suspect they are in a very small minority. Many are there because they cannot find a job, and going to college is a way to continue living at home on your parents’ health insurance and with others paying the bills. Others are there because college is the ticket to greater income, and their goals are about income. Other are there for no reason other than that Obama has been prattling that every child should have a college education and those kids’ parents have been listening to his nonsensical mantra of “the jobs of the future will require a college education.” As if we will no longer need truck drivers, or construction workers, or machinists…
None of them expect that they should have to pay for their own education.
Each side in this tribal war has its mantra. For conservatives it’s “Big government is bad,” for liberals it’s “Tax the rich.” Well, when another Katrina or the big earthquake hits the conservatives are damned well going to wish they had a bigger government, and for liberals, get a clue. If you taxed the income of people making more than $250,000 at a 100% rate, leaving them nothing to eat on and no ability to pay their bills, you would raise $1.4 trillion, which would not even erase the current annual deficit.
Democrats are calling Republicans idiots and Republicans are calling Obama a Socialist, when they aren’t calling him something worse, and nobody is being an adult and admitting that there is no free lunch. There will need to be some cuts in spending, but those cuts will need to be made by people who actually know what we are spending money on, not by politicians catering to an emotional mob which thinks that foreign aid is a substantial portion of our budget, and taxes will need to be raised, but they will need to be raised for the purpose of increasing revenue and not as a form of class warfare.
Whatever America wants to call itself, it is an empire, and empires fall when its citizenry becomes fat, lazy and unwilling to pay the cost of maintaining its way of life. We are there.
Update: Monday morning
I have no problem with people who are going to college on a scholarship or grant that they have earned through academic achievement, or on a GI Bill earned through military service, or on what their own family members are able to pay in their behalf. The vast majority of these students are going to school in a genuine search for knowledge, or are devoted to improving the lives of others, or to improving the community in which they live, or simply are committed to becoming better persons. And they are not out in the street chanting "Tax the rich."
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Lying Gasbag
Lawrence O’Donnell continues his idiotic crusade to convince the world that Eric Cantor doesn’t know how the American legislative process works. Cantor is certainly an idiot in many ways, but with equal certainty he knows how the American legislative process works as well as O’Donnell does.
The House passes hundreds of bills every year that have absolutely no purpose other than political posturing, and they do that no matter which party controls that body. Some of those bills make it through the Senate and become law, but still serve no useful purpose, such as laws proclaiming that the US supports some nonsensical cause because some legislator wanted to gain favor with a political donor.
The House passes some bills that it knows full well will never pass the Senate and, in fact, passes some because it knows they will never pass the Senate or even be brought to the floor of the Senate for consideration.
O’Donnell knows all of this very well, just as he knows that the “Government Shutdown Prevention Act” was political theater of the sort that the House has engaged in for many years. It was stupid, yes, but it hardly deserved the outrage that O’Donnell has heaped on it for three days, because the actual political implications of it are precisely zero.
He also continues his highly dishonest crusade against Senator Rand Paul regarding the passage of Senate Resolution 85, lying when he claims that Paul “voted for it” and lying when he claims that in doing so Paul authorized Obama to employ military force in Libya. He’s playing word games with the voting issue; no one “voted for” the resolution, it was simply that no one objected to its passage since it was essentially a meaningless bill.
But it doesn’t matter whether Paul voted for it or not since the bill does not, as O’Donnell dishonestly claims, provide authorization for the employment of military force in Libya, and O’Donnell knows very well that he is lying through his teeth when he claims that it does.
There is a vast difference between the Senate expressing a sense that it approves in principle of the United Nations considering the imposition of a no fly zone in Libya and the actual authorization of direct action by the United States. Even if that resolution had authorized the UN to act, that authorization would not have extended to the President, because the UN cannot order our President to act, and Congress cannot delegate its authority by treaty, statute or any means other than by amending the constitution using the procedure that is spelled out within that document.
O’Donnell knows all of that and is lying furiously in an effort to falsely discredit opponents of the President whom he slavishly and blindly worships.
The House passes hundreds of bills every year that have absolutely no purpose other than political posturing, and they do that no matter which party controls that body. Some of those bills make it through the Senate and become law, but still serve no useful purpose, such as laws proclaiming that the US supports some nonsensical cause because some legislator wanted to gain favor with a political donor.
The House passes some bills that it knows full well will never pass the Senate and, in fact, passes some because it knows they will never pass the Senate or even be brought to the floor of the Senate for consideration.
O’Donnell knows all of this very well, just as he knows that the “Government Shutdown Prevention Act” was political theater of the sort that the House has engaged in for many years. It was stupid, yes, but it hardly deserved the outrage that O’Donnell has heaped on it for three days, because the actual political implications of it are precisely zero.
He also continues his highly dishonest crusade against Senator Rand Paul regarding the passage of Senate Resolution 85, lying when he claims that Paul “voted for it” and lying when he claims that in doing so Paul authorized Obama to employ military force in Libya. He’s playing word games with the voting issue; no one “voted for” the resolution, it was simply that no one objected to its passage since it was essentially a meaningless bill.
But it doesn’t matter whether Paul voted for it or not since the bill does not, as O’Donnell dishonestly claims, provide authorization for the employment of military force in Libya, and O’Donnell knows very well that he is lying through his teeth when he claims that it does.
There is a vast difference between the Senate expressing a sense that it approves in principle of the United Nations considering the imposition of a no fly zone in Libya and the actual authorization of direct action by the United States. Even if that resolution had authorized the UN to act, that authorization would not have extended to the President, because the UN cannot order our President to act, and Congress cannot delegate its authority by treaty, statute or any means other than by amending the constitution using the procedure that is spelled out within that document.
O’Donnell knows all of that and is lying furiously in an effort to falsely discredit opponents of the President whom he slavishly and blindly worships.
Clarity Abounds (?)
In his awesome speech in which he made American policy on military intervention so crystalline and dazzlingly clear, President Obama said, “And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” Awesome.
So I guess we will have to wait until the bodies in Ivory Coast are buried, because slaughter alone is not enough, he requires “mass graves” as well. Oh, wait. He said he wasn’t waiting for that, so I guess that actual slaughter is not cause for military intervention, we only do that when there is a threat of slaughter and mass graves. The actual fact of slaughter and images of bodies littering the ground can be ignored.
We don’t even tell the people doing the slaughter to stop doing it, we just keep talking with the Republicans about cutting taxes and working toward reelection eighteen months from now. And continue making threats against the guy who was threatening slaughter but never actually did it. Maybe because we prevented it, maybe because he was only bullshitting in the first place. I am very confused.
Maybe Obama didn’t make his policy as clear as he thought he did.
So I guess we will have to wait until the bodies in Ivory Coast are buried, because slaughter alone is not enough, he requires “mass graves” as well. Oh, wait. He said he wasn’t waiting for that, so I guess that actual slaughter is not cause for military intervention, we only do that when there is a threat of slaughter and mass graves. The actual fact of slaughter and images of bodies littering the ground can be ignored.
We don’t even tell the people doing the slaughter to stop doing it, we just keep talking with the Republicans about cutting taxes and working toward reelection eighteen months from now. And continue making threats against the guy who was threatening slaughter but never actually did it. Maybe because we prevented it, maybe because he was only bullshitting in the first place. I am very confused.
Maybe Obama didn’t make his policy as clear as he thought he did.
"Tax The Rich"
A couple of days ago the local news showed students marching in protest of “budget cuts that would result in higher tuition costs.” The loudest and most frequent chant that could be heard was, “Tax the rich, tax the rich.”
And you wonder why Obama has not solved this country's problems?
Those problems will not be solved as long as the people of this nation expect the government to provide them with what they want, to provide the programs and services that benefit them personally, and that someone else will pay for those benefits. “Tax the rich.”
The problems that this nation faces will not be solved so long as the people of this nation blame “corrupt politicians” for passing laws which favor the rich and do not accept the responsibility for having elected those legislators to begin with, and for reelecting them after they passed laws which were against the interests of the electors.
The problems that this nation faces will not be solved so long as the people of this nation blame corporations for spending money in advertising to influence elections and allow themselves to be influenced by that advertising, making their decisions and casting their votes based on a barrage of thirty-second sound bite advertisements or on the letter that follows the name on the ballot, and not on the actual policies and actions of the candidates in the race.
This nation is engaged in a Civil War today, one which pits not North against South, but which pits 50 states against each other and every individual against all the rest. Every bill that hits the floor in Congress is a mishmash of clauses and riders catering to the greedy interests of fifty individual states without regard to the wellbeing of the nation as a whole. Every person in this nation regards national budgeting as a process of defunding the programs and services that benefit other people, funding the programs and services than benefit me and taxing someone else to pay for them. “Tax the rich,” defining “rich” as someone who makes far more money than I do. The “majority” is defined as “what I want.”
That’s the road that brought us here, and it leads only one place.
The problems that face this country were not caused by Republicans or Democrats, they are the result of the people of this nation failing to accept the responsibility of citizenship and vote in all elections for which they are eligible, and to vote knowledgeably and responsibly; to vote for national legislators not based on what they promise for the individual or locality, but based on what they promise for the nation as a whole.
I need to be willing to pay taxes and require services from my governments based on the needs of the nation and the community, not based on the wants of my lifestyle. The Senator from California does not represent the "interests of the people of California," and given the opportunity to do so I would vote against any candidate who claimed that they did. The Senator from California is a United States Senator, and should represent the interests of the people of the United States as a whole, being guided by the principles held by the people of California.
And you wonder why Obama has not solved this country's problems?
Those problems will not be solved as long as the people of this nation expect the government to provide them with what they want, to provide the programs and services that benefit them personally, and that someone else will pay for those benefits. “Tax the rich.”
The problems that this nation faces will not be solved so long as the people of this nation blame “corrupt politicians” for passing laws which favor the rich and do not accept the responsibility for having elected those legislators to begin with, and for reelecting them after they passed laws which were against the interests of the electors.
The problems that this nation faces will not be solved so long as the people of this nation blame corporations for spending money in advertising to influence elections and allow themselves to be influenced by that advertising, making their decisions and casting their votes based on a barrage of thirty-second sound bite advertisements or on the letter that follows the name on the ballot, and not on the actual policies and actions of the candidates in the race.
This nation is engaged in a Civil War today, one which pits not North against South, but which pits 50 states against each other and every individual against all the rest. Every bill that hits the floor in Congress is a mishmash of clauses and riders catering to the greedy interests of fifty individual states without regard to the wellbeing of the nation as a whole. Every person in this nation regards national budgeting as a process of defunding the programs and services that benefit other people, funding the programs and services than benefit me and taxing someone else to pay for them. “Tax the rich,” defining “rich” as someone who makes far more money than I do. The “majority” is defined as “what I want.”
That’s the road that brought us here, and it leads only one place.
The problems that face this country were not caused by Republicans or Democrats, they are the result of the people of this nation failing to accept the responsibility of citizenship and vote in all elections for which they are eligible, and to vote knowledgeably and responsibly; to vote for national legislators not based on what they promise for the individual or locality, but based on what they promise for the nation as a whole.
I need to be willing to pay taxes and require services from my governments based on the needs of the nation and the community, not based on the wants of my lifestyle. The Senator from California does not represent the "interests of the people of California," and given the opportunity to do so I would vote against any candidate who claimed that they did. The Senator from California is a United States Senator, and should represent the interests of the people of the United States as a whole, being guided by the principles held by the people of California.
Friday, April 1, 2011
The Greater Good
I received a letter yesterday informing me that the City of San Diego is no longer going to pick up my trash and recycling, and that my homeowners' association will be contracting with a private firm to do that. Needless to say, my monthly fee will be increasing. The reason is that the city is having to cut back due to budget issues.
I have been advocating that governments should not be spending money they don't have. In depressed economy, some borrowing is needed to avoid excessive cutbacks, and I regard all of this posturing at the federal level to be absurd, but I'm in favor of fiscal responsibility, and the concept of a city refusing to collect trash on private streets is by no means unreasonable. The letter did not upset me at all; actually I was rather hoping for it. I think it's good policy.
Sometimes you just have to put your money where your mouth is.
I have been advocating that governments should not be spending money they don't have. In depressed economy, some borrowing is needed to avoid excessive cutbacks, and I regard all of this posturing at the federal level to be absurd, but I'm in favor of fiscal responsibility, and the concept of a city refusing to collect trash on private streets is by no means unreasonable. The letter did not upset me at all; actually I was rather hoping for it. I think it's good policy.
Sometimes you just have to put your money where your mouth is.
More Libyan Chaos
There is some discussion about the unconstitutional nature of Obama’s decision to attack Libya, but I am in small company in continuing to insist that he acted outside of his authority under the constitution. For the most part the discussion on this subject illustrates to what degree our political arena is no longer about principles or ideology, but has become sheer tribalism; my tribe is good, your tribe is bad.
Whatever Obama’s reason for attacking Libya, he knew he could do so with impunity. Other than a small handful of wingnuts on the extreme left, Democrats will not criticize him for anything he does, and without any exceptions at all Republicans will never criticize him for starting a war. It’s pretty much the one basis upon which they will not attack him.
As a measure of the confidence of his administration feels on the issue, Hillary Clinton is quoted as saying that “The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission.” The only source we have for that is Talking Points Memo, and I do not regard that as a particularly reliable source, although most of the media does and the quote is being widely circulated.
If the quote is accurate, this is a truly horrifying statement.
Daniel Larison has a fascinating evaluation of the Libyan situation in which he describes how neat of a reversal of roles this one is from Iraq;
You should read the whole thing, it’s an interesting read.
He expresses sympathy for Robert Gates, who advised against intervention before we did so and is forced now to “defend a policy that he has to know is profoundly ill-advised,” and wonders why Gates doesn’t just resign. As one commenter points out, Gates cannot do so without seriously damaging his President, and Gates is a loyal public servant who would never do that.
(I love writers who use terms like "profoundly ill-advised.")
I have no sympathy for Robert Gates, any more than I do for Colin Powell. They served masters whom they knew to be engaged in policies that were harmful, and they kept silent and advocated those policies is service to their masters and in violation of their own principles. The time for Gates to resign was when he recognized that Obama was the kind of president who was capable of making this decision, and he’s not a stupid man; he recognized that a long time ago.
Update: Happy April 1st
I guess this Libyan thing really has pissed me off. 73 posts in March is a new monthly record for me.
Whatever Obama’s reason for attacking Libya, he knew he could do so with impunity. Other than a small handful of wingnuts on the extreme left, Democrats will not criticize him for anything he does, and without any exceptions at all Republicans will never criticize him for starting a war. It’s pretty much the one basis upon which they will not attack him.
As a measure of the confidence of his administration feels on the issue, Hillary Clinton is quoted as saying that “The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission.” The only source we have for that is Talking Points Memo, and I do not regard that as a particularly reliable source, although most of the media does and the quote is being widely circulated.
If the quote is accurate, this is a truly horrifying statement.
Daniel Larison has a fascinating evaluation of the Libyan situation in which he describes how neat of a reversal of roles this one is from Iraq;
Instead of the reckless, unprepared Pentagon pushing for an invasion over the objections of more cautious State Department officials, we have the reckless, unprepared State Department officials insisting on a war the Pentagon sees as pointless. In other words, the people whose expertise was most relevant and should have been heeded were deliberately sidelined, and the people who had no idea what they were getting into prevailed.
The roles and political positions of the American and British governments are reversed. Where Britain was dragged along behind Bush into Iraq by Blair supposedly to keep the “special relationship” intact, Obama has given the impression that he and his administration have been dragged along behind Britain (and France)…
You should read the whole thing, it’s an interesting read.
He expresses sympathy for Robert Gates, who advised against intervention before we did so and is forced now to “defend a policy that he has to know is profoundly ill-advised,” and wonders why Gates doesn’t just resign. As one commenter points out, Gates cannot do so without seriously damaging his President, and Gates is a loyal public servant who would never do that.
(I love writers who use terms like "profoundly ill-advised.")
I have no sympathy for Robert Gates, any more than I do for Colin Powell. They served masters whom they knew to be engaged in policies that were harmful, and they kept silent and advocated those policies is service to their masters and in violation of their own principles. The time for Gates to resign was when he recognized that Obama was the kind of president who was capable of making this decision, and he’s not a stupid man; he recognized that a long time ago.
Update: Happy April 1st
I guess this Libyan thing really has pissed me off. 73 posts in March is a new monthly record for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)