Independent Caucus

OK to be a Spectator to Genocide?

There was a headline to that effect on Yahoo today regarding a comment Senator Obama had made, and I had to click it to see what it was about.

It wasn't QUITE what he said, as you can imagine.  It is the Internet after all.

What he did say was still interesting, and didn't require the over-hyping.  He said a genocide or possibility of same is not sufficient reason all by itself for America to commit ground troops in an effort to stop it.

This is true.  Why?  For moral reasons?  No.  As ever, practical ones.  Very real-world practical ones.  We can't afford it.  No one can.  Barack mentioned that ethnic killings are going on in the Congo right now.  In Darfur, also, as we all know.  They have gone on recently in Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, other places.  All horrible.  All with civilian victims.  Murder victims.  Rape victims.  It's all terrible.  For the reporters brave or foolhearty enough to cover these events, the stories, the photos, the video all coalesce into one grand, abhorrent disgust, objection, and, ultimately, question in this country:  Why are we not doing anything?

We can't afford it.  We are the richest country in the world, and we can't afford it.  We are incurring outrageous debt to fight with only about 140,000 troops in Iraq.  We are mortgaging our children's wages just to fight in that one place.

Military operations, equipment, support are supremely expensive.

By the end of World War II, the U.S. was almost broke.  Almost out of money and credit to buy more ammunition.  What if we had lost because we simply couldn't buy any more bullets, artillery rounds, shells, fuel?  Well, we were getting to that point.  But then so were the Japanese and the Germans.  It was a war of attrition for everyone.  I'm not sure a total Japanese surrender would have ultimately been achieved, not in any similar time frame as occurred, without the nuclear bomb.  A topic for some other post.

The bottom line is, and this was Mr. Obama's point, if the WORLD is not outraged, if the WORLD, or significant parts of it are not collectively compelled to spend and fight to intercede when genocides or attempted genocides erupt, then it is beyond any single country's treasury to stop it.

His point is well-taken on Iraq.  Much of the "coalition of the willing" has contracted to the no longer willing.  Besides a fading contribution from England, Europe is contributing not at all.  Nor is Russia.  Nor China, beyond lending us whatever we need, for now, to go it alone.  China is laughing all the way to the interest on their T-bills.  Barack's point is that without a political solution in Iraq, even though Al Qaeda will claim victory, even though some Iraqis will say the U.S. broke its promise "to stand with you," even though the U.S. will appear beaten, even though the truth is the U.S. will have won every firefight it found itself in, and that the U.S. is far and away the most potent fighting force the world has known, in spite of all of that, in the end, we simply can't afford it.

And it's why we won't be going it alone in the Congo or Darfur any time soon, either.  Sad and horrific as those situations are.

We like to think we are without limits in this country.  That anyone can make it.  That any obstacle can be overcome.  We would all benefit from just a teaspoon of humility and reality, that we can't do everything that ought and deserves and rightly should be done all by ourselves.  It's one of the key, if not the key reason why going into Iraq was the wrong decision.  Because unlike the first Gulf War, when lots of countries contributed considerable money, materiel, logistical support or all of the above - in fact, the entire bill was footed by other countries, while the U.S. did the lion's share of the fighting - no one, save a modest contribution by England was on-board this time.

What did this lack of foreign support lead do?  Bad and compromised strategy.  A strategy that asserted, most wistfully and hopefully, that a troop commitment in the range of 100,000 to 150,000 would be enough to beat Saddam, stabilize the country, and create an environment for the germination of a stable, democratic, peaceful Iraq.  General Anthony Zinni told them at the time it would take more like 300,000 to 400,000 troops.  This honest assessment earned General Zinni early retirement from the military.

President Bush and his team did not have the support for war his father had enjoyed.  But he went anyway.  And he nearly tripled the U.S. debt - this is the collection of all debt since the beginning of this country, just so you know.  Bush tripled it in just 6+ years.  And the only reason you don't feel it, is because he didn't ask you for it.  He expressly avoided asking you for it.  He asked China.  And China said OK.  But don't think this won't benefit China, and already is benefiting her, in a major way.  And if China decides to change policy and stop supporting it, you WILL feel it, and in a big fat hurry, as interest rates zoom higher than you can afford.  The tremendous borrowing has already weakened the dollar against the Euro (Europe, having stayed out of the fight and away from such debt accumulation) to where it is worth 1/3 less.  Just travel to Europe to see what 33% less buying power for your dollar feels like.

Anyway, it was a sensational headline, and should have been worded differently.  "Barack Says U.S. Cannot Afford to Stop Sectarian Violence Alone" or something like that.  But we can't.  The next president, should he or she wish to continue a "clear and hold" military strategy in Iraq - something REASONABLY guaranteed to have as a side benefit less sectarian violence, given enough troops - will have to, through diplomatic efforts so far unsuccessful or untried by the current administration, enlist the help of other major countries, or we will simply have to stop for the most practical of reasons - we cannot continue to afford it.

Lest Anyone Think The Iraq Answer is Easy

Well, it's not.

It's human nature, though, to diagnose simply, even smugly.

Callers to political talk shows will say, if from the left, "We should never have gone there.  We went there to get rid of weapons of mass destruction, and there were none.  The administration lied to us.  We went in under false pretenses, and now we should just get out.  No one is with us except Britain, and even their support is declining.  America has lost standing in the world.  The last intelligence estimate said the Iraq war has likely increased the number of terrorists who wish to harm the United States, making us less safe.  We haven't sacrificed and paid an honest dime for this war, through tax collections, but borrowed for all of it, mostly, from China.  George Bush has nearly tripled the national debt in just his 6+ years.  NATO nor anyone else wants to help pay for it, much less fight in it.  We need to get OUT!!!"

Callers from the right say, "Al Qaeda and militant Islam have declared war on the West.  They are not and will not go quietly into the night.  And so we must pursue them and hound them and attack them wherever they are, because if we give them rest and time they will organize and attack us again.  If we don't pursue them in Iraq, they will follow us home.  It's the Pottery Barn Rule - 'If you break it, you own it' - and we broke it, so we can't just cut and run now and leave the Iraqis to attempt to put back the pieces themselves.  If we leave Iraq, we will have absolutely no credibility in the area.  No one will trust us the next time when we say:  'We stand with you.'  There will be destruction and murder and rape and beheadings on a scale that will make Bosnia seem tame if we leave.  Al Qaeda will set up shop in Anbar Province, and they'll have their next safe haven from where to plan their next attack on the West.  If we leave, Al Qaeda will claim, like they claimed when the Soviet Union left Afghanistan, that they beat America!..that they are the greatest fighting force in the whole world!..that now in just the recent few years, they have defeated what were considered the two most powerful militaries in the entire world, Russia and the United States...that they withered under the great courage and fighting skill of Al Qaeda..and they will use those claims to recruit, to fund-raise, intimidate, threaten and kill even more.  Regardless of whether or not we should have gone in in the first place, we are there now, and we can't go back on our promise to the Iraqis, nor can we leave Al Qaeda to claim victory, and use such claim to become even stronger, and threaten us and the rest of the world even further."

If you don't find some truth in each of those two paragraphs, then, in this blogger's view, you are committing the error I spoke of at the top of this post:  you are diagnosing too simply.

When the smart men and women of the Iraq Study Group state in their report that there are no good options, if you believe there are, then you are diagnosing too simply.

Senator Biden has a plan for dividing Iraq into a confederacy along ethnic and sectarian lines, giving each group autonomy over their respective region, with a relatively weak central government, but where one of its important duties is distributing oil revenues fairly among the regions.  The oil revenue, he argues, gives everyone, including individual Iraqis, a stake in cooperating with one another, stopping the fighting, and working toward building a stable country and economy which will improve their individual lives and quality of life considerably.  What I like about Senator Biden is the statement he often makes immediately after describing his plan.  He'll say, "This plan might not work either.  But the strategy we are currently on is failing and doomed to fail."

He knows the answer is not so simple as his plan, either.  It's not so simple, period.  This I know:  Arriving at the best strategy can only come from a trenchant and thorough discussion of the problem among individuals not married to any particular strategy as of now or as of any time, but willing to argue any side, either side, and to consider and entertain such arguments.  I have ever seen the best ideas rise to the surface by such process.  I believe President Bush is most to blame - as our leader, our President, as our Commander-in-Chief, and the person directly responsible for every soldier he sends to Iraq - for not insisting on such a process both before the war and now.  The President, as respects the Iraq Study Group, should not be commissioning a one-time report in the manner of the 9-11 Commission report.  No.  Because Iraq is not in the past.  It's ongoing.  And so should be the President's conversations with the Study Group, with Senator Biden, with NATO, with Middle Eastern countries, and with anyone else who would be a benefit in having the best possible strategy bubble to the surface now,  tomorrow and the next day, because we certainly need it.

You Get the Government You Deserve

Keith Olbermann of MS-NBC had the following critical commentary on President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's jail sentence.  Here's the link:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/  A friend sent it to me.  This was my reply.
***

Yes, well, preaching to the choir, here.

I am actually quite surprised that a president, any president would undo the conviction or sentence of one of his immediate staff.

I'm not aware of that ever happening before, but the precedent it sets if the first time, and example it sets regardless, is that working for the White House and our president and knowingly breaking the law, quite possibly at the president's own direction, is a jail-free zone.

"No one is above the law," is the old adage about this country.  Though injured at the time, the country took reassurance in that statement when Nixon resigned and his key advisers were found guilty of various felonies and sent to jail. 

Remember the names Haldeman and Ehrlichman? They were the Karl Rove of the Nixon administration.  Part of the inner circle.  They went to jail for obstruction, and I believe perjury and God knows what else.  Nixon, likely, would have joined them eventually, but for his pardon by the subsequent president, Gerald Ford, who said he did it at the time because the country had been through enough, as well as President Nixon, and we didn't need to see a president behind bars.  I'm not so sure.  The country wasn't either, and Ford was not reelected.

But a president resigned and his key advisers went to prison.  And we all felt, I think it is safe to say, as I remember it well, that the statement that no one is above the law was affirmed by the highest profile example imaginable, the charging (which is what an impeachment is) and resignation of a president.

Thirty-three years later, the affirming is 180 degrees different, to Olbermann's.  The president commuted the sentence - duly convicted by a unanimous verdict of 12 impartial jurors - of one of his own guys.

If that has ever happened before, it predates Nixon.  It predates Kennedy.  It predates Ike.  That's 1952.  So now such a thing hasn't happened in at least 55 years.

What's different, I can say from experience, is the reaction of the general public, the newspapers and the news media, with obviously the exception of Olbermann.  As the Nixon drama unfolded, it was the headline of every newspaper.  The Senate committee investigating the matter was televised each day, all day.  The check and balance of the legislative branch over the executive was on TV and available for Americans to follow and to watch in real-time.

Back then, the news media consisted of hundreds of independent companies.  I read somewhere that, through consolidations and takeovers by conglomerates, that number is now around 10.  Is it because all of our media are owned and controlled by a relatively few number of companies, and therefore boards, and therefore individual men and women, that they have decided this is not worth covering and, in fact, over-covering?

Conspiracy theorists with respect to news media will say so.  I actually don't think that's the reason, but I leave open the possibility.

I think, sadly, the American people are at fault.  They have gotten too wrapped up in their 3-car, two-income, eat-out, buy-stuff lives to care.

Scooter Libby didn't cost them a nickel, they feel, nor the president's commutation of his sentence. The thought and implications of an executive branch, which, because it is the executive branch and the holder of the power of pardon and commutation but also of enforcement of our nation's laws, can do what it pleases, break whatever law, and the president will make sure that those who agree to be the fall-guy if caught, if they don't talk, will be guaranteed they won't spend a day in jail, is utterly shocking, sobering and sets a precedent for future executives doing just that.

A president can't even be impeached for it, because it's the exercising of his own constitutional power.  He can't be voted out for it if he's already in his second and final term.

Power corrupts.  And it doesn't just corrupt George Bush.  The next guy or woman will be tempted, by power, to abuse it.  He or she will be more tempted now, knowing that a previous president has already set the precedent of commuting or pardoning his own staff for convictions meted out by courts and juries.  The lesson here will be, "Don't ever talk. Don't ever rollover.  Don't ever testify against me, and I will pardon you or commute your sentence if convicted."  Assuming a president surrounds himself with highly, personally devoted individuals to begin with, that should be a compelling enough promise to not fear the law.

Also, the next president will be more tempted given the scant attention it received from the American people.

Some learned fellow years ago said, "You get the government you deserve."

It's true, ever.  Those people brave enough and demanding enough to insist better from their governments, even the most repressive of governments, such as North Korea, always get it.  No leader, even the strongest of strong-arm dictators, is powerful enough to withstand the outright revolve, rebellion and mass protest in the streets of its citizenry.

Those people who don't get the government they deserve.

The scariest revelation for me of the Bush presidency has not been Bush himself, Cheney or any of the others in that group.  It's the evidence that liberty, rights, law and order, checks and balances, and the idea that no one is above the law is no longer as interesting, captivating, motivating and important to us as the too large house we live in or would desperately like to own, or our next bonus check, promotion or size of our retirement account.  Patriotism has been forgotten, swapped and sacrificed for money, indulgence and material security.  If Abu Ghraib, secret prisons, abductions, torture and warrant-less spying and searches don't adversely impact our 401k account, Roth IRA or credit score, then one and all things shall receive but cursory notice, and no action, outrage or protest.

Our founders swore to risk their fortunes and their sacred honor in the Declaration of Independence.  Americans today make no such offer.

In that regard, in George Bush, we have gotten the government we deserve, the Congress we deserve, the Supreme Court we deserve.  We will continue to get more of the same.  The disease is more prevalent in the Republican party at present, but in time, if the American people don't change, the Democrats will catch the same cold.

There are many tellings of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire.  There are multiple books currently which refer to it as an analog for what is happening in America right now.  America is falling, there is little doubt, both in its ability to secure liberty and to secure its own treasury, with America ever in greater debt and an ever greater portion to foreign governments, mostly China.  Such a  country, ultimately, will have a lot of nice things, bought through borrowing, right up until it can't make its loan payments.  Then the flow of lending is cut off.  Things which can be repossessed or liquidated to pay debtors are.  It's the same for nations as for individuals.  Domestic interest rates will go through the roof once cheap money from China is cut off.

One doesn't need to be an avid watcher of WallStreet Week to know what happens when that happens.  Interest rates go up.  The market falls. Companies retrench and cut their workforce.  Unemployment goes up. There is then high unemployment and high interest rates.  GNP tumbles. The government can't stimulate the economy with public works projects like road-building because it can't borrow any money and domestic tax collections are down since incomes are down and unemployment payments up, and that leaves us with a country that, if anyone doubted it before, is clearly falling.

But a country is still falling before it reaches that point if it has simply laid the groundwork for reaching that point, which we all have, by taking our tax cuts to the bank, and not voting out those who irresponsibly gave them to us, but then borrowed heavily for an expensive war we could not honestly pay for with taxes since they had cut them.

A country ever gets the government it deserves, and we are.  If we don't improve as patriots, as our own guarantors of our own liberty, our own fortunes and our own happiness, then others will squander it away or put it at risk while we distract ourselves with indulgences right up until those very indulgences are threatened by loss of a job, crashing of a banking system or stock market, and so on.

By then, it's a little late, one would think.  But that's what we're doing.  We're waiting.  We're indulging.  We're hoarding.  We're protecting just ourselves.  America is falling and we're eating out, buying new furniture, taking out home-equity loans, checking our projected retirement date, and not paying any attention at all.