Breathing a sigh of relief, the President is dusting off his salesman cap. ObamaCare seems to be on the mend. Some problems remain, but Healthcare.gov now appears pretty functional.
Yet the future of the Affordable Care Act is far from certain. As David Freddoso notes, Democrats are going to have a hard time getting past the ‘sticker shock’ that many Americans are experiencing with their new plans. After all, it’s hard to persuade a middle class family that they should be happy paying more for a plan that suits them less. There’s obvious political risk here. If common dissatisfaction becomes the norm, November 2014 isn’t going to be fun for Democrats.
Certainly, liberals are going to have to learn from this experience. They’re going to have to accept that good intentions and good policies are not the same thing.
Ultimately, ObamaCare’s difficulties didn’t flow from unfortunate circumstances; they flowed from the arrogance of self-assumed moral superiority. Consider our political discourse. Where conservatives often deride liberal philosophy as delusional, liberals often regard conservatism as implicitly immoral. Regarding ObamaCare, prominent liberals frequently claim that conservative opposition is racist, or motivated by a hatred for the poor, or just plain stupid, or really, really racist. Indeed, the Washington Post's Ryan Cooper has stated that opposing ObamaCare is ''morally wrong''.
Look, I’d be the first to admit that conservatives need to offer serious alternatives to ObamaCare. Nevertheless, liberals desperately need to buy a mirror.
Just reference the recent liberal record in Afghanistan and Iraq…
Iraq, January 2007. A nation on the verge of implosion. Every day brought new bombings and beheadings. Iranian provided explosives were turning armored Humvees into human grinders. Al Qa’ida was fracturing Iraqi society with a ruthless brutality. Then Bush ordered ‘the surge’. With time, JSOC and ‘The Awakening’, the surge dramatically reduced the bloodshed and created space for basic political reconciliation. Without it, Iraq would have almost certainly descended into an ethno-sectarian holocaust. In other words, a moral abyss. Yet, even when its dividends were becoming clear, liberals fastidiously opposed the surge. Not only that, just as the liberal base now gleefully defends Snowden as a great patriot, during the surge, those same liberal activists were happy to deride Americans soldiers as traitors. Consider the dichotomy of this worldview; celebration of a defection to a mafia state, treason by fifteen months military service in 120 degree heat.
Opposing the surge, liberals offered two weak alternatives - abandon Iraq or ‘hope for the best’. Terrible human suffering had become an abstraction. At best, an uncomfortable reality to be pushed from the mind.
Then there’s Afghanistan.
The majority of liberals havelong believedthat Afghanistan is a unworthy cause.Nonetheless, whether embracing an inverted McNamara-esque number count, or an assumed self-righteousness, a far too casual faux morality is in play. We’re witnessing a newnationalsecurity liberalism; one defined by easy populism and devoid of moral anchor. A paradigm in sad distinction to the leadership of FDR.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that American military deployments are morally simple questions (nor that conservatives are perfect). Butliberals must more honestly pay heed to American’s unique role in the world. While theAfghan President might possessthe temperamentof a five year old, the evidence also showsAfghanistan’sgradual movementtowards stability. By calling for policy changes on the basis of the first consideration but ignoring the latter, liberals would greatly empower those who find justice in the hanging of children. I know they don't intend that, but it's exactly what will happen.
Karzai's character traits have long been evident. Nevertheless, following Karzai's latest comments (timed for the 12th anniversary of the US intervention that liberated his country), it's time to draw some defining conclusions on the nature of the man.
As an interesting side note, my friend and Heritage fellow, Luke Coffey, forwarded me the quote underlined below. It offers John William Kaye's (a 19th century British historian) description of the mid-19th century Afghan leader, Shuja Shah Durrani.
US Military Forces Korea are beginning Key Resolve (the annual joint US-RoK major military exercise). While this action is nothing new, it's taking place at a time of escalated tension. The North Koreans are unhappy because of new UN sanctions that were imposed following their latest nuclear test. In a standard manifestation of their dissatisfaction, for the last few days they've been threatening nuclear war. Anyway, in the aftermath of their last test, I argued that the North Koreans must be made to understand thatattempts at nuclear blackmail will not succeed. My position is pretty clear - North Korea can be deterred by a US policy of confident strength. Conversely, if you just want a laugh, check out North Korean propaganda reporting the US 'snow/starvation crisis'.
On a different note, Hamid Karzai is a disgusting weasel. Afghanistan's fragile semi-democracy survives on a transfusion of American/ISAF blood and treasure. Karzai would be dead without the courage and skill of American service personnel (DEVGRU saved his life in 2002). By suggesting that the Taliban and the United States are in cahoots, Karzai dishonors those who have given their lives for his country. Karzai's words also make securing a stable, peaceful and prosperous Afghan future that much more difficult. An objective that is additionally complicated by the ongoing strategic deficiency of the Obama Administration.
First, please see my Guardian piece on Afghanistan. It outlines my core approach to the conflict. USAID (the US Government's foreign development agency) has decided to remove US funding and end major support for the completion of the Kajaki Dam in Afghanistan. This action represents strategic insanity and a betrayal of the men and women (American, British and Afghan) who have given their lives in defense of this crucial initiative. Why am I so angry? Because the dam offers the prospect of bringing electricity to an area of Afghanistan (Helmand) that has long been a hotbed for insurgent activity. And by providing the literal fuel for economic-social development, the dam could achieve a major, sustainable success on the part of ISAF and the Afghan Government. A physical tool to suck support away from the Taliban and help lay the foundation for a more hopeful, peaceful future in Afghanistan's south. However, by terminating US support, US AID will probably end up killing the project. The Afghan Government simply doesn't have the capability and drive to get it done. Lead by Karzai (aka Mr. Moron) and without US leadership, the dam will probably end up being stripped in a corruption feeding frenzy.
From my perspective, this decision represents yet another example of the Obama Administration's policy failure in Afghanistan. An approach that's been defined by the pursuit of a narrow domestic political agenda in preference to the demands of national security. It makes no sense. And it isn't just me saying this, it's also the distinguished scholar, Vali Nasr.
Be under no illusions, as much as some would wish it to be so, the War on Terror will not end with Afghanistan. And Muslims will suffer rather than benefit from our rush to the exit.
1) I was wrong in my earlier support for Chuck Hagel. After re-considering my 'capability, knowledge and character' test (the framework I use when deciding whether to support cabinet nominees), I now no longer believe that Hagel meets the 'knowledge' requirement to be America's next Secretary of Defense. Put simply, his positions on the major issues of national security are deeply troubling to me. They indicate a world view that I believe to be misguided. This isn't about his Israel comments - it should be obvious to all that US-Israeli interests will sometimes diverge (though the anti-Semitic tone Hagel used was unpleasant). However, I cannot understand how Hagel honestly opposes sanctions against Iran. I cannot understand how he can be so openly comfortable with the notion of additional cuts to defense (further cuts on top of Obama's $450 bn/ten year cuts). Mainly, I have serious issues with Hagel's position on Iraq and Afghanistan. Hagel referred to the Iraq 'Surge' as the ''most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.'' When in fact, it was an audacious policy of great success. Hagel has also signaled a comfort with Obama's increasingly ludicrous Afghanistan policy (see point 2). Taken together, these positions present a concerning picture about the advice and leadership that Hagel would provide as SecDef. Like other conservatives, I also worry that Obama intends to use Hagel to put a Republican face on major defense cuts.
2) Obama's policy towards Afghanistan has always been a disaster. First, he couldn't make his mind up about whether to support McChrystal's strategy. Second, he announced to the Taliban that the US would withdraw on a timeline. Third, he has systematically entertained the notion that his domestic spending priorities outweigh this key concern of national security. Fourth, he allows his policy to be driven by the shifting tides of US domestic politics, rather than by the advice of his senior military/national security leadership. Obama must not burn our Afghanistan successes in a misguided rush for the exit.
3) The growing complaints over video game/movie violence are pathetic and to me at least, also exceptionally annoying. We live in a free society.The First Amendment protects the right of professionals in the entertainment industry to shape their creations as they so desire. This is simple. If games/movies exceed the boundaries of social acceptance, then those productions will cease to gain consumer support and their producers will go out of business. In this context, at the margins free speech regulates itself. America must not follow the European course on free speech. A route typified by highly destructive wars against freedom.
4) Alex Jones is a delusional moron. He loves the sound of his own voice and he doesn't have a clue.But if Jones is a representative of American conservatism, Stalin was a democrat. Piers Morgan is trying to improve ratings on his show and I expect that he is succeeding. On a more serious note, there's one major question that I have for aggressive gun control advocates. If access is the key, why is gun crime highest in highly restrictive gun control locales like Chicago, DC, LA and Detroit?
5) In the long term, China will not sustainably replace the United States as the world's sole superpower. Consider China's absence of basic freedoms, failure to respect human rights, entrenchment of wealth and power in an unelected few and endemic culture of corrupt political patronage. These social challenges portend storms over the horizon.
Earlier today Mitt Romney made a key-note foreign policy address. As with my recent analysis of President Obama's foreign policy, I thought it would be appropriate to analyze Romney's speech.
Here's what I liked.
First, I thought it was good that Romney went out of his way to pay tribute to the VMI. The Virginia Military Institute represents the enduring center of the South's contribution to American military service. And southern US states make the primary contribution to the US Military's personnel base.
Second, I thought Romney provided an articulate and persuasive argument concerning the political dynamics in the Middle East at the moment. I share Romney's belief that the Middle East is in the midst of a pivotal battle for its future. This is a struggle between forces of oppression and ideological tyranny, and between citizens who wish for greater freedom, greater opportunity and a better future for their children. There should be no question of where America stands.
Third, I thought that Romney laid out robust alternatives to Obama's policies on Afghanistan and Syria. Where Obama announced and laid down in stone an early artificial timetable to end America's military engagement in Afghanistan ('on schedule'), in contrast Romney today said that he would ensure that military advice and conditions on the ground would be at the core of his decision making process. On Syria, I feel that Romney was bold (and correct) to state that he would provide arms to the rebels. This is a proposition not without risk - those arms might ultimately fall into the hands of adversaries of the United States. However, for both moral and strategic reasons the US must support the liberation of Syria with greater tangible support.
Fourth, I thought Romney laid out a credible alternative to Obama's policy on Iran. Romney brought a poignant clarity to Obama's policy re-Iran. This President has preferred a small chance of detente with Iran's leaders rather than supporting the basic rights of the Iranian people. This is immoral and unbecoming of America. As a second albeit equally important point, I also believe that a President Romney would have a much greater likelihood of persuading Iran's leadership to give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Why? Because I believe that Iran regards Romney's threats as far more credible than Obama's. For diplomacy to work, Iran must fear the consequences of diplomatic failure.
Fifth, I agreed with Romney's position that US aid to Egypt should be contingent on the protection of our diplomatic facilities and the surety of Egyptian-Israeli peace. This is an obvious demand that Obama has not made openly.
However, there were areas where I disagreed with Romney.
First, I think Romney was wrong to say that the world should 'never see any daylight' between Israel and the US. While I believe that a strong and positive US relationship with Israel is a moral necessity, we must be willing to articulate our differences with the Israeli Govt. as and when they occur. It is not for example in the interests of the US that settlement construction in the West Bank continues unabated. While Romney is right to argue that the world must understand that the US will always ensure Israel's security, an intellectually robust and honest American policy requires that the US will not always agree with the Israeli standpoint. This is nothing to be afraid of. The US relationship with its closest ally, the UK, often faces points of disagreement. Yet, the special relationship always endures.
Second, I disagree with Romney's defense spending plans. While the January defense sequester would be a disaster that must be avoided, I believe that Obama's proposed $450bn/10yr defense cuts strike an achievable and realistic balance between fiscal austerity and strategic necessity. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is fond of arguing, our national debt is our greatest enemy. Building a greatly increased number of ships is unjustifiably expensive. This budget simulator illustrates the strong defense savings that could be made without damaging US security. While I disagree with Romney's defense spending proposals, I support his focus on greater submarine procurement as part of the Navy's existing construction choices. Submarines will be crucial in ensuring continued US naval supremacy into the future.
Overall though, a strong speech which presented a clear and bold counter to the incumbent's foreign policy. Romney is looking stronger every day.
The next Presidential debate will cover foreign policy. In advance of the debate I wanted to outline some of my thoughts about Obama's foreign policy.
Taking his recent UN speech at face value, you would think that the President's foreign policy pursues the advance of global freedom as its central raison d'etre. This is not born out in reality. Ultimately, for this President, the idealist 'freedom agenda' takes a back seat to a more traditional realist approach to international affairs. My concern is that this approach lacks a broad narrative of clarity and sacrifices long term interests in pursuit of vague, short term objectives.
After only a few months in office, President Obama faced an Iranian protest movement angered by endemic electoral fraud. While protesters demanding freedom were brutally suppressed by ideological extremists, Obama remained quiet. In the President's words, he did not want to be seen as 'meddling'. For Obama, the pursuit of an improbable detente with Iran's leaders was more important than the protection of basic individual freedom. It was evident that freedom had suffered a serious relegation in American foreign policy.
Another example of the declining importance of freedom was seen in the President's early policy towards Egypt. Just prior to the aforementioned protests in Iran, Obama addressed university students in Cairo to offer his support for eventual Egyptian democracy. Taken alone, Obama's words suggested a bold idealist narrative in his foreign policy. In fact, the reality was far different. The same year as his Cairo speech, Obama cut Egyptian democracy aid from the US by 60% and Civil Society/NGO support aid by 80%. For the President, words provided a cheap alternative to substantive assistance. Indeed, when Egyptians later revolted against the Mubarak government, Obama only shifted support to their revolution when it became apparent that Mubarak was doomed. For the President, Egyptian democracy was preferable only so far as it was cheap, easy and uncomplicated. As the recent embassy protests illustrated, Egyptian democracy has been far from uncomplicated. With words as well as action, Obama should have supported Egyptian freedom from the start.
The confusion in Obama's foreign policy has been most pronounced in his administration's variant responses to the revolutions in Libya and Syria. Where (under European pressure) Obama reluctantly signed on to the overthrow of Gaddafi's relatively weak regime, in Syria, US policy has been very different. Faced with Assad's military power and his alliance with Hezbollah and Iran, Obama has been reluctant to provide either direct or indirect military aid to the Syrian rebel movement. Obama's short term realist hesitancy has restrained American policy. The President could and should be taking greater steps to help Syrians win their freedom.
The President's realist sympathies are also evident in his conduct of grand power politics. Where a major element of President GW Bush's Russia policy was focused on support for eastern European democracy, Obama has instead favored a 'reset' designed to balance US-Russia relations into greater stability. Although this effort seems to have produced little tangible success, Obama has recently suggested that he would make even greater compromises to Putin if he wins re-election in November.
What about counter-terrorism policy under Obama?
In 2008, the President campaigned on a platform to close Guantanamo and reform the CIA's interrogation program. However, today's reality bears little resemblance to those now distant words. Under Obama, predator drone strikes against suspected terrorists are being authorized at unprecedented levels. Guantanamo remains open and military commissions have been re-authorized. Rendition remains part of the CIA tool kit. While I personally agree with the President's decisions in these areas, I also believe that they indicate the distance between 'Obama the liberal idealist' and 'Obama the realist'.
Considering Afghanistan, while during the 2008 campaign Obama called Afghanistan 'the right war' that he would win, the President has now decided that Afghanistan is no longer worth fighting. Although recent gains towards greater local security and local political sovereignty have been achieved, Obama has decided that Afghan freedom must be subjugated to domestic political expediency. The 'right war' worthy of continued sacrifice is now simply the war that will 'end on schedule'.
Since January 2009, the President's idealist narrative has acted as a cloak for a traditional, short term realist rooted foreign policy. For me this is problematic. In a world where competing forces are struggling for freedom and justice, American foreign policy needs a sustaining clarity. Without such a clarity, America's enemies are emboldened and our allies (both real and potential) are alienated and discouraged. American foreign policy should never just be about navigating difficult storms abroad. Instead, it should be about bold ideas and confident resolve.
President Obama has just given his speech at the UN General Assembly.
I felt the President made a generally good speech. As an American, when any President speaks to the UN as our representative and leader, I always think it's important to listen with an open mind. That being said, I didn't think the speech was perfect.
First, the POSITIVES.
I liked the tribute to Chris Stevens - though perhaps unsurprising, it was important to pay tribute to Chris's sacrifice and the tremendous work that the men and women of the Department of State/AID do for America.
With caveats (see negatives below) I liked the way the President articulated the case for free speech. This was an especially strong line- 'True democracy demands that citizens cannot be thrown in jail because of what they believe, and businesses can be opened without paying a bribe. It depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds and assemble without fear; on the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all people.' Words that bearinteresting similarities with those of a former President...
I also like that the President specifically articulated the US legal foundation for free speech -'I know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense.' The President should have made this point a couple of weeks ago.
Again - Enjoyed this quote (a message that reflects my own point of view) - 'We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.'
I thought the President was correct to note the fact that most victims of violent Islamist extremism are in fact Muslims - 'Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism. On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding; more than ten Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana'a; and several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.' This is the great hypocrisy of groups like Al Qa'ida and the Taliban, their only root to power is intimidation and murder.
I liked the President's call for the international community'to marginalize those who – even when not resorting to violence – use hatred of America, or the West, or Israel as a central principle of politics. For that only gives cover, and sometimes makes excuses, for those who resort to violence.' This use of hatred as a distraction from internal societal/governmental challenges, is a major obstacle to international peace, stability and individual empowerment.
I thought the President's condemnation of Assad was powerful - 'In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people. If there is a cause that cries out for protest in the world today, it is a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets at apartment buildings.'With this quote, as well as attacking Assad, Obama was clearly making an implied challenge to Islamic populations to consider the hypocrisy of their relative lack of concern for the moral crisis in Syria.
I liked the President's attack on the Iranian theocrats -'In Iran, we see where the path of a violent and unaccountable ideology leads. The Iranian people have a remarkable and ancient history, and many Iranians wish to enjoy peace and prosperity alongside their neighbors. But just as it restricts the rights of its own people, the Iranian government props up a dictator in Damascus and supports terrorist groups abroad.' I haven't previously heard this President make such a strong rebuke of the repellent authoritarian ideology that guides Iran's rulers. Drawing international attention to the hypocrisy of Iran (and Hezbollah's) liberation narrative was also deeply important.
Finally, I liked the President's final line - '... so long as we work for it justice will be done; that history is on our side; and that a rising tide of liberty will never be reversed.'Again, note the unmistakable comparisons of this narrative to that of President George W Bush. It is my personal opinion that the Arab Spring has transformed Obama from a realist into a confused realist idealist at least in narrative, in the model of Bush.
NEGATIVES
I did not like the President's reference to the 'Innocence of Muslims' as 'a crude and disgusting video'and his statement that 'its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.' I don't disagree that the video is crude and disgusting, but I do disagree with the President when he uses his office to condemn it and to demand its rejection. The US Government should not be making subject based prescriptions on the lawful speech of US citizens. An affirmation that the US Government had no role in the video's production would have been sufficient.
On Syria, the President did not (and does not) offer any substantive plans to speed up Assad's fall. His words on this issue were strong. But words will not liberate the Syrian people. Here's what I think we should do.
On Iran, the President's threat to '... do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon' was hesitant and at least to me, simply not convincing. This was a major failing on the part of the President. In order to bring Iran to a serious negotiating position, he must persuade Iran that America will ultimately be willing to use force. He hasn't.
Finally, on Afghanistan. The President's statement that 'America and our allies will end our war on schedule in 2014' was utterly absurd. For me, this was by far the worst moment of the speech. It perfectly illustrated the ad-hoc approach towards Afghanistan that has typified Obama's Presidency. Sadly, the President is ignoring the positive news and is giving up on our Afghanistan mission too early.
Conclusion - A generally good speech. But as I have pointed out above, I have major issues with the practical conception of this President's foreign policy.
The Taliban worship death. They believe in a totalitarian vision of society in which adherence to an immoral religious orthodoxy is central. We must stay the course in Afghanistan and defeat the insurgents. Counter to the standard consensus, securing a relatively peaceful, democratic Afghan future is possible.
In my view, Jones's argument is weak; indicative of the author's poor understanding of international affairs and his embedded anti-american sentiment. Below, I have responded to the major arguments that Jones makes.
After all, it was difficult to defend an administration packed with such repulsive characters, like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, whose attitude towards the rest of the world amounted to thuggish contempt.
Cheney and Rumsfeld may be controversial characters (I often disagree with their positions), but I reject the notion that they are 'repulsive'. From their perspective, the US faced critical national security challenges that required robust policy responses. I respect that both men did what they thought was right for the United States. Jones seems to think that because Cheney and Rumsfeld disagreed with his European leftist world view, they were beyond reproach. He is wrong.
Many will shudder remembering that dark era: the naked human pyramids accompanied by grinning US service personnel in Abu Ghraib; the orange-suited prisoners in Guantanamo, kneeling in submission at the feet of US soldiers; the murderous assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah.
I take issue with everything here. In response to the despicable abuses at Abu Ghraib, the US Military rightly punished those responsible. The actions of these personnel were an aberration from the fine conduct that the US armed forces exemplify 99% of the time. It is disgusting that Jones asserts that Abu Ghraib was a deliberate action on the part of the US Government.
On Guantanamo, the photo that Jones refers to was taken in January 2002, just after the first prisoners had arrived. The photo shows nothing more than the detainees sitting in a control position. However, for those on the hard-left like Jones, the photo serves a natural metaphor for their inherent disgust towards the notion of military justice. I always find it amusing that people like Jones have no concerns about the military justice system when it is used against military personnel, but get incredibly upset when it is used against terrorists.
Fallujah - Jones's most idiotic point. Jones evidently has absolutely no understanding of military operations in urban environments. They are always bloody, always destructive and always unpleasant. However, prior to its Fallujah operation, the US Military took great effort to evacuate the city of civilians. As a further indication of the US Military's desire to prevent civilian loss of life during the operation, only 10% of requested (pre-ground force entry) air strikes were authorized. Pre-November 2004, Fallujah was the primary base of operations for Al Qa'ida in Iraq. It was the place where car bombs were constructed to be used to murder innocent Iraqis, it was the city where hostages were held, tortured and executed. It was the physical and ideational home of those who wanted to destroy Iraq. It was where men like Janabi murdered Iraqi patriots who simply wanted to bring justice to their communities. Put simply, the US had no alternative but to take Fallujah. Had we not, thousands more Iraqis would have died at the hands of the insurgents and Iraq's stability and security (already endangered) would have been placed in much greater jeopardy. (See one example of Al Qa'ida in Iraq actions).
This week, the UN's Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism, Ben Emmerson QC, demanded that the US allow independent investigation over its use of unmanned drones, or the UN would be forced to step in.
Good luck UN. The US is at war. We have the right to defend our citizens. I wonder if like me, Jones visualizes this when he writes that the UN will be 'forced to step in'. Note- I am simply arguing that the UN is an impotent joke that serves dictators rather than democracy. I am not endorsing feeding UN officials to sharks.
In one such attack [predator drone] in North Waziristan in 2009, several villagers died in an attempt to rescue victims of a previous strike.
It might be unpleasant, but the US must address those who threaten us. It would be militarily absurd to allow our enemies to be withdrawn from the battlefield, to then be able to plot against us once again.
According to Pakistan's US Ambassador, Sherry Rehman, the drone war "radicalises foot soldiers, tribes and entire villages in our region". After the latest strike this week, Pakistan's foreign ministry said the attacks were "a violation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity and are in contravention of international law". Its Parliament has passed a resolution condemning the drone war.
I have little doubt that the drone strikes help cause the radicalization of some Pakistanis. This is regrettable. However, in my opinion the US has no choice but to utilize the drones. Extremist groups in Pakistan pose a substantial threat to the security of the United States. Pakistan may complain, but Pakistan is in bed with these terrorists. Perhaps if the Pakistani government/military got tougher on extremists, Pakistan would have a logical argument with which to persuade the US to end the drone program.
It [drone program] is armed aggression by the Obama administration, pure and simple.
BS. It is self-defense justified by moral and strategic necessity.
Two months ago, former US President Jimmy Carter described drone attacks as a "widespread abuse of human rights" which "abets our enemies and alienates our friends". He's not wrong: the Pew Research Center found just 7 per cent of Pakistanis had a positive view of Obama, the same percentage as Bush had just before he left office.
You don't fight a war based on opinion polls.
[Re-Afghanistan]US involvement in a senseless, unwinnable war in the country – ruled by a weak, corrupt government that stole the 2009 presidential election with ballot stuffing, intimidation and fraud – continues.
Under Obama, the US role in the Middle East remains as cynically wedded to strategic self-interest as ever. Despotic tyrannies like Saudi Arabia are armed to the teeth: in 2010, the US signed an arms deal with the regime worth $60bn, the biggest in US history. Obama has resumed sales of military equipment to Bahrain's dictatorship as it brutally crushes protesters struggling for democracy. Last year, Saudi Arabia invaded Bahrain with tacit US support. And even when the US-backed Mubarak dictatorship was on the ropes in Egypt, Obama's administration remained a cheerleader, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arguing that the "Egyptian Government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people".
I actually broadly agree with Jones here. The US should have withdrawn support for Mubarak far earlier - he had become a despot beyond redemption. The US must also exert pressure on Saudi Arabia to improve human rights and democracy conditions. Unfortunately as I have previously argued, until we get rid of our oil addiction, America will remain on the Saudi leash. My concern with Jones is that he doesn't realize how hypocritical he is being when he criticizes US pro-democracy action in Afghanistan and Iraq, but simultaneously demands pro-democracy action everywhere else.
Coupled with the US's ongoing failure to pressure Israel into accepting a just peace with the Palestinians, no wonder there is rising global anger at Obama.
Peace will not come until the Israelis and Palestinians desire a lasting settlement. Jones plays the typical card of blaming Israel, even though the Israeli peace proposals in 2000 and 2008 - rejected by the Palestinian leadership - were bold and generous. I am hopeful that Netanyahu will be increasingly able to isolate extremists in his coalition who oppose peace. I also hope that HAMAS inability to improve the lives of Palestinians in Gaza will lead to their collapse (sadly I doubt HAMAS cares much for democratic tradition).
The US share of global economic output was nearly a quarter in 1991; today, it represents less than a fifth. The financial crash has accelerated the ongoing drain in US economic power to the East. Latin America, regarded as the US's backyard since the 1823 Monroe Doctrine claimed it for the US sphere of influence, is now dominated by governments demanding a break from the free-market Washington Consensus.
China will face major problems as it seeks to deal with a large population who lack freedom and economic mobility. With strong leadership, the US can retain its position as the world's foremost power. Jones comments on S/C America are hilarious. He neglects to mention that the major economic powerhouses of Brazil and Colombia have rejected the wacko Chavez aligned movements which are falling apart at the seams. I always find it staggering that the European left worship men like Chavez and Castro. Chavez has destroyed Venezuela's economy while supporting a band of murdering rapists in Colombia. Castro rules over a country in which only 5% of the population have cars and from which many Cubans risk crossing shark infested waters to escape the 'communist paradise'. For Jones to embrace these regimes is both morally foul and intellectually bankrupt.
the Iraq war not only undermined US military prestige and invincibility, it perversely boosted Iran's power in the Middle East.
The hard left love using this line, yet Maliki (albeit too autocratic) is by no means an Iranian stooge. The Iraqi people determine their own future now. Jones apparently mourns the 'safe hands' of Saddam Hussein.
With the last remaining superpower at its weakest since World War II, there is an unmissable opening to argue for a more equal and just world order, restricting the ability of Great Powers to throw their weight around. And a word of warning: if we don't seize this opportunity now, one superpower will simply be replaced by another – and our world will be as unequal and unjust as ever.
Since the end of the Second World War, America has preserved international security and freedom. This has come at significant expense in American treasure and at a high human cost to the American people. Without the US, the world would be at the mercy of violent extremists. The security of the seas (crucial for international trade) would be endangered and the ambitions of autocrats from Russia to China to Venezuela would be unleashed. I have no comprehension of what kind of world Jones wants. Presumably he is one of those leftists who subscribe to the incomprehensible notion that the UN can preserve international order. Just look at Rwanda, Kosovo, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria to see the UN's 'peace' record. Perhaps Jones wants the Chinese to assume the mantle of global power? Again, that might not be so good for those in Asia or those around the world who wish to be free.
In the end, I suspect that there is a deeper motivation behind Jones's words. For Jones as for so many on the hard left, America is an obstacle to their (false) socialist utopia. They wish for a system in which power is centralised with an elite who know what is best for everyone else. Conversely, America believes in and stands for a system via which individuals hold power and enrich society, through communities built upon tangible mutual interests and ideals.
America is far from perfect, but a strong America is necessary for the security and freedom of people everywhere.
Todd
Akin’s comments were profoundly moronic. They were also unbecoming of a serious
Republican candidate running for political office in the 21st
century.
While
Akin’s interview should have been expected to spark a broader national debate
on social issues, instead, Democrats and left wing bloggers across America have
elected to pursue a strategy of false demagoguery. While Republicans have reacted to Akin’s words (and his half-hearted apology) with anger and disappointment,
Democrats have reacted gleefully, sensing a new opportunity for partisan battle.
As a result, Republican candidates are now facing a systematic and deceptive
Democratic effort to tar them with the Akin brush.
A
striking component of this Democratic attack campaign is the manner in which it
is being employed against Republicans from across the spectrum of GOP ideology.
As
the VP nominee, Paul Ryan was always going to be a target. Even though Ryan has
issued a concrete rejection of Akin’s words, he is still
being labelled by the left as an Akin aficionado. Regardless
of the fact that Ryan has asserted that his personal beliefs on abortion are
private and not ideals for future policy, according to Democrats, as Romney’s
VP, Ryan’s beliefs still raise legitimate policy concerns. Assuming they hold
their own VP nominee by the same standards, this line of attack is probably not
the most logical approach for Democrats. Take Iraq. Here, Biden first proposed
a wacky 2006 idea to break up Iraq and then later started claiming credit for the surge which he had opposed. Put
simply, on this crucial issue of national security, Biden’s record is a poster
for consistent farcicality.
Alongside
Ryan, moderate Massachusetts Republican, Scott Brown, has been another notable
target for Democratic post-Akin misrepresentation. While Brown was among the
earliest Republicans to condemn Akin, his Democratic opponent, Elizabeth
Warren, has happily tried to tie Brown to the scandal. As Warren put it,“he [Brown]
stood up and said, ‘Yay, Mitt Romney,’ who said he was going to get rid of
Planned Parenthood, and, ‘Yay, Paul Ryan,’ who’s out there on a bill wanting to
redefine rape. Scott Brown is in this one up to his neck.” Even the New
York Times was uncomfortable with these blatant lies – stating immediately
below Warren’s quote that her words were simply not true. For Warren the
Harvard Law Professor, truth is an obstacle not a virtue.
Having attempted to tar Republicans in the East
(Brown) and Mid-West (Ryan), Democrats have also launched attacks on
Republicans in the West. The experience of Michael Baumgartner, the Republican
Senate candidate for Washington, provides perhaps the best example here. While
Baumgartner has focused his campaign on the most serious of issues – our
current effort in Afghanistan, left wing bloggers have attempted to
paint him as an Akin accessory. They are doing so even
though Baumgartner holds a clear record showing
that his personal faith does not determine his policy judgement and even though
Baumgartner condemned Akin before his Democratic opponent, Maria Cantwell. As a
patriot who has spent time in both Iraq and Afghanistan seeking to advance
freedom in those states, – Baumgartner reacted strongly to
the pathetic attempt to stain his candidacy. In communications with me yesterday, Baumgartner expressed his
disappointment that most media coverage has focused on the Akin issue while neglecting
more important concerns which have real and lasting importance for our country.
I agree with him. While I differ
with Baumgartner on what our Afghanistan policy should be, I find it disgusting
that his opponent lacks the decency to engage with him in debating such a
crucial moral and strategic issue.
This week brought a solemn timeline – the two thousandth
American military fatality in Afghanistan. Sadly, rather than
taking stock of this moment, the party of ‘hope and change’ has been more
interested in misrepresentation and distraction. Offers of honest debate by
Republican candidates, whether by Paul Ryan on the debt or Michael Baumgartner
on foreign policy, have all been rejected by the vast majority of Democrats.
Instead, these partisans favor a continuing storm of unjustified and deceitful
attacks. This dynamic should concern us all. This week, thanks to one idiotic
Republican and the Democratic Party, our national political dialogue evaporated
into a mist of polluted partisan absurdity.
Certainly, Akin should be ashamed of himself.
But, in their reaction, so should a great many Democrats. Amidst the record of
their disastrous
economic management, the Democratic Party now seemingly has nothing
to offer but spin.
‘Hope and Change’ has never sounded so
ridiculous.
