ObamaCare, Afghanistan and the question of liberal morality

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 have long believed that 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 new national security 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). But liberals must more honestly pay heed to American’s unique role in the world. While the Afghan President might possess the temperament of a five year old, the evidence also shows Afghanistan’s gradual movement towards 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.

Analysis - Latest developments with Hizballah, Iraq and Ukraine

1) The Lebanese Hizballah appears to have lost another leader. Whoever was responsible for Lakkis's death last week, it's obvious that hostile pressure on the group is growing. With Hizballah now fully invested in Assad's survival, sectarian reactions to that strategy are also growing in intensity - hence the less of three senior leaders in as many weeks. In basic terms, Hizballah's political adversaries are taking advantage from the group's associated guilt for incidents like this one. As I've written before, Hizballah is suffering from an identity crisis of serious proportions. Devoid of a cross-sectarian base of sympathy, the organization's carefully constructed 'anti-oppression' narrative is being rendered for the lie that it is. Whatever happens with Assad, in Lebanon and beyond, Hizballah's strategic choices will leave them increasingly vulnerable. For a few of my related thoughts on Hizballah, please click (point five here), here and here.

2) ISIL continues to wreck havoc upon Iraq. In the absence of US Intelligence capabilities (please see my BBC debate on the NSA - takes a minute to load!) and amidst continuing political discord (please see my thoughts here), ISIL and its affiliates are once again endangering Iraq's stability. As the ISW's Jessica Lewis notes, ISIL has embraced a highly effective strategy of impatient resurgence. Again, it's important that we note the targeting methodology that ISIL embraces. As with their Salafi violent-extremist counterparts around the world, they are members of a death worshiping cult. Recognizing this truth, we should still be astute to the political grievances that allow groups like ISIL to prosper. Nevertheless, we must also grapple with the reality of a movement that sees cafes, markets, malls, roads and playgrounds as military targets.

3) The protests in Ukraine continue to grow. President Yanukovych has a problem. At a basic level, he has wagered against a long brewing discontent. Outraged by endemic corruption and Yanukovych's subservience to Putin's bullying/influence, many Ukrainians believe they're in a struggle for the very future of Ukraine. Quite understandably, these citizens have little interest in a future that abandons them to the ignominy of existence as a buffer state for Putin's Russia. While it's true that Ukraine is far from unified in its support for a pro-west future, younger Ukrainians are firmly ensconced with the pro-EU/US crowd. The trend lines are clear. Still, there are US policies that could help catalyze this process. Recognizing Ukraine's deep vulnerability to Russian energy blackmail, the US should urgently begin to provide an alternate source of energy to Eastern European states. By loosening regulations on US companies, exports of US Liquefied Natural Gas exports could begin in earnest. That alternate supply portfolio would enable Ukrainians to break free from their present headlock-like relationship with Russia. For some of my thoughts on Putin, please click here and here.

Other related writings can be found here.

Obama’s British Problem

‘The United States has no truer friend than Great Britain’

President GW Bush, September 20^th 2001

The US-UK alliance brought down Nazism and defeated imperial Japan. For nearly half a century, it guarded the frontiers of democracy against communist aggression. This was the relationship that built the global economic expansion.
  
But in failing to support British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, President Obama is undercutting our greatest friend. And understandably, the British are growing increasingly angry.

This isn’t a remote issue. It matters.

Like any friends, America and Britain sometimes disagree. Sometimes strongly. We disagreed with Britain on Suez. Britain disagreed with us on Vietnam. These occasional divergences continue to the present day. The US-UK intelligence relationship is deep but imperfect. Our extradition relationship is often frustrating. At the cultural level, we share many similarities alongside many differences – civilian gun ownership being one. And yet, our commonalities are overwhelming. A reality reflected in Afghanistan today.

To be fair to the President, his position towards the UK has been consistent if nothing else. First there was Churchill, then came the DVDs, next was the idiotic insult from a Foreign Service officer. Then, while standing next to the Queen, the President talked through the British national anthem. Not exactly a stellar record. 

But these errors are nothing compared to the President's position on the Falklands.

The Falklands, a set of Islands in the South Atlantic have long been a British overseas territory. Having failed to conquer the Islands during the 1982 Falklands War, Argentina, who claims the Islands as their own, now resorts to using diplomatic pressure to drive the UK to the negotiating table. This is a position contrary to international law and irreconcilable with freedom. Two weeks ago, the Falkland Islanders voted by a 99% majority to remain a British territory. Yet, in a pathetic acquiescence to Argentine pressure, the Obama Administration has decided to ignore this self-determination. And so, US policy is now at war with basic logic. Our position should be simple – ‘we support the UK’; the UK is our closest ally and the right to self-determination is our most sacred national belief. Instead however, our chosen policy is a flaccid lump of dishonorable weakness.

Some argue that the President is simply representing US interests. Far from betraying an ally they say, the President is trying to re-build increasingly important relationships with Latin America. This is a poor excuse. Our relationship with Latin America is obviously crucial. But if we’re unwilling to stand up for our most central values, then we’ll simply feed false but pervasive perceptions of an America devoid of values. Like Britain, Latin America wants an America that’s an honest friend. After all, that’s the only type of friend there is.

Again, let’s be clear. The relationship between the US and UK is not symbiotic and nor should we expect it to be. And yes, it’s true, too many Britons take a pathetic and intellectually redundant pleasure in a casual anti-Americanism. However, on essential issues of sovereignty, the UK deserves our unhesitating support.

In the end, this isn’t just about our responsibility as an ally, it’s also about our identity as a nation. We either stand for freedom or we don’t.

Hugo Chavez dead

Contrary to the puerile idiocy of the European liberal intelligentsia, Hugo Chavez was an archetypal ass hole. He ruined his country's economy and without Venezuela's oil bounty to bail him out, his rule would have been an unmitigated disaster. He presided over Venezuela's decline into warlike levels of criminality and murder. He denied freedom to those who dared question the orthodoxy of his rule. He supported tyrants and terrorists. Chavez aka the poached egg also reveled in conspiracy theories that were so absurd, they could only have been the product of mental illness. I don't take pleasure from his death, but I certainly won't miss him.

Hugo Chavez, a terrible clown.

The Democratic Party's Constitutional Ambivalence

The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon. July 28, 1795.

From the standpoint of his above quote, George Washington would not be happy with today’s Democratic Party. It’s hardly difficult to understand why. Following his revolutionary victory, in order to establish an American government checked by balanced of power, Washington turned down the opportunity for absolute personal power. Washington understood that in order for American democracy to survive the ages, the various mechanisms of our government would have to operate in respectful equilibrium. In response, the founding fathers gave us the Constitution. 

Unfortunately, today’s Democratic Party has become the standard bearer of Constitutional absurdity.

First, let's look at the Judicial component.

Taking Democrats at their word, you’d believe that their judicial philosophy has an overarching, unifying objective- the pursuit of core public interests and the protection of individual freedom. But this isn’t the case. Instead, for many Democrats, Constitutional interpretation has become a fundamentally subjective venture. Just check the record.

This Supreme Court session, considering two relevant cases, the Justices will decide on a major Democratic priority- 1) whether gay couples have a Constitutional right to marriage and/or 2) whether they have a right to the same benefits that are available to heterosexual couples. Generally, Democrats believe that the government has no right to grant or deny rights on the basis of moral judgments concerning intimate, adult relationships. Recognizing the Constitutional right to equal protection under law, I support this understanding (at least as it relates to the second case).  However, Democrats are far from consistent when offering their legal support for individual freedom. For one example, consider gun rights. As decided by the Supreme Court in Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010), the Second Amendment grants an incorporated right to all Americans, to possess handguns in their homes. Unfortunately, in their present pursuit of bans on all semi-automatic weapons (including handguns), imposing stringent magazine capacity limits (ten rounds or less) and requiring prospective handgun purchasers to submit fingerprints, many Democrats are actively challenging established Constitutional rights. While many conservatives (myself included) recognize that gun rights are not absolute, the boundaries of the law are clear: American citizens have the right to possess (at least some) semi-automatic weapons, without suffering excessive government obstruction.

It isn't just guns though. Consider the Democratic Party position on government power re- private conduct. When, in 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Government’s right to impose taxes on individuals who fail to buy health insurance, Democrats were overjoyed. Yet, as exemplified by their infinite outrage over the 2010 Citizens United ruling, Democrats also apparently believe that the government has the right to gag political speech. Under this  warped Constitutional theory, government can seemingly compel both consumer purchases and political silence. 

This is a legal framework without credibility.

 Ultimately, there is no Constitutional logic to a judicial interpretation which resides upon inconsistent, subjective whims of the moment. This is anathema to the Constitution’s existential purpose. The Constitution doesn’t exist as a kind of political ‘phone a friend’- a tool for difficult situations, but one to be ignored when so desired. It requires lasting respect.

Sadly, it’s not simply case law where Democrats are ridiculing the Constitution. 

Consider the on-going interactions between the Executive and Legislative branches of government. Before he entered the Oval Office, Senator Obama railed against President Bush for putting ‘more and more power in the executive branch’. However, since then, he's had a change of mind. Whether concerning Libya, executive privilege, energy policy, immigration, or now guns, on various critical issues, this President has no qualms ignoring congressional authority when he so desires. Not a great record for a former Constitutional law professor.

In the context of their previous complaints about Bush's executive, you might have expected at least a little hesitation from congressional Democrats over Obama’s executive reach. Conversely, congressional Democrats have become subservient allies to Obama’s expansive executive. A good example? The evolving battle over the March debt limit. Faced with congressional Republicans who understandably want entitlement reform in return for debt limit increases (without reform, we will continue our proud, national dive into the fiscal abyss), Democrats have offered a unique three-part alternative to honest negotiation.

 First, to demagogue against Republicans for not capitulating to the President’s demands. This first element is particularly bold, considering that former House Speaker Pelosi felt entitled to her own abysmal (really worth checking this link!) foreign policy during the Bush Presidency.

Second, change the rules.

Finally, if all else fails, ignore the Congress and its Constitutionally granted power of the purse.

Sidestepping Congress, what do Democrats suggest in return? Proposals, which are so utterly ludicrous, they appear to be the product of Monty Python movies. Suggestions of $1 trillion coins and intoxicated readings of the 14th Amendment are not acts of proud Democratic legislators; they are the product of a delusional deference to executive power. This is the obsessive pursuit of power as an end in itself.

Liberals like to claim that conservatives are to blame for our national political dysfunction and I’ll admit, we have to share some blame. However, in substituting cartoonish surrealism for the Constitution, Democrats are attacking the basic essence of American democracy.

Our country faces profound national challenges. It's understandable that difficult political dynamics will burden our efforts to find solutions. However, the Constitution should never be treated as a casual partisan tool. Over hundreds of years, our balanced system of government has guided us through the pain of civil and foreign wars, the misery of economic depression and the strife of great social upheaval. While Democrats played a crucial part in this national journey, the journey isn’t yet over. We still need the Constitution and it continues to deserve the Democratic Party's respect.

 

The six reasons why America will remain great

Today sees the end of what has been a tough and at times even vicious presidential campaign. With such serious issues at stake, it's understandable that much emotion is invested in this contest and its outcome. But we must be honest with ourselves. While today's election will determine our national leadership for the next four years, whoever wins, America will remain a great nation worthy our patriotism.

There are six nationally defining characteristics that explain why.

The first is Confidence. While the economic downturn has depressed short term optimism about the future, our enduring national confidence remains the envy of the world. Our affinity for confidence is one of our finest national traits. True, sometimes our optimism has more roots in fiction than in fact, but there is nothing bad in this. At worst, dreams are harmless fantasies, but at best, they are bold markers which encourage us (at times quite literally) to reach for the stars. Our confidence gives us the sustaining belief that our unending, challenging but rewarding journey of improvement and advancement is one worth taking.

The second is Commitment. Whether our commitment to the rule of law, to the ideals of freedom, or to each other, America is defined by commitment. American workers are among the most productive in the World. American athletes train and compete with incredible focus. American military personnel are the most relentless in the world. Americans don't like to give half-way effort or leave a task half complete.

The third is Community. Visitors to America are always struck by our national, state and local love of community. Whether in the national patriotism of flying a flag, or the simple act of supporting a school sports match, 'community' is central to our American identity. Our communities are the product of shared beliefs, shared interests and our shared respect for one another. In physical essence, Community is the physical expression of our national motto- 'E Pluribus Unum' 'Out of many, One'.

The fourth is Courage. Since the founding fathers rose to freedom by challenging the world's greatest empire, Americans have been defined by our courage. Since 9/11 we have seen abundant evidence that our national courage remains undiminished. From Todd Beamer to Mike Murphy and from Chesley Sullenberger to Wesley Autrey, American courage is alive and well. The reach of our courage extends not just to America, but also, as we see in Afghanistan today, to the acts of our citizens abroad.

The fifth is Creativity. Whether splitting the atom or developing the internet, inventing the plane or finding the cure for Polio, the Constitution or giving the world Elvis, in the short years of our young nation, America has lead the charge of human creativity. Across science, medicine, technology and culture, we drive forwards paying no heed to any obstacle except the limit of our own imaginations. This is a spirit with a motto - 'No limit on ideas, no lid on possibilities'.

The sixth is Compassion. Whether saving lives around the world after natural disasters, protecting Iraqis and Afghans from violent extremists or leading global efforts to train and improve the professionalism of foreign security forces, every day, the US Military provides a clear and undeniable expression of American compassion. Joined with USAID, American taxpayers provide critical support to strangers in great need. But these examples don't even begin to tell the whole story of American compassion. Taking into account private action, Americans are the most charitable of all the citizens of the world. The simple fact - both at the level of continents and individuals, Americans have been, are and always will be defined by our compassion. The combination of our unparalleled strength and our unequaled compassion makes our country an incredible force for good.

Sure, tonight is important. But we always need to always remember that ultimately, America's greatness finds its infinite source in the character of our decent and honorable people. Whatever happens tonight, this won't change.

A response to Owen Jones

On Thursday, Owen Jones, a columnist for The Independent (a major UK newspaper), wrote an opinion piece titled - 

Getting rid of George W. Bush wasn't enough. the US remains a bully

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.

Opposing the Taliban is senseless? Then I guess Jones thinks that this (not a one time incident) is okay. The war in Afghanistan is winnable.

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.