Update from the Heartland
No.417
7.12.09 – 13.12.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.417
7.12.09 – 13.12.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
This is getting to be embarrassing – 17-3 Navy defeated Army . . . again, 8 straight. My cousins must wait for another year. Sorry guys. Go Navy, Beat Army!
I am proud to acknowledge that we are done our humble part to stimulate the economy in its hour of need. We have done our duty!
The follow-up news items:
-- The FBI has requested an independent review of the Bureau’s actions prior to the shootings at Fort Hood [412] – a sadly necessary examination that will undoubtedly yield improvements in our approach to imbedded Islamo-fascist terrorists. The Fort Hood tragedy is yet one more example why we need a portion of the FBI to emulate Great Britain’s accomplished MI-5.
-- A good news, bad news week for Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina [393, 415]! A panel of South Carolinian lawmakers decided that Sanford's conduct was not serious enough to merit impeachment and proposed a formal reprimand. On the downside of the ledger, Jennifer “Jenny” Sanford, née Sullivan has filed for divorce. We move on.
-- When the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the selectee for the 2009 Peace Prize, I ended my opinion with the admonition, “Earn this!” [408] I hope he does. I listened to his entire Nobel lecture. Succinctly . . . impressive and admirable! He expertly delivered a well-crafted speech with the odd juxtaposition of war and peace – a peace prize recipient who had to justify the use of military force in some situations. Very well done, Mr. President!
This week, Senator Earl Benjamin “Ben” Nelson of Nebraska introduced Senate bill 2846 – United States War Bonds Act of 2009 – which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Finally, a Member of Congress offered up something constructive toward engagement of the nation in the War on Islamic Fascism. Unfortunately, without a promotion campaign on the scale of the World War II effort, such an initiative will have limited success, but better to try something rather than the nothing of the last eight years. I suspect Nelson’s proposal will not make it out of committee – it implies the Gov needs help and we can’t have that.
As is so often the case, the folks at Strategic Forecasting, Inc., give us an excellent assessment of our enemy.
“The Jihadist Strategic Dilemma”
by George Friedman
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: December 7, 2009; 21:25 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091207_jihadist_strategic_dilemma
In our continuing discussion regarding U.S. foreign policy, the prosecution of the War on Islamic Fascism and our relationship with other peaceful nations of the World, a contributor sent along the following Pew Research Center report on world opinion in 2002. While foreign policy cannot be based on public, popular opinion, our relationship to our neighbors and friends remains important.
“What the World Thinks in 2002 – How Global Publics View: Their Lives, Their Countries, The World, America”
Pew Research Center
Published: December 4, 2002
http://people-press.org/report/165/what-the-world-thinks-in-2002
The House approved a wide-ranging financial system reform bill – H.R. 4173 [House: 223-202-0-9(1)]. The bill goes to the Senate, now. I have a lot to learn about this legislation. At first blush, it appears to be comprehensive, extensive and hopefully appropriate. More to follow on this one.
Congress sent a US$1.1T omnibus appropriations bill ladened, of course, with the oh-so-familiar earmark, pork-barrel spending by the powerful in Congress. The profound nausea associated with events like this one never seems to go away or dampen.
A long-time friend, contributor, and retired military officer sent this note and link in our continuing debate regarding homosexuals serving in the military. He wrote:
[Based on this document from this URL:]
http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/FGOM-SigList%281087%29-033109.pdf
“Note: As far as I can tell, all are now retired. Makes a difference.
“I’m sure many gays have served and served well in the past and now too. So I’m not totally sure of my stand, though I think it is against them serving.”
I replied:
Very impressive list. Many names I recognize. Some I even know.
You and I both served on active duty when the U.S. military endured the trauma of racial integration and women were admitted to the service academies. You were still on active duty when the role of women in service expanded dramatically. During those years, I was for racial integration but highly skeptical of gender integration, especially in the combat arms. The question of homosexual integration simply never rose to debate or even conversation. As recently as 1998, I wrote an essay resisting gender integration. Since then, I have had abundant opportunity to rethink my position. Now, I freely admit I was wrong, then. Regardless of how many general officers seek to maintain the status quo, they are wrong. We must mature as a society. Eventually, we will recognize that none of the social factors are valid excuses for exclusion or discrimination. The military has an obligation to define proper, public behavior, but homosexuality should not be treated any differently from heterosexuality. The issue is performance in the job, not private activities or private freedom of choice.
. . . with this follow-up comment:
“Still think I’m probably against it. Not because of them but because how they would be accepted, especially the men, by their comrades.”
. . . and my reply:
Point taken. However, I'm sure you can remember how well some folks wanted racial integration. People have to get over their phobias. Homosexuality is not contagious. It does not rub off on someone. I would think that most good Marines will say, if he's a good Marine, he's a good Marine. Who someone is attracted to or chooses to live his life with has nothing to do with being a good Marine.
POSTSCRIPT: Change is never easy or without trauma of some sort. The time is now. We must shed our antiquated and irrational fear of non-heterosexuality. It is just time!
In another on-line exchange with another friend and contributor on a different topic:
“This is exactly what I was saying, when under Bush (43), all the TARP stuff started to flow.
“My key question, was the government’s interference to avert a global quicksand, delay one, or cause one? I really wonder sometimes. They’d better start throwing more oil on the machinery, because I’m seeing some signs that we’re getting ready to go into another round of the same stuff again.”
. . . the author referred to this essay:
“Leave Markets to Themselves”
by Don Cooper
LewRockwell.com
Published: 10.December.2009
http://www.lewrockwell.com/cooper/cooper28.1.html
My reply:
Leaving markets to themselves is exactly what got us into this mess. Even what regulation that remained was not being faithfully enforced.
. . . to which came this follow-up:
“[M]any people would agree with you. Having said that, on the Coast to Coast AM show last night, George Noory interviewed Edward Griffin who stated the TARP bailout was exactly the wrong medicine for the economy, and that the interference will re-stall our economy. I was also listening to the KNX Business Hour on Wednesday from Los Angeles, and the director of the Los Angeles Business Federation (I believe that is the name, and sorry I don't have guest name), was stating that the government role in the crisis, has not helped, and will only slow the recovery. He also predicted that our next crisis is commercial real estate.
“I was corrected by a blogger in another forum, where I had written about the nature of the weak points in capitalism, and s/he corrected me saying ‘that is not capitalism, it is called GREED.’ I thanked them and agreed, that the greed element is within all of us, we keep it tempered through resisting temptations that violate our code, morals, ethics, principles, beliefs, policies, etc.. But in any economic and regulatory system, the greed aspect plays out.”
. . . along with my reply:
I am certain our children and perhaps their children will be debating the wisdom of the Government’s intervention in this particular recession, just as we continue to debate the Government’s intervention during the Great Depression.
The difficulty for me as in so many of these socio-economic debates remains finding balance between opposed and often conflicting forces. In some measure, I think Gordon Gekko was correct – “Greed is good.” The profit motive is a powerful, driving force. Yet, as you note, greed got us into this mess – at an individual level, at a corporate level, and at a governmental level – not rational capitalism. So, where is the balance?
In just about any interaction between two or more human beings – friendship, marriage, business, war, and everything in between – we can view it as a spectrum. On one pole, absolute freedom (no rules, no laws, no restrictions, i.e., anarchy); on the opposite pole, absolute totalitarianism (no individual freedom whatsoever). Each of us seeks balance in our relationships at some point near the middle of that political spectrum; some favoring more or less control. The economy is just another human interaction. As Don Cooper stated, “A market is the voluntary coming together of two groups of people.” If there are no rules, then the market becomes survival of the fittest – every man for himself; show no quarter. Conversely, excessive rules stifle innovation, ingenuity and the entrepreneurial spirit. So, where is the balance?
As I argued last fall, the government could have simply taken a laissez-faire approach and done nothing – let the market sort itself out. Unfortunately to that end, the true injury will not be born by the perpetrators who took the risks, but rather largely by the innocent – the workers who took none of the risk and will pay a heavy price. The financial deregulation that began in 1977 and reached a fever-pitch in 1999, set the stage for what we experienced in 2008/9; who bears the brunt of that trauma? Certainly not the Wall Street bankers and insurance idiots who slipped away with hundreds of millions in personal gain and left 10+% unemployment in their wake.
We saw signs of this debacle for many years. The Savings & Loan disaster of the late 1980’s was a stark preview. The near-instant Barings, PLC, collapse in 1995, should have been the proverbial canary in the mineshaft, but we chose to ignore the dead canary. Even worse, in 1999, we pulled out almost all the remaining stops.
As with our laws, regulation has at its base an inherent assumption that people are good; thus, people seek the minimum regulation. An economic terrorist like Bernie Madoff escaped detection for so long because his crimes were so outlandish, destructive and disrespectful of other human beings that the regulators could not see reality, or chose not to believe what they were seeing. We had individual citizens signing mortgage papers for 125% of the already grossly inflated value of a house with the expectation they would flip the house in a year for a handsome profit – greed at the private, individual level.
My concern has been, is, and will remain with the innocent collateral damage. I could care less about the Bernie Madoff’s of this world [In fact, there I think the Chinese have it right; a single bullet to the back of the head would be too kind for him]. I condemn those individual citizens who believed in the get-rich-quick pabulum they were being fed by unchecked and unscrupulous mortgage lenders.
I am not too keen on the rampant spending by the USG, but in all candor, I am more offended by devastating collateral damage and near paucity of punishment for those who brought this to our doorstep. For most of my adult life, I have invested conservatively, content to make a modest return without undue risk only to see 50% of our Net Worth evaporate in a month, not at my hand. Fortunately, we shall weather this storm. Many others are not and will not be so lucky. We have heaped an unimaginable debt on our children and grandchildren just as we are about the retire, so pardon me while I say, never again; I have been moved toward greater regulation. The greedy bastards have proved themselves unworthy of free markets.
News from the economic front:
-- As a few positive signs of economic recovery trickle in, now we hear rumbling from the Obama administration about diverting US$200B of unused or returned TARP funds [361 et al] for the introduction of a new jobs program. I understand the need, but I think this has a peculiar odor . . . and it is not good. We shall see how this plays out.
-- The Treasury Department expects to recover all but US$42B of the US$370B of the funds it fronted to troubled companies during the plunge of the financial crisis last year, with the portion lent to banks actually showing a slight profit, probably to contribute to the jobs program noted above.
-- Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Maclean Darling announced a one-time 50% tax on bonuses in excess of £25K (US$41K). The tax, to be paid by employers, will affect all U.K. banks, as well as their foreign branches and subsidiaries. The government ostensibly wants to reduce the deficit “in an orderly way” and professed confidence that the U.K. economy will start growing by the turn of the year.
-- U.S. exports of goods and services in October increased more than imports, pushing the U.S. trade deficit down 7.6% to US$33B from the revised $36B deficit in September.
-- Wow! As rallying equity markets inflated the 3rd Quarter profits, Goldman Sachs announced its top executives will not get cash bonuses in 2009. Instead, they will receive stock that cannot be sold for at least five years. The investment bank set aside US$5.35B for benefits and compensation. At least the company is making an attempt to soften public outrage over obscene compensation provisions as the economy struggles to recover from the devastating recession.
-- The Commerce Department reported U.S. retail sales rose 1.3% in November, nearly double the forecast, with increased consumers spending during the traditionally busy after-Thanksgiving shopping days. Excluding sales of gasoline and cars, other retail sales increased 0.6% last month.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that Beijing Automotive, one of China’s main state-owned auto makers, has apparently reached a tentative deal with General Motor’s to acquire certain assets of the company’s Saab unit, including intellectual property for two sedans and equipment to produce those cars, along with their engines and transmissions.
Comments and contributions from Update no.416:
A comment on the Blog:
“‘War on Islamic Fascism’
“This could more accurately be called the War on the Taliban and/or al Qaeda. The problems with that are
(a) neither of those is a nation in the legal sense and
(b) those names would not allow for indefinite expansion of the effort, a central goal of some of the people in charge, I suspect.
“I have no idea why people believe the withdrawal goal has any importance. Those things come and go along with the rest of the political promises. The disclaiming of this one has already begun.
“Most likely, Obama is not seeking further sacrifices (beyond the prior removal of our civil rights) here at home is because the "war" is seriously unpopular already. By seeking sacrifices for this, rather than to improve the economy, health care or even the environment, he would be squandering what remains of his political capital. Such measure would face stiff opposition in Congress regardless of party affiliations. Senators and Representatives seek re-election and therefore must needs oppose moves that unpopular. Obama's popularity has slid far enough without that.”
My reply comment on the Blog:
Yes, the present war could be called lots of things, yet the Taliban and al-Qaeda are simply units of the greater enemy. Nonetheless, spot on! They are not nations; they do not deserve or warrant the benefits or recognition of nationhood. I am not so sure about the “indefinite expansion” part.
The withdrawal goal is not the problem. It is the public disclosure of that goal that is the real problem. Politicians are politicians. They say what they think they have to say to get re-elected. I’m not so sure the disclaiming is actually disclaimer as much as they are attempts to buy political margin.
I’m sure you are quite right. In that sense, I suspect Barack is quite like W. I believe they want to get the job done . . . but for the minimum expense possible, which in turn drives them to make sub-optimal decisions. For them, it is not about winning; it is about doing just enough to get by. Economic progress, health care reform or even environmental improvement cannot happen without safety and security. The political consequences of asking all citizens to contribute to winning the War on Islamic Fascism may not be attractive, but it is the right thing to do. War is a nation endeavor, not just a military activity. I am not quite to a war tax, but I am suggesting war bonds or similar contributions to help win the war. Unfortunately for presidents, their job is far bigger than re-election.
. . . round two, via e-Mail:
“I still don't get it. How can we fight a war against an enemy we cannot even specifically name? How do we know whether we're winning if we don't know who we're fighting? That non-logic leads to the indefinite expansion of always finding new targets, and doing that benefits armchair warriors who make nice salaries and/or profits based on the ‘war.’
“And I’ll say it again. This ‘war’ is already costing Obama his popularity and political support. How do you think he could manage to add a financial sacrifice for it in these hard economic times? It's beside the point whether taxing for this operation would be a useful military strategy; it's not possible to accomplish that.”
. . . my reply to round two:
Please allow me to ask you a couple questions:
1. Do you think we are at war?
2. If so, with whom do you think we are at war?
Those seem to be the two salient questions. The answers establish the context of any further debate or discussion.
I am not sure it really matters what name we call them; they are still trying to kill innocent Americans and even the faithful to further their objectives . . . the tragedy of today’s bombings in Baghdad as an example.
Yes, absolutely, as all wars cost presidents popularity. It will be no different for Barack. His speech last week was a masterful political balancing act, but at the end of the day, he knows what has to be done.
I am not advocating for the government to take more money. I do believe there is more We, the People, could do to support the war effort . . . that is if we agree we are at war. IMHO, just because George W. made dreadful mistakes, does not mean Barack must perpetuate the same mistakes.
You asked: “How do you think he could manage to add a financial sacrifice for it in these hard economic times?” I think the War Bonds idea is noteworthy. I also think he could ask for diversion of some industrial capacity, e.g., instead to producing household aluminum foil, that material and capacity would be applied to war materials. I also think the military should be expanded, and he could ask more citizens to volunteer for service. He could also apply older veterans like me to staff jobs to enable younger soldiers to take on combat duties. He could ask Hollywood to take on specific communications tasks to reach out to moderate Muslims world-wide, in an effort to blunt the radical, fundamentalist vitriol spewed by rabid clerics. There are a myriad of volunteer tasks that could be performed to help families of deployed warriors; all that is needed is leadership and focus. I could go on, but I think you can sense my approach. As I said, war is a national endeavor, not just a military action. So, if we are at war, we should be all in. George W. failed to mobilize the nation for the War on Islamic Fascism. Barack is trundling down the very same road.
. . . round three:
“I think we are in a large, dangerous military event. ‘War’ is a legal term and I'm not a lawyer; we’re not in a declared war.
“Damned if I know. That's my point. I don't think anybody knows with any clarity. ‘Islamic Fascism’ (or ‘terrorism’ or whatever term) is not a nation or a concrete group of people. If you can define a tangible enemy for this ‘war,’ please do so.”
. . . my reply to round three:
Let’s try this the other way around.
For the furtherance of this discussion, let us assume there is no enemy(ies). Further, since there is no nation-state involved, let us also assume, therefore (by definition), we cannot be at war. Given those assumptions, please allow me to ask:
1. Was the 9/11 attack a simple criminal act of large scale?
2. Since the 9/11 executioners all died in the attack, should we simply close the case file with a hearty “oh well”?
3. Should we have taken any action at all as a consequence?
Depending upon the answers, we can progress to another level.
If, as you say, we are not at war, then I would agree, immediate withdrawal is quite reasonable and appropriate, as we have exceeded our Article 51 authority.
. . . round four:
“Why? We need to clarify, but I never said we ought not to defend ourselves. I just want to do it in some way that makes sense.
“That’s a good question for lawyers. Certainly, the least we need to do is prevent a repetition, if that's at all likely.
“If we cannot find concrete evidence of others’ involvement, yes. If we can find such evidence, see above.
“We should have taken some saner action than attacking Iraq. Iraq has oil, but at the time, they harbored no Islamic extremists; they would have competed with Saddam Hussein for support. Perhaps we should still take some action to address those actually responsible for 9/11. Very likely, those guys with the box cutters were directed by people with higher IQs and smaller death wishes.”
. . . my reply to round four:
I assume from your reply that you do not believe the aggressive, “take the fight to the enemy” approach of the previous administration and apparently the current administration as well makes sense. If so, what would you propose? What do you think is a better approach to dealing with the bad guys?
We have discussed the threat posed by Saddam’s Iraq. We disagree on that assessment; I don’t see either of us changing our views. I am incapable of producing the intelligence / evidence to support my opinion.
Re: Afghanistan. POTUS has defined his position / policy. General McChrystal has accepted the challenges with the resources provided. Obama has taken a more structured approach than his predecessor, which I see as positive. I can also see alternatives. We do not have to fight in Afghanistan. However, the farther we step back from the locale, the more defensive and thus reactive we will become.
Re: Q1. I care about your opinion far more than I do lawyers, as the answer sets the context. Whether lawyers define our presentation as war or simple police action does not alter the very real threat we face. IMHO, I believe the aggressive approach has prevented a repetition. As the warrior’s saying goes, the best defense is a good offense. Since 9/11, the United States has chosen to take the offense. To put this in a different context, our laws, by their very nature and history, are reactive; the criminal must act, not just think or talk about the crime. Pre-emptive police action is extraordinarily difficult to take as the burden of “proof” rests on the government to convince a judge to issue a warrant without a crime. Since 9/11, we have chosen to not wait for the crime. I could argue that we should have taken the aggressive approach at least as far back as 1979, but 9/11 forced our hand.
Re: Q2. Crime & prosecution are about evidence. War is about threat. POTUS & AG have decided to place some of the 9/11 contributors on public, criminal trial in a civilian court, so for better or worse, we shall eventually see whether evidence and war mix well. Further, as you suggest, lacking evidence we should close the case file and return to a normal peacetime condition, which in turn means no pre-emptive action, i.e., we wait for the bad guys to act, and then we capture them and place them in the dock before the bar. When the “crimes” are of the scale of 9/11 or even yesterday’s bombings in Baghdad, conventional police & prosecution hardly seem appropriate or even functional. Our system of laws assumed most folks are law-abiding, inherently peaceful people, and does not deal well with a bevy of suicidal fanatics bent upon maximum destruction.
Re: Q3. The complication in this discussion / debate is reactive versus proactive; defense versus offense; police versus war. I believe the War on Islamic Fascism is precisely going after the guys with the higher IQs and smaller death wishes. We are trying to disrupt the very processes that generated the mounting list of terrorist events dating back to 1968 (or earlier depending upon how we wish to define such things). We tried to do the policing approach for 33 years; to paraphrase Dr. Phil, so how did that work out for us? The terrorist actions against the United States and our Allies steadily escalated until 9/11, until we decided war was more appropriate and invoked Article 51. There are many other consequent elements now, but I still believe our objective is to eliminate the plotters and processes that have perpetrated decades of offenses against us.
. . . round five:
“Somehow I get the feeling that you are having a moral discussion whereas I'm having a functional discussion. ‘Taking the fight to the enemy’ requires identifying the enemy, which is where my reservations come in. We cannot realistically expect to conquer everyone in the world who harbors some resentment against the U.S. Therefore, we need to figure out exactly who to attack; preferably that's based on far more evidence than the Bush administration bothered to uncover. Once we choose a target, we need to quantify what we mean by victory and what is the highest price we are willing to pay for it. I see no signs of that process having begun so far, and we are deeply embroiled in action based on nothing more than rage.
“At this point, we have to fight in Afghanistan. Even if we decided to leave immediately (which I do not recommend), we would have to fight our way out. Whatever our next move, it should be a reasoned decision, implemented over an appropriate period of time, not another blind reaction.
“That’s not a logical assumption in my world, based on the example of Vietnam.
“My opinion? I don't really care what it's called, although I find the term ‘war’ grammatically incorrect. If I recall correctly, Vietnam and Korea were ‘police actions’ or some such thing.
“That saying is offensive in itself. How about ‘as you give, so you shall receive’?
“We began taking such actions in response to our fears in the 1950s, sometimes covertly, sometimes not. Korea and Vietnam come to mind, along with our overt and covert removals of foreign governments. We have no positive results so far.
“Certainly war is not about prosecution in the legal sense. All the same, rational behavior (identifying an enemy, making a strategy that befits that enemy) is never inappropriate.
“I have no idea why they have chosen to try those people now. Had they tried people in 2002, or at least announced that they were wanted fugitives, before bringing in the military, that action would have had a decent chance of improving reaction to the military operations abroad. What we get by doing this today is a no-win situation. Any acquittals convince the entire world that we acted rashly; if all are convicted we face accusations of rigged trials.
“I have yet to be convinced that the ‘bad guys’ have survived the military actions we have already taken. Osama bin-Laden is a shadowy figure at best. The pursuit of him reminds me of the movie ‘Wag the Dog’ with its fictional but convincing war. Others are more real and serious, but we never bothered to distinguish who has attacked us from those who merely talk.
“As stated, I agree with you. The difficulty is how to detect those people without shutting down freedom and privacy. That's one of the most difficult questions of our time.
“I disagree. It’s not reactive versus proactive. It's responding proactively and rationally versus responding in rage and/or fear. We are indeed trying to disrupt those processes; we are not succeeding.
“What we have now is essentially an expansion of the policing approach. It’s still not working. What is Article 51?
“That sounds good until you realize that ‘the plotters and processes that have perpetrated decades of offenses’ are not a definable population but a set of ideas and attitudes that our actions are making more popular in their target markets. The people carrying out those ideas change almost daily. Nobody will be able to find and kill the individuals promoting those ideas before they are replaced by more. The situation calls for some other approach once we get beyond specific incidents and organizations to a larger perspective.”
. . . my reply to round five:
There is always a moral element to any discussion of war, but I was also trying to face the functional aspect, as you note.
Knowing just a little about the intelligence world, I think it safe to say the Allied (greater) intelligence network has a constantly growing list of identities of those involved in the Islamic fascist movement – combatants, clerics, planners, financiers, all of them . We do not see that list or those names, and thankfully we cannot; but, just because we can’t see the list, does not mean it doesn’t exist. I also believe the intelligence community has an expanding list of markers that help in the identification process. A key function of intelligence in wartime (and even in peacetime) is developing what is called the order of battle for our enemies and potential enemies – the hierarchy of how things work, if you will. As you point out, we cannot attack geography as our enemy in this war holds no geography, but they do occupy space. We can be critical of Bush 43, as we both are for different reasons, but unfortunately, we will not see what POTUS 43 saw during his presidency until 20 to 50 years from those days (when data are declassified). I do not know the answers to the victory & price definitions, but I think the answers were and are known within the government. I do not agree that our actions have been reactionary, petulant rage. I have leveled criticism at Bush 43 and specifically Rummie, for the choices they made, but ultimately I believe the objective has been and remains the same – prevent further attacks, which in turn means stopping the attacks before they manifest.
I tend to take a path of more humility in dealing with other human beings. Obama’s approach is closer to mine, rather than Bush’s more unilateralist path. I would like Barack’s softer approach to be successful. I am a firm believer in Teddy’s “Speak softly and carry a bid stick” philosophy. I would like Barack’s more multi-lateral efforts to work. The proof will be in the result, and we need time for that to play out.
Let us examine the defensive = reactionary hypothesis. I am not sure exactly how Vietnam contributes to this, but let’s see. If I know someone seeks to enter my home, kill me and my family, and take over my home, I have choices to make. I can wait for him to enter my home and either eliminate him or arrest him. I can reinforce my home to hopefully keep our attacker from entering, but that will cost a lot of money and there is no perfect security. I can inform the police of what I know and hope they gain enough interest to stop our attacker before he strikes. Or, I can stop him before he is able to attack. The former is defensive & reactive. The latter is offensive & proactive. In our culture with our laws, freedom demands evidence of illegal activity before a court of law and a jury of peers to stop the illegal activity. Thus, the latter action is itself a violation of the law. Nonetheless, the principle of defense versus offense should be apparent. Even Interpol does not have the capacity, authority or inclination to take pre-emptive action; they are very good at reacting to international crime, not good at stopping it. Further, in this instance, we are not talking about bank robbery. We are dealing with an enemy who is quite comfortable convincing its minions to become suicidal fanatics bent upon mass destruction using instruments of modern civilization for their diabolical purposes. The key here: we cannot afford to wait for an attack (a crime to be committed). Our enemy is a rabid ideology and those human beings contaminated with its hatred. We cannot attack the ideology, but we can certain go after body of such ideology.
Politicians can call war something else to make themselves feel better. For those who must fight it, war is war, period! I know many tried to call the Korean War a police action, presumably to soften the consequences. I do not recall anyone trying to make that claim with the Vietnam War. I suppose, as we often do, we return to the definition of war. The Heritage Dictionary defines war as, “A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.” To my understanding, the War on Islamic Fascism qualifies, i.e., open, armed, conflict, parties. Looks like war, sounds like war, smells like war, feels like war . . . by any other name . . . still war.
I do not intend to be offensive, just rational. I am also acknowledging rules of warfare since Sun Tzu articulated its principles 2,500 years ago.
I offer no defense for mistakes made in previous generations or those to be made by future generations. To say that “no positive results” have come from war seems to ignore history. The Republic of Korea is a peaceful, democratic, prosperous nation rather than a vassal province of the DPRK because of our sacrifice of precious blood and treasure. Japan and Germany are among the wealthiest nations on the planet because of our sacrifice and generosity. I hope Iraq will join that group in time. I would like to think (perhaps naively, I must admit) that Afghanistan and Pakistan will rise above the Islamic fascism that cripples them today. “No positive results” . . . au contraire mon ami. This is not to say he have not made dreadful mistakes.
I wholeheartedly agree . . . “rational behavior is never inappropriate.” Yet, to understand or appreciate “rational,” we must see the circumstances and conditions. We can only see a mere fraction.
Until this conflict, we waited until the war was won to try the perpetrators for their war crimes. I believe that standard should have been maintained. If they died of old age in captivity while we prosecuted the war, I am comfortable with that outcome. In this trial, I see the prospect of a successful outcome as a minority probability, and I do not see this action as contributing to waging war successfully; thus my opposition.
When it comes to the actual “bad guys,” I am afraid we are all in the same boat. There should be no doubt our guys have the identities of many beyond the leadership. I have no doubt we have hunters on the scent and in time we shall nab them or kill them. Trying to fight this war without national mobilization certainly contributes to the “Wag the Dog” comparison; however, personally, I think the analogy is quite inappropriate.
“. . . without shutting down freedom and privacy,” man, you got that right. As you have noted many times, there is a strong ideological component to this conflict. That means a significant emphasis on Human Intelligence (HumInt), which we were ill-prepared to conduct and largely dependent on our brother services for information. I am fairly certain our aversion to the dirty business of HumInt has faded or disappeared entirely, but we have decades of neglect to overcome. Without aggressive HumInt, we are largely blind, especially with this enemy. As we have discussed, our system of rights and justice is equally ill-prepared to deal with our present enemy, and it must adapt. Unfortunately, I have not seen the innovative thinking toward adaptation I would like to see. So, we muddle along.
We may have taken the brute force approach to proactive response, but I do believe we are trying to refine our tactics. Only time will tell whether we are succeeding; so far, I believe we are on the positive side of the ledger but that’s just me.
Article 51 of the UN Charter states, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
The United States abandoned the reactive, “policing” approach after 9/11. President Bush did not wait around for a warrant. So far, I do not see President Obama rejecting pre-emptive action.
There are bodies that house and transport those “ideas and attitudes.” I will not disagree that the brute force approach enhanced recruitment of jihadistanis. We chose to ignore warning signs for decades. Now, we must spin up the necessary intelligence assets and resources to wage the War on Islamic Fascism successfully. I think we are learning fast, and we will continue to do so until we have defeated our enemy. The brute force approach is not going to be successful, but it is all we had in 2001. We have grown our intelligence community and our special operations forces. I think we have expanded our diplomatic capability. We are adapting and refining our tactics as we saw in Iraq and we shall soon see in Afghanistan / Pakistan, unfortunately nearly a decade late; but better late than never.
. . . the end of this thread for the moment.
Another contribution:
“Obama is doing just as other Presidents and high ranking officials have done for years----telegraphing our intentions to the enemy. That gives them the means and time to counter our efforts. That is BAD!”
My response:
Amen! Spot on!
If an official does not believe or does not recognize that we are at war, he will see no reason for secrecy or withholding vital information.
Jim Jones surely knows and appreciates the need for secrecy in wartime. Presumably, his counsel was overridden by the politicos; after all, POTUS had to throw some meat in the direction of the uber-Left.
Unfortunately, I see timelines in wartime in the same light as short resources . . . just expands and prolongs the bleeding.
A different contribution:
“Having read your commentary on McCulloch vs. Maryland, it appears you have neglected the most significant part of the decision by John Marshall, probably the most brilliant and transformative Chief Justice in U.S. history. Certainly, ‘...the power to tax [is] the power to destroy....’, but in stating this, Justice Marshall was merely taking note of an economic axiom, although in a particularly powerful way. New students in Constitutional law often focus on these words because they are so compelling, but they do not have special relevance to the Constitutional issues under consideration.
“As for the supremacy of Federal laws over state laws, it is clearly stated in Article 6 (2nd paragraph) that ‘This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.’ Even if Marshall had wanted to allow Maryland law to supersede National law (highly unlikely because as you so rightly observed, John Marshall was a staunch Federalist), it would have been a patent violation of the Constitution.
“What you did not include in your commentary, was Marshall’s careful examination of the ‘necessary and proper’ clause of Article 1, section 8, clause 18. Now often referred to as the ‘elastic clause’ because it is often used to expand the enumerated powers of Congress based, in large part, on Marshall's decision, the clause states ‘The Congress shall have Power ...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.’ To establish the ‘implied powers’ of the National government, Marshall first notes that the ‘necessary and proper’ clause is included under the powers of Congress, not under its limitations. He then offers a careful examination of the word ‘necessary’ noting that ‘necessary’ does not connote ‘absolutely indispensable’ but rather ‘suitable means’ for Congress to accomplish its express or enumerated powers. And finally, Marshall examines the 10th Amendment which states ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ He notes that the word ‘expressly’ is not included before the word ‘delegated,’ a deliberate omission on the part of the framers of the Bill of Rights because ‘it was perceived, that it would strip the government of some of its most essential powers, and it was rejected.’
“In any case, the Constitutional foundation of ‘implied’ powers, set forth so carefully by Marshall, combined with the Court’s interpretations of the Commerce clause, which also greatly extend the enumerated powers granted to the National government, have resulted in what you rightly bemoan as an ‘excessive application’ of governmental power. Don't even get me started on Executive Orders and Executive Agreements. I doubt John Marshall would have approved of the use of his very deliberate and well-considered opinion.”
My response:
I did not intend a treatise on McCullough or Marshall. Rather, as is my practice, I selected a few relevant sentences for the purpose of the Update item aside from the implications of the decision.
My only salvation rests in my notes to the reading, which unfortunately (or fortunately depending upon one’s perspective) were in Hidden text and thus not printed. Let it suffice to say, the lessons you raised were not lost in my original reading or in reading your commentary.
I have no argument whatsoever with your assessment. I read the decision with the same enthusiasm and interpretation. ‘Nuf said there.
Based on our prior discussions, I noted with considerable eagerness Marshall’s discussion and interpretation of the 10th Amendment . . . as you have previously noted, not one of the more featured elements of the Constitution. Even more so, it is the 9th Amendment that intrigues me for reasons we have touched upon in our social intercourse. Someday perhaps, we can find the time to teach me. Also, I must say, your inspiration has sparked a desire to monitor a constitutional law course or two at a nearby university to amplify my learning, if they will allow me.
. . . and a follow-up comment:
“Our Federal judiciary system has certainly come a long way from being the ‘least dangerous branch.’ As you know, I am extremely conservative when it comes to the Constitution, and our Justices on both sides of the political aisle unfortunately regard themselves as super legislators.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
I agree. Even today, in an atmosphere disinclined to tolerate judicial fiat, we continue to see too much. Yet, as they say, one man’s garbage is another man’s art.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
This is getting to be embarrassing – 17-3 Navy defeated Army . . . again, 8 straight. My cousins must wait for another year. Sorry guys. Go Navy, Beat Army!
I am proud to acknowledge that we are done our humble part to stimulate the economy in its hour of need. We have done our duty!
The follow-up news items:
-- The FBI has requested an independent review of the Bureau’s actions prior to the shootings at Fort Hood [412] – a sadly necessary examination that will undoubtedly yield improvements in our approach to imbedded Islamo-fascist terrorists. The Fort Hood tragedy is yet one more example why we need a portion of the FBI to emulate Great Britain’s accomplished MI-5.
-- A good news, bad news week for Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina [393, 415]! A panel of South Carolinian lawmakers decided that Sanford's conduct was not serious enough to merit impeachment and proposed a formal reprimand. On the downside of the ledger, Jennifer “Jenny” Sanford, née Sullivan has filed for divorce. We move on.
-- When the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the selectee for the 2009 Peace Prize, I ended my opinion with the admonition, “Earn this!” [408] I hope he does. I listened to his entire Nobel lecture. Succinctly . . . impressive and admirable! He expertly delivered a well-crafted speech with the odd juxtaposition of war and peace – a peace prize recipient who had to justify the use of military force in some situations. Very well done, Mr. President!
This week, Senator Earl Benjamin “Ben” Nelson of Nebraska introduced Senate bill 2846 – United States War Bonds Act of 2009 – which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Finally, a Member of Congress offered up something constructive toward engagement of the nation in the War on Islamic Fascism. Unfortunately, without a promotion campaign on the scale of the World War II effort, such an initiative will have limited success, but better to try something rather than the nothing of the last eight years. I suspect Nelson’s proposal will not make it out of committee – it implies the Gov needs help and we can’t have that.
As is so often the case, the folks at Strategic Forecasting, Inc., give us an excellent assessment of our enemy.
“The Jihadist Strategic Dilemma”
by George Friedman
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: December 7, 2009; 21:25 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091207_jihadist_strategic_dilemma
In our continuing discussion regarding U.S. foreign policy, the prosecution of the War on Islamic Fascism and our relationship with other peaceful nations of the World, a contributor sent along the following Pew Research Center report on world opinion in 2002. While foreign policy cannot be based on public, popular opinion, our relationship to our neighbors and friends remains important.
“What the World Thinks in 2002 – How Global Publics View: Their Lives, Their Countries, The World, America”
Pew Research Center
Published: December 4, 2002
http://people-press.org/report/165/what-the-world-thinks-in-2002
The House approved a wide-ranging financial system reform bill – H.R. 4173 [House: 223-202-0-9(1)]. The bill goes to the Senate, now. I have a lot to learn about this legislation. At first blush, it appears to be comprehensive, extensive and hopefully appropriate. More to follow on this one.
Congress sent a US$1.1T omnibus appropriations bill ladened, of course, with the oh-so-familiar earmark, pork-barrel spending by the powerful in Congress. The profound nausea associated with events like this one never seems to go away or dampen.
A long-time friend, contributor, and retired military officer sent this note and link in our continuing debate regarding homosexuals serving in the military. He wrote:
[Based on this document from this URL:]
http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/FGOM-SigList%281087%29-033109.pdf
“Note: As far as I can tell, all are now retired. Makes a difference.
“I’m sure many gays have served and served well in the past and now too. So I’m not totally sure of my stand, though I think it is against them serving.”
I replied:
Very impressive list. Many names I recognize. Some I even know.
You and I both served on active duty when the U.S. military endured the trauma of racial integration and women were admitted to the service academies. You were still on active duty when the role of women in service expanded dramatically. During those years, I was for racial integration but highly skeptical of gender integration, especially in the combat arms. The question of homosexual integration simply never rose to debate or even conversation. As recently as 1998, I wrote an essay resisting gender integration. Since then, I have had abundant opportunity to rethink my position. Now, I freely admit I was wrong, then. Regardless of how many general officers seek to maintain the status quo, they are wrong. We must mature as a society. Eventually, we will recognize that none of the social factors are valid excuses for exclusion or discrimination. The military has an obligation to define proper, public behavior, but homosexuality should not be treated any differently from heterosexuality. The issue is performance in the job, not private activities or private freedom of choice.
. . . with this follow-up comment:
“Still think I’m probably against it. Not because of them but because how they would be accepted, especially the men, by their comrades.”
. . . and my reply:
Point taken. However, I'm sure you can remember how well some folks wanted racial integration. People have to get over their phobias. Homosexuality is not contagious. It does not rub off on someone. I would think that most good Marines will say, if he's a good Marine, he's a good Marine. Who someone is attracted to or chooses to live his life with has nothing to do with being a good Marine.
POSTSCRIPT: Change is never easy or without trauma of some sort. The time is now. We must shed our antiquated and irrational fear of non-heterosexuality. It is just time!
In another on-line exchange with another friend and contributor on a different topic:
“This is exactly what I was saying, when under Bush (43), all the TARP stuff started to flow.
“My key question, was the government’s interference to avert a global quicksand, delay one, or cause one? I really wonder sometimes. They’d better start throwing more oil on the machinery, because I’m seeing some signs that we’re getting ready to go into another round of the same stuff again.”
. . . the author referred to this essay:
“Leave Markets to Themselves”
by Don Cooper
LewRockwell.com
Published: 10.December.2009
http://www.lewrockwell.com/cooper/cooper28.1.html
My reply:
Leaving markets to themselves is exactly what got us into this mess. Even what regulation that remained was not being faithfully enforced.
. . . to which came this follow-up:
“[M]any people would agree with you. Having said that, on the Coast to Coast AM show last night, George Noory interviewed Edward Griffin who stated the TARP bailout was exactly the wrong medicine for the economy, and that the interference will re-stall our economy. I was also listening to the KNX Business Hour on Wednesday from Los Angeles, and the director of the Los Angeles Business Federation (I believe that is the name, and sorry I don't have guest name), was stating that the government role in the crisis, has not helped, and will only slow the recovery. He also predicted that our next crisis is commercial real estate.
“I was corrected by a blogger in another forum, where I had written about the nature of the weak points in capitalism, and s/he corrected me saying ‘that is not capitalism, it is called GREED.’ I thanked them and agreed, that the greed element is within all of us, we keep it tempered through resisting temptations that violate our code, morals, ethics, principles, beliefs, policies, etc.. But in any economic and regulatory system, the greed aspect plays out.”
. . . along with my reply:
I am certain our children and perhaps their children will be debating the wisdom of the Government’s intervention in this particular recession, just as we continue to debate the Government’s intervention during the Great Depression.
The difficulty for me as in so many of these socio-economic debates remains finding balance between opposed and often conflicting forces. In some measure, I think Gordon Gekko was correct – “Greed is good.” The profit motive is a powerful, driving force. Yet, as you note, greed got us into this mess – at an individual level, at a corporate level, and at a governmental level – not rational capitalism. So, where is the balance?
In just about any interaction between two or more human beings – friendship, marriage, business, war, and everything in between – we can view it as a spectrum. On one pole, absolute freedom (no rules, no laws, no restrictions, i.e., anarchy); on the opposite pole, absolute totalitarianism (no individual freedom whatsoever). Each of us seeks balance in our relationships at some point near the middle of that political spectrum; some favoring more or less control. The economy is just another human interaction. As Don Cooper stated, “A market is the voluntary coming together of two groups of people.” If there are no rules, then the market becomes survival of the fittest – every man for himself; show no quarter. Conversely, excessive rules stifle innovation, ingenuity and the entrepreneurial spirit. So, where is the balance?
As I argued last fall, the government could have simply taken a laissez-faire approach and done nothing – let the market sort itself out. Unfortunately to that end, the true injury will not be born by the perpetrators who took the risks, but rather largely by the innocent – the workers who took none of the risk and will pay a heavy price. The financial deregulation that began in 1977 and reached a fever-pitch in 1999, set the stage for what we experienced in 2008/9; who bears the brunt of that trauma? Certainly not the Wall Street bankers and insurance idiots who slipped away with hundreds of millions in personal gain and left 10+% unemployment in their wake.
We saw signs of this debacle for many years. The Savings & Loan disaster of the late 1980’s was a stark preview. The near-instant Barings, PLC, collapse in 1995, should have been the proverbial canary in the mineshaft, but we chose to ignore the dead canary. Even worse, in 1999, we pulled out almost all the remaining stops.
As with our laws, regulation has at its base an inherent assumption that people are good; thus, people seek the minimum regulation. An economic terrorist like Bernie Madoff escaped detection for so long because his crimes were so outlandish, destructive and disrespectful of other human beings that the regulators could not see reality, or chose not to believe what they were seeing. We had individual citizens signing mortgage papers for 125% of the already grossly inflated value of a house with the expectation they would flip the house in a year for a handsome profit – greed at the private, individual level.
My concern has been, is, and will remain with the innocent collateral damage. I could care less about the Bernie Madoff’s of this world [In fact, there I think the Chinese have it right; a single bullet to the back of the head would be too kind for him]. I condemn those individual citizens who believed in the get-rich-quick pabulum they were being fed by unchecked and unscrupulous mortgage lenders.
I am not too keen on the rampant spending by the USG, but in all candor, I am more offended by devastating collateral damage and near paucity of punishment for those who brought this to our doorstep. For most of my adult life, I have invested conservatively, content to make a modest return without undue risk only to see 50% of our Net Worth evaporate in a month, not at my hand. Fortunately, we shall weather this storm. Many others are not and will not be so lucky. We have heaped an unimaginable debt on our children and grandchildren just as we are about the retire, so pardon me while I say, never again; I have been moved toward greater regulation. The greedy bastards have proved themselves unworthy of free markets.
News from the economic front:
-- As a few positive signs of economic recovery trickle in, now we hear rumbling from the Obama administration about diverting US$200B of unused or returned TARP funds [361 et al] for the introduction of a new jobs program. I understand the need, but I think this has a peculiar odor . . . and it is not good. We shall see how this plays out.
-- The Treasury Department expects to recover all but US$42B of the US$370B of the funds it fronted to troubled companies during the plunge of the financial crisis last year, with the portion lent to banks actually showing a slight profit, probably to contribute to the jobs program noted above.
-- Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Maclean Darling announced a one-time 50% tax on bonuses in excess of £25K (US$41K). The tax, to be paid by employers, will affect all U.K. banks, as well as their foreign branches and subsidiaries. The government ostensibly wants to reduce the deficit “in an orderly way” and professed confidence that the U.K. economy will start growing by the turn of the year.
-- U.S. exports of goods and services in October increased more than imports, pushing the U.S. trade deficit down 7.6% to US$33B from the revised $36B deficit in September.
-- Wow! As rallying equity markets inflated the 3rd Quarter profits, Goldman Sachs announced its top executives will not get cash bonuses in 2009. Instead, they will receive stock that cannot be sold for at least five years. The investment bank set aside US$5.35B for benefits and compensation. At least the company is making an attempt to soften public outrage over obscene compensation provisions as the economy struggles to recover from the devastating recession.
-- The Commerce Department reported U.S. retail sales rose 1.3% in November, nearly double the forecast, with increased consumers spending during the traditionally busy after-Thanksgiving shopping days. Excluding sales of gasoline and cars, other retail sales increased 0.6% last month.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that Beijing Automotive, one of China’s main state-owned auto makers, has apparently reached a tentative deal with General Motor’s to acquire certain assets of the company’s Saab unit, including intellectual property for two sedans and equipment to produce those cars, along with their engines and transmissions.
Comments and contributions from Update no.416:
A comment on the Blog:
“‘War on Islamic Fascism’
“This could more accurately be called the War on the Taliban and/or al Qaeda. The problems with that are
(a) neither of those is a nation in the legal sense and
(b) those names would not allow for indefinite expansion of the effort, a central goal of some of the people in charge, I suspect.
“I have no idea why people believe the withdrawal goal has any importance. Those things come and go along with the rest of the political promises. The disclaiming of this one has already begun.
“Most likely, Obama is not seeking further sacrifices (beyond the prior removal of our civil rights) here at home is because the "war" is seriously unpopular already. By seeking sacrifices for this, rather than to improve the economy, health care or even the environment, he would be squandering what remains of his political capital. Such measure would face stiff opposition in Congress regardless of party affiliations. Senators and Representatives seek re-election and therefore must needs oppose moves that unpopular. Obama's popularity has slid far enough without that.”
My reply comment on the Blog:
Yes, the present war could be called lots of things, yet the Taliban and al-Qaeda are simply units of the greater enemy. Nonetheless, spot on! They are not nations; they do not deserve or warrant the benefits or recognition of nationhood. I am not so sure about the “indefinite expansion” part.
The withdrawal goal is not the problem. It is the public disclosure of that goal that is the real problem. Politicians are politicians. They say what they think they have to say to get re-elected. I’m not so sure the disclaiming is actually disclaimer as much as they are attempts to buy political margin.
I’m sure you are quite right. In that sense, I suspect Barack is quite like W. I believe they want to get the job done . . . but for the minimum expense possible, which in turn drives them to make sub-optimal decisions. For them, it is not about winning; it is about doing just enough to get by. Economic progress, health care reform or even environmental improvement cannot happen without safety and security. The political consequences of asking all citizens to contribute to winning the War on Islamic Fascism may not be attractive, but it is the right thing to do. War is a nation endeavor, not just a military activity. I am not quite to a war tax, but I am suggesting war bonds or similar contributions to help win the war. Unfortunately for presidents, their job is far bigger than re-election.
. . . round two, via e-Mail:
“I still don't get it. How can we fight a war against an enemy we cannot even specifically name? How do we know whether we're winning if we don't know who we're fighting? That non-logic leads to the indefinite expansion of always finding new targets, and doing that benefits armchair warriors who make nice salaries and/or profits based on the ‘war.’
“And I’ll say it again. This ‘war’ is already costing Obama his popularity and political support. How do you think he could manage to add a financial sacrifice for it in these hard economic times? It's beside the point whether taxing for this operation would be a useful military strategy; it's not possible to accomplish that.”
. . . my reply to round two:
Please allow me to ask you a couple questions:
1. Do you think we are at war?
2. If so, with whom do you think we are at war?
Those seem to be the two salient questions. The answers establish the context of any further debate or discussion.
I am not sure it really matters what name we call them; they are still trying to kill innocent Americans and even the faithful to further their objectives . . . the tragedy of today’s bombings in Baghdad as an example.
Yes, absolutely, as all wars cost presidents popularity. It will be no different for Barack. His speech last week was a masterful political balancing act, but at the end of the day, he knows what has to be done.
I am not advocating for the government to take more money. I do believe there is more We, the People, could do to support the war effort . . . that is if we agree we are at war. IMHO, just because George W. made dreadful mistakes, does not mean Barack must perpetuate the same mistakes.
You asked: “How do you think he could manage to add a financial sacrifice for it in these hard economic times?” I think the War Bonds idea is noteworthy. I also think he could ask for diversion of some industrial capacity, e.g., instead to producing household aluminum foil, that material and capacity would be applied to war materials. I also think the military should be expanded, and he could ask more citizens to volunteer for service. He could also apply older veterans like me to staff jobs to enable younger soldiers to take on combat duties. He could ask Hollywood to take on specific communications tasks to reach out to moderate Muslims world-wide, in an effort to blunt the radical, fundamentalist vitriol spewed by rabid clerics. There are a myriad of volunteer tasks that could be performed to help families of deployed warriors; all that is needed is leadership and focus. I could go on, but I think you can sense my approach. As I said, war is a national endeavor, not just a military action. So, if we are at war, we should be all in. George W. failed to mobilize the nation for the War on Islamic Fascism. Barack is trundling down the very same road.
. . . round three:
“I think we are in a large, dangerous military event. ‘War’ is a legal term and I'm not a lawyer; we’re not in a declared war.
“Damned if I know. That's my point. I don't think anybody knows with any clarity. ‘Islamic Fascism’ (or ‘terrorism’ or whatever term) is not a nation or a concrete group of people. If you can define a tangible enemy for this ‘war,’ please do so.”
. . . my reply to round three:
Let’s try this the other way around.
For the furtherance of this discussion, let us assume there is no enemy(ies). Further, since there is no nation-state involved, let us also assume, therefore (by definition), we cannot be at war. Given those assumptions, please allow me to ask:
1. Was the 9/11 attack a simple criminal act of large scale?
2. Since the 9/11 executioners all died in the attack, should we simply close the case file with a hearty “oh well”?
3. Should we have taken any action at all as a consequence?
Depending upon the answers, we can progress to another level.
If, as you say, we are not at war, then I would agree, immediate withdrawal is quite reasonable and appropriate, as we have exceeded our Article 51 authority.
. . . round four:
“Why? We need to clarify, but I never said we ought not to defend ourselves. I just want to do it in some way that makes sense.
“That’s a good question for lawyers. Certainly, the least we need to do is prevent a repetition, if that's at all likely.
“If we cannot find concrete evidence of others’ involvement, yes. If we can find such evidence, see above.
“We should have taken some saner action than attacking Iraq. Iraq has oil, but at the time, they harbored no Islamic extremists; they would have competed with Saddam Hussein for support. Perhaps we should still take some action to address those actually responsible for 9/11. Very likely, those guys with the box cutters were directed by people with higher IQs and smaller death wishes.”
. . . my reply to round four:
I assume from your reply that you do not believe the aggressive, “take the fight to the enemy” approach of the previous administration and apparently the current administration as well makes sense. If so, what would you propose? What do you think is a better approach to dealing with the bad guys?
We have discussed the threat posed by Saddam’s Iraq. We disagree on that assessment; I don’t see either of us changing our views. I am incapable of producing the intelligence / evidence to support my opinion.
Re: Afghanistan. POTUS has defined his position / policy. General McChrystal has accepted the challenges with the resources provided. Obama has taken a more structured approach than his predecessor, which I see as positive. I can also see alternatives. We do not have to fight in Afghanistan. However, the farther we step back from the locale, the more defensive and thus reactive we will become.
Re: Q1. I care about your opinion far more than I do lawyers, as the answer sets the context. Whether lawyers define our presentation as war or simple police action does not alter the very real threat we face. IMHO, I believe the aggressive approach has prevented a repetition. As the warrior’s saying goes, the best defense is a good offense. Since 9/11, the United States has chosen to take the offense. To put this in a different context, our laws, by their very nature and history, are reactive; the criminal must act, not just think or talk about the crime. Pre-emptive police action is extraordinarily difficult to take as the burden of “proof” rests on the government to convince a judge to issue a warrant without a crime. Since 9/11, we have chosen to not wait for the crime. I could argue that we should have taken the aggressive approach at least as far back as 1979, but 9/11 forced our hand.
Re: Q2. Crime & prosecution are about evidence. War is about threat. POTUS & AG have decided to place some of the 9/11 contributors on public, criminal trial in a civilian court, so for better or worse, we shall eventually see whether evidence and war mix well. Further, as you suggest, lacking evidence we should close the case file and return to a normal peacetime condition, which in turn means no pre-emptive action, i.e., we wait for the bad guys to act, and then we capture them and place them in the dock before the bar. When the “crimes” are of the scale of 9/11 or even yesterday’s bombings in Baghdad, conventional police & prosecution hardly seem appropriate or even functional. Our system of laws assumed most folks are law-abiding, inherently peaceful people, and does not deal well with a bevy of suicidal fanatics bent upon maximum destruction.
Re: Q3. The complication in this discussion / debate is reactive versus proactive; defense versus offense; police versus war. I believe the War on Islamic Fascism is precisely going after the guys with the higher IQs and smaller death wishes. We are trying to disrupt the very processes that generated the mounting list of terrorist events dating back to 1968 (or earlier depending upon how we wish to define such things). We tried to do the policing approach for 33 years; to paraphrase Dr. Phil, so how did that work out for us? The terrorist actions against the United States and our Allies steadily escalated until 9/11, until we decided war was more appropriate and invoked Article 51. There are many other consequent elements now, but I still believe our objective is to eliminate the plotters and processes that have perpetrated decades of offenses against us.
. . . round five:
“Somehow I get the feeling that you are having a moral discussion whereas I'm having a functional discussion. ‘Taking the fight to the enemy’ requires identifying the enemy, which is where my reservations come in. We cannot realistically expect to conquer everyone in the world who harbors some resentment against the U.S. Therefore, we need to figure out exactly who to attack; preferably that's based on far more evidence than the Bush administration bothered to uncover. Once we choose a target, we need to quantify what we mean by victory and what is the highest price we are willing to pay for it. I see no signs of that process having begun so far, and we are deeply embroiled in action based on nothing more than rage.
“At this point, we have to fight in Afghanistan. Even if we decided to leave immediately (which I do not recommend), we would have to fight our way out. Whatever our next move, it should be a reasoned decision, implemented over an appropriate period of time, not another blind reaction.
“That’s not a logical assumption in my world, based on the example of Vietnam.
“My opinion? I don't really care what it's called, although I find the term ‘war’ grammatically incorrect. If I recall correctly, Vietnam and Korea were ‘police actions’ or some such thing.
“That saying is offensive in itself. How about ‘as you give, so you shall receive’?
“We began taking such actions in response to our fears in the 1950s, sometimes covertly, sometimes not. Korea and Vietnam come to mind, along with our overt and covert removals of foreign governments. We have no positive results so far.
“Certainly war is not about prosecution in the legal sense. All the same, rational behavior (identifying an enemy, making a strategy that befits that enemy) is never inappropriate.
“I have no idea why they have chosen to try those people now. Had they tried people in 2002, or at least announced that they were wanted fugitives, before bringing in the military, that action would have had a decent chance of improving reaction to the military operations abroad. What we get by doing this today is a no-win situation. Any acquittals convince the entire world that we acted rashly; if all are convicted we face accusations of rigged trials.
“I have yet to be convinced that the ‘bad guys’ have survived the military actions we have already taken. Osama bin-Laden is a shadowy figure at best. The pursuit of him reminds me of the movie ‘Wag the Dog’ with its fictional but convincing war. Others are more real and serious, but we never bothered to distinguish who has attacked us from those who merely talk.
“As stated, I agree with you. The difficulty is how to detect those people without shutting down freedom and privacy. That's one of the most difficult questions of our time.
“I disagree. It’s not reactive versus proactive. It's responding proactively and rationally versus responding in rage and/or fear. We are indeed trying to disrupt those processes; we are not succeeding.
“What we have now is essentially an expansion of the policing approach. It’s still not working. What is Article 51?
“That sounds good until you realize that ‘the plotters and processes that have perpetrated decades of offenses’ are not a definable population but a set of ideas and attitudes that our actions are making more popular in their target markets. The people carrying out those ideas change almost daily. Nobody will be able to find and kill the individuals promoting those ideas before they are replaced by more. The situation calls for some other approach once we get beyond specific incidents and organizations to a larger perspective.”
. . . my reply to round five:
There is always a moral element to any discussion of war, but I was also trying to face the functional aspect, as you note.
Knowing just a little about the intelligence world, I think it safe to say the Allied (greater) intelligence network has a constantly growing list of identities of those involved in the Islamic fascist movement – combatants, clerics, planners, financiers, all of them . We do not see that list or those names, and thankfully we cannot; but, just because we can’t see the list, does not mean it doesn’t exist. I also believe the intelligence community has an expanding list of markers that help in the identification process. A key function of intelligence in wartime (and even in peacetime) is developing what is called the order of battle for our enemies and potential enemies – the hierarchy of how things work, if you will. As you point out, we cannot attack geography as our enemy in this war holds no geography, but they do occupy space. We can be critical of Bush 43, as we both are for different reasons, but unfortunately, we will not see what POTUS 43 saw during his presidency until 20 to 50 years from those days (when data are declassified). I do not know the answers to the victory & price definitions, but I think the answers were and are known within the government. I do not agree that our actions have been reactionary, petulant rage. I have leveled criticism at Bush 43 and specifically Rummie, for the choices they made, but ultimately I believe the objective has been and remains the same – prevent further attacks, which in turn means stopping the attacks before they manifest.
I tend to take a path of more humility in dealing with other human beings. Obama’s approach is closer to mine, rather than Bush’s more unilateralist path. I would like Barack’s softer approach to be successful. I am a firm believer in Teddy’s “Speak softly and carry a bid stick” philosophy. I would like Barack’s more multi-lateral efforts to work. The proof will be in the result, and we need time for that to play out.
Let us examine the defensive = reactionary hypothesis. I am not sure exactly how Vietnam contributes to this, but let’s see. If I know someone seeks to enter my home, kill me and my family, and take over my home, I have choices to make. I can wait for him to enter my home and either eliminate him or arrest him. I can reinforce my home to hopefully keep our attacker from entering, but that will cost a lot of money and there is no perfect security. I can inform the police of what I know and hope they gain enough interest to stop our attacker before he strikes. Or, I can stop him before he is able to attack. The former is defensive & reactive. The latter is offensive & proactive. In our culture with our laws, freedom demands evidence of illegal activity before a court of law and a jury of peers to stop the illegal activity. Thus, the latter action is itself a violation of the law. Nonetheless, the principle of defense versus offense should be apparent. Even Interpol does not have the capacity, authority or inclination to take pre-emptive action; they are very good at reacting to international crime, not good at stopping it. Further, in this instance, we are not talking about bank robbery. We are dealing with an enemy who is quite comfortable convincing its minions to become suicidal fanatics bent upon mass destruction using instruments of modern civilization for their diabolical purposes. The key here: we cannot afford to wait for an attack (a crime to be committed). Our enemy is a rabid ideology and those human beings contaminated with its hatred. We cannot attack the ideology, but we can certain go after body of such ideology.
Politicians can call war something else to make themselves feel better. For those who must fight it, war is war, period! I know many tried to call the Korean War a police action, presumably to soften the consequences. I do not recall anyone trying to make that claim with the Vietnam War. I suppose, as we often do, we return to the definition of war. The Heritage Dictionary defines war as, “A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.” To my understanding, the War on Islamic Fascism qualifies, i.e., open, armed, conflict, parties. Looks like war, sounds like war, smells like war, feels like war . . . by any other name . . . still war.
I do not intend to be offensive, just rational. I am also acknowledging rules of warfare since Sun Tzu articulated its principles 2,500 years ago.
I offer no defense for mistakes made in previous generations or those to be made by future generations. To say that “no positive results” have come from war seems to ignore history. The Republic of Korea is a peaceful, democratic, prosperous nation rather than a vassal province of the DPRK because of our sacrifice of precious blood and treasure. Japan and Germany are among the wealthiest nations on the planet because of our sacrifice and generosity. I hope Iraq will join that group in time. I would like to think (perhaps naively, I must admit) that Afghanistan and Pakistan will rise above the Islamic fascism that cripples them today. “No positive results” . . . au contraire mon ami. This is not to say he have not made dreadful mistakes.
I wholeheartedly agree . . . “rational behavior is never inappropriate.” Yet, to understand or appreciate “rational,” we must see the circumstances and conditions. We can only see a mere fraction.
Until this conflict, we waited until the war was won to try the perpetrators for their war crimes. I believe that standard should have been maintained. If they died of old age in captivity while we prosecuted the war, I am comfortable with that outcome. In this trial, I see the prospect of a successful outcome as a minority probability, and I do not see this action as contributing to waging war successfully; thus my opposition.
When it comes to the actual “bad guys,” I am afraid we are all in the same boat. There should be no doubt our guys have the identities of many beyond the leadership. I have no doubt we have hunters on the scent and in time we shall nab them or kill them. Trying to fight this war without national mobilization certainly contributes to the “Wag the Dog” comparison; however, personally, I think the analogy is quite inappropriate.
“. . . without shutting down freedom and privacy,” man, you got that right. As you have noted many times, there is a strong ideological component to this conflict. That means a significant emphasis on Human Intelligence (HumInt), which we were ill-prepared to conduct and largely dependent on our brother services for information. I am fairly certain our aversion to the dirty business of HumInt has faded or disappeared entirely, but we have decades of neglect to overcome. Without aggressive HumInt, we are largely blind, especially with this enemy. As we have discussed, our system of rights and justice is equally ill-prepared to deal with our present enemy, and it must adapt. Unfortunately, I have not seen the innovative thinking toward adaptation I would like to see. So, we muddle along.
We may have taken the brute force approach to proactive response, but I do believe we are trying to refine our tactics. Only time will tell whether we are succeeding; so far, I believe we are on the positive side of the ledger but that’s just me.
Article 51 of the UN Charter states, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
The United States abandoned the reactive, “policing” approach after 9/11. President Bush did not wait around for a warrant. So far, I do not see President Obama rejecting pre-emptive action.
There are bodies that house and transport those “ideas and attitudes.” I will not disagree that the brute force approach enhanced recruitment of jihadistanis. We chose to ignore warning signs for decades. Now, we must spin up the necessary intelligence assets and resources to wage the War on Islamic Fascism successfully. I think we are learning fast, and we will continue to do so until we have defeated our enemy. The brute force approach is not going to be successful, but it is all we had in 2001. We have grown our intelligence community and our special operations forces. I think we have expanded our diplomatic capability. We are adapting and refining our tactics as we saw in Iraq and we shall soon see in Afghanistan / Pakistan, unfortunately nearly a decade late; but better late than never.
. . . the end of this thread for the moment.
Another contribution:
“Obama is doing just as other Presidents and high ranking officials have done for years----telegraphing our intentions to the enemy. That gives them the means and time to counter our efforts. That is BAD!”
My response:
Amen! Spot on!
If an official does not believe or does not recognize that we are at war, he will see no reason for secrecy or withholding vital information.
Jim Jones surely knows and appreciates the need for secrecy in wartime. Presumably, his counsel was overridden by the politicos; after all, POTUS had to throw some meat in the direction of the uber-Left.
Unfortunately, I see timelines in wartime in the same light as short resources . . . just expands and prolongs the bleeding.
A different contribution:
“Having read your commentary on McCulloch vs. Maryland, it appears you have neglected the most significant part of the decision by John Marshall, probably the most brilliant and transformative Chief Justice in U.S. history. Certainly, ‘...the power to tax [is] the power to destroy....’, but in stating this, Justice Marshall was merely taking note of an economic axiom, although in a particularly powerful way. New students in Constitutional law often focus on these words because they are so compelling, but they do not have special relevance to the Constitutional issues under consideration.
“As for the supremacy of Federal laws over state laws, it is clearly stated in Article 6 (2nd paragraph) that ‘This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.’ Even if Marshall had wanted to allow Maryland law to supersede National law (highly unlikely because as you so rightly observed, John Marshall was a staunch Federalist), it would have been a patent violation of the Constitution.
“What you did not include in your commentary, was Marshall’s careful examination of the ‘necessary and proper’ clause of Article 1, section 8, clause 18. Now often referred to as the ‘elastic clause’ because it is often used to expand the enumerated powers of Congress based, in large part, on Marshall's decision, the clause states ‘The Congress shall have Power ...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.’ To establish the ‘implied powers’ of the National government, Marshall first notes that the ‘necessary and proper’ clause is included under the powers of Congress, not under its limitations. He then offers a careful examination of the word ‘necessary’ noting that ‘necessary’ does not connote ‘absolutely indispensable’ but rather ‘suitable means’ for Congress to accomplish its express or enumerated powers. And finally, Marshall examines the 10th Amendment which states ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ He notes that the word ‘expressly’ is not included before the word ‘delegated,’ a deliberate omission on the part of the framers of the Bill of Rights because ‘it was perceived, that it would strip the government of some of its most essential powers, and it was rejected.’
“In any case, the Constitutional foundation of ‘implied’ powers, set forth so carefully by Marshall, combined with the Court’s interpretations of the Commerce clause, which also greatly extend the enumerated powers granted to the National government, have resulted in what you rightly bemoan as an ‘excessive application’ of governmental power. Don't even get me started on Executive Orders and Executive Agreements. I doubt John Marshall would have approved of the use of his very deliberate and well-considered opinion.”
My response:
I did not intend a treatise on McCullough or Marshall. Rather, as is my practice, I selected a few relevant sentences for the purpose of the Update item aside from the implications of the decision.
My only salvation rests in my notes to the reading, which unfortunately (or fortunately depending upon one’s perspective) were in Hidden text and thus not printed. Let it suffice to say, the lessons you raised were not lost in my original reading or in reading your commentary.
I have no argument whatsoever with your assessment. I read the decision with the same enthusiasm and interpretation. ‘Nuf said there.
Based on our prior discussions, I noted with considerable eagerness Marshall’s discussion and interpretation of the 10th Amendment . . . as you have previously noted, not one of the more featured elements of the Constitution. Even more so, it is the 9th Amendment that intrigues me for reasons we have touched upon in our social intercourse. Someday perhaps, we can find the time to teach me. Also, I must say, your inspiration has sparked a desire to monitor a constitutional law course or two at a nearby university to amplify my learning, if they will allow me.
. . . and a follow-up comment:
“Our Federal judiciary system has certainly come a long way from being the ‘least dangerous branch.’ As you know, I am extremely conservative when it comes to the Constitution, and our Justices on both sides of the political aisle unfortunately regard themselves as super legislators.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
I agree. Even today, in an atmosphere disinclined to tolerate judicial fiat, we continue to see too much. Yet, as they say, one man’s garbage is another man’s art.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
I'll try to make this shorter than last week's discussion. I find myself unable to resist a background discussion of economics.
Most of the discussion in the United States is based, knowingly or not, on the theories of Adam Smith (1723-1790), whose work Wealth of Nations (1776) has been used to justify every sort of deregulation and greed. Smith wrote over 230 years ago in a "nation of shopkeepers" (Bartleby attributes the quote to several people, including Smith himself; http://www.bartleby.com/100/777.39.html.) His work deals with a far simpler economy than any developed nation has today, and the most-quoted parts assume honesty by all parties. Thomas Sowell, in his book Basic Economics, points out that Smith had no such faith in his shopkeepers. He quotes page 144 of Wealth of Nations: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." It's an interesting article; here's a link http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b88769e200e553868e848834. I suspect that Smith would not be surprised at the use and abuse of his work.
Smith did not take into account multi-national corporations, instant communication, or markets the size and style of Wall Street. The methods of a given set of supposed competitors "meeting together" have changed, and the scale of the damage they can do has changed even more. This has made Smith's quote above even more important. If we are to base our thinking on his work, we need to consider the quote above as part of that work. It seems to me that people in important places have found ways to disable or amputate Smith's "invisible hand of the market."
MrMacnCheese,
Thank you for taking the time to comment. Last week’s extended exchange was exhausting but very important . . . at least for me. I am grateful there is enough in the Updates to stimulate you to voice your opinion – far more than most subscribers.
Your observations of Adam Smith’s “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” appear to be quite accurate from my perspective as well. However, the same criticism / observation can be leveled at any historic document including the Constitution of the United States of America, or the Holy Bible for that matter. The key, it seems to me, lies in the interpretation / translation of those historic texts in the context of modern society. As has been pointed out numerous times, the Constitution makes no mention of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy. Was that because the Framers thought the notion unimportant, or because they considered privacy so fundamental as to be beyond the need to even mention it? The same is true for Smith’s treatise. Just because he was not prophetic enough to see 200+ years into the future does not invalidate his observations. The forces involved in a truly free market are powerful and largely self-correcting. However, as with our laws, the root assumption is people are inherently good and responsive to those market forces. When an unscrupulous individual who has no respect for his fellow man comes along, we invariably experience a Bernie Madoff or Adolf Hitler.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment