Tweets Of The Day John McCain Makes Nero Look Good

PICTURE of McCain playing poker during Syria hearing is up http://t.co/Po0shWTqO9 pic.twitter.com/ejMzAAbh0E
— E McMorris-Santoro (@EvanMcSan) September 3, 2013

McCain had a classy response:

Scandal! Caught playing iPhone game at 3+ hour Senate hearing - worst of all I lost!
— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) September 3, 2013

I've long thought that a 3 hour debate is too long for a minor issue like going to war. Nero at least sang songs related to conflagrations.

A Minor Musing About Syria

President Obama will seek authority from Congress to use military force against Syria because Syrian President Assad allegedly used chemical weapons on his own people. The evidence of chemical weapons use seems overwhelming.,

History should remind us, however, that George W. Bush convinced many that Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of WMDs. None were found. George H. W. Bush was aided in his efforts to go to war in Kuwait when stories surfaced about Iraqi soldiers removing babies from hospital incubators and leaving them to die. Those stories were fabrications.

Skepticism aside, there are major principles to follow before going to war. The most simple elements of just war theory include just cause, comparative justice, competent authority, right intention, probability of success, last resort, proportionality.

Upholding international norms against using chemical weapons against civilians meets the criteria for a just cause. Further, Assad's use of chemical weapons disproportionately affected the civilians even if they actively supported the forces opposed to Assad. The comparative justice criterion seemingly has been met.

President Obama is requesting Congress to approve limited strikes to punish Assad for chemical weapons use. If Congress grants approval, war will have authorized by proper authority and force will be used with right intention. Assad is a stubborn man, so this may well be a last resort. Limited strikes seems proportional as well.

The probability of success, however, does not exist. The military strike will not topple the Assad regime. A military strike will not take out chemical weapon stockpiles because such a strike will disperse the chemical agents. Assad will, therefore, remain in power and be able to use chemical weapons again. More importantly, the forces against Assad contain elements as dangerous as he is, so it's unclear that it's in anyone's best interest to have those on the other side come to power.

This situation does not involve self-defense; it will do little to hamper or deter Assad. More importantly, weakening Assad may be a Pyrrhic victory. In that light, military force in Syria is not justified.

Troops To Syria?

I understand that the United States does not want chemical weapons to fall into terrorists' control. That being said, this detail seems troublesome:

The Pentagon is sending about 200 troops to Jordan, the vanguard of a potential U.S. military force of 20,000 or more that could be deployed if the Obama administration decides to intervene in Syria to secure chemical weapons arsenals or to prevent the 2-year-old civil war from spilling into neighboring nations.

The Boston bombing, gun legislation, immigration reform, the media screw-ups during the Boston bombing coverage, and North Korea, seem to have pushed this plan out of the public consciousness.

The Los Angeles Times continues:

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who disclosed the deployment Wednesday in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, made clear that both he and President Obama remained deeply wary of intervening in Syria just as U.S. forces are trying to withdraw from 12 years of war in Afghanistan.

But U.S. officials say they have stepped up preparations because the Syrian civil war shows few signs of abating, and a political settlement that includes the departure of President Bashar Assad appears increasingly unlikely.

Wariness about committing U.S. troops into another foreign adventure is welcome. Having this potential break through other political noise would be beneficial.

Quotation Of The Day: George McGovern Edition

As recorded by Quote.net.

The Establishment center ... has led us into the stupidest and cruelest war in all history. That war is a moral and political disaster -- a terrible cancer eating away at the soul of our nation.

He may have been talking about Vietnam, but it applies to every war the United States has fought since then.

My sympathies to the McGovern family. 

Which Use Of Wagner is Is More Educational?

The Financial Cost Of Fear

Steve Clemons boils down the numbers:

Secondly, if one takes the approximate amount the United States was paying to "feel safe" on September 10, 2001 and account for inflationary growth since, the cumulative amount in just defense spending since is roughly $2.7 trillion. That doesn't include other domestic expenditures for Homeland Security which would make the collective bill even higher.

He acknowledges that comparing defense spending to other spending is an apples to oranges comparison, but it seems clear that costs of feeling safe have dangerous consequences:

To put the comparison in context, $2.7 trillion in economic activity in the private sector equates to approximately 6 million jobs sustained over the period between the 9/11 terror attacks and today.

Big, costly, unpaid-for wars are undermining the economic health of the country -- and are robbing growth and opportunity from the future to pay for these military objectives today.

It is a good debate to have whether the invasions of Iraq and the ongoing 'ownership' of the Afghanistan conflict have been worth the investment or not -- but not tending the economic health of America's core has been a strategic failure of enormous magnitude.

Six million jobs lost, $2.7 trillion borrowed, and lost civil liberties are high price for wars that have had a less than desirable result.

Quotations Of The Day: Libya Edition

From an LA Times article "Pentagon mulls NATO request for more U.S. drones in Libya campaign"

Referring to the war's progress the article states

"It's getting more difficult to find stuff to blow up," said a senior NATO officer.

The article leaves the explanation for the alleged difficulty for the last paragraph.

Since the NATO bombing campaign began in March, it has damaged or destroyed about 570 Libyan military bases, bunkers and other unspecified "facilities"; 355 air-defense missiles; more than 500 tanks and other armored vehicles; and an estimated 860 ammunition dumps, according to statistics released by NATO.

 Finally, I love this explanation about the difficulty of removing Moammar Kadafi from power.

 "We can't get rid of this man by throwing eggs at him," Aujali said. (Ali Aujali,is the Libyan rebels' envoy in Washington)

 

Are Private Soldiers A Good Idea?

Wired Magazine reports that the United States State Department is hiring over 5,000 private military contractors, less charitably known as mercenaries, to work in Iraq.  Further, it seems as if the State Department is less than forthcoming about the details.

By January 2012, the State Department will do something it’s never done before: command a mercenary army the size of a heavy combat brigade. That’s the plan to provide security for its diplomats in Iraq once the U.S. military withdraws. And no one outside State knows anything more, as the department has gone to war with its independent government watchdog to keep its plan a secret.

I may be a bit paranoid, but the idea that a department of a government can set up its own military is disconcerting.  The fact that bureaucrats are keeping details secret is even worse.  Wired reports that such fears may have merit, especially given the history that private contractors have in Iraq.

This isn’t an idle concern or a typical bureaucratic tussle. The State Department has hired private security for its diplomats in war zones for the better part of a decade. Poor control of them caused one of the biggest debacles of the Iraq war: the September 2007 shooting incident in Nisour Square, where Blackwater guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians. Now roughly double those guards from the forces on duty now, and you’ll understand the scope of what State is planning once the U.S. military withdraws from Iraq at the end of this year.

“They have no experience running a private army,” says Ramzy Mardini, an analyst at the Institute for the Study of War who just returned from a weeks-long trip to Iraq. “I don’t think the State Department even has a good sense of what it’s taking on. The U.S. military is concerned about it as well.”

 Finally, I realize Libya, Pakistan, and Somalia illustrate that few political leaders believe that the Constitution's restrictions should be followed, but is this "brigade" pass Constitutional muster?

Another Obama Conflict That Apparently Is Not A War Even Though The Military Is Involved And Weapons Are Being Used

Remember "Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego?"  Apparently President Obama wants the kids to play "Where in the World Will the Next Drone Attack Occur?"  Those playing along have learned about Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, and now Somalia.

The New York Times reports that the United States is conducting military operations in Somalia. 

The clandestine American military campaign to combat Al Qaeda’s franchise in Yemen is expanding to fight the Islamist militancy in Somalia, as new evidence indicates that insurgents in the two countries are forging closer ties and possibly plotting attacks against the United States, American officials say.

An American military drone aircraft attacked several Somalis in the militant group the Shabab late last month, the officials said, killing at least one of its midlevel operatives and wounding others.

The strike was carried out by the same Special Operations Command unit now battling militants in Yemen, and it represented an intensification of an American military campaign in a mostly lawless region where weak governments have allowed groups with links to Al Qaeda to flourish.

I'm all for students learning geography, but I also want them to learn that the President doesn't have unlimited war making powers, even if that is not a view that the President shares.  According to CNN,

Administration officials have repeatedly asserted that the U.S. role in Libya does not meet the law's definition of hostilities. The president reportedly overruled contrary legal opinions put forward by both the Pentagon and the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in declining to seek congressional authorization.

Earlier Tuesday, top State Department legal adviser Harold Koh told members of the committee that the War Powers law does not apply to the U.S. military intervention.

Koh argued that the measure is not applicable because the U.S. role in the mission is limited in terms of its scope, means, exposure of U.S. forces, and chances of escalation.

The limited "chances of escalation" must apply only within Libya because the amorphous "War on Terrorism" seems to be expanding everywhere.

I'm Shocked That The Country Agrees with Me

From a New York Times poll

Given the choice of cutting military, Social Security or Medicare spending as a way to reduce the overall budget, 45 percent chose military cuts, compared with those to Social Security (17 percent) or Medicare (21 percent.)

I often worry that Americans really want to keep engaging in foreign adventures and would prefer that the Department of Defense be renamed the Department of Permanent War.  These results give me hope that we will return to the idea of a robust defense but leave the empire building to the French and English.

Paul Ryan and Lindsey Graham: Two Reasons the First Amendment May Never Be the Same

I spend too much time finding huge connections where only small ones may exist.  It’s a quality that I consistently try to rein in.  Today, I’m not even going to try.  Paul Ryan’s budget proposal and the comments that Lindsay Graham and Harry Reid made about curtailing free speech are linked in an important and dangerous way.

Today, Paul Ryan released his budget. According to a USA Today article, Ryan’s budget “would cut Social Security, defense and domestic spending to reduce federal deficits by $4.4 trillion over 10 years. Overall, federal spending would be reduced by nearly $6 trillion.”   USA Today also reports that Ryan’s plan would have “new Medicare beneficiaries . . . choose a private health plan, and the federal government would subsidize the cost. Low-income recipients and those with greater health risks would get extra help. The approach is modeled after Medicare's prescription drug program.”  Further, the plan would cut Medicaid by $750 billion over the next decade.

All these cuts may be necessary.  The deficit is enormous and unsustainable.  I refuse to accept, however, that Ryan is serious or that his plan will do any long term good for one huge reason: defense spending.  USA Today  reports that “[d]efense would be cut by $78 billion — $100 billion less than the cuts recommended by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Right now, the United States is at war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.  One could easily add Pakistan to that list.  Further, no one can predict what the result of the protests in Yemen or Syria.  Perhaps the US will undertake a few secret wars with CIA shoes on the ground.

First, it’s important to remember that some of the current fiscal woes began because the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were fought off the books for nearly six years.  The biggest cost of these three wars, however, is not financial.  The biggest cost is liberty.

Over the weekend, Harry Reid suggested that Congress “will take a look” at the violence caused by the Quron burning.  Lindsey Graham went further.  Free speech, according to Graham, “is great idea, but we're in a war.”  Today he tried to clarify, but the clarifications don’t seem to change the fact that he wants to decimate First Amendment protections.  Graham asserts “there are a lot of things under the guise of free speech that I think are harmful and hateful.” Later, Graham says 

the First Amendment means nothing without people like General Petraeus. I don’t believe that the First Amendment allows you to burn the flag or picket the funeral of a slain service member. I am going to continue to speak out and say that’s wrong. The First Amendment does allow you to express yourself and burn a Koran. I’m sure that’s the law, but I don’t think it’s a responsible use of our First Amendment right. Where does this end? How many more things are going to happen in the world that is going to incite violence against our service members overseas?

Indeed, where does Graham’s hatred of free speech end?  Glenn Greenwald, as usual, gives a far better explanation than I can.

this event demonstrates one of the most uncounted (though one of the most intended) costs of our posture of Endless War: the way it is exploited to endlessly erode core liberties. The last decade's unrelenting (and still escalating) War on Terror -- i.e., war in multiple countries in the Muslim world -- has led to an erosion of virtually every basic civil liberty, including due process, Fourth Amendment protections, and habeas corpus. All wars have the same effect, as many of the most abusive assaults on core civil liberties in American history have been justified by appeal to war.

The fact that wars constitute an “abusive” assault on civil liberties means that the country must carefully examine how and when the United States goes to war.  Congress has repeatedly abdicated its responsibility to check the President, most recently in Libya.  That leaves only one check, the budget. Ryan is giving the administration more, not less, than it asked for.  Instead of cutting back on a president’s ability to go adventuring in search of empire, Ryan has made it easier.  No budget proposal that does that can be considered serious.

The Emporer Wears Stylish Clothes amd Uses A Blackberry but . . . .

I'm going to begin a post by agreeing with Pat Buchanan.  Actually, I'm going to agree only with the title of his book A Republic Not An Empire.  I haven't read it, so I won't say anything about the substance.  If Buchanan is contending that the United States does not have a king and its officials should not act as if they're emperors, I agree.  Unfortunately, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are acting as if they lead an empire instead of a republic.

Talking Points Memo (TPM) breaks the story  here.  Glenn Greenwald gives his take here. Andrew Sullivan adds his voice here.  The story is Hillary Clinton's assertion that the Obama administration is not committed to follow the provisions of The War Powers Act. According to TPM

"They are not committed to following the important part of the War Powers Act," he told TPM in a phone interview. "She said they are certainly willing to send reports [to us] and if they issue a press release, they'll send that to us too."

The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a classified briefing to House members Wednesday afternoon.  [emphasis mine]

Let's place the blame where it belongs:  Obama, the Congress, and us.

Andrew Sullivan makes the point that Obama is at fault better than I can here.  Greenwald's analysis is tremendous as well. 

Matt Yglesias points out out congressional failures,

Members of congress will complain about this, but they won’t really do anything about it, nor will next year’s defense appropriation bill (or the one after that or the one after that or …) contain any effort to constrain presidential warmaking power. That’s because members of congress want to be kept in the dark, they want to be able to complain if things go poorly without taking ownership of the situation. And I think in adopting that attitude, members of congress demonstrate a rare bit of good sense. The level of uncertainty surrounding these activities is huge. There are unbounded downside risks all over the place. But instead of knowledge of those facts leading to greater hesitation about the profligate use of force, it just leads to a congressional flight from responsibility.  [emphasis mine]

The blame for us citizens can be summed up by Shakespeare who in Julius Ceaser has Cassius tell Brutus "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings."  More recently and locally, a rather honest admission at South Dakota War College illustrates how many people behaved during the Bush years and how many responded to Obama's escalation in Afghanistan.

Daniel Larison at The American Conservative sums up the situation quite well.

Do we actually value self-government, the rule of law, separation of powers, checks and balances, and constitutional republicanism, or are we content to let all of those things be trashed on the whim of a relative handful of people for the sake of ideology and good intentions? Do we believe that the President must act within the law, or do we believe he is above it? Will we resist “angelic Caesarism” (as Rieff put it) or fall in line like the passive subjects the administration expects us to be?

The United States is in danger of permantly ceding too much power to the President.  In fact, recent Presidents may have accomplished a peaceful usurpion of congressional power already.  If that's the case we will indeed be waging perpetual war for perpetual peace.  Once that irony is accepted, Orwell's Ministry of Truth will not be far behind.