TFP Column: Participation Foreign Policy

One of the things that has always been the most valuable about sports for young people are the lessons they learn in life that have nothing to do with the sports themselves. The price involved with sacrificing individual effort to contribute to a team as one learns to compete as a part of one, the expense incurred individually and together for violating the rules of the game, the cost and reward of competing honorably, of being good losers and, even more important, of comporting oneself as even better winners are all lessons that I like many learned on the sporting fields (and the ice rinks). Looking back, they proved themselves far more significant than the scores of the games, any personal ability garnered (or lack thereof) or any awards won (or lost).

Of course, we wouldn’t know much about such things these days. Youth baseball for example, is a game now played first without a pitcher so that everyone can know what it means to get a hit — not that this is something which should normally matter because no one’s allowed to keep score when hits and runs occur anyway. And if some politically incorrect fool should dare to do so by accident, “mercy rules” will no doubt bring such an atrocity to a speedy end so that the self-esteem of the losers won’t be damaged too terribly in the process of defeat that never really happened.

Such nonsense was painful enough to watch when your children are involved and even more horrible to talk about in terms of the valuable ideals being forever lost. It’s absolutely horrifying however to see this philosophy come to a sort of feckless fruition by watching our nation’s leaders apparently using the same rules when playing at foreign policy around the world.

Having fallen prey to a form of foreign policy participation in which your goal is “not to do anything dumb,” or “to do as little damage as possible,” our current commander-in-chief seems unable to grasp that the rest of the world cares far more about the scores of such trials and more than content to tally the score of this particular contest with the severed heads of our players if available, those of nearby fans if not.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m as “war weary” as the next citizen, having watched Democrat and Republican administrations alike fail at nation-building around the world for far longer than Hasbro had the game “Risk” for sale (originally released in 1957 under the apt name “The Conquest of the World” by the way). Ever able to win the wars, our team has consistently (one might even say unflaggingly) proven itself all but incompetent in its ability to afterward “win the peace.”

Our “old-school” opponents, however — nations not yet fallen on the depredations of T-ball and certainly not that of the mercy rule — still prefer to play a game where the rules say that leaders still lead (and not from behind) and any game worth playing is worth winning (and not just strategically exiting the field of play when it seems convenient). Add in that many of those teams are inspired by a form of religious zealotry that not only causes them to still believe that God (Allah if you’re being specific) is not only on their side, but is personally inspiring them to greater sacrifice through after-life bonuses and perhaps you can begin to see how serious and dangerous today’s field of play has now become.

Not so dangerous however, as the group continuing to call the plays on our side of the field. Our leaders, graduates of years sensitivity training and self-esteem nurturing, apparently seem satisfied with having shown up on the world stage for a bit of participation, but only as long as such efforts have no long-term effects on the only real game that counts to them — winning elections.
As Tom Hanks famously said in “A League of Their Own”: “There’s no crying in baseball.” Neither apparently, are there (or should there be) participation trophies in foreign policy. The lines on the world map may, for the most part, be arbitrarily and artificially drawn from Ukraine to Iraq, and from Syria to Iran, but the blood being shed and the thousands lives being lost in the current game of foreign policy being played there is proving neither arbitrary nor artificial. 

What Comes Out ......

Back in the Dark Ages of Education when I was attending Mt Carmel High School in Chicago, we had a sports opponent in the Catholic League in a school by the name of Brother Rice.  (Don't ask me who Brother Rice was, as I had and have no idea.)  Along with our standard repertoire of cheers during such sporting events, we had a special special one for this particular opponent which went: "What comes out of China man's ass?  Rice!  Rice!  Rice!"  (Yes I know that such a cheer is politically incorrect, then and now, but we were high school kids living in an age 40 years ago when being PC was far less important.  I use it now only to illustrate a point, which I could get to if I wasn't so busy explaining my prior offensive behavior to you here.)

Of course it was stupid and politically incorrect, but it served its purpose of infuriating the other team and distracting them from more important issues going on around them.  You know, like the game ....

Today we have our own 'Rice' issue going on surrounding UN Ambassador Susan Rice and the talking points she used on five Sunday talk shows soon after the attack on our Consulate in Benghazi.  For myself, I must continue to say,  "Who cares who gave Ambassador Rice her talking points, who changed them, and why she repeated them on each successive show?"  Maybe she was just being a team player?  Maybe she's a self-serving bureaucrat trying to claw her way up the ladder in the State Department?  Maybe she's a simple-minded fool or drank so much of the Kool-Aid that she would believe anything handed to her from the right source?  

Speaking of who cares, who cares if Republican Senators believe her?  Who cares if they're more confused after questioning her than before?  (Though I would have to say that if this is actually the case, these guys might better spend some of their time watching "NCIS", "CSI", or "Law and Order" as a way of improving their interrogation skills.)  What I can't help but ask myself is why they and we are distracting ourselves with 'Rice Cheers' questions about what she said; as if it mattered then or now in the greater scheme of the game?

The real question in fact is why, in an area of obvious unrest, the Libyan US Embassy in Tripoli wasn't well-staffed enough to be able to send a large protection team of its own down to support the AMBASSADOR (its most important functionary) at the consulate in Benghazi?  Why did we not add staff or beef up the defences of the compound after two prior attacks on it?  Why did we stay after both the British Embassy and the Red Cross had left the area, considering it too dangerous?  Why did they pull a military protection team deployed to Libya specifically for the embassy's protection out a month before the attack?  Why were there apparently no backup teams (military or private security) deployed in an area crawling with US bases and ships, to assist during a running seven hour battle?  Even if things had settled down after the initial assault and fire (and during which the Ambassador was evidently killed), why wasn't significant fire support team immediately sent to the area for no other reason than to secure the Consulate and Embassy (which are by international treaty, US territory); and to discover where and in what condition the Ambassador was?

For some reason however, we have become distracted by the meaningless to care more about who was in the circle and what rules were used for the government official game of 'Telephone' being played in Washington DC, who the head of the CIA was sleeping with that he shouldn't have, why some military base social climber is getting nasty emails from that CIA head's mistress, and of course the in and outs of the gross misstatements of Ambassador Rice.  Four people (including an ambassador) were killed! 

With all of the other things that we don't know, we should at least recognize that the events surrounding Susan Rice are less than a side-show unless and until the actual attempt is made by the President to nominate her for higher office.  The entire Rice episode, like that of my high school days, is a distraction to larger events unfolding, and to a rather nasty foreign policy failure on the part of the current Administration on which no one seems to be able to keep their eye on the ball.  So if you'll pardon my language, I know what comes out of a China man's ass ... rice.  I also know what comes out of the nonsense of Ambassador Rice where the real story of Benghazi lies ... NOTHING.

  

The Best Friends Money Can Buy?

Reading the reports of unrest around the US embassy allegedly caused by a YouTube video that few if any has seen (including me) did not shock me, I'm sorry to say.  Apparently it's OK to insult any other religion in the world without fear of violent assault, but not that of Islam.  Evidently these true believers hold so strongly to their 'Religion of Peace' that it's OK to kill anyone who in any way insults or makes fun of your religious figures.  Now this in itself is a curious contradiction, since there is no iconography in Islam.  As such it seems incongruous that any 'image' can therefore be seen as an affront. (But let's set that aside for now.)

I also noted that an attack on US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, led to his death along with three others in a protest that apparently escalated into an attack on the consulate there on September 11th.  In spite of the ongoing reports from the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and the Administration that there was no plan involved, it would take, in a phrase Mrs. Clinton used back in 2007 when still a Senator, "a willing suspension of disbelief" to accept that guys with rocket propelled grenade launchers just happened to show up at this curiously well organized tactical assault of US sovereign territory. (But let's set that aside for now too.)

This brutal assault on the persons and property of the United States has seemingly touched off a wave of demonstrations and destruction at Embassies from the Western Europe to Indonesia.  It seems that the apparently disenfranchised populations of predominantly Islamic nations across most of the world have decided to publicly share their negative opinions of us by destroying our property and killing our citizens.  Governments in many of those countries, which have seemed perfectly capable of putting out the fires of such demonstrations for many years (even when it required a little extremism and thuggery on their part), seem suddenly unable to protect US territory that they are bound to under international treaty.  Perhaps even worse, US Ambassadors seem unhappy or unwilling to issue Marines guarding those facilities ammunition in order for them to do what these host nations seem incapable of. (But let's set that aside for now too, even if this is getting a bit monotonous.)

Why, because many of these are after all, OUR FRIENDS ....

One might even say that some of these are the best friends that money can buy!  After all, the United States pours out more than $52.7 billion in foreign economic and military aid every year (according to the 2010 numbers I could find), with the economic part of that package coming to some $37.7 billion.  And what a list it is!  Let's look at some of our 'buck buddy allies':

*  Afghanistan topped the list with some $11.4 billion

*  Pakistan got some $2.85 billion

*  Iraq manage $2.1 billion

*  Egypt received a paltry $1.7 billion

*  Mexico got a mere $718 million

*  Gaza (yes little bitty Gaza) managed $693 million

*  And Indonesia got $338 million to spread across almost as many islands

Now lest anyone forget, we have been doing this for many years, under the leadership of both parties.  This may be another of those examples of 'bi-partisan blundering' that those of us looking at Washington DC can't help but notice when we poke our nose under the tent (no camel jokes intended ... well OK maybe there are).  And speaking of poking their nose under the tent, once that nose has found its way in, it seems impossible to dislodge it.  We seem to treat these wayward nations as if they were a ne'er do well brother-in-law.  No matter how much we give them, it's never enough.  And no matter how deep we dig in our pockets, they're never going to like us.  In fact, giving them the money only seems to make them hate us more.  While we're making such comparisons (and forgive me for noticing), but a lot of those nations appear to have significant Islamic populations.  

This is not to say that we carry no blame in these situations.  It was the US after all, who supported the despotic rule of the Shah of Iran; at least until we stopped supporting him.  Oh sure we got rid of Saddam Hussein and his evil persecution of his own people and those of Kuwait, but only after years of supporting him as a bastion against the guys who took over in Iran after we ran out on the guy who ran it before.  We also supported the despotic rule of Mubarak in Egypt before we bailed on him; and there was a time when we liked Gaddafi before we didn't.  Hell we still sell a lot of really cool military hardware to the monarchy in Saudi Arabia, knowing that various members of the royal family have (and probably still do) support a number of groups considered terrorists organizations around the world.

It therefore seems that our foreign policy is little more these days than a poorly planned and totally misguided attempt to get the best friends that money can buy.  It's a policy that's never worked particularly well for us, and in these days when we're all but broke and paying out with borrowed money, it's failing even worse than normally.  It is one however, that appears to be impossible to abandon; though perhaps there is one difference is that the current Administration has decided to exercise which might be worthy of note.  That's the practice of continuously apologizing to the crappy friends we have, and that only hang out with us while we're paying for them; while simultaneously insulting the ones not currently on our payroll.  It's a curious form of diplomacy that reminded me of the days of my youth, and some friends from a little band from Chicago that achieved a modicum of success; especially in the 70's.  Perhaps the President, since he currently chooses to call this his hometown as well, might want to learn from some of its finer poets and bards: 

  

Styx

Now, I'm a jet fuel genius 

I can solve the world's problems

Without even trying.

I have dozens of friends 

And the fun never ends

That is, as long as I'm buying.

Is it any wonder I'm not the president?

Is it any wonder I'm null and void?

From:  "Too Much Time On My Hands", written by Tommy Shaw

TFP Column: Defining Collateral Damage

While listening to stories about the use of armed drones to attack alleged terrorists (thing time in Yemen), I was struck again by how much of war has become a strategy of 'push button' tactics.  In WWII it was people miles in the sky in airplanes doing the pushing, now it people often hundreds or thousands of miles away pushing the buttons on the airplanes.

While all of this button pushing is going on and targets are being taken out, there are regrettably those that are killed with the target simply as collateral damage.  But they're not the only incidnental results of such strategy.

It's this that I attempt to look at in this week's TFP effort "Defining Collateral Damage", which looks not only at what occurs in foreign lands, but that which occurs in this country as the result of such strategies.

While we're at it you might want to make sure to do a little collateral damage yourself by catching up with everything going on in Toledo and NW Ohio (it is Mother's Day weekend, after all) by reading Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's best weekly newspaper for the third year in a row, the Toledo Free Press.

Silly Bits III

Having all but exhausted myself with a rant earlier in the week, I was reticent to attempt to annoy everyone with another bit of nonsense this week.  There were however, a couple of things continuing to annoy me like an itch that I couldn't scratch.  There are therefore going to be two weekday efforts this week (and don't you feel fortunate that this is so).

As I mentioned earlier this week rather briefly (he offered sarcastically), the President was doing a bit of public prodding of the Justices of the Supreme Court for doing their job in reviewing the Constitutional nature of the 'Patients Affordable Healthcare Act' (which of course, he and his spin masters are now hinting never really happened).  While I believe that I probably said enough about most aspects of that subject, I would like to add a couple of related comments to the previous effort, since as the week has developed the President has added even more to his list of those who he's apparently not happy with.

Oil companies were early on the list, as the President once more attempted to attack subsidies and tax breaks granted 'by law' to companies that seem to be rather profitable.  It seemed strange that he wasn't demonizing car companies that had likewise returned to profitability, and that continue to owe the government considerable sums of money, but perhaps it's because high priced cars never kept an incumbent officeholder from being re-elected, but high priced gas most surely has.  It was also curious that the President wasn't demanding that Congress remove the subsidies from Corporate farmers or institutions of higher education who are likewise dining at the government trough while maintaining their profitability.

I also found it interesting that while he was more than willing to chide SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) for fulfilling its Constitutionally mandated responsibilities, he seemed unwilling to castigate a Democratically controlled Senate for failing to do theirs.  The Senate is after all supposed to be submitting an annual budget, but has failed to do so for over 1000 days.  I suppose that he might be holding back in doing so, lest the Senate take up the question of the President's most recent recess appointments.  Such backroom agreements between the President and Senate Majority Leader, both Democrats, call for (as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once said as a Senator to General Patraeus about the Iraq War) "a suspension of disbelief".

On a completely separate but equally important note, I find myself continuing to be dismayed at the diminution of freedom in this country that has apparently fallen off the radar screens of the media and citizens.  We continue to expand the government's ability to do warrant-less wiretaps and searches, apparently have no problem with deploying federal troops to perform law enforcement functions in violation of the Posse Cumitatus Act of 1878 (as long as it's done on Federal Interstate Highways), see little problem with deploying unmanned drones to perform surveillance on its citizens, see less of a problem with killing US citizens overseas without due process (or even filing charges), and preventing citizens from speaking freely within zones of 'protection' provided by the Secret Service.

Perhaps never in this country's history has the Bill of Rights been so grossly infringed upon.  Oh sure, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War, shut down newspapers and exiled Congressman who said things he didn't like.  Sure FDR rounded up and imprisoned US citizens whose ethnic background he felt threatened by.  But you could at least you could say that we were in a 'state of war' declared by Congress.  And while many will try to make the case that the war on terrorism is just as much a danger as those previous conflicts, no such war has been legally declared by Congress (and certainly not one on US soil).  Beginning with the Patriot Act, and with continued assault on the Bill of Rights in what may be the only current example of continuing bi-partisan support, this nation can be said to have entered no less than a de facto state of martial law.  It seems, at least according to Democrats and Republicans in our current ruling class, that the only way to protect the freedom we hold dear is to surrender it a piece at a time.

If this were not despicable enough on its face, our current foreign policy is one demanding sanctions against those in other nations seeking to infringe upon the freedoms of their citizens in the very ways our own government is doing to us.  That it goes largely unnoticed by the mainstream media is tragic.  That it goes unmentioned and unchecked by leading members of both major political parties during an election year is criminal.  That it goes largely uncared about by the citizens whose freedoms are being compromised is .... just more Silly Bits.

Middle East Bully

Iraq seems to be settling back into uncomfortable, but well-recognized chaos and conflict.  Afghanistan too is reverting to the sectarian internal strife that it's known for far too long.  The situation with Syria's strong man continues to deteriorate, with calls going out for potential outside intervention; and Iran's continuing nuclear program's development bring more and more cries for something to be done by someone.  There's no doubt that someone must step up and stop the bullying being perpetrated on the nations of this region.

Of course we know what our government would like to do, and what it's done for many years; ignore thousands of years of history and continue to meddle in what's been a war zone since long before BC became AD.  Let's face it, countries in the Middle East have hated parts of themselves, most of their neighbors, and almost all outsiders for thousands of years; and probably before they were called Mesopotamia and Persia.  It's an unreasoning bit of madness that goes on for reasons that few if any understand, and the remaining choose to forget.  Like a millennium old Hatfield and McCoy feud whose beginnings are lost in the dust of history, all that's seemingly left for those who remain is an unreasonable and unreasoning hatred.

Make no mistake however, the perpetuation of this mindless violence does indeed serve a purpose for some.  If you can stoke the fires of hatred high enough, you can get even the most reasonable of the individual members of a mob to commit what they would consider all but unthinkable acts.  If you can distract a population long enough from the fact that while ordering them to do so, their leaders will never put themselves in harm's way, they will never notice the relative ease and prosperity in which those leaders live.  Neither will they understand that it's their almost constant state of siege that maintains the power of despotic rule and has become the major impediment to a better life for themselves.

Not content to stand idly by or simply provide a unifying demonic figure for the region however, and incapable of staying out of arguments that we were long since proved to have no place in, the West continues to attempt to pick winners and losers in the same misguided way that it always has.  Heedless of the horrendous record of its past failures, the West continues to believe that it has the right to wage wars in countries that have not asked for help; doing so in the name of a peace that remains far beyond their grasp at best, and realistically impossible at worst.

Already the nations of the Arab Spring are falling increasingly under the dominance of 'strong men', who will eventually take the reins of yet another despotic government in the region.  Even the sham of democracy which has from time to time reared its head in this region, with fraudulent elections for pseudo representative governments, will soon find itself mired in the recurring story of popular oppression, religious mandate, and an ongoing struggle among tyrants attempting to reach the pinnacle by crawling over piles of dead and imprisoned.  And when the dust clears, it's likely we will once again be left with two kinds of leadership in these lands; bad guys who like us, and worse guys who don't.

I can't help but ask why we don't for example, seem to care about the human rights violations, oppression of women, and autocratic rule in Saudi Arabia; an often twisted monarchy that has been a long time ally of the United States in the region?  Is it that we can't see what's going on, or that we choose to ignore these behaviors since the kingdom buys military hardware from us and allows us to operate what they say are much needed air bases in the area?

Perhaps worst of all in this self-serving bullshit is the harm's way that bureaucrats, diplomats, and politicians who have never raised a hand in anger seem ready to put members of our Armed Forces into.  Though armed with the latest of weapons and provided by their military leaders with the best of tactics available under the circumstances, they are doomed to win the battles and lose the wars, strangled by contradictory rules of engagement created by armchair generals and a strategic goal that's little more than a moving target used by those whose interests are likewise colored by the desire to acquire and maintain power.

Would we even care if it weren't for the oil beneath their sands?  Perhaps ... when the news showed us inspiring pictures of ragged civilians standing up to well-equipped troops; but the fervor would no doubt quickly wane when "American Idol" came on.  How then can we expect these people to trust us, when we lack consistency of policy, of leadership, and of effort?  How can we expect them to respect us when we attempt to buy their friendship; more often than not by throwing bundles of cash to those who if we caught up with them in this country, we would throw into jail?  How can we expect these people to love us when we continue to usurp their sovereignty, deploy troops to their streets, and drop bombs within their borders in order to impose our own particular version of morality upon them?  What point can there be to the so-called benign interference and gunpoint morality when our efforts result in as much collateral damage as success?

Yet we pretend at benevolence in a land that doesn't appear to understand our version of it (and perhaps justifiably so), and seems not to want it (at least from us).  How much of our never-ending efforts have become about assisting the current US government (and many who have come before it)  in its misguided efforts to control its own economy through around the world adventures in military spending; doing things we weren't asked to in places where we weren't invited?  How much of the rest is about ignoring common decency and common sense, as we continue to "protect US Interests" (the free flow of oil) not by attempting to gather that beneath our very feet, but instead by attempting to impose our will on people half a world away.

It's strange (and almost sadly amusing) that at a time when our leaders are worried about removing the bully from the schoolyard, from the street corner, and the Internet; that it's we who are the bully of Middle East politics.  It's tragic indeed that those we purport to help must dream of one day being free of us.



 

TFP Column: The Beam In Our Own Eye

I sat down Tuesday evening with every intention of writing my normal mid-week rant on society. (I really did!) The next thing I knew, I had penned an effort worthy of submission to my friend and hero, editor-in-chief of the Toledo Free Press Michael Miller.

I think that it was the result of the President's non-explanation of why we are shooting missiles and dropping bombs on Libya, the assumption that somehow the United States has somehow been appointed as the world's policeman (mostly by those in the US government), and the combination of ignorance and indifference to the history of this country that I see constantly exhibited these days.

The result of these efforts was some 750 words that seemed to write themselves: "The Beam in Our Own Eye". Agree or disagree if you will, but I hope at least this effort will inspire some to pick up a history book every once and a while and stop viewing the history of this country through the rose-colored glasses of a Mel Gibson movie.

Irish Directions

It seems that too much of life is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate. While there are GPS systems in cars and even cell phones to get us from point A to B (with the shortest distance between the two points being anything but a straight line), there is no technology yet developed to help guide us through the more complicated geography of the daily issues of life. In fact, as I contemplate this concept in the shadow of St Patrick's Day, it seems that more often than not we are instead handed "Irish directions". 


Now for those of you who have never been blessed with a visit to the Emerald Isle, the only way to explain this concept is through example: 


Tourist: "Can you tell me how to get to town?" 


Local Answer: "Well do you see that road over there? Pay it no mind, it will do you no good. Now that other road there. Ah ... and many's the day I've walked it ..." 


Tourist: "To the town?" 


Local: "Not at all. No, it was off to fishin' I was, when the salmon were in season..." 


And so it goes. It's a grand story and lovely to listen to, but it does nothing to solve the problem you're facing. So it seems to me as I watch debates in Congress over cutting $6 billion or $60 billion from a $3.5 trillion budget and a $1.5 trillion deficit as an effective solution. Anyone who's completed their "goes into's" knows that such trivial number theory is little more than distraction. (Can you say "NPR funding"?)

Yet instead of answering the question of what we're going to do about this country's crushing national debt we're talking about whether either of these insignificant numbers is a budget cut that's draconian in nature. 


When I've gotten over the confusion I feel with such mindless diversion, I am confronted instead with arguments over whether public sector unions should be continue to be allowed to live in symbiotic (if not parasitic) relationship with the politicians in charge of deciding how they are compensated. 


Just as my blood pressure subsides with the inability of political leaders to deal with the broad strokes of the issue however, I find them instead endlessly debating whether these same public sector workers should get pensions instead of 401k's like the rest of us; or contribute as much to their retirements and health care as their private sector counterparts. But we seem to be ignoring these vital questions while focusing instead on what 'rights' a public sector union has, as if they were carved into the Bill of Rights. 


Now Congress is holding hearings on whether the acts of terrorism perpetrated against this country are committed by those believing in the principles of jihad as preached in the Islamic religion. And while there is little argument that there is a radical Islamic agenda behind these attacks, the danger of these jihadists and salient question involved are ignored in favor of a conversation instead about a religious prejudice that might be perpetrated by an equally small percentage of the rest of the population. 


But OK. Perhaps the complexity of the road map where domestic issues are concerned is just too convoluted when dealt with by what are apparently simple political minds. Perhaps instead we should turn to the greater issues of the world. Surely these must be more clear-cut to deal with. 


Certainly a government that has been complaining that it should not have gotten involved in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations in Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan can see that meddling in those of Libya might not be a good plan. It seems self-apparent that attempting to again attempt to aid people who think we've interfered far too often in their internal issues and hate us for every attempt we've made is a bad idea. Instead of settling this issue however, we're arguing over whether we should impose a no-fly zone, park a fleet off the coast, or wait for that bastion of decisiveness, the United Nations, to tell us what to do. (After all, their track record at crisis resolution is .... well, never mind that.) 


OK, then maybe we can just decide as a nation whether both sides of the political debate are going to hash over any and all of these topics in a civil manner. Don't get me wrong, if all concerned decide instead to drag out the blackjacks and brass knuckles to settle matters in the streets around each legislative forum, that's OK with me (and might make great Reality TV); but it would be nice if both sides were playing by the same rules. 


Instead we see one side of the debate accusing the other of violence and vitriol for stating their opinions and that accusing side attacking their opponents physically when things don't go their way. But rather than take on even the simple concept of maintaining a level playing field, the discussion focuses on why the side being physically attacked has to be so mean. 


You know come to think of it, I take it all back. I believe that after due consideration and shining a little light on these areas, I prefer the real "Irish Directions". They may not get you where you're going, but they're usually a lot more entertaining. (FYI: The mid-week post of the coming week will be on Thursday instead of Wednesday, so as to coincide with the Holiday - my granddaughter Maggie's birthday.)

Foreign Policy Dysfunction

With the dust beginning to settle in Egypt, our attention is drawn to demonstrations elsewhere in that part of the world. In Algeria, Bahrain, Jordan, Libya, Senegal, and Yemen (in alphabetic order, no less) similar protests are occurring; calling for significant change in their governments. One can only hope that such public exhibitions will lead to greater freedoms and liberties in those countries rather greater oppressions, but the region is not known for democratic reform. One can also hope that they are prepared to live with the greater responsibilities that such freedoms require, but without a history of this, their chances are less than 50 / 50 at best. 


While these efforts unfold, State Department officials, academic and government foreign policy experts, and media pundits are all desperately scrambling to keep up with them (and failing equally desperately); offering their discerning views in droning tones on what is being done in these places (and what should be). Being part of none of the groups previously listed (and being eternally grateful for such good fortune), their efforts appear little better than those which could be performed by The Marx Brothers or The Three Stooges; and with far less humor.  


I often find it difficult in fact to figure out which is worse, our National Foreign Policy around the world or, the ways in which we attempt to define it. Based on its actions over the last few decades however, it appears (at least to me) to be characterized by something combining a Bad Neighbor Policy with a form of dysfunctional child-rearing. 


In our Bad Neighbor Policy efforts, we appear to be complaining about the loud music and crazy parties going on somewhere down the block, while ignoring the junk cars cluttering our own property. We seem so intent on complaining about the neighbor's crabgrass that we fail to notice that we haven't mowed our own yard in weeks. And while we have a great many opinions about the terrible colors that those up and down the street have painted their homes recently, we fail to notice that the veneer of our own residence has been peeling for some time and is looking rather shabby these days. 


In oafish snobbery, we appear quite willing to scorn a neighbor on their recent economic predicament and their acceptance of welfare and food stamps; while seemingly unaware that we have run all of our credit cards near their limits and without change in our own profligate spending habits are likely to face foreclosure soon. I know, a pretty cheering picture of the way we deal with the rest of the world. But wait, there's more ... 


Looking at our Dysfunctional parenting efforts, it's also hard to decide which is more unsettling; that we appear to revel in an arrogance that allows us to treat the other nations of the world as children, or that we choose to follow a form of nurturing behaviors based on a philosophy that would be found morally bankrupt (and probably child abuse) if performed on the youth of this nation. 


We hand money out in foreign aid instead of showing such nations how to take advantage of their own assets. 
- Give a kid enough quarters to play video games and you won't have to worry about what he's doing for a while. 
We treasure and encourage our friends in a regions around the world, especially in places where many are not. 
- Actually, we seem to mostly find new ways to treat our true friends like crap in order to get the bad kids to like us. The truth of course is that the bad kids will never like us, and the only way we can get them even appear to is to pay them. Meanwhile anyone with any real affection for us is on the verge of giving up, having been dissed so often and for so long. 
We encourage stable governments in area where instability reigns. 
- Actually, we are guilty of either choosing or supporting a string of dictators that were simply the "lesser of two evils" in many of these regions, encouraging them to make trouble amongst their neighbors in places we didn't think it would look good for us to do so. We have paid dearly in blood and treasure for those poor choices. 
We show the world what the principles of free speech can do to make a nation strong. 
- Secretary of State Clinton is currently promising a US policy of support for dissidents trying to get the truth out over the Internet, when not actively supporting the arrest and trial of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for similar activities that proved embarrsassing to the US. 
We stand as an example of freedom, liberty, and democracy for the world to gaze upon in wonder. 
- OK, we all know by now that we are not a democracy, but a representative republic right? But beyond that, we are also a federation of States that have allowed the agreeing 50 parties to be subverted by an increasingly coercive central government in violation of the very compact that they originally agreed to. We may be better than a lot of the petty dictatorships around the world, but we are hardly anything to wonder over (unless its to wonder how long before we implode). 


One cannot help but wonder where such arrogance, hubris, and ignorance can come from. An honest assessment of our foreign policy over the last 90 some years is that it borders on an organized criminal activity. By the standards that we judge such actions, we operate little better than a crime family working a combination of protection rackets and loan sharking activities. It doesn't take putting a tin-foil hat on to see that perhaps since late 1823 when the 'Monroe Doctrine' was introduced and we began to think that we should be the arbiter of lands outside our borders, that we have often been little more than a rich bully in dealing with other nations. 


When Columbia refused to allow Teddy Roosevelt to build the Panama Canal, his foreign policy created Panama. Years later when we needed a strong leader there, we supported Manuel Noriega. (Later of course, he lost standing as our BFF and we had him arrested.) We propped up the Shah of Iran until he was chased from his country by his own people, then propped up Saddam Hussein across the border in Iraq to provide some regional stability and defend us against his replacements (and you saw how well that's worked out since). 


It's far past time that we realized that the enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend. Our continued lack of skill in determining such relationships hampers our relations with the rest of the world. Training and equipping petty despots, fringe groups, and marginal governments is often not in the long-term best interests of the United States; and legitimately could be considered sponsoring terrorism by our neighbors. (Does anyone remember how much equipment was sent to Mao in China during WWII?) 


Don't get me wrong here, not all of our efforts have been in vain. We did after all defend Western Europe and Asia from the mass murder of 12,000,000 by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler; but we also pointedly ignored or simply stood aside while similar mass murderers like the aforementioned Mao Ze-Dong (49-78,000.000), Stalin (23,000,000), Pol Pot (1,700,000), and Kim Il Sung (1,500,000) committed their atrocities in similar situations. 


Dictionary.com defines policy as: "action or procedure conforming to or considered with reference to prudence or expediency". I doubt that I would find little argument that a good deal of expedience has been used in crafting US foreign policy over the years. 


Much of the prudence of such policy however, can only be considered however by further using the definition of dysfunction: "any malfunctioning part or element".

The Price of Peace

As the debate over tax rates continues in the House and Senate, one of the chief argument against extension of lower rates is over their cost to the federal government. It seems that their is a great deal of concern on the part of those desiring the end to those tax rates because an increase of the federal deficit will result. 


Chief among the concerns of these recent deficit hawks is that the country cannot afford a loss tax revenues at a time when this country is involved in two wars. I cannot help but reject this thinking. Since Congress has not passed a Declaration of War since December 7, 1941, the conflicts that we are currently engaged in cannot qualify as such. This does not speak to the necessity of these actions nor in any way lessen the sacrifices of brave men and women fighting on these fronts; but only speaks to the fact that words do have meanings and in this country war means something very specific. (Either that, or Congress and past Presidents have abused their legal authority under the Constitution.) 


Besides, the cost of these military engagements is far from the only investment that this country is making. Most estimates in fact, place all defense-related spending at between $1 and $1.5 trillion for fiscal 2010. Since the total 2010 budget is over $3.5 trillion, which would put total defense spending at less than half. Setting aside the rest of the money spent by Congress (admittedly, a pretty large set-aside, but one that many Representatives seem capable of doing), my curiosity turns not to what the price of these two combat zones costs, but what the cost of peace is to the US in the rest of the world. 


What does it cost this country for troops deployed in the Far East and NATO countries? What does it cost to maintain and replace equipment in far-flung bases around the world from Saudi Arabia to Guantanamo Bay? What level of treasure do we pay for troops and bases not actually engaged in open conflicts around the world? What's the cost to maintain bases of the various services in this country alone, where by law such troops cannot be deployed. While we are deploring the costs involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, does anyone ever bother to ask about the cost of troops in Japan and South Korea? How much do we spend to maintain armored divisions in NATO countries that have never fired a shot in anger? 


Moreover, what have we paid over the years to hire, transport, and provide logistical support special envoys sent into countries around the world attempting to maintain peace that often has nothing to do with this country? What have the costs been in attempts to resolve thousand year-old conflicts between with a never-ending stream of Cabinet Secretaries and special envoys seeking to create or maintain peace in Eastern Europe between various sectarian groups or the Middle East between Palestinians and the Israelis? 


What we do know, at least according to its "Budget In Brief", is that the Department of State operated on about $16.4 billion in appropriations last year; but these sums do not include Foreign Service Nationals or Border Security Programs. Also not included is the money called out in this document is that doled out as Foreign Aid either dropped into the cesspool more commonly known as the UN or used as little more than payoffs to governments and petty tyrants in nations around the world in a vague and failing effort to get them to remain our friends. 


What does it say about the quality (or value) of such friendships that they have to be bought and paid for? How long would we expect them to last if the money were withdrawn? I am not trying to justify the nation building that this country is attempting around the world, in fact far from it. Neither am I commenting on the too seldom heralded efforts of a military often placed in untenable positions by the very politicians who complain about their costs after deploying them in the first place. I am however showing my confusion and disgust at the ability of these self-same politicians to complain about the cost of fighting what they deem lengthy and perhaps unworthy battles around the world, without ever mentioning the price of maintaining the peace for far greater periods in far more places.

Appeasement

On the day after we commemorated the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, I find myself looking at the times leading up to the US entry into WWII.  


This country and the world once again find themselves in troubled times and many of its leaders shake their heads in dismay at what currently masquerades as a foreign policy for the US. We treat our friends as strangers and our enemies as innocent bystanders. We pretend that evil does not exist in the world in spite of having our noses rubbed daily in illustrations of its presence. We refuse to confront or even acknowledge the danger inherent in those whose stated goal is our destruction in the name of political correctness. 


We act as host and chief financier of the United Nations so that every third world dictator and petty tyrant can take center stage to disparage and insult us in our own backyard. We create or prop up corrupt governments around the world to provide us protection from what we believe are other even more corrupt governments, only to often find ourselves having to deal with the tyrant that we supported when he finally gets out of control. We pretend that we can broker peace between cultures that have been fighting each other for thousands of years and act surprised when our efforts prove unsuccessful because one side or the other (or both) simply don't want peace. 


We watch as hundreds of people are killed along our southern border, and refuse aid to state governments begging for it that we would cheerfully extend to a foreign country to protect them from a similar invading criminal element. We bow our heads as Mexico rebukes us on how we treat immigration law violators in this country, when its own authorities are shown to be guilty of robbing, raping, and murdering those in similar circumstances in their own. We accept such criticism without complaint and without pointing out such obvious incongruities. 


We accept criticism from Iran and China on human rights violations while watching them murdering their own citizens year after year. We reach out a hand in friendship to those proven to be our enemies in the Muslim world (only to have it spat upon) while simultaneously reaching out a hand to pat down innocent citizens in our own country to protect us from their most radical elements. 


We hand billions of dollars over to countries like Egypt that corrupt the electoral process through violent suppression of opposing points of view; and stand silently while they accept our money, but refuse observers of their flawed process that they deem as interfering. We support equally corrupt governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan, again with billions in US funds, ignoring their aid to this country's enemies and the murder of US troops by their security forces. We in fact seem to hand bags of money to every petty despot in the third world, only to see them share this wealth with other local tyrants who make no bones about being our sworn enemies. 


This does not dissuade us from sending more money however, filled as we are with the childish hope that somehow these misguided misanthropes will eventually change their minds. Disaster relief money that we send to areas around the world more often than not ends up in the hands of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats in even more corrupt governments, but our response is to send more in the misguided hope that some of it might actually be used for the intended goal.

--------------------------------

No matter how much we badly we desire it, the world does not change to suit our altruistic picture of it. Perhaps it's time that we began to recognize that much of the world does not share a common philosophy with us and stopped trying to remake that world in our own image. 


Perhaps it's time that we stopped looking at the world through rose colored glasses and stopped believing that by our example and our treasure, we can influence other nations to follow our path to freedom. We would do well in fact to remember our 20th Century history. 


Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain in the 1930's certainly showed us what we can expect to reap when we sow a lack of recognition of the real evil that does exist in the world. His treatment of Adolf Hitler lingers on some seventy-five years later as an shining example of ignorance and futility. Governments who reject freedom, liberty, and the "pursuit of happiness" of their citizens have not fundamentally changed in the intervening years. 


Unless we begin to once more stand on the founding principles of this country; like the misguided Chamberlain, we risk being remembered by history for little other than appeasement.

An End To Nation Building

We often talk about our overseas troop deployments as "Nation Building", an attempt to bring the freedom that we enjoy to countries around the world. In Korea, Viet Nam, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan we have diligently applied outside influence to create what we hope will be another democracy in the world like the United States with little apparent success. 

 What utter nonsense! 

The United States (Colonies) of America came about when those colonies themselves decided to seek independence and freedom. Defining the goals that they sought in the Declaration of Independence, they went on to seek that freedom through separation from Great Britain. Fighting a war of rebellion against the British crown, they finally achieved that freedom in 1783. 

 This is not to say that these United Colonies did not receive help in their efforts. There is little doubt that independence could have been achieved without the help of the French, who were traditional enemies of the British and therefore served their own interests simultaneously. The French however, did not embark upon a nation building effort in coming to our aid. In fact it was many years after declaring our freedom before and entering into war against what was at the time the greatest army and navy in the world that any significant aid was forthcoming from these allies, and that was achieved only as a result of the extensive efforts of such colonial luminaries as Ben Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. 

We have to ask ourselves therefore, what right do we think we have to interfere in the governance of other nations? What hubris is it to believe that we can force what for us was an internal revolution on other parts of the world by the application of external force? 

Looking at the success rate that we have achieved in the past, what makes us continue a practice that has proved a dismal failure time and time again? In saying this, I cast no aspersions on the men and women of our armed forces. I have family currently overseas, many who served in past conflicts, and have nothing but the greatest respect for their service to this country. These people serve bravely and honorably around the world, performing whatever and wherever they are asked, and sacrificing on a level that few of us can understand. 

Their goal however is winning however, something that cannot be said of the political leaders who expect them to succeed while tying both their hands and feet with so-called political necessities and rules of engagement. This insanity goes far beyond political parties, as Democrat and Republican Administrations share in the blame for these overseas excursions, and usually for equally nonsensical causes. 

We go to war to prevent Communism in Korea and Viet Nam, only to have it appear in our backyard in Cuba. We battle to prevent evil regimes in Kuwait and Panama from reeking harm only to watch it flourish in Venezuela. We attempt to build democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, while watching it begin to crumble once again in Bosnia after over 13 years of effort. 

Perhaps it's time that we learn that we can neither create nor impose a democracy on any country from the outside. While we should deny no country the help that we once ourselves required to achieve our independence, we should make it clear that we will do so only once those people have worked towards it themselves. We should learn that as it happened here in America, the movement towards freedom and democracy is one that must be made from within, and put an end to nation building.