What are Republicans today, anyway? George Will: As much socialists as Democrats these days.

George Will had an excellent column today:

Rent-Seekers Run Amuck

Is fiscal conservatism really so dead in America today?

Just remember some of his examples the next time you hear about some new tax being “temporary”, or “only for a particular purpose”.  How many times have those words turned out to be true?

I voted for Barr in the election.  Not because I had any misconception about his chances, but because enough votes for those with fiscally conservative views will hopefully help influence the national discussion.  Supporting Ron Paul.  Voting for Barr.

At this point I would even be ok with Obama raising taxes, as long as he went Clinton’s path towards balancing the budget.  Even with big spending, if we can get closer to the point where we are realizing the actual cost of all of these programs and foreign interventionism then at least we can have an honest discussion about fiscal policy.  But as long as costs can be deferred, or hidden, then it is almost impossible to have honest discussion.

I’ve never been a Republican.  I went from being a Democrat to being a libertarian, because that stage where people used to become Republicans never took–the fiscal principles that used to pull the youth as they grew older into Republicans has vanished.  Compare Clinton to either Bush, and it’s no wonder the current generation likely sees Democrats as, if not flat-out fisally more responsible, more honest and knowledgeable about what things cost and how you have to find funding for what you want to do.

Conservatives can say all they want that tax revenues rise when you lower tax rates.  But if you’re spending billions upon billions in new government programs and foreign interventionist policies, and now government bailouts, that doesn’t wash.  Republicans have to become much more rational about spending, and that includes what we are able to do internationally.

[/soapbox]  You go, George Will.  Tell it like it is.

Obama confuses me–do we read them their rights, or kill them?

Obama to Palin: ‘Don’t mock the Constitution’

I don’t fully understand how Obama is positioning himself on the War on Terror.  In an effort to . . . gain the votes of independents? . . . he has adopted pretty much every Republican stance regarding the War on Terror.  On this topic the differences between McCain and Obama can be measured in nanometers.

Is there anything wrong with pointing out that a lot of our success in Iraq has been achieved by religious segregation, assassination, and, obviously, torture?  And in spite of the ignorance of our leaders for years about the Muslim socio-political landscape?  When we pull out and all of our carefully-constructed (and U.S. enforced)  walls and barriers start to come down, what happens?  We’ve brought the problematic militias on board . . . when we leave and they’re in power, what is the check on that power?  What prevents them from reigniting the sectarian violence that exists outside of the context of al Qaeda in Iraq?  Unless, of course, we unofficially make Iraq a colony of the U.S. by leaving a permanent military presence.

The problem is that Democrats don’t have the balls to stand up and say that our neo-colonial policies are a significant financial drain on our country and we would be much, much, much better off entering a period of relative isolationism compared to the past 60 years.  They don’t have the balls to say that yes, all suspects should have their day in front of a court, here in the U.S., or elsewhere.  They don’t have the nutsack to state that it is our interventionist policies that created an environment conducive in the long term to fomenting enemies of the country.

We just killed a major terrorist in Pakistan.  He used to be our friend, when it suited our purposes . . . surprise, surprise!  How many of those people are we training now?  Arming now?  Short term gain, long term failure.  And if your answer is otherwise, why is it different now than it was before?  Why is history going to give us a free pass this time for the same failed foreign policies of the past 60/70/xxx years in the Middle East?

Take Obama’s latest mixed message:

On the one hand (from the article referenced above):

Calling it “the foundation of Anglo-American law,” he said the principle “says very simply: If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, ‘Why was I grabbed?’ And say, ‘Maybe you’ve got the wrong person.’”

Okay . . . but wait (from the same article):

“My position has always been clear: If you’ve got a terrorist, take him out,” Obama said. “Anybody who was involved in 9/11, take ‘em out.”

So . . . if we spot a “terrorist” from 100 yards out, or from space, we can put a bullet in their head or drop a bomb on their house–that’s all good, apparently (regardless whether we hit the right target or not, or if they are actually guilty of the crimes we suspect them of).  But if we capture them, they should have rights?  Talk about selective application!  I understand that sometimes you have to hit someone from distance (despite the many civilian deaths that have resulted from those kinds of strikes, even with today’s technology), but the underlying issue is that Obama’s rhetoric is indistinguishable from McCain.

Keep in mind that if I absolutely had to vote between Obama and McCain, I would vote for Obama, but he’s not the great change agent he’s hyped as.  He’s more of the same, and he proved it when he didn’t vote against the bill giving telecoms retroactive immunity for illegal spying activities.  If he can be “convinced” that it’s ok for telecom companies to receive retroactive immunity for breaking the law in being complicit in illegal spying on Americans, why should I or anyone else have any confidence that he’ll protect our Constitutional rights in other ways?  Sure, he’ll push the pet Democrat rights like abortion, but when it comes to the power of the government and corporations vs. the rights of the people, the rights of human beings . . . he’s already shown his colors.  Sure, he’ll talk a good game about not taking big corporation money–he doesn’t really need it anyway, but he hasn’t shown me that he has any inclination to really put his foot down.  And that’s a damn shame.

You don’t want to mock the Constitution?  Don’t say we’re going to go around assassinating people.

If we really wanted change, this election would be between Kucinich and Paul.  This campaign couldn’t be shallower if it was a kiddie pool.

McCain just doesn’t strike me as having a good mental grip.

I know that politicans have to remember a lot of things.  A ton of things.  So many people, and facts, and a lot of the information they get, because they are so busy, is being fed to them by people–who, in fairness, are usually people picked by the candidate himself or herself, so the candidate bears a lot of culpability if they are being fed mis-information or spun information.

But McCain just doesn’t seem to me to have the mental sharpness to process, internalize, and communicate.  Whether it is the gaffe over the Iraq-Pakistan border, Czechoslovakia, whether al-Qaeda is Sunni or Shia, how safe it is in any specific place in Iraq, or whatever, I know these all can be classified as just “verbal slip-ups”, but I’ll be damned if they don’t remind me way too much of George Bush.  Maybe for some people that’s a good thing, but it isn’t for me.  I want to have confidence that a presidential candidate really has a good grasp on issues they consider important, and if McCain is running on a platform as being the better man to tackle terrorism and terrorists, then he damn well better know what Muslim faction al-Qaeda belongs to.  So far he has not demonstrated to me that he has a significant and comprehensive knowledge on even the topics he holds himself out as being knolwedgeable about, much less topics he doesn’t even pretend to know a lot about, such as economics.  Given how much traditional conservatives used to care about economics, it just boggles the mind that you would have a Republican presidential candidate that isn’t extremely well versed in economics and economic policy.  Of course, that would have required Ron Paul to get the nomination, and that did not happen.

My alternative is Obama, a candidate who suddenly decided that citizen rights really aren’t that important after all, and retroactive immunity is okey-dokey.  Fight for the people dammit!!  Give me some reason to believe you’re actually going to stand up for citizens, and not just for big government power.  No?

Crap, time to “waste my vote” again on the Libertarian candidate.  Maybe next election . . .

The genius of interventionalist foreign policy!1!!oneONE1!on!!1! [Daily Show excerpt]

Getting involved in countries you don’t understand for your own non-critical self-defense interests (i.e. economic, political pissing wars, etc.) has a particular habit of biting you in the ass.

Exhibit 1

Case closed, your honor.

Unless, of course, you want to delve even further back . . . but it only makes the interventionist case worse, not better.

Does anyone in the military talk to each other? At all?

I don’t mean that to sound unduly harsh, but what the hell do you make of two different stories coming within a couple weeks of each other where one says we’re planning to have current troops levels in Iraq until 2010 (another four years) and another saying Iraqi security forces will be able to take control of Iraq in 12-18 months.  CNN’s front page attributes Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, as saying that within 12-18 months Iraqis can take over with minimal U.S. support.

I suppose Casey could be using a “best case” approach while the planners are using a “not-as-best-case” approach, but do you ever get the feeling that people just aren’t communicating well with each other?

Just when I think I can no longer be stunned, really stunned.

Hat tip to Radley Balko at The Agitator (and congratulations on the new job, man, that’s great) for pointing me to this NYT piece, which I really just want you to read before going to my comments below.

Done reading?

Are you livid yet?  Has your face reached unprecedented hues of red and/or purple?  Maybe you’re already so cynical that this does not surprise you.  I have to admit, this stunned me.  The most basic, the most rudimentary delineation between the major Muslim factions in Iraq, and many of our decision-makers, many of our stakeholders in the political/intelligence process cannot explain it.

I am a government skeptic, a libertarian.  Even so, I admit I have been proceeding under the assumption that our government had some base-level understanding of the political and religious cultures of the Middle East.  It just would not have occurred to me that people entrusted with such power could be so ignorant.  How the hell can anyone expect anything more than one foreign policy disaster after another if we are so utterly clueless?

So many people portray what we are doing in the Middle East as ideologically simple.  How far ahead are we if we deposed a secular dictator in Iraq and replace it with an Iranian-friendly theocracy?  Why is it true that Saddam and Osama were not friendly with each other?  What are the objectives of the different insurgent factions in Iraq?  These questions and more (that are important to know the answer to if you are, oh, say, you are a member of Congress involved in foreign affairs, or if you are in intelligence in virtually any capacity, etc.)  you can’t even begin to answer until you start educating yourself as to the different sects of Islam, and start learning the history of the region.

Just reading that story is a surreal experience.  It should outrage anyone, especially when you realize that the lives of young American men and women are being extinguished in part from our amazing lack of understanding.

Is Iraq a sovereign nation or not?

Hot on the heels of the recent poll of Iraqis indicating that most Iraqis want us out of Iraq, and not just that, but that they believe they will be safer when we’re gone, comes a blog report from Amygdala on an appearance by Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) on Meet the Press which highlights a fundamental flaw in our Middle East policy.

There has been a lot of rhetoric about how we want to build a free and stable democratic Iraq to serve as a beacon of, well, freedom, stability and democracy in the Middle East.  But it seems to me as if a fundamental premise underlying that entire framework is that Iraq is a sovereign nation.  Right?

Enter Senator Mike DeWine.

But you know, on reflection, this is their country. There’s a lot of things going wrong. You blame someone who is there. Still does not change that we’re not in Iraq primarily for the Iraqis. We’re in Iraq for us. We’re—have to do what we have to do, and it goes back to what the three generals—three military leaders said. It would be a total disaster for us to leave. It is in our self-interest, the interest to protect American families, that we are in Iraq. That’s why we’re there.

I’m not here to blame DeWine for his statement, I think it’s completely honest, if a bit contradictory (I’m not completely clear why he can’t see that).  How can it be their country, really, if we’re going to do what we have to do (and, presumably, stay until we’ve done it) if the Iraqis want us out and we aren’t even considering leaving?

It exposes the seedy underbelly of our President’s rhetoric about wanting democracy and freedom in Iraq–that we’re happy if these are consequences of our presence, but that if the President and Congress was satisfied that we had won the War on Terror in Iraq, and that our leaving wasn’t going to increase the risk of danger to the United States, our “commitment” to Iraqi freedom and democracy would give way to political expedience faster than a partisan pollster can stuff a ballot box.

We’ve done it before, so let’s not fault people passingly familiar with history for knowing that.

It also shows the reality of our paternalistic government–we do not respect Iraq as a sovereign nation.  If we did, how would we handle the knowledge that in a democratic state that most of the people did not want our presence?  Why, we would leave.  That’s what respect is about.  But other nations know that when it comes to the United States the only respect you’re going to get from us (when you’re standing in the way of U.S. interests) is when we’re looking at the wrong end of a nuclear weapon.

Is it any wonder that states whose governments have been targeted by the U.S. are trying by hook or crook to drum up a nuclear arsenal?

And exactly how is it that other Middle Eastern nations and citizens thereof are going to look up to Iraq and its model government if it’s clear they’re just the U.S.’ bitch?  Even assuming we “win” in Iraq, if that means we have to stay there for five or ten years after we know the Iraqis want us out, what will we have accomplished?  We’ll have proven that we really view Iraq as little more than an extended colony, obligated to follow our policy interests even if their people have determined that such interests are not Iraq’s interests.

Acknowledging that we’re in it for us and not them does clarify the victory condition problem.  If maybe we’re there for us, maybe we’re there for them is this kind of mish-mash of justifications, how do you set victory conditions?  It’s a mess.  But if you narrow it down to “We’re here for us” then you can at least be definitive about what we want to accomplish.  At least at that point you can say that regardless what the Iraqis believe that we’re staying anyway, dammit, until we’ve got what we came for.  Do I expect that to occur?  I do not.  I fully expect Senator DeWine’s comment to be flushed down the political toilet of history, never to be heard from again, leaving us right back where we were before.

Two final points: 

1.  Before you counter this by saying “We are there for the Iraqis,” consider the can of worms you’re opening up from a foreign policy perspective by justifying deposing a dictator or authoritarian government because of how the people are treated.  There’s a lot of people in this world, and a lot of crappy governments, and the line is going to get real long, real quick, if you’re going to put your flag in the ground over that principle.

2.  Iraqis want us out.  Iraqis believe they would be safer with us out.  We are now at a place where their sovereignty is at odds with our interest.  Don’t come on here claiming that somehow our interests are aligned.  To do so you better have a damn good reason to throw the poll results out.  Maybe such a reason exists.  Maybe there is a flaw in the methodology I am unaware of, or an unreported bias by the organization.  Maybe you hate polls, I don’t know.  But don’t come on here and claim we’ve got aligned interests unless you can back it up a substantive claim that a majority of Iraqis want us there.