What The Hell Happened?

The War Begins
Our job here is not as transcendently clear as the soldiers' job. Now that the first strikes have begun, even those who vehemently opposed this war will find themselves in the strange position of hoping for just what the president they have opposed is himself hoping for: a quick, conclusive resolution fought as bloodlessly as possible. People who have supported Mr. Bush all along may feel tempted to try to silence those who voice dissent. It will be necessary to remind them that we are in this fight to bring freedom of speech to Iraq, not to smother it back home.

Salon.com | An open letter to Ralph Nader voters
How are you? It's been a long time since we've talked. Almost two-and-a-half years, back during that whole Florida mess. I was pretty nasty to you at the time, complaining about your lack of foresight, your shunning the potential consequences of voting for Nader, your insistence that there would be no difference between a President Bush or a President Gore. I was particularly critical of one Nader voter who, hearing about the Florida voting stalemate, exclaimed "I'm part of history!"

I was wrong. She, and all of you, are indeed part of history. I realized that when I picked up this morning's New York Times. Story after story sang out with examples of the way you've made American history.

Like this one: "Lopsided Vote by Senators Against Type of Abortion." The Senate went and voted against what they call "partial-birth" abortions again. You all know they did it twice before while Bill Clinton was president and he vetoed it. History might not have changed if you didn't help George W. Bush get into the White House. But now, with an anti-choice president, we can count on the bill being signed into law after the House passes it next month. The procedure won't even be allowed when the health of the mother is in danger. If Al Gore had been in the White House, he probably would have upheld Clinton's veto. Thanks to you, history will change.

Just War — or a Just War?

ATLANTA — Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

Saying No to War

Within days, barring a diplomatic breakthrough, President Bush will decide whether to send American troops into Iraq in the face of United Nations opposition. We believe there is a better option involving long-running, stepped-up weapons inspections. But like everyone else in America, we feel the window closing. If it comes down to a question of yes or no to invasion without broad international support, our answer is no.

By Chris Durbin

When I think of much of the foreign policy of latter day Republican presidents, the metaphor that most frequently comes to mind is that of a golem. A golem is a monster created usually out of rock or clay, and somehow animated by one form of magic or another. This creature is then used by their creator to attack their enemy. The tragic flaw in most tales about golems, is that the creatures are typically almost indestructible, and are notoriously hard to control. The majority of the tales end with the monsters turning on their creators after completing the task for which they were created.

The issues that this most clearly demonstrates are Iraq and al Queda. With Saddam, we furnish him with WMD and turn a blind eye when he uses them against Iran, 'cause we don't like Iran. In fact, one might say that the only reason we did sell that evil shit was because we WANTED him to use it against Iran. Short-sighted and evil. Then we turn around and he's using it against his own people. That's pretty f***ing evil, but our fearless leader still said nothing. It went uncommented upon until it was politically expedient for Bush I to engage in an easily winnable military campaign to boost his approval ratings. Then, our armed forces had to deal with the chemical weapons our own government sold to him. And soon they must do so again, if Junior gets his way.

With al Queda it is very similar. Former Reagan Administration evil bastard George Schultz has openly admitted that they spurred Islamic militants in Afghanistan and neighboring Soviet states into making guerilla attacks against the Soviet infrastructure. Their intent was to draw the USSR into "their own Vietnam." You have to hand it to them, it worked beautifully. The US then trained as many of these Islamic headcases in guerilla warfare and how to use and modify captured Soviet munitions. These muhajadeen were ultimately very effective at their intended goal: They kept the Soviet Union involved in a long, costly war of occupation. One that the mighty Soviet Union ultimately lost.

The problem comes in after the Soviets pull out. Then, so does all aid from the US, much to the chagrin of the "freedom fighters" we supposedly supported. In this vacuum, one group of muhajadin decide that what Afghanistan really needs is an oppresive, murderous government based solely on the most extreme interpretation of Islamic law. Enter the Taliban. Without any guidance from freedom-loving and democratic America, but with plenty of weapons and training from us, the Taliban quickly becomes the most despotic and murderous regime since Idi Amin, and Pol Pot before him. By all accounts, Saddam has nothing on these guys.

Another of these muhajadin, Usama bin Laden, sets up a separate but loosely affiliated group of fundamentalist Islamic crazies called al Queda. Al Queda provides more military muscle to help the Taliban enforce their extreme rule, and consequently can use Afghanistan as a base of operations for their hobby: Trying to overthrow the infidels of the Western world.

There are likely more examples, but I am too tired, sick and cranky now to try and list. Besides, I think I made my point. How many golems are we going to have to deal with? At the rate at which the current Bush administration is alienating our allies and trading partners, the numbers may become astronomical.

So, what's the solution? And, what is the goal, or should be the goal?

A simple solution would be to not use the people of third world nations as puppets in our foreign policy schemes. Or at the very least, keep our promises to the people we use as puppets. In both the cases cited, we betrayed our supposed allies as soon as we had acheived our goals, greatly increasing the amount of hatred towards the US and our foreign policy goals.

In both cases, we could have used our relationship with those groups to exert pressure via monetary and military aid to help guide those regimes away from the the totalitarian and profane forces they became and towards more free, open and democratic societies. The spread of American-style democracy has been the professed goal of the US's global foreign policy since the close of WW II. Yet, in these cases, our leaders passed on the opportunity to acheive these goals.

Some might say that those regimes were inherently twisted, and nothing the US could have done would have changed them. To that, I would obviously reply that if they were so evil, why are we partnering with them? It's been said you can tell the character of a man by the company that he keeps. The same can be said of nations, global superpower or not. The Republican administrations mentioned show a distinct moral relativity when it comes to with whom they would deal. Saddam Hussein has been vilified as being a cruel and vicious tyrant, which is likely quite true. In that case, a) why did we choose to deal with him and b) why did we not attempt to pressure him him to change?

Because we could use him to advance our foreign policy goals, and because once we had expended his usefulness, it was no longer necessary to pretend that we gave a shit about him or Iraq. When it became politically expedient to do so, our leader chose to encourage him to invade Kuwait, then used that invasion as a pretext to wage politically and financially motivated war.

What is true of Saddam Hussein is doubly true of the muhajadeen of Afghanistan. After the pullout of the Soviet occupation, there was a remarkable leadership vacuum, and an almost unprecedented opportunity to shape the face of Afghanistan's future government. We could have supported a regime that supported open and democratic society, but instead, we abandoned them, and our pledge to help them rebuild after the USSR was evicted. Consequently, Afghanistan degenerated into a set of warring feudal tribes, and the power vacuum was filled by the strongest and most ruthless of these tribes, the ultra-radical Taliban.

That pattern is being repeated today by Dubya. To secure the assistance of the various warlords opposed to the Taliban, we once again promised them boatloads of aid. A new Marshall Plan, it was once called. So far, that aid has not appeared. In fact, Junior completely left it out of his latest budget. So either he left that money out of the budget because he wanted diminish the magnitude of his deficit spending and would just let it be added later on as an emergency appropriations bill, or he never intended to make good on his pledge to help the Afghans. So he lied, either to the American people or to the Afghanis or both. And quite literally, there is little difference. A lie is a lie.

So, to answer your question, the goal should be to have our actual foreign policy goals reflect our stated foreign policy goals. The spread of open and democratic societies and the expansion of foreign markets. And if we need a guide, we need only look to the previous administration.

Now, before the Clinton-haters start wailing and gnashing their teeth, allow me to explain. Clinton is one of the most universally loved world leaders, and he also presided over the longest period of economic expansion in our history. These are not are not isolated effects, but rather, deeply linked. The three guiding principles of Clinton's economic policy were:

1) Reduce the deficit. Contrary to the beliefs of most Republicans, deficit spending doesn't expand the economy. It may give it a short term boost as it did for Reagan, but in the long term it reduces the amount of capital available for investment. It's pretty simple: The more money the government borrows to pay its bills, less is available for you, me, and the rest of America.(1)

2) Expand global markets. America has less than 5% of the world's population and produces 20% of the world's products. This one should be pretty obvious. We need foreign markets to bring in more capital, and to siphon off our excess supply. Clinton's universal respect and diplomatic skills opened many new markets while simultaneously creating new allies.(2)

3) Invest in people. Clinton invested large chunks of cash in education funding, vocational training and welfare to work programs. Huge expansions to Pell Grants, the Hope Scholarship, the Lifetime Learning Credit, Educational IRAs, welfare to work tax credits, Workplace Reinvestment Initiative, etc... created a smarter stronger workforce. More people were able to get better, higher paying jobs, increasing the tax base. Meanwhile, Junior's latest budget cuts every single education initiative by 17 to 54%. But it still includes tax cuts for the very rich, and a repeal of the tax on dividends.

The great thing about Clinton's domestic policy is that it also serves as a great basis for a sound coherent foreign policy. The expansion of foreign markets requires that you obtain and maintain civil relations with a large and varied group of nations. He strengthened our traditional alliances while making new ones. His abilities as a diplomat were a tremendous boon here.

Clinton also used humainitarian aid to improve the US image to the global community, albeit usually as incentive to open markets, but it was appreciated by the recipients nonetheless. It had the dual effect of opening markets and creating and strengthening alliances.

Bush on the other hand, has decimated our foreign relations. We're are losing France and Germany, and getting Pakaistan and Kuwait? Good job. Bush's humanitarian aid is usually either a lie as was the case with Afghanistan, or a bribe as it is with the promise of $26 billion to Turkey.

I realize that I've digressed, but if you look for it, the point is still there: The last three Republican presidents' foreign policies have alienated us in the global community, and in some cases, have actually fabricated enemies where before there were none.

Footnotes:

(1) I understand that interest rates are low now, but we don't have an entirely free market economy. The Fed has kept interest rates low in an attempt to stave off recession. Unfortunately, without discipline and deficit reduction, low interest rates won't work. As we begin the second dip of a double dip recession, the Fed will have to jack up the interest rates to stave off inflation. Many people, including most Republicans, credit Alan Greenspan for the remarkable economic expansion of the 90's. He in turn is pretty specific about who he thinks is responsible: Clinton and his deficit reduction policies. Greenspan to Clinton: "I couldn't have done it without what you did on deficit reduction. If you had not turned the fiscal situation around, we could not have had the monetary policy we've had." (Quoted from Maestro: Greenspan's Fed and the American Boom by Bob Woodward)

(2)Meanwhile, Dubya has done more to squash the global markets than anyone in history. His protectionist tariffs on steel and lumber, gifts to campaign contributors from the steel and lumber lobbies, have resulted in a large increase in taxes on our exports worldwide. Also, his stupid, harsh, unilateralist cowboy diplomacy, and the stupid, unsypathetic actions of his administration have decreased our global market. Just as Bush has threatened to pull all aid to Germany and a few ignorant Americans are boycotting French products, large numbers of the world population are turning to other alternatives rather than buying from the US bully.

War: The Most Horrible Human Experience
To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

Bert the Turtle in Duct and Cover

Too funny not to go and see...

BURYING UNCOMFORTABLE NEWS ON IRAQ

The Onion | U.N. Orders Wonka To Submit To Chocolate Factory Inspections

Salon.com | Bush's bogus "reverse racism" charge
How does a guy whose pedigree opened doors all the way to the White House get away with pretending to believe in meritocracy?