Peter Van Buren begins his condescending and tendentious "History Lesson" with his own fantasized version of our motives for invading Afghanistan. His notion that our purpose was to "replace the Taliban and control the Greater Middle East," and that it was part of the "imperial nature of America's global strategy" is risible.
The invasion of Afghanistan, the ousting of the Taliban, and the campaign against Al-Qaeda were interlinked. How could they not be? The Taliban hosted Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and provided it a base of operations. Both had to be defeated, and the only way to begin the campaign was to invade Afghanistan where both had been operating with impunity.
Van Buren's suggestion that "replacing the Taliban" was the first step in a comprehensive, Svengali-like plan to "control the Greater Middle East," and that with the invasion of Afghanistan the "imperial nature of America’s global strategy revealed itself plain as day," is apparent only to him and like-minded conspiracy theorists. That he does not present a shred of evidence substantiating his claim speaks volumes about his credibility.
"For a sample of Joe’s other work, look here: link to dailykos.com Where does he get the time to be so, ah, prolific, I wonder?"
Shame, Mr. McPhee, shame!. Apparently it's not enough that you hurl epithets such as "apologist" at those with whom you disagree, now you dig through the internet to bring up members' postings on other blogs. This is the last refuge of one who has no intellectual arrows left in his quiver. Pathetic!
That's because the Soviet advance into Manchuria was not the primary factor that compelled Japan's surrender. The primary factor was the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that forced the Emperor to surrender, in spite of the advice of his War Cabinet and military chiefs to continue.
The Japanese historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's book "Racing the Enemy" makes several allegations that are not supported by the evidence. He claims Truman felt "betrayed" by Stalin entering the war against Japan on August 8; this, after Truman obtained a commitment from Stalin to enter the war in mid-August at the Potsdam meeting. The Americans expected Stalin to occupy parts of Manchuria and Korea, as it would have been in Russia's area of operations.
The Trinity test occurred on July 16, and the bomb was dropped as quickly thereafter as possible, on August 6. The timing was not to forestall the Soviets, it was dropped at the earliest possible time after the test. And there was no thought that the Americans would fight the Russians over Japan. the thought was to prevent the necessity of an invasion of the Japanese home islands that would have entailed additional thousands, perhaps up to a million, casualties on both the American and Japanese sides.
Every weapon in the arsenal can do horrendous things to the people affected. That's not the question. The question is has an internationally agreed prohibition been violated?
"The Decision To Use The Atomic Bomb" by Gar Alperovitz is the definitive book on the Hiroshima bomb issue."
Actually, it is not the definitive book on the Hiroshima bomb issue. Alperovitz presents a highly selective, at times fanciful, take on the decision to use the bomb. For a much more balanced and accurate take on the decision-making process under President Truman, I recommend Wilson D. Miscamble's "The Most Controversial Decision." Miscamble recognizes that the decision was controversial, and he lays out both sides being argued at the time. He does not ignore elements of the argument that undermine one side, as does Alperovitz.
Ambassador's are always sending messages and recommendations to their Foreign Ministries, Not Bill. And quite frankly, there were others within the Japanese government who wanted to end the war. But the hard fact is the War Cabinet and all of the military chiefs were adamant about continuing the war and fighting a decisive battle on the homeland if necessary. At the final meeting on the night of August 9 (the day the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki), the Emperor made the decision to surrender.
There was, of course, differing opinions within the US Government regarding use of the bomb, Farhang. Some thought we should go with a demonstration blast first so the Japanese would see what was in store for them if they did not surrender. But the question came up, "What if the blast turned out to be a dud?" It is not unusual for different opinions to be advanced in such a situation, but in the end the decision was made.
Regarding your assertion that Japan was ready to surrender, that has been shown to be untrue. The mission of Prince Konoye to Moscow requesting the Russians to intercede is always trotted out as evidence. The problem with that is Prince Konoye (and thus the Japanese Government) offered nothing other than something resembling an armistice, i.e., Japan would not surrender, but hostilities would end with the various forces in place, thus leaving Japan unoccupied and in possession of its remaining conquests. That of course was totally unacceptable.
I suggest that rather than rely on some blog entitled Zerohedge.com and a comment written by someone hiding under the pseudonym "George Washington," you read some books and articles on the end of the War by historians and scholars who know something about it. for starters, I recommend the British military historians Max Hastings and John Keegan. Christopher Bayley and Tim Harper are also good. And Wilson Mscamble has written in depth on the decision to use the bomb.
Admittedly, the above historians and scholars do not blog under pseudonyms, but they are well-recognized for their knowledge and expertise on the issue.
"It [the US] blithely polished off 200,000 Japanese women, children and noncombatant men at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Some were made into shadows on the wall as their bodies carbonized. Thousands suffered from lingering cancer afterwards. No US official was ever so much as reprimanded for this war crime, which was carried out at a time when Japanese had been dehumanized and demonized with the worst sort of racism. The atomic bombs did not hasten the end of the war; the Russian advance into Manchuria did that."
As I have stated previously, I agree that the US should refrain from a strike on Syria. Nevertheless, I must take issue with your comment on the US atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the ending of the war. The Japanese War Cabinet was clearly in charge and had no intent of surrendering at the time the bombs were dropped. In fact, the Japanese clung to the notion of "Ketsu-Go," the notion that the Americans would invade Japan, but by continuing the fight against the invaders, the Japanese would inflict such punishment upon them that they (the Americans) would sue for terms that would leave Japan relatively intact.
Hiroshima was considered a good target for the bomb because it contained military facilities. The city contained a military headquarters, and the large port at Hiroshima was the embarkation point for Japanese troops bound for China. That 200,000 people were killed by the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is to be regretted, but had there been an invasion of Kyushu and Honshu, far more Japanese would have been killed. And, of course, many more American troops would have been killed as well.
The Soviet Union invaded Manchuria on August 8, two days after the bombing of Hiroshima and one day before the bombing of Nagasaki. The Soviet move, however, had little effect on the Japanese decision to surrender. All available evidence, including more recent scholarship, suggests that it was the second bomb on Nagasaki that convinced the Emperor to surrender, in spite of the War Cabinet's desire to continue. By rendering an invasion unnecessary and ending the war, the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan resulted in far fewer lives lost, both Japanese and American, than would have been the case if an invasion had been necessary.
"We have a very long negative history in the M.E...."
Not nearly as long or as negative as the British and the French who, in accordance with the Sykes-Picot Treaty, carved up the Near East between them after the defeat of Turkey and the Ottoman Empire in World War I. And speaking of the Ottoman Empire, it exercised imperial rule over the Near East for four centuries, and that was an Islamic--not Western--Empire.
"However, Russia’s getting nothing out of this war."
Except that if Putin can ensure Assad stays in power, the Russians are assured of maintaining their Mediterranean naval base at Tartus. And just as important, they will continue to have influence in the Near East via their ally Syria.
"The House Select Committee on Assassinations in its Final Report dated January 2, 1979 found that JFK was killed by a “probable conspiracy” and cited “credible proof” that organized crime and anti-Castro Cuban exiles were involved – both groups had confirmed CIA ties at that time."
That House committee report has no more value and produced no more evidence that JFK's assassination was a "conspiracy" than any of the other "grassy knoll" conspiracy theorists. To date, there is no credible evidence that JFK was killed by any other than Lee Harvey Oswald.
"If this path to avoid war succeeds, watch Kerry take and others give him credit for it."
In some sense Kerry will deserve credit. Even if his remark was off the cuff, he still provided Putin and the Russians the opening to lay out the idea of Syrian chemical weapons under international control. I agree that Kerry's statement was further evidence of the Obama Administration's inept handling of foreign policy, but sometimes ideas "out of the mouths of babes" gain traction. We shall see.
"The Baathists failure to institute democratic reforms has led to the violence in Syria – it was inevitable."
But it was the reality we had to deal with. And should Assad fall, the new reality may be an Islamist government that would be even more antithetical to US interests than the 40 years of the Assads. We must deal with reality regarding US interests. That does not mean we should prop up authoritarian governments, but neither does it mean we should necessarily intervene against them.
The initiative to work out a deal establishing international control over chemical weapons in Syria is certainly the solution to allowing everyone to step back from the brink. Whether it is hammered out quickly or over a lengthy period of time, or whether it is hammered out at all to everyone's satisfaction is irrelevant. It puts everyone but the rebels in a more comfortable position.
The Syrian rebels, of course, do not see it that way. But as I have stated before, this is not the United States' battle. We don't have a dog in this fight. There is no US interest that would be served by getting involved militarily in the Syrian civil war. We have managed our interests in the Near East well enough for 40 years with the Assad family in power. That Syria is an authoritarian state headed by a family of thugs is not our problem to solve.
I expect the Syrian civil war to continue for years, with Iran supporting Assad and Saudi Arabia supporting the rebels. Much as Egypt supported the republicans and Saudi Arabia supported the royalists in the Yemeni civil war from 1962 to 1970. If one looks to history for lessons, one finds that sometimes it is best to let civil wars (and at times wars that cross international borders, such as the Congo) play out. Some end in a negotiated settlement when both sides are exhausted; and some end when one side completely and utterly defeats the other side.
The United States should become militarily involved only when its interests are at stake, and that is not the case in Syria (or the Congo for that matter). Our role should be to provide support to the refugee camps in the region.
"The American educational system at the university level in (sic) in a crisis of ethics of genuine education....A total failure of critical thinking and logic."
Am I correct in assuming that you are a product of that educational system?
"The War Powers Resolution of 1973 severely curtailed the authority of the Chief Executive in authorizing armed forces to engagements."
Every President from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama has considered the War Powers Resolution of 1973 an infringement on Presidential authority. While Presidents have at times gone to Congress for authorization, there have been times when Presidents have not adhered to the terms of the Resolution. There has never been a legally enforceable judgment against a President who has committed US forces in (so-called) violation of the terms of the War Powers Resolution. In light of history, I do not see the War Powers Resolution as an impediment to Presidential action regarding the use of military force against Syria.
Obviously the company in question evaded or circumvented the US export control regime, as when the activity was discovered the top executives were charged and convicted in US District Court. This type of clandestine commercial activity occurs more than you think.
"One of the best-known cases in the United States involved a Waterville, Me., company once known as Maine Biological Laboratories. The company and several top executives were found guilty of allowing a series of shipments to Syria in 2001, including restricted biological agents."
Of course, the response to your comment is implied in the New York Times article itself. I read the article in the NYT as well, and if your intent is to implicate the US in this sordid commerce, it fails on the face of it. The top executives of Main Biological Laboratories were charged and found guilty in US District Court. In other words, the US judicial system did its job, and that speaks well indeed for the US Government in this case.
I am well aware of what Europeans experienced in World War II. I am pointing out the hypocricy of Europeans criticizing the US for "imperial madness" (see the original comment above) on the one hand, while relying on the US to pull their irons out of the fire in places like the Balkans on the other.
"The foolishness of the US spending almost one half (perhaps now it has achieved that lofty goal) of the globe’s military spending is here interpreted as a subsidy to Europe’s social programs."
It clearly subsidizes Europope's spending on social programs, as it enables Europe to abdicate its own defense responsibilities. Since Europe has always been able to depend on the US to do the heavy defense lifting (Bosnia, Kosovo, Etc.) the Europeans can weight their budgets toward social spending rather than defense. That is a form of subsidy.
"If Congress does support him, then impeachment should extend to all those senators and representatives who voted for an illegal war."
Since Congressional support for President Obama would require a majority of senators and representatives, and since impeachment requires a majority voting affirmatively in the House and conviction requires a two-thirds majority voting affirmatively in the senate, the above-cited quote suggests that many House and Senate members would vote to impeach and convict themselves. That seems like a good line for Stephen Colbert or David Letterman.
Europeans were certainly happy enough to have the US intervene in Bosnia in 1995, after 7,000 Muslims were slaughtered in Srebrinica while European governments dithered, wringing their hands in helpless despair. It took US intervention before anything was done. Likewise in the Kosovo crisis in 1999. The Europeans were paralyzed until the US invoked NATO and prodded the European governments to action. It's great sport to criticize the US until Europe needs it to settle problems in its own backyard that it apparently is incapable of settling on its own.
I note that, Joe, but those EU countries that are part of the G-20 (France, UK, Germany, Turkey, and Italy) do not represent all members of the EU. Moreover, Germany declined to co-sponsor the statement, and the UK has already indicated that it will not take part in any military action. I seriously doubt that Turkey and italy will become militarily involved. To date, France is the only European country to demonstrate a serious intent to ally with the US in a military strike. To co-sponsor a statement is very different from committing military assets.
The Europeans once again are demonstrating their willingness to have the US bear the burden of military action while they continue their social spending, in part subsidized by US defense spending that enables them to abdicate their own defense responsibilities. As I mentioned in my original post above, that has been the story for decades, and I expect it will be for decades to come.
"But the big surprise was that the European Union came out with position closer to Russian President Vladimir Putin than to Obama."
That the European Union's position on syria was closer to Putin than to Obama is no surprise for one who has followed the European countries comprising the EU over the past few decades. As one who opposes US intervention on foreign policy and national interest grounds, I have to say that the EU position is based on a reluctance to expend resources on military matters, rather than on any principled position regarding "non-intervention."
For decades during the Cold War, the US subsidized European social spending by providing the defense umbrella. Even before the Cold War ended, Europeans (save Britain) had made the decision to concentrate public spending on social programs rather than defense. that carried on throughout the 1990s up to the present. They could do that because the US continued to carry the vast bulk of defense responsibilities, from manpower and armaments to logistical capability.
The result was that during the Bosnian crisis in the early 1990s, Europeans dithered. Here was a crisis in their own backyard and they did nothing but wring their hands until the US intervened. Likewise during the Kosovo crisis in 1999. The Europeans were paralyzed until the US (and Britain) intervened and forced Milosevc to the negotiating table. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the Europeans were by and large reluctant partners. The German government prevented their troops from assuming a combat role in Iraq. While Libya was a bit of an anomaly, it was the US by far that provided the logistical capability and intelligence that made that operation a relatively easy success (if that's what the outcome can be called).
For years the US has spent aroung 5 percent of its GDP on defense. The European Union members have spent an average of less than 2 percent of their GDP on defense. In effect, the US continues to subsidize European social spending, just as it did during the Cold War. Yet, although the Europeans by and large consider the US too militarily aggressive and (save France this time!) oppose military intervention in Syria, they have no qualms about calling on US military capacity when they see it in their interest to do so.
Some of us actually read about and follow events in Pakistan and Yemen. Over the past year the US has shifted its main drone targeting from the FATA to Yemen because that is where the AQAP leadership and operatives are. The terrorists have been vastly diminished in the FATA due to the drone program. That has nothing to do with "personal judgment."
"While the 10 years of drone attacks in Waziristan, seems have little more affect, than creating more terrorists, than it kills."
Clearly wrong. The strikes in Waziristan have had the positive effect they were intended to have. They have reduced the terrorist leadership and operatives considerably. That's why Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations shifted their main operations to Yemen, where we now target them successfully.
That Christians in Syria are against a US strike on the Assad regime is to be expected and makes perfect sense. Assad governs a secular state that has protected its Christian minority. The Christians in Syria correctly fear that an Islamist government might replace Assad, should he be deposed. As we have seen in other instances in the Near East, the assumption of power by Islamists does not bode well for Christians and other non-Muslim minorities.
"No, but it will destroy Syria’s airforce and anti-air defences, thereby giving Israel an unhindered overflight of Syria to bomb Iran. The Kurds in Northern Iraq have already signalled their acquiescence."
It is not at all clear that a US strike will destroy Syria's air force and air defense system. Nevertheless, the question under consideration is will it "end the war?" The answer is, it will not.
"It should be remembered that the US couldn’t end the Iraqi civil war despite having over 100,000 boots on the ground in that country. It is highly unlikely that Washington can end this one from 30,000 feet."
The above-cited quote is based on the faulty premise that the US purpose in lobbing cruise missiles at Syrian government targets is meant to "end the war." It is not.
I am not a supporter of US intervention in Syria because I see no US national interest that would be advanced by our intervention. Gassing one's own people is horrible, but the US has neither a legal nor moral obligation to "right" every wrong when its own interest is not at stake.
That said, President Obama and Administration officials have made it clear that any intervention would be a punitive strike. No doubt the US strike will try to degrade Assad's military capability as well deliver a punitive blow. But it is clear to any observer that such a strike is not meant to, and willl not, "end the war." This is not 1999, Syria is not Serbia, and there will not be a 78-day air campaign forcing Assad to the negotiating table.
"Well, then say that about many other indigenous cultures outgunned by European technology."
The level of technology possessed by any group says nothing about motive, intent, and morality. Regardless of the disparate levels in technology; the motives, intent, and morality of the Indians with respect to their treatment of those outside their own tribes was neither better nor worse than that of the Europeans. That the Europeans possessed superior technology does not, in itself, grant the Indians they defeated moral superiority.
"Our leaders have no right to claim the moral high ground; they lost that in the Indian Wars of the 1800′s and it’s been downhill ever since."
If one actually studies how the Indians interacted with each other, one would conclude that they were no different in motive and principle than the Europeans who defeated them. Of course, this does not justify the European treatment of the Indians, but neither does the Indians' subjugation by the Europeans grant the Indians moral superiority, in light of what they did to each other.
One example in North America is the Athabascan Navajo and Apache who migrated from today's Canada into the Southwestern part of today's US in the 15th century, a hundred years before the arrival of the Spanish. The Navajo and Apache were agressive and waged war against the sedentary Pueblo Indians of the Southwest such as the Hopi.
Another example is the Aztec empire of central Mexico. The Aztecs subjugated surrounding tribes, demanding tribute, slaves, and sacrificial victims from them. In fact, when Cortez and his 600 Spaniards marched on Tenochtitlan and defeated Montezuma in 1520, they had as allies 30,000 members of the Totonacs and Tlaxcaltecas who were happy to join them in overthrowing and defeating their Aztec overlords.
What the Europeans did to the Indians was cruel and inhumane, but it was no more so than what the Indians did to other tribes they defeated. To grant to the Indians a moral superiority because they were defeated by Europeans is to grant them an undeserved accolade. The Europeans were no worse than the Indians when it came to motive and intent regarding others outside their own circles.
"Bill would say the only land mines that count, apparently, are the German ones."
If you would actually read what I wrote instead of parroting your "Preferred Narrative," you would have noted that I was providing balance to the original statement that mentioned only "Washington" as laying land mines in Tunisa and North Africa. Germany (and Britain) laid far more than the US, yet you seem to want only to focus on Washington. We can't deviate from the Preferred Narrative that all adverse actions, past and present, are caused by the US, can we?
"Washington used land mines in World War II, and for decades after civilians in countries such as Tunisia were still being killed by them on occasion."
Reading the above-cited quote one could be forgiven for concluding that only the US laid landmines during the World War II North African campaign. One would be wrong. Both the Germans and the British used far more landmines than the US. In Tunisia, El Alamein, and other parts of North Africa, German minefields could be more than ten miles deep. General Erwin Rommel ordered more than a half million mines laid at El Alamein alone. Compared to the Germans, the US was a piker in its use of landmines.
Ironically, my original post above remains the best response to your reply. I can add nothing that I haven't already written about the inability to distinguish between "Realists" and "Neocons."
"Isn’t the US just creating the condition of global anarchy, that further progresses the realist and neocon ideology so dominate in US foreign policy."
To conflate "realist" foreign policy with "neocon" ideology demonstrates either an inability to distinguish between the two or a total misunderstanding of what the terms mean. Many realists oppose intervention in Syria because there is no important US interest that would be served by intervening, and intervention might make things worse should Islamists win out.
Neocons, on the other hand, find themselves on the same side as liberal humanitarian interventionists in this case. Neocons see a chance to further their so-called "democratic" agenda as compatible with the "humanitarian" goals of the liberal interventionists. Strange bedfellows indeed.
"Dare one question the initial premise, that “Obama,” as the personification of our Empire, has to Do Something About Syria?"
If you have been reading my comments on whether or not the US should intervene in Syria, you might find that this is one area where we are in agreement, although I suspect for different reasons. You may have noted that I stated the US does not have a dog in this fight, we are neither legally nor morally obligated to intervene, neither the Assad regime nor the likely rebel leadership will be "friends" of the US, and thus the US should not intervene militarily. We should stay out of it and let the conflict eventually burn itself out when one side or the other prevails. However it ends, it will not be advantageous for the US. And we can only get burned ourselves if we intervene.
The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was just that--a foreign occupation. Eventually the Soviets lost sufficient blood and treasure that they concluded the game was not worth the candle and departed. Syria is an entirely different situation. The problem is not foreign occupation, as was the case in Afghanistan. Rather, this is a civil war pitting various factions of rebels against the Assad regime. There is nowhere for any to go, and none want to go, as all claim Syria as their nation and home (save for the foreign Jihadists, who are the best fighters and commanders). This sets up a very different dynamic.
The statement: "Whatever the Obama administration does, it should ensure the conflict ends as quickly as possible to avoid severe humanitarian crises and regional destabilization...," is a nonstarter. The Obama administration does not have the will or the capacity to "ensure the conflict ends as quickly as possible." Moreover, the United States is under no legal or moral obligation to do so. That whoever prevails in this fight will be no friend of the US, whether the Assad regime or the likely rebel leadership; coupled with the almost total lack of US interests in Syria, argue for diplomatic maneuvering (likely to result in nothing unless Russia turns around) but no military intervention.
A few Tomahawk missiles lobbed at assorted targets make us look feckless and weak. Better not to do it at all. And full-scale military intervention is out of the question (and should be). This is a case where it would be best to let the civil war run its course, regardless how long it continues, until one side or the other prevails.
President Obama's options are limited regarding military intervention in Syria because he rejects full-scale military involvement, the American public rejects it, and American national interests do not require it. Yet, the kind of limited involvement being considered (cruise missiles fired from ships and submarines in the Mediterranean; missiles and bombs fired from stand-off aircraft into Syrian targets) would neither alter the correlation of forces in Syria nor advance US interests.
Neither US national interests nor humanitarian considerations would be advanced by such limited involvement. Regardless of who comes out on top and rules Syria--the Assad regime or the likely rebel leadership--neither will be a friend of the United States. The US military should not be used for what would amount to a "feel good" gesture. And lobbing cruise missiles would be just that: a "feel good" gesture, accomplishing nothing of substance.
The US does not have a dog in this fight and should stay out of it. Some conflicts should be allowed to burn themselves out with one side or the other prevailing, and Syria is one. We should restrict our involvement only to helping support and sustain the refugee population in Turkey and other surrounding countries.
"Walter Karp and I.F. “Izzy” Stone revealed much of the corruption during the latter half of the 20th Century."
Lazy journalists may have had difficulty discovering corruption in an earlier era, but a good investigative journalist could discover and reveal corruption during the latter half of the 20th century, and I.F. Stone was a good example. Izzy Stone did not rely on "inside" sources and purloined government documents. He based all of his research on a close reading of publicly available government documents. And he was spot-on most of the time. I didn't always agree with his take on policy, but I always admired his ability to dig down and discover corruption and misinformation.
In 1964, using evidence drawn from a close reading and analysis of published accounts, Stone was the only American journalist to challenge President Johnson's account of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. I.F. Stone is an example of what a good investigative journalist can be, and he did not hide behind the excuse that the mainstream media blocked his view. He didn't depend on the mainstream (or any other) media or "insider" officials. He did his own meticulous research.
"It is a clear and reasonable inference that some individuals were aware that the terror attacks were coming and acted accordingly."
Will the 9/11 conspiracy theorists ever give up? This is tantamount to the "Zionist plot" theory, embraced by Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef and others, that no Jews showed up to work at the Twin Towers on 9/11. There are many reasons stock share trading moves up and down in volume. Foreknowledge of a terrorist attack on 9/11 probably can be discounted as one of them.
"Enjoy our blog freedom while we can. We’re like the Anarchists in the coffee houses…"
A little overwrought, don't you think? I am not aware of anyone posting on this blog who has been subject to the midnight knock on the door and thrown into the equivalent of Lubyanka, and I don't expect anyone will.
Nevertheless, it's fun to imagine one's self as being like "the Anarchists in the coffee houses." Puts one in the same company as Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, and the Nihilist Sergei Nechayev. Illustrious and romantic company indeed.
"Looks pretty clear that we won’t have any more luck doing that than the Romans did. What did theirs last? Seventeen years?"
Your quote, cited above, referencing the Roman Republic as lasting 17 years, is off by four and a half centuries. The Republic was established in 509 BC with the overthrow of the monarchy, and it is generally agreed that it ended with Julius Caesar's assumption of dictatorial powers in 45 BC, a span of 464 years.
The American Republic has lasted for 237 years, not a bad record for modern times. It is tempting to use ancient Rome as a template and touchstone for extrapolating and imposing one's views on events today ("Rome wasn't built in a day," "The Fall of Rome," etc.), but those who do so often operate in an ahistorical vacuum.
Like the "lessons" of Munich in 1938 regarding "appeasement," or the "lessons" of Vietnam, regarding military engagement, it pays to be selective in extrapolating past events onto current and future developments. Talking to a hostile power does not always result in appeasement as it did in Munich. Military engagement does not always result in pointless waste of blood and treasure as it did in Vietnam.
The same holds true regarding ancient Rome. There may be valid lessons that fit certain situations, or not, depending on the issue.
Bradley Manning received a 35-year sentence but will be eligible for parole after serving 10 years. As he receives credit for three years already served, he will be eligible for parole in seven years. This seems about right for someone who was much more than a whistle-blower, having unlawfully downloaded and given to unauthorized sources in Wikileaks 700,000 classified documents and State Department cables.
That said, Bradley Manning has demonstrated the courage of his convictions and a strength of character that Edward Snowden utterly lacked. Manning faced the consequences of his actions, conducted himself in an exemplary fashion, and will serve his sentence. Snowden, on the other hand, stole away like a thief in the night with his unlawfully downloaded, highly classified cache, taking it to that paragon of the freedom and openness that he claims to revere, China. He then continued on to Russia (More freedom? More openness?), where he and his Wikileaks handler got a little more than they bargained for. It is entirely appropriate that Snowden was hoist with his own petard.
I agree with both your points, Joe. But I think that the judges complaining about their dependence upon the applicants' information serves as further evidence that the FISA Court judges are anything but compliant, acquiescent lapdogs for NSA, as the dominant Narrative would have us believe.
The latest revelation that NSA was unlawfully collecting domestic data, including E-mails between Americans, gives lie to the standard canard that the FISA Court is just a "rubber stamp" for NSA surveillance. It was the FISA Court that uncovered the unlawful collection of data between Americans, and as a result NSA ceased the practice.
From the link above:
"The three opinions include one from October 2011 by U.S. District Judge John Bates, who scolded government lawyers that the NSA had, for the third time in less than three years, belatedly acknowledged it was collecting more data than it was legally allowed to."
"The FISA court probed deeply and thoroughly into the issue. The government took strong appropriate steps to remedy the problem, and the court determined it had remedied and that the collection could continue."
It appears that the FISA Court is very much involved in ensuring that lawful procedures are followed in the collection of data, and that appropriate measures are taken when those procedures are not followed.
"Without him, we might not even know about the Panopticon of total suveillance in which we are living."
Actually the Panopticon, conceived by Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century, is the opposite of total surveillance. It was conceived as being a prison in which the inmates were in cells contained in a large, circular structure surrounding a guard tower in the middle. The guard tower was designed so the inmates could not see the guards, and thus they could never tell whether or not they were being watched.
According to Bentham, this would allow the prisoners to be unguarded for periods of time because the guards could not be seen and, thus, need not be on duty all the time. But the prisoners, not knowing they were not being "watched," would assume they were and act accordingly. In effect, the prisoners were psychologically "watching" themselves even though they were not under the total surveillance of the institutional "watchers" (guards).
Careful, Mr. Bodden. You are encroaching on Mr. McPhee's territory with your reference to Smedley Butler. Smedley Butler's phrase, "War is just a racket," has been one of Mr. McPhee's favorites among those words and phrases he routinely uses from his stack of 3x5 index cards. In fact, he has used it so often that he may claim copyright privileges and demand that you request permission before using it yourself.
"Miranda was “caught” possessing lawfully received documents which are completely legal to publish in the United Kingdom, Bill. It’s horrifying that you would consider that justification to detain him and steal his stuff."
Miranda was not, and is not, a member of the press, Nathaniel. He was a courier, plain and simple. Assuming there was a strong suspicion that he might be carrying thumb drives containing highly classified material unlawfully passed to Greenwald and his associates by Snowden, the UK authorities had every right to intercept them. That they used the "Terrorism" provision of the law to detain Miranda was their decision. But intercepting classified material on a courier that was unlawfully revealed by Snowden is not a "free press" issue.
"As for your assertion that it was unlawful for a reporter to accept leaked material from Snowden… No, it wasn’t."
If you had actually read (or understood) what I wrote, Mr. Compton, you would have noted that I did not state that it was "unlawful for a reporter to accept leaked material from Snowden." I wrote specifically: "It was Mr. Greenwald’s partner who had no recognized “right” to transit the UK in the possession of highly classified intelligence that was unlawfully passed on by Snowden. Note that: "unlawfully passed on by Snowden." Not "unlawfully accepted by Greenwald." Big difference.
"the issue is that he wasn’t detained for having stolen “property” but as a terrorist. That is Orwellian."
Consider the possibility that the "terrorist" provision may have been used to interrogate Miranda, determine if it was likely he was a "courier" carrying intelligence material unlawfully passed on by Snowden, and confiscate it. Much as Al Capone, who had committed murder, racketeering, and other illegal activity was finally put away for tax evasion.
"You have evidence that Mr. Miranda was in “possession of highly classified intelligence that was unlawfully passed on by Snowden...?"
Had you actually read the article linked to Professor Cole's piece, Edger, you, too, would have seen the sentence I have quoted below for your edification.
"Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden."
"I’m sure it’s not the first time you’ve had trouble understanding simple things and been foolish enough to try to draw ridiculous equivalencies. I’m also fairly sure it won’t be the last time. Your reply to this comment should be even more special."
Nowhere in your reply to Joe do I see any challenge to the substance of his remarks regarding Greenwald. The only thing you seem to have done is mount an ad-hominum attack against Joe personally, indicating a lack of substance and an inability to challenge him on the issue under discussion.
"The CIA-National Security Council took charge on Nov.22, 1963. The Secret Service which guards the president is employed and selected by the CIA. Elections are purely for display/traditional purposes."
The Oliver Stone conspiratorial take on history and current events. I suppose we are supposed to tremble with fear when reading the above-cited quote.
"2. The military aid, $1.3 billion a year, is mostly in-kind, a grant of weaponry . It must be spent on US weapons manufacturers. It is US arms manufacturers like Lockheed-Martin and General Dynamics (and their employees) who would suffer if it were cut off."
While your point No. 2, cited above, has merit, There is another, more strategic, reason that the military aid must be spent on US weaponry. When a country's military weaponry and hardware is of US manufacture, the long-term relationship is much more assured, as the military will have to continue buying US upgrades and replacement parts to assure compatibility and interoperability of weapons systems.
Were the US to cut off military aid, the Egyptians might turn to the Russians, for example, and once they get into the Russian weapons pipeline, it would be very difficult for the US to resume the previous relationship. This would have grave implications for US-Egyptian relations in both the political and military spheres.
"In my view Morsi and the Brotherhood leadership bear a good deal of the blame for derailing the transition, since a democratic transition is a pact among various political forces, and he broke the pact."
I agree with you Professor Cole, but I would go one step further and place most of the blame on Morsi. Had Morsi not attempted to subvert and undermine the very democratic process that brought him to power, the majority of the Egyptian people would not have opposed him, and the military would not have intervened with the support of that majority.
Thanks for the link, Professor. It looks like the Saudis are beginning to think seriously about setting up a tourist infrastructure. I hope a visit will not require a Saudi contact, as it has in the past. This development represents a bit of forward thinking.
"“We don’t have tourists in Saudi Arabia,” he told me as a matter of plain fact."
He was correct Brian. I have had a lot of interaction with Saudi Arabs, many of them friends with whom I attended university in the US. Saudi Arabia did not then, and does not now, have a tourist industry. In order to visit Saudi Arabia today one still must have a solid Saudi contact who will take responsibility for the visit.
Interesting how I used your phrase "Crazy things happen" to describe the act of making a particular suggestion, and you interpret it as applying to you personally rather than to the act of making the suggestion.
"They were overaged obsolescent ships, fuel-hogging and far too slow to keep up with the carriers, which BTW were not tied up in port on December 7th."
You are spot-on, Sufferinsuccotash. That the carriers were not at Pearl was what saved us. They carried the great battles until American industrial might began churning out ships and aircraft to fight on both fronts, aircraft for the European and Pacific theaters and ships primarily for the Pacific theater.
You are confusing a "blockade" with an "embargo," Ms. Sunflower. The United States embargoed oil exports to Japan, which is perfectly legal under international law. To blockade a country is another matter and is considered an "act of war" under both international law and the Law of Warfare. The US, however, did not blockade Japan in July 1941, it embargoed oil exports to Japan, which was a legal action taken in response to Japan's aggression in Southeast Asia.
"Not since President Roosevelt told Japan in July 1941 that he was going to cut it off from American petroleum has the United States threatened to use oil to strangle a country so completely. And FDR’s threat caused the Japanese to decide to take Indonesia away from the Dutch, which required crippling the US Pacific Fleet at . . . Pearl Harbor."
The United States cut off oil exports to Japan in July 1941 as a result of Japanese aggression in Southeast Asia, specifically the Japanese push into Cochin China, the southern-most part of today's Vietnam. The Japanese plan all along was to take over Indonesia in order to ensure a supply of oil, and southern Vietnam was a staging area for the invasion of Indonesia. The Japanese did not invade Indonesia because of the US cutoff of oil; it was always in their strategic plan for what they called the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere."
As for the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese plan always called for knocking out the US Pacific Fleet. The Japanese had already decided to invade the Philippines because they knew they could not leave the US there, as it would present a threat to their designs on the rest of Southeast Asia. Therefore, they planned to attack Pearl Harbor in order to cripple the US fleet's ability to respond. The US cutoff of oil in July 1941 may have accelerated the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but it was not the cause of the attack, the plans of which were already in place.
"Joe: If a doctor observed you for some period of time and made some diagnosis you didn’t like, would you take it as personal criticism? Or would you consider he might know what he is talking about and it might be a good idea to be open-minded and give his opinion some respect?"
Your response to Joe, taken at face value and not as an analogy, has merit, Mr. Bodden. As an analogy, however, it fails utterly. the metaphorical "doctor" to whom you refer, and to whose comment Joe was responding, has demonstrated neither open-mindedness nor respect for opinions that are not in accord with his own. He spews contempt for those with a different viewpoint. Such a "doctor's" diagnosis does not deserve any more respect than he deigns to give others' opinions.
No Nobel Prize for you, Mr. McPhee, as your usual polemics serve to obscure rather than enlighten the subject under discussion, in this case economics and resources.
"Trade-offs to GREED, in the name of “National Interests”?"
My comment concerned the trade-offs necessary in the allocation of scarce resources, which is the basic definition of economics. Would you care to expand on your statement I have cited above? Or is it just another non-sequitur?
"A fundamental goal of a system of economics should address...: - There are enough resources to adequately take care of everyone..."
There will never be enough resources to adequately take care of everyone. Thus, there will always be tradeoffs. That is true under capitalism, socialism, communism, or any other system. The field of economics is the study of how best to allocate scarce resources.
"Let’s use terms like responsibility and leadership as code for justifying the gutting of the fourth amendment and making further constitutional encroachments."
Feel free to create your own vocabulary to fit your personal Narrative.
It is not unusual for Presidents to do an about-face on positions and issues they held as Senators. Senators and Congressmen often use their positions for political posturing against the party controlling the White House. Once they assume the Presidency, however, they find the problems and issues facing them call for responsible action, not political posturing.
Another case in point involving Obama was the 2011 debt ceiling issue, in which Obama excoriated the Republicans for not wanting to raise the debt ceiling. In 2006, as a Senator, here is what Obama said with respect to the Bush Administration's call to raise the debt ceiling.
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."
Strong words, those, "leadership failure." Ironically, his own words used to savage Bush in 2006 applied to Obama in 2011.
The same thing applies in the case of NSA surveillance. Senator Obama could posture on the issue in 2007 because he was not faced with the responsibility of ensuring the nation's national security interests. As President in 2013, he most definitely recognizes his responsibility to ensure the security of the United States. Responsibility inherent in leadership makes all the difference.
"That’s odd. Obama said the treatment meted to Bradley Manning was “appropriate.” He didn’t say “appropriate” for what, but a consensus presumes it was intended to get a confession to frame Julian Assange even though it didn’t work."
Please expand on this "consensus" you mention that I have cited above. A consensus among whom? To whom are you referring when you state "a consensus presumes...?" The term "consensus" refers to a general agreement or judgment arrived at by most of those involved in an issue. I look forward to your response.
"Soldiers (and, I presume, spooks)... also, at this point, perform that job knowing that it is ultimately supporting goals of ongoing unjustified armed aggression, and/or replacing civil liberties with an international hyper-Stasi."
You are clearly projecting your own frame of reference and viewpoint onto the soldiers and intelligence officers you cite above. You have no basis to state categorically that they "know" their work is "ultimately supporting goals of ongoing unjustified armed aggression, and/or replacing civil liberties with an international hyper-stasi."
Many (perhaps most) of them are very comfortable with the idea that their work is advancing and protecting the interests of the United States and the American people. that you think otherwise is a legitimate position to take. That you project your views on to others is solipsistic and more than a bit arrogant.
"I always knew that the image of the US as the champion of liberties and the leader of the free world against totalitarianism (aka Soviet Union and communsm) was mere ideology, but nevertheless, I’m shocked by the extent of US spying."
Easily said by someone who has never lived in the Soviet Union, China, or Eastern Europe under communism. It is always a source of amusement to listen to Americans and Europeans who have never faced communist repression pontificate about the failings of the United States, while living their comfortable, secure lives in the West.
"Snowden expects to be killed. He has from the start.
Does that change your psychoanalysis?"
Speaking of psychoanalysis, Snowden's fear of being killed is not driven by external reality; it is all a product of his fevered imagination and his self-flattering need to feel important enough to think officials want him assassinated. His return to the US is wanted because he is a fugitive from justice. No one is out to assassinate him. He read too many James Bond books in Hong Kong and in Moscow's airport transit area.
"This is exactly why the American response has been so delicate and nuanced."
Let's hope the American response remains delicate and nuanced, Joe. I am not optimistic, though. Sending McCain and Graham to hector the generals into seeing things as we would like them to be seen was hardly what I would call "delicate and nuanced."
"Apparently, State isn’t getting through to the generals,..."
Your statement, cited above, makes sense only if your underlying premise is that the generals have an obligation to do what we tell them to do. I'm surprised at your stance on this issue, Joe. I was always under the impression that you objected to the US imposing its will on foreign governments.
"Things have changed, Bill. Once upon a time, authoritarian, undemocratic regimes could be relied upon to adequately protect American interests (as long as we were willing to overlook their bloody acts). Today, such a regime is going to be wracked by protests..."
I did not suggest that we "prop up" or "support" the current regime headed by General al-Sisi against the MB and opposition, Joe. My original post on the subject stated explicitly that we should maintain friendly and correct relations with whomever is in power. Moreover that we should let the Egyptians sort this out and not insert ourselves into the mix. As it is, the military has established the current government, and that is the government with which we should work to advance and protect US and mutually agreed interests.
Regarding your contention that an authoritarian government is going to be wracked by protests and instability, that may be, but there is little that we can do about it. More to the point, ironically it was Morsi's attempted subversion of the democratic process that brought him to power that led to the very protests and instability you mention in regard to authoritarian government.
Of course we have interests, Mr. Hansen. My point is we should not be hectoring either side in Egypt. Let the Egyptians work it out among themselves. In the meantime, let's maintain friendly relations with the government in power in order to advance and protect our interests.
Actually, the State Department is talking to both sides. During his most recent (and second) trip to Cairo Deputy Secretary of State William Burns met last Saturday with members of a pro-Morsi delegation. On Sunday Burns met with General al-Sisi.
"We’ve seen how this Egyptian military government “works out” issues with the MB."
Just as we've seen how the MB (Morsi) when in power distorts and subverts the very democratic process that brought it to power. Our concern should be for a government with which we can work to protect the US interest, not to become exercised over whether or not it meets our definition of "democracy." (I refer you to John Quincy Adams's dictum, quoted in my comment above.)
If ever there was a time for the US to resist pressuring Egyptian authorities in the name of "democracy" and "human rights," this is it. Both sides--Morsi and his supporters and General al-Sisi and his supporters--blame the US for their problems. General al-Sisi gave an interview on August 5 to the Washington Post's Lally Weymouth, in which he expressed anger at the United States for tilting toward Morsi. Now is not the time to send McCain and Graham to Cairo to push our preferences and aggravate al-Sisi even further.
We should let the Egyptians work these issues out for themselves while maintaining friendly and correct relations with whomever is in power. To continue inserting ourselves in Egyptian politics, roiled as they are, is to invite continued disdain from both sides. Moreover, it puts the US front and center to be blamed for whatever the issue of the day happens to be.
We should back off a bit and recognize this as an example where John Quincy Adams's dictum concerning America applies: "She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." Good advice then. Certainly good advice in the case of Egypt's current transition.
One of the (self-proclaimed) perquisites of being JTMcPhee is you not only get to claim moral superiority, you get to shout slogans instead of engaging in reasoned arguments.
You have much more than my word, Eric. And I did not "hint" that I had "access to the entire phone base of the world and the workings of US agencies. (That is a figment of your imagination.)
The Obama Administration has released information about the threat. I based my points on the Administration's assessments. Should we take your word that the Obama Administration is lying? Upon what do you base your claim that the Administration is lying about this threat?
"8. If the US drone strikes on al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen are working, why is AQAP after all these years able to make us close 19 African and Middle Eastern embassies for a week?"
The question you pose in point No. 8, cited above, requires a two-part answer. First, AQAP did not "make us" close 19 African and Middle Eastern Embassies for a week. There were highly specific communications that were intercepted from Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to AQAP's chief in Yemen, Nasir al-Wuhayshi, ordering a major attack against US and/or Western interests. And the evidence suggested that those who would carry out the attacks were in Yemen, presumably preparing for the attack, at the time the communications were intercepted. The reason for the widespread Embassy closures and other precautions taken was that the specific target or targets were not identified. It is thus prudent to take such precautions when the information on the planning of the attack is specific but the target is not. This, by the way, demonstrates the value of NSA's communications intercept programs, particularly as applied abroad.
Second, the drone strikes in Yemen obviously have been working, as we know some major AQAP leaders and operatives have been taken out as a result. That there remain in Yemen some AQAP leaders and operatives capable of mounting planned attacks against the US and its interests demonstrates the need to continue the drone strikes against them as the opportunity arises. Terrorism will never be completely eradicated, but Al-Qaeda and AQAP have been degraded. That they are still operationally capable of planning attacks simply demonstrates the need for our continued counter-terrorism programs.
"Of course, you and Joe have dodged the pending question about what exactly constitutes "the national interest,"
No one has "dodged" any question. The question is "pending" only in your own mind. I cannot speak for Joe, but it is clear to me that you are not interested in having a rational discussion and debate over what constitutes the US national interest. As evidence (if any was needed) I offer the following from your comment above.
"Seems to me the "national interest" is just what a few (by birth, at least) of us, pursuing their own sick or self-satisfying preferences, like a war of choice in Afghanistan or setting up the Grand Global Interoperable Sees And Knows All But Is Too Clumsy And Stupid To "Win" Network-Centric Battlespace, can cram down the throats of the most of us."
Well, now: "sick or self-satisfying preferences," "too clumsy and stupid," "cram down the throats," and this is just a sample of your usual cant. You are not interested in discussing the US national interest. You simply want a platform to rant and spew your usual venom.
Vladimir Putin clearly is in charge in Russia, and his imprimatur is paramount in determining Russian policy on many fronts, from dealing with the United States to energy policy. To think otherwise is to not understand how Russia is run today.
No Freudian slip at all. Plain English. Realism. Our dealings and interaction with any country should protect and advance the US national interest. Just as any other country's dealings and interaction with the US will be accomplished with an eye to protecting and advancing that country's national interest. The last line of my comment sums it up: "And whether or not to get involved should be dependent upon whether or not the US national interest is served." This is International Relations 101.
"Russia isn’t pursuing Russia’s interests but rather Putin’s interests."
You are, of course, correct, Mr. Zimmerman. And contrary to a couple of comments in this thread that attempt to draw equivalency between the authoritarianism of Putin and the pluralism evident in the US Government, there is, of course, no equivalency at all. The US is far from the authoritarianism of Putin's Russia.
That said, however, it should not matter to the US that Russia is ruled by an authoritarian government under Putin. The US interest should be paramount. Putin represents the government of Russia, and we should deal with him without the constant hectoring to "democratize." Let the Russians worry about that, if that is of concern to them. It should not be our concern.
Likewise, if Assad were to remain in power in Syria is of little concern regarding the US national interest. We have lived with the Assad family in power for 40 years without harm to our interests. Yes, they have been authoritarian and have operated against the best interests of the Syrian people. but that is a problem for the Syrian people to resolve, not the United States. And if he were to be deposed, the result may well be worse for US interests.
The US intervened twice in the Balkans: First to protect the Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs, and than to wage war against Serbia because of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. In neither case were important US national interests at stake. Both were "humanitarian" interventions, and both should have been left to the Europeans to handle. The US had no stake in the interventions. I am reminded of Bismark's famous observation: "The Balkans aren't worth the bones of one Pomeranian Grenadier."
Oddly enough, the one thing the US did right, refusing to get involved in the Rwanda fighting and killings between the Hutu and the Tutsi, is looked upon by some as a failing. The US had no national interest whatsoever in getting involved in that problem. If the Hutu and the Tutsi could not get along and manage themselves, it was not our obligation to do it for them.
The bottom line is: Whether it is Russia, China, the Balkans, Rwanda, the Congo, or anywhere else, the US national interest should prevail. And whether or not to get involved should be dependent upon whether or not the US national interest is served.
"There is of course another possibility. The Realists hold that countries don’t have friends, only interests. In that case, Russia is just pursuing its national interests, which sometimes coincide with those of the US and sometimes don’t."
Bingo! You have nailed it, Professor Cole. That arch-realist Henry Kissinger could not have said it better. And that is precisely why the US national interest requires us to work with Russia in those areas of mutual concern and not let the Snowden case blind us to our real interests. If the US Government eventually gets hold of Snowden and puts him on trial, all to the good. But he certainly is not important enough to derail the much bigger fish we have to fry such as our relationship with Russia. Those in the US who advocate for pressuring Russia to become more democratic are just as misguided as those who want to cancel Obama's summit with Putin because of Snowden. We should recognize that Russia has national interests just as we do.
What liberal idealists and conservative neocons (both of whom seem to want to intervene in other countries to establish "democracy" and advance "human rights") fail to understand is democracy, human rights, and all other such concepts and institutions grow organically in nations, if they grow at all. Other countries do not develop those concepts and institutions because the US or other Western countries hector and browbeat them.
That is why the United States should intervene only when its vital interests are at stake, such as a country harboring those (Al-Qaeda for example) who would attack the US or its interests. Otherwise, we should not be too quick to intervene (as some would have us do) in Syria, Egypt, the Congo and African Great Lakes region, and all the other areas where "Do Gooders" across the political spectrum want to assist giving birth to democracy and human rights, and to quell civil unrest and tribal wars. When a nation and its people reach a certain critical mass (large middle class, higher standard of living, etc.) they will begin establishing their own pressure for change. Until then, no outside force will do it for them.
John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State under President James Monroe, stated the "realist" credo most eloquently in 1821. In referring to those who wanted to help Latin American countries gain independence from Spain, Adams said of the United States:
"She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
You have misread (or misunderstood) my comment. Had you read my comment carefully, you would have seen that I was noting that your statement that "One thing Bradley Manning didn’t change: No matter how egregiously our government behaves it will still have its legions of supporting…trolls on dissenting blogs," with its implied suggestion that those who don't necessarily go along with your view of an issue (Manning, US Government, etc.) are "trolls," is false.
Far from defending trolls, I was (and am) defending those who hold dissenting views with which you may disagree against the charge of being trolls. You give yourself away with your statement: "The difference between us and trolls is that when we see we are in error, we admit to it unlike trolls who are locked into whatever position or ideology they support." You flatter yourself that you and your friends "admit to error," implying that anyone who does not change his view to match yours continues to hold that view in error, and thus is a "troll."
You obviously cannot conceive of the possibility of someone holding a view because he believes it to be correct, even though you may deem it erroneous. The true troll is one who cannot accept a dissenting opinion he deems erroneous without labeling the dissenter a "troll."
"One thing Bradley Manning didn’t change: No matter how egregiously our government behaves it will still have its legions of supporting...trolls on dissenting blogs."
I gather you define a troll as someone with whom you disagree. The irony of such a stance is I'll bet you consider yourself an advocate for diversity. And yet true diversity (as opposed to the superficial diversity of skin color, race, and ethnic background) is diversity of intellectual approach, thought, and opinion. Apparently any embrace of diversity you may lay claim to cannot cross that intellectual border, a proverbial bridge too far.
"Your claim that Snowden lacks courage and integrity is despicable..."
The response to your screed, What Nonsense, is ironically contained in the name you are using. I could not have come up with a better two-word response. "What Nonsense," indeed.
For you to write that the US Government is "Joe Stalin paranoid" and that what we have is "totalitarianism, not democracy" demonstrates a complete lack of historical perspective and a high degree of paranoia in itself. I suggest you read up a bit on 20th century totalitarianism (USSR under Stalin, Germany under Hitler, and other examples). Inform yourself before running off on rants that make no sense to anyone who actually knows something about the subject matter.
May I remind you, Mr. McPhee, that the topic is the "Top Ten Ways Bradley Manning Changed the World." You obviously wish to piggyback on the topic to flog your usual hobbyhorses. Nevertheless, there is nothing in your screed that suggests a response regarding the subject of Manning.
"Snowden had enough sense to learn from Manning’s experiences with the tender mercies showered on him by US Marines while in solitary confinement at Quantico Marine base in violation of his Constitutional rights and the Universal Code of Military Justice. Not being a masochist, Snowden decided getting out of Dodge was the wisest thing to do..."
...thus confirming my observation that the degree of courage and a certain integrity demonstrated by Manning are totally lacking in Snowden.
Peter Van Buren begins his condescending and tendentious "History Lesson" with his own fantasized version of our motives for invading Afghanistan. His notion that our purpose was to "replace the Taliban and control the Greater Middle East," and that it was part of the "imperial nature of America's global strategy" is risible.
The invasion of Afghanistan, the ousting of the Taliban, and the campaign against Al-Qaeda were interlinked. How could they not be? The Taliban hosted Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and provided it a base of operations. Both had to be defeated, and the only way to begin the campaign was to invade Afghanistan where both had been operating with impunity.
Van Buren's suggestion that "replacing the Taliban" was the first step in a comprehensive, Svengali-like plan to "control the Greater Middle East," and that with the invasion of Afghanistan the "imperial nature of America’s global strategy revealed itself plain as day," is apparent only to him and like-minded conspiracy theorists. That he does not present a shred of evidence substantiating his claim speaks volumes about his credibility.
"For a sample of Joe’s other work, look here: link to dailykos.com Where does he get the time to be so, ah, prolific, I wonder?"
Shame, Mr. McPhee, shame!. Apparently it's not enough that you hurl epithets such as "apologist" at those with whom you disagree, now you dig through the internet to bring up members' postings on other blogs. This is the last refuge of one who has no intellectual arrows left in his quiver. Pathetic!
That's because the Soviet advance into Manchuria was not the primary factor that compelled Japan's surrender. The primary factor was the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that forced the Emperor to surrender, in spite of the advice of his War Cabinet and military chiefs to continue.
"the interminable nonsense above justifying the A-bombs on Japan."
Calling something "interminable nonsense" is not an argument.
The Japanese historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's book "Racing the Enemy" makes several allegations that are not supported by the evidence. He claims Truman felt "betrayed" by Stalin entering the war against Japan on August 8; this, after Truman obtained a commitment from Stalin to enter the war in mid-August at the Potsdam meeting. The Americans expected Stalin to occupy parts of Manchuria and Korea, as it would have been in Russia's area of operations.
The Trinity test occurred on July 16, and the bomb was dropped as quickly thereafter as possible, on August 6. The timing was not to forestall the Soviets, it was dropped at the earliest possible time after the test. And there was no thought that the Americans would fight the Russians over Japan. the thought was to prevent the necessity of an invasion of the Japanese home islands that would have entailed additional thousands, perhaps up to a million, casualties on both the American and Japanese sides.
Every weapon in the arsenal can do horrendous things to the people affected. That's not the question. The question is has an internationally agreed prohibition been violated?
"The Decision To Use The Atomic Bomb" by Gar Alperovitz is the definitive book on the Hiroshima bomb issue."
Actually, it is not the definitive book on the Hiroshima bomb issue. Alperovitz presents a highly selective, at times fanciful, take on the decision to use the bomb. For a much more balanced and accurate take on the decision-making process under President Truman, I recommend Wilson D. Miscamble's "The Most Controversial Decision." Miscamble recognizes that the decision was controversial, and he lays out both sides being argued at the time. He does not ignore elements of the argument that undermine one side, as does Alperovitz.
Ambassador's are always sending messages and recommendations to their Foreign Ministries, Not Bill. And quite frankly, there were others within the Japanese government who wanted to end the war. But the hard fact is the War Cabinet and all of the military chiefs were adamant about continuing the war and fighting a decisive battle on the homeland if necessary. At the final meeting on the night of August 9 (the day the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki), the Emperor made the decision to surrender.
There was, of course, differing opinions within the US Government regarding use of the bomb, Farhang. Some thought we should go with a demonstration blast first so the Japanese would see what was in store for them if they did not surrender. But the question came up, "What if the blast turned out to be a dud?" It is not unusual for different opinions to be advanced in such a situation, but in the end the decision was made.
Regarding your assertion that Japan was ready to surrender, that has been shown to be untrue. The mission of Prince Konoye to Moscow requesting the Russians to intercede is always trotted out as evidence. The problem with that is Prince Konoye (and thus the Japanese Government) offered nothing other than something resembling an armistice, i.e., Japan would not surrender, but hostilities would end with the various forces in place, thus leaving Japan unoccupied and in possession of its remaining conquests. That of course was totally unacceptable.
I suggest that rather than rely on some blog entitled Zerohedge.com and a comment written by someone hiding under the pseudonym "George Washington," you read some books and articles on the end of the War by historians and scholars who know something about it. for starters, I recommend the British military historians Max Hastings and John Keegan. Christopher Bayley and Tim Harper are also good. And Wilson Mscamble has written in depth on the decision to use the bomb.
Admittedly, the above historians and scholars do not blog under pseudonyms, but they are well-recognized for their knowledge and expertise on the issue.
"It [the US] blithely polished off 200,000 Japanese women, children and noncombatant men at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Some were made into shadows on the wall as their bodies carbonized. Thousands suffered from lingering cancer afterwards. No US official was ever so much as reprimanded for this war crime, which was carried out at a time when Japanese had been dehumanized and demonized with the worst sort of racism. The atomic bombs did not hasten the end of the war; the Russian advance into Manchuria did that."
As I have stated previously, I agree that the US should refrain from a strike on Syria. Nevertheless, I must take issue with your comment on the US atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the ending of the war. The Japanese War Cabinet was clearly in charge and had no intent of surrendering at the time the bombs were dropped. In fact, the Japanese clung to the notion of "Ketsu-Go," the notion that the Americans would invade Japan, but by continuing the fight against the invaders, the Japanese would inflict such punishment upon them that they (the Americans) would sue for terms that would leave Japan relatively intact.
Hiroshima was considered a good target for the bomb because it contained military facilities. The city contained a military headquarters, and the large port at Hiroshima was the embarkation point for Japanese troops bound for China. That 200,000 people were killed by the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is to be regretted, but had there been an invasion of Kyushu and Honshu, far more Japanese would have been killed. And, of course, many more American troops would have been killed as well.
The Soviet Union invaded Manchuria on August 8, two days after the bombing of Hiroshima and one day before the bombing of Nagasaki. The Soviet move, however, had little effect on the Japanese decision to surrender. All available evidence, including more recent scholarship, suggests that it was the second bomb on Nagasaki that convinced the Emperor to surrender, in spite of the War Cabinet's desire to continue. By rendering an invasion unnecessary and ending the war, the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan resulted in far fewer lives lost, both Japanese and American, than would have been the case if an invasion had been necessary.
"We have a very long negative history in the M.E...."
Not nearly as long or as negative as the British and the French who, in accordance with the Sykes-Picot Treaty, carved up the Near East between them after the defeat of Turkey and the Ottoman Empire in World War I. And speaking of the Ottoman Empire, it exercised imperial rule over the Near East for four centuries, and that was an Islamic--not Western--Empire.
"Killing people does not cause the revulsion than a breach of orthodoxy? How sick is that!"
My thought exactly.
"However, Russia’s getting nothing out of this war."
Except that if Putin can ensure Assad stays in power, the Russians are assured of maintaining their Mediterranean naval base at Tartus. And just as important, they will continue to have influence in the Near East via their ally Syria.
"The House Select Committee on Assassinations in its Final Report dated January 2, 1979 found that JFK was killed by a “probable conspiracy” and cited “credible proof” that organized crime and anti-Castro Cuban exiles were involved – both groups had confirmed CIA ties at that time."
That House committee report has no more value and produced no more evidence that JFK's assassination was a "conspiracy" than any of the other "grassy knoll" conspiracy theorists. To date, there is no credible evidence that JFK was killed by any other than Lee Harvey Oswald.
"If this path to avoid war succeeds, watch Kerry take and others give him credit for it."
In some sense Kerry will deserve credit. Even if his remark was off the cuff, he still provided Putin and the Russians the opening to lay out the idea of Syrian chemical weapons under international control. I agree that Kerry's statement was further evidence of the Obama Administration's inept handling of foreign policy, but sometimes ideas "out of the mouths of babes" gain traction. We shall see.
"The Baathists failure to institute democratic reforms has led to the violence in Syria – it was inevitable."
But it was the reality we had to deal with. And should Assad fall, the new reality may be an Islamist government that would be even more antithetical to US interests than the 40 years of the Assads. We must deal with reality regarding US interests. That does not mean we should prop up authoritarian governments, but neither does it mean we should necessarily intervene against them.
The initiative to work out a deal establishing international control over chemical weapons in Syria is certainly the solution to allowing everyone to step back from the brink. Whether it is hammered out quickly or over a lengthy period of time, or whether it is hammered out at all to everyone's satisfaction is irrelevant. It puts everyone but the rebels in a more comfortable position.
The Syrian rebels, of course, do not see it that way. But as I have stated before, this is not the United States' battle. We don't have a dog in this fight. There is no US interest that would be served by getting involved militarily in the Syrian civil war. We have managed our interests in the Near East well enough for 40 years with the Assad family in power. That Syria is an authoritarian state headed by a family of thugs is not our problem to solve.
I expect the Syrian civil war to continue for years, with Iran supporting Assad and Saudi Arabia supporting the rebels. Much as Egypt supported the republicans and Saudi Arabia supported the royalists in the Yemeni civil war from 1962 to 1970. If one looks to history for lessons, one finds that sometimes it is best to let civil wars (and at times wars that cross international borders, such as the Congo) play out. Some end in a negotiated settlement when both sides are exhausted; and some end when one side completely and utterly defeats the other side.
The United States should become militarily involved only when its interests are at stake, and that is not the case in Syria (or the Congo for that matter). Our role should be to provide support to the refugee camps in the region.
"The American educational system at the university level in (sic) in a crisis of ethics of genuine education....A total failure of critical thinking and logic."
Am I correct in assuming that you are a product of that educational system?
"The War Powers Resolution of 1973 severely curtailed the authority of the Chief Executive in authorizing armed forces to engagements."
Every President from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama has considered the War Powers Resolution of 1973 an infringement on Presidential authority. While Presidents have at times gone to Congress for authorization, there have been times when Presidents have not adhered to the terms of the Resolution. There has never been a legally enforceable judgment against a President who has committed US forces in (so-called) violation of the terms of the War Powers Resolution. In light of history, I do not see the War Powers Resolution as an impediment to Presidential action regarding the use of military force against Syria.
Obviously the company in question evaded or circumvented the US export control regime, as when the activity was discovered the top executives were charged and convicted in US District Court. This type of clandestine commercial activity occurs more than you think.
"One of the best-known cases in the United States involved a Waterville, Me., company once known as Maine Biological Laboratories. The company and several top executives were found guilty of allowing a series of shipments to Syria in 2001, including restricted biological agents."
Of course, the response to your comment is implied in the New York Times article itself. I read the article in the NYT as well, and if your intent is to implicate the US in this sordid commerce, it fails on the face of it. The top executives of Main Biological Laboratories were charged and found guilty in US District Court. In other words, the US judicial system did its job, and that speaks well indeed for the US Government in this case.
I am well aware of what Europeans experienced in World War II. I am pointing out the hypocricy of Europeans criticizing the US for "imperial madness" (see the original comment above) on the one hand, while relying on the US to pull their irons out of the fire in places like the Balkans on the other.
"The foolishness of the US spending almost one half (perhaps now it has achieved that lofty goal) of the globe’s military spending is here interpreted as a subsidy to Europe’s social programs."
It clearly subsidizes Europope's spending on social programs, as it enables Europe to abdicate its own defense responsibilities. Since Europe has always been able to depend on the US to do the heavy defense lifting (Bosnia, Kosovo, Etc.) the Europeans can weight their budgets toward social spending rather than defense. That is a form of subsidy.
"If Congress does support him, then impeachment should extend to all those senators and representatives who voted for an illegal war."
Since Congressional support for President Obama would require a majority of senators and representatives, and since impeachment requires a majority voting affirmatively in the House and conviction requires a two-thirds majority voting affirmatively in the senate, the above-cited quote suggests that many House and Senate members would vote to impeach and convict themselves. That seems like a good line for Stephen Colbert or David Letterman.
Europeans were certainly happy enough to have the US intervene in Bosnia in 1995, after 7,000 Muslims were slaughtered in Srebrinica while European governments dithered, wringing their hands in helpless despair. It took US intervention before anything was done. Likewise in the Kosovo crisis in 1999. The Europeans were paralyzed until the US invoked NATO and prodded the European governments to action. It's great sport to criticize the US until Europe needs it to settle problems in its own backyard that it apparently is incapable of settling on its own.
I note that, Joe, but those EU countries that are part of the G-20 (France, UK, Germany, Turkey, and Italy) do not represent all members of the EU. Moreover, Germany declined to co-sponsor the statement, and the UK has already indicated that it will not take part in any military action. I seriously doubt that Turkey and italy will become militarily involved. To date, France is the only European country to demonstrate a serious intent to ally with the US in a military strike. To co-sponsor a statement is very different from committing military assets.
The Europeans once again are demonstrating their willingness to have the US bear the burden of military action while they continue their social spending, in part subsidized by US defense spending that enables them to abdicate their own defense responsibilities. As I mentioned in my original post above, that has been the story for decades, and I expect it will be for decades to come.
"But the big surprise was that the European Union came out with position closer to Russian President Vladimir Putin than to Obama."
That the European Union's position on syria was closer to Putin than to Obama is no surprise for one who has followed the European countries comprising the EU over the past few decades. As one who opposes US intervention on foreign policy and national interest grounds, I have to say that the EU position is based on a reluctance to expend resources on military matters, rather than on any principled position regarding "non-intervention."
For decades during the Cold War, the US subsidized European social spending by providing the defense umbrella. Even before the Cold War ended, Europeans (save Britain) had made the decision to concentrate public spending on social programs rather than defense. that carried on throughout the 1990s up to the present. They could do that because the US continued to carry the vast bulk of defense responsibilities, from manpower and armaments to logistical capability.
The result was that during the Bosnian crisis in the early 1990s, Europeans dithered. Here was a crisis in their own backyard and they did nothing but wring their hands until the US intervened. Likewise during the Kosovo crisis in 1999. The Europeans were paralyzed until the US (and Britain) intervened and forced Milosevc to the negotiating table. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the Europeans were by and large reluctant partners. The German government prevented their troops from assuming a combat role in Iraq. While Libya was a bit of an anomaly, it was the US by far that provided the logistical capability and intelligence that made that operation a relatively easy success (if that's what the outcome can be called).
For years the US has spent aroung 5 percent of its GDP on defense. The European Union members have spent an average of less than 2 percent of their GDP on defense. In effect, the US continues to subsidize European social spending, just as it did during the Cold War. Yet, although the Europeans by and large consider the US too militarily aggressive and (save France this time!) oppose military intervention in Syria, they have no qualms about calling on US military capacity when they see it in their interest to do so.
Some of us actually read about and follow events in Pakistan and Yemen. Over the past year the US has shifted its main drone targeting from the FATA to Yemen because that is where the AQAP leadership and operatives are. The terrorists have been vastly diminished in the FATA due to the drone program. That has nothing to do with "personal judgment."
"While the 10 years of drone attacks in Waziristan, seems have little more affect, than creating more terrorists, than it kills."
Clearly wrong. The strikes in Waziristan have had the positive effect they were intended to have. They have reduced the terrorist leadership and operatives considerably. That's why Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations shifted their main operations to Yemen, where we now target them successfully.
That Christians in Syria are against a US strike on the Assad regime is to be expected and makes perfect sense. Assad governs a secular state that has protected its Christian minority. The Christians in Syria correctly fear that an Islamist government might replace Assad, should he be deposed. As we have seen in other instances in the Near East, the assumption of power by Islamists does not bode well for Christians and other non-Muslim minorities.
"No, but it will destroy Syria’s airforce and anti-air defences, thereby giving Israel an unhindered overflight of Syria to bomb Iran. The Kurds in Northern Iraq have already signalled their acquiescence."
It is not at all clear that a US strike will destroy Syria's air force and air defense system. Nevertheless, the question under consideration is will it "end the war?" The answer is, it will not.
"It should be remembered that the US couldn’t end the Iraqi civil war despite having over 100,000 boots on the ground in that country. It is highly unlikely that Washington can end this one from 30,000 feet."
The above-cited quote is based on the faulty premise that the US purpose in lobbing cruise missiles at Syrian government targets is meant to "end the war." It is not.
I am not a supporter of US intervention in Syria because I see no US national interest that would be advanced by our intervention. Gassing one's own people is horrible, but the US has neither a legal nor moral obligation to "right" every wrong when its own interest is not at stake.
That said, President Obama and Administration officials have made it clear that any intervention would be a punitive strike. No doubt the US strike will try to degrade Assad's military capability as well deliver a punitive blow. But it is clear to any observer that such a strike is not meant to, and willl not, "end the war." This is not 1999, Syria is not Serbia, and there will not be a 78-day air campaign forcing Assad to the negotiating table.
"Well, then say that about many other indigenous cultures outgunned by European technology."
The level of technology possessed by any group says nothing about motive, intent, and morality. Regardless of the disparate levels in technology; the motives, intent, and morality of the Indians with respect to their treatment of those outside their own tribes was neither better nor worse than that of the Europeans. That the Europeans possessed superior technology does not, in itself, grant the Indians they defeated moral superiority.
"Our leaders have no right to claim the moral high ground; they lost that in the Indian Wars of the 1800′s and it’s been downhill ever since."
If one actually studies how the Indians interacted with each other, one would conclude that they were no different in motive and principle than the Europeans who defeated them. Of course, this does not justify the European treatment of the Indians, but neither does the Indians' subjugation by the Europeans grant the Indians moral superiority, in light of what they did to each other.
One example in North America is the Athabascan Navajo and Apache who migrated from today's Canada into the Southwestern part of today's US in the 15th century, a hundred years before the arrival of the Spanish. The Navajo and Apache were agressive and waged war against the sedentary Pueblo Indians of the Southwest such as the Hopi.
Another example is the Aztec empire of central Mexico. The Aztecs subjugated surrounding tribes, demanding tribute, slaves, and sacrificial victims from them. In fact, when Cortez and his 600 Spaniards marched on Tenochtitlan and defeated Montezuma in 1520, they had as allies 30,000 members of the Totonacs and Tlaxcaltecas who were happy to join them in overthrowing and defeating their Aztec overlords.
What the Europeans did to the Indians was cruel and inhumane, but it was no more so than what the Indians did to other tribes they defeated. To grant to the Indians a moral superiority because they were defeated by Europeans is to grant them an undeserved accolade. The Europeans were no worse than the Indians when it came to motive and intent regarding others outside their own circles.
"Bill would say the only land mines that count, apparently, are the German ones."
If you would actually read what I wrote instead of parroting your "Preferred Narrative," you would have noted that I was providing balance to the original statement that mentioned only "Washington" as laying land mines in Tunisa and North Africa. Germany (and Britain) laid far more than the US, yet you seem to want only to focus on Washington. We can't deviate from the Preferred Narrative that all adverse actions, past and present, are caused by the US, can we?
"Washington used land mines in World War II, and for decades after civilians in countries such as Tunisia were still being killed by them on occasion."
Reading the above-cited quote one could be forgiven for concluding that only the US laid landmines during the World War II North African campaign. One would be wrong. Both the Germans and the British used far more landmines than the US. In Tunisia, El Alamein, and other parts of North Africa, German minefields could be more than ten miles deep. General Erwin Rommel ordered more than a half million mines laid at El Alamein alone. Compared to the Germans, the US was a piker in its use of landmines.
"Seems a pretty fair conflation to me."
Ironically, my original post above remains the best response to your reply. I can add nothing that I haven't already written about the inability to distinguish between "Realists" and "Neocons."
"Isn’t the US just creating the condition of global anarchy, that further progresses the realist and neocon ideology so dominate in US foreign policy."
To conflate "realist" foreign policy with "neocon" ideology demonstrates either an inability to distinguish between the two or a total misunderstanding of what the terms mean. Many realists oppose intervention in Syria because there is no important US interest that would be served by intervening, and intervention might make things worse should Islamists win out.
Neocons, on the other hand, find themselves on the same side as liberal humanitarian interventionists in this case. Neocons see a chance to further their so-called "democratic" agenda as compatible with the "humanitarian" goals of the liberal interventionists. Strange bedfellows indeed.
"Dare one question the initial premise, that “Obama,” as the personification of our Empire, has to Do Something About Syria?"
If you have been reading my comments on whether or not the US should intervene in Syria, you might find that this is one area where we are in agreement, although I suspect for different reasons. You may have noted that I stated the US does not have a dog in this fight, we are neither legally nor morally obligated to intervene, neither the Assad regime nor the likely rebel leadership will be "friends" of the US, and thus the US should not intervene militarily. We should stay out of it and let the conflict eventually burn itself out when one side or the other prevails. However it ends, it will not be advantageous for the US. And we can only get burned ourselves if we intervene.
The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was just that--a foreign occupation. Eventually the Soviets lost sufficient blood and treasure that they concluded the game was not worth the candle and departed. Syria is an entirely different situation. The problem is not foreign occupation, as was the case in Afghanistan. Rather, this is a civil war pitting various factions of rebels against the Assad regime. There is nowhere for any to go, and none want to go, as all claim Syria as their nation and home (save for the foreign Jihadists, who are the best fighters and commanders). This sets up a very different dynamic.
The statement: "Whatever the Obama administration does, it should ensure the conflict ends as quickly as possible to avoid severe humanitarian crises and regional destabilization...," is a nonstarter. The Obama administration does not have the will or the capacity to "ensure the conflict ends as quickly as possible." Moreover, the United States is under no legal or moral obligation to do so. That whoever prevails in this fight will be no friend of the US, whether the Assad regime or the likely rebel leadership; coupled with the almost total lack of US interests in Syria, argue for diplomatic maneuvering (likely to result in nothing unless Russia turns around) but no military intervention.
A few Tomahawk missiles lobbed at assorted targets make us look feckless and weak. Better not to do it at all. And full-scale military intervention is out of the question (and should be). This is a case where it would be best to let the civil war run its course, regardless how long it continues, until one side or the other prevails.
President Obama's options are limited regarding military intervention in Syria because he rejects full-scale military involvement, the American public rejects it, and American national interests do not require it. Yet, the kind of limited involvement being considered (cruise missiles fired from ships and submarines in the Mediterranean; missiles and bombs fired from stand-off aircraft into Syrian targets) would neither alter the correlation of forces in Syria nor advance US interests.
Neither US national interests nor humanitarian considerations would be advanced by such limited involvement. Regardless of who comes out on top and rules Syria--the Assad regime or the likely rebel leadership--neither will be a friend of the United States. The US military should not be used for what would amount to a "feel good" gesture. And lobbing cruise missiles would be just that: a "feel good" gesture, accomplishing nothing of substance.
The US does not have a dog in this fight and should stay out of it. Some conflicts should be allowed to burn themselves out with one side or the other prevailing, and Syria is one. We should restrict our involvement only to helping support and sustain the refugee population in Turkey and other surrounding countries.
"Walter Karp and I.F. “Izzy” Stone revealed much of the corruption during the latter half of the 20th Century."
Lazy journalists may have had difficulty discovering corruption in an earlier era, but a good investigative journalist could discover and reveal corruption during the latter half of the 20th century, and I.F. Stone was a good example. Izzy Stone did not rely on "inside" sources and purloined government documents. He based all of his research on a close reading of publicly available government documents. And he was spot-on most of the time. I didn't always agree with his take on policy, but I always admired his ability to dig down and discover corruption and misinformation.
In 1964, using evidence drawn from a close reading and analysis of published accounts, Stone was the only American journalist to challenge President Johnson's account of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. I.F. Stone is an example of what a good investigative journalist can be, and he did not hide behind the excuse that the mainstream media blocked his view. He didn't depend on the mainstream (or any other) media or "insider" officials. He did his own meticulous research.
"It is a clear and reasonable inference that some individuals were aware that the terror attacks were coming and acted accordingly."
Will the 9/11 conspiracy theorists ever give up? This is tantamount to the "Zionist plot" theory, embraced by Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef and others, that no Jews showed up to work at the Twin Towers on 9/11. There are many reasons stock share trading moves up and down in volume. Foreknowledge of a terrorist attack on 9/11 probably can be discounted as one of them.
"Enjoy our blog freedom while we can. We’re like the Anarchists in the coffee houses…"
A little overwrought, don't you think? I am not aware of anyone posting on this blog who has been subject to the midnight knock on the door and thrown into the equivalent of Lubyanka, and I don't expect anyone will.
Nevertheless, it's fun to imagine one's self as being like "the Anarchists in the coffee houses." Puts one in the same company as Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, and the Nihilist Sergei Nechayev. Illustrious and romantic company indeed.
"Looks pretty clear that we won’t have any more luck doing that than the Romans did. What did theirs last? Seventeen years?"
Your quote, cited above, referencing the Roman Republic as lasting 17 years, is off by four and a half centuries. The Republic was established in 509 BC with the overthrow of the monarchy, and it is generally agreed that it ended with Julius Caesar's assumption of dictatorial powers in 45 BC, a span of 464 years.
The American Republic has lasted for 237 years, not a bad record for modern times. It is tempting to use ancient Rome as a template and touchstone for extrapolating and imposing one's views on events today ("Rome wasn't built in a day," "The Fall of Rome," etc.), but those who do so often operate in an ahistorical vacuum.
Like the "lessons" of Munich in 1938 regarding "appeasement," or the "lessons" of Vietnam, regarding military engagement, it pays to be selective in extrapolating past events onto current and future developments. Talking to a hostile power does not always result in appeasement as it did in Munich. Military engagement does not always result in pointless waste of blood and treasure as it did in Vietnam.
The same holds true regarding ancient Rome. There may be valid lessons that fit certain situations, or not, depending on the issue.
Bradley Manning received a 35-year sentence but will be eligible for parole after serving 10 years. As he receives credit for three years already served, he will be eligible for parole in seven years. This seems about right for someone who was much more than a whistle-blower, having unlawfully downloaded and given to unauthorized sources in Wikileaks 700,000 classified documents and State Department cables.
That said, Bradley Manning has demonstrated the courage of his convictions and a strength of character that Edward Snowden utterly lacked. Manning faced the consequences of his actions, conducted himself in an exemplary fashion, and will serve his sentence. Snowden, on the other hand, stole away like a thief in the night with his unlawfully downloaded, highly classified cache, taking it to that paragon of the freedom and openness that he claims to revere, China. He then continued on to Russia (More freedom? More openness?), where he and his Wikileaks handler got a little more than they bargained for. It is entirely appropriate that Snowden was hoist with his own petard.
I agree with both your points, Joe. But I think that the judges complaining about their dependence upon the applicants' information serves as further evidence that the FISA Court judges are anything but compliant, acquiescent lapdogs for NSA, as the dominant Narrative would have us believe.
The latest revelation that NSA was unlawfully collecting domestic data, including E-mails between Americans, gives lie to the standard canard that the FISA Court is just a "rubber stamp" for NSA surveillance. It was the FISA Court that uncovered the unlawful collection of data between Americans, and as a result NSA ceased the practice.
From the link above:
"The three opinions include one from October 2011 by U.S. District Judge John Bates, who scolded government lawyers that the NSA had, for the third time in less than three years, belatedly acknowledged it was collecting more data than it was legally allowed to."
"The FISA court probed deeply and thoroughly into the issue. The government took strong appropriate steps to remedy the problem, and the court determined it had remedied and that the collection could continue."
It appears that the FISA Court is very much involved in ensuring that lawful procedures are followed in the collection of data, and that appropriate measures are taken when those procedures are not followed.
"Without him, we might not even know about the Panopticon of total suveillance in which we are living."
Actually the Panopticon, conceived by Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century, is the opposite of total surveillance. It was conceived as being a prison in which the inmates were in cells contained in a large, circular structure surrounding a guard tower in the middle. The guard tower was designed so the inmates could not see the guards, and thus they could never tell whether or not they were being watched.
According to Bentham, this would allow the prisoners to be unguarded for periods of time because the guards could not be seen and, thus, need not be on duty all the time. But the prisoners, not knowing they were not being "watched," would assume they were and act accordingly. In effect, the prisoners were psychologically "watching" themselves even though they were not under the total surveillance of the institutional "watchers" (guards).
Careful, Mr. Bodden. You are encroaching on Mr. McPhee's territory with your reference to Smedley Butler. Smedley Butler's phrase, "War is just a racket," has been one of Mr. McPhee's favorites among those words and phrases he routinely uses from his stack of 3x5 index cards. In fact, he has used it so often that he may claim copyright privileges and demand that you request permission before using it yourself.
"Miranda was “caught” possessing lawfully received documents which are completely legal to publish in the United Kingdom, Bill. It’s horrifying that you would consider that justification to detain him and steal his stuff."
Miranda was not, and is not, a member of the press, Nathaniel. He was a courier, plain and simple. Assuming there was a strong suspicion that he might be carrying thumb drives containing highly classified material unlawfully passed to Greenwald and his associates by Snowden, the UK authorities had every right to intercept them. That they used the "Terrorism" provision of the law to detain Miranda was their decision. But intercepting classified material on a courier that was unlawfully revealed by Snowden is not a "free press" issue.
"As for your assertion that it was unlawful for a reporter to accept leaked material from Snowden… No, it wasn’t."
If you had actually read (or understood) what I wrote, Mr. Compton, you would have noted that I did not state that it was "unlawful for a reporter to accept leaked material from Snowden." I wrote specifically: "It was Mr. Greenwald’s partner who had no recognized “right” to transit the UK in the possession of highly classified intelligence that was unlawfully passed on by Snowden. Note that: "unlawfully passed on by Snowden." Not "unlawfully accepted by Greenwald." Big difference.
"the issue is that he wasn’t detained for having stolen “property” but as a terrorist. That is Orwellian."
Consider the possibility that the "terrorist" provision may have been used to interrogate Miranda, determine if it was likely he was a "courier" carrying intelligence material unlawfully passed on by Snowden, and confiscate it. Much as Al Capone, who had committed murder, racketeering, and other illegal activity was finally put away for tax evasion.
"You have evidence that Mr. Miranda was in “possession of highly classified intelligence that was unlawfully passed on by Snowden...?"
Had you actually read the article linked to Professor Cole's piece, Edger, you, too, would have seen the sentence I have quoted below for your edification.
"Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden."
Hardly, Janice, Hardly.
"I’m sure it’s not the first time you’ve had trouble understanding simple things and been foolish enough to try to draw ridiculous equivalencies. I’m also fairly sure it won’t be the last time. Your reply to this comment should be even more special."
Nowhere in your reply to Joe do I see any challenge to the substance of his remarks regarding Greenwald. The only thing you seem to have done is mount an ad-hominum attack against Joe personally, indicating a lack of substance and an inability to challenge him on the issue under discussion.
"The CIA-National Security Council took charge on Nov.22, 1963. The Secret Service which guards the president is employed and selected by the CIA. Elections are purely for display/traditional purposes."
The Oliver Stone conspiratorial take on history and current events. I suppose we are supposed to tremble with fear when reading the above-cited quote.
"2. The military aid, $1.3 billion a year, is mostly in-kind, a grant of weaponry . It must be spent on US weapons manufacturers. It is US arms manufacturers like Lockheed-Martin and General Dynamics (and their employees) who would suffer if it were cut off."
While your point No. 2, cited above, has merit, There is another, more strategic, reason that the military aid must be spent on US weaponry. When a country's military weaponry and hardware is of US manufacture, the long-term relationship is much more assured, as the military will have to continue buying US upgrades and replacement parts to assure compatibility and interoperability of weapons systems.
Were the US to cut off military aid, the Egyptians might turn to the Russians, for example, and once they get into the Russian weapons pipeline, it would be very difficult for the US to resume the previous relationship. This would have grave implications for US-Egyptian relations in both the political and military spheres.
"In my view Morsi and the Brotherhood leadership bear a good deal of the blame for derailing the transition, since a democratic transition is a pact among various political forces, and he broke the pact."
I agree with you Professor Cole, but I would go one step further and place most of the blame on Morsi. Had Morsi not attempted to subvert and undermine the very democratic process that brought him to power, the majority of the Egyptian people would not have opposed him, and the military would not have intervened with the support of that majority.
Thanks for the link, Professor. It looks like the Saudis are beginning to think seriously about setting up a tourist infrastructure. I hope a visit will not require a Saudi contact, as it has in the past. This development represents a bit of forward thinking.
"“We don’t have tourists in Saudi Arabia,” he told me as a matter of plain fact."
He was correct Brian. I have had a lot of interaction with Saudi Arabs, many of them friends with whom I attended university in the US. Saudi Arabia did not then, and does not now, have a tourist industry. In order to visit Saudi Arabia today one still must have a solid Saudi contact who will take responsibility for the visit.
"Kindergarten 101"
Interesting how I used your phrase "Crazy things happen" to describe the act of making a particular suggestion, and you interpret it as applying to you personally rather than to the act of making the suggestion.
Kindergarten 101 indeed.
"Crazy things happen."
Like making a suggestion that an "oil tanker attacking the George Bush" would constitute another "Gulf of Tonkin."
"They were overaged obsolescent ships, fuel-hogging and far too slow to keep up with the carriers, which BTW were not tied up in port on December 7th."
You are spot-on, Sufferinsuccotash. That the carriers were not at Pearl was what saved us. They carried the great battles until American industrial might began churning out ships and aircraft to fight on both fronts, aircraft for the European and Pacific theaters and ships primarily for the Pacific theater.
You are confusing a "blockade" with an "embargo," Ms. Sunflower. The United States embargoed oil exports to Japan, which is perfectly legal under international law. To blockade a country is another matter and is considered an "act of war" under both international law and the Law of Warfare. The US, however, did not blockade Japan in July 1941, it embargoed oil exports to Japan, which was a legal action taken in response to Japan's aggression in Southeast Asia.
"Not since President Roosevelt told Japan in July 1941 that he was going to cut it off from American petroleum has the United States threatened to use oil to strangle a country so completely. And FDR’s threat caused the Japanese to decide to take Indonesia away from the Dutch, which required crippling the US Pacific Fleet at . . . Pearl Harbor."
The United States cut off oil exports to Japan in July 1941 as a result of Japanese aggression in Southeast Asia, specifically the Japanese push into Cochin China, the southern-most part of today's Vietnam. The Japanese plan all along was to take over Indonesia in order to ensure a supply of oil, and southern Vietnam was a staging area for the invasion of Indonesia. The Japanese did not invade Indonesia because of the US cutoff of oil; it was always in their strategic plan for what they called the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere."
As for the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese plan always called for knocking out the US Pacific Fleet. The Japanese had already decided to invade the Philippines because they knew they could not leave the US there, as it would present a threat to their designs on the rest of Southeast Asia. Therefore, they planned to attack Pearl Harbor in order to cripple the US fleet's ability to respond. The US cutoff of oil in July 1941 may have accelerated the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but it was not the cause of the attack, the plans of which were already in place.
.
"Joe: If a doctor observed you for some period of time and made some diagnosis you didn’t like, would you take it as personal criticism? Or would you consider he might know what he is talking about and it might be a good idea to be open-minded and give his opinion some respect?"
Your response to Joe, taken at face value and not as an analogy, has merit, Mr. Bodden. As an analogy, however, it fails utterly. the metaphorical "doctor" to whom you refer, and to whose comment Joe was responding, has demonstrated neither open-mindedness nor respect for opinions that are not in accord with his own. He spews contempt for those with a different viewpoint. Such a "doctor's" diagnosis does not deserve any more respect than he deigns to give others' opinions.
"I would suggest that you delete “non-sequitur”,
“arrogant”, “sophist”, and “national” from your
boiler-plate words."
Hitting a little too close to home, are we?
No Nobel Prize for you, Mr. McPhee, as your usual polemics serve to obscure rather than enlighten the subject under discussion, in this case economics and resources.
"Trade-offs to GREED, in the name of “National Interests”?"
My comment concerned the trade-offs necessary in the allocation of scarce resources, which is the basic definition of economics. Would you care to expand on your statement I have cited above? Or is it just another non-sequitur?
"A fundamental goal of a system of economics should address...: - There are enough resources to adequately take care of everyone..."
There will never be enough resources to adequately take care of everyone. Thus, there will always be tradeoffs. That is true under capitalism, socialism, communism, or any other system. The field of economics is the study of how best to allocate scarce resources.
"Let’s use terms like responsibility and leadership as code for justifying the gutting of the fourth amendment and making further constitutional encroachments."
Feel free to create your own vocabulary to fit your personal Narrative.
It is not unusual for Presidents to do an about-face on positions and issues they held as Senators. Senators and Congressmen often use their positions for political posturing against the party controlling the White House. Once they assume the Presidency, however, they find the problems and issues facing them call for responsible action, not political posturing.
Another case in point involving Obama was the 2011 debt ceiling issue, in which Obama excoriated the Republicans for not wanting to raise the debt ceiling. In 2006, as a Senator, here is what Obama said with respect to the Bush Administration's call to raise the debt ceiling.
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."
Strong words, those, "leadership failure." Ironically, his own words used to savage Bush in 2006 applied to Obama in 2011.
The same thing applies in the case of NSA surveillance. Senator Obama could posture on the issue in 2007 because he was not faced with the responsibility of ensuring the nation's national security interests. As President in 2013, he most definitely recognizes his responsibility to ensure the security of the United States. Responsibility inherent in leadership makes all the difference.
"That’s odd. Obama said the treatment meted to Bradley Manning was “appropriate.” He didn’t say “appropriate” for what, but a consensus presumes it was intended to get a confession to frame Julian Assange even though it didn’t work."
Please expand on this "consensus" you mention that I have cited above. A consensus among whom? To whom are you referring when you state "a consensus presumes...?" The term "consensus" refers to a general agreement or judgment arrived at by most of those involved in an issue. I look forward to your response.
"Soldiers (and, I presume, spooks)... also, at this point, perform that job knowing that it is ultimately supporting goals of ongoing unjustified armed aggression, and/or replacing civil liberties with an international hyper-Stasi."
You are clearly projecting your own frame of reference and viewpoint onto the soldiers and intelligence officers you cite above. You have no basis to state categorically that they "know" their work is "ultimately supporting goals of ongoing unjustified armed aggression, and/or replacing civil liberties with an international hyper-stasi."
Many (perhaps most) of them are very comfortable with the idea that their work is advancing and protecting the interests of the United States and the American people. that you think otherwise is a legitimate position to take. That you project your views on to others is solipsistic and more than a bit arrogant.
"I always knew that the image of the US as the champion of liberties and the leader of the free world against totalitarianism (aka Soviet Union and communsm) was mere ideology, but nevertheless, I’m shocked by the extent of US spying."
Easily said by someone who has never lived in the Soviet Union, China, or Eastern Europe under communism. It is always a source of amusement to listen to Americans and Europeans who have never faced communist repression pontificate about the failings of the United States, while living their comfortable, secure lives in the West.
"Snowden expects to be killed. He has from the start.
Does that change your psychoanalysis?"
Speaking of psychoanalysis, Snowden's fear of being killed is not driven by external reality; it is all a product of his fevered imagination and his self-flattering need to feel important enough to think officials want him assassinated. His return to the US is wanted because he is a fugitive from justice. No one is out to assassinate him. He read too many James Bond books in Hong Kong and in Moscow's airport transit area.
"This is exactly why the American response has been so delicate and nuanced."
Let's hope the American response remains delicate and nuanced, Joe. I am not optimistic, though. Sending McCain and Graham to hector the generals into seeing things as we would like them to be seen was hardly what I would call "delicate and nuanced."
"Apparently, State isn’t getting through to the generals,..."
Your statement, cited above, makes sense only if your underlying premise is that the generals have an obligation to do what we tell them to do. I'm surprised at your stance on this issue, Joe. I was always under the impression that you objected to the US imposing its will on foreign governments.
"Things have changed, Bill. Once upon a time, authoritarian, undemocratic regimes could be relied upon to adequately protect American interests (as long as we were willing to overlook their bloody acts). Today, such a regime is going to be wracked by protests..."
I did not suggest that we "prop up" or "support" the current regime headed by General al-Sisi against the MB and opposition, Joe. My original post on the subject stated explicitly that we should maintain friendly and correct relations with whomever is in power. Moreover that we should let the Egyptians sort this out and not insert ourselves into the mix. As it is, the military has established the current government, and that is the government with which we should work to advance and protect US and mutually agreed interests.
Regarding your contention that an authoritarian government is going to be wracked by protests and instability, that may be, but there is little that we can do about it. More to the point, ironically it was Morsi's attempted subversion of the democratic process that brought him to power that led to the very protests and instability you mention in regard to authoritarian government.
"What, no “US interests” in Egypt?"
Of course we have interests, Mr. Hansen. My point is we should not be hectoring either side in Egypt. Let the Egyptians work it out among themselves. In the meantime, let's maintain friendly relations with the government in power in order to advance and protect our interests.
Actually, the State Department is talking to both sides. During his most recent (and second) trip to Cairo Deputy Secretary of State William Burns met last Saturday with members of a pro-Morsi delegation. On Sunday Burns met with General al-Sisi.
"We’ve seen how this Egyptian military government “works out” issues with the MB."
Just as we've seen how the MB (Morsi) when in power distorts and subverts the very democratic process that brought it to power. Our concern should be for a government with which we can work to protect the US interest, not to become exercised over whether or not it meets our definition of "democracy." (I refer you to John Quincy Adams's dictum, quoted in my comment above.)
If ever there was a time for the US to resist pressuring Egyptian authorities in the name of "democracy" and "human rights," this is it. Both sides--Morsi and his supporters and General al-Sisi and his supporters--blame the US for their problems. General al-Sisi gave an interview on August 5 to the Washington Post's Lally Weymouth, in which he expressed anger at the United States for tilting toward Morsi. Now is not the time to send McCain and Graham to Cairo to push our preferences and aggravate al-Sisi even further.
We should let the Egyptians work these issues out for themselves while maintaining friendly and correct relations with whomever is in power. To continue inserting ourselves in Egyptian politics, roiled as they are, is to invite continued disdain from both sides. Moreover, it puts the US front and center to be blamed for whatever the issue of the day happens to be.
We should back off a bit and recognize this as an example where John Quincy Adams's dictum concerning America applies: "She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." Good advice then. Certainly good advice in the case of Egypt's current transition.
One of the (self-proclaimed) perquisites of being JTMcPhee is you not only get to claim moral superiority, you get to shout slogans instead of engaging in reasoned arguments.
You have much more than my word, Eric. And I did not "hint" that I had "access to the entire phone base of the world and the workings of US agencies. (That is a figment of your imagination.)
The Obama Administration has released information about the threat. I based my points on the Administration's assessments. Should we take your word that the Obama Administration is lying? Upon what do you base your claim that the Administration is lying about this threat?
Read Thucydides's "The Peloponnesian War" carefully. You may learn something.
"8. If the US drone strikes on al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen are working, why is AQAP after all these years able to make us close 19 African and Middle Eastern embassies for a week?"
The question you pose in point No. 8, cited above, requires a two-part answer. First, AQAP did not "make us" close 19 African and Middle Eastern Embassies for a week. There were highly specific communications that were intercepted from Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to AQAP's chief in Yemen, Nasir al-Wuhayshi, ordering a major attack against US and/or Western interests. And the evidence suggested that those who would carry out the attacks were in Yemen, presumably preparing for the attack, at the time the communications were intercepted. The reason for the widespread Embassy closures and other precautions taken was that the specific target or targets were not identified. It is thus prudent to take such precautions when the information on the planning of the attack is specific but the target is not. This, by the way, demonstrates the value of NSA's communications intercept programs, particularly as applied abroad.
Second, the drone strikes in Yemen obviously have been working, as we know some major AQAP leaders and operatives have been taken out as a result. That there remain in Yemen some AQAP leaders and operatives capable of mounting planned attacks against the US and its interests demonstrates the need to continue the drone strikes against them as the opportunity arises. Terrorism will never be completely eradicated, but Al-Qaeda and AQAP have been degraded. That they are still operationally capable of planning attacks simply demonstrates the need for our continued counter-terrorism programs.
"Of course, you and Joe have dodged the pending question about what exactly constitutes "the national interest,"
No one has "dodged" any question. The question is "pending" only in your own mind. I cannot speak for Joe, but it is clear to me that you are not interested in having a rational discussion and debate over what constitutes the US national interest. As evidence (if any was needed) I offer the following from your comment above.
"Seems to me the "national interest" is just what a few (by birth, at least) of us, pursuing their own sick or self-satisfying preferences, like a war of choice in Afghanistan or setting up the Grand Global Interoperable Sees And Knows All But Is Too Clumsy And Stupid To "Win" Network-Centric Battlespace, can cram down the throats of the most of us."
Well, now: "sick or self-satisfying preferences," "too clumsy and stupid," "cram down the throats," and this is just a sample of your usual cant. You are not interested in discussing the US national interest. You simply want a platform to rant and spew your usual venom.
Vladimir Putin clearly is in charge in Russia, and his imprimatur is paramount in determining Russian policy on many fronts, from dealing with the United States to energy policy. To think otherwise is to not understand how Russia is run today.
No Freudian slip at all. Plain English. Realism. Our dealings and interaction with any country should protect and advance the US national interest. Just as any other country's dealings and interaction with the US will be accomplished with an eye to protecting and advancing that country's national interest. The last line of my comment sums it up: "And whether or not to get involved should be dependent upon whether or not the US national interest is served." This is International Relations 101.
"Russia isn’t pursuing Russia’s interests but rather Putin’s interests."
You are, of course, correct, Mr. Zimmerman. And contrary to a couple of comments in this thread that attempt to draw equivalency between the authoritarianism of Putin and the pluralism evident in the US Government, there is, of course, no equivalency at all. The US is far from the authoritarianism of Putin's Russia.
That said, however, it should not matter to the US that Russia is ruled by an authoritarian government under Putin. The US interest should be paramount. Putin represents the government of Russia, and we should deal with him without the constant hectoring to "democratize." Let the Russians worry about that, if that is of concern to them. It should not be our concern.
Likewise, if Assad were to remain in power in Syria is of little concern regarding the US national interest. We have lived with the Assad family in power for 40 years without harm to our interests. Yes, they have been authoritarian and have operated against the best interests of the Syrian people. but that is a problem for the Syrian people to resolve, not the United States. And if he were to be deposed, the result may well be worse for US interests.
The US intervened twice in the Balkans: First to protect the Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs, and than to wage war against Serbia because of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. In neither case were important US national interests at stake. Both were "humanitarian" interventions, and both should have been left to the Europeans to handle. The US had no stake in the interventions. I am reminded of Bismark's famous observation: "The Balkans aren't worth the bones of one Pomeranian Grenadier."
Oddly enough, the one thing the US did right, refusing to get involved in the Rwanda fighting and killings between the Hutu and the Tutsi, is looked upon by some as a failing. The US had no national interest whatsoever in getting involved in that problem. If the Hutu and the Tutsi could not get along and manage themselves, it was not our obligation to do it for them.
The bottom line is: Whether it is Russia, China, the Balkans, Rwanda, the Congo, or anywhere else, the US national interest should prevail. And whether or not to get involved should be dependent upon whether or not the US national interest is served.
"There is of course another possibility. The Realists hold that countries don’t have friends, only interests. In that case, Russia is just pursuing its national interests, which sometimes coincide with those of the US and sometimes don’t."
Bingo! You have nailed it, Professor Cole. That arch-realist Henry Kissinger could not have said it better. And that is precisely why the US national interest requires us to work with Russia in those areas of mutual concern and not let the Snowden case blind us to our real interests. If the US Government eventually gets hold of Snowden and puts him on trial, all to the good. But he certainly is not important enough to derail the much bigger fish we have to fry such as our relationship with Russia. Those in the US who advocate for pressuring Russia to become more democratic are just as misguided as those who want to cancel Obama's summit with Putin because of Snowden. We should recognize that Russia has national interests just as we do.
What liberal idealists and conservative neocons (both of whom seem to want to intervene in other countries to establish "democracy" and advance "human rights") fail to understand is democracy, human rights, and all other such concepts and institutions grow organically in nations, if they grow at all. Other countries do not develop those concepts and institutions because the US or other Western countries hector and browbeat them.
That is why the United States should intervene only when its vital interests are at stake, such as a country harboring those (Al-Qaeda for example) who would attack the US or its interests. Otherwise, we should not be too quick to intervene (as some would have us do) in Syria, Egypt, the Congo and African Great Lakes region, and all the other areas where "Do Gooders" across the political spectrum want to assist giving birth to democracy and human rights, and to quell civil unrest and tribal wars. When a nation and its people reach a certain critical mass (large middle class, higher standard of living, etc.) they will begin establishing their own pressure for change. Until then, no outside force will do it for them.
John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State under President James Monroe, stated the "realist" credo most eloquently in 1821. In referring to those who wanted to help Latin American countries gain independence from Spain, Adams said of the United States:
"She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
Good advice then. Good advice now.
"in violation of his Constitutional rights and the Universal Code of Military Justice."
There is no such document as the "Universal Code of Military Justice." I believe you may be referring to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
You have misread (or misunderstood) my comment. Had you read my comment carefully, you would have seen that I was noting that your statement that "One thing Bradley Manning didn’t change: No matter how egregiously our government behaves it will still have its legions of supporting…trolls on dissenting blogs," with its implied suggestion that those who don't necessarily go along with your view of an issue (Manning, US Government, etc.) are "trolls," is false.
Far from defending trolls, I was (and am) defending those who hold dissenting views with which you may disagree against the charge of being trolls. You give yourself away with your statement: "The difference between us and trolls is that when we see we are in error, we admit to it unlike trolls who are locked into whatever position or ideology they support." You flatter yourself that you and your friends "admit to error," implying that anyone who does not change his view to match yours continues to hold that view in error, and thus is a "troll."
You obviously cannot conceive of the possibility of someone holding a view because he believes it to be correct, even though you may deem it erroneous. The true troll is one who cannot accept a dissenting opinion he deems erroneous without labeling the dissenter a "troll."
"One thing Bradley Manning didn’t change: No matter how egregiously our government behaves it will still have its legions of supporting...trolls on dissenting blogs."
I gather you define a troll as someone with whom you disagree. The irony of such a stance is I'll bet you consider yourself an advocate for diversity. And yet true diversity (as opposed to the superficial diversity of skin color, race, and ethnic background) is diversity of intellectual approach, thought, and opinion. Apparently any embrace of diversity you may lay claim to cannot cross that intellectual border, a proverbial bridge too far.
"Your claim that Snowden lacks courage and integrity is despicable..."
The response to your screed, What Nonsense, is ironically contained in the name you are using. I could not have come up with a better two-word response. "What Nonsense," indeed.
For you to write that the US Government is "Joe Stalin paranoid" and that what we have is "totalitarianism, not democracy" demonstrates a complete lack of historical perspective and a high degree of paranoia in itself. I suggest you read up a bit on 20th century totalitarianism (USSR under Stalin, Germany under Hitler, and other examples). Inform yourself before running off on rants that make no sense to anyone who actually knows something about the subject matter.
May I remind you, Mr. McPhee, that the topic is the "Top Ten Ways Bradley Manning Changed the World." You obviously wish to piggyback on the topic to flog your usual hobbyhorses. Nevertheless, there is nothing in your screed that suggests a response regarding the subject of Manning.
"Snowden had enough sense to learn from Manning’s experiences with the tender mercies showered on him by US Marines while in solitary confinement at Quantico Marine base in violation of his Constitutional rights and the Universal Code of Military Justice. Not being a masochist, Snowden decided getting out of Dodge was the wisest thing to do..."
...thus confirming my observation that the degree of courage and a certain integrity demonstrated by Manning are totally lacking in Snowden.