Tag Archives: Kerry

Exceptionalism.

When people consider themselves exceptional, they make themselves potentially dangerous. That’s the gist of what Vladmir Putin had to say in his N.Y.Times op-ed piece, and people of many different political stripes here in the United States seem to have taken exception to this. I happened to be at the dentist the morning of its publication; the flat-screen t.v. above my dental couch was playing Fox & Friends, and they were throwing Stalin in Putin’s face. No surprise there. (What else can you expect from a clown parade headed by Michele Malkin?) A lot of t.v. liberals didn’t like it either. Frankly, though, for all of his failings as a leader, it’s not hard to see what Putin was getting at.

Funny story...We have, under the banner of American Exceptionalism, invaded any number of third-world countries over the past century and a quarter. The results have not been positive. (Just ask them.) Putin and others are approaching us as if conducting an intervention; trying to keep us from repeating the same bad behavior, over and over again. You know you have a problem when it takes Russia and China to talk you down. One can only hope that they succeed. This Syria intervention is just a crazy, bad idea, and one that the president seems very attached to. It’s a kind of madness, executive power, and it’s long since taken hold of old Barry-O.

What is kind of amazing is that the notion of striking Syria is really deeply unpopular from the get-go. This is so clearly the case that many conservative Republicans in congress really don’t know whether to shit or wind their watches. I heard one dancing around like a little wind-up toy on the radio a few days ago; they sooooo want to support an attack, but they sooooo need to undermine Obama, and their constituents are pushing them hard. This is the new pacifism: 20-25% of the country is opposed to war with Syria because they are against anything Obama wants, no matter what it is. Half of the centrist-liberal-left spectrum is firmly against it. That leaves neocon Republicans, “muscular” interventionist liberals, and other armchair bombardiers. I guess that means having a Democratic president makes us less likely to intervene in these polarized times.

Whatever keeps this disaster from happening can’t be all bad.

luv u,

jp

Crossing the line.

We heard more from John Kerry this week. Kerry, who voted in favor of the Iraq war back in 2003, is eager to demonstrate that he “gets it” and that this time is different. There is a post-modern cast to this drive towards war, as if by simply acknowledging past abuses the administration inoculates itself against committing them again by doing much the same thing in much the same way: aggressive war, waged against a nation that has not attacked us, under the banner of protecting the world from a brutal dictator armed with WMD – the “problem from hell,” as U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power termed it. Only it’s completely different now. You see, this time, the dictator used the weapons of mass destruction. Last time, sure, he had used them, but only more than a decade before (when he was our ally). Totally different.

Enforcing longstanding international norms of ironyObama, Kerry, and others have latched onto this trope about defending an international norm that goes back ninety years; one that only Hitler and Saddam Hussein violated. I am grateful for people like retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson for blowing a hole in this line of attack. What, one might ask, is the distinction between using Sarin and using napalm, white phosphorus, agent orange, or depleted uranium? The short answer is that we have used all of the latter four, while our enemies have used the more garden variety poison gas. These are all indiscriminate, deadly weapons, based in chemistry, that can kill large numbers of people. Not that being blown up by fragmentation grenades is any walk in the park. You have to wonder how these people can make so measured a choice in these matters.

And yet, here we are, ready to ride headlong into this burgeoning regional conflict – in some ways, just the latest chapter of the international / inter-faith battle that earlier manifested itself as the Iran-Iraq war, with the Sunni-ruled Gulf states (and the U.S.) backing Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Shi’ite Iran on the other side. The consequences of diving into this fight are highly unpredictable, but Obama and team appear willing to take whatever chances are necessary. They are determined to confront Iran; this is just the means by which they are choosing to do it.

If you agree with me, call your congressperson, your senators, and let them know you think this is a bad idea. There’s a good chance they’ll vote this down if enough of them hear from us.

luv u,

jp

Empire building.

Not a lot of time on my hands just now, so I’ll just take a few wild swipes at some foreign policy issues.

Benghazi hearings. It’s a little hard to suppress laughter when I hear Republicans complaining about the Sept. 11 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. As only they can do, they are keeping the flame of this ludicrous conspiracy theory alive even though it was cooked up on the fly late in the election season to offer Romney a foreign policy talking point. The Obama administration rose to the bait back then, of course, and probably said way too much about the attack, trying to put the controversy to rest; they’ve been backpedaling ever since, probably kicking themselves for having commented so much in reaction to Romney’s ridiculous embargoed media release on 9/11.

Keep the ball rollin', keep the ball rollin'....
Sen. McCain sings an old favorite.

The fact remains, though, that the attack killed three Americans. Three too many, of course, but the senators who are complaining the loudest – McCain, for instance, and the yargle-bargle caucus in the GOP-controlled House – are directly responsible for many, many American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, based on manipulation of intelligence, including faulty claims extracted through torture. I’m no fan of Hillary Clinton, but I was glad to see her knock it back to them a bit. (Spoiler alert: she voted to authorize Bush’s war in Iraq, too.)

Bad options. As they vet John Kerry to replace Clinton at State, the North Koreans are signalling more missile tests. Talk here is that all options are on the table, but any fool can see that there is no military solution to the disagreement with North Korea. Wipe them off the map? We did that back in the 1950s – that’s an important part of how we got to this point today. Memo to Kerry: This is solvable without resort to pointless killing; that should simply be off the table.

Iran again. Prevention is the strategy on Iranian nuclear weapons? Could have fooled me. We invaded and destroyed countries on either side of Iran, neither of which possessed nuclear weapons. We didn’t attack Libya when they had nuclear capability, and then attacked them when they gave it up. Our “Axis of Evil”, which included Iran, featured Iraq (no nukes; attacked in 2003) and North Korea (nukes; not attacked). If you were Iran, what lesson would you draw from this?

luv u,

jp