What, exactly, is President Obama to do if the Taliban takes control of Pakistan, and with it its nuclear arsenal?
First, a little history.
Remember the days following the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center? You know, the one that the Bush Administration orchestrated with the help of Israeli agents to legitimize his presidency after stealing the 2000 election. No, wait. That little bit of insanity came later, after the Left decided to use 9/11 as a political football to advance its agenda, with the media's help. Before that, even Left-of-Center Democrats were willing to acknowledge that there had been an unprovoked attack on American soil, and that the U.S. government had a right — and responsibility — to go to extraordinary lengths to protect our security.
I remind you of this not to rehash the "9/11 was an inside job" debate, or to parse the terms of Nancy Pelosi's latest non-denial denial about her knowledge of, and approval for, "enhanced interrogation techniques." Rather, I've used it to place the October 16, 2001 remarks from L.A. Times correspondent Jon Wolfsthal in context. According to Wolfsthal,
There is growing concern, and evidence for concern, that the instability in Afghanistan could quickly spread to neighboring Pakistan and undermine the security of that country's nuclear arsenal. Of all of the negative consequences this turn of events might bring, none would be more dangerous and catastrophic than nuclear weapons falling into the hands of the Taliban or Al Qaeda . . .
[T]he U.S. should begin to work immediately on contingency plans should the Islamabad regime lose control over its nuclear arsenal. These plans should include the ability to rapidly deploy forces to Pakistan to find and regain control of any lost nuclear materials and, only as a last option in a crisis, remove them from Pakistan to a secure location.
These steps might seem extreme. Yet when faced with the real possibility of losing control of nuclear weapons to the types of organizations capable of the destruction seen Sept. 11, they could be considered realistic and even prudent. The consequences of not being prepared to act are too great for us to imagine, even with our new ability to imagine the horrible.
Now fast forward to the present day. The evil, war-mongering George Bush has been sent packing, and in his place we have Barack Obama, man of peace. There's only one tiny little thing on the horizon that threatens to upset his plans to exit Iraq and Afghanistan as fast as politically acceptable: that nasty old problem with Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Unfortunately, this can't be handled with a head shot to three Somali teenagers drifting on a life raft somewhere out in the ocean. An actual policy has to be implemented.
So far, we've gotten a lot of "concern" expressed by "White House spokesmen" and occasionally the President himself over the "situation" in Pakistan, along with a lot of "confidence" that things will not "get out of hand" over there. This, I presume, is a different kind of assurance than the "confidence" expressed by President Obama that taxes will not go up for 95% of the American people to pay for his mega-trillion dollar budget deficit. (What was that you said: "income taxes" won't go up, but every other tax will, not to mention additional fees and charges that, compounded with the expected inflation from printing money and the misery caused by prolonged unemployment, will make us all wish for the good old days of Jimmy Carter. But I digress.)
No one seriously expects Obama to telegraph his intentions in the press to invade Pakistan and secure the nukes if the Taliban takes over the country. But assuming even a modicum of competency for his administration, you know this option has to be on the table. Whether it's a full-fledged invasion or a surgical strike by U.S. special forces is irrelevant; the principle of pre-emptive attack has been invoked.
Now I suppose at this point we could stop this line of reasoning and say, simply, that Barack Obama will never, under any circumstances, violate the territorial sovereignty of another country that has not attacked us first. We'd suspend his statements as candidate Obama that he'd do just that to get Osama Bin Laden, and ignore the fact that a couple weeks into his administration predator drones were already bombing people inside Pakistan. Instead, we'd just discuss how utterly naïve and incompetent this line of thought is, and begin our search for the nearest "moderate Taliban" to negotiate with (a search not unlike trying to find a "good Nazi" in Hitler's inner circle.)
But assuming that the invade-Pakistan option is indeed on the table should the present government fall, let's return again to the central issue. It doesn't matter whether Pakistan has one, five, fifty or five-hundred nuclear missiles. It doesn't matter whether the victors in its current civil war hate us, or whether they say mean things about us. One fact remains: Pakistan has not attacked the United States.
What's happening in Pakistan today is exactly the kind of "civil war" our current Vice President advised us against getting bogged down in. Worse, it's a religious war as well. There's no "exit strategy" once we get involved (since the consequences of snatching the nukes will be on-going; and we may need to go back again and again if we don't get all of them the first time), further arguing against any unilateral action by the United States. If action is to come, it can only be authorized by the United Nations — after the requisite number of resolutions are passed and warnings are issued, assuming that in the end the use of force isn't simply vetoed outright by one of the Security Council members.
So what is President Obama to do if the Taliban takes control of Pakistan, and with it its nuclear arsenal? Let's see how a fellow kindred spirit sizes up the matter. Like State Senator Barack Obama, Congressman Bernie Sanders opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq. There was simply no justification to invade a sovereign nation that had not attacked the United States. A fear that Iraq harbored terrorists was inadequate, and as then Congressman now U.S. Senator Sanders has repeatedly stated, there is no direct link between the actions of Iraq and the 9/11 attack on America.
From this you would logically conclude that there are no circumstances whatsoever — short of an actual attack — that could justify U.S. action to seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Pakistan is a sovereign nation. Although it harbors the Taliban, the Taliban did not attack the United States on 9/11, Osama Bin Laden did. The Taliban may support OBL, but so does Iran and other countries, and this doesn't justify a U.S. attack against their supporters. The government in Afghanistan openly harbored and aided OBL, providing the only justification Bernie, Barack and others have accepted for U.S. military action in the Middle East. We may suspect that OBL is in Pakistan, but no one has shown any actual proof of that yet; and besides, Pakistan and/or the Taliban did not directly attack us, so it's a moot point. It's perfectly clear from all of this that Bernie — and by extension Barack — would look very unkindly on unilateral U.S. action to seize Pakistan's nukes.
Well, maybe not. On May 8, 2009, Senator Bernie Sanders had the following exchange with a reporter from Vermont Public radio:
Host: Senator Bernie Sanders says the United States has to be certain that nuclear weapons in Pakistan don't fall into the control of terrorist groups in that country . . . [If] the situation in Pakistan gets worse, Sanders says the United States will have to do whatever is necessary to ensure the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal:
Sanders: The last thing in the world that you need is international terrorists blackmailing the entire world with nuclear weapons or, in fact, even using those weapons. That's not an option – that can't happen.
Now, maybe it's just me, but doing "whatever is necessary" is the same kind of rhetoric the Bush Administration used to justify pre-emptive war in Iraq. So, why is it okay to contemplate the uncontemplatable now, but not in 2002? Is it the fact that Pakistan has WMDs, while everyone (Bush, Russia, China, France, Germany, the UN, Bill Clinton, etc.) just thought that Iraq has WMDs? Well, if that's true North Korea has nukes, so they should be a prime candidate for unilateral US action. And Iran is aggressively developing nukes, so a similar case could be made for them too.
No. The presence, absence, or likelihood of WMD doesn't appear to be the critical factor here. What could it be then? Why do the same people who opposed Republican President George Bush for "unilateral" action against Iraq that involved a coalition of 60+ countries, support the possibility of unilateral action by Democrat President Barack Obama who would go it alone without any other significant world support? It's a complete mystery to me.
The best I can do is go back to the thoughtful, unbiased accounts of previous commentators and analysts who talked about the immorality and illogic of sending U.S. troops into a foreign country that had never attacked us when George Bush was president, and use this as a way to understand how they must certainly view any similar US action that would violate the territorial integrity of Pakistan when Barack Obama is president.
"[P]ride is the deadliest sin for the United States of America in recent years. Deaths of U.S. troops, deaths of Iraqi civilians and military, death upon death has been the result of overreaching pride on the part of the United States in attacking a country that had not attacked us first."
– Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, former president of Chicago Theological Seminary
http://myservnet.info/index.php?/511/So-youre-screaming-IRAQ-NEVER-ATTACKED-US.html
"America cannot base its national security decisions on romantic fantasies but on realities — and the truth is that the US is embedded in an intervention it should never have undertaken, caught up in a civil war that it cannot settle or stop."
– Stephen Schlesinger, JD, Adjunct Fellow at the Century Foundation, "Iraq Is a Loser" MaximsNews.com Aug. 23, 2007
"The UN charter outlaws the use of force with only two exceptions: individual or collective self-defense in response to an armed attack and action authorized by the security council as a collective response to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression . . . The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in international law."
– Katja Ziegler, Lecturer in Law and DAAD Fellow and Deputy Director at the Institute for European and Comparative Law at Oxford University, co-author of a Mar. 7, 2003 article titled "War Would Be Illegal" in the Guardian
"[U]nilateral pre-emptive attack is not what this country stands for."
– Harold Hongju Koh, JD, MA, Dean and Professor of International Law at Yale Law School, "A Better Way To Deal With Iraq" in the Hartford Courant, Oct. 20, 2002.
"Bush is trying to link Iraq with terrorism . . . Iraq never attacked us. We are the only ones who have dropped nuclear bombs.
– World Socialist Web Site, October 28, 2002
"[T]he most burning political issue facing the American people [is] the illegal war in Iraq . . . a nation that would never have invaded us.
http://netctr.com/iraqdead.html
So, there you have it. Fear of your enemies is not enough. A terrorist regime is not enough. The only thing that justifies a response is an actual attack.
When the Taliban takes over Pakistan and uses their nukes against us, then and only then can we can show 'em what a big mistake that was. But until then, the threat is only existential, and therefore not real. So muzzle Bernie "do whatever is necessary" Sanders and the rest of the warhawks who want to plunge us into another criminal war by stealing nuclear technology from Pakistan, just because we're Islamo-phobic.
Of course, now that Bush is gone, it's also possible that a lot of this stuff about the inadvisability of pre-emptive action will be seen as overly-broad and limited only to Iraq, so should the need arise, no such similar restrictions will limit U.S. options against Pakistan.
If this is the case, thank God we have leaders who are willing to put our safety and personal security ahead of any inconvenient principles that don't apply to the current situation anyway, because, well, they just don't.
I'm glad I could use this time to clear up any confusion about the principles behind opposing unilateral US action against Iraq, and the possible actions the Obama Administration may take against the sovereign nation of Pakistan that, like Iraq, never attacked us, but cannot be allowed to keep its nuclear weapons if the Taliban take over even if it means sending in the U.S. military to steal them.
Now, if someone could just explain it to me.
A very good read, Phil.
Explain it to you? As we would say in the Army, "BOHICA."
That being said, I can only hope and pray that no one I know will be at Ground Zero, when reality occurs. Because as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, our apologist leaders will waffle and discuss and debate, and end up doing nothing. And then our people WILL discover the consequences of electing the a smiling suit, when people with iron wills were required.
God help us.
LAM: I dealt with your observation in a related way (regarding Iran going nuclear) a couple of years ago: “A Self-Correcting Mechanism”.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/12/15/a-self-correcting-mechanism/
But the yin-yang of political life also tells us that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and so we’re left with an interesting situation. Iran will go nuclear, and as a nuclear power, it will not simply stockpile nuclear weapons and wage conventional war. Just as the logic of the early centuries of Christianity made the Crusades inevitable, so the logic of Islam at a roughly contiguous point in its history makes the logic of jihad inevitable. Iran will use all its resources to fulfill its holy mission just as the Crusaders used theirs. But King Richard didn’t possess nuclear weapons to smite his enemies and please his God, and therein lies an important difference.
So what is Bush to do now in face of present realities? If he tries to act and remove a threat, he’ll be removed himself. Moreover, the threat will remain, and be emboldened. If he doesn’t act, at some point we’ll lose New York and Washington, and perhaps LA too if the terrorists really want to show their prowess.
History will then crucify Bush for inaction. Or maybe not, which brings us to the self-correcting mechanism I spoke about earlier as historians look back on the Bush administration.
Consider the yang to this yin. If we wait for the mushroom cloud as "proof positive" of Iran’s hostile intentions before we act, two things will happen.
(1) We’ll all have another 9/11-like Kumbaya moment and the U.S. will retaliate with full force to completely eliminate the problem (including some "collateral damage" in adjoining areas of the world that need to be taken care of too.) No more terrorist threats from Iran, Syria, the mountains of Pakistan, and North Korea just for good measure. After all, if you’re going to nuke one enemy, why not nuke them all? Sure Russia and China will get mad, but they’re not going to launch against us because we took out ‘Lil Kim. We’ll pay reparations to the radiation victims along their borders and offer some additional foreign aid. Then Putin can go back to poisoning his enemies, and China can go back to stealing our military secrets and planning to invade Taiwan, and all will be well with the world.
(2) And, since the terrorist blast against New York and Washington will undoubtedly vaporize all the liberals/Democrats/press who congregate along the East Coast, there won't be anyone of any consequence left alive to start tearing down Bush (and with him, U.S. national security) for their own personal political gain. It will also, shall we say, diminish the influence of certain academic elites who also live/lived there and go up in the same mushroom cloud. Without their wisdom and the cheerleading from the liberal press that goes along with it, that particular point of view will be rather severely diminished.
Yes I know this is a perfectly horrible thing to say and I’m a perfectly horrible person for saying it. But then again, I don’t live in New York, Washington or LA, and I haven’t made a history of simultaneously condemning Bush for acting and not acting on the same issue. These numbskulls are in the most logical blast zone, yet their hatred for Bush is so compelling they’d rather ignore a real, tangible threat to their lives than support Bush’s efforts to obviate it, for fear that any Bush “success” would elevate him in the history books.
So let the chips fall where they may. If they’re right, and Bush created terrorism, then he should be stopped from provoking peaceful Iran, Syria, and Korea (not to mention the greatest non-threat of all, Al Quada). If I’m right, and these thugs pose very real threats to our national security, then when the next attack comes I at least have the comfort of knowing that I’m not living in the most likely target area. I’ll continue to write my essays, while Dan & Katie, The New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, and Nancy and the gang will have considerably less to say on the subject.
One final thought. If Iran does get The Bomb and decides to use it, the same self-correcting mechanism at work above will also produce a couple of additional effects we all can take advantage of. Without New York City and Los Angeles, New York State and California will more than likely go Red in the next election. And, if you invest wisely today in the surrounding blast zone areas, there will be a lot of new oceanfront land for development in about 20 years when the radiation levels drop to an acceptable range.
But you're saying that invading Pakistan because its government is about to be toppled by Taliban is similar to invading Iraq? It seems to me invading Pakistan in that case might be for the joint purposes of keeping nuclear weapons away from Taliban, and restoring the original government to power. so it would be more similar to occupying South Vietnam, or Operation Desert Storm, or the British kicking the Argentinians out the Falkland islands, correct? it would be done to defend a nation that is being attacked, though the attacking nation is not attacking us. Whereas in Iraq, Saddam was not being threatened by third party, he was suspected of being apt to cooperate with people hostile to us, as I recall.
So while self defense is a right, in Iraq there was no oppotunity for us to claim that the sovereignty of a nation can be legitimately defended from outside; rather, that could have been cited as a rationale for someone to intervene against us, if they wanted to.
Now that Obama is acting more like Bush, aren't you glad?
As for the idea that it's wrong in principle to attack a nation to pre-emptively remove a threat, if that's what Obama has said, then we should already have known he was a hypocrite, since that position would obligate him to bring our people home from Afghanistan, instead of sending more, wouldn't it?
Ah the tangled webs of language. This essay points out that Democrats and their captive media are moving into position where they run out of catch words and phrases used to attack Bush and company since those phrases now apply to their Messiah. Hmmm what a quandry based upon their own utterances those that abase themselves before Obama would have to condemn him. But of course that will not happen because this is a "different" situation.
ruminator: I’m going to channel the Left in answering your points:
>But you're saying that invading Pakistan because its government is about to be toppled by Taliban is similar to invading Iraq?
*** No. It’s worse. Our VP has warned us about getting involved in a civil war, particularly one with religious overtones.
>It seems to me invading Pakistan in that case might be for the joint purposes of keeping nuclear weapons away from Taliban, and restoring the original government to power.
*** Again, more Western interference in the civil war of a foreign country to impose our value system and culture on them. Let Pakistan be Pakistan!
>Whereas in Iraq, Saddam was not being threatened by third party, he was suspected of being apt to cooperate with people hostile to us, as I recall.
*** And violating the cease fire agreement of the 1991 war by kick out inspectors and shooting at our planes, as well as ignoring UN resolutions, etc. etc. But to the Left, not only are these “just details”, they still don’t justify any action against Iraq unless it is specifically authorized by Germany, France, Russia, China etc. (the Security Council).
>So while self defense is a right, in Iraq there was no oppotunity for us to claim that the sovereignty of a nation can be legitimately defended from outside; rather, that could have been cited as a rationale for someone to intervene against us, if they wanted to.
*** Without the specific permission of the UN, there’s no “right” period.
>Now that Obama is acting more like Bush, aren't you glad?
*** Yes! Absolutely! (Remember, I’m channeling the Left). Because Obama means well, so even though the action may be the same, his heart is pure, and it’s okay.
>As for the idea that it's wrong in principle to attack a nation to pre-emptively remove a threat, if that's what Obama has said, then we should already have known he was a hypocrite, since that position would obligate him to bring our people home from Afghanistan, instead of sending more, wouldn't it?
*** That knock on your door is the thought police ready to charge you with a hate crime for disparaging our president who you obviously hate because of the color of his father’s skin.
PS: When Pakistan’s nukes are used against us if the Taliban takes over and we do nothing to stop them or “secure” (steal) their nukes, it will be All Bush’s fault for creating terrorism by imprisoning people in Gitmo.
Mickey: looks like you anticipated some of my response to ruminator's questions.
Interesting. I'll have to chew on this awhile.
But what I am thinking is that Obama appears to be prone to some of the same mistakes that Bush was, such as overestimating the efficacy of protecting our country by sending huge numbers of soldiers abroad.
Of course, when you HAVE to do it, you do it. But is OBL in Hitler's league?
Was Hitler in Hitler's league in 1935?
I'm channeling the right for an answer….here it is: "The invasion of Iraq was a great idea that many democrats were stupid enough to vote for."
Mickey, if I missed the point of the article, I don't always understand what Dr. J. is writing about. But is it not relevant to point out that invading a country to repel an overthrow from a third party is different from being the party who is overthrowing the government?
ruminator: You assume that the government in power is legitimate, and the rebels need to be defeated. It isn't always the case. The English Crown ruled this country legitimately before we decided to rebel.
Moreover, even "democratically elected" governments can become illegitimate and dangerous (Hitler in the 1930s, Chavez today). This can't be the reason why invading a country is acceptable or not.
The point of the article is, the US in particular, and the West in general, has a vested interest in keeping the nukes out of the hands of terrorists. It doesn't matter whether that government came to power through an election, a coup, or a civil war. Iran is just as dangerous as the Taliban. The only difference is that Iran is developing nukes, while Pakistan already has them.
By extension, if a case can be make that Saddam needed to be taken out (because he had WMDs, was thought to be developing WMDs, or was just a friend of terrorists in general and needed to be dealt with), then that’s the criterion by which we should act. The greater the threat, the more we need to act.
Wrapping the argument in phony legalities and leftist fantasy hair-splitting which condemns Bush for the same things Obama is given a pass on only underscores the hypocrisy of the Left, whose interest is in their own power, not protecting the national interests
OK thank you. But here's another question: David Brudnoy was fond of saying "it doesn't matter what other people think of what you're doing if what you're doing is the right thing." There's that nagging "objective truth" thing.
But it does matter, because laws, no matter how evolved the legal code is, are only a crude mechanism for prohibiting what is wrong and allowing what is right. So the invasion of Iraq is is illegal, and perceived thusly, and we are outlaws. Does it behoove us to ignore this issue?
About Saddam: Bush was one of the most popular presidents of all time in 2003 because he invaded Iraq. In 2008 he was one of the most unpopular presidents of all time, because he invaded Iraq.
"Democracy is the form of government that insures that people will have a government that is no better than what they deserve."
ruminator: It depends on who is accusing us of acting illegally. When the French, Chinese and Germans are dealing with Saddam under the table, and use their position in the UN to block any action against Iraq, they have no legitimacy (even though they occupy a "legal" position).
Moreover, even if the UN specifically forbade the US from acting (vs. just not joining in "the coalition of the willing"), UN law does not trump US law; and Bush was authorized to act by Congress.
Moreover, popularity is not the foundation of correct action. Doing the popular thing may in fact be the harmful course of action.
Ultimately, the president of the United States, as Commander in Chief, has a constitutional duty to act in the country's best interests within the laws of the United States. Not in the UN's best interest, China's best interest, or in the interest of popularity.
In short, it doesn't matter what foreign nationals think, or whether the UN approved or disapproved of the action.
There is no "objective truth" in foreign policy. There are only national interests as defined by imperfect men.
"Ultimately, the president of the United States, as Commander in Chief, has a constitutional duty to act in the country's best interests within the laws of the United States. Not in the UN's best interest, China's best interest, or in the interest of popularity."
Sure and I believe Bush did this in earnest; however, if he creates backlash in the international community, this offsets the work which he does to protect us, does it not? And particularly if it is backlash from people whom we've been having better relations with. I guess you can decide not to care.
So the left assumes that everything that America does is corrupt, until Obama is president. I see that you are right about some people. But that is not how I think. I have trouble appreciating the extent of the damage that you believe the left is doing though.
In fact years ago it occurred to me that Bush could have asked the UN "will you forbid me to invade Iraq?" in order to make clear their position.
Now couldn't the French have rationalized their dealings with Iraq by noting that during the Iran-Iraq war we (under Reagan) provided satellite intelligence to Saddam so that he could more effectively use his mustard gas and deadly stuff against the population of Iran, to maximum effect? So would the French not be able to opine that we are not opposed to WMD's for the same reason that the UN has agreed to be opposed to them, that is, humanitarian basis? So to the French it is simply a question of, do we elect to stand with the Americans to protect them (and Israel) at our own expense, rather than are we obligated by international law to forcibly remove WMD's from Iraq because the US is requesting resolution to an issue on which they maintain an abiding principle?
Of course this makes the French hypocritical about opposing WMD's, but they could answer, so are we.
P
As you note, apparently it’s OK to kill people with drones & possibly attack some group of outliers for their nukes without a trial or a U.N. resolution if you’re the President & have a (D) after your name, "international opinion" or "world opinion" be damned.
But if any civilians are allegedly accidentally killed or wounded, then The One & The Hon. Hillary will immediately apologize & whine & call for an investigation.
These people can't even run a secret war without mucking up.
God help us.
Ruminator.
I’m not sure what your point is. Or if you have rebutted Phil’s article, which you claim you do not quite understand, though it is dead on regarding the feelings of the Left toward War.
Anyway, you do seem to understand that a lot of the Left has sorta changed its worldview now that The One is the one in the White House. Good start.
I would just note that world opinion kinda forms around, or is risk-adverse regarding, the biggest guy or the guy with the biggest stick. As our defense spending (as a percentage of GDP) declines, that may no longer be us. World opinion will take note. And, if you think outside the box, "peace” is not the only antonym for "war".
Try “slavery”, “subjugation”, or “dhimmitude”.
Not one mention of India?
The only answer to article question is "nothing". Pakistan is a threat to India, not the US – I don't think they are really bothered about anyone else.
I'm sure India will have something to say first.
Inwood, I may have strayed a bit, and Dr J. was nice enough to go along with it, probably steering me back. I don't think I misunderstood the article although I do struggle with some other things he has written.
My point is the same as yours: one's worldview shouldn't change because of which party is leading. If acting to prevent the Taliban from getting Pakistan's weapons is a good idea, it's a good idea even if the president you don't like does it. If restraint were the better plan, it would be the better plan even if G. W. Bush were making the decision.
My point was also about intervening to topple a regime (G. W. Bush's Iraq) as opposed to intervening to stop someone from toppling a regime (G. H. W. Bush's Iraq) and whether the latter is more defensible, to which Dr. J provided what I consider more of a counterclaim than a rebuttal.
> if he creates backlash in the international community, this offsets the work which he does to protect us, does it not? And particularly if it is backlash from people whom we've been having better relations with. I guess you can decide not to care.
*** Actually, I just decided to think instead of emote.
I’m not particularly bothered by a “backlash” against US policy spearheaded by the French and Germans who had under the table dealings with Saddam and therefore want to protect him, or with the Chinese and Russians who oppose us for political and economic reasons, or with Syria, Iran, Hamas, etc. who support terrorism, etc. This facile, superficial interest in world popularity as a measure of “objective truth” and/or the wisdom of a foreign policy endeavor is rather silly. Sometimes adults need to do things their children don’t approve of, just like the times leaders in our country need to act whether the people of Morocco approve or not.
>In fact years ago it occurred to me that Bush could have asked the UN "will you forbid me to invade Iraq?" in order to make clear their position.
*** Let me try to be clear again. It doesn’t make any difference whether the UN approve or forbids of our actions in determining what is in the best interests of the US. This is the United States of America, not the United States of the UN.
>So to the French it is simply a question of, do we elect to stand with the Americans to protect them (and Israel) at our own expense, rather than are we obligated by international law to forcibly remove WMD's from Iraq because the US is requesting resolution to an issue on which they maintain an abiding principle?
*** Do you really believe that was the calculation? Do you really believe this is how governments frame foreign policy questions? Are you really this uninformed about the French government’s corrupt oil-for-food shenanigans?
If you want to oppose the Iraq war, oppose the Iraq war. But don’t elevate the discussion to a pseudo intellectual level by arguing that we need a ‘popular’ foreign policy (popular to the rest of the world) before acting in support of our interests, and then disregard the venal self interests of other nations in determining this global popularity.
>Not one mention of India?
I didn't mention Israel either. If the Taliban take possession of Pakistan's nukes, a lot of countries have good reason to be fearful.
Since my article was about what President Obama might/could/should do, I thought I'd talk about the United States.
Re: “So, why is it okay to contemplate the uncontemplatable now, but not in 2002? … Now, if someone could just explain it to me.”
Phil, you are still forgetting one of your own rules for looney liberals: “What I say … is valid only insofar as it supports my present arguments; if I need to change my reasoning tomorrow to support a contradictory position, it’s unfair to bring up my past position, because that is no longer relevant."
Sedona: Have you been reading my most recent exchange with Raymond in "Tortured Logic" about his bizarre concept of 'moral torture'? The same sentiment applies there too.
Phil:
Yes, I've been trying to follow it, but think I'm lost now.
BOHICA. I never thought I'd see that term brought up outside of the military. That made my day.
A third party's view in an "us vs. them" issue seems to be a popular hill to pitch a tent on as of late. as Dr. Jackson stated, 'It doesn’t make any difference whether the UN approve or forbids of our actions in determining what is in the best interests of the US;' the same holds true when you substitute the name of any country in the world in place of the United Nations; we are sovereign, it is our leaders duty to act in such a way as to safeguard our people, our constitution, and our way of life.
If France/Germany/Russia/China/Azzcrackistan/Whomever doesn't agree to our actions, so what? Yes, as with all decisions, there will be consequences both good and bad, but we the people do not answer to the whims of these countries, nor are our national interests subject to their scrutiny. We must act in any way necessary to ensure our country's survival, be it Proactive or Reactive, all else be damned. Harsh sounding, yes, but reality leaves little room for soft-stepping.
"What I say…is valid only insofar as it supports my current arguments; if I need to change my reasoning tomorrow to support a contradictory position, it's infair to bring up my past position, because that is no longer relevant." [Sedonaman describing the left]
LOL, truer words were never spoken. In the leftist lexicon, principled means stubborn, muleheaded, inflexible. Each time Obama flip-flops on the stridently ugly rhetoric of his campaign [delivery notwithstanding] to reflect the realities of being tasked with keeping our country safe OR upon cynical recognition of the political damage to his brand, he does so to a chorus of hand-clapping cheers. Never have so many been in such awe of a rhetorical contortionist. grrrrrrrrrrr!
positions NOT in reflection of learning
jb:
I can't take credit for that one. I was just quoting Phil.
sedonaman, gotcha. Phil is a veritable font of quotable quotes.
BTW, my dangling phrase should have been deleted…
As for Pakistan, I have been wondering how Obama et al were going to be able to wriggle out of their condemnation of preemptive conflict. Like Phil, my guess is that they will absolve themselves of doing the same thing that Bush did with the pretext of "pure intent."
Speaking of intent, check out Powerline's piece on Holder's "tortured logic." Here's a snippet:
Holder: No, it's not torture [waterboarding Navy Seals] in the legal sense because you're not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we're trying to do is train them —
Lungren: So it's the question of intent?
Holder: Intent is a huge part.
Lungren: So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture?
Holder: Well, it… uh… it… one has to look at… ah…
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023570.php
All:
Want to see what real torture is? Here
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=7415354
are ABC [!] News' latest "Top Ten Video List". The second is Newt blasting Pelosi, but skip to the sixth to see real torture, if you have a strong stomach [can't blame this one on George Bush ... well maybe a creative mind could].
A NRO article titled "Let Them Eat Arugula" provides a little more insight into the leftist concept of torture…
Apparently, the left thinks that the food most of us eat would constitute "torture" of the homeless. According to an official at the homeless shelter visited by Michelle Obama, “…Steve [the chef]… wants our guests to have the same experience as if they were paying $30 for the meal.”
"A recent meal served at the Meet Each Need with Dignity (MEND) kitchen in Pacoima, Calif., included pumpkin soup seasoned with browned butter and sage, red-wine barbecue beef on handmade puff pastry, artichoke hearts with meatballs marinara, roasted-garlic-and-turnip mashed potatoes, all topped off with fresh blueberries and sour cream. No wonder these places need a bailout."
Trust me when I note that my kids seldom/never have the same experience as if they were paying $30 a meal, but of course, it all goes back to my intent…Presumably, I love my kids but if I fed others the same meals, it could only be because I want them to suffer.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjYzM2I4NzVjNzY1MWFkYmZlYzA3Mjg0NDI1ODNhNDM=
jb:
R: “Trust me when I note that my kids seldom/never have the same experience as if they were paying $30 a meal, but of course, it all goes back to my intent.”
That’s the Leftists’ refuge of last resort when confronted with the reality that their schemes have failed to produce actual results.
R: “…Presumably, I love my kids but if I fed others the same meals, it could only be because I want them to suffer.”
You could be feeding them a heart attack … but, above all, we gotta keep the Victim Industrial Complex going because it's the foundation of all Leftist ideology.
jb:
I do volunteer work at my church’s St. Vincent de Paul food redistribution center. We give out bags of non-perishables once a week, and during the week on a case basis. Most of the donations are date-expired store surpluses and hence a cross-section of what you find at your average big-box grocery store, including a few luxury items. We have a food drive twice a year for parishioners, and we get some luxury items there too … caviar comes to mind. Items such as these are usually the result of someone getting a gift box for Christmas and donating what they don’t want.
What amazes me is the number of vegetarians. We have one volunteer who makes up special bags for them, and you’d be surprised at how many canned goods have meat products in them. Then we have what I call vegetarian vegetarians – those who won’t eat even fish. My first thoughts are that, 1) it’s a lot of trouble to provide specialized service to someone who is choosing a different lifestyle, and 2) hey if you’re hungry, how can you be so picky? We get artisan bread donated by a local bakery, and yeah, it’s day-old, but what does a fellow I call Pokie-mon want? He pokes the bread to be sure it’s fresh! [Like, he can’t make bread crumbs out of it if it was hard?] But the understanding comes when you realize that they run the gamut from those who are in true, temporary need to those who are chronic abusers of our charity. Since I have yet in my five years seen only a few who might be categorized as truly hungry, I conclude that our average case is using our help to supplement her budget, and that’s fine. My heart goes out to the kids, and we try to have a special something for them, like a protein bar. One pre-school girl use to come with her mother and father [these were in real need]. I asked her what kind of cereal she would like, and she replied, “I’ll take whatever you give me.” Kinda made up for the Pokie-mons.
Jb, I semi-retired in January as a Supervisor at a very large homeless shelter here. On rare occasion, a really big festive meal would be made up, but even then it was good, solid food. We had everyone from John Kerry through Max Cleland officially visit us, and THEY didn't get fed like that.
Arugula?
*Guffaw!*
Hey y'all,
As it happens, I worked for decades overseas with poverty stricken individuals from "third world countries" if I may be so politically incorrect. The "guys" I worked with were utterly grateful that their children no longer had flies on their eyeballs and distended abdomens AND had a chance to go to schol. Never mind the dirt floors and cardboard computer simulations.
Yes, I get pissed off watching our obese and spoiled so-called-disadvantaged kids squander opportunities that the rest of the world can only imagine!
I am NOT surprised to note that you guys have volunteer bonafides. Nuff said.
On a side note, I am delighted to hear that your experiences with soup kitchens do not include waygu beef or arugula.
It's a bit like asking, "in your opinion, should I have worn the pin-stripe suit instead of the black one last Friday?" What you ought to be asking is, "is regret a productive activity?"
Nevertheless the decision to invade Iraq, supported by many, but spearheaded by Bush, will be debated for decades.
Position (1): Bad decision, not justified at the time
Position (2): Defensible decision
Position (3): Not only defensible, but for the president not to invade Iraq at the time would have been negligent.
Is it fair to say that you are all taking position #3?
Jb, someone once asked me to describe, in a sentence, people who would expect such things – to go to a homeless shelter and expect haute-cuisine, or how their children comport themselves out in the real world, etc. – the whole ball of wax we might call "effete Liberal." The best description I could achieve was, "it's as if they all believe they're French nobility, circa 1750." All that's lacking is the powdered wigs, buckled shoes, and fake beauty-marks. They are the beneficient Lords, and we are unwashed peasants.
Whether Michelle Obama realizes it or not, I will guarantee that at least 50% of the shelter residents present were thinking, "what IS this crap," and "who IS this moron?"
Truth.
Is it fair to say that you are all taking position 3, asks Ruminator?
NOTHING I have said even alludes to the question of whether the president would have been negligent not to have invaded Iraq at the time. While I am not surprised that your mind reading skills are inadequate, I would simply point out IF you are one of those who pride yourself on being high context, as liberals are wont to do…..DON't.
Most of the comments I read were making a simple low-context point that the left – BO hollered the loudest about principles – crucified Bush for preemptive war while supporting BO for contemplating preemptive war against Pakistan.
IF their objection was a matter of principle, it should withstand the test of time. IF their objection was simply one of logistics or opinion about the scenario, then the ying-yanging about principle is/was nothing more than a load of politicized crap and hypocritical to boot.
Either way, BO/left has some 'splainin' to do.
I don't presume to have any mind reading skills whatsoever. That's why I asked a question.
Ruminator, while I appreciate the distinction that you phrased your assumption as a question, your question still implies that you had drawn a conclusion about all of us. Whether you are right or wrong in your "questioning" conclusion, I had said nothing to make such a "questioning" conclusion warranted.
Then you take position two. Thanks.